Breaking: Komen announces that Planned Parenthood eligibility for funding will continue; Update: Future funding not guaranteed, says Komen

posted at 11:29 am on February 3, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Remember when the Susan G. Komen Foundation cut off grants to Planned Parenthood for being under Congressional investigation — er, sorr, for not actually providing outcomes?  Good times, good times:

We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.

The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women. We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.

On a certain level, I get exactly what they mean.  I think it is a fair point that suspending grants because of investigations should come from criminal probes — although there have been a few of those as well involving Planned Parenthood affiliates — even if granting agencies have the ability to decide on that criteria for themselves.  Otherwise, any investigation in Congress for any particular purpose would get used to block legitimate charities from getting grants no matter what the motives behind the probe might be.

Still, Komen would be better off sticking with outcome-based criteria for grants.  If Planned Parenthood performs the mammograms needed for screening, then certainly it’s a legitimate action to offer a grant funding that activity.  If all they’re doing is providing referrals, though, why not just fund the organizations actually performing the mammograms that catch cancer early enough for treatment, as well as the organizations actually providing that treatment?  The objection has been that the grants look much more like a method to fund abortions while asserting that Komen is only working on breast cancer, which is why so many people objected to the arrangement in the first place — and why critics applauded the move announced earlie this week.

The statement doesn’t actually commit to doing anything differently, if it is carefully read.  All Komen is saying is that Planned Parenthood is still eligible for grants, having rescinded their suspension that was based on the Congressional probe, and that grants already approved would continue.  Komen notes that they will still develop the guidelines that will help their funding directly impact their mission, and I’d bet that means that Planned Parenthood will still get a lot less money from Komen in the future, as most of their clinics don’t provide mammograms or treatments.  This is just a more intelligent approach to the issue, and one that would not have created the political firestorm that arose this week had Komen taken it from the beginning.

Update: Greg Sargent read the statement the same way I did and contacted a Komen board member, who confirms that Komen isn’t going to guarantee Planned Parenthood any future funding:

I just got off the phone with a Komen board member, and he confirmed that the announcement does not mean that Planned Parenthood is guaranteed future grants — a demand he said would be “unfair” to impose on Komen. He also said the job of the group’s controversial director, Nancy Brinker, is safe, as far as the board is concerned.

As some were quick to point out, the statement put out by Komen doesn’t really clarify whether Planned Parenthood will actually continue to get money from the group. The original rationale for barring Planned Parenthood was that it was under investigation (a witch-hunt probe undertaken by GOP Rep Cliff Stearns). Komen said today that the group would “amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.”

Does that mean Planned Parenthood will get Komen grants in the future?

I asked Komen board member John Raffaelli to respond to those who are now saying that the announcement doesn’t necessarily constitute a reversal until Planned Parenthood actually sees more funding. He insisted it would be unfair to expect the group to commit to future grants.

“It would be highly unfair to ask us to commit to any organization that doesn’t go through a grant process that shows that the money we raise is used to carry out our mission,” Raffaelli told me. “We’re a humaniatrian organization. We have a mission. Tell me you can help carry out our mission and we will sit down at the table.”

In other words, grants will likely be outcome-based, and that would keep Planned Parenthood on the outside in most cases.  Sargent also reports that the board strongly supports Brinker through this episode and her job is not in danger, which would also tend to support that conclusion.

Update II: Jen Rubin provides another data point that makes this policy clear:

The Post interviewed Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure CEO Nancy Brinker and President Elizabeth Thompson on Thursday. At that time, they confirmed that their group wants to stick to its core mission and not simply funnel funds through another entity that doesn’t itself provide breast cancer screening. (“We have decided not to fund, wherever possible, pass-through grants. We were giving them money, they were sending women out for mammograms. What we would like to have are clinics where we can directly fund mammograms.”) We don’t knowwhether that rationale is now null and void.

Pardon me, but this is nuts. Planned Parenthood can raise its own money (which it did in spades in the wake of the flap). Those who want to give to a breast cancer charity can donate with the peace of mind that their money will be used to fight breast cancer. (Donors did so generously as a result of the controversy.) Now Planned Parenthood’s bosses have every right under current law to do what they do and raise money to fund their organization. But shame on them for intimidating other groups that might contemplate the same move as the Susan G. Komen Foundation made.

It sounds to me like this statement was carefully crafted to underscore that policy, not reverse it, as Sargent discovered.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8

by no way I agree with everything she said, but she was a person and she broke ground in things that today we take for granted and she deserves credit for it.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Ron Paul has been breaking ground in terms of domestic policy by calling for the closing of numerous wasteful government departments, calling for the auditing of the Fed, and in general has taken a stand in favor of our constitutional rights.

He also has been notorious for attacking Israel, excusing the actions of radical Islam, saying he would not have used American troops to prevent the Holocaust, pandering to illegal aliens, and many other contemptible acts. When all the books are balanced, I despise Ron Paul. Margaret Sanger’s deficit is ever more sickening, for her participation in the eugenics movement of the early 20th century, as well as her leadership of a movement that encouraged abortion, particularly to those she found “inferior”, either because of their race, their disabilities, their family history, their class, or their genetics.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 5:38 PM

There’s PP near where I live with protesters across the street on weekends. I like to steer with my knees when I drive by it so that I can flip of both sides of the street.

Annoy Sarah Palin, vote Mitt!

MJBrutus on February 3, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Look dude … Margaret Sanger, the American Birth Control League and it’s offspring Planned Parenthood…

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 5:33 PM

PP was not the offspring of the American Birth Control League. The American Birth Control League changed its name to Planned Parenthood in 1942. Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood. They are all one and the same.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 5:40 PM

PP was not the offspring of the American Birth Control League. The American Birth Control League changed its name to Planned Parenthood in 1942. Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood. They are all one and the same.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 5:40 PM

You’re right. Poor wording on my part.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 5:41 PM

329,445 human lives will never get to debate with you about this. All destroyed by Planned Parenthood, JUST LAST YEAR, and there are many more that have been destroyed in the name of “choice.”

841 adoption referrals.

Lawsuits to force Crisis Pregnancy Centers to provide abortion referrals. Refusal to allow standards at abortion clinics. Refusal to allow women to see an ultrasound before they get an abortion.

Nope. No reason to conclude there’s a pro-abortion bias at Planned Parenthood.

This is absolute idiocy that you’re spouting, but I am clearly wasting my time, because the only response I will get is “la-la-la I can’t hear you!”

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 5:24 PM

I know I know, abortion is evil and PP workers are the demon spawn.

I launch here a question to prolifers. lets imagine we outlaw abortions in the US and save all those millions of babies. how you deal then with stuff like “self induced abortion”,birth defects resulting from failed attempts of self induced abortion, abortion turism(for the rich only) and other nasties that would result from the prohibition?

teaser:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-induced_abortion

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 5:45 PM

I quit.

There’s a certain pointlessness to holding something up, pointing to it, and having someone tell you it isn’t hanging there.

I’ll put my Woman and the New Race back into the steel biohazard cabinet and go make some more money this afternoon instead.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Admire her if you’d like, of course. I don’t understand you, but I don’t have to.

Axe on February 3, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Look dude … Margaret Sanger, the American Birth Control League and it’s offspring Planned Parenthood all had and have as their primary mission population control. Population control includes minimizing groups or races of people deemed “inferior”. This is a primary goal of the left, and abortion helps fulfill that goal.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 5:33 PM

No, her main goal was to empower womans. she really seems to be a radical feminist that broke ground to many thing womans today take for granted, but, I argue that today, she is admired for her ground breaking feminism, not for the racial stuff.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 5:51 PM

329,445 human lives will never get to debate with you about this. All destroyed by Planned Parenthood, JUST LAST YEAR, and there are many more that have been destroyed in the name of “choice.”

841 adoption referrals.

Lawsuits to force Crisis Pregnancy Centers to provide abortion referrals. Refusal to allow standards at abortion clinics. Refusal to allow women to see an ultrasound before they get an abortion.

Nope. No reason to conclude there’s a pro-abortion bias at Planned Parenthood.

This is absolute idiocy that you’re spouting, but I am clearly wasting my time, because the only response I will get is “la-la-la I can’t hear you!”

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 5:24 PM

I know I know, abortion is evil and PP workers are the demon spawn.

I launch here a question to prolifers. lets imagine we outlaw abortions in the US and save all those millions of babies. how you deal then with stuff like “self induced abortion”,birth defects resulting from failed attempts of self induced abortion, abortion turism(for the rich only) and other nasties that would result from the prohibition?

teaser:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-induced_abortion

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 5:45 PM

I know this is going to rattle some cages here, especially coming from a democrat, but people are going to have to practice some personal responsibility.
It kills me that my money goes to the death of babies. It also makes me see red that so much money is given to women to continue to have babies, welfare fraud, without being able to pay for them.
The problem is not FUNDING, the problem is people expecting society to pay for their behavior.

BedBug on February 3, 2012 at 5:55 PM

I launch here a question to prolifers. lets imagine we outlaw abortions in the US and save all those millions of babies. how you deal then with stuff like “self induced abortion”,birth defects resulting from failed attempts of self induced abortion, abortion turism(for the rich only) and other nasties that would result from the prohibition?

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 5:45 PM

I launch a proposal in answer to your question: outlaw abortion for one year. Add up the number of self-induced abortions, deaths from said procedures, American citizens getting overseas abortions, and all other deaths provably caused by the outlawing of abortion. If the number is equal to or greater than the roughly 1,200,000 abortions that took place in 2008, we’ll re-institute legalized abortion. If the number is less, abortion remains outlawed, and you and the rest of the pro-abortion crowd can whine for the rest of your lives. How about it?

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 5:59 PM

No, her main goal was to empower womans. she really seems to be a radical feminist that broke ground to many thing womans today take for granted, but, I argue that today, she is admired for her ground breaking feminism, not for the racial stuff.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 5:51 PM

One of her driving forces was population. She, as all leftists, thinks she had the right to tell people how to live, and how many children to have or not have. Also, if the measure of success of a feminist is the number of abortions performed annually then she was very successful. How empowering, over one million abortions a year.

For further info, this site has all her materials scanned and available to read.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM

No, her main goal was to empower womans.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 5:51 PM

“WOMEN”. WOMEN, you illiterate dips**t! How can you be so uneducated yet lecture others???

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Sanger has an excuse that Ron Paul does not have. she said that stuff 100 years ago, in a time where racism and racialism was common and accepted.

by your standards, you will also despise the slave owner thomas jefferson.

my reading of Sanger biography is of a leftist feminist that in her good deeds has:
-fighting for free speech and the right of access of information to contraception and birth control methods.
-setting up an organization that helped spread information about contraception helping probably millions to better plan their parenthood.

that is admirable even if you question her motives.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 6:03 PM

“WOMEN”. WOMEN, you illiterate dips**t! How can you be so uneducated yet lecture others???

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM

sorry about my atrocious writing… please focus on content.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM

lol. Far Human right ideologues lose again.

Uppereastside on February 3, 2012 at 11:31 AM

FIFY

chewmeister on February 3, 2012 at 6:05 PM

I launch here a question to prolifers. lets imagine we outlaw abortions in the US and save all those millions of babies. how you deal then with stuff like “self induced abortion”,birth defects resulting from failed attempts of self induced abortion, abortion turism(for the rich only) and other nasties that would result from the prohibition?

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Shove your wikipedia link where the sun don’t shine.

How did we deal with those things when abortion wasn’t legal?

Why don’t you try actually doing some thinking, before you ask idiotic questions?

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 6:09 PM

sorry about my atrocious writing… please focus on content.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM

I have. Your content consists of nothing but denial of reality and pointless crap.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 6:10 PM

-setting up an organization that helped spread information about contraception helping probably millions to better plan their parenthood.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Your spin is nearly as nauseating as your inability to use the English language.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 6:12 PM

“WOMEN”. WOMEN, you illiterate dips**t! How can you be so uneducated yet lecture others???

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM

sorry about my atrocious writing… please focus on content.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Then focus on the history of Maragret Sanger. It’s all there.

BedBug on February 3, 2012 at 6:12 PM

I launch a proposal in answer to your question: outlaw abortion for one year. Add up the number of self-induced abortions, deaths from said procedures, American citizens getting overseas abortions, and all other deaths provably caused by the outlawing of abortion. If the number is equal to or greater than the roughly 1,200,000 abortions that took place in 2008, we’ll re-institute legalized abortion. If the number is less, abortion remains outlawed, and you and the rest of the pro-abortion crowd can whine for the rest of your lives. How about it?

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 5:59 PM

you mean, the poor pro abortion crowd will whine while the enough rich will be having “vacations” in Canada or Europe.

I get you. You are all about numbers of “babies” killed, and upon gaining that contest, you gain the moralist mantle and dismiss all the sob stories that the prohibition would bring.

unfortunately you would probably lose any way:

A study concluded in 1968[12] determined that over 1.2 million illegal abortions were performed every year in the United States, a portion of which were performed by women acting alone. The study suggested that the number of women dying as a result of self-induced abortions exceeded those resulting from abortions performed by another person. Due to estimated underreporting of illegal procedures, these numbers may not be accurate.[citation needed] A 1979 study noted that many women who required hospitalization following self-induced abortion attempts were admitted under the pretext of having had a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion.[13]

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 6:19 PM

They caved after just 1 day, glad I didn’t donate anything

Dollayo on February 3, 2012 at 6:23 PM

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 6:19 PM

One more time … stop using Wikipedia. That study was done by a pro-abortion group.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 6:23 PM

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Shove your wikipedia link where the sun don’t shine.

How did we deal with those things when abortion wasn’t legal?

Why don’t you try actually doing some thinking, before you ask idiotic questions?

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 6:09 PM

wikipedia is providing you unwanted info… drama!

here was what happened before legalization:

A study concluded in 1968[12] determined that over 1.2 million illegal abortions were performed every year in the United States, a portion of which were performed by women acting alone.

so the answer to you is, before abortion was legal, there was more or less the same number of abortions as today, but done with a lot more suffering and unintended consequences.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 6:25 PM

One more time … stop using Wikipedia. That study was done by a pro-abortion group.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 6:23 PM

this study:

Richard Schwarz, Septic Abortion (Philadelphia: JB Lippincott Co., 1968).

it was made in 68! culture wars were already raging in those days? is there any other study?

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 6:27 PM

it was made in 68! culture wars were already raging in those days? is there any other study?

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Do you know what the population was in 1968? I do. Do you think forty years ago, before screwing anything that moved becamed fashionable, more abortions were performed then, than now … with an additional 100 million people, and when it’s legal and encouraged by leftists?

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Your spin is nearly as nauseating as your inability to use the English language.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 6:12 PM

no, you just ignore that providing info about contraception, in a time where there was none, was extremely helpful to many people.

During the 1920s, Sanger received hundreds of thousands of letters, many of them written in desperation by women begging for information on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies.[48] Five hundred of these letters were compiled into the 1928 book, Motherhood in Bondage.[49]

now you dont even need PP, you just read it in the internet.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 6:35 PM

There’s PP near where I live with protesters across the street on weekends. I like to steer with my knees when I drive by it so that I can flip of both sides of the street.

Annoy Sarah Palin, vote Mitt!

MJBrutus on February 3, 2012 at 5:38 PM

So, that guy driving the ’92 rust-colored buick, wearing the wifebeater t-shirt was you? Shoulda known.

Class shows.

kingsjester on February 3, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Ok, so let me see if I get the gist of what happened in the past few days.

Komen will cut funding for Planned Parenthood, except they wont.
And PP finding is guaranteed and safe, except it isn’t.

I think that covers every possible desired outcome while not actually promising anything and covering anything they might do…

Why am I thinking of the Governor from the movie “The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas” now?

Ooh I love to dance a little sidestep,
now they see me now they don’t- I’ve come and gone
and, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step,
cut a little swathe and lead the people on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl8ajhu_e5Y

Female Reporter: Governor, what do you think of the, the crisis in the Middle East?
The Governor: I was sayin’ just this morning at the weekly prayer breakfast, in this historic capital, that it behooves both the Jews and the Arabs to settle their differences in a Christian manner!

Or the reporter interaction after his song: (1:14 in the linked video)

Reporter 1: What the hell did he say?
Reporter 2: Same as usual, not a dang thing.

Dad had that on VHS when I was in my teens; it really gives an accurate view of politics and politicians…

gekkobear on February 3, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Do you know what the population was in 1968? I do. Do you think forty years ago, before screwing anything that moved becamed fashionable, more abortions were performed then, than now … with an additional 100 million people, and when it’s legal and encouraged by leftists?

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 6:34 PM

contraception was perhaps not as available as it is now.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 6:40 PM

wikipedia is providing you unwanted info… drama!

No. Wikipedia provides garbage that can be edited by anyone, and therefore, it is not reliable information. Wikipedia is a not a legitimate source for anything, and most schools in my area prohibit students from using it for that reason.

But it doesn’t matter to you, because you ignore the actual information and statistics about Planned Parenthood abortions, provided by Planned Parenthood.

I’m through banging my head against the wall trying to get through to you.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 6:40 PM

so the answer to you is, before abortion was legal, there was more or less the same number of abortions as today, but done with a lot more suffering and unintended consequences.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Um. No. You asked me what we would do about those unintended consequences of illegal abortion. The information you provided said nothing about that.

You. Are. A. Complete. Moron.

See you later, buddy.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 6:42 PM

no, you just ignore that providing info about contraception, in a time where there was none, was extremely helpful to many people.

The information provided by Planned Parenthood was so helpful that, last year, 329,000 of them got pregnant anyway, and went back and got abortions.

This is like trying to reason with a toddler. I’m out of here.

Good luck pro-lifers. You’ve got a real winner on your hands here.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 6:45 PM

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 5:59 PM

I swear I used to hear people speak of wanting abortion to be “safe, legal and rare.” That was supposedly the goal, and it was said repeatedly to make it all seem like a necessary evil. I’m pro-life, but at this point, I’d call it a victory if people even cared about the rare part again.

Adoption is free, and there are so many people out there who want to adopt babies. That coupled with a large array of readily available contraception and it really shouldn’t be so common. It doesn’t matter if we make Plan B available over the counter, the stats still seem to keep going up. It’s almost as though people are convincing themselves that abortion is nothing more than another form of birth control.

Esthier on February 3, 2012 at 6:49 PM

contraception was perhaps not as available as it is now.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 6:40 PM

“Hooking up” with anything with a pulse wasn’t really popular back then, and parents still had more control over their kids. Today, the left controls the kids. Movies and TV tell them what to say, how to act, who to screw and when to do it. They also tell them where to get an abortion and that it’s their right.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Um. No. You asked me what we would do about those unintended consequences of illegal abortion. The information you provided said nothing about that.

You. Are. A. Complete. Moron.

See you later, buddy.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 6:42 PM

how you deal then with stuff like “self induced abortion”,birth defects resulting from failed attempts of self induced abortion, abortion turism(for the rich only) and other nasties that would result from the prohibition?

your answer: we would deal with it like before the prohibition!

meaning, we would not do nothing, resulting in the same number of abortions just with a lot more suffering and death.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 6:50 PM

it was made in 68! culture wars were already raging in those days?

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Are you being serious? Was there a culture war in the late 60s?

Esthier on February 3, 2012 at 6:54 PM

contraception was perhaps not as available as it is now.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Abstinence was.

chewmeister on February 3, 2012 at 6:54 PM

I get you. You are all about numbers of “babies” killed…

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 6:19 PM

No, you don’t get me. Nobody who would make such a statement would understand anyone with a soul.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 6:55 PM

“Hooking up” with anything with a pulse wasn’t really popular back then, and parents still had more control over their kids. Today, the left controls the kids. Movies and TV tell them what to say, how to act, who to screw and when to do it. They also tell them where to get an abortion and that it’s their right.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 6:50 PM

you seem to have a dislike of other people plentiful sex life.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 6:56 PM

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 6:19 PM

And wow…you supplied a study from 45 years ago…45 years ago.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Are you being serious? Was there a culture war in the late 60s?

Esthier on February 3, 2012 at 6:54 PM

about abortion? I am not sure. anyway, i was born 77.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 6:57 PM

now you dont even need PP, you just read it in the internet.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 6:35 PM

So you support the closing of PP, then, since contraception seems to be all you are concerned about?

By the way, if you actually support the use of abortion as contraception, or consider it a form of contraception, please let me know. I’d prefer to respond no further to you, if that’s the case.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 6:58 PM

your answer: we would deal with it like before the prohibitionlegalization!
meaning, we would not do nothing, resulting in the same number of abortions just with a lot more suffering and death.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 6:50 PM

sorry

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 6:58 PM

you seem to have a dislike of other people plentiful sex life.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 6:56 PM

What? I’m really not sure how you got that out of what I said.

You’re in favor of pre-pubescent and teenage promiscuity?

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 7:00 PM

And wow…you supplied a study from 45 years ago…45 years ago.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Plus a study that tried to quantify something illegal at the time.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 7:01 PM

What? I’m really not sure how you got that out of what I said.

You’re in favor of pre-pubescent and teenage promiscuity?

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 7:00 PM

I’m totally flabbergasted at this person’s way of thinking.

Apparently, if I’m not willing to do something to stop rich people from going to other countries to get abortions, if abortion becomes illegal, then I’m not really pro-life.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 7:05 PM

And wow…you supplied a study from 45 years ago…45 years ago.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 6:56 PM

you wanted to do an experiment with prohibition. well, in 68, we had prohibition and the number of illegal abortions was the same as today’s legal abortions. legalization came in 73 with roe vs wade.
my argument is that making a prohibition now would probably have the same consequences, meaning, it would have more or less the same number of illegal abortions.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 7:08 PM

[gag] [retch] I just saw that Saranwrap-faced Nancy Pelosi on Fox News utter “when women speak, women win”. I wish she’d starred in the Jim Carrey movie, “Liar Liar” – then she’d say the truth “when I speak, unborn children die” (when the hell is the Catholic Church going to grow a pair and excommunicate this sanctimonious holier-than-thou bee-yotch?)

BTW – I’m glad I’m lazy. I was going to throw a few hundred bucks at the Komen Foundation for having the guts to tell Planned Murderhood to get bent. But now I can save my money and spend it on something more worthwhile. You can be damn sure I’m not going to support Komen by buying anything pink. And I hope the NFL stops with the pink clothing BS too.

CatchAll on February 3, 2012 at 7:15 PM

No, you don’t get me. Nobody who would make such a statement would understand anyone with a soul.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 6:55 PM

ah!
oh great soul! then answer this:
I launch here a question to prolifers. lets imagine we outlaw abortions in the US and save all those millions of babies. how you deal then with stuff like “self induced abortion”,birth defects resulting from failed attempts of self induced abortion, abortion turism(for the rich only) and other nasties that would result from the prohibition?

because your previous answer you dodged it, claiming the greater good of saving 1.2 million babies a year.

how would you deal with teenagers doing all kinds of atrocities to themselfs to avoid having the baby. would it not touch your soul?

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 7:15 PM

This is from The National Organization for Women website:

Estimates of the annual number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 60s range from 200,000 to 1.2 million, even though abortion procedures were unsafe and often life-threatening, in addition to being illegal

oh my!

Funny how that wikipedia article didn’t mention that there is a margin of error of ONE MILLION in estimation.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 7:17 PM

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Plus most illegal abortions were performed by doctors … not in back alleys as the pro-abortion people like to portray.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 7:20 PM

I’m totally flabbergasted at this person’s way of thinking.

Apparently, if I’m not willing to do something to stop rich people from going to other countries to get abortions, if abortion becomes illegal, then I’m not really pro-life.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 7:05 PM

no, no one would manage to stop people from traveling. The point is, the end result would be a unfair prohibition that would be enforced only on those economically unable to avoid it.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 7:23 PM

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 6:50 PM

You know the numbers quoted of women killed by back-alley abortions before Roe v Wade was constantly over-inflated, basically a lie, yes?
http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

It is sad that any women had to die in this manner, but the numbers of women who died then is far, far, surpassed by the women killed and maimed from abortion and abortifacients today.

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Funny how that wikipedia article didn’t mention that there is a margin of error of ONE MILLION in estimation.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 7:17 PM

so, it is still in the margin of error that if a prohibition is set , we will have a similar number of abortions as today, just illegal and with a lot more suffering and death.
from your site:

Approximately 50% of all maternal deaths resulted from illegal abortion during the first half of the 20th century

During the 1950s and 60s, each year an estimated 160 to 260 women died from illegal abortions, while thousands more were seriously injured

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 7:31 PM

You know the numbers quoted of women killed by back-alley abortions before Roe v Wade was constantly over-inflated, basically a lie, yes?
http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

It is sad that any women had to die in this manner, but the numbers of women who died then is far, far, surpassed by the women killed and maimed from abortion and abortifacients today.

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 7:31 PM

your site seems a biased prolifer site

AS A SCIENTIST I KNOW, NOT BELIEVE, KNOW THAT HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION

pfff.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Plus most illegal abortions were performed by doctors … not in back alleys as the pro-abortion people like to portray.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Yes. I read an article many years ago, that claimed that right after abortion was legalized, that the illegal abortions were actually safer because they were done by experienced doctors, who were very skilled at what they were doing. The back alley thing is a deception, too.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 7:40 PM

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Dr. Bernard Nathanson is a founder of NARAL and performed tens of thousands of abortions. But not an expert huh?

So when does human life begin? Any ideas?

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 7:43 PM

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 7:31 PM

No. That’s not MY site. That’s the National Organization for Women site.

The “margin of error” is one million? You really are that stupid, aren’t you?

Funny how you care about women who are harmed by ILLEGAL abortion, but ignore those harmed by legal abortion, both the mothers and the female babies.

There are alternatives to abortion for women who have unexpected pregnancies. You’d obviously prefer they not have those alternatives, and you’d rather they just get abortions, so you’re obviously a kindred spirit with Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood and all the pro-death lobbyists. More power to ya. I will continue to do everything in my power to stop the killing of the unborn.

Don’t like it? Too bad.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 7:45 PM

your site seems a biased prolifer site

pfff.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 7:33 PM

You cite wikipedia and then complain about a source? Too freaking funny.

Note that the cite I provided was a biased PRO-CHOICE site, and you claim that 200,000 is in the same ballpark as 1,200,000?

Your stupidity and ignorance combined are absolutely astounding.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Dr. Bernard Nathanson is a founder of NARAL and performed tens of thousands of abortions. But not an expert huh?

So when does human life begin? Any ideas?

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 7:43 PM

]

Oh! Oh! Let me guess!

When the pregnant woman decides she wants the baby?

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 7:49 PM

You cite wikipedia and then complain about a source? Too freaking funny.

Note that the cite I provided was a biased PRO-CHOICE site, and you claim that 200,000 is in the same ballpark as 1,200,000?

Your stupidity and ignorance combined are absolutely astounding.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 7:48 PM

wikipedia is biased? it can be wrong sometimes but i dont see it as biased.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 7:52 PM

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Your unwillingness to engage is pretty…….transparent. I am not trying to advocate any political position I am trying to speak TRUTH to this culture at large. WE ARE the counter-culture. Make no mistake.

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Dr. Bernard Nathanson is a founder of NARAL and performed tens of thousands of abortions. But not an expert huh?

So when does human life begin? Any ideas?

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 7:43 PM

some technical dentitions might be at birth, but to have that comment splashed as a conclusion in your site, seems to me a clear indicator of prolife bias. that person had an axe to grind…

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 7:59 PM

wikipedia is biased? it can be wrong sometimes but i dont see it as biased.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 7:52 PM

No, wikipedia is not considered a legitimate source.

You need to learn to read.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 7:59 PM

some technical dentitions might be at birth, but to have that comment splashed as a conclusion in your site, seems to me a clear indicator of prolife bias. that person had an axe to grind…

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Answer the question.

Life begins at birth? Is that what you’re saying? Give your own “DEFINITION” and back it up with an unbiased, scientific source…not wikipedia.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Your unwillingness to engage is pretty…….transparent. I am not trying to advocate any political position I am trying to speak TRUTH to this culture at large. WE ARE the counter-culture. Make no mistake.

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 7:57 PM

unwillingness to engage? no! I just had certain discussions before and i avoid repeating them. I never explored the “lets have a prohibiton” scenario in an argument with prolifers. this seems interesting.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 8:04 PM

wikipedia is biased? it can be wrong sometimes but i dont see it as biased.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 7:52 PM

(facepalm)

chewmeister on February 3, 2012 at 8:05 PM

I am not trying to advocate any political position I am trying to speak TRUTH to this culture at large. WE ARE the counter-culture. Make no mistake.

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 7:57 PM

this counter culture stuff is your justification to ignore certain sources like wikipedia?

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 8:05 PM

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 8:05 PM

I am not the one ignoring sources. When does human life begin? Is Dr. Bernard Nathanson reputable or not?

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Answer the question.

Life begins at birth? Is that what you’re saying? Give your own “DEFINITION” and back it up with an unbiased, scientific source…not wikipedia.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 8:01 PM

life begins at conception, ok. but that life, in my view, has not the same legal and emotional weight as a full term baby and as such, if you kill it, is not the same as killing a full term baby.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Ah shoot, was hoping the comments would end when it hit 666.

chewmeister on February 3, 2012 at 8:09 PM

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 8:09 PM

So, my son that was born 1 month premature wasn’t a ‘real’ baby. Got it.

chewmeister on February 3, 2012 at 8:12 PM

life begins at conception, ok. but that life, in my view, has not the same legal and emotional weight as a full term baby and as such, if you kill it, is not the same as killing a full term baby.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Your personal feeling about the issue was not what was asked for.

Thank you for your attempt at answering, though. I know exactly who/what I am dealing with, now.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 8:12 PM

So, my son that was born 1 month premature wasn’t a ‘real’ baby. Got it.

chewmeister on February 3, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Apparently not, since there is no grey area anywhere in between conception and full term. *rolling eyes*

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 8:14 PM

I am not the one ignoring sources. When does human life begin? Is Dr. Bernard Nathanson reputable or not?

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 8:08 PM

i not sure…

[Dr. Nathanson has since converted to Catholicism, being baptised in 1996.]

he seems to have a has a religious bias.

We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its “socially backward ideas” and
picked on the Catholic hierarchy as the villain in opposing abortion. This theme was
played endlessly.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 8:15 PM

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 8:09 PM

So when is it morally permissible to kill a human being in utero? Roe v Wade and its companion piece allow for abortion in all nine months of pregnancy.

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Your personal feeling about the issue was not what was asked for.

Thank you for your attempt at answering, though. I know exactly who/what I am dealing with, now.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 8:12 PM

so am I an evil person or what?

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 8:18 PM

So, my son that was born 1 month premature wasn’t a ‘real’ baby. Got it.

chewmeister on February 3, 2012 at 8:12 PM

i am having deja vu. i already had this argument and its not going to end well. and i am sure you also had these arguments before, so why repeat them?

however, i would like to hear from prolifers an honest though about women that in desperation, try to perform self induced abortion.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 8:23 PM

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 8:15 PM

You accuse Nathanson of a religious bias, yet you acknowledge no pro-abortion bias in Planned Parenthood?

Please explain how the factual science of when life begins can be clouded by a “religious bias?” Either life begins at conception, or it doesn’t, and either can be proven scientifically, no?

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 8:24 PM

nathor

I don’t think you are an evil person but you advocate for an evil act. Period.

The point about Dr. Nathanson, who performed 75,000 abortions, is that he was a founder of NARAL, still going strong, and said quite frankly that the argument for the need for “safe, legal and rare” abortions was made from whole cloth. They lied. The fact that he repented and became religious is not important to the fact that the case built for Roe v. Wade was false.

So when is it morally permissible to kill a human being in utero? At what point does it become an immoral act?

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 8:25 PM

however, i would like to hear from prolifers an honest though about women that in desperation, try to perform self induced abortion.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 8:23 PM

There are many alternatives to abortion. I have stated that. There are any number of adoption agencies and crisis pregnancy centers that will help a woman in that situation. There is no reason for a woman in desperation to perform a self-induced abortion. If they do, then they are victims of their own incredibly bad decision, and whatever happens to them as a result is their own doing. I am not responsible for it. You happy?

Now, answer quiz1′s question. When is it morally permissible to kill a baby in the womb? All nine months. Two months? Ten minutes?

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 8:27 PM

however, i would like to hear from prolifers an honest though about women that in desperation, try to perform self induced abortion.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 8:23 PM

The desperation of women who want an abortion is much like the desperation of an animal caught in a trap – it will eat its own leg off to escape. This desperation is real, but it is exploited by an industry that makes money from the abortion procedure. It is exploited by an industry that ignores the fact that pregnancy is far safer and wholesome (in a holistic way) for a woman than the abortion procedure which causes breast cancer, can lead to premature birth and ectopic pregnancy, infertility, on and on and on.

So again, when does it become immoral to kill the baby in utero? When does a fetus become a person, I guess?

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 8:30 PM

So when is it morally permissible to kill a human being in utero? Roe v Wade and its companion piece allow for abortion in all nine months of pregnancy.

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 8:15 PM

before 3 months, but it should be morally reprehensible if this killing is used as normal contraception.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 8:33 PM

The desperation of women who want an abortion is much like the desperation of an animal caught in a trap – it will eat its own leg off to escape. This desperation is real, but it is exploited by an industry that makes money from the abortion procedure. It is exploited by an industry that ignores the fact that pregnancy is far safer and wholesome (in a holistic way) for a woman than the abortion procedure which causes breast cancer, can lead to premature birth and ectopic pregnancy, infertility, on and on and on.

So again, when does it become immoral to kill the baby in utero? When does a fetus become a person, I guess?

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 8:30 PM

strong words there. but notice that asked for “self induced abortion”. so, if performed no industry will benefit from this act, and yet, it is still practiced.
you seem to desperately want to blame abortion on some evil industry while missing the serious situation and will of these women that risk death and injury to avoid having the baby.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 8:39 PM

before 3 months, but it should be morally reprehensible if this killing is used as normal contraception.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 8:33 PM

Thank you. What would you say happens to this being at three months in utero that is different than say two months? Why is three months in utero the time when abortion should no longer be permissible? Keep in mind our abortion laws mandates abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy.

Also, let’s also keep in mind that according to this study:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
46% of women having an abortion did not use any contraception the month they became pregnant

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 8:42 PM

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Nope. In what circumstance in our modern world (keep in mind we are arguing US abortion) would a woman’s life be in such grave danger that she couldn’t risk having a baby?

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 8:49 PM

There are many alternatives to abortion. I have stated that. There are any number of adoption agencies and crisis pregnancy centers that will help a woman in that situation. There is no reason for a woman in desperation to perform a self-induced abortion. If they do, then they are victims of their own incredibly bad decision, and whatever happens to them as a result is their own doing. I am not responsible for it. You happy?

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 8:27 PM

that is so self righteous of you. you may do what you can to convince them of your view, but in the end, it will be their decision and if they not share your ethics, their decision might be racional and not stupid as you say.

however, its noticed that you are determined that women that take the decision of abort and go trough the horrible process of trying to do it by themselfs get no help at all.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 8:57 PM

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 8:57 PM

In what modern world are women left to self-abort?

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Thank you. What would you say happens to this being at three months in utero that is different than say two months? Why is three months in utero the time when abortion should no longer be permissible? Keep in mind our abortion laws mandates abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy.

Also, let’s also keep in mind that according to this study:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
46% of women having an abortion did not use any contraception the month they became pregnant

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 8:42 PM

i am for a reduction of abortions either by education in contraception or by trying to change the culture that abortions are a ugly thing to do, especially if used as a “lazy contraception”. however, most prolifers are quite absolutists in their views about abortion.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 9:04 PM

In what modern world are women left to self-abort?

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 9:03 PM

not in countries where it is legal, but for example in latin america:

The cheap prescription synthetic prostaglandin drug Misoprostol – used in the U.S. to treat gastric ulcers – is often used as an abortifacient in self-induced abortion in Latin American countries where legal abortions are unavailable, and its use has also been observed in immigrant populations in New York.[8] Although proponents of this method deem it to be safer than those using insertion of objects or chemicals into the uterus, they also note that failure to effect an abortion by this method can lead to the child being born with serious birth defects. Furthermore, the drug causes a drastic drop in blood pressure, and women may haemmorhage as a result of misusing the drug for the purpose of abortion.[9]

you may think that there will be enough support for women and they will never require such measures. however, it many women dont see it like that. societal shame alone can drive women to this despair. not to mention cases of rape when a woman might just hate the child.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 9:12 PM

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 9:04 PM

absolutists

Because prolifers know that a human being is created at conception, it harms both mother and child in so many ways, and it is wrong to kill innocent human life.

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 9:14 PM

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 9:12 PM

So we kill millions of human beings because a small number of women may be ashamed of their pregnancy? So we kill millions of innocent human lives because their fathers are rapists? FWIW i have a brother who was a product of rape, born before Roe v Wade. Would he feel better about himself if he weren’t allowed to born because of the circumstance of his conception?

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Because prolifers know that a human being is created at conception, it harms both mother and child in so many ways, and it is wrong to kill innocent human life.

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 9:14 PM

but many women will not share your view and will risk death and injury to have the abortion. you are ok to deny these women help?

if it was possible to know which women would get this desperate, would you allow abortion for them?

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 9:23 PM

So we kill millions of human beings because a small number of women may be ashamed of their pregnancy? So we kill millions of innocent human lives because their fathers are rapists? FWIW i have a brother who was a product of rape, born before Roe v Wade. Would he feel better about himself if he weren’t allowed to born because of the circumstance of his conception?

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 9:18 PM

it really depends if you give the same emotional and legal weight to an early term pregnancy as to a full term baby. if you give the same weight, then we are monsters if you give a different, much more reduced weight, then we are not monsters. in this i guess we will allways disagree.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 9:31 PM

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 9:23 PM

It doesn’t matter is we share views or not – there is an objective reality that says killing innocent human life is wrong. The consequences of denying this reality are seen now in the physical and material realm, not even bringing into account the spiritual one, and the consequences that many, including yourself, can’t foresee for the future are very grim.

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 9:31 PM

It doesn’t matter is we share views or not – there is an objective reality that says killing innocent human life is wrong. The consequences of denying this reality are seen now in the physical and material realm, not even bringing into account the spiritual one, and the consequences that many, including yourself, can’t foresee for the future are very grim.

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 9:31 PM

you see early term pregnancies as human , and i see they as something that is growing to be human but is not there yet. even killing this embryonic human is wrong in my view, but not to the point of forcing its fully human host to endure its growth.

spiritual consequences?

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 9:42 PM

It doesn’t matter is we share views or not – there is an objective reality that says killing innocent human life is wrong. The consequences of denying this reality are seen now in the physical and material realm, not even bringing into account the spiritual one, and the consequences that many, including yourself, can’t foresee for the future are very grim.

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Very well said. I cannot stomach even reading that reprobate’s comments.

tom daschle concerned on February 3, 2012 at 9:42 PM

before 3 months, but it should be morally reprehensible if this killing is used as normal contraception.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 8:33 PM

Good Lord! can you her yourself speak? You admit it is the killing of a human being and yet you defend it? this “reprehensible” killing is OK unless it is used as normal contraception? I can’t even begin to comprehend how your mind works.

neuquenguy on February 3, 2012 at 9:58 PM

that is so self righteous of you. you may do what you can to convince them of your view, but in the end, it will be their decision and if they not share your ethics, their decision might be racional and not stupid as you say.

however, its noticed that you are determined that women that take the decision of abort and go trough the horrible process of trying to do it by themselfs get no help at all.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 8:57 PM

What you call self-righteous I call reality. The women made a bad choice.

I did not say they would “get no help at all.” You put words into my mouth. I said help is readily available for them. If they make the decision to do something to harm themselves, that is stupid and irrational, and they reap the consequences. If they end up in a hospital or doctor’s office, perhaps in jeopardy of their life or their future ability to bear children, it was because they did it to themselves. I had nothing to do with it.

I am not a player in this situation. I didn’t force the woman to “self-abort.” She made her own decision. It has nothing to with my ethics trumping hers. You are the one who is self-righteous, in claiming that your ethics are better than mine.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 10:14 PM

you see early term pregnancies as human , and i see they as something that is growing to be human but is not there yet. even killing this embryonic human is wrong in my view, but not to the point of forcing its fully human host to endure its growth.

spiritual consequences?

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Oh, my heavens.

Forcing its fully human host to endure its growth.

What about responsibility for your actions? You obviously don’t believe in it. Because you believe that this “embryonic human,” that has done absolutely nothing wrong, is of lesser worth than the woman who wants to destroy it, before it has a chance to be fully formed?

You are worthy of nothing but contempt.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8