Green Room

The real tragedy of the Komen story

posted at 6:16 pm on February 2, 2012 by

Yes, this is a column I never, ever wanted to have to write, concerning the now hotly contested story of the decision by the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation to suspend funding for breast cancer screening to Planned Parenthood.(You’ll excuse me if this article refers to the group as “Komen” below, but the name is a bit much to type out.) But before I get to the various bees under my bonnet about the specifics of the case, I would open up with one meta-story complaint. In a vital electoral season when the nation seems to finally be ready to tackle serious issues of jobs, debt, deficit and entitlement reform, it is a source of despair that we shall apparently once again funnel the discussion back to abortion, one of the most divisive issues our nation has seen in its history and a subject on which virtually no combatant is likely to change their mind at this point. It simply rips up the turf further, peeling away the center of the country into one corner of the ring or the other, regardless of their worries about fiscal probity.

But, with that said… on to the subject at hand. This entire process makes me sad beyond the capacity of words to describe. In the smaller lens, the entire idea of extending the conservative war against Planned Parenthood to embroil an agency like Komen is enough to incite rage. The media maneuvering on all sides has already devolved the discussion into something more suited to a Super PAC ad. The foundation was quick like a bunny to release barely plausible mutterings about how none of this had anything to do with abortion, but rather with new rules regarding who would be eligible for grant money dedicated to screenings for breast cancer.

[T]he organization is trying to focus on “higher impact programs” and get rid of “duplicative” grants — and she says the “scurrilous accusations” about the change have been “profoundly hurtful to the organization.”

The reality, almost beyond a shadow of a doubt, is far more complex and distinctly political in nature. The Atlantic provides two different points of view incorporating direct interviews with some of the main players involved. One piece by Jeffrey Goldberg strongly suggests that the new rules put in place by Komen were a direct result of external pressure from pro-life groups, combined with internal moves by newly anointed VP Karen Handel, previously a gubernatorial candidate from Georgia and a staunch anti-abortion advocate.

But three sources with direct knowledge of the Komen decision-making process told me that the rule was adopted in order to create an excuse to cut-off Planned Parenthood. (Komen gives out grants to roughly 2,000 organizations, and the new “no-investigations” rule applies to only one so far.) The decision to create a rule that would cut funding to Planned Parenthood, according to these sources, was driven by the organization’s new senior vice-president for public policy, Karen Handel, a former gubernatorial candidate from Georgia who is staunchly anti-abortion and who has said that since she is “pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood.” (The Komen grants to Planned Parenthood did not pay for abortion or contraception services, only cancer detection, according to all parties involved.)

A companion piece from Megan McArdle suggests that, while it may have been political in nature, it was needed to ensure long term viability for Komen.

Goldberg clearly disapproves of the decision. Though I’m pro-choice, I don’t share the outrage that was roiling my Twitter feed this morning. It is, as Josh Barro noted, absurd to pretend that abortion is somehow incidental to Planned Parenthood’s services, and since money is fungible, giving them money is probably helping to fund abortion provision. Since I think this is a very tough issue on which reasonable people can disagree, I can see why the federal government, and private foundations, would decline to fund their operations.

Yes, money is fungible. We all know this. But those without blinders also know that abortions are actually not the majority of the work done by Planned Parenthood. In fact they are not anywhere near the 90% figure once quoted by Jon Kyle. (Disregarding his later politically charged pronunciations that the figures were not intended to be factual statements.) In fact, such procedures account for roughly 3% of the work performed. (EDIT: See below) And Komen, according to every source I can find, has never once spoken out or supported in any way abortion procedures. They raise funds which go to early cancer detection, and this is also something which PP provides at little to no cost to tens of thousands of women, along with other routine preventative health services. I’m only aware of this because of personal family and friend contacts who have made use of these services over the years and who have never had an abortion.

But even these facts submitted in evidence are not the key point of this admittedly lengthy diatribe. I understand the vast divide in our nation over abortion and the heated feelings it can provoke. And because of that, I can also comprehend the visceral hatred which many conservatives hold for Planned Parenthood and the wish for its destruction whether I agree with them or not. But not so for Komen.

The key point here comes back to a completely unrelated piece I penned just this week which dealt with the difference between “civilians” in our political and ideological wars and people such as George Soros and the Koch brothers. In it – in part – I wrote:

I’m also mindful of the fact that there are many people out there who have no interest in our game and are simply trying to get on with their lives. If you are, for example, the owner of a dry cleaning shop who happens to get caught up in a political story, it can turn out to be a disaster. Even if you happened to be involved in some business contract with somebody who once worked with a company in Iran, or if you offered a standard health plan which was inclusive of some services offered at Planned Parenthood, I would strenuously object to your suddenly being thrust into the political arena and having your life disrupted against your will. You weren’t part of our war and I have no interest in seeing you become collateral damage in one of our battles.

I now find it ironic that I invoked the name of Planned Parenthood in a piece crafted when I wasn’t even remotely considering the Komen case. But it certainly applies here. There are already pro-choice combatants lining up to call Komen cowards and demand that the faithful cease supporting them financially. (While working on this article, my wife – yes… a Democrat – described a mailing list of her friends calling to “send their pink **** back to Komen” over the story.) It is true, as Goldberg pointed out, that some conservative forces are suddenly calling for donations to the group to support their “brave” decision which may make up some of the funding in the short term, and some high profile opportunists like Michael Bloomberg are dumping cash into PP in exchange for a fast headline, but that doesn’t seem like a long term, balanced solution.

No matter what any of us think of the 3% of PP’s business which consists of providing abortions, there is always a balance to be struck when dealing with entities which do things we don’t like. In a vastly larger, but still related sense, we could list the various evils and shortcomings of Saudi Arabia. I don’t need to list them here. But we still seem to do business with them no matter whether there is a Republican or a Democrat in the White House. Perhaps there is a parallel lesson here to be studied.

My friend Ed Morrissey jumped into the fray early on, praising the efforts and lauding the work of of Live Action in trying to close the doors of Planned Parenthood. We can have that particular fight another day in terms of how systemic the problems at PP are and the best course of corrective action, but as I noted above, they have still provided non-abortion related services to many women in need. These include breast cancer screening at little or no cost, along with similar services. But they aren’t the only ones who work in this field and all of them rely on financial support from the public. Is it a “clean” service to throw the baby out with the bath water in each of these cases?

No, in the end, what we’ve managed to accomplish is precisely what I worried about in the column from earlier this week. We’ve taken a group which was singly and purely focused on preventing breast cancer – a malady which affects both “bad girls” and “good girls” alike – and dragged them into the political battlefield on a subject which they never sought to engage. The final result – no matter how you feel about abortion, Planned Parenthood, or any of the myriad soldiers involved – is that less money winds up going to fight a fully preventable disease afflicting women who cut across all political and ideological lines.

So for those who are doing an end zone dance this week over the decision made by Komen… I hope you’re proud of yourselves. I see no reason to celebrate.

EDIT: (Jazz) Thanks to the comments for this link which indicates that abortion services performed by PP are probably more on par with 10% than 3%, though still far less than 90.)

Recently in the Green Room:

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

Did I get duped by a headline when I read that several investigations showed that women weren’t getting mammograms? Do young women need breast cancer screenings or is that not for older women? I’m not so worried about the percentage, but the actual number of babies murdered by the blood thirsty profiteers.

Donald Draper on February 2, 2012 at 6:26 PM

In fact, such procedures account for roughly 3% of the work performed.

Actually factcheck.org(certainly not conservative) says it is closer to 10%.

melle1228 on February 2, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Here is the link to factcheck that says 1 in 10 customers is an abortion

melle1228 on February 2, 2012 at 6:30 PM

Any % is too much if they are using money confiscated from me by the force of government. Let the pro-abortion leftist turds pay for it all they want. Problem is, they only want to spend OTHER people’s money, not their own.

You are wrong on this. There are many ways to provide care for those that need it. There are many people and organizations what would give everything they have to stop abortion AND help cancer (AIDS, MS, etc.)

Hueydriver on February 2, 2012 at 6:49 PM

How exactly is this proof

that less money winds up going to fight a fully preventable disease afflicting women who cut across all political and ideological lines.

?

Would each woman not have gotten a screening had they not went to PP for it? Do they not value their health enough to pay for it themselves? Does their health insurance not cover it? And if they’re poor, medicaid covers mammograms once a year.

I have no sympathy for a woman who only goes so far as to use the services from a murder mill started for the purpose of eugenics, and no other resources, for her mammograms.

PennsylvaniaPainTrain on February 2, 2012 at 7:16 PM

IMO, if the Komen fund DOES not want to fund pp that should be THEIR choice. The taxpayers fund pp and gosh knows others like them without OUR approval. I just pray they don’t cave. I am SICK TO DEATH of dc dictating how and who private funds be given. Hang in there Komen and God be with your for your effort.
L

letget on February 2, 2012 at 7:30 PM

In a vital electoral season when the nation seems to finally be ready to tackle serious issues of jobs, debt, deficit and entitlement reform, it is a source of despair that we shall apparently once again funnel the discussion back to abortion

That is entirely the fault of insane religious manics who need to be put into camps so they can preach their insanity to other freaks and leave the the good folk alone. The sane and rational shouldn’t be bothered by lunatics and fanatically aggressive stupid losers

Your Mamma loves me on February 2, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Religious conservatives are better donors to charity than liberals. Catholics operate a ton of hospitals. When the story of Komen’s Planned Parenthood donations started getting legs a few months back, wallets were snapping shut.

Whatever they were getting out of Planned Parenthood was not worth what they were losing.

Sekhmet on February 2, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Percentage of actions are a bogus and deceptive way of looking at things imo.
A phone call for direction to where a woman can get a mammogram counts as 1. An abortion counts as 1.
Hardly the same.

Mimzey on February 2, 2012 at 8:06 PM

“In a vital electoral season when the nation seems to finally be ready to tackle serious issues of jobs, debt, deficit and entitlement reform, it is a source of despair that we shall apparently once again funnel the discussion back to abortion,”

Oh I’m so sorry that 9 months before an election the conversation got diverted (for probably 5 minutes) from the issues YOU think are important to one that many of us believe is equally important. Poor thing.

Cheesestick on February 2, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Is it a “clean” service to throw the baby out with the bath water in each of these cases?

What an apt analogy.

Give me a break, Jazz. I notice you didn’t try to prove that breast cancer accounts for a greater percentage of their efforts than abortion. Is that because they mainly do referrals as Komen said and don’t actually do very much to help women who might have cancer?

I’m not out to demonize PP. I’ve used them in the past, and you’re right that there are not a lot of organizations that provide the services they do that women truly need (not abortion), but Komen is about breast cancer, not STD screening or even pap smears. People who donate to Komen are doing so because they are concerned about breast cancer and want their money going to fight it. That’s not PP, not by a long shot.

Esthier on February 2, 2012 at 9:12 PM

In a vital electoral season when the nation seems to finally be ready to tackle serious issues of jobs, debt, deficit and entitlement reform,

jazzy you be the stupid

newrouter on February 2, 2012 at 9:38 PM

It is never, NEVER, an inconvenient time to discuss murder!!! Politics be damned. Bottomline, Komen was losing donors left and right when people found out that they supported PP. And now we see donations going up from people in support of Komen dumping PP.

As for the percent of $$ going to abortion, who cares if it is 1% or 99%? I just find it odd that when PP is restricted from abortions, they tend to close shop? Why is that? It can’t be that they lost a 10% revenue stream, especially when they take money for mammograms, yet not a single PP facility does them. Instead they refer their patients to a facility that does. What’s that adage about ‘liars figuring’? Anything PP does is just cover for their true mission – to kill as many babies, especially the inferior races, imbeciles etc as postulated by Sanger. Her coup was getting the black ministers to join her cause in decimating their own people. Yep, Satan and his minions do a hi-five every time a fetus is snuffed.

Frankly, when half the Americans are pro-life, it will always be a political issue. If you don’t like it Jazz, too bad for you because 50% of Americans disagree with you and your ilk and will bring it up as many times as they please.

AH_C on February 2, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Bottomline, Komen was losing donors left and right when people found out that they supported PP. And now we see donations going up from people in support of Komen dumping PP.

Bingo. And that’s how it should be. Donors should, in fact, be able to influence what their charities do.

J.E. Dyer on February 2, 2012 at 10:50 PM

Wait a sec. Jazz, you actually believe that Komen is just going to throw that money away? No, it’s going to go to an organization that actually performs mammograms. PP doesn’t.

I am a cancer doctor who has treated hundreds of breast cancer patients, many of them poor. I have never, never, ever had a breast patient who had her initial diagnosis in a PP clinic. That’s b/c they don’t have mammography equipment. Sure, they may do a breast exam, but so does every other doctor in the area, which gets to another point:

All the wonderful non-abortion things that PP supposedly does are already done by every other hospital and doctor in town. Since PP locates in cities, these other services are readily available. The only thing PP is needed for is abortion. It doesn’t matter if it’s 90%, 10%, 1% of their services; that’s the only reason they are there. Your argument is akin to saying that car dealerships exist to give out coffee because they hand out more coffee cups to their customers than they sell actual cars.

Let’s not even mention how you have willfully ignored Kermit Gosnell and Abby Johnson and Lila Rose and all the other reasons we have to suspect that PP is a greedy charnel house. Shame on you for giving them cover. Shame.

xuyee on February 2, 2012 at 11:08 PM

Jazz,

We are talking about killing babies. It doesn’t matter how many PAP smears they provide to impoverished women, they are still killing babies. There is nothing that they can do to make their side business of baby murdering acceptable.

This is not just some unfortunate controversy that pops up every once in a while to distract the people from the important issues. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE. Jobs, healthcare, entitlement reform, be damned. I’d give it all to the left if we could end abortion.

Komen is not the victim here. They decided to donate to PP. They knew, or should have known, what they were doing. It’s no secret that PP is the primary abortion provider in this country and that donating to or ceasing donations to PP will generate a firestorm. If they are taking heat now it’s because the made the choice to go into the kitchen.

johnsl14 on February 2, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Wait.What did I just read?!?!? “Planned Parenthood” has plenty of resources. They have the ability to raise funds if they want.

SouthernGent on February 2, 2012 at 11:19 PM

The final result – no matter how you feel about abortion, Planned Parenthood, or any of the myriad soldiers involved – is that less money winds up going to fight a fully preventable disease afflicting women who cut across all political and ideological lines.

If pro-abortion people want to pull their dollars from helping find a cure for a wicked cancer, that’s on their conscience, not ours.

thebrokenrattle on February 3, 2012 at 1:19 AM

What liberal garbage this blog has turned into with the newest entrants. Even Allahpundit isn’t so eye-rollingly callous about the abortion issue.

Your argument is akin to saying that car dealerships exist to give out coffee because they hand out more coffee cups to their customers than they sell actual cars.

xuyee gets it right.

You are suggesting it’s a tragedy that people are paying attention to the horror that has butchered alive 50 million American children, because… you really wish we’d focus on the “economic” issues. Like what, exactly? Repealing the individual mandate? Reducing the power of unions? Reforming the baseline budgeting process? Do you actually see any hope of moving the needle on any of those problems in this political cycle?

joe_doufu on February 3, 2012 at 2:00 AM

3%, 10%, 90%… whatever. The bastards need to be shut down either way.

Mr. Prodigy on February 3, 2012 at 3:22 AM

No one, including Konen, is morally obligated to provide funding for Planned Parenthood. What’s more, anyone who does fund them is perfectly within their rights to stop funding them for any reason whatsoever.

If a few militant pro-choicers get their panties in a twist, they stop donating to Konen…but I’m betting the majority of them never gave a dime to Konen in the first place. They’re too focused on abortion to care about breast cancer, which (to them) has always been a red herring to justify federal funding of Planned Parenthood in the first place.

Speaking of the federal government, I see nothing in the Constitution that justifies giving tax dollars to Planned Parenthood…so yes, their federal funding should be yanked post-haste – especially since so many taxpayers find such funding morally repugnant.

That goes for a lot of other organizations, as well. Our federal budget is too bloated and our government too grasping and overreaching as it is. We can’t afford this crap.

DRayRaven on February 3, 2012 at 8:34 AM

One other thing – I hold this opinion despite the fact that I am not “pro-life.”

This is not only a constitutional issue from a spending perspective, but a fiscal issue, as well.

And I don’t care for disingenous arguments…and the “breast cancer” defense of Planned Parenthood’s mission, which is primarily abortion related, is disingenuousness defined.

I’m so sorry you feel Konen’s decision might distract from fiscal issues in the upcoming political campaign, but that’s ironic since federal funding is a fiscal issue on its own, even if it’s a minor one in the grand fiscal scheme.

To say nothing of the fact that no one has a right to tell Konen how to disperse its money.

DRayRaven on February 3, 2012 at 8:39 AM

No part of the Komen story is a tragedy. I’m barely pro-life and have zero problem making PP work for its supper. There are plenty of other places to get medical care besides PP, it’s a liberal lie that it’s the only place women can go.

alwaysfiredup on February 3, 2012 at 8:57 AM

[side note]: Good job to Jazz for (perhaps inadvertently) bringing very disparate HA commenters together to the same “side” of an issue.

The (liberal) idea that women (in general) and breast cancer patients (specifically) are going to suffer because Planned Parenthood does not receive this extra money is pretty silly, when you think about it.

So, with all due deference to you Jazz, your premise is more than flawed.

RightWay79 on February 3, 2012 at 9:15 AM

So for those who are doing an end zone dance this week over the decision made by Komen

Seriously Jazz…this isn’t in the news because of any end zone dances. It is on the news because of the fans screaming for bloody murder because a player on the team decided not to sign with the team again. That is usually considered aberrant behavior… unless Komen is the the “LeBron” of women’s health issues.

Bear on February 3, 2012 at 9:26 AM

“Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?”
One could make the similar argument that the gas chambers were only 10% of the activities engaged in by the Nazis. They made the trains run on time, revived the German economy, etc, etc.

The point is, 3% or 10%, Abortions are the backbone of PPs business. Making one dollar on even 1 death is too much.
Moreover, PP was doing screening referrals, not the screening themselves, while skimming grant money for doing so. Why not pay the screening parties directly?
As Ron Dreher said at the American Conservative: This is a clarifying moment.

Think of it! Three decades of service to women fighting breast cancer, and having raised and distributed hundreds of millions of dollars nearly $2 billion towards that goal, means absolutely nothing to these people now trying to destroy Komen. They could have denounced Komen’s decision, but in light of all Komen has done, and still does for women, turned their ire on the Republicans, the Religious Right, and so forth. But no, Komen broke ranks, and it must be dealt with harshly. And the sympathetic mainstream media is helping them do the job. All this reminds one of exactly what we’re dealing with here: what John Paul II called the culture of death. It is helpful to be reminded which side you’re on.

Curmudgeon on February 3, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Jazz, I have been trying to calm down the “pro-choice” people I know on this issue. I’m happy to see their energy in supporting abortion, but I think their rage on this issues is misplaced. Your arguments will help me make this point better. Thanks!

thuja on February 3, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Abortion increases risk of breast cancer.

More abortion means more breast cancer.

More breast cancer means more donations to Komen.

itsnotaboutme on February 3, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Planned Parenthood is not just an abortion provider, they were formed as a eugenics group with a racial motivation – and please note they refuse to disavow Margaret Sanger.

In a sane world no one would want to work with such an organization.

18-1 on February 3, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Sorry Jazz, you just can’t put a good face on killing babies, not matter how hard you try to spin it. The fact is, Planned Parenthood was started by a person who wanted to exterminate “undesirables”, and they are still living up to that tradition.
Why don’t you just admit you approve of killing babies?! Babies whose hearts are beating a mere 21 days after conception.
Do me a favor, watch an abortion, take out the remains, and tell me that isn’t a human life you are holding.

Sterling Holobyte on February 3, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Jazz, all this debate about the percent of “services” performed by PP in relation to abortions is smoke. Let’s cut to the chase. Aside from donations and grants to PP, what is the percentage of income from abortions?

You bet your sweet (J)azz that it is not ten percent. . .

BigAlSouth on February 3, 2012 at 4:10 PM

I have a bigger issue with the money transfer from one organization to another…. If I donate to Komen, I intend the money to go to research. If I want to donate to PP, then I will donate to PP. It’s the reason that I don’t give to the United Way, but do donate to the Boy Scouts, the Red Cross and other organizations individually.

2nd Ammendment Mother on February 3, 2012 at 5:03 PM

About 40% of their budget goes to abortions. That’s significant. That’s like saying that a car dealership isn’t really in the business of selling cars because most people who come in only get an oil change at the service center.

phelps on February 3, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Komen Foundation is pleased to solicit and get donations yet it is efforting to Infinity to try and NOT declare support for abortion while clearly doing so.

IF that wasn’t the case, they could clearly issue their “grants” to Planned Parenthood with direct commands that their donations not be used toward or in any way associated with abortions. Komen doesn’t do that, from what I understand.

Planned Parenthood has a real racket going on under RUSE of being engaged in the delivery of “womens health care”. What they do is referrals when it suits them (for actual screening tests such as mammograms, which they don’t provide but simply “refer” people to public health centers for). Free condoms seems to be Planned Parenthood’s extent of something associated with “health care” except as they define abortions, which they DO engage in, as “health care”.

At this rate, these massive foundations — both Planned Parenthood and Komen Foundation — seem like rackets for purposes of scamming millions/billions off needy, emotionally shaky people. They could just as well call a sandbox “womens healthcare” and Pelosi, the Democrats and abortionists would laud it if she/they believed there was an abortion available somewhere in the infrastructure.

Lourdes on February 3, 2012 at 6:37 PM

And, the excuse of “hey, I’m providing women’s healthcare (so everything else should not be examined as to what I’m doing)” is ghastly.

Ghastly. It’s the excuse of psychotics.

Lourdes on February 3, 2012 at 6:39 PM

I have a bigger issue with the money transfer from one organization to another…. If I donate to Komen, I intend the money to go to research. If I want to donate to PP, then I will donate to PP. It’s the reason that I don’t give to the United Way, but do donate to the Boy Scouts, the Red Cross and other organizations individually.

2nd Ammendment Mother on February 3, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Yes, I think wise and responsible people should (if not already as you express) direct their charitable giving to destinations that they’ve investigated beyond the public-relations presentation level.

When I was younger and more impressionable, I used to be really quick to promote and support those so-called “environmental” organizations and foundations. You know, clean water, protect the kittens and puppies and little goslings, pick up the trash, breath decent air, no garbage in the oceans and lakes, etc.

Then I found out after doing more reading about the most well known orgs. in that regard and found out they were fronts for Marxist-Communist-DemocraticParty methods, mostly aimed at capturing the vulnerable for life based upon emotional ploys and getting your ongoing annual “contributions” so you can read their “newsletters” and such.

Lourdes on February 3, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Abortion increases risk of breast cancer.

More abortion means more breast cancer.

More breast cancer means more donations to Komen.

itsnotaboutme on February 3, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Well said, sadly…

Lourdes on February 3, 2012 at 6:44 PM

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/03/planned-parenthoods-abortions-are-just-3-claim-is-false/

for more information on how the numbers are twisted

j2kp0t on February 3, 2012 at 8:04 PM

j2kp0t on February 3, 2012 at 8:04 PM: (From the link

This, of course, says nothing of the percentage in money going to abortion. It’s kind of silly for Planned Parenthood…very ridiculous, in fact…to equate one pregnancy test or one condom handout as the same kind of service as one abortion. They couldn’t be more different in time, cost, or effect. This isn’t news to Planned Parenthood either. Clearly, they just want to make themselves look like a vital health service when they are really just a money hungry abortion giant, preying on women, men, and babies.

My point exactly.

Hey, PP, why doncha just charge for mammogram referrals or condom handouts, you know, just like you charge FOR ABORTIONS. To equate the three as “routine services” is duplicitous.

BigAlSouth on February 4, 2012 at 8:24 AM

Abortion increases risk of breast cancer.

More abortion means more breast cancer.

More breast cancer means more donations to Komen.

itsnotaboutme on February 3, 2012 at 12:41 PM

“Pro-lifers” have been lying thusly for well over fifteen years. Giving birth while a teenager does decrease the risk of breast. A teenager who has an abortion has the same level of risk as one who never got pregnant. Also, there is no effect at all women over 20. I can’t but help wonder if the pro-lifers who tell this lie also tell their kids that masturbation causes hair to grow on their palms.

One more point, it is insane and hateful to believe that the Komen Foundation people want more breast cancer.

thuja on February 4, 2012 at 3:11 PM

I have a bigger issue with the money transfer from one organization to another…. If I donate to Komen, I intend the money to go to research. If I want to donate to PP, then I will donate to PP. It’s the reason that I don’t give to the United Way, but do donate to the Boy Scouts, the Red Cross and other organizations individually.

2nd Ammendment Mother on February 3, 2012 at 5:03 PM

I completely agree. I also wish that firms didn’t contribute to charity. I think I should be able buy what I want and denote to the charity I choose. Instead, when I buy stuff I end up donating charities not of my choosing.

thuja on February 4, 2012 at 3:13 PM