Susan G. Komen removes funding from Planned Parenthood

Why would it be too much for the left to let Komen work with an association that did not performs abortions if it meant more donations? The unwillingness to compromise for a greater cause is complete intolerance, imo.

If you think Komen is not worthy of your donation that is fine. At least they give the citizenry choice to donate, rather than flat out taking money from their paychecks.

 

Because for many communities (particularly low income areas) Planned Parenthood is the ONLY organization that women have access to. The reason why the Komen foundation was funding planned parenthood was because PP is more or less the only way to reach low income communities.

Care to name another affordable avenue of health care for low income women?

 

Obviously, to many, if not most people, Planned Parenthood is a "greater cause". Apparently you can't handle that. Sucks to be you. Support a charity that doesn't support Planned Parenthood if you have a problem with it. No one is forcing you to donate to them, so you're not entitled to any kind of compromise.


You keep misusing that word, tolerance, it's getting rather embarrassing.

Tolerance: a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.

Pro-choice is the attitude that one should be permissive of someone else's opinions or practices toward reproductive choices/rights.

Pro-life is the attitude that one should NOT be permissive of someone else's opinions or practices toward reproductive choices/rights.

So, which position is intolerant again?

I'd say, if anything, these PP supporters won't tolerate that kind of intolerance.


Not that funding abortion is really the crux of this issue or the reason people support PP, anyway. But I find it funny someone would whine about tolerance so much when their main motivating objective is a policy of intolerance.

 

http://www.christianhospital.org/?id=31208&sid=45

http://www.thechristhospital.com/?id=852&sid=1 Actual free mammograms here, unlike PP

 

Clearly Hightop has a vagina and no health insurance. We should defer to him on all points regarding the female anatomy.

 

Let me explain it in a way that you can possibly understand.

You and a group of coworkers decided to go to a strip club for lunch, but one person objected on moral grounds (that the place objectified women etc), so the group decides to go to Chili's instead. That is tolerance and compromise. Everyone gets to eat. Nobody's beliefs are forced on anyone. Nobody has to adopt the moral code of someone else.

 

Ok got it.

One hospital in St. Louis = nationwide network of health care access like Planned Parenthood.

 

Stay on topic. Abortion has nothing to do with breast cancer. Nobody was forcing anti-choice folk to donate to SGK. When they went partisan, they destroyed the fabric of unity and non-partisanship. It was obvious and transparent. The damage is done anyways. More money, sponsors and passion for PP and other non-partisan charities that spend more on research and less on administrative costs.

 

You lefties are so ill informed, SGK has a policy that it does not contribute to any organization who is currently under investigation and Planned Parenthood is being investigated right now.

The fact that SGK reversed its decision is a dumb move, since they announced to stop the contribution to PP, donations have been pouring in.

 

Then why didn't SGK remove their $7M grant from Penn St? Apparently, you hate cellular destruction more than boy rape. Grats bro. Furthermore, if you read the thread, you're just repeating the BS that the SGK donors, sponsors and walkers saw as a blatant lie to push the partisan agenda by a newly appointed ultra-conservative VP.

 

Your sense of entitlement is absolutely hilarious given the persona you've developed on the BBS.

Once again, that is an example of tolerating intolerance. So, nobody's beliefs are forced on anyone, yet the group is being forced to go somewhere else because of someone else's moral code...? How does that make sense? Sounds to me like the opposing person's belief that strip clubs objectify women is being forced upon everyone else.

Don't want to go eat lunch with Komen? Then find a new group to eat lunch with. You can say they're "uncompromising", but saying they're intolerant is just factually wrong. They're not mutually inclusive concepts. You're not entitled to be compromised with, and no one is obligated to abide by your intolerances.

 

You are not forced to go somewhere else, you do it out of tolerance and respect of someone else's moral belief system. If someone hates the taste of pizza, you go get cheeseburgers our of respect to someone's taste, it isn't use of force.

An example of force is threatening imprisonment to someone who doesn't hand over their property to the government.

The left just cannot handle tolerance even though they pretend to be the champion of it.

 

A couple of things. I'll act objective as I can, but long time posters know I'm very pro-life. I think a good review of the facts is needed.

1) Does anyone have the stats on how much money is actually at stake? The number I heard was $640,000, but I haven't seen an actual source on that as yet. If it is that number, PP more than made that back in donations this past week, and at the very least, I'm having a hard time seeing how that tiny part of their operating budget has caused so much of an uproar, which leads me to point #2.

2) PP doesn't actually do mammograms do they? They mainly refer people out and have their doctors do physical breast screenings. I'm just curious as to what the money is needed for-- to cover doctors fees for doing a breast screening? Are the doctors going to stop doing the breast screenings? Once again, from SGK's point of view, what is the value they are getting from keeping PP as a beneficiary? It seems to me that the $640K they give is not worth what they might lose in donations who do not want to support PP, for whatever reason. And the proof that they don't do mammograms is found in this article discussing the LiveAction video wherein a female was repeatedly told, "We don't do mammograms" and then PP said that their president was taken out of context when she said people would not be able to get mammograms without PP. The original LiveAction video can be seen here:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aq0kBkUZbvQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Now, if they pay for mammograms at doctors offices, fine, but I'd like to see the proof. Plus, scores of counties offer the same referral and actual mammograms that PP is claiming people won't get anymore because they are being kept from $640K/year.

So that being said, I'm still a little confused at why the internet flipped out over a well funded charity losing funding from another well funded charity. As one liberal writer put it, "Nice charity you’ve got there. It’d be a shame if anything happened to it. The message to other Planned Parenthood donors is that if they don’t play nice and keep coughing up the cash, they’ll get the Komen treatment."

3) The investigation thing might be a red herring to back out of supporting a group that can be politically polarizing; but Planned Parenthood is in part under investigation for how they handle federal funds that are to be used for breast cancer screenings (even if these charges are untrue). That would separate the Penn St. happenings from what's going on here.

Just my two cents. SGK can spend their money however they want. I think the response from the left is well intentioned, but over the top and unnecessary.

 

Agreed. The objections to SGK cutting funding for planned parenthood is understandable, particularly in light of our political context, but there's very little reason to make it a reason for blackballing the organization as a whole.

As far as charities go, SGK is one of the most financially transparent organizations, has an excellent ratio of expenditures balancing between actual program expenses, administrative costs, and fundraising, and has done a remarkable job at galvanizing people to help through its race for the cure campaign. Charity Navigator, an independent charity evaluator (and in the arena of non-profits, the single most authoritative org that does this) evaluated SGK and has rated it very highly- you can see the report here.

The true intention behind the decision is presumed political, but as a nonprofit organization its important to honor donor intent; this is a fudiciary responsibility that any nonprofit organization has, and at least from the outset, it appeared the explanation was surrounded around this question and not politically motivated. Conversely, the response and decision to resume funding PP is an obvious response to the overwhelming negative media attention the decision is received, something that should have been expected and accounted for when making the decision to cut spending from the outset. Regardless, I simply dont find the visceral backlash proportionate to the actual discussion at hand....Just my opinion.

 

You are a shining example of how debate & discussion should take place.
1. Your number is correct. And PP did get more donations (500k total from Bloomberg and Lee Fikes) after this happened. The point is that they upset active participants, sponsors and donors. We all know that abortion is an issue that people have strong emotions about. Any organization with ties to PP is going to be avoided by certain groups. With that being said, there were a multitude of local affiliates that expressed their anger with the national branch's decision.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammography

http://www.imaginis.com/mammography/where-can-i-receive-a-mammogram

We are mostly dudes here, so our knowledge of mammograms is very limited. Mammograms are done in a outpatient medical imaging centers, hospital radiology or diagnostic imaging departments, women's centers, obstetrics/gynecology (OBGYN) clinics. Because PP has such a wide variety of services and a radiologist is the one that examines the results, PP strictly does screenings and referals. This is still a big deal considering how many women get these screenings at PP.

The "internet" flipped out because it saw how a decision put politics over cancer. For those that are pro-choice, this was a prime example of how pro-life folk ruined a non-partisan charity and it's sickening.

3. Not much to argue here. Which is also why they amended their grant policy to those who were found guilty of an investigation. I believe that PP had already been investigated before for the same thing where no wrongdoing was found, but I could be wrong about that.

On a more personal note, my mom was pretty active with SGK and has all pink ribbon stuff. Her mom is a survivor. Both of them are disgusted by what happened. You don't build an army of women and then divide them.

 

Well said.

 

With all due respect, it's hard to believe that this was a non-political decision when you hire this woman:



In a 2010 blog post, Handel said, "since I am pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood ... In fact, state and federal law prohibits the use of taxpayer funds for abortions or abortion related services and I strongly support those laws. Since grants like these are from the state I’ll eliminate them as your next Governor." (http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/morning_call/2012/02/komen-planned-parenthood-rift-has.html)

Mission of Planned Parenthood:
Planned Parenthood believes in the fundamental right of each individual, throughout the world, to manage his or her fertility, regardless of the individual's income, marital status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or residence. We believe that respect and value for diversity in all aspects of our organization are essential to our well-being. We believe that reproductive self-determination must be voluntary and preserve the individual's right to privacy. We further believe that such self-determination will contribute to an enhancement of the quality of life and strong family relationships.(http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/vision-4837.htm)

 

The baby is not yet born. And at that point, the baby is a part of the mother's body (basic biology).

How can you guarantee that if the baby is born, it will have a good life?

What if the mother is too poor/immature to properly provide for the child?
What if the child was a result of rape?
What if the child's birth can potentially kill the mother? What if it can potentially kill both the mother and the child?



An abortion is not an easy decision for a woman. I am not a woman so I do not think that it is possible for me to ever grasp the decision. So it would just be ignorant of me to even try and judge such a decision.

To you, it is some lady killing a baby. To her, it is something which more than likely she HAD to do (either for her or for the potential kid). It is a decision which if she makes, she would have to live with for the rest of her life.

How does a decision like this affect you? Who are you to tell her she should not?

 

LOL.

There's Captain Freedom's view on morality and fairness, ladies and gentlemen.

"Live by my moral code or you're intolerant."

Irony and hypocrisy had a baby and named it Hightop.

 

To Casey Anthony, she was just eliminating a nuisance from her life. To me it was murder.