Headlines

Rod Dreher

Komen and abortion: Here comes the liberal blacklist

Washington Post health reporter Sarah Kliff tweets that the Yale School of Public Health is considering withdrawing its invitation to Komen founder Nancy Brinker to give its commencement address. Nothing this woman has done for women’s health in the 30 years she’s run the breast cancer charity matters anymore to these people; it’s all about abortion to them…

You know, the more I think about it, the more I realize this is a clarifying moment. Think of it! Three decades of service to women fighting breast cancer, and having raised and distributed … 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.

Read the Article

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

The Wrath of the Abortion Movement Unleashed on Komen

Comments

Comment pages: « Previous 1 2

Sorry Charlemagne, thought I read Pro-Lifers… my bad!

bernzright777 on February 3, 2012 at 9:03 AM

As long as that baby cannot exist without her mother, then the state has no compelling interest.

When the fetus becomes viable outside of the mother’s womb, then the state does have an interest ….

[inklake on February 3, 2012 at 9:00 AM]

So, you are okay with making it illegal to have an abortion after 22 weeks?

Dusty on February 3, 2012 at 9:09 AM

As long as that baby cannot exist without her mother, then the state has no compelling interest.

[inklake on February 3, 2012 at 9:00 AM]

The state also has no compelling interest in the chronically unemployed adults who live off it either. Let’s execute welfare recipients! /liberal logic

Darth Executor on February 3, 2012 at 9:13 AM

>Pal, that has been debunked…your “body” may be your own, but the life >inside is not “their” own…

My body isn’t in quotes, “pal”. Stay out of it.

Or maybe you’re like Santorum, and believe that Griswold was incorrectly decided, too?

inklake on February 3, 2012 at 9:02 AM

It’s not your body, it’s the baby’s. You’re just a mound of flesh around it. Kinda like an egg.

Darth Executor on February 3, 2012 at 9:14 AM

When the fetus becomes viable outside of the mother’s womb, then the state does have an interest, and indeed, that’s what Roe v. Wade, and current law provides.

It’s called ‘privacy’ – AKA, none of your effin’ business.

inklake on February 3, 2012 at 9:00 AM

It’s my business when taxpayers dollars are used to kill babies.

You want an abortion, use your own dime.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 9:22 AM

It’s called ‘privacy’ – AKA, none of your effin’ business.

inklake on February 3, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Killing inconvenient childeren = Privacy

Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

rihar on February 3, 2012 at 9:26 AM

If men could get pregnant, there would be no abortions. There would be 6 months paid leave for all new parents, day care centers and parenting classes in every workplace, part-time tracks to partnership and corporate management, tax credits for homeschooling, free prenatal care, etc. Men would not tolerate the only “choice” being abortion.

rockmom on February 3, 2012 at 8:40 AM

preach, preach, PREACH!!! Why is the pro-life movement not pushing for all of these things? You’d find a *lot* of allies on the pro-choice left. This is our argument from the beginning. Countries who provide those types of services have far fewer abortions. What is our problem?

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 9:31 AM

So here is the standard…if a person kills a pregnant women, they are charged with two murders…but if a woman kills a baby, it’s honored?

right2bright on February 3, 2012 at 9:31 AM

It’s called ‘privacy’ – AKA, none of your effin’ business.

inklake on February 3, 2012 at 9:00 AM

But a baby is not “viable” when out of the womb, it still needs 24/7 care…if you let it lay on the table it will die.
A woman is there to carry the baby to it’s fullest potential. The woman doesn’t “own” the child, it’s the caretaker of the child.
You can quote “legal” all you want, there were and are all kinds of “legal” opinions that are counter to common sense and morality.

right2bright on February 3, 2012 at 9:35 AM

This is our argument from the beginning. Countries who provide those types of services have far fewer abortions. What is our problem?

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Of course that’s your argument … MORE GOVERNMENT!!!!!!! MORE TAX DOLLARS !!!!! YAY!!!!!!!!

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 9:36 AM

preach, preach, PREACH!!! Why is the pro-life movement not pushing for all of these things? You’d find a *lot* of allies on the pro-choice left. This is our argument from the beginning. Countries who provide those types of services have far fewer abortions. What is our problem?

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 9:31 AM

That alliance would last right up to the point the pro-choice people found out they were allied with pro-life people.

If you don’t support abortion, then you can go to hell according to the liberal left.

That’s what this whole article is about. Screw Komen and all the good they’ve done for women in need of help. Why? Because they stopped giving money to the national abortion mill.

That’s all that matters to you people.

Spliff Menendez on February 3, 2012 at 9:40 AM

As long as that baby cannot exist without her mother, then the state has no compelling interest.

[inklake on February 3, 2012 at 9:00 AM]

And by this logic, the state has no compelling interest in protecting the lives of disabled people (say, quadriplegics) who cannot survive without care. And [insert expressions of feigned shock and surprise here] the left has all sorts of professional “ethicists” who are quite prepared to make the latter argument as well as the former.

sadarj on February 3, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Of course that’s your argument … MORE GOVERNMENT!!!!!!! MORE TAX DOLLARS !!!!! YAY!!!!!!!!

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Um, those were all potential corporate policies with the exception of a proposed tax credit. I seriously wonder if you can even read.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Also, on the actual topic of Komen’s decision, they made the right decision even if Planned Parenthood performed no abortions whatsoever. Komen provides funds for preventative care and treatment of breast cancer. PP, by its own admission, farms out its preventative care services, i.e. acts as a middleman. Assuming that Komen is going to be giving the money they would have given to PP to organizations that actually perform the services, then they are improving the outcome for women’s health. More dollars are going to fund actual health care (and therefore more women are being served), and less dollars are being wasted on administrative overhead.

sadarj on February 3, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Um, those were all potential corporate policies with the exception of a proposed tax credit. I seriously wonder if you can even read.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Yeah, no.

You would happily have the government dictate all those measures.

Please take the “free” out of your name. “Liberal” is the antithesis of free.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 9:53 AM

If slavery was kidnapping, it wouldn’t be legal. Whatever you may believe in your heart,the law is clear. Slavery is legal. Kidnapping is not legal. Therefore slavery is not kidnapping. And that’ not going to change anytime soon.
/libfreeordie, 1800′s

If anti-suffrage was a violation of civil rights, it wouldn’t be legal. Whatever you may believe in your heart,the law is clear. Women can’t vote. And that’ not going to change anytime soon.
/libfreeordie, early 1900′s

If Jim Crow was oppressive, it wouldn’t be legal. Whatever you may believe in your heart,the law is clear. Jim Crow is legal. Oppression is not legal. Therefore Jim Crow is not oppression. And that’ not going to change anytime soon.

You get the point. All I had to do was play Mad Libs with your arguement to prove how silly it is. Legality does not equal morality. Would you even want to live in a country where the morality of its laws were not constantly being reevaluated? I sure as hell wouldn’t.

Walter Kovacs on February 3, 2012 at 9:56 AM

As long as that baby cannot exist without her mother, then the state has no compelling interest.

When the fetus becomes viable outside of the mother’s womb, then the state does have an interest ….

[inklake on February 3, 2012 at 9:00 AM]

Thats your claim. What are you basing it on? Make your case.
Thanks.

Mimzey on February 3, 2012 at 10:48 AM

As long as that baby cannot exist without her mother, then the state has no compelling interest.

When the fetus becomes viable outside of the mother’s womb, then the state does have an interest, and indeed, that’s what Roe v. Wade, and current law provides.

It’s called ‘privacy’ – AKA, none of your effin’ business.

inklake on February 3, 2012 at 9:00 AM

An infant isn’t “viable”, in the sense that it can’t feed itself. Should we kill them, too? How about disabled children, and adults?

Ward Cleaver on February 3, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Oh and before you doubt those stats, the same data that allows you to claim they perform 300,000 abortions a year substantiates that chart. But nice try.
~~libfreeordie~~ crr6

300,000 lost babies may be a tiny amount to you, and be justified because Planned Parenhood “does other things,” too, but I would oppose them even if they only killed ONE baby per year.

Go ridicule somebody else who gives a damn about your opinion.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Since we know that the left is niggardly when it comes to charitable donations, do they really have a say in this matter?

The Komen Foundation knows where their charitable dollars come from.

halfastro on February 3, 2012 at 10:56 AM

It figures that AAUW would complain, since college students are among the abortion mills’ best customers.

Ward Cleaver on February 3, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Since we know that the left is niggardly when it comes to charitable donations, do they really have a say in this matter?

The Komen Foundation knows where their charitable dollars come from.

halfastro on February 3, 2012 at 10:56 AM

RAAAAACIST!!!11!!!

Ward Cleaver on February 3, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Oh and before you doubt those stats, the same data that allows you to claim they perform 300,000 abortions a year substantiates that chart. But nice try.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 8:01 AM

Us to claim it?!? That’s from their own data, released to the public.

From FactCheck.org:

Its 2011 fact sheet says it performed 332,278 abortion procedures in 2009.

Yeah, that’s over 300,000.

Ward Cleaver on February 3, 2012 at 11:25 AM

So, you are okay with making it illegal to have an abortion after 22 weeks?

Dusty,
Apologies for the delay in replying.

What I’m saying is that once the fetus is viable outside the womb, the state can now have some interest in this.

Of course, if life/health of the mother is at risk, that is another factor too, but I would agree with you (I think), that as the fetus i is increasingly viable, those interests can weigh more. It’s not just up to the mother.

Hope that helps explain my position.

inklake on February 3, 2012 at 3:21 PM