Thank you for this cohesive and clear analysis, Steven. My reaction has been much the same all week.

I figured Komen’s decision to defund didn’t have anything to do with it’s views on Planned Parenthood’s objectives, but more efficiently contributing to exams and screening. 

I imagine in today’s economy Komen is not getting the same amount of donations it used to and it needs to find ways to save money or better ways to spend their money to achieve their goals (such as giving to organizations that actually screen for breast cancer).

I heard the head of PP on the radio saying that their victory is because people are “tired of political bullying”.  Huh????????????????????

Elise: Thanks for that. My head just exploded from irony/hypocrisy overload.

Excellent article, Steve. Perfectly synthesized this whole hideous mess.

If nothing else, this debacle has been a wonderful opportunity to pass along some “gems of wisdom” from PP founder, Maggie Sanger—like this one:

“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

It’s pretty clear that, as Archbold pointed out, the abortion industry has a protection racket.  If you support PP openly, you’re “in”—so much the better if it comes with a lot of public hoopla and $$$ (think Bloomberg).  If you stay quiet about PP, you’ll be left alone: this means you can’t complain when PP comes into your daughter’s high school to pass out condoms and misinformation like it were candy.  If you do complain, you’ll get a slap on the wrist - at least for the first offense.  If you’re against PP, and say so publicly, you risk losing status, employment, popularity, money…  Make no mistake, PP is a very large, very effective tool of the Culture of Death; being truly pro-life (“anti-abortion”) has cost many people I know their jobs and their livelihood, among other things (it’s especially rampant in the medical field).  As Fr. Barron discusses in the “Catholicism” series (which is excellent, btw), Aquinas articulated that there are four common substitutions for God: wealth, pleasure, power, and honor.  Since speaking out against the Culture of Death (PP) necessarily means losing all 4 of these atributes, it’s pretty clear what side we are called to be on.

Something we as pro-life advocates keep failing to realize is this…MONEY TALKS.  Yet we keep spending money at stores and businesses that advertise on mainstream media outlets that are sympathetic to the culture of death.  Did you make your money so easily, that you can spend it without a care?  Or do we (non-violently) fight fire with fire?  Right now, Planned Parenthood is so pervasive that even an organization like the Girl Scouts is not immune to it’s influence. 

The problem is, that these news agencies are defining the argument.  Planned Parenthood is no longer an abortion provider, it is a “women’s health” provider…never mind that the only time they deal with women is when they pass out birth control (shown to be dangerous to women) and abortion (also shown to be dangerous to women). 

Maybe, it is time to give a voice to our sisters who have had abortions, who may feel stigmatized and belittled by us, to let them tell us what they had to deal with after the abortion, both in terms of health and mind.  Maybe it’s time to put the true face of abortion’s effects out there, instead of the falsely benign “face” being presented by pro-abortionists and their supporters.

I was excited to see Komen’s decision to break away from PP. At that point, I was looking for a way to donate o the cause. Now, as it stands, I won’t consider donating in any form,not even buying products that donate to the cause. I will find a true pro-life advocate to donate to.

If an organization is going to use Federal Funds, it must comply with Federal law—period.

@ Hector—how do you know that PP ONLY provides birth control and abortions? Have you ever been in a PP clinic? Have you read your website?
Maybe, if you didn’t use the National Catholic Register as your sole source for health information, you can learn that risks are very minimal compared to the benefits.

Dear offensive handle deleted: Do you want to clarify what the heck you’re talking about? What organization, what federal funds, what federal law?
 
Abortion is Planned Parenthood’s financial kitty. It accounts for the vast majority of their cashflow and financial model. The rest is window dressing.

It just gets me sick

As someone who has some kind of ‘cancer’ gene in the family, (a maternal grandfather died of stomach cancer, my mother passed about a year ago from ovarian cancer, a sister who is cancer clear for a year after battling colon cancer and her daughter 2 years free after melanoma) and now myself just finishing pre surgical chemotherapy and looking toward a masechtomy next week, I can honestly say that I have never given money to Susam G. Komen.  I am sure many people thought I was heartless, but the fact is, that the Komen organization does not share with anyone. They spend money suing for the use of the words ‘the cure’ but they have also never been willing to partner with other groups.  It is a selfish organization.

My mother lived a full life for almost 19 years from her diagnosis with ovarian cancer through prayer, her own will to live and the truly wonderful Dana Farber in Boston.  My mother worked until 2 weeks before her death at 81! My sister and her daughter both have had the priviledge of the top notch research and treatment at the Dana.  For myself, I am by the grace of God at the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida and am so grateful to be blessed with another top notch research and treatment center with an extra ordinarily high survival rate.  Not to mention, the genuinely kindest group of doctors and medical professionals I have ever met.  Even more so than at the Dana.

So if you really want to help with ‘the cure’, consider giving to these institutions or to Sloan Kettering or whatever cancer center you have in your area that treats and does research.  It is at these centers that trials are carried out, research is carried out and human beings are being cared for, lives saved and respected.

Just my two cents.

Christians - we are in serious trouble!  This week proves without a shadow of doubt how powerfully united the culture of death is.  They can destroy very quickly.  Unless Christians REALLY come to a united front we are not 10 years from Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia, or Mao’s China.  Look how far we have come in 4 years and it will only geometrically speed up.  I’m not sure what we can do at this point.  There isn’t a clearly Christian choice for President - not one who will truly stand for life and turn the tide of the culture of death.  But we can try.  And we can pray.  And we can begin to speak out from the pulpit and take on the forces that seek to silence the Church.  I am not Roman Catholic - my wife is.  But I clearly see the power to turn this country around lies in the Roman Catholic church.  IF all Catholics voted pro-life, all the time, we would turn this country around in two elections.  The first would show the power, the second would bring forth pro life candidates.  If not now - when?

Great 2 paragraphs on AAUW.

JCM, we are getting close to the times of Nazi Germany…

comparisons:

dehumanization of a group or class of people…

Juden, vermin, rats, parasites, in the 1930s and 40s used to describe the Jews
Zygote, fetus, clump of cells, parasites, used to describe the unborn child to day…

Since the Jews were considered “less than human”, they were used for medical experimentation, with the aim of “helping the human race” in the 1930s and 40s.
SInce unborn children are consdiered less than human, fetal stem cells from children who have been aborted are being used in medical experimentation, with the aim of “helping the human race” today…

Any dessention from the thought of the collective (Nazis in the 30s and 40s, the Left today) is met with censorship (300,000 stealth marchers for life in DC, who never made the airwaves) or are punished (Susan G. Komen, anyone?).

Exercising your religion in any way other than the way mandated by the state and it’s limited exceptions is cause for both civil and criminal penalty.  Jews in 1940s?  Yep.  Catholics in 2012? Yep.

Nazi Germany…present day America…it’s getting close isn’t it?

Those who do not learn from the lessons of hsitory are doomed to repeat it”...

Because of the Multi-Media of the Culture of Death censorship and blackout, many American people as well as other people around the world, don’t appear to realize that Planned Parenthood is an evil and very wealthy institution.  Nor do many know that its founder, Margaret Sanger, and subsequent followers are eugenicists and population controllers who practise genocide, primarily of the poor and people of color.  Truly, Hitler could have avoided World War II if he had Planned Parenthood working with him and Dr. Mengele to propagandize the people of Germany as they have done especially to the American public primarily through the mainstream Media and absolute control of the government’s developmental policies and funds to Third World countries.  I predict that America will pay a heavy price in the near future because of Planned Parenthood’s evil policies and tactics. Many countries in the Western world are already experiencing a demographic winter!  Wake up America!

Dear G. E. Schwartz: I prefer the Roger Ebert analogy.
 
You write:

Whatever the case, what’s important is not to enter into niave [sic] appraisals …
 
As with the other events of the last two weeks, many, too many have been pulled into hyberpole [sic], when the bigger, realistic political picture would have been best to observe.

 
Strangely, these are the very points my post endeavors to make. The main difference between us is that I haven’t made any appraisal of Komen’s intentions or future actions, naive or otherwise, whereas you feel very sure that you know what Komen really intends to do.
 
You even write, “Komen has already proven its llegiance [sic] to the right-wing.” When and how did that happen? Please enlighten us.

@JCM You say there isn’t a clearly Christian choice for President - not one who will truly stand for life and turn the tide of the culture of death.  Yes there is, have you not listened to Rick Santorum?? He has been 100% pro-life his entire career.  BTW, you mention that your wife is the Roman Catholic, not you; but you clearly see the power to turn this country around lies in the Roman Catholic church.  We would love to welcome you “HOME” anytime you decide to join us.

G. E. Schwartz: I’m not interested in how you feel. I want to know when and how you feel Komen proved its allegiance to the right wing.

Because everyone knows that pandering to the right wing means donating to Planned Parenthood? Hey G.E. - if you are going to insult people, you should put your spell check on.  Otherwise we might conclude that you were just an ignorant troll.  Just maybe.

G. E. Schwartz: In other words, they haven’t proved their allegiance. Cheers.

[offensive handle deleted]: First and foremost, the fact that you have the name you do is an irony that hasn’t escaped my attention, but that’s besides my point. The real reason I write this message out to you is because the argumentative tactic you use is so feeble that to debunk it I’m going to use a statement the (late and great) comedian CHRIS FARLEY and his (classic) movie TOMMY BOY.
Tommy: “Because they know all they sold ya was a guaranteed piece of s**t. That’s all it is, isn’t it? Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time. But for now, for your customer’s sake, for your daughter’s sake, ya might wanna think about buying a quality product from me.”
Basically, anyone can create a website and write whatever they want on that site. As a matter of fact, business ethics state that a business, no matter what it is, is NOT required to explain, exactly, the goods and/or services it’s supplying in great detail as to do so may reveal that businesses practices, themselves, and put said business in jeopardy. Needless to mention that businesses need only offer vague descriptions towards their clientele whilst in the process protecting the business itself. So, in regards to PLANNED PARENTHOOD (PP); it can, and does, write whatever it is that they want, but audits and tax revenue statements from their various “outlets” have shown in no uncertain terms where the vast majority of their revenue comes from, which is abortion/sterilization/contraception.

Hey GE - don’t give up - you have apparently missed Steve’s other political commentary - you have more opportunities to let your brilliant commentary shine. Try his gay marriage posts next.

“I do apologize, I meant colusion [sic].” I’d ask when you meant it and what you meant about it, but since nothing you’ve said so far seems to have any bearing on my post, I guess it doesn’t matter. Best of luck with your spellchecking. Cheers.

Heh. Thanks, Elise. I was going to suggest my Ground Zero mosque series.

The Komen controversy is merely the tip of a massive buried iceberg.  the firestorm indicates the culture of death has almost taken control of our nation’s intended demise.  Our enemies have clearly shown their hand. The next election will announce the end of the City on a Hill if Obama and the Democrats win.  Yesterday Obama claimed he was a Christian and that his flagship socialist principle of taxing the rich to help the poor was erroneously a Christan principal.  He has yet to say what Christian principal allows him to condone millions of abortions and abomination.  The last election indicated the mentality of the slim majority of American voters must have been suffering with Altzheimers disease and lost sight of our American heritage.  I was born in the Twenties and from high school on began monitoring infiltration of our public schools by the Communist John Dewey.  He managed to remove the Founders intent to teach Christian principles in public schools.  Now our universities are filled with Marxist professors. Fast track to 1936. After losing the Presidential Election, The socialist candidate, Norman Thomas said:  We will take over the nation without firing a shot.  After a military career, I could not believe freedom-loving American voters would ever allow Obama to make him a prophet. Beginning with FDR who famously said: “Some of me best friends are Communists” the Democrat Party has allowed infiltration of socialism into our government and has now become the flagship of the Culture of death.  If this nation is to survive, there must be a massive reeducation of the American people with the principles that once made out nation great.  God can no longer bless America – we had better beg for His mercy, before his justice must overrile mercy.

Excellent article, Steven.

Also, I appreciate how you handled the grossly-blinded-by-sin individuals who were critical of your piece. Satan is not very logical or articulate, is he?

Best and blessings to you.

Your last analysis of the pp revenues makes me seriously question the integrity of your argument. I understand that the Catholic church is opposed to contraception Mr. Schwartz, but I would like to know at what point contraception and sterilization became murder? Perhaps the Christian community would best off if it would consider all the tools at hand to prevent abortion, not only the long-term goals of perfect law and religious obedience, but in the meantime, maybe some plain old common sense? Contraception prevents abortion. Sterilization prevents abortion. Removing these tools from population greatly increases the number of illegal abortion and abandonment cases. Both kill infants. Both are defined by the church as murder. Maybe we need to consider which is a more serious sin, fornication or murder?

- incredulous christian

You people are all the same, blinded by thousands of years of out dated information. Many of you are saying to turn our country around we need to vote only pro life and that’s santorum??? Give me a break you have no idea what the issues are. Abortion will never be banned!!! Don’t you see that blindly voting on one issue is the STUPIDEST thing you could do for your cause?? Santorum is war hungry if that’s not pro death I don’t know what is! And those wars will cause our country to collaps even more financially to then cause the only way for people to get health care is through the government and then u will be forced to pay for abortions out of your taxes because of your own blind ignorance. Get your nose out of your bible and eyes off your Rosery and look at what’s really going on, religious issues aren’t the big ones anymore

I am SO disappointed that Komen caved in. Nobody mentions the 54,000,000 babies that have been killed. How many women have died from breast cancer? How many breast cancer victims have had abortions or have used contraceptive pills? Do those numbers compare to the lost babies? God help us!

@ Ex catholic:

Your handle says it all.  You know, you remind me very much of myself, especially in the years before I converted and became a Catholic.  I was a Presbyterian, and I used to say things very similar to what you have written above.  I used to think thoughts like, “oh, the these stupid Catholics, always whining about abortion!  Don’t they get it that there’s a war on, and people are starving and that there are so many other issues that are more pressing?”  I don’t recall how or when it all started to turn around for me, but I do remember Archbishop Charles Chaput once saying that, and I’m paraphrasing here, it’s not that other issues are less important, rather it’s just that some issues are more foundational than others.  In other words, when we get it wrong on life, so many others issues are negatively affected.  If you recall our Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers understood this explicitly.  In enumerating “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” they placed life first.  Without a fundamental respect for life, that is, life unhindered by contraception, abortion, euthanasia, etc. we have no hope of ever attaining a just and equitable society.  We also have no hope of attaining a just and equitable society when the government can compel the citizenry to act against its conscience where those foundational issues of life are concerned…and THAT’S what’s at stake in the whole HHS issue.  HHS, Planned Parenthood, Komen….it’s all connected.

I think that if this result was achieved after two days, it’s fair to say that if they remain eligible for money, they will get money. Whether anybody will have any enough respect for SGK left to donate is another question.
-
Incredulous, you forgot that oral contraceptives are a known carcinogen.

@ Incredulous christian: I’m assuming you haven’t read carefully enough to realize that Mr. Schwartz, like yourself, is a critic of my post, not the author.
 
Contraception properly so called is not murder, nor is sterilization. Murder is certainly far worse than either, and worse too than fornication. That doesn’t make fornication, contraception or sterilization good or acceptable.
 
Your assumption that access to contraception reduces abortion may seem intuitive, but it isn’t borne out by the facts. Abortion is a fruit of the contraceptive mentality.
 
@ Ex catholic: I assure you the Church’s information is at least as up to date as yours, or more so. Regarding Santorum, suffice to say the sort of critique you make, and others like it, are shared by many Catholics, so it isn’t a litmus test question for the purposes of the present discussion. Cheers.
 
@ enness: Don’t be so sure. Most of us on the outside can’t predict what will happen. Time will tell.

The backlash against Komen was a perfect example of the dictatorship of relativism.

there are other places to donate to besides this very big company that seems to have more than they need to fight breast cancer. the tweet about Planned Parenthood being a date you can never end is priceless. Let it be a warning , I can just picture Planned Parenthood personified like an angry, crazed and gilted Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction… if i was a corporation , I’d be scared.

Fantastic examples of Godwin’s Law, Strawman, Ad Hominem, Ipse dixit within this comment thread notwithstanding, I will echo a singular point made by one “G. E. Schwartz”: “Just as Frank Rich switched from theater reviews to being a political commentator, revealing his woeful niavete, it seems you have followed a similar path in leaving behind your Catholic film reviews for political commentary, an endeavor that is clearly over your head”. Allow me to offer some advice, Mr Greydanus - firstly resorting to petty name-calling, advice to spell check and ignoring arguments does not make one pithy, witty or clever; it makes one childish. Secondly, if you do want to enter the big-boy world of Journalism, then you need to know the difference between opinion and fact: you say “Abortion is Planned Parenthood’s financial kitty. It accounts for the vast majority of their cashflow and financial model. The rest is window dressing.” and offer no source. The reason is simple; there isn’t one. Ignoring the fact the PP is a non-profit, only 3% of services provided at PP clinics are abortions (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PPFA_Annual_Report_08-09-FINAL-12-10-10.pdf). Please either provide your source, or retract your statement.

As far as Obama’s understanding of the message of Jesus is concerned, he gives 1 percent of his income. Do his supporters give the same way?  One of Obama’s heroes, Warren Buffet, makes money and shields money from taxes at least as much as the Mitt Romney that Obama and his followers demonize.  Yet their success bring jobs, goods and services to the rest of us.  Blessed John Paul pointed out the Church teaching from Genesis on that God created man and woman to bring forth life.  Some contraception works by killing the fertilized egg as does the Morning After Pill.

I think your article is dead center, right on…one of the few that doesn’t misstate what is going on…!!! No matter how hard PP and its advocates try to squelch the truth, the truth will eventually come out, albeit after much unnecessary pain and suffering under the false label of ‘women’s reproductive rights’. If those seeking the truth would read and consider some of the pro life evidence regarding eugenics, population control, long term effects of abortion, STD’s, anti-family counselling at PP, etc., they might take a different view of the nation’s largest abortion provider…!!!

Well, nothing has changed since the “Culture of Death” people are still pulling the strings. The so called groups who support abortion are basically groups of women who whant the power to control the natural order of things. Men who do not get involved are enjoying it because there are more women to have sex with without the responsibility of children. No marriage, free sex, etc. is the modern way of life in the USA. Even the young hispanics are joining the “COD” and loving it.
Remember what our President said…“I want my daughters to be free to choose to have a child or not”....or words to that effect.

It was heartbreaking when Komen reversed it’s decision to stop grants to Planned Parenthood. We should all know by now that they said the money was allegedly going to PP for breast exams…..but PP does NOT do mammograms. Also, Komen will not acknowledge that the contraceptive pill and abortion are factors in the cause of breast cancer. So, why were they giving $$$ to PP in the first place?

We also have seen the fierce Mafia-like attacks Planned Parenthood and abortion lovers used on Komen, even more than 2 dozen pro-abortion Senators wrote Komen in support of PP (some Catholic)!

Komen may say “for the cure”, but what about prevention?
What about the thousands upon thousands of preborn babies who have lost their lives at the hands of Planned Parenthood practitioners?

So, for me, I will NOT support Susan G. Komen.

We’re told that the moral issues (abortion) are not big issues in this election…..apparently abortion is to the Democrats! Wake up Catholics!!

@Samuel, either Planned Parenthood would like everyone to know the numbers of their abortion business or they wouldn’t. And if they don’t, then the source you provide is equally as useless, coming as it does from Planned Parenthood itself. Corporations are many times willing to lie. The best source would be an objective third party. Find the third party source and I may be able to take your comment more seriously.

We have invited the devil into our country, our schools, our medical care system, our homes. We didn’t really believe he would do us any harm. But we have discovered how very wrong we were and we want him out. And he does not want to leave. He is very comfortable here. And we don’t want to do what is necessary to get him out. It is just too uncomfortable isn’t it? So maybe if we just close our eyes for a while, he will just vanish like a bad dream.

Face it folks. This situation needs an exorcist.

I thought S. Greydanus preents some great points.  However, it greatly troubles me that he is using the circle-red-slash over the SGKF logo, and that the threads that follow indicate that people will no longer support SGKF.  I pray fervently that people will educate themselves about the mission of SGKF, and look at its great success in Cancer Screening, Education, Prevention, Research, and Survivor/Caregiver Support through the years. I also pray that people will clearly see that the money SGKF donates to PP is very strictly earmarked for breast cancer education, materials, screenings, and mammograms.
Boycotting SGKF opens a Pandora’s Box, because there are so many organizations/businesses that provide funds to PP, including, but not limited to: Starbuck’s, Panera, Whole Foods, McDonald’s, Chipotle, Pepsi, CocaCola, Verizon, AT&T, Microsoft, Adobe… it’s a very long list of businesses that provide products/services to all of us every day.

Thanks to all who have expressed appreciation to date.
 
G. E. Schwartz: Thanks for the critical opinions and advice of your seven comments. I hope you enjoy whatever else you have planned for your weekend.
 
EJS: Regarding the Komen circle-slash graphic, bear in mind that the subject of my post is the anti-Komen backlash by the Culture of Death Left described above. It’s not necessarily indicative of my own attitude toward Komen, which, FWIW, is “Wait and see.”

P.S. Aside to G. E. Schwartz: You refer twice to “Servant of God Father Newhaus.” Are you laying traps for me now, friend? :-)

If the Planned Parenthood (PP) agenda has no political leanings, why did they IMMEDIATELY politicize the entire issue? Isn’t a charitable organization free to fund whatever they want any more?

If PP is such a humanitarian organization, so concerned with the well being of poor women, why do they exploit them for profit?  Do they offer FREE abortions to the disadvantaged since there is such a NEED for this service to humanity?  NO.

Cut me a break! When are people going to wake up?

The Knights of Columbus Councils were alerted to the Susan B. Komen Foundation over a year ago.We were notified not to give monies or time to this foundation or related activities.The reason given was it"s affiliation with Planned Parenthood which advocates abortion as a means of control of unwanted pregnancy.Abortion is the loss in quality of individual worth donated by a minimum of six individuals.Thus a loss in quantity investment in life.Also why is it lawful for an organization to enforce a condition of durees upon another one because of it’s decision(s)to manage affairs related to how it wants to function.In my opinion the leadership is weak and fell to the bullying tactics to control an outcome.BOYCOTT both organizations!With Love,Compassion and Prayer.

It’s NEUHAUS….. Fr. Richard John NEUHAUS, who is probably spinning in his grave. Anyone out there have any psychiatric training in corporate schizophrenia? Policy decisions as influenced by conflicted moral precepts? Let’s get commentary from some mental health professionals. Steven-with regard to your qualifications…Someone once told a boatload of know nothings to “Put out into the deep.” Keep rowing. You’ll know when to take off your clothes and swim to shore.

not a bad article for a movie guy

Or it could be Saint John Cardinal Newman.

@Nick

First and foremost, Planned Parenthood is a Federation, not a corporation. Secondly, while I agree with the sentiment that “corporations tend to lie”, I don’t know how that applies in this instance, as the report I provided was an accounting of revenue versus expenditures. While no 3rd party examination exists (to my knowledge) here are links to the 2008 (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PPFA_FY09_Form_990_Copy_for_Public_Inspection.PDF) and 2009 (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PPFA_FY_2010_990_Public_Disclosure_Copy.PDF) Federal Tax returns filed and accepted without incident by the IRS.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the burden of proof does not lie with me; it lies with the person who originally made the claim. So, again, I ask Mr. Greydanus to either produce his evidence that “Abortion is Planned Parenthood’s financial kitty. It accounts for the vast majority of their cashflow and financial model. The rest is window dressing.” or retract it.

Samuel:
 
Thanks for repeating your challenge, which I missed the first time around.
 
To review: I wrote in a combox comment (not in my original post), “Abortion is Planned Parenthood’s financial kitty. It accounts for the vast majority of their cashflow and financial model.”
 
You challenged: “Ignoring the fact the PP is a non-profit, only 3% of services provided at PP clinics are abortions (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PPFA_Annual_Report_08-09-FINAL-12-10-10.pdf). Please either provide your source, or retract your statement.”
 
As it happens, I spent a fair bit of time this morning researching this very question (in connection with an unrelated discussion). Here is what I am prepared to say:
 
The 3% figure you cite, which PP likes to bandy about, is almost completely worthless. That doesn’t make my earlier statement accurate; and, since in fact it appears abortion currently (as of 2009) represents just under 40% of PP’s annual revenue, my “vast majority” claim was inaccurate, and I retract it. (There is a relevant “vast majority” statistic that I was inaccurately remembering with respect to PP’s abortion services, that I will get to in a moment.)
 
The reason the 3% figure is almost completely worthless is twofold. First, it’s based on calculating “the numbers by services provided, rather than dollars spent” or taken in (source). PP calculates each interaction with a client—giving out condoms, doing blood tests, etc.—as “services,” and even women who receive abortions are reckoned to have received a number of additional “services” as well (pregnancy test, counseling, etc.) (source).
 
To borrow an oversimplified example: Perform 3 abortions (at over $450 a pop), hand out 97 condoms, and voilà! Abortion is only 3% of the “services” you provide. In fact, even if 100% of all clients received abortions, abortions would still be considered a minority of “services” provided by PP!
 
Note, also, that the enumeration of “services” used to arrive at the meaningless 3% figure is based on self-reporting by individual PP affiliates; there is no national audit and no way to verify the numbers. One has to take it on faith.
 
It should also be noted that PP counts “emergency contraception” services separately from abortion services, even though their mechanism is presumably abortifacient. If PP counted all abortive services together, the percentage of abortive services would be higher—possibly much higher.
 
Finally, there is no getting around the fact that, for pregnant women, PP is exactly one thing: an abortion provider. It appears that, in 2009, over 97% of pregnant women who walked into a PP clinic were sold an abortion; fewer than 3% received prenatal care or adoption services (source). In fact, PP did 47 abortions for every 1 prenatal care client they saw.
 
Furthermore, PP’s abortion numbers are increasing, not decreasing. Abortions nationwide have been falling, but PP continues to do more abortions, not fewer, increasing its share of the total abortion market and making abortion a larger part of PP’s own revenues year over year.
 
Now, it may true that with abortion providing an ever-larger revenue stream, PP can afford to offer genuinely needed services like STD testing, cancer screenings and so forth. Thus, another correspondent wrote to me, “One of the forums I read had several people tell stories whose practical upshot is ‘I had no money, no insurance, no job, and a doctor at PP looked at me for free and I’m alive today because of it.’” Because they are alive, those women are able to write those testimonials. The dead babies whose murders helped pay for those free treatments are silent.

I quit reading because these posts are so contentious.  Such divisiveness is tearing apart our country, which was founded upon the right to various freedoms.  Unfortunately, groups on both sides in this country think their way is the only way and want to push their beliefs upon others, rather than everyone having the right to live their lives they way they see fit.  Why are so many people judgmental rather than minding their own business?  As far as PP, the President of our local PP told the media that she was told several years ago by a local Komen executive, after several rejections for Komen grants, that she never need apply again.  Komen could have utilized this practice or just quit giving PP grants in other communities without all this hoopla, which has created more divisiveness.

Mr. Greydanus,

Thank you for your retraction; I appreciate that it was noted in the comments and not the article, but I believe the same standard should apply, and commend you for stepping forward.

Additionally the numbers you supply are interesting. I am of a different opinion than yourself with regards to the core issue of this debate (abortion) but do certainly hear your points that 40% seems an accurate measure of monies paid to PP for “abortive” services (though I don’t agree that said fact changes that PP’s services for abortion are only 3% of what they do - a Diocese, for instance, may have to purchase vehicles for certain clergy and incense for chapels, the dollar amount spent on the vehicles would be greater than on the incense, because cars are more expensive; still, the focus of the Diocese is on the incense). I also see your point on the issue of emergency contraceptive; though I don’t think any court in the world would be willing to set precedent by setting “life at conception”; in that capacity PP’s reporting is bound by medical definition, not moral standard.

I would offer to you that, if this is indeed the beginning of a harder journalistic career for you then you are faced with two ways of writing:

“Note, also, that the enumeration of “services” used to arrive at the meaningless 3% figure is based on self-reporting by individual PP affiliates; there is no national audit and no way to verify the numbers. One has to take it on faith.”

or

“Because they are alive, those women are able to write those testimonials. The dead babies whose murders helped pay for those free treatments are silent.”

The former is fair coverage to advance a position by providing information; the latter is an appeal to the lowest common denominator to rally for a cause. The former helps dialouge; the latter will only have people who already agree with you commend you and those who disagree with you ignore you.

Best of luck in your endeavors.

We can act now…..Pray, fast and beg for God’s mercy on our country!  And ask EVERYONE you know to do this too!

For the record, it bears pointing out that the CEO of Planned Parenthood (PP) is paid more than Komen’s entire annual contribution of $580,000 - and that the average salary of the top eight PP executives is $270,000.  Further, PP receives almost half a billion dollars (about 50% of its revenues) in taxpayer funding.  At least the author’s friend has a choice in whether Komen is deserving of any of his money!  As Mark Steyn put it:  in America today, few activies are as profitable as ‘non-profit’...

Samuel,
 
Thanks for your comments, and for your irenic tone, which is appreciated.
 
To clarify, contrary to what might be inferred from the hasty comments of one rather hostile reader, I don’t see this post as the “beginning” of anything for me. This is far from the first time I have addressed issues beyond the world of film, and while it won’t be the last, it doesn’t mark any particular change in direction for me. My training and interests predating my work as a critic are not limited to film and film criticism, although film writing will continue to be the bread and butter of my work.
 
I would even venture to say that a writer who is qualified to write about nothing but film is not qualified to write even about that. If you don’t take an active and intense interest in the world beyond cinema, you cannot write about cinema, because cinema is about everything.
 
As regards the “two ways of writing” that you note: While I recognize and acknowledge the validity of the distinction you make, I submit that those of us who regard abortion as the gravest moral injustice of our times must have recourse both to the language of common consensus and to the language of moral witness. If you imagine yourself in the days of the debates over abolition or civil rights, arguing on the right side of those issues, I’m sure you can imagine yourself having recourse to both styles of rhetoric. So here. Cheers.

Marie,
 
You say “Such divisiveness is tearing apart our country, which was founded upon the right to various freedoms.” True. And the first of those rights is the right to life, which is the foundation for all the others. Where that right is denied, none of the others means a damn.

Samuel - the fact that people can ignore the killing of babies says something about them and the society at large, but does not mean that it should not be said.  No one arguing the pro choice position will EVER answer the simple question of when should a baby be given rights under the law?  Because as the law stands, a baby can legally be killed in the act of being born, as long as they keep part of the body inside the mother while they do it.  There is NO medical reason not to allow the baby out - the only reason is to keep it legal.  It would be more humane to let the baby out and give him/her a lethal injection, than to do what is done now, which is to stab scissors into the back of the baby’s neck and sever the spinal cord.  If you disagree with the legality of this procedure, you already disagree with the law as it is now, and you could rightly be called, “anti-choice”.  (What happens next is the pro-choice arguer either doesn’t answer at all, or more likely says something totally irrelevant like, “Oh yeah, well what about war? Or priests molesting children?  Or the pope has a fancy hat!”  Happens every time.) If you were to answer when a baby should be protected under the law, you would be the first.

@Mr. Greydanus - “I would even venture to say that a writer who is qualified to write about nothing but film is not qualified to write even about that.” Well said; I agree entirely. “While I recognize and acknowledge the validity of the distinction you make, I submit that those of us who regard abortion as the gravest moral injustice of our times must have recourse both to the language of common consensus and to the language of moral witness. If you imagine yourself in the days of the debates over abolition or civil rights, arguing on the right side of those issues, I’m sure you can imagine yourself having recourse to both styles of rhetoric.” Another salient point, and one I had not considered to it’s fullest. If indeed you do see it as “the gravest moral injustice of our times” then I can appreciate your passion and your rhetoric. Your comparison to the civil rights movement leads me to an interesting parallel to “Letter From a Birmingham City Jail” - the problem isn’t those who are for or against, per se, it’s those who sit in the middle and wait. My only contention with your choice of language was for the sake of, as you so kindly put, an irenic discourse; as you note though, and I respect, if one considers it a grave moral injustice fostering dialogue is pointless. Though I disagree with your position, I respect it.

@elise - I argue the pro-choice position, and I will gladly answer your question “when should a baby be given rights under the law”. I, like the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton (and later affirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey) define that time as when the entity in question is (to quote from the Roe ruling) “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid” which is (from the same ruling) “usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks”. As my medical training is not official, I would then concede to expert opinion and accept the 2007 “Consensus statements on the borderlands of neonatal viability: from uncertainty to grey areas” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17955714) and, for the sake of grey areas, place the “time” at 23 weeks and 1 day.

As for your notion that “Because as the law stands, a baby can legally be killed in the act of being born, as long as they keep part of the body inside the mother while they do it” and that “to do what is done now, which is to stab scissors into the back of the baby’s neck and sever the spinal cord”, I’m afraid that is sheer fantasy. Every state in the Union has a either it’s own law regarding viability (Alabama, for instance, is 20 weeks while Florida is 24 [http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf]) or cedes to the “Roe” guideline of viability. The only legal capacity by which the operation you describe would be permitted would be if the mother’s health was at stake, and even then said procedure would be subject to State intervention on account of “compelling interest” (as set in both “Roe” and “PP”) and the fetus/baby/entity would not be “stabbed in the neck with scissors”. I ask you, as I did Mr. Greydanus, to provide a source (or a shred of evidence). If not, I suggest you research actual laws and practices covering abortion in the United States. I am not saying you need or should change your opinion - I am however saying your opinion does not entitle you to pass off falsity as fact.

Samuel,
 
The process Elise described is called intact dilation and extraction (IDX), popularly known as “partial-birth abortion.”
 
Her description is medically accurate: IDX abortion does involve breech delivery of the baby’s body, leaving only the head still in the birth canal, at which point the base of the skull at the back of the neck is punctured with scissors or a similar implement. A suction catheter is inserted into the incision and the contents of the skull (the brain) are suctioned out, collapsing the skull. The collapsed head is then removed, followed by delivery of the placenta.
 
Although as you note the 1973 Supreme Court decisions on abortion nominally restrict abortion after viability, this restriction is effectively neutralized by Doe v. Bolton’s broadly defined health exception, which explicitly grants medical judgment discretion to consider “all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient” as “relevant to health.”
 
Under this broad construal of health, the Burger court effectively declared a constitutional right to abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy. Under such “health” provisions, IDX abortions have been legally performed on healthy women, with healthy pregnancies, long after viability, in the third trimester and even in the ninth month (for example, by George Tiller).
 
In the 1990s, Congress attempted to pass legislation to outlaw partial-birth abortion except to save the life of the mother, but President Clinton twice vetoed this legislation, insisting on a health exception, not just a life exception. Given the Supreme Court’s established definition of the scope of “health,” such an exception would render the ban meaningless.
 
In 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which included an exception for the life of the mother, but no health exception. The law was immediately challenged in the courts and ultimately declared by a federal appeals court to be unconstitutional. However, it was upheld by the 2007 Supreme Court decision Gonzales v. Carhart. Although the American Medical Association testified during hearings that IDX is never required to protect the life or health of the mother, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act does include a narrow health exception for cases of true medical necessity.
 
Because of this, AFAIK, IDX abortion is rarely used in the United States today, although I am not aware of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act ever being enforced. Late-term abortionists today prefer other methods. One common method is chemical feticide (e.g., injecting a concentrated salt solution into the fetus’s heart), allowing the dead fetus to soften for a few days, and then dismembering it in the uterus and removing the individual pieces.

A common misconception of those arguing the pro choice position is that abortions are illegal post viability. Did you read those recent cases of late term abortion doctors actually keeping body parts, etc.? Of babies way past viability? It may make someone feel better to believe that all abortions are done very early but this is just not true. If you agree that post-viability abortions should be illegal, than PP would surely label you “anti choice” and “anti women”. Welcome to the fold!

@Mr. Greydanus - I am familiar with the IDX procedure and still disagree with the characterization given. Per the AMA:

H-5.982 Late-Term Pregnancy Termination Techniques
(1) The term ‘partial birth abortion’ is not a medical term. The AMA will use the term “intact dilatation and extraction”(or intact D&X) to refer to a specific procedure comprised of the following elements: deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a sequence of days; instrumental or manual conversion of the fetus to a footling breech; breech extraction of the body excepting the head; and partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of the fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus. This procedure is distinct from dilatation and evacuation (D&E) procedures more commonly used to induce abortion after the first trimester. Because ‘partial birth abortion’ is not a medical term it will not be used by the AMA.

(2) According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about intact D&X. The AMA recommends that the procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman. The physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient.

(http://www.ama-assn.org/ad-com/polfind/Hlth-Ethics.pdf)

Ergo the statement “Because as the law stands, a baby can legally be killed in the act of being born, as long as they keep part of the body inside the mother while they do it.” is incorrect as the baby is not “being born” and the statement “than to do what is done now, which is to stab scissors into the back of the baby’s neck and sever the spinal cord.” is likewise absurd, as (even if scissors are being used) the purpose of the incision on the neck is to allow for the introduction of a suction catheter - indeed the spinal chord is not even severed.

I do not consider this semantics. Again, if you or Elise believe life begins at conception, I respect that opinion. It does not, however, give one credence to either absurdly miss-characterize a medical procedure or flat out make things up. This response is primarily aimed at “Elise”, and is more about providing sources. To answer her question “Did you read those recent cases of late term abortion doctors actually keeping body parts, etc.?” No, I have not. Please provide a source.

As a casual remark to your brief history of abortion since Roe, Mr. Greydanus, I would say that while highly pejorative (which, again, is your right) it is also well written, succinct and (given your framework) reasonable. Bravo.

Samuel: Thanks for your gracious comments.
 
The substance of your quarrel with Elise’s description of partial-birth abortion appears to center around the fact that AMA definition of IDX does not mention severing the spinal cord. You also say that “being born” is not accurate, although this seems to me (despite your demurral) to be a matter of semantics.
 
While the AMA definition of IDX may not specify severing the spinal cord, it appears to be common practice in this procedure. According to testimony of Pamela Smith, M.D., Director of Medical Education, Mt. Sinai Hospital, given to the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives in 1995:

“In these procedures, one basically relies on cervical entrapment of the head to help keep the baby in place while the practitioner plunges a pair of scissors into the base of the baby’s skull to sever the spinal cord. The scissors also creates an opening for the insertion of a suction ciirette to remove the baby’s brains.”

 
P.S. At the risk of noting the obvious, my historical comments above were meant to focus specifically on the issue of “health” as a legal exception to restrictions on abortion and how that relates to the legal status of late-term abortion and IDX particularly, not on abortion or abortion law generally.

@ Steve Greydanus: Before you play your violin for Komen founder Nancy Brinker’s “long career of public service”, you should know ( I thought you might have done a little homework before writing this article) that Nancy Brinker was a board member of Planned Parenthood when her sister, Susan Komen, died of pre-menopapusal breast cancer.  The Brinker family are big supporters of Planned Parenthood, including Nancy Brinker’s son, who is involved in financial dealings with PP.

It has been proven by innumerable research studies that Abortion and Contraception are the two most frequent causes of pre-menopausal Breast Cancer.  The Komen Foundation, whether or not they fund PP, has refused from Day 1 to tell women how vulnerable they are to breast cancer by having abortions and using artificial birth control.  They would rather have women die, than reveal such a politically-incorrect fact—their donations might dry up.  FOLLOW THE MONEY!  Komen is NOT the altruistic “charity” most people think it is!

I have called my local Komen office asking about studies, such as the recent Mayo Clinic study confirming that a woman taking artificial contraception for 4 years prior to their 1st pregnancy, has just elevated her risk for breast cancer by 44%—-and I keep getting the same answer from Komen: “Those studies are flawed”.

Komen is in the same category as Planned Parenthood: a phony charity bringing in millions for their hierarchy, and screwing women’s health in the meantime!

Linda Ill: I’m not playing my violin for anyone. If anything, your comments reinforce the main point of my article. Try rereading the closing quote from Dreher and let me know if I need to spell it out further.

Another follow-up for Samuel, regarding late-term abortionists keeping fetuses or fetal parts:
 
From the Grand Jury report on Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a West Philadelphia abortionist whose filthy, foul-smelling clinic has been widely called a “house of horrors” in even MSM coverage:

We heard evidence that Gosnell often mutilated dead babies and fetuses by cutting off their feet, which he, weirdly, kept in specimen jars in the clinic. During the February 2010 raid, investigators were shocked to see a row of jars on a shelf in the clinic containing fetal parts. Kareema Cross showed us several photographs that she took in 2008 of a closet where Gosnell stored jars containing severed feet of fetuses. Ashley Baldwin testified that she saw about 30 such jars.
 
None of the medical or abortion experts who testified before the Grand Jury had ever heard of such a disturbing practice, nor could they come up with an explanation for it. The medical expert on abortions testified that cutting off the feet “is bizarre and off the wall.” The experts uniformly rejected out of hand Gosnell’s supposed explanation that he was preserving the feet for DNA purposes should paternity ever become an issue. A small tissue sample would suffice to collect DNA. None of the staff knew of any instance in which feet were ever used for this purpose …
 
The search team discovered fetal remains haphazardly stored throughout the clinic—in bags, milk jugs, orange juice cartons, and even in cat-food containers. Some fetal remains were in a refrigerator, others were frozen. Gosnell admitted to Detective Wood that at least 10 to 20 percent of the fetuses were probably older than 24 weeks in gestation – even though Pennsylvania law prohibits abortions after 24 weeks. In some instances, surgical incisions had been made at the base of the fetal skulls.
 
The investigators found a row of jars containing just the severed feet of fetuses. In the basement, they discovered medical waste piled high. The intact 19-week fetus delivered by Mrs. Mongar three months earlier was in a freezer. In all, the remains of 45 fetuses were recovered at the clinic that evening and turned over to the Philadelphia medical examiner, who confirmed that at least two of them, and probably three, had been viable.

 
Dr. Gosnell was arrested last year and charged with 8 counts of murder, including 7 for killing viable babies fully born—by snipping their spinal cords at the neck, or slitting their throats.
 
Also last year, Dr. Steven Brigham of New Jersey and Dr. Nicola Riley of Utah, who traveled to Maryland to perform late-term abortions, were arrested and charged with multiple accounts of murder. Police officers discovered 35 late-term fetuses in the clinic freezer, including at least 13 that had reached viability, one believed to have been aborted at 36 weeks.
 
In the latter case, their attorney has claimed that freezing fetuses “until proper medical waste procedures can be conducted” is “normal practice.” We’ll see what the experts have to say (note how Gosnell’s explanation fared). Considering that both of these guys traveled to Maryland to do these abortions, I doubt they were doing them every day. I wonder how long it took them to rack up 35 fetuses, and how long those fetuses were awaiting “proper medical waste procedures.”

ABORTION CAUSES BREAST CANCER.
BIRTH CONTROL PILLS CAUSE BREAST CANCER.

PROVIDING SUPPORT TO AN ABORTION AND CONTRACEPTION FACILITY, IN THE NAME OF CURING BREAST CANCER IS AN OXYMORON.

YOU HAVE A MIND, USE IT.

The argument of viability is a legal one, true enough.  However, can you have one law for one set of “people” and another for others?  Can those who are attached to respirators or heart lung machines be disconnected since they are temporarily “not viable”? 

Putting aside the religious arguments, I will offer my opinion on when an unborn child should achieve status as a person.

Because the human body does not always naturally take and attach to the uterine wall, a developing fertilized egg, the moment that egg attaches, is the moment it should be recognized as a person.  Why?  Because at that time, it begins receiving nutrition and starts to develop.  At that time, the body has taken unto itself the responsibility of growing the child.  The claims of an unborn child being a part of the woman’s body are false, in that the DNA structure of that child is unique unto itself.  Abortion has beren compared to removing a cancer, a spleen, an appendix, but the major difference in all of those is that every body part mentioned is exactly like the mother’s…the growing child is not.

For my view of the Komen debacle please see my analysis of the situation at my web site: http://www.cocolife.us/

The juggernaut Block of 26 Senators must not be discounted in the story of what has happened at Komen. The organization caved under heavy booted pressure and has once again decided to go with the ideology they identify with most closely. The Life community must beware: Komen does not believe that Planned Parenthood’s murders are criminal.

If they have any vision at all it is the one in line with Planned Parenthood:
The Planned Parenthood-Komen machine is UNIFIED in
Vision
Purpose and
Action

Komen’s future:
If they do not know what they are doing now, how can they know what they are doing next?

Life Advocate
Eve Sanchez Silver

It’s clear from the Obama Administration’s latest attempts to address this issue that they are going at it from the standpoint of “Good, reasonable people against ‘THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’” i.e. useless bishops who represent no one in particular. We need to somehow stand up and say “I am the Catholic Church” rather than let the political spin-doctors part us from our leadership. The disinformation is flowing fast and furious but we can not afford to lose this battle.

Well, it looks like the one significant tie Komen had to the pro-life movement that I’m aware of his now been severed: Karen Handel has resigned.
 
Is anyone aware of any other significant ties between Komen and the pro-life movement? Is there still any reason to think that Komen won’t renew funding to Planned Parenthood in the future?
 
Wonder if our friend G. E. Schwartz still stands by his claim about Komen’s proved “allegiance to the right wing.”

A National Cancer Insitute (US GOV’T)  factsheet quote: “Some studies have shown an increased risk of breast cancer in women taking oral contraceptives” and “Oral contraceptives have been shown to increase the risk of cervical cancer” and “A 1996 analysis of worldwide epidemiologic data conducted by the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer found that women who were current or recent users of birth control pills had a slightly elevated risk of developing breast cancer. The risk was highest for women who started using OCs as teenagers. ”  ???

Also In a July 29th 2005 press release, the World Health Organization declared that combined estrogen-progestogen Oral Contraceptives are carcinogenic to humans. Specifically, they said that “Use of OC’s increases risk of breast, cervix, and liver cancer.” The data was presented by a working group of 21 scientists from 8 countries convened by the cancer research agency of the WHO, the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
Companies that make birth control pills also have admitted a link between the drug and breast cancer.

The most disturbing part of this Komen funding issue is that this foundation claims to be “for the cure” but only uses a small portion of their assets toward finding one.  I found it interesting that at the end of the year, after paying bills, they still had over $100 million.  Guess they’re not non-profit.
I’m a breast cancer survivor.  I wouldn’t give a dime to SGK.  There are plenty of entities that actually do use the money for cancer research.  SGK has become an activist platform to encourage a certain political agenda. And, I want no part of it.

To Chris:  Are you aware that Sloan Kettering uses human embryonic stem cells in some of their research?

Glad the decision was reversed. It was political in nature and that was denied by Koemen to save face.
The Republicans will erode our rights whenever possible and we stnd by blindly tricked into feeling that we are supporting a just decision. Don’t give away your brain. If it smells bad it generally is.

Talk about eroding our rights?  President Obama wants to take away the right of freedom of religion from every American. It may be the Catholics right now, but eventually it will be every Christian.

Steven, As the comments have shown, your column has provided for a good and needed discussion on the life-and-death issues we face in our culture.  I just today (February 10) became aware of this column.  I do believe G.E. Schwartz had a salient point, although I take issue with the manner in which he presented it. I regarded the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s initial decision with a great deal of caution because the stated reason was procedural, not philosophical. 

Back to Schwarz’s caution about naivete, it is entirely possible, given Komen’s track record of conflicts of interest, that Karen Handel was hired by Komen to “prove” some semblance of allegiance to the right and to be the (pre-determined) scapegoat in taking the heat off itself with the decision to suspend grants to Planned Parenthood.  I noticed in Handel’s nationally televised interview the day she resigned she was still very complimentary of the Komen Foundation and Nancy Brinker.  When questioned, she admitted she refused the severance package said to have been offered to her by the Komen Foundation.  Handel maintains that the discussions about taking a stronger look at the grants to Planned Parenthood began before her arrival at the Komen Foundation.

The Susan G. Komen Foundation is hardly a victim in this whole exchange.  That is something to be considered.

I think it’s time to re-read Animal Farm by George Orwell:  Napoleon=Planned Parenthood

Offense:
PP also gets federal funds and they are now under investigation. They have been caught not reporting statutory rape, for example, but, of course, that is only a “partisan” investigation. And yet Elliot Spitzer and others are trying to claim that Crisis Pregnancy Centers — which get NO federal $$$ — are lying to their clients — which is a lie in itself — but that is NOT “partisan”. Follow the money; PP makes tons off of its abortions — how many babies do their facilities help deliver or refer for delivery if they are truly all about women’s “Health”?” or babies they help get adopted? CPCs get by on donations and volunteers.

G.E.:
And by funding PP at all, it wasn’t supporting the left wing before? Who do you think most supports PP, especially with our tax money? They were talking about, what, $600T? For an organization in the multi-millions? And Komen got called everything in the book from what I have read on-line? Selective outrage.

Incredulous:
Fornication and murder are both against the 10 Commandments. So Christians should be FOR contraception — the sin of Onan be darned! — which, in far too many cases, REQUIRES abortion because of the reasons one didn’t want to get pregnant in the first place?  Have you not read of the abandonment cases with “legal” abortion on demand?

Ex:
“Religious issues aren’t the big ones anymore.” Maybe that’s the problem, eh? Maybe if people looked at the Bible for guidance and used those Rosaries to pray for our country, we might not have this going on, eh?

Samuel:
How much of PP’s budget goes to actual reproduction, such as delivering babies or referring to doctors for this purpose?  Do they not separate the actual abortion from the “services” that lead up to it? Just asking.

G.E.:
1. PP has grown stronger by us saying nothing.
2. 98% of our members reject official dogma. Really?
3. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is a lot more than what you claim. It’s not just one thing but entails many.
4. Who is dehumanizing women? Christians that are trying to help women see the leis they are being told or those who only think of them as objects to get money from? How about the women that are aborted every year? Are they human or not?

Colleen:
How about the rights of the women that are aborted? Dems have done a pretty good job of eroding their rights, eh? Abortion smells pretty bad.

James:

“98% of our members reject official dogma. Really?”

 
Not exactly.
 
Polls apparently show that 98% of Catholic women who have been sexually active use contraception at some point in their lives. That doesn’t mean that 98% of Catholic women reject (present tense) Church teaching. But of course it’s not good.
 
For example, the statistic includes women who fell away from their faith for a time and then returned, or who were raised nominally Catholic and later became more devout. No matter how anti-contraception they are today, even if they teach NFP classes and so forth, they still fall into that 98% of women who have used contraception.
 
It also includes women who don’t necessarily reject the Church’s teaching per se but disobey it anyway, just as well all fall into sin.
 
Whatever other qualifications we may make, it’s certainly true that contraception is a major problem and scandal within the Church, and the relative silence of our pastors on the subject has ultimately made things worse, not better. The HHS mandate issue is proof of that.

Sad, but true.  I don’t hear priests today speak out against contraception at the pulpit.  Most Catholics don’t want to hear it and would stop coming to his church.  They’d go find a priest with more liberal ideas and that’s not hard to do.

Steven:
The problem, then, is that the statistic doesn’t break down into what you have described. And guaranteed that our lamestream media sure as heck won’t do it; in fact, my guess is that they will portray this as 98% period that “reject” official dogma now. I’m surprised they haven’t referred to these women as “devout” as they usually do. Or did they?
Here’s another thought that I have had about a lot of this. PP claims that only 3% go for abortion. You have pointed out how they break this down and separate the process, so that only the abortion itself is considered. However, how about all the condoms they hand out, knowing that even in the “best” light, they fail 3 times out of 1,000. And that is when they are used and work “properly” but what percentage of the time is that even true? I question that but let’s say it’s true. Well, if they have a million clients, that means that up to 3,000 babies are conceived. Well, the vast majority — I won’t say all but there is a reason they wanted to use contraception in the first place — will “require” abortion. And PP knows this very well. It’s creating your own market. Then there are the STDs — which are growing — because if a condom can’t stop the sperm all the time, even when properly used, the AIDS virus is much smaller, meaning that condom is dangerous because it DOES give a sense of protection.  And if you have that mentality, you are going to be freer to do “it” because you’re “safe” — or “safer.” How many of their “services” really go to women’s “health”? Look what happened when cigarette companies tried to market a “lite” brand? They were crucified for implying it was safer than the regular. Yet when it comes to sex, well ...
Unfortunately, when was the last time we had a sermon on these matters in our parishes? Surely not from the older priests; when I have heard it, it was a younger priest or foreign-born.

Wow. I knew the “98% of Catholic women use contraception” claim was wrong … I just didn’t know it was THIS wrong.  

Steven:
Pretty sad, isn’t it?

Fresh from crushing Komen into submission, Planned Parenthood goes ballistic against a Catholic food pantry for declining to pick up a donation from them.
 
He who sups with the devil needs a long spoon, but with Planned Parenthood, even if you decline to sup, your spoon’s still too short.

Steven:
I read some of the comments regarding that story and they were right. If PP were really interested in helping the poor, they easily could have dropped those items off anonymously, no questions asked. This was strictly a PR move. Who’s doing the politicizing?

Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger. Research on maafa21.com. Eugenics, Genocide, Racism, Slavery, Population control, Murder.

Aaand it turns out that the voices that predicted that Komen’s ties to PP were severed for good were wrong: Komen is back in bed with PP. Of course, those who argued the opposite never come back and admit that they were wrong.

Parenthood

We start off early watching television and then envisioning our American dream.  As a child, we play with our babies, doll houses, and writing in our diaries.  We start at the tender age of 4 or 5 looking for our prince charming to marry.  Over time, we replace our crushes of princes and other Disney characters with real boys.  Sometimes it is the boy that sits next to you in class or a movie star.  Either way, it is getting you ready for that all important task called LOVE…......

http://www.richlymiddleclass.com/parenthood

Thanks