Blue Over Pink

It has been argued for years that the left feels our money really belongs to the government and their challenge is to get as much of it as they can through taxes and other means. This same philosophy was being exercised by the left and the media against the Susan G. Komen foundation when the foundation announced it would no longer financially support Planned Parenthood. In just a few days Komen backtracked under the huge onslaught of pressure and reversed it’s decision. Apparently the left feels they should also have a say in what a totally private organization does with it’s privately collected funds.

My initial thought was that Komen should change it’s famous pink trademark to yellow–for obvious reasons. Probably one of the most successful ground roots charities in the US they have raised over $2 billion. Largely due to Komen’s efforts breast cancer is no longer a death sentence and the survival rate is now over 90 %. I must admit I never knew PP was the recipient of Komen’s funds. Quite frankly PP does not need Komen’s grant money which is about $700,000 of PP’s annual one billion dollar operation. The left’s attack on Komen’s decision had nothing to do with money and everything to do with their sacrosanct, abortion.

Only 4 % of the examinations done at PP involve breast health. They perform no treatment for breast disease–only referrals, education, and literature. They do not perform mammograms. They do perform 300,000 abortions every year, the core of their reason for being.

In the short time since this has come to light I have experienced an inner conflict on this issue. Presently my core beliefs have won out over my charitable nature. Yesterday I sent an email to the local chapter of Komen indicating I would not be a volunteer at the annual 5K Run/Walk for the Cure here in Central Virginia, as I have been for the past 6 years. This was a tough, tough decision. Right now I am quite disappointed in Komen’s Board and it’s caving to basically the church of the left–Planned Parenthood.

Comments

  1. the core of their reason for being?

    don’t let the facts get in the way of your argument!
    Abortions are 3% yes 3% of what PPP does!

  2. And that 3% has 100% impact on the child who is killed.

    Just offering a little perspective.

    Planned Parenthood is quite the American conundrum, that’s for certain. I know folks who scream from the rooftops they need to be abolished, yet a couple of those women go to their local facilities for cheap birth control.

    Yes, we live in interesting times.

  3. Randy in Richmond says:

    fred
    Their own statistics say they see about 3 million women a year. Their own statistics state they perform about 320,000 abortions a year. Just using this yardstick alone equates to 10 %.

    And if I murder someone on January 1st, July 1st, and say November 1st, that’s 3 people I’ve killed in a year. That means only o.8% of what I do is murder people.

  4. I hear the “abortion is only 3% of Planned Parenthood” argument all the time. My reply is that if it is so, why doesn’t the organization simply spin it off, and change the name of the other 97% in order to avoid the political controversy?

    I support abortion rights, but I don’t like the strong-arming that was done over a relatively minuscule part of the budgets of Komen and Planned Parenthood. It really wasn’t about the actual money at all. It was about the argument that somehow, Planned Parenthood has a moral claim on “donations” from the public (and by extension, government subsidies). Editorials by the NY Times and other propaganda outlets slamming Komen for “endangering women’s lives” went far beyond the limits of common decency.

  5. Randy in Richmond says:

    KPOM
    Even for the normal MSM, the coverage of this issue was journalism at it’s very worst.

  6. PP provides all type of healthcare to women.
    most are low income…..
    my point was that Abortion is not why they exist as cindy said!
    yes they do abortions, as well as other types of healthcare.
    it’s legal in America, if you don’t like that i get trying to change the law…but to go after organizations and or doctors obeying the law is where i lose the logic.
    what if i decide alcohol kills and does more harm then abortions? Can i start bombing liquor stores?

  7. @fred, only in the mind of an open-minded, tolerant liberal is withholding a $680,000 voluntary donation to an organization with $1 billion of revenue analogous to bombing a liquor store.

    Planned Parenthood has no legal or moral claims on donations from anyone.

  8. “…the left feels our money really belongs to the government…”

    No, we don’t. The American left is about as close to Marx as Vin Diesel is to an Oscar. And you guys a disservice only to yourselves by continuing to claim such. The whole know-thine-enemy thing, ya know?

  9. “…the left feels our money really belongs to the government…”

    No, we don’t. The American left is about as close to Marx as Vin Diesel is to an Oscar. And to continue to claim such is doing a disservice only to yourselves. The whole know-thine-enemy thing, ya know?

  10. Randy in Richmond says:

    I guess I’ve just been listening to our leftest, Democratic President too much. He’s closer to Marx than any President in my lifetime.

  11. Randy in Richmond says:

    I suspect if one equates abortion to healthcare there isn’t much, if any, ground for discussion.

    The point of my post was mainly about Komen and PP and how the left went ballistic over a private charity and what it chose to do with it’s privately donated money.

  12. J. Strupp says:

    “It has been argued for years that the left feels our money really belongs to the government and their challenge is to get as much of it as they can through taxes and other means.”

    Yeah that’s what the left has argued for years Randy. That our money belongs to the government. All of it. If a commenter set up such a blatant straw man such as this, Cindy would be all over them. You seem to enjoy taking off hand pot shots at the “liberals” you’ve created in your mind. It really takes away from the rest of your post which I happen to agree with and support.

  13. I agree with your comments, Randy. I was talking with my son this morning about the controversy. I told him that the unintended consequence of this could be the dissolution of the Komen foundation within 5 years and the negative financial impact that would have on breast cancer research. It also makes me pause to consider which charities I should contribute in the future. What if charities go after individuals who stop making contributions in the future?

  14. Cindy’s shipping her youngest to South America today. Please, give her a break. You can chide away on your own J. Strupp.

  15. Randy in Richmond says:

    I didn’t say the “left” made the argument. I doubt they would agree–as here. Our leftest President said ” to spread the wealth around is good for everybody”. And in a 2010 Gallup Poll 61 % of liberals answered “they had a positive image of socialism”. This is a not a “pot shot” but the words of a liberal leader and the results of liberals themselves in a reputable poll. And it’s understood this means the money will pass through the government in some manner. But you’re right, the President’s words and this poll, among other things, were in my mind when I wrote this post.

  16. Komen underestimated the tenacity of the pro-abortion crowd. As Cindy pointed out, giving a donation to Planned Parenthood is “staying out of politics,” while not giving to Planned Parenthood is “taking a political stand.” At the end of the day, it really wasn’t about the money, since Komen’s donation was 0.07% of Planned Parenthood’s budget. So, contrary to the New York Times, their failing to make a donation didn’t cost any woman her breast examination. I know it’s shocking that the New York Times was inaccurate and biased, but that’s the truth.

  17. Actually, I think Randy made that statement. :) Cindy’s taken the weekend off.

  18. Two weeks ago the SG Komen Foundation Against Breast Cancer was one of those things all Americans could agree on. They managed to bring together Packer fans with Bears fans to wear pink hats and jerseys. They brought soccer Moms and single Moms and working Moms and a significant number of Dads out to walk and run and ride for a cure for breast cancer.

    How did they do it? By making sure that they didn’t ostracize any constituency. Breast cancer is a horrific disease that reaches into families without regard to Red or Blue, rich or poor, north or south. Breast cancer is not inherently political and, up until last week, SGK acted as if they understood that.

    SGK made sure that organizations that screened for breast cancer received funding to do those screenings. They made sure that places that had large concentrations of poor women with no other place to go got funding to ensure their lives were free from breast cancer.

    Then, last week, someone made the call that SGK should enter into the abortion debate. Nevermind that abortion is legal in all 50 states. Nevermind that SGK’s mission is fighting breast cancer. Nevermind that millions of Americans and dozens of corporations have funded SGK based on their support of a breast cancer-fighting mission. Now, SGK changed their mission without engaging those millions of donors.

    That there was a firestorm of opinion by betrayed donors was understandable as was the outcry from those who felt betrayed by the politicizing of a non-political cause. No longer was it enough to want to wipe out an insidious killer of women and destroyer of families, now according to SGK, all those who have given in the past have to take sides against screenings for women.

    What political paths would SGK head down next with the money given to them in good faith? Americans didn’t wait to find out. They raised their voice in righteous indignation against those who believe that the fight against breast canacer isn’t, on it’s own, a noble cause. And they’re winning.

    Ain’t America great?

  19. Ah Grumps. Inadvertently you have nailed it. “…someone made the call that SGK should enter into the abortion debate”

    Your neverminds don’t count for much.

    I tweeted a few days ago that I doubt the foundation lasts a year. It’s not on their decision. It’s because they reversed one amidst such controversy. Someone threw a wedge issue at the organization, and they couldn’t cope. I read somewhere another real pundit gave them five years.

    This is a marketing topic for future coursework. It’s not pretty, but neither was Enron nor the Edsel.

  20. Randy in Richmond says:

    So grumps, you would be in favor of Komen contributing to Phillip Morris for research on a new line of cigarettes as smoking is legal in all 50 states. Nevermind that smoking contributes to the very disease Komen is fighting to cure. If it’s legal it must be okay to participate in it and thus contribute to it’s continuance.

  21. Randy in Richmond says:

    Komen will be hurt but I wouldn’t write them off yet. I see the left on all levels either increasing their contributions or becoming new donors to the cause. Whether it will be an ongoing phenomenon and enough to offset the obvious loses they are going to incur–we will have to wait and see.

  22. I’ll be curious as to the percentage of initial “booyah” donors who ask for their contribution to be returned.

  23. Randy in Richmond says:

    This issue brings up an interesting question that has been around for a while–usually in conjunction with local United Way fund raising and even some churches. That being can someone make a donation to a specific line item of a charity and be assured their gift is not used for other purposes (causes).

    What do you think?

  24. Randy 20–What a silly analogy. PP offers breast cancer screeenings. PM doesn’t. End of that thread.

    Randy 23–UW especially makes it easy to designate your contribution”To” an organization but doesn’t, to my knowledge, allow you to opt out of supporting one.

  25. @grumps, the point is that doing something “good” doesn’t excuse doing something objectionable, which many people find abortion to be.
    What if the KKK started offering breast cancer screenings? Would they be worthy of your donation?

  26. You know, that particular suggestion could degrade this conversation considerably… let’s be good out there.

  27. Randy in Richmond says:

    If I am following the left who are criticizing Komen on this issue, it’s non-partisan when Komen is donating to Planned Parenthood, but partisan when they are not.

  28. Randy in Richmond says:

    You make a great point KPOM, with all due regards to Cindy. Let’s get real here. This isn’t about breast cancer, it’s all about abortion. For what little bit it’s worth, Komen will not receive my volunteered time nor pledges per miles/K’s walked as long as they donate to PP. It’s really a simple life choice for me.

  29. Randy,
    If you volunteered for Komen in the past when they were funding PP why would you stop now? Does breast cancer no longer matter to you? Why get up in arms over things staying the same?

  30. Hey, intelligent people change their mind when new information conflicts with personal morals. Get over it.

  31. Randy in Richmond says:

    The Truth
    It’s kinda like if I promised to close Gitmo by January 2010– and didn’t. Or what Cindy said.

  32. KPOM 25–Silly What If questions are just that and don’t deserve a response.

    When Komen and PP worked together to wipe out breast cancer it wasn’t political. Once SGK decided to play political games it became political. Why is it so hard for some of you to understand that? It’s really pretty simple.

    There was a non-political funding relationship before IT WAS DECIDED to make it political. One side overplayed their hand and ow has to understand the consequences are of their own making. There was no misunderstanding that led to this blow-up. Komen decided to sell-out millions of donors to satisfy the redmeat-truebelievers and is paying the price.

    Just think of it as New Coke with Evangelicals. That might make it easier to understand

  33. Randy in Richmond says:

    Grumps
    So PP helped wipe out beast cancer. Please provide a link where that is explicated. Save your time–you won’t find it. PP did (does) nothing more than any local medical personnel or any woman can do in her own home. Not that that’s not important but it ain’t curing breast cancer–it’s not even treating it.

    I would suggest Komen was just as much, if not more, political when they decided to donate to PP. What you are advocating is that any organization (PP) can legitimize itself by simply committing a very small percentage of it’s resources to a good cause. You are still arguing that it’s only partisan for Komen to stop giving to PP. I would argue just as strongly that it was partisan when the donations began–only we didn’t know about it because that’s how the MSM works–or doesn’t work.

    When 26 Democratic Senators write to a completely private organization regarding how they legally spend their privately donated money–now that’s partisanship and politics at it’s ultimate worse.