Susan G. Komen pro-life VP resigns after Planned Parenthood flap

posted at 12:45 pm on February 7, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Karen Handel, the pro-life vice president of the Susan G. Komen foundation who was rumored to have heavily influenced the organization’s original decision to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, resigned today, shortly after Komen essentially reversed its decision and resumed its partnership with PP. The Washington Times reports:

Karen Handel, the charity’s vice president for public policy, told Komen officials that she supported the move to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood. She said the discussion started before she arrived at the organization and was approved at the highest levels of the charity.

“I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it,” Handel said in her letter. “I openly acknowledge my role in the matter and continue to believe our decision was the best one for Komen’s future and the women we serve.”

Handel had supported a decision that Komen announced last week to exclude Planned Parenthood, which provides a range of women’s health care services including abortions, from future grants for breast-cancer screenings because it was under government investigation. The charity cited a probe launched by a Florida congressman at the urging of anti-abortion groups.

The breast cancer charity reversed course after its decision created a three-day firestorm of criticism. Members of Congress and Komen affiliates accused the group’s national leadership of bending to pressure from anti-abortion activists. Komen’s founder and CEO, Nancy Brinker, denied the decision was driven by pressure from anti-abortion groups.

Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards lapped up praise from MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell for her “diplomatic” handling of Komen’s original announcement. O’Donnell:

Cecile Richards, you now have my nomination for America’s ambassador to the United Nations. Your artful diplomacy and how you have handled yourself in this relationship with your former partner who is now again your partner, the Komen foundation, has been something to behold. Thank you very much for joining me tonight.

O’Donnell also related predictions from various sources that Komen will not be able to survive as a foundation now because too many donors were outraged that Komen would even think of abandoning Planned Parenthood.

He might be right: Donations to Komen were up 100 percent after the news broke that the organization was defunding Planned Parenthood, but the window of opportunity for pro-life donors to show their support was very short-lived. Conscientious objectors to Komen’s grants to Planned Parenthood won’t donate now — and it seems supporters of Planned Parenthood aren’t above holding a grudge for Komen’s momentary consideration of their abandonment. In the end, then, Planned Parenthood might still kill off Komen as a source of funding … by killing off Komen. PP officials should be so proud. Severely wounding a major women’s health organization like Komen certainly demonstrates concern for women’s health.

How sad. After Komen announced its original decision, I wrote that the decoupling of Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood proved that “women’s health” and “abortion rights” are not synonymous. The two aren’t the same, but, apparently, Planned Parenthood has so great a grip on the media that, in media presentations to the public, “women’s health” and “abortion rights” will remain interchangeable.


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 2 3

Good. She disgraced Komen by pushing her archaic mythology over facts and women’s health. Hopefully Komen recovers from their original blunder here and keeps on trucking.

mythicknight on February 7, 2012 at 3:05 PM

That depends on whether they were vaccinating the guards or the prisoners. In this case, PP is providing services to the women as cover in the same way that Hamas is a charitable organization. PP from Sanger on down is about cleansing the population.

pedestrian on February 7, 2012 at 3:00 PM

the prisoners of course…
but i was metaphor was to set PP as the nazis and komen as the charitable organization.
would the charitable organization be guilty as the nazis?

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Good. She disgraced Komen by pushing her archaic mythology over facts and women’s health.

mythicknight on February 7, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Oh good, a “womens health-er”. Maybe you can explain what the 97% of abortions that are performed for convenience have to do with womens health?

Trafalgar on February 7, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Liberalism, the bedrock of evil given power by the Democrat party, destroys anything it touches.

artman1746 on February 7, 2012 at 3:13 PM

these are not patients, they are parasites… yes, because this is how we pro choicers really think those damn things are. parasites getting in the way of our sex/

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 3:03 PM

You may think you’re being tritely sarcastic, but the sad reality is that there are at least a few – if not far more – pro-choice women who most certainly do consider and call the unborn ‘parasites’. I have read such things myself from pro-choice women on various sites online.

Of course, these women are all too happy to carry the “parasite” to full term and birth so long as they “want” it. When they don’t want the baby, it’s a parasite. Speaks utter volumes.

Logus on February 7, 2012 at 3:13 PM

One, kudos to her for her integrity and I would also add, her loving instincts

Two, no one who supports pro-life causes should ever donate another dollar to the Komen foundation.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Oh good, a “womens health-er”. Maybe you can explain what the 97% of abortions that are performed for convenience have to do with womens health?

Trafalgar on February 7, 2012 at 3:09 PM

I’m going to guess that the excuse revolves around the definition of the unborn as “parasites” by pro-choice individuals.

Call the unborn parasites.

Parasites are unhealthy.

Abortion gets rid of the parasites.

No parasites equals a healthy woman.

Absurd, but then, pro-choice logic is truly absurd illogic.

Logus on February 7, 2012 at 3:16 PM

The reality is that Planned Parenthood—with annual revenues exceeding $1 billion—does little in the way of screening for breast cancer. But the organization is very much in the business of selling abortions—more than 300,000 in 2010, according to Planned Parenthood. At an average cost of $500, according to various sources including Planned Parenthood’s website, that translates to about $164 million of revenue per year.

The organization’s allies demonized the charity, attempting to depict the nation’s most prominent anti-breast cancer organization as a bedfellow of religious extremists. A Facebook page was set up to “Defund the Komen Foundation.” In short, Planned Parenthood took breast-cancer victims as hostages.

right2bright on February 7, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Of course, these women are all too happy to carry the “parasite” to full term and birth so long as they “want” it. When they don’t want the baby, it’s a parasite. Speaks utter volumes.

This is the state of many women’s morality.

Women are less physically violent than men. Less fighting and so on.

But their body count is far higher.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Absurd, but then, pro-choice logic is truly absurd illogic.

What is ilogical about it?

Random on February 7, 2012 at 3:19 PM

What is ilogical about it?

Random on February 7, 2012 at 3:19 PM

It’s based in relativism because they place a sliding scale of worth on the value of human life.

Relativism by its very nature is automatically self-contradictory, thus illogical.

Not to mention that pro-choice is all about pride and selfishness. ME, first, me only!

Logus on February 7, 2012 at 3:24 PM

You may think you’re being tritely sarcastic, but the sad reality is that there are at least a few – if not far more – pro-choice women who most certainly do consider and call the unborn ‘parasites’. I have read such things myself from pro-choice women on various sites online.

Of course, these women are all too happy to carry the “parasite” to full term and birth so long as they “want” it. When they don’t want the baby, it’s a parasite. Speaks utter volumes.

Logus on February 7, 2012 at 3:13 PM

there are crazy people everywhere. any way, reading the comments here make me believe that prolifers actually think that all pro-choicers are like that.

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Good. She disgraced Komen by pushing her archaic mythology over facts and women’s health.

mythicknight on February 7, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Yeah, um, never mind that abortion has been linked to an increased risk of breast cancer. So much for women’s health.

patriette on February 7, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Good. She disgraced Komen by pushing her archaic mythology over facts and women’s health. Hopefully Komen recovers from their original blunder here and keeps on trucking.

mythicknight on February 7, 2012 at 3:05 PM

^^ death worshipper

darwin on February 7, 2012 at 3:31 PM

You may think you’re being tritely sarcastic, but the sad reality is that there are at least a few – if not far more – pro-choice women who most certainly do consider and call the unborn ‘parasites’. I have read such things myself from pro-choice women on various sites online.

Of course, these women are all too happy to carry the “parasite” to full term and birth so long as they “want” it. When they don’t want the baby, it’s a parasite. Speaks utter volumes.

Logus on February 7, 2012 at 3:13 PM
there are crazy people everywhere. any way, reading the comments here make me believe that prolifers actually think that all pro-choicers are like that.
nathor on February 7, 2012 at 3:24 PM

How about most? Yep that makes more sense.

Conservative4Ever on February 7, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Logus, and I am arguing out of intellectual curiosity here, not because I disagree with you about wanting to ban abortion, there is no logical reason I can discern for believing in an absolute morality. And if there is, for being sure of what that absolute morality.

It seems to me, everything is relative to everything else.

And as much as it is distasteful to me, I can’t think of a sound logical reason why it doesn’t make sense to kill someone who would stop you from having and enjoying what you want, including time, money, and non-responsibility.

Creditable in a “loving-mammal ethical human” sense. No, not really to my mind.

But illogical?

Sorry, Logus, you just haven’t come near to making that case on the basis of logic.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 3:34 PM

It’s based in relativism because they place a sliding scale of worth on the value of human life.

Relativism by its very nature is automatically self-contradictory, thus illogical.

Not to mention that pro-choice is all about pride and selfishness. ME, first, me only!

Logus on February 7, 2012 at 3:24 PM

sure sure, but say, considering that a moral code based on an self contradictory and many times ambigous book written 2000 years ago is the way to fight this “illogical” relativism? baloney.

there is nothing wrong with individualism. i even read many comments here praising self responsibility. these come with a certain dose of pride and ego.

sliding scale of worth on the value of human life.
leta have a law to set where that limit is and lets all obey that law and like this, we avoid sliding on that scale. wait, there is already such law!

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 3:36 PM

I wish we could get back to more logical identifiers, such as:

Pro Life v. Anti Life.

or

Pro Life v. Death

or

Protection of the Helpless v. Slaughter of the Helpless.

LASue on February 7, 2012 at 3:40 PM

“Yeah, um, never mind that abortion has been linked to an increased risk of breast cancer. So much for women’s health.”

If we’re going to be intellectually honest here (and I’m doubtful), abortion is also safer — 14 times safer — than childbirth, and the jury is still out on the breast cancer/abortion correlation anyway. And when I say the jury is still out on that, I mean it has been pretty much debunked.

To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, we’re entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 3:40 PM

How about most? Yep that makes more sense.

Conservative4Ever on February 7, 2012 at 3:32 PM

most of we pro deathers, hate those damn parasites. they only exist to make us worried during sex! horrible things they are! death to them! /

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 3:43 PM

I see it like this, when a woman has an undesired pregnancy because, as you said, “if some drunk hits on a woman in a bar and tells her she has nice t*ts”, then she will go to in panic to PP. they might get a morning pill and an maybe an abortion from their visit, but, also, its a unique chance to inform and provide them with contraception and remind her of other health risk like cervix and breast cancer and even do those exams on the spot.
…..
nathor on February 7, 2012 at 1:22 PM

What a la-la land you must live in – We’re supposed to believe that some woman so foolish that she’s hooking up with a drunk who hits on her in a bar is going to use the occasion of ripping her inconvenient pregnancy from her uterus as the time for a sensible reveiw of her overall health requirements? More than likely she’s getting the morning after pill and running out the door to use it. Hard to believe that a woman aborting her baby is going to think – oh by the way check those other girlie parts while you’re there. But then an adult woman would have taken appropriate bc preparation before trolling the bars. /s

katiejane on February 7, 2012 at 3:45 PM

If we’re going to be intellectually honest here (and I’m doubtful), abortion is also safer — 14 times safer — than childbirth

Random on February 7, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Safer for whom? Abortion’s pretty much 100% lethal for the child.

Trafalgar on February 7, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Planned Parenthood is nothing but low life scum of the earth sh**. I’m glad Karen resigned because she is a good person. These low life liberals and especially the leader of them (the thug in thief Obama) is nothing but dirt.

tmgrant on February 7, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Safer for whom? Abortion’s pretty much 100% lethal for the child.

Obviously. And you know you’re taking my words out of context.

I was replying to someone who made the point that abortion is physically more dangerous for the woman because of increased risk of breast cancer, when the consensus of the official medical bodies is that this is simply not true. I pointed out that, from the standpoint of physical health of the mother, abortion is much safer, on average, than giving birth.

I would be fine with shooting people who have abortions (contract with a third party to kill their own children) in the back of the neck. That would entirely work for me, and I would consider it just for premeditated murder — of their own children, no less.

But facts are facts.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Random on February 7, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Might I suggest a bit of light reading then?
He Is There And He Is Not Silent, by Francis Schaeffer

It will help put a lot of things into perspective, specifically the whole “relativism” is logical argument.

And as much as it is distasteful to me, I can’t think of a sound logical reason why it doesn’t make sense to kill someone who would stop you from having and enjoying what you want, including time, money, and non-responsibility.

If there is no God and all things are equal, then there is no right and wrong. That’s essentially what you’re getting at.

Along that trajectory, Adolph Hitler did nothing “wrong”.

Again, seriously, I urge you to read Schaeffer, specifically that book. He lays out the case quite simply – it’s a 100 page read.

Logus on February 7, 2012 at 3:55 PM

What a la-la land you must live in – We’re supposed to believe that some woman so foolish that she’s hooking up with a drunk who hits on her in a bar is going to use the occasion of ripping her inconvenient pregnancy from her uterus as the time for a sensible reveiw of her overall health requirements? More than likely she’s getting the morning after pill and running out the door to use it. Hard to believe that a woman aborting her baby is going to think – oh by the way check those other girlie parts while you’re there. But then an adult woman would have taken appropriate bc preparation before trolling the bars. /s

katiejane on February 7, 2012 at 3:45 PM

there maybe some slu”#$ that actually behave as you described. but i believe most women when visiting PP have a sobering experience and are more prone to listen to sensible advices like doing their routine cancer checks, std checks and take on contraception to avoid returning to the place.

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 3:58 PM

If we’re going to be intellectually honest here (and I’m doubtful), abortion is also safer — 14 times safer — than childbirth, and the jury is still out on the breast cancer/abortion correlation anyway. And when I say the jury is still out on that, I mean it has been pretty much debunked.

To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, we’re entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 3:40 PM

And?

Just because something is true doesn’t necessarily make it right. That’s like saying that if a state says gay marraige is legal, then it’s right. That’s creating morals based upon shifting societal standards. Sand, foundations and all that…

Logus on February 7, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Along that trajectory, Adolph Hitler did nothing “wrong”.

Relative to other people, sure. In an absolute moral sense, I don’t think there is one to violate.

Logically, he made many errors. Mostly strategic. Targeting and killing or driving away the most intelligent, scientific fraction of his populace was probably error one (being that, for genetic reasons, Ashkenazi Jews are more intelligent than even the German population, on average).

Invading Russia wasn’t too bright either.

Probably ditto invading Poland, but that’s a more difficult case to make. Most people would agree with the above two arguments, minus the genetic/racial part of it, which is distinctly evidence-based as well.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 4:00 PM

sure sure, but say, considering that a moral code based on an self contradictory and many times ambigous book written 2000 years ago is the way to fight this “illogical” relativism? baloney.

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 3:36 PM

I’m not surprised by your responses.

I’d give you a walking stick, but you’d still run into a wall.

Hopefully you won’t have to find out until it’s too late.

Life calls.

Ta.

Logus on February 7, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Just because something is true doesn’t necessarily make it right.

I’m not making that argument. I’m correcting a factual error and providing additional data to put the initial false claim in a more realistic context.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Conscientious objectors to Komen’s grants to Planned Parenthood won’t donate now — and it seems supporters of Planned Parenthood aren’t above holding a grudge for Komen’s momentary consideration of their abandonment. In the end, then, Planned Parenthood might still kill off Komen as a source of funding … by killing off Komen. PP officials should be so proud. Severely wounding a major women’s health organization like Komen certainly demonstrates concern for women’s health.

This is absolutely false. Komen is a victim of the total war between Planned Parenthood and the anti-abortion movement. The total war starts with the “pro-life” inability to think “pro-choice” people are merely misguided. Instead the “pro-life” movement engages in mendacious smears against the individuals in the family planning movement. Margaret Sanger, an early advocate for family planning, is made into a racist supporter of Hitler. She in fact voted for Dwight Eisenhower. Planned Parenthood has had no choice but to reply to the “pro-life” movement in kind. In fact, I would argue that the Planned Parenthood has been too nice to the pro-life movement and should make a much bigger deal out of its lies about the history of family planning in America (not any more reality based than 9/11 trutherism) and out of its homophobia.

thuja on February 7, 2012 at 4:07 PM

How sad. After Komen announced its original decision, I wrote that the decoupling of Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood proved that “women’s health” and “abortion rights” are not synonymous.

You were right. They are not and this decision will sadly stain and sink an otherwise force for good in the women’s health community. Unfortunately when one is unprincipled and lacks conviction, it serves no one in the long run.

Hopefully other organizations are paying attention.

Marcus Traianus on February 7, 2012 at 4:08 PM

This is absolutely false. Komen is a victim of the total war between Planned Parenthood and the anti-abortion movement. The total war starts with the “pro-life” inability to think “pro-choice” people are merely misguided. Instead the “pro-life” movement engages in mendacious smears against the individuals in the family planning movement. Margaret Sanger, an early advocate for family planning, is made into a racist supporter of Hitler. She in fact voted for Dwight Eisenhower. Planned Parenthood has had no choice but to reply to the “pro-life” movement in kind. In fact, I would argue that the Planned Parenthood has been too nice to the pro-life movement and should make a much bigger deal out of its lies about the history of family planning in America (not any more reality based than 9/11 trutherism) and out of its homophobia.

thuja on February 7, 2012 at 4:07 PM

lol … you even managed to sneak in “homophobia”.

Pretty good. Nonsense, but pretty good.

darwin on February 7, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Every million dollars Komen gives to Planned Parenthood is 2000 babies killed.

The Susan G. Komen folks are killing far more people then they have ever saved.

RJL on February 7, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Hopefully other organizations are paying attention.

I’m sure they are. And the message is clear: “If you give money to PP, you may never stop, or we will destroy you.”

Once you pay the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.

skydaddy on February 7, 2012 at 4:23 PM

…Komen will not be able to survive as a foundation now because too many donors were outraged that Komen would even think of abandoning Planned Parenthood.

Many of us had no idea that Komen was funding abortions.

It’s very likely that Komen will lose funding from the pro life side as well.

RJL on February 7, 2012 at 4:24 PM

The total war starts with the “pro-life” inability to think “pro-choice” people are merely misguided.

thuja on February 7, 2012 at 4:07 PM

No, the “total war” starts with the “pro-choice” inability to ascribe any human value to a child before it is born. The fetus has rights too, and it has more rights the longer it is alive; i.e., the closer it gets to birth.

alwaysfiredup on February 7, 2012 at 4:30 PM

I’m correcting a factual error and providing additional data to put the initial false claim in a more realistic context.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 4:01 PM

No, you are quoting tendentious studies. The reason abortion is safer than giving birth on average is because most abortions take place in the first trimester, and so there is little strain on the body. 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are much less safe than giving birth.

alwaysfiredup on February 7, 2012 at 4:31 PM

The reason abortion is safer than giving birth on average is because most abortions take place in the first trimester, and so there is little strain on the body. 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are much less safe than giving birth.

All of which goes to show the increased physical safety for a woman to have an abortion vs. carrying a pregnancy to term and delivering.

But you’re also wrong. The study showed this:

Dr. Elizabeth Raymond from Gynuity Health Projects in New York City and Dr. David Grimes of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, found that between 1998 and 2005, one woman died during childbirth for every 11,000 or so babies born.

That compared to one woman of every 167,000 who died from a legal abortion.

So the event of abortion is safer than the event of childbirth (during and after the event).

All you’ve done is provide additional, valid reasons why abortion is safer, due to the dangers of late-term pregnancy.

I oppose abortion, but lying about it isn’t the way to go. It isn’t like our opponents can’t fact-check.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 4:41 PM

And I’m not accusing you of lying.

I’m saying those who propagate unscientific health-risk associations for ideological reasons are in essence lying, if they’re unwilling to look at the data objectively (which is usually the case for those people).

Random on February 7, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Komen is a victim of the total war between Planned Parenthood and the anti-abortion movement. The total war starts with the “pro-life” inability to think “pro-choice” people are merely misguided.

Abortion is murder. Murder must be STOPPED. Period. There’s no middle ground. By way of analogy, I don’t care HOW thoroughly brainwashed the enemy’s soldiers are; when we’re at war, we don’t ponder how “fair” fate has been to them and thus contemplate pulling our punches. We’re not talking about some women’s group we can debate; we’re talking about Planned Parenthood, AN ABORTION MILL. And if you don’t think that’s what it is, that’d be because you buy their propaganda. The statistics, their literature, hidden camera investigations, etc., clearly show that’s what they are.

Instead the “pro-life” movement engages in mendacious smears against the individuals in the family planning movement. Margaret Sanger, an early advocate for family planning, is made into a racist supporter of Hitler. She in fact voted for Dwight Eisenhower.

Because if you vote for Ike, then your agenda of eugenics and blatantly racist statements and goals mean nothing! We don’t MAKE Sanger into anything; she made HERSELF into the disgusting monster she is.

Planned Parenthood has had no choice but to reply to the “pro-life” movement in kind.

One of the most asinine arguments I’ve ever heard. So, even buying your absurd premise that people are “smearing” them, you’re saying that an organization that has been smeared HAS NO CHOICE but to smear its opponents? Obviously, you’re just trying to hide your hypocrisy since PP engages in vile tactics you accuse others of doing.

In fact, I would argue that the Planned Parenthood has been too nice to the pro-life movement and should make a much bigger deal out of its lies about the history of family planning in America (not any more reality based than 9/11 trutherism) and out of its homophobia.

thuja on February 7, 2012 at 4:07 PM

And you even sneak in “homophobia” into this, out of nowhere. You’re a hack.

CanofSand on February 7, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Random on February 7, 2012 at 4:42 PM

The people who “propagate unscientific health-risk associations for ideological reasons” are the abortionists, claiming that all anti-abortion legislation is anti-women’s-health even though there virtually no situations where the health of the mother is threatened unless an abortion is performed. They’ll argue this even if specific exceptions to the law allow for abortion when there’s a real risk if said exception isn’t wide enough for them. What’s wide enough? Well, they of course prefer to have their choice to rob all future choices from their unborn children to be completely unimpeded, but if there’s to be some barrier, they want it to be one that means practically nothing, so groups with Orwellian names like “Planned Parenthood” can claim that the woman’s “MENTAL” or “EMOTIONAL” health will be damaged (cuz, hey, pregnancy is stressful!).

CanofSand on February 7, 2012 at 4:48 PM

I oppose abortion, but lying about it isn’t the way to go. It isn’t like our opponents can’t fact-check.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 4:41 PM

You seem rational. What do you thank of a common view among anti-abortion activists that acceptance for gay marriage results from women being allowed to control their fertility by birth control and abortion?

thuja on February 7, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Abortion is murder. Murder must be STOPPED. Period. There’s no middle ground. By way of analogy, I don’t care HOW thoroughly brainwashed the enemy’s soldiers are; when we’re at war, we don’t ponder how “fair” fate has been to them and thus contemplate pulling our punches. We’re not talking about some women’s group we can debate; we’re talking about Planned Parenthood, AN ABORTION MILL.

This is an ideologically defensible position. Whether abortion is murder or not depends on the definition of personhood, but, for the record, I entirely agree.

And no facts were abused in the making of this argument.

I like the argument. I don’t like making up facts for the sake of. That also makes one’s argument look really weak when they have to resort to that.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Whether abortion is murder or not depends on the definition of personhood, but, for the record, I entirely agree.

It is unknowable in scientific terms when “personhood” begins. The fact of the matter is that pro-life people err on the side of NOT “possibly” murdering a 100% innocent human being, while the pro-”choice” side errs on the side of “possibly” mercilessly and often painfully murdering the lives of countless millions of 100% innocent children.

CanofSand on February 7, 2012 at 4:57 PM

The people who “propagate unscientific health-risk associations for ideological reasons” are the abortionists, claiming that all anti-abortion legislation is anti-women’s-health even though there virtually no situations where the health of the mother is threatened unless an abortion is performed.

I’ve provided incontrovertible evidence that, physically, abortion is safer than childbirth. alwaysfiredup provided additional sound reasoning why early-term-abortion is safer than late-term pregnancy.

As the official American Medical Association position goes, both childbirth and abortion are very safe, but physically, abortion is safer for the woman.

I’d be OK with it if it wasn’t. I’d prefer that. But you know, once again reality didn’t ask me what it should be.

You seem rational.

Thanks.

What do you thank of a common view among anti-abortion activists that acceptance for gay marriage results from women being allowed to control their fertility by birth control and abortion?

I’ve never thought about this before. I’m sure birth control technology, modern technology generally including free-flow of information, and abortion technology all combine with other factors to challenge people’s conceptions and lead to changing views on such things as marriage and other behaviors in the sexual realm.

So they have a point, but it’s roundabout.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 4:58 PM

I’ve provided incontrovertible evidence that, physically, abortion is safer than childbirth. alwaysfiredup provided additional sound reasoning why early-term-abortion is safer than late-term pregnancy.

And it’s probably “safer” to kill your pet dog than to leave it in the backyard, lest some neighbor kid wander in and possibly be bitten by bit. You might as well prove that it’s “more convenient” to not be pregnant when you want to maximize your mobility. I don’t really care: That’s a side argument of no importance, and I only interjected to point out that the people who with any frequency push the sorts of lies you’re attacking in this culture war are the abortionists.

CanofSand on February 7, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Put another way, thuja, if you think all of these factors, including increases in abortion and contraception technology usage, which changes heterosexual behavior (number of partners mostly), doesn’t also impact attitudes on acceptance of homosexual behavior, you’re fooling yourself.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 5:06 PM

And it’s probably “safer” to kill your pet dog than to leave it in the backyard, lest some neighbor kid wander in and possibly be bitten by bit.

Yes.

Which is why actually making the contrary argument in spite of evidence to the contrary makes one look like a fool, so I advise fellow pro-lifers to stop doing this.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Good. She disgraced Komen by pushing her archaic mythology over facts and women’s health. Hopefully Komen recovers from their original blunder here and keeps on trucking.

mythicknight on February 7, 2012 at 3:05 PM

What’s archaic mythology? That it’s wrong to kill babies in the womb?

The fact is that most babies aborted in the world today are girls. And that’s hardly positive for *those* women’s health.

The_Jacobite on February 7, 2012 at 5:16 PM

If having the choice to abort is so wonderful why don’t we hear their testimonies? “It’s the best thing I ever did,” or “since making that choice, I’ve been able to fulfill my dreams.” But no, you never, ever, ever hear this in a commercial, in PP pamphlets or anywhere in public.

Why doesn’t Barbara Boxer, Michelle Obama, or Andrea Mitchell share about their abortions and how great it was to have that choice?

Maybe there is a reason you never hear from those who abort. Maybe it’s because it’s wrong and everyone knows it.

LetsBfrank on February 7, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Good. She disgraced Komen by pushing her archaic mythology over facts and women’s health. Hopefully Komen recovers from their original blunder here and keeps on trucking.

mythicknight on February 7, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Just pound the keyboard next time, you’ll make more sense.

I’d like to see Komen finished. No reason to be in bed with the butchers at Planned Parenthood.

Daemonocracy on February 7, 2012 at 5:21 PM

There is no reason to focus on physical health of the woman arguments.

1.) The evidence is predominantly on the other side.
2.) What do we care? Our argument is that it is an evil, malicious uncaring thing to do because it hurts the child by taking its life away from it.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Your artful diplomacy and how you have handled yourself in this relationship with your former partner who is now again your partner, the Komen foundation, has been something to behold.

Let’s pretend for a second that O’Donnell is right and Cecile Richards is just that brilliant. What does it say about that woman that she uses her talents for the express purpose of killing unborn babies?

But – we know that is not the case. Richards is not that brilliant. It stand to reason that such an artful diplomat would have never let it get to the point where their “partner” is publicly humiliated and shamed so much that donations would be impacted and they would both end up worse off.

But – then again – that sounds like the kind of scorched earth diplomacy this administration would be into – so yes – lets put her in the UN Ambassador spot.

CycloneCDB on February 7, 2012 at 5:37 PM

There is no reason to focus on physical health of the woman arguments.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 5:32 PM

you are right to a point. i think the main issue is forcing the woman to something she does not want to do. contrary to what some prolifers think, abortion was practiced before before the invention of modern medicine:

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

you cannot force a woman to do things she dont want, if you do you will end up with tragedies where both the woman and the baby lose.

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 5:45 PM

I think, 5 years from now, people will look back at this fiasco as the landmine that sunk a foundation that was trying to do good things to advance the treatment of breast cancer. Without the pro-life financial support and the pro-choice people wanting to punish this foundation, I see its funding drying up and the participation on all of their events seriously diminishing over time as people have time to reflect on this.

I would hope that in its place, the pro-life people will put their money where their outrage is, and startup a new breast cancer foundation that will focus on just the breast health issues and avoid toxic entities like planned parenthood.

The ultimate victims here are the women that will die of breast cancer because the funding for research and prevention might be reduced.

karenhasfreedom on February 7, 2012 at 5:47 PM

If having the choice to abort is so wonderful why don’t we hear their testimonies? “It’s the best thing I ever did,” or “since making that choice, I’ve been able to fulfill my dreams.” But no, you never, ever, ever hear this in a commercial, in PP pamphlets or anywhere in public.

Why doesn’t Barbara Boxer, Michelle Obama, or Andrea Mitchell share about their abortions and how great it was to have that choice?

Maybe there is a reason you never hear from those who abort. Maybe it’s because it’s wrong and everyone knows it.

LetsBfrank on February 7, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Good point

darwin on February 7, 2012 at 5:50 PM

you are right to a point. i think the main issue is forcing the woman to something she does not want to do. contrary to what some prolifers think, abortion was practiced before before the invention of modern medicine:

you cannot force a woman to do things she dont want, if you do you will end up with tragedies where both the woman and the baby lose.

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 5:45 PM

If she doesn’t want to get pregnant there’s a sure-fire method guaranteed to work.

darwin on February 7, 2012 at 5:51 PM

If she doesn’t want to get pregnant there’s a sure-fire method guaranteed to work.

darwin on February 7, 2012 at 5:51 PM

abstinence? … there is much to say about this method but before we get into that, what about rape?

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 6:01 PM

You’re right about rape, nathor, clearly. But also, it’s a rare reason for abortion. Most abortions follow wet heaving moans.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 6:08 PM

You’re right about rape, nathor, clearly. But also, it’s a rare reason for abortion. Most abortions follow wet heaving moans.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Equal protection. If rape victims can have it – everyone can. Don’t play the left’s abortion justification game. They win, unborn babies lose.

CycloneCDB on February 7, 2012 at 6:17 PM

CycloneCDB, read it again in context.

I said nathor’s right that voluntary abstinence is not a fool-proof pregnancy prevention method since rape happens to women against their will. You’re putting words in my mouth.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 6:18 PM

I was saying that yielding the permissibility of abortion for rape victims is just the camel’s nose for them.

CycloneCDB on February 7, 2012 at 6:24 PM

You’re right about rape, nathor, clearly. But also, it’s a rare reason for abortion. Most abortions follow wet heaving moans.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 6:08 PM

its a rare reason that to my shock, many prolifers dont accept as exception.

but moving to abstinence and sex. sex is a human need and we have a strong drive for it that for some of us, maybe is perhaps impossible to control.
forcing people to abstinence is a sick joke. it will never happen and people will always seek sex.
now what?
technology gave us contraception and we can satisfy our human needs without the consequences. i am ok with this because unlike some religionists, i dont have a negative view on sex.

however, sometimes we are irresponsible and dont use the contraception or the contraception fails. we end up with a pregnancy that was not desired. and here is were the biggest polemic enters. is abortion to be permitted in these cases or not?
i think yes because having the child was never the intention of the relationship. as such, forcing the woman to carry the child after such intercourse is violent to the woman. thus many women would still do the atrocious self inducted abortions.

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Equal protection. If rape victims can have it – everyone can. Don’t play the left’s abortion justification game. They win, unborn babies lose.

CycloneCDB on February 7, 2012 at 6:17 PM

but the host will feel she is double raped and much more likely to do something tragic. i bet you would not rationalize so easily if you witnessed such tragedy.

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 6:47 PM

forcing people to abstinence is a sick joke. it will never happen and people will always seek sex.
now what?

I know. Try joining me on this thread.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 6:50 PM

forcing the woman to carry the child after such intercourse is violent to the woman. thus many women would still do the atrocious self inducted abortions.

Anyone actually carrying this out would — with my preferred law — be held accountable to first-degree premeditated murder and subject to just penalties up to execution.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 6:52 PM

but the host will feel she is double raped and much more likely to do something tragic. i bet you would not rationalize so easily if you witnessed such tragedy.

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Not saying I wouldn’t make the exception. Just pointing out the the “tricks” of the pro-abortion side of the argument. I’m not the one looking to kill an unborn child as an alternative to wearing a condom. I could concede the rape argument if the pro-abortion side were willing to agree that convenience abortion is absolutely heinous and morally reprehensible.

CycloneCDB on February 7, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Anyone actually carrying this out would — with my preferred law — be held accountable to first-degree premeditated murder and subject to just penalties up to execution.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 6:52 PM

execution? its a coherent position but shocking.

here enter a another part of the argument. why is it a fertilized cell or any of those early pregnancy stages have the same rights legal rights as a full term baby when it misses almost everything that would make it a baby.to grant the same legal status to an early pregnancy as to a full term baby not going to convince many people as a reasonable law.

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Not saying I wouldn’t make the exception. Just pointing out the the “tricks” of the pro-abortion side of the argument. I’m not the one looking to kill an unborn child as an alternative to wearing a condom. I could concede the rape argument if the pro-abortion side were willing to agree that convenience abortion is absolutely heinous and morally reprehensible.

CycloneCDB on February 7, 2012 at 6:55 PM

better say that immediately instead of scandalizing the other side of the argument with no benefit to your own side.

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM

execution? its a coherent position but shocking.

Not at all.

The woman is physical adult or at least adolescent who has had several life experiences, including in most cases the pleasures of sex and physical and/or emotional closeness. And food, and seeing things, and being hugged.

She would — for her convenience and after enjoying sex — take away every experience from … get this … her own child.

Hanging is too good for a “person” like that. Same goes for her physician and anyone who talks her into it, including casual lay, boyfriend, or husband.

So to be clear, if you’ve been in that situation and advocated it, eventually arranging with someone to kill your child, I would like a law that would see you hanged. I would also support it being done retroactively as abortion is a crime against humanity.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Nothing personal.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 7:19 PM

She would — for her convenience and after enjoying sex — take away every experience from … get this … her own child.
Random on February 7, 2012 at 7:09 PM

in the scenario you paint it seems an error on the part of the girl, but, nevertheless you have to answer this:
why is it a fertilized cell or any of those early pregnancy stages have the same rights legal rights as a full term baby when it misses almost everything that would make it a baby?to grant the same legal status to an early pregnancy as to a full term baby not going to convince many people as a reasonable law.

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 7:25 PM

So sex is a need like water , air, and food? Someone needs to go research the differences between needs and wants. Just so much stupidity.

CW on February 7, 2012 at 7:29 PM

i think yes because having the child was never the intention of the relationship. as such, forcing the woman to carry the child after such intercourse is violent to the woman. thus many women would still do the atrocious self inducted abortions.

I have to hand it to Nathor. “Having the child was not the intent.” How rich! So, if they did intend to get pregnant, but then changed their mind…then it would not be permitted, right?

How’s about NOT having the child was NOT the intent, so we won’t abort the babies. If you haven’t figured out yet that unprotected sex = baby, you are too dumb to even find the hole. Its just a matter of not caring enough, because Roe v Wade has given them an acceptable Plan B to fall back upon.

CycloneCDB on February 7, 2012 at 7:32 PM

“when it misses almost everything that would make it a baby?”

You mean like human DNA? The complete informational structure that make us human and define our species? Combined into one organism, programmed for life and survival and reproduction?

Random on February 7, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Random on February 7, 2012 at 7:32 PM

So sex is a need like water , air, and food? Someone needs to go research the differences between needs and wants. Just so much stupidity.

CW on February 7, 2012 at 7:29 PM

I once saw an episode of Seinfeld where they made a bet of who would pass more time without self gratification. needless to say that no one lasted long except the one that lied.
and somehow abstinence brings me this vision of medieval priests self flagellating because of impure thoughts.

the above are jokes, but its a sick joke to think humans are capable holding this “want”. they cannot, so its becomes a need.

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 7:37 PM

the above are jokes, but its a sick joke to think humans are capable holding this “want”. they cannot, so its becomes a need.

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Oh please. You will not die without it. Try that with air ,water, and food…go ahead try it. After that try going without sex. Really are you that dumb?

CW on February 7, 2012 at 7:39 PM

I wonder if Seinfeld references are considered evidence in court or even fair game in a political or school debate.

/

CW on February 7, 2012 at 7:41 PM

You mean like human DNA? The complete informational structure that make us human and define our species? Combined into one organism, programmed for life and survival and reproduction?
Random on February 7, 2012 at 7:32 PM

yep. the same dna that is produced at conception and many, many times its inviable dna that leads to the common 1 trimester spontaneous abortions. the same one.
by the way, are you atheist?

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 7:41 PM

So sex is a need like water , air, and food? Someone needs to go research the differences between needs and wants. Just so much stupidity.

CW on February 7, 2012 at 7:29 PM

On your part, in this case.

Reproduction is even MORE important than survival, since the purpose of life is transmission of genes into future generations. Sex is a huge instinct, and so is thirst.

But one could simply choose not to drink, and some have. That’s less damaging to our future as a species than refraining from sex.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Natural death isn’t an overt intentional murderous act, nathor.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Infant mortality used to be high. People used to die younger. These are arguments in favor of legalizing killing people?

In-utero mortality is going down too.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 7:43 PM

But one could simply choose not to drink, and some have. That’s less damaging to our future as a species than refraining from sex.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Ok you go without water for a month and I will go without sex for a month . On March 8th we will meet right here at HA and see how things went.

/

Seriously some of you are dumber than dirt.

CW on February 7, 2012 at 7:44 PM

On your part, in this case.
Random on February 7, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Wow good comeback by the way.

Do you even realize how long you can live without water? Seriously.

CW on February 7, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Ok you go without water for a month and I will go without sex for a month . On March 8th we will meet right here at HA and see how things went.

Death is inevitable, and yet here we are. Sex is evitable, and yet without it here we would not be.

Reproduction is more essential.

Random on February 7, 2012 at 7:49 PM

No moral person will ever contribute to Susan Komen again. When the withdrew their objection to planned parent hood, they lost anyone who is not immoral. They only have left the criminals who support planned parenthood.

proconstitution on February 7, 2012 at 7:57 PM

CW on February 7, 2012 at 7:48 PM

how long did you manage to abstain of any sexual gratification when you were a teen? just curious…

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 8:13 PM

If she doesn’t want to get pregnant there’s a sure-fire method guaranteed to work.

darwin on February 7, 2012 at 5:51 PM
abstinence? … there is much to say about this method but before we get into that, what about rape?

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 6:01 PM

What about rape? Care to share just how many pregnancies are the result of rape?

That said, lets punish the unborn with death as an excuse for what? Retaliation of the action from the child’s father? Or that it is just to much to ask for the mother to give the child up for adoption?

Nine months is just too hard to deal with knowing that a child will have a life with loving parents through adoption? Must mean that the mother just can’t deal emotionally with the life that she helped create. By force yes, but she still helped create something wonderful in the end. How did she deal with the violent rape if she can’t deal with 9 months of creating something wonderful for other parents.

In the end we are still dealing with minuscule percentages. Most abortions are from irresponsible people who can’t wait 5 seconds to get a condom on, or be on birth control because they don’t know how to keep their legs closed.

Conservative4Ever on February 7, 2012 at 8:39 PM

. but i believe most women when visiting PP have a sobering experience and are more prone to listen to sensible advices like doing their routine cancer checks, std checks and take on contraception to avoid returning to the place.

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Funny. Before, you said people aren’t entitled to their own facts, but here you are ‘proving’ a point with self-admitted conjecture. All of your beliefs are just conjecture, just as you accuse others of the same. Typical leftist hypocrisy.

Squiggy on February 7, 2012 at 8:42 PM

How sad. After Komen announced its original decision, I wrote that the decoupling of Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood proved that “women’s health” and “abortion rights” are not synonymous. The two aren’t the same, but, apparently, Planned Parenthood has so great a grip on the media that, in media presentations to the public, “women’s health” and “abortion rights” will remain interchangeable.

It was push back from the people who support and give to Komen that changed their policy. Go look at their Facebook Page. Komen never funded abortion. They were funding preventative care to at risk women and Planned Parenthood was a good vehicle for distributing that care to those who need it. Since introducing the policy and now responding to pressure reversing it, they have managed to alienate both sides of the abortion divide even though this has nothing to do with abortion. It’s a PR disaster.

lexhamfox on February 7, 2012 at 8:45 PM

What about rape? Care to share just how many pregnancies are the result of rape?

little but have to be dealt with.

That said, lets punish the unborn with death as an excuse for what? Retaliation of the action from the child’s father? Or that it is just to much to ask for the mother to give the child up for adoption?

i say again, its very likely the woman will feel she is double raped if she is forced to have the child and much more likely to do something tragic such as this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-induced_abortion

Nine months is just too hard to deal with knowing that a child will have a life with loving parents through adoption? Must mean that the mother just can’t deal emotionally with the life that she helped create. By force yes, but she still helped create something wonderful in the end. How did she deal with the violent rape if she can’t deal with 9 months of creating something wonderful for other parents.

if she can endure rape, she can endure pregnancy and child birth? i am not believing what i read!!! how can people make such arguments.

In the end we are still dealing with minuscule percentages. Most abortions are from irresponsible people who can’t wait 5 seconds to get a condom on, or be on birth control because they don’t know how to keep their legs closed.

Conservative4Ever on February 7, 2012 at 8:39 PM

focus on rape now. i make the case for other abortions separately and its easier for you to beat down.

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Funny. Before, you said people aren’t entitled to their own facts, but here you are ‘proving’ a point with self-admitted conjecture. All of your beliefs are just conjecture, just as you accuse others of the same. Typical leftist hypocrisy.

Squiggy on February 7, 2012 at 8:42 PM

you are confusing me with another poster…

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Yeah, um, never mind that abortion has been linked to an increased risk of breast cancer. So much for women’s health.

patriette on February 7, 2012 at 3:24 PM

wow, mrs. Santorum is that you.Sorry to tell you this, but you’re wrong. No link.

Tina wrote “In the end, then, Planned Parenthood might still kill off Komen as a source of funding … by killing off Komen. PP officials should be so proud. Severely wounding a major women’s health organization like Komen certainly demonstrates concern for women’s health.”

Pardon me, perhaps you might have missed the part where Komen began this fiasco by withholding funds to PP? How was PP supposed to control the tidal wave of anti-Komen resentment that followed? The only one here to blame is Komen, period.

greataunty on February 7, 2012 at 8:54 PM

nathor on February 7, 2012 at 8:50 PM

You are a joke.

Conservative4Ever on February 7, 2012 at 9:49 PM

Did you all see her eyes in that picture?
Looks like she just saw Barney Frank…in his blue sweater!

KOOLAID2 on February 7, 2012 at 10:18 PM

If Komen is happy funding the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent children, then I hope it crashes and burns.

GMO on February 7, 2012 at 10:58 PM

I’ve given a lot of money to Susan G. Komen over the years. I’ve participated in walks ‘for the cure’. I always thought that money was going toward cancer research. I was disappointed when I learned that some of those dollars somehow made it to Planned Parenthood. I came close to making another donation to Komen a few days ago. As it is, I would rather my dollars go toward an organization that actually sends its dollars toward causes I believe in; there are lots of great organizations out there. Komen will no longer be among them.

tyrex on February 7, 2012 at 11:31 PM

The part of the story that gets me it this sense of entitlement from the baby killers at PP. How dare Komen not fund them? They rallied pro-murderers and feminists (as well as the MSM) to their faction and did a very good job of mischaracterizing the relationship between Komen and the baby killing whores of PP.
Happy Nomad on February 7, 2012 at 12:56 PM

In Kansas, the Kansas legislature defunded PP in the last legislative session and gave the federal money (I think Title X money?) to other providers who do not provide abortions. PP took them to court, and the judge is FORCING Kansas to continue funding PP until the case is heard.

cptacek on February 8, 2012 at 1:15 AM

Komen lost my support when I found out they donated to PP. Then I supported them for a brief second as they pulled the funding. Now they don’t exist as far as I’m concerned. Spineless and pathetic. There are other organizations that stay true to their mission and don’t support baby murderers.

tyketto on February 7, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Get your money back. If they don’t refund it, sue them for fraud in small claims court.

cptacek on February 8, 2012 at 1:16 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3