Writing at Get Religion, Mollie Ziegler Hemingway nails down the essence of the Komen for the Cure fracas. Liberals aghast over Komen’s move are being forced to acknowledge that Planned Parenthood is very far from the uncontroversial, mainstream organization they thought it was:
If you were familiar with Susan G. Komen for the Cure but weren’t familiar with the fact that this funding arrangement was extremely controversial, something is off . . .
And yet the mainstream media apparently only realized that Planned Parenthood was a lightning rod after Komen made changes to their funding policy. I’m not exaggerating. Take this amazing Politico story by Kate Nocera headlined:
Did Susan G. Komen turn itself into a lightning rod?
Turn itself into? Turn itself into? Help me out here. Funding a group that terminates 330,000 pregnancies a year is not controversial but deciding not to fund that same group is? In what world? It’s important to note that Planned Parenthood doesn’t just do abortions. But many of the other things they do — teaching kids about sex through a text-chat program, receiving hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, spending high sums on fundraising and public policy to fight political opponents, selling or otherwise distributing contraception and abortifacients — are also controversial. Giving a woman a slip of paper to get a mammogram somewhere else is not controversial, unless by the standard that it’s not sufficient work for scarce breast cancer dollars, but you have to put the controversy in context.
More here. The surprise and anger over Komen withdrawing funding is above all naive: As it turns out, killing unborn children is actually really controversial. Who would have thought?
February 2nd, 2012 | 11:47 am
If Susan G. Komen for the Cure does not want to give money to Planned Parenthood because Planned Parenthood performs abortions—although not with money from Susan G. Komen for the Cure, which is all used for breast-cancer-related services—then why not say so? Why lie about it? It’s a political or diplomatic lie, but it is still a lie. Susan G. Komen for the Cure is being hailed by pro-lifers for doing something it denied doing.
February 2nd, 2012 | 12:09 pm
Because doing the right thing is laudable, even if I wish your motives were better.
February 2nd, 2012 | 12:18 pm
David, I haven’t actually seen anyone claim that Komen stopped the funding for pro-life reasons. Rather, I think the argument is that PP should not be asserting some kind of claim that Komen as a pro-choice duty. Komen’s actions may not be pro-life in motivation, but they have shown themselves not shackled to the kind of pro-choice commitment that says they must aid PP for the sake of the movement, and pro-lifers are happy to see that.
February 2nd, 2012 | 7:05 pm
In watching the upset on the pro-choice side, I’m surprised by the vehemence. Komen is its own agency. If it chooses not to grant, that is its prerogative. PP could have responded with class, e.g. “Thank you, Komen, for your past support. We believe much good has come from it. We are sorry to see you go. We hope you will resume providing us with grants in the future.” But I’ve seen nothing of that kind. There is instead an entitlement attitude, that Komen owed PP the money, that Komen should be chastised for not offering a new grant. I feel sad for the PP leadership.
February 3rd, 2012 | 1:06 am
David,
I wonder if Komen didn’t see the disingenuity in P.P.’s claim that their grants were “only used for breast cancer screening not abortions”? Money is fungible and claims of that sort are an attempt to make a distinction that has no genuine moral weight.
February 3rd, 2012 | 9:05 am
David,
PP doesn’t provide breast cancer screening or any other cancer screening services. What PP was, was a “pass through” because PP referred women to other places. Komen ended the practice of “pass through” grants.
February 3rd, 2012 | 9:12 am
Komen has stated two issues as leading to its decision. One, their new guidelines prohibit grants to organizations under government investigation. That includes PP. Two, they have doubts about the efficacy of “pass through” programs. As I understand it, PP would do a breast exam as part of other services and, if appropriate, refer the client for a, e.g., mammogram.
February 3rd, 2012 | 11:57 am
Susan G. Komen for the Cure has reversed its position and will continue to provide funds to Planned Parenthood.
February 3rd, 2012 | 1:23 pm
Felix,
While you are correct that PP does not perform the actual diagnostic mammograms for breast cancer, you are incorrect to say that they “don’t provide any other cancer screening services.” PP performs over 770,000 pap smears a year (in addition to colposcopies), which is recommended for the early detection of cervical cancer. They also treat forms of cervical cancer (i.e., dysplasia) via cryotherapy and LEEP. Although this is not directly related to the Komen issue, I just wanted to clarify, as in my opinion this is one of the most important functions of PP with respect to women’s health care.
February 4th, 2012 | 5:36 am
Susan G. Komen for the Cure has reversed its position and will continue to provide funds to Planned Parenthood.
Yeah, but now we all know something we didn’t know this time last week.
(I didn’t even know Komen gave money to PP. I bet I’m not the only one.)
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact