The War on (Little) Women and Other Insanities
Jul 18, 2012
George Weigel
The Supreme Court’s minor mistakes have few systemic consequences. But when the Supremes make a big mistake, the error tends to seep throughout the entire political process, poisoning everything in its path.
That was what happened with the Court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision, which intensified the passions and accelerated the dynamics that led to the Civil War—and to 600,000 Americans killing each other. That was what happened when the Court got it wrong again in Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 decision that declared segregated public facilities constitutional: three-and-a-half generations of American politics were distorted by a fierce struggle between segregationists and integrationists, with the Democratic Party held hostage to its fever-swamp wing.
And that is what happened with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion on demand across the country. Ever since, the abortion issue has been the most bitterly contested issue in our public life, and Roe has distorted everything from free speech to religious freedom to health care legislation (dental insurers are being queried by federal regulators as to whether their coverage includes abortion—dental insurers!). Those distortions confirm that the Court got it fundamentally wrong in 1973.
The forces that defend Roe v. Wade know the fragility of that “exercise in raw judicial power” (as Justice Byron White, dissenting from the Roe majority, put it). That is why they defend it with such fury—and with arguments that are increasingly absurd. Those absurdities were on full display in late May when the U.S. House of Representatives took up the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act. PRENDA’s purpose is to ban sex-selection abortions in the United States—which almost always means aborting unborn girls for the simple reason that they are girls.
This odious practice, a commonplace in Asia (where there are estimates of some 160 million “missing” females), is not, yet, widespread in the United States. But one sex-selection abortion is one too many, and the attitude to this war on little women within the billion dollar abortion industry is chilling: A Planned Parenthood representative told the Huffington Post, prior to the House vote on PRENDA, that “No Planned Parenthood clinic will deny a woman an abortion based on her reasons for wanting one, except in states that explicitly prohibit sex-selection abortions.” As Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) put it in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, “In other words, Planned Parenthood is okay with exterminating a child in its huge network of clinics simply because she’s a girl.”
The arguments against PRENDA in the House were ludicrous. The proponents of Roe’s unlimited abortion license, which they had long defended on the grounds that ready access to abortion is essential to women’s equality, argued that lethal discrimination against (little) women just because they are girls must be legally permissible. Radical feminism is now consuming its own future, literally.
And why? To defend Roe v. Wade—and, ultimately, the sexual revolution for which Roe v. Wade was and is the ultimate technological buttress. Were PRENDA to become law, and were the Supreme Court to find that PRENDA passed constitutional muster, a thread would be pulled–and that thread might unravel the entire warped tapestry woven out of Roe v. Wade. The pro-Roe forces understand that. And if saving Roe, that alleged foundation of gender equality, requires the manifest absurdity of self-described feminists (female and male) defending lethal discrimination against the littlest of little girls, well, so be it.
The same take-no-prisoners dynamic was at work earlier this year in Planned Parenthood’s assault on Susan G. Komen For the Cure, which had dared to hold Planned Parenthood accountable for not offering the mammograms the Komen Foundation’s money was supposed to help provide. But rather than admitting its failure and promising to offer genuine preventive health services to women, Planned Parenthood, and its cultural and political allies, crushed Komen—the cleanest of squeaky-clean charities—like a grape.
And some wonder why these same forces are now arrayed against the Church for daring to defend religious freedom?
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
7.18.2012 | 10:11am
Jim Bell says:
A very revealing article about the extremes to which NARAL and other pro-abortion groups will go to prevent anything that might "unravel" the thread of Roe v. Wade. These people are also active in another area you may not be aware of.
Ever wonder why the liberal-progressive left is so determined to maintain federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research? Or why they completely ignore the miracles Adult Stem Cells are causing practically every day?
r
There's a growing mountain of evidence that embryonic stem cells have none of the medical uses their supporters claim. Dr. Bernadine Healey, former director of the National Institutes of Health, is now a former supporter of embryonic stem cells.
Three years ago she wrote in US News and World Report that the embryonic cells cause more problems than they solve, including an alarming tendency to cause cancer.
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/heart-to-heart/2009/03/04/why-embryonic-stem-cells-are-obsolete
Healey says Adult Stem Cells are much more promising, and they are in fact being used effectively in a wide variety of health problems. To date, embryonic cells have done nothing that would justify the time and money spent on them.
Despite this, NARAL won't even admit adult stem cells exist. Why? For the same reason explained in this article. NARAL, Planned Parenthood, NOW, and other abortion supporters won't support anything that might make people think the use of stem cells from aborted fetuses is wrong. It might "unravel a thread" of Roe v. Wade.
Ever wonder why the liberal-progressive left is so determined to maintain federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research? Or why they completely ignore the miracles Adult Stem Cells are causing practically every day?
r
There's a growing mountain of evidence that embryonic stem cells have none of the medical uses their supporters claim. Dr. Bernadine Healey, former director of the National Institutes of Health, is now a former supporter of embryonic stem cells.
Three years ago she wrote in US News and World Report that the embryonic cells cause more problems than they solve, including an alarming tendency to cause cancer.
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/heart-to-heart/2009/03/04/why-embryonic-stem-cells-are-obsolete
Healey says Adult Stem Cells are much more promising, and they are in fact being used effectively in a wide variety of health problems. To date, embryonic cells have done nothing that would justify the time and money spent on them.
Despite this, NARAL won't even admit adult stem cells exist. Why? For the same reason explained in this article. NARAL, Planned Parenthood, NOW, and other abortion supporters won't support anything that might make people think the use of stem cells from aborted fetuses is wrong. It might "unravel a thread" of Roe v. Wade.
7.18.2012 | 11:16am
jason taylor says:
Why is murdering babies because they are girls worse then murdering them because they are babies? When one has gone so far as to permit mothers to murder their children and death squads to call themselves "doctors" it does not really matter much at that point. At best this is a realpolitik recognition of how to gain a propaganda advantage that might save lives. To quibble at points like this is philosophically illogical. It is also morally corrupting(the two go together); is it perhaps alright to murder children who are male?
7.18.2012 | 11:33am
Nathan Duffy says:
Given the belief of an absolute right to abortion, defending sex-selective abortion just goes hand-in-hand with that. The problem, as you recognize, is the root insanity of Roe itself. But it's never wasted effort to force progressives to come face to face with the manifest horror of their logic, especially when pitting one progressive absolute (right to baby murdering) against another (feminism). This unfailingly gains converts to the pro-life cause, as polls indicate.
7.18.2012 | 11:50am
David Nickol says:
Valerie,
This is the second time George Weigel has made unsubstantiated (and untrue) allegations along these lines. See his March 28 On the Square piece in which he says, " . . . a claim reinforced in February by the lynch mob that attacked the Susan G. Komen foundation for daring to hold Planned Parenthood to account for monies Komen had donated to PP (chief guardian of the flame of the sexual revolution) and which PP had misused."
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/03/the-differences-the-pill-has-made
There have never been any allegations from Komen or elsewhere that Planned Parenthood misused funds donated by the Komen Foundation. If Weigel has some inside information unknown to the public, he has an obligation to reveal it.
This is the second time George Weigel has made unsubstantiated (and untrue) allegations along these lines. See his March 28 On the Square piece in which he says, " . . . a claim reinforced in February by the lynch mob that attacked the Susan G. Komen foundation for daring to hold Planned Parenthood to account for monies Komen had donated to PP (chief guardian of the flame of the sexual revolution) and which PP had misused."
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/03/the-differences-the-pill-has-made
There have never been any allegations from Komen or elsewhere that Planned Parenthood misused funds donated by the Komen Foundation. If Weigel has some inside information unknown to the public, he has an obligation to reveal it.
7.18.2012 | 11:52am
Tristian says:
Sex selective abortion is a disaster for the pro-choice side of this debate as is evidenced by the volume of intellectual and morally impoverished responses to it. To deny that something deeply wrong is happening is implausible, and yet to acknowledge this seemingly obvious point leads to conclusions that cut to core of several key pro-choice tenets. First, the distorted sex ratios developing in some Asian countries demonstrates again that putatively ‘private’ decisions can have serious public consequences in the aggregate, and so works against the idea that abortion is ‘between a woman and her doctor.’ Secondly, simply describing the wrong being committed seems to require acknowledging that abortions kill human beings, and indeed gendered human beings. The first fact has long been ceded by philosophers who defend abortion, and I’m sure they would agree to the second as well (Singer does). Simple biology made all this plain quite some time ago. Still, it seems less academically inclined pro-choice people have continued to try to obscure this by appealing to “persons” rather that “human beings” so they could hang on to arguments about potential. But if we forefront sex selective abortion it seems even the most neutral, honest description of what happens is going to sound bad. It’s very hard to refer to a fetus in terms of its gender without using language that points to its humanity.
7.18.2012 | 12:19pm
Dad of Six says:
Wow, Valerie! Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning or what?
Your less than charitable comment attacks the messenger rather than the message...any facts to back up your statement that: "It was politics."?
Your less than charitable comment attacks the messenger rather than the message...any facts to back up your statement that: "It was politics."?
7.18.2012 | 12:20pm
Ed says:
"Radical feminism is now consuming its own future". George Weigel is exactly right. It is a fact the Party of Death refuses to acknowledge. Indeed, it evokes irrational hysteria from the Left.
In the 1990s, a study was published showing that younger people were far more pro-life than the prior generations since Roe v. Wade (1973). The trend, moreover, was increasing. Current polls support this conclusion. What sent the pro-abortion crowd into an intellectual meltdown was one of the causes of this change in attitude. In particular, the authors found that one reason for the increased number of pro-life youth was the irrefutable fact that liberals were killing their children in massive numbers. Conservatives, on the other hand, were giving their children life. More significantly, conservatives were working overtime to instill pro-life values in their children because they feared secular society was embracing a culture of death not seen since the Albigensian heresy. This led inexorably to an increase in pro-life youth.
The Left was scandalized by this conclusion. The extraordinarily limited termagant Ellen Goodman, who had been excommunicated latae sententiae for her belief that plunging scissors into babies skulls and sucking out their brains should be the 8th sacrament, fumed at the study's conclusion. She shrieked and screamed that the supposed trend did not support the conclusion that the Left was killing itself. Her noise was unaccompanied by any reason, logic or alternative explanation. She refused to see the natural consequences of playing God and embracing a culture of death. As Billy Joel once said, "this is what you wanted, ain't you proud".
In the 1990s, a study was published showing that younger people were far more pro-life than the prior generations since Roe v. Wade (1973). The trend, moreover, was increasing. Current polls support this conclusion. What sent the pro-abortion crowd into an intellectual meltdown was one of the causes of this change in attitude. In particular, the authors found that one reason for the increased number of pro-life youth was the irrefutable fact that liberals were killing their children in massive numbers. Conservatives, on the other hand, were giving their children life. More significantly, conservatives were working overtime to instill pro-life values in their children because they feared secular society was embracing a culture of death not seen since the Albigensian heresy. This led inexorably to an increase in pro-life youth.
The Left was scandalized by this conclusion. The extraordinarily limited termagant Ellen Goodman, who had been excommunicated latae sententiae for her belief that plunging scissors into babies skulls and sucking out their brains should be the 8th sacrament, fumed at the study's conclusion. She shrieked and screamed that the supposed trend did not support the conclusion that the Left was killing itself. Her noise was unaccompanied by any reason, logic or alternative explanation. She refused to see the natural consequences of playing God and embracing a culture of death. As Billy Joel once said, "this is what you wanted, ain't you proud".
7.18.2012 | 12:38pm
andrew says:
it is quite telling that valerie conveniently ignores the substance of the article.... perhaps she only likes to read last paragraphs.
7.18.2012 | 1:50pm
enness says:
Valerie, I do read more than the headlines. The trouble is the articles are often just as bad. I don't believe everything I read. Do you?
Planned Parenthood doesn't do mammograms, but has made public statements that mislead and obscure the truth about it. Komen figured out they were essentially paying for the same thing twice. Planned Parenthood bullied them into submission. There's not much to understand.
Planned Parenthood doesn't do mammograms, but has made public statements that mislead and obscure the truth about it. Komen figured out they were essentially paying for the same thing twice. Planned Parenthood bullied them into submission. There's not much to understand.
7.18.2012 | 2:20pm
Jy says:
Re: Reasons for komen decision,
A reuters article http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/03/us-usa-healthcare-komen-idUSTRE8111WA20120203 says
"Komen had said earlier this week it would cease to fund grants for breast cancer screening to Planned Parenthood under new rules to tighten eligibility. ***The guidelines excluded groups under investigation by U.S. authorities*** and Planned Parenthood is the subject of a probe by U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns, a Republican from Florida who opposes abortion."
Was this a bad rule? Even if Weigel is wrong about this detail, this decision wasn't just about politics. PP is being investigate for a variety of concerns, which fact ought to concern everyone.
Even so, isn't sex-selection abortion still a bad thing?
A reuters article http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/03/us-usa-healthcare-komen-idUSTRE8111WA20120203 says
"Komen had said earlier this week it would cease to fund grants for breast cancer screening to Planned Parenthood under new rules to tighten eligibility. ***The guidelines excluded groups under investigation by U.S. authorities*** and Planned Parenthood is the subject of a probe by U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns, a Republican from Florida who opposes abortion."
Was this a bad rule? Even if Weigel is wrong about this detail, this decision wasn't just about politics. PP is being investigate for a variety of concerns, which fact ought to concern everyone.
Even so, isn't sex-selection abortion still a bad thing?
7.18.2012 | 4:09pm
David Nickol says:
Jy,
Was it a bad rule? Well, since Planned Parenthood was the one and only group under investigation, it was clearly a rule targeting Planned Parenthood. In the aftermath of it all, I think it became clear that a number of important pro-life advocates in the Komen Foundation (several of whom left when Komen backed down on severing ties with PP), simply didn't want to be associated with, or give money to, the largest abortion provider in the country. And of course that is perfectly understandable. So in effect Komen made up a story rather than saying, "We don't want to give money to Planned Parenthood," and virtually everyone could see they were not being honest. They knew that if they severed ties with PP over the abortion issue, there would be a firestorm, and since their reason for severing ties with PP was so transparently false, they got the firestorm they were trying to avoid by being less than honest. So the whole thing was indeed about politics—not Democratic versus Republican politics (exactly) but pro-choice versus pro-life politics.
Regarding what Weigel says, it is factually wrong, and he has said it before. It should not be difficult for pro-lifers to make a case against Planned Parenthood (of all organizations!) without saying things that are not true. It seems that some people believe that Planned Parenthood is so bad, it's not important to be careful about the truth when criticizing them. But it is always important to be truthful.
Was it a bad rule? Well, since Planned Parenthood was the one and only group under investigation, it was clearly a rule targeting Planned Parenthood. In the aftermath of it all, I think it became clear that a number of important pro-life advocates in the Komen Foundation (several of whom left when Komen backed down on severing ties with PP), simply didn't want to be associated with, or give money to, the largest abortion provider in the country. And of course that is perfectly understandable. So in effect Komen made up a story rather than saying, "We don't want to give money to Planned Parenthood," and virtually everyone could see they were not being honest. They knew that if they severed ties with PP over the abortion issue, there would be a firestorm, and since their reason for severing ties with PP was so transparently false, they got the firestorm they were trying to avoid by being less than honest. So the whole thing was indeed about politics—not Democratic versus Republican politics (exactly) but pro-choice versus pro-life politics.
Regarding what Weigel says, it is factually wrong, and he has said it before. It should not be difficult for pro-lifers to make a case against Planned Parenthood (of all organizations!) without saying things that are not true. It seems that some people believe that Planned Parenthood is so bad, it's not important to be careful about the truth when criticizing them. But it is always important to be truthful.
7.18.2012 | 5:25pm
Western Chauvnist says:
Valerie and David,
Komen exists to help screen for breast cancer. Planned Parenthood exists to provide abortions. In some spheres of thought, both functions fall under "women's health." Komen was under the misapprehension that Planned Parenthood provided women's health care in the form of mammograms, when it didn't. That you wouldn't recognize the truth of this, and instead would prefer Mr. Weigel to, in so many words -- SHUT UP!" -- shows a certain lack of intellectual integrity on your part.
If you think it's right that a breast cancer charity would help fund abortions, make your case.
Komen exists to help screen for breast cancer. Planned Parenthood exists to provide abortions. In some spheres of thought, both functions fall under "women's health." Komen was under the misapprehension that Planned Parenthood provided women's health care in the form of mammograms, when it didn't. That you wouldn't recognize the truth of this, and instead would prefer Mr. Weigel to, in so many words -- SHUT UP!" -- shows a certain lack of intellectual integrity on your part.
If you think it's right that a breast cancer charity would help fund abortions, make your case.
7.18.2012 | 5:55pm
Cynthia says:
Valerie,
There have been a few occasions since the P.R. fiasco in February, where I’ve read an opinion so strong and yet so off base, I’ve taken the time to respond.
“Just concentrate on rehabbing your own reputation and leave the social issues out of your discussion. Clearly you don't even understand them.”
To preface my comments, I work with a local SGK Affiliate and have more detailed knowledge then the average person. First and foremost, SGK never “Cut off PP” that was and still remains, one of those headlines you mentioned people tend to focus on, while missing the pertinent details.
What SGK did was change existing grant criteria (language) to reflect that among other things, those organizations under investigation would not be eligible to apply for grant funding. That would be FUTURE grants, not existing grants. A meeting was held in good faith with PP to explain National intentions. After an explosive and negative campaign was launched against SGK and to appease the public outcry over the decision to “Defund PP”, the language was ultimately amended to say that these organizations had to have been convicted of wrongdoing and not just under investigation.
At that time, Planned Parenthood had approximately 17 grants in place, throughout the same number of SGK Affiliates out of 12o Affiliates nationwide. Funding was NEVER cut off, nor were existing grants ever in jeopardy. They would have been funded through the existing grant cycle. What should be shocking is that the public now actually asserts that grant funding by a non-profit organization like SGK, should somehow be based on public & political opinion, vs. the organizations mission and the ability of the potential grantee to meet funding priorities established. Which in the case of all SGK Affiliates, are established locally and based on a need assessment conducted every few years.
You may in fact be the one that should steer clear of the attention grabbing headlines.
There have been a few occasions since the P.R. fiasco in February, where I’ve read an opinion so strong and yet so off base, I’ve taken the time to respond.
“Just concentrate on rehabbing your own reputation and leave the social issues out of your discussion. Clearly you don't even understand them.”
To preface my comments, I work with a local SGK Affiliate and have more detailed knowledge then the average person. First and foremost, SGK never “Cut off PP” that was and still remains, one of those headlines you mentioned people tend to focus on, while missing the pertinent details.
What SGK did was change existing grant criteria (language) to reflect that among other things, those organizations under investigation would not be eligible to apply for grant funding. That would be FUTURE grants, not existing grants. A meeting was held in good faith with PP to explain National intentions. After an explosive and negative campaign was launched against SGK and to appease the public outcry over the decision to “Defund PP”, the language was ultimately amended to say that these organizations had to have been convicted of wrongdoing and not just under investigation.
At that time, Planned Parenthood had approximately 17 grants in place, throughout the same number of SGK Affiliates out of 12o Affiliates nationwide. Funding was NEVER cut off, nor were existing grants ever in jeopardy. They would have been funded through the existing grant cycle. What should be shocking is that the public now actually asserts that grant funding by a non-profit organization like SGK, should somehow be based on public & political opinion, vs. the organizations mission and the ability of the potential grantee to meet funding priorities established. Which in the case of all SGK Affiliates, are established locally and based on a need assessment conducted every few years.
You may in fact be the one that should steer clear of the attention grabbing headlines.
7.18.2012 | 6:27pm
JDD says:
[Jy] "Komen had said earlier this week it would cease to fund grants for breast cancer screening to Planned Parenthood under new rules to tighten eligibility. ***The guidelines excluded groups under investigation by U.S. authorities*** ..."
Was this a bad rule?"
[David Nickol] "Was it a bad rule? Well, since Planned Parenthood was the one and only group under investigation, it was clearly a rule targeting Planned Parenthood."
Wow! So a rule is bad when it clearly addresses the overwhelmingly largest offender? The problem - if there is one - is simply that the government hasn't yet begun an investigation, (to my knowledge,) on any other organization. Calling Komen's actions wrong-headed or 'political' only is to ignore that fact that Planned Parenthood was in breech of contract, and under investigation by the Federal government. Komen's decision was not just the right one from the pro-life point of view, but also the obvious one from a business point of view. The rule was only 'targeting' Planned Parenthood by virtue of PP's own actions.
Was this a bad rule?"
[David Nickol] "Was it a bad rule? Well, since Planned Parenthood was the one and only group under investigation, it was clearly a rule targeting Planned Parenthood."
Wow! So a rule is bad when it clearly addresses the overwhelmingly largest offender? The problem - if there is one - is simply that the government hasn't yet begun an investigation, (to my knowledge,) on any other organization. Calling Komen's actions wrong-headed or 'political' only is to ignore that fact that Planned Parenthood was in breech of contract, and under investigation by the Federal government. Komen's decision was not just the right one from the pro-life point of view, but also the obvious one from a business point of view. The rule was only 'targeting' Planned Parenthood by virtue of PP's own actions.
7.18.2012 | 6:47pm
donald todd says:
I was under the impression that there is an established link between abortion and breast cancer. I could not figure out why Komen would be supporting abortion if the eradication of breast cancer is its reason to exist. Perhaps Valerie can answer that question.
7.18.2012 | 7:06pm
Cynthia says:
Western,
Just a clarification, SGK was never under the misunderstanding that PP provided mammograms. SGK provides funding to other non-profits that offer breast health and breast cancer treatment programs, through a very well defined grant application & funding process. Programs that apply for LOCAL funding must be very specific about how the money is to be used. Local funding priorities, Program goals, objectives, outcomes, capacity and sustainability are all factors that determine which programs will receive funding. Reports are submitted quarterly from the grantees to ensure compliance. PP is no exception.
SGK as a whole, has been moving in a direction to fund direct service providers, over referrals for some time and had been working on language changes to national grant criteria to support of this. This was a complicated issue for SGK and why it was difficult to explain in sound bites and in response to provocative headlines such as “Komen Cuts Off Planned Parenthood" appearing immediately throughout social media & the press. What people still don’t fully comprehend, is that 75% of the net proceeds raised locally, stay locally and the process for distribution is a well-established local grant system. Applications are considered by a volunteer review committee and a slate of recommended grants is submitted to the Affiliates Board of Directors. This occurs in 120 affiliates throughout the nation. SGK was never mislead about mammograms and all services are clearly documented pre and post grant funding.
Just a clarification, SGK was never under the misunderstanding that PP provided mammograms. SGK provides funding to other non-profits that offer breast health and breast cancer treatment programs, through a very well defined grant application & funding process. Programs that apply for LOCAL funding must be very specific about how the money is to be used. Local funding priorities, Program goals, objectives, outcomes, capacity and sustainability are all factors that determine which programs will receive funding. Reports are submitted quarterly from the grantees to ensure compliance. PP is no exception.
SGK as a whole, has been moving in a direction to fund direct service providers, over referrals for some time and had been working on language changes to national grant criteria to support of this. This was a complicated issue for SGK and why it was difficult to explain in sound bites and in response to provocative headlines such as “Komen Cuts Off Planned Parenthood" appearing immediately throughout social media & the press. What people still don’t fully comprehend, is that 75% of the net proceeds raised locally, stay locally and the process for distribution is a well-established local grant system. Applications are considered by a volunteer review committee and a slate of recommended grants is submitted to the Affiliates Board of Directors. This occurs in 120 affiliates throughout the nation. SGK was never mislead about mammograms and all services are clearly documented pre and post grant funding.
7.18.2012 | 8:53pm
David Nickol says:
Western Chauvnist,
You say, "Komen was under the misapprehension that Planned Parenthood provided women's health care in the form of mammograms, when it didn't."
I challenge you to provide a link to any reputable source that gives evidence of that.
Cynthia (7.18.2012 | 2:55pm) gives an insider account that sounds quite credible to me, and she doesn't mention anything about the Komen Foundation being mistaken about Planned Parenthood and mammograms. Now, what did happen is after the uproar when the Komen Foundation said they would not fund PP because it was under investigation, they changed their story and said it was because PP didn't do mammograms—not that they discovered this, but that it was just the case. See this story in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/komen-speaks/2012/02/02/gIQArKI9kQ_blog.html
Interestingly, Cynthia's account doesn't say anything at all about mammograms.
You say, "Komen was under the misapprehension that Planned Parenthood provided women's health care in the form of mammograms, when it didn't."
I challenge you to provide a link to any reputable source that gives evidence of that.
Cynthia (7.18.2012 | 2:55pm) gives an insider account that sounds quite credible to me, and she doesn't mention anything about the Komen Foundation being mistaken about Planned Parenthood and mammograms. Now, what did happen is after the uproar when the Komen Foundation said they would not fund PP because it was under investigation, they changed their story and said it was because PP didn't do mammograms—not that they discovered this, but that it was just the case. See this story in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/komen-speaks/2012/02/02/gIQArKI9kQ_blog.html
Interestingly, Cynthia's account doesn't say anything at all about mammograms.
7.18.2012 | 9:19pm
HereAndThere says:
Many of the differences folks have about abortion stem from differing religious understandings--this is true for the pro-choice side as much as for the pro-life side.
Here's my essay on the subject:
http://cognitiveparfait.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/why-arent-christians-as-pro-choice-as-atheists/
Here's my essay on the subject:
http://cognitiveparfait.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/why-arent-christians-as-pro-choice-as-atheists/
7.18.2012 | 10:03pm
Jamie says:
Valerie said "Just concentrate on rehabbing your own reputation and leave the social issues out of your discussion."
Obviously she refers to the sex abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church. She should consider the fact that the depraved priests who shattered the lives of their adolescent victims belong to her camp; the nihilists who believe that just about anything may be done in the name of freedom.
Obviously she refers to the sex abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church. She should consider the fact that the depraved priests who shattered the lives of their adolescent victims belong to her camp; the nihilists who believe that just about anything may be done in the name of freedom.
7.19.2012 | 12:31am
Sweet Tea Dorminy says:
Is George Weigel actually claiming that Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson were major bad decisions of the Supreme Court? Is it actually true that injustice should be permitted because it's convenient and will lead to fewer deaths?
7.19.2012 | 1:06am
ROB says:
Here we go again with nonsensical distractions. Wiegel writes that PP crushed Komen like a grape. Does any sentient human being doubt the truth of that observation? But here comes Valerie to say that Wiegel is, what, an ignoramus and Nickol to prattle on about the real rather than stated reasons for Komen's decision to defund a monstrous abortion provider as described in the piece in question. Any takers for defending sex selection abortion on the merits? You know, we don't want a little girl so let's mosey off to PP to extinguish her life, yes sir, no sir, three bags full. That ok with you Valerie? You Nickol?
7.19.2012 | 10:43am
David Nickol says:
ROB,
My only point is that Weigel is misstating facts. I am not arguing for sex-selection abortions. I am not arguing that the Komen Foundation should fund Planned Parenthood. I am arguing that no matter how much Weigel hates Planned Parenthood, he and his defenders should not state facts. It is not true that the Komen Foundation "dared to hold Planned Parenthood accountable for not offering the mammograms the Komen Foundation’s money was supposed to help provide." It is not true, as Western Chauvnist claimed above, that the Komen Foundation discovered after years of funding PP that they did not do mammograms in house. Is it really too much to ask that, even when criticizing Planned Parenthood, people stick to the facts?
My only point is that Weigel is misstating facts. I am not arguing for sex-selection abortions. I am not arguing that the Komen Foundation should fund Planned Parenthood. I am arguing that no matter how much Weigel hates Planned Parenthood, he and his defenders should not state facts. It is not true that the Komen Foundation "dared to hold Planned Parenthood accountable for not offering the mammograms the Komen Foundation’s money was supposed to help provide." It is not true, as Western Chauvnist claimed above, that the Komen Foundation discovered after years of funding PP that they did not do mammograms in house. Is it really too much to ask that, even when criticizing Planned Parenthood, people stick to the facts?
7.19.2012 | 10:47am
Jy says:
David
Did Komen make up the fact that PP does suspicious things which are under investigation? Cynthia, whom you apparently trust, says no...
Also, you still didn't answer whether this rule, i.e. stopping giving grants to groups under investigation like PP, was a bad one or whether sex-selection was a good thing. I am sorry if Weigel's bad reporting has really gotten to you, but there are bigger issues here..."There is a wizard to be dealt with..."
Did Komen make up the fact that PP does suspicious things which are under investigation? Cynthia, whom you apparently trust, says no...
Also, you still didn't answer whether this rule, i.e. stopping giving grants to groups under investigation like PP, was a bad one or whether sex-selection was a good thing. I am sorry if Weigel's bad reporting has really gotten to you, but there are bigger issues here..."There is a wizard to be dealt with..."
7.19.2012 | 2:06pm
Hoss Gar says:
The Constitution did not give the Supreme Court the final say in anything. So how was it that a Judge decided that the Supreme Court interprets the constitution? Isn't that a conflict of interest and power grabbing by the court? Maybe the founding fathers deliberately didn't give the power to the Supreme Court so issues can be decided in other branches of government and the states. Oh yah, the states. There power is dwindling isn't it?
7.19.2012 | 2:16pm
Cynthia says:
PP was under federal investigation at the time of Komen's decision. According to most media accounts, this investigation was also implied to be politically motivated. I have two thoughts about this aspect of this decision by Komen. I wholehearted believe that Komen, as a non-profit organization has a fiduciary responsibility and must be good stewards of donated funding. They have been for more than 30 years, which is why they remain rated so highly by watchdog organizations like Charity Navigator. I think the initial decision was prudent. Having said that, I also believe we live in a system that dictates innocence until guilt is proven. This is exactly what the amendment made to the grant criteria stated, allowing PP to continue to APPLY for grant funding while under investigation. What is also overlooked here is that never is an application for grant funding, a guarantee of funding. We have to ask ourselves now, what position have "We the people" put Komen in if a local affiliate decided to fund a direct service provider, over a referral process through PP? What do you think the headlines would say?
To be honest, I've had my time fighting what I believed was the good fight… politically speaking. I'm over it. At this stage of my life, I’d rather spend my time and efforts focused on helping people that need it on a very basic level, hence my involvement with Susan G Komen.
The idea of abortion based on gender selection is abhorrent to me personally. If you're asking my personal feeling on the larger issue of abortion, that's a whole other question. As a Christian woman, I know what God has to say about all kinds of sin. I also know that only I am answerable for my decisions & sins to God. I don't want to make decisions for others and I don't want others making decisions for me. I believe that all people should have access to healthcare and should be empowered to make their own choices.
To be honest, I've had my time fighting what I believed was the good fight… politically speaking. I'm over it. At this stage of my life, I’d rather spend my time and efforts focused on helping people that need it on a very basic level, hence my involvement with Susan G Komen.
The idea of abortion based on gender selection is abhorrent to me personally. If you're asking my personal feeling on the larger issue of abortion, that's a whole other question. As a Christian woman, I know what God has to say about all kinds of sin. I also know that only I am answerable for my decisions & sins to God. I don't want to make decisions for others and I don't want others making decisions for me. I believe that all people should have access to healthcare and should be empowered to make their own choices.
7.19.2012 | 2:33pm
Cynthia says:
David,
In response to your post of 7.18.2012 | 5:53pm. I think you hadn't seen my 2nd posting that addressed the mammograms when you penned this.
Again, this was a complicated issue for Komen as several organizational agendas were in play at the same time. Komen had been reviewing grants critera for quite some time, before Karen Handle was even hired, to move the organization into a position that prioritized direct service provider funding, over indirect services like screening referrals. (the easiest way I can articulate this) Responses from Komen, were twisted quickly with Komen trying to respond adequately to a very emotional public outcry. Komen never anticipated this reaction and was sadly unprepared to handle it, however Komen didn't "chang" their story. In trying to explain the very complicated issues, it made the problem worse. Everything mentioned by Komen at the time, were in fact a contributing factors to Komen's decision at that that time.
In response to your post of 7.18.2012 | 5:53pm. I think you hadn't seen my 2nd posting that addressed the mammograms when you penned this.
Again, this was a complicated issue for Komen as several organizational agendas were in play at the same time. Komen had been reviewing grants critera for quite some time, before Karen Handle was even hired, to move the organization into a position that prioritized direct service provider funding, over indirect services like screening referrals. (the easiest way I can articulate this) Responses from Komen, were twisted quickly with Komen trying to respond adequately to a very emotional public outcry. Komen never anticipated this reaction and was sadly unprepared to handle it, however Komen didn't "chang" their story. In trying to explain the very complicated issues, it made the problem worse. Everything mentioned by Komen at the time, were in fact a contributing factors to Komen's decision at that that time.
7.19.2012 | 2:44pm
Cynthia says:
One final thought. I've finally realized midway through my life a few very important things. In my younger passionate polical years, I was so busy trying to right the wrongs of society (because of course my ideas are the "right" ones) that I wasn't always listening to the other side. When I figured this out and started trying to listen more than I spoke, I realized something else. Most of us, want the same things in life. We want to be treated with fairness and courtesy and we want to be able to do our part and still have enough left over to take care of ourselves and our loved ones. You would think with so much in common to begin with, we could find more common ground from which to work on solutions to our social ills. Unfortunately, in our need to be "right", tend to get stuck on the talking part when we should be listening. Thanks for the forum!
7.19.2012 | 3:51pm
David Nickol says:
Cynthia,
I appreciate you knowledge and your fairness. What I am mainly challenging is the idea that the Komen Foundation didn't know how PP was using their funding, and when the Foundation found out, they wanted to pull funding. Ezra Klein reports the following:
**********
So why did Planned Parenthood lose funding? [Komen Foundation CEO Nancy] Brinker says it has to do with the fact that they [PP] do not provide mammograms to women, but only provide mammogram referrals. “It was nothing they were doing wrong,” she explained. “We have decided not to fund, whereever possible, pass-through grants. We were giving them money, they were sending women out for mammograms. What we would like to have are clinics where we can directly fund mammograms.”
**********
I think George Weigel's account at least *implies* that PP was caught doing something wrong, or discovered not to be doing something the Komen Foundation thought they were doing (directly providing mammograms). But by any account, that doesn't seem to be true. Brinker says of PP, "It was nothing they were doing wrong." I think George Weigel and some commenters here imply otherwise.
I perfectly understand why pro-lifers would detest Planned Parenthood and prefer not to see it get any kind of funding whatsoever, even to do breast cancer screenings. But if we take the Komen Foundation at its word, this was not the reason for the attempt to eventually stop giving funds to PP, and it was also not because PP was misusing funds or engaging in any kind of deception.
You say, "The idea of abortion based on gender selection is abhorrent to me personally."
Me too. However, I have argued that for those who truly see, say, a 9-week fetus as merely a "clump of cells," having an abortion because you want a child of the opposite sex of the one you are carrying would be no more abhorrent than having an abortion because you already had all the children you wanted and didn't want another. If it is "just a clump of cells," it is no more to be valued when it's chromosomes are XX than XY, or vice versa.
I appreciate you knowledge and your fairness. What I am mainly challenging is the idea that the Komen Foundation didn't know how PP was using their funding, and when the Foundation found out, they wanted to pull funding. Ezra Klein reports the following:
**********
So why did Planned Parenthood lose funding? [Komen Foundation CEO Nancy] Brinker says it has to do with the fact that they [PP] do not provide mammograms to women, but only provide mammogram referrals. “It was nothing they were doing wrong,” she explained. “We have decided not to fund, whereever possible, pass-through grants. We were giving them money, they were sending women out for mammograms. What we would like to have are clinics where we can directly fund mammograms.”
**********
I think George Weigel's account at least *implies* that PP was caught doing something wrong, or discovered not to be doing something the Komen Foundation thought they were doing (directly providing mammograms). But by any account, that doesn't seem to be true. Brinker says of PP, "It was nothing they were doing wrong." I think George Weigel and some commenters here imply otherwise.
I perfectly understand why pro-lifers would detest Planned Parenthood and prefer not to see it get any kind of funding whatsoever, even to do breast cancer screenings. But if we take the Komen Foundation at its word, this was not the reason for the attempt to eventually stop giving funds to PP, and it was also not because PP was misusing funds or engaging in any kind of deception.
You say, "The idea of abortion based on gender selection is abhorrent to me personally."
Me too. However, I have argued that for those who truly see, say, a 9-week fetus as merely a "clump of cells," having an abortion because you want a child of the opposite sex of the one you are carrying would be no more abhorrent than having an abortion because you already had all the children you wanted and didn't want another. If it is "just a clump of cells," it is no more to be valued when it's chromosomes are XX than XY, or vice versa.
7.19.2012 | 4:36pm
Steven Kaminski says:
So in short, Cynthia, you take the Mario Cuomo "pro-choice" position. Just say it bluntly.
I have a question though. I always understood Komen to be fundamentally and utterly focused on fighting breast cancer. What services does Planned Parenthood offer that provides prevention or treatment of breast cancer? Granted, their meat and potatoes is abortion, I think everybody knows that. Do they offer any significant services that help to prevent or treat breast cancer at all? If not mammograms, what?
If not, isn't Komen funding of PP a blatant misuse of funds given in good faith for breast cancer prevention? I ask this in good faith, not as a Gotcha.
I have a question though. I always understood Komen to be fundamentally and utterly focused on fighting breast cancer. What services does Planned Parenthood offer that provides prevention or treatment of breast cancer? Granted, their meat and potatoes is abortion, I think everybody knows that. Do they offer any significant services that help to prevent or treat breast cancer at all? If not mammograms, what?
If not, isn't Komen funding of PP a blatant misuse of funds given in good faith for breast cancer prevention? I ask this in good faith, not as a Gotcha.
7.19.2012 | 5:53pm
Cynthia says:
David,
"What I am mainly challenging is the idea that the Komen Foundation didn't know how PP was using their funding, and when the Foundation found out, they wanted to pull funding."
You're correct to challenge that statement....it is inaccurate.
Over the months since this occurred, I've been very frustrated by both sides of the abortion issue. Both sides have mischaracterized the motives of SGK, some on purpose, most out of understandable ignorance....but most all in an effort to support their own personal belief systems and political agendas.
The result of all of this posturing and for at least this year, will be that thousands of women, men & their families in our local communities who need support the most, will go without access to life saving services, because the fundraising revenue is down in most local affiliate service areas. There will be less revenue to grant back into the community.
SGK has always been about breast cancer education, diagnosis and treatment support for those in most need, as well as the research component, which has quite literally changed the way we look at, talk about and treat breast cancer. SGK Affiliates in some areas have also decided on a local level, to fund PP. This has occured for a number of years, in areas where PP has been determined to be the provider most capable of providing critical breast support services for uninsured women in their community. Those of us that support SGK, support them for that reason and regardless of our personal opinions on abortion. SGK is focused on their MISSION and how to best accomplish it.
I hope someday soon, people remove SGK (a BREAST HEALTH organization) from the entire conversation when discussing pro-life vs. pro-choice. They need to stay focused on what they do best…saving lives.
"What I am mainly challenging is the idea that the Komen Foundation didn't know how PP was using their funding, and when the Foundation found out, they wanted to pull funding."
You're correct to challenge that statement....it is inaccurate.
Over the months since this occurred, I've been very frustrated by both sides of the abortion issue. Both sides have mischaracterized the motives of SGK, some on purpose, most out of understandable ignorance....but most all in an effort to support their own personal belief systems and political agendas.
The result of all of this posturing and for at least this year, will be that thousands of women, men & their families in our local communities who need support the most, will go without access to life saving services, because the fundraising revenue is down in most local affiliate service areas. There will be less revenue to grant back into the community.
SGK has always been about breast cancer education, diagnosis and treatment support for those in most need, as well as the research component, which has quite literally changed the way we look at, talk about and treat breast cancer. SGK Affiliates in some areas have also decided on a local level, to fund PP. This has occured for a number of years, in areas where PP has been determined to be the provider most capable of providing critical breast support services for uninsured women in their community. Those of us that support SGK, support them for that reason and regardless of our personal opinions on abortion. SGK is focused on their MISSION and how to best accomplish it.
I hope someday soon, people remove SGK (a BREAST HEALTH organization) from the entire conversation when discussing pro-life vs. pro-choice. They need to stay focused on what they do best…saving lives.
7.19.2012 | 6:17pm
Ed Fitzpatrick says:
Steven Kaminski's question is highly relevant. The uncontradicted and irrefutable answer is that Planned Parenthood causes breast cancer. This is a scientific and medical fact. Numerous peer-reviewed studies show that abortion is a statistically significant risk factor for breast cancer and that there is an increased incidence of breast cancer in women who have had abortion. Simply put, Planned Parenthood causes breast cancer.
Which leads inexorably to one of the most perverse ironies in the history of charitable giving. It is this. Susan Komen's support of Planned Parenthood contributed to the incidence of breast cancer.
Which leads inexorably to one of the most perverse ironies in the history of charitable giving. It is this. Susan Komen's support of Planned Parenthood contributed to the incidence of breast cancer.
7.19.2012 | 6:32pm
Nora says:
Valerie:
You should check Jill Stanek's blog for an exhaustive explanation and turn-by-turn documented evidence regarding the Komen debacle. I don't think George has it so wrong here . . .
They said they did not want to renew grants to recipients, such as Planned Parenthood, who were not focused on Komen's main objective: breast cancer screening and research. How do you interpret this in any way other than "Planned Parenthood was not providing enough meaningful screening or doing any research to justify the grants?"
Nora
You should check Jill Stanek's blog for an exhaustive explanation and turn-by-turn documented evidence regarding the Komen debacle. I don't think George has it so wrong here . . .
They said they did not want to renew grants to recipients, such as Planned Parenthood, who were not focused on Komen's main objective: breast cancer screening and research. How do you interpret this in any way other than "Planned Parenthood was not providing enough meaningful screening or doing any research to justify the grants?"
Nora
7.19.2012 | 7:10pm
Peter says:
Planned Parenthood have committed themselves to not questioning a woman's motives for having an abortion under any circumstances, so their spokespeople in the media have angrily been forced into condoning abortions targetting females: "It happens. Gulp if you must and get over it."
Maybe they can be pushed further: how would it look if a woman turns up at one of their clinics wanting an abortion because she doesn't want a dark-skinned baby, and they then have to reiterate in the media that a woman's personal decision is sacrosanct?
Potentially, this is a dilemma that might pit pro-abortion activists against their liberal allies. If homosexuality could be shown to have a genetic component which could be tested for in utero, then would homosexual activists be comfortable with "a woman's right to choose" if they knew their own people could fall victim to it?
Maybe they can be pushed further: how would it look if a woman turns up at one of their clinics wanting an abortion because she doesn't want a dark-skinned baby, and they then have to reiterate in the media that a woman's personal decision is sacrosanct?
Potentially, this is a dilemma that might pit pro-abortion activists against their liberal allies. If homosexuality could be shown to have a genetic component which could be tested for in utero, then would homosexual activists be comfortable with "a woman's right to choose" if they knew their own people could fall victim to it?
7.19.2012 | 7:17pm
Jamie says:
Since its founding, Planned Parenthood has been a disgusting organization. From its racist, eugenicist foundress, to its Teen Wire website where kids are instructed in the use of "dental dams" to the behaviour of Planned Parenthood workers caught on tape enabling sex traffickers to procure quick, anonymous abortions for their female victims and the millions of unborn children who's lives they have directly taken over these many tragic years, Planned Parenthood has demonstrated great consistency. It is positively mind blowing that this organization receives hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal tax dollars.
7.19.2012 | 10:22pm
Cynthia says:
Steven,
I'm pro-choice in some circumstances, not all. Unfortunately, I haven't yet wrapped my head around it being a black and white issue. Again, I am a Christian woman, so clearly I know it's wrong to kill...as well as I know the Lord’s thoughts about “lukewarm” Christians.
Excellent question(s) you've posed and I'll answer to the best of my ability:
"What services does Planned Parenthood offer that provides prevention or treatment of breast cancer? Granted, their meat and potatoes is abortion, I think everybody knows that. Do they offer any significant services that help to prevent or treat breast cancer at all? If not mammograms, what?"
I can't tell you specifically what each PP clinic or PP Affiliate offered that was relevant to the local breast cancer needs assessment conducted by SGK and therefore able to be funded. I can tell you that PP does provide screenings and clinical breast screenings. Screenings are also vital to breast health. Allow me to provide an example: If you're under 40 you can't just go and get a mammogram without a referral. Insurance doesn’t cover it either. So, if you're uninsured or underinsured without a referral and you have a suspicious lump or other problem. What do you do then? You go to a clinic and have a visual and clinical "screening" and get a referral if needed. Unfortunately, though early detection is the best protection for women against breast cancer…many women (and men) still don’t get this done for a wide variety of reasons. If you were in a difficult financial position and you had to decide between a screening or mammogram and food for the kids or a mortgage payment, which would you likely choose?
Funded programs through PP, could also have included breast health education & outreach within the community or focused on a targeted population. In any case, I assure you that whatever program(s) through the 17 SGK Affiliates that were funding PP, they would absolutely have to be directly related to program needs, identified in that SGK Affiliates "Community Profile" aka needs assessment. No funding is ever given, unless the breast health or breast cancer program objectives fall within the scope of the local need. Budgets are included in these requests and believe that these are very meticulously monitored. If a grantee organization were found to have spent money on anything not approved within the grant contract, SGK would be able to request a return of those funds. It is a carefully controlled process and it occurs annually, based on Race for the Cure and other fundraising revenue.
Many Komen Affiliates have information available on their websites about their grantees. I know that our local Affiliate has an annually updated listing of grant recipients, along with an overview of the program funded and more recently, reports a cumulative tally of funding received by a particular grantee. This is publically available information.
Question 2: "If not, isn't Komen funding of PP a blatant misuse of funds given in good faith for breast cancer prevention?"
Any non-profit organization is under not just ethical obligation, but legal obligation to use donated funds solely for the stated mission of the organization. Anything less is fraudulent. ALL of Komen funding is spent on its mission; to save lives and end breast cancer forever by empowering people, providing quality care for all and energizing science to find the cures. 75% of the net funding raised stays in the local community for breast health and breast cancer programs. The remaining 25% is spent on research and science. I challenge ANYONE to show otherwise. Komen has never wavered in their mission.
I appreciate the question Steven and the opportunity to answer it. Take care.
I'm pro-choice in some circumstances, not all. Unfortunately, I haven't yet wrapped my head around it being a black and white issue. Again, I am a Christian woman, so clearly I know it's wrong to kill...as well as I know the Lord’s thoughts about “lukewarm” Christians.
Excellent question(s) you've posed and I'll answer to the best of my ability:
"What services does Planned Parenthood offer that provides prevention or treatment of breast cancer? Granted, their meat and potatoes is abortion, I think everybody knows that. Do they offer any significant services that help to prevent or treat breast cancer at all? If not mammograms, what?"
I can't tell you specifically what each PP clinic or PP Affiliate offered that was relevant to the local breast cancer needs assessment conducted by SGK and therefore able to be funded. I can tell you that PP does provide screenings and clinical breast screenings. Screenings are also vital to breast health. Allow me to provide an example: If you're under 40 you can't just go and get a mammogram without a referral. Insurance doesn’t cover it either. So, if you're uninsured or underinsured without a referral and you have a suspicious lump or other problem. What do you do then? You go to a clinic and have a visual and clinical "screening" and get a referral if needed. Unfortunately, though early detection is the best protection for women against breast cancer…many women (and men) still don’t get this done for a wide variety of reasons. If you were in a difficult financial position and you had to decide between a screening or mammogram and food for the kids or a mortgage payment, which would you likely choose?
Funded programs through PP, could also have included breast health education & outreach within the community or focused on a targeted population. In any case, I assure you that whatever program(s) through the 17 SGK Affiliates that were funding PP, they would absolutely have to be directly related to program needs, identified in that SGK Affiliates "Community Profile" aka needs assessment. No funding is ever given, unless the breast health or breast cancer program objectives fall within the scope of the local need. Budgets are included in these requests and believe that these are very meticulously monitored. If a grantee organization were found to have spent money on anything not approved within the grant contract, SGK would be able to request a return of those funds. It is a carefully controlled process and it occurs annually, based on Race for the Cure and other fundraising revenue.
Many Komen Affiliates have information available on their websites about their grantees. I know that our local Affiliate has an annually updated listing of grant recipients, along with an overview of the program funded and more recently, reports a cumulative tally of funding received by a particular grantee. This is publically available information.
Question 2: "If not, isn't Komen funding of PP a blatant misuse of funds given in good faith for breast cancer prevention?"
Any non-profit organization is under not just ethical obligation, but legal obligation to use donated funds solely for the stated mission of the organization. Anything less is fraudulent. ALL of Komen funding is spent on its mission; to save lives and end breast cancer forever by empowering people, providing quality care for all and energizing science to find the cures. 75% of the net funding raised stays in the local community for breast health and breast cancer programs. The remaining 25% is spent on research and science. I challenge ANYONE to show otherwise. Komen has never wavered in their mission.
I appreciate the question Steven and the opportunity to answer it. Take care.
7.19.2012 | 11:10pm
Cynthia says:
Steven,
I should have added a very critical point to your last question. If any 501 C3 organization, like SGK, were found to be using funding for anything other than their stated mission (in this case breast health and breast cancer programs), they could (and very likely would) lose their 501 C3 Tax Exempt Status and all that this status implies.
I should have added a very critical point to your last question. If any 501 C3 organization, like SGK, were found to be using funding for anything other than their stated mission (in this case breast health and breast cancer programs), they could (and very likely would) lose their 501 C3 Tax Exempt Status and all that this status implies.
7.20.2012 | 1:06pm
Jamie says:
Cynthia,
Your account of SGK's meticulous monitoring to ensure that their grants are used by PP in a manner "directly related to program needs" begs the question; do program needs include the importance of working with reputable organizations? Imagine for a moment that Larry Flynt lost his wife to breast cancer and was inspired to create Hustler Breast Care, a subsidiary of Hustler Magazine that offered free breast cancer screening using highly qualified health professionals and state of the art community based faclities. May I assume they would be eligible for an SGK grant?
Your account of SGK's meticulous monitoring to ensure that their grants are used by PP in a manner "directly related to program needs" begs the question; do program needs include the importance of working with reputable organizations? Imagine for a moment that Larry Flynt lost his wife to breast cancer and was inspired to create Hustler Breast Care, a subsidiary of Hustler Magazine that offered free breast cancer screening using highly qualified health professionals and state of the art community based faclities. May I assume they would be eligible for an SGK grant?
7.20.2012 | 3:52pm
Cynthia says:
Jamie,
Please refer back to my previous comments about listening vs. talking and my feeling about people who tend to say things that are inaccurate or off base, in their attempts to be "right". I've no intention of getting into a philosophical debate with you about the possibility of Larry Flint founding a 501 C3 organization to support Breast Health and Breast Cancer treatment support and whether or not he might be funded by SGK. I'm sure you can appreciate that decision.
What I will do out of courtesy, is repeat what I've already stated more clearly for you. The funding that remains in our local communities through the fundraising efforts of SGK and its supporters (75% of annual net), is distributed annually through a local grants process. Funding decisions are based on the community needs assessment, conducted on a local level every few (3) years. 501 C3 organizations that provide identified breast health services and breast cancer treatment support programs, also falling within the scope of the community needs assessment, are encouraged to apply for funding. Funding decisions are made on a local level by the volunteer SGK Affiliate Board of Directors, whom also enlist a community based, volunteer review committee in reviewing applications. This committee considers funding priorities, based primarily on whether the request contains measurable goals & objectives, measurable outcomes, capacity and sustainability. A recommended slate of grant recipients is submitted to the Board for consideration and/or approval. That is the standard practice and my hope is that it has satiated your curiosity and further clarifies process enough that you may indulge any possible "what" if scenario you're envisioning. Enjoy your day.
Please refer back to my previous comments about listening vs. talking and my feeling about people who tend to say things that are inaccurate or off base, in their attempts to be "right". I've no intention of getting into a philosophical debate with you about the possibility of Larry Flint founding a 501 C3 organization to support Breast Health and Breast Cancer treatment support and whether or not he might be funded by SGK. I'm sure you can appreciate that decision.
What I will do out of courtesy, is repeat what I've already stated more clearly for you. The funding that remains in our local communities through the fundraising efforts of SGK and its supporters (75% of annual net), is distributed annually through a local grants process. Funding decisions are based on the community needs assessment, conducted on a local level every few (3) years. 501 C3 organizations that provide identified breast health services and breast cancer treatment support programs, also falling within the scope of the community needs assessment, are encouraged to apply for funding. Funding decisions are made on a local level by the volunteer SGK Affiliate Board of Directors, whom also enlist a community based, volunteer review committee in reviewing applications. This committee considers funding priorities, based primarily on whether the request contains measurable goals & objectives, measurable outcomes, capacity and sustainability. A recommended slate of grant recipients is submitted to the Board for consideration and/or approval. That is the standard practice and my hope is that it has satiated your curiosity and further clarifies process enough that you may indulge any possible "what" if scenario you're envisioning. Enjoy your day.
7.21.2012 | 7:30am
Mark VA says:
When a small and tightly focused organization makes a decision to open up a relationship (however seemingly limited) with a much larger and politically powerful entity, it may soon learn that:
- The terms of the relationship pass into the hands of the more powerful side;
- The relationship itself cannot be ended if the more powerful party doesn't wish it.
The net result may be that the small guy becomes somewhat of an auxiliary piggy bank for the big guy.
- The terms of the relationship pass into the hands of the more powerful side;
- The relationship itself cannot be ended if the more powerful party doesn't wish it.
The net result may be that the small guy becomes somewhat of an auxiliary piggy bank for the big guy.
7.21.2012 | 1:13pm
Jamie says:
Cynthia,
Rest assured that 1) I'm listening to you carefully and 2) there is nothing "inaccurate or off base" about raising the issue of Planned Parenthood reputation.
Are you "listening"? Do you think anyone reading the posts on this forum doubts that SGK has a formal process for evaluating grant applications? The "volunteer SGK Affiliate Board of Directors and the community based, volunteer review committee", in the interest of saving women's lives, sent money to a disgusting organization directly involved in destroying women's lives. Hustler Breast Care would be a more worthy grantee.
Rest assured that 1) I'm listening to you carefully and 2) there is nothing "inaccurate or off base" about raising the issue of Planned Parenthood reputation.
Are you "listening"? Do you think anyone reading the posts on this forum doubts that SGK has a formal process for evaluating grant applications? The "volunteer SGK Affiliate Board of Directors and the community based, volunteer review committee", in the interest of saving women's lives, sent money to a disgusting organization directly involved in destroying women's lives. Hustler Breast Care would be a more worthy grantee.
7.21.2012 | 5:28pm
Cynthia says:
Jamie asks,
"Do you think anyone reading the posts on this forum doubts that SGK has a formal process for evaluating grant applications?"
If questions posied and continually posted are any indication of process knowledge, I have little doubt that most people are unaware. For example, in an earlier question I was asked directly if providing funding to PP amounted to fraud as SGK is a breast health organization. Hence, a detailed explanation not only about grant process, but about SGK mission, process for evaluation and how local funding criteria and priorities are established for breast health programs.
Next you state.....
"The "volunteer SGK Affiliate Board of Directors and the community based, volunteer review committee", in the interest of saving women's lives, sent money to a disgusting organization directly involved in destroying women's lives."
Once again, not completely accurate and the devil is in the details. The affiliate I am associated with...DID NOT and never has funded PP. Not because of a pro-life or pro-choice agenda, but because the services needed locally have available through other non-profit agencies. Approximately 100 other Affiliates of SKG of the 120 across the Nation, made similar funding decisions. 17 Affiliates funded PP in 2011.
Next my question to you Jamie....
If you resided in a community where access to live saving breast health screening programs was only available for uninsured and underinsured women, through a local PP clinic and it was your responsibility & mission to ensure "quality care for all" when making funding decisons .....What would you do?
It's so easy to stand on the sidelines and critique the decisions of the coach and challenge the skill of the players. It's a different story when you're actually playing the game.
"Do you think anyone reading the posts on this forum doubts that SGK has a formal process for evaluating grant applications?"
If questions posied and continually posted are any indication of process knowledge, I have little doubt that most people are unaware. For example, in an earlier question I was asked directly if providing funding to PP amounted to fraud as SGK is a breast health organization. Hence, a detailed explanation not only about grant process, but about SGK mission, process for evaluation and how local funding criteria and priorities are established for breast health programs.
Next you state.....
"The "volunteer SGK Affiliate Board of Directors and the community based, volunteer review committee", in the interest of saving women's lives, sent money to a disgusting organization directly involved in destroying women's lives."
Once again, not completely accurate and the devil is in the details. The affiliate I am associated with...DID NOT and never has funded PP. Not because of a pro-life or pro-choice agenda, but because the services needed locally have available through other non-profit agencies. Approximately 100 other Affiliates of SKG of the 120 across the Nation, made similar funding decisions. 17 Affiliates funded PP in 2011.
Next my question to you Jamie....
If you resided in a community where access to live saving breast health screening programs was only available for uninsured and underinsured women, through a local PP clinic and it was your responsibility & mission to ensure "quality care for all" when making funding decisons .....What would you do?
It's so easy to stand on the sidelines and critique the decisions of the coach and challenge the skill of the players. It's a different story when you're actually playing the game.
7.21.2012 | 10:26pm
Mark VA says:
Cynthia:
I think your question "What would you do? " is rhetorical in nature.
Now consider this: the Catholic Church operates over 600 hospitals in all states of our country
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_the_United_States#Healthcare_system) ,
in addition to a large number of clinics.
Thus, going along with your scenario, when there is an under served (for whatever reason) population, the thing that would enter my mind would be to contact the local Bishop, and identify this need to him. He is under a moral obligation to help those with legitimate needs.
I think that the number of Catholic Hospitals in our nation speaks for the seriousness with which this obligation is viewed.
I think your question "What would you do? " is rhetorical in nature.
Now consider this: the Catholic Church operates over 600 hospitals in all states of our country
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_the_United_States#Healthcare_system) ,
in addition to a large number of clinics.
Thus, going along with your scenario, when there is an under served (for whatever reason) population, the thing that would enter my mind would be to contact the local Bishop, and identify this need to him. He is under a moral obligation to help those with legitimate needs.
I think that the number of Catholic Hospitals in our nation speaks for the seriousness with which this obligation is viewed.
7.22.2012 | 3:10am
Jamie says:
Cynthia,
I can't see where on this forum the word fraud was used except by you.
Where did I suggest that your particular SGK affiliate gave money to Planned Parenthood?
Are there really communities who's breast health screening needs may ONLY be met by the nation's largest abortion provider? My "responsibility & mission to ensure quality care for all when making funding decisons" would preclude me from supporting an organization who's practice of "quality care" includes taking the lives of over 300,000 unborn human beings in 2010. Why is Planned Parenthood operating in these poor communities? Margaret Sanger told us:
“Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying … demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism … [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant … We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.”
Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on “The Cruelty of Charity,” pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.
I can't see where on this forum the word fraud was used except by you.
Where did I suggest that your particular SGK affiliate gave money to Planned Parenthood?
Are there really communities who's breast health screening needs may ONLY be met by the nation's largest abortion provider? My "responsibility & mission to ensure quality care for all when making funding decisons" would preclude me from supporting an organization who's practice of "quality care" includes taking the lives of over 300,000 unborn human beings in 2010. Why is Planned Parenthood operating in these poor communities? Margaret Sanger told us:
“Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying … demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism … [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant … We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.”
Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on “The Cruelty of Charity,” pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.
7.24.2012 | 12:18am
edmond says:
Cynthia, please don't give up on what is right. After reading Jamie's paraphrase on Sanger's statement it is statements like yours-
"I know what God has to say about all kinds of sin. I also know that only I am answerable for my decisions & sins to God. I don't want to make decisions for others and I don't want others making decisions for me. I believe that all people should have access to healthcare and should be empowered to make their own choices."
that cause much discoouragement. You may have forgotten that we are also answerable for our omissions.
"I know what God has to say about all kinds of sin. I also know that only I am answerable for my decisions & sins to God. I don't want to make decisions for others and I don't want others making decisions for me. I believe that all people should have access to healthcare and should be empowered to make their own choices."
that cause much discoouragement. You may have forgotten that we are also answerable for our omissions.
7.25.2012 | 6:20am
jack says:
The Supreme Court’s minor mistakes have few systemic consequences. But when the Supremes make a big mistake, the error tends to seep throughout the entire political process, poisoning everything in its path. That was what happened with the Court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision, which intensified the passions and accelerated the dynamics that led to the Civil War—and to 600,000 Americans killing each other.
7.25.2012 | 2:10pm
severalspeciesof says:
@Stephen,
I must let you know that your statement:"Granted, their [Planned Parenthood] meat and potatoes is abortion, I think everybody knows that."
Apparently Planned Parenthood is not aware of that:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-planned-parenthood-actually-does/2011/04/06/AFhBPa2C_blog.html
I must let you know that your statement:"Granted, their [Planned Parenthood] meat and potatoes is abortion, I think everybody knows that."
Apparently Planned Parenthood is not aware of that:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-planned-parenthood-actually-does/2011/04/06/AFhBPa2C_blog.html
7.26.2012 | 2:13pm
Jamie says:
Who is more believable on the subject of what Planned Parenthood actually does, Planned Parenthood's PR team or the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204369404577206692451108960.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204369404577206692451108960.html
7.27.2012 | 1:37pm
Susan says:
Are you suggesting that Robert George's claims are more credible?
Why?
Why?
7.27.2012 | 11:04pm
severalspeciesof says:
@Jamie,
Apparently you are not the only one who questioned the chart. But if you read the update on this link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/about-the-planned-parenthood-chart/2011/08/25/gIQAvTlhnQ_blog.html you'll see that by the math, it still shows that abortion is not their primary service...
Apparently you are not the only one who questioned the chart. But if you read the update on this link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/about-the-planned-parenthood-chart/2011/08/25/gIQAvTlhnQ_blog.html you'll see that by the math, it still shows that abortion is not their primary service...
Just concentrate on rehabbing your own reputation and leave the social issues out of your discussion. Clearly you don't even understand them. We can't count on your wise analysis.