Komen caved in to the politically correct pressure to back off from taking a stand against an organization that endorses and enables murder millions of times a year in this country.  What hypocrisy it is to have protecting women’s lives as your mission statement while at the same time terminating the life of the most vulnerable because their lives are inconvenient.  I’m sure that the Nazis accomplished some good somewhere in their concentration camps as well.  Those whose lives were terminated in the gas chambers were just an inconvenience that we should overlook.

Those who label people who vehemently oppose abortion as “single issue voters” are either naively or intentionally mistaken. We have many issues that we take stands on such as balancing the budget, other social issues (against legalization of homosexual marriage and normalization of what the Bible clearly describes as an immoral act), etc. The reason for our strong position is that it is very clear to us that abortion is the intention termination of a human life.  Those who consider murder of those outside of the womb as the most heinous of human crimes should be able to understand that.

And for those who label anti-abortionists as “single issue voters”, would you also have considered Germans living in 1940-45 and opposed to concentration camps as “single issue voters” as well?  Both are equally repugnant to us and repulsive in God’s sight.

Komen will never get another penny from my family. The excuses offered by Komen for its decision were outright lies, as confirmed by an insider:

“a Komen insider told HuffPost on Sunday that Karen Handel, Komen’s staunchly anti-abortion vice president for public policy, was the main force behind the decision to defund Planned Parenthood and the attempt to make that decision look nonpolitical.”Karen Handel was the prime instigator of this effort, and she herself personally came up with investigation criteria,” the source, who requested anonymity for professional reasons, told HuffPost. “She said, ‘If we just say it’s about investigations, we can defund Planned Parenthood and no one can blame us for being political.’”http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/05/karen-handel-susan-g-komen-decision-defund-planned-parenthood_n_1255948.html 

To listen to a caller on Friday’s show one would think a women’s right to choose was in jeopardy by Komen’s initial decision. It’s Komen’s business where they spend their money, I don’t understand the controversy.

In November 2011 Komen made an even more ominous decision about allocating their funds by withdrawing $12 million dollars in grants to embryonic stem cell research  http://www.care2.com/causes/susan-g-komen-foundation-also-stops-funding-embryonic-stem-cell-research.html#ixzz1lHCFF8OV.  Planned Parenthood can easily replace their contributions, but this decision is far more damaging. 

Komen has been using former Bush press secretary and right wing pundit, Ari Fleischer as an advisor on an ongoing basis http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/02/04/419020/update-and komen-announces-continued-involvement-of-ari-fleischer-on-planned-parenthood-strategy/   He hired avowed abortion opponent Karen Handel as VP.  This seems good evidence of Komen’s move toward a more right wing political position.

I support a womans right to choose

The concept of “pink-washing” needs to be discussed. The most high profile example might be the NFL. To deal with the PR disaster of the Ben Roethlisberger sexual assaults, it began devoting it’s entire October schedule to migrating pink into every team’s uniform. Many companies and organizations do this, and it became a very safe thing to do, in part because of the (supposedly) non-partisan, non-ideological nature of the cause. Can it remain so after this affair?

Another opinion: 

http://politic365.com/2012/02/03/komen-decision-race-class-abortion-and-republicans/

Komen Decision: Race, Class, Abortion and Republicans

Mammograms are not be all and end all of breast cancer prevention/diagnosis. PP provides much more than that in education, teaching self exam, etc.

Abortion is legal, right?  Why shouldn’t the federal government be able to support a legal medical option?  How is it that some people can impose their opinion/will/religious belief on other people?

I think that preventing people from having a legal medical option is unconstitutional.  The Hyde Amendment should be struck down as illegal and unconstitutional.

Neil

Many of the anti-choice groups also oppose birth control and sex education not just abortion.

PP provides hundreds of thousands of abortions – and probably prevents millions of them. I expect many, many more than pro-life groups prevent.

My group stopped supporting Komen about 5 years ago because they are very heavy in administrative costs.  We have moved to supporting Play for Pink instead.

Tom – are you SURE you know your subjects in this discussion?! I believe that I just recently heard you ask the audience “Are you surprised that ABORTION is political?!”

Abortion has ONLY been political for 35+ years!! Aside from that whopper, might I remind you that the Koman Foundation HAS to stick to its mission, which DOES NOT include abortion. If Koman decides NOT to fund abortion, that is entirely the free choice of a board-governed nonprofit.

And, Tom, lest to leap to conclusions about whether I do or don’t support choice – I most DEFINITELY DO! Nonetheless, I accept that 231+ years of do/do not  do that is implicit in the American nation.

Here endeth the lesson!

Larry Slater
President
Slater Research Services

I support any organization that is actually working towards a cure for cancer. What I cannot support is the concept that the decision to have an abortion is anything more than a personnel choice. However I may feel about when life begins or whether abortions are ethically acceptable or not really does not matter. It is a terrible choice to make but for those that make it, the choice is theirs alone. It is not my body and it is not my choice.

The Komen story is another example of the corpratization of everything in this country.  Whether it’s quashing groups that use “race for the cure”, pulling in pink ribbon advertizing, or now using their power of the purse in aid of those against PP.

Komen has out grown what should be the core of their mission, which is working to cure breast cancer.  Cut out everything else and focus on the cure.  Drop the politics and be willing to work with all organizations that further women’s breast health.

How could you, Tom, and the woman from Planned Parenthood allow Mona Charen go unchallenged when she implied that people who favor CHOICE are also in favor of killing babies.  I’m so tired of the anti-choice machine getting away with that.

Avon Walk for Breast Cancer is a great event to contribute to, I’ll be volunteering there again this year.

The decision to back out of association with Planned Parenthood, and the series of efforts to put an acceptable spin on it was PROFOUNDLY STUPID.  Komen and PP both do good work.  I have supported both.  While I will continue to support PP, I need evidence that Komen has learned from this, that they will not bow to radical right pressure in the future, and that they have made productive efforts to establish good policies, especially to support the health of poor women and families.

I also protested Komen decision by contacting Komen and Yoplait  I am pleased with the reversal

I did hear on your report that some groups/government agencies are trying to defund groups that provide family planning servicies any funds if that orgaization also provides abortion services.  Well by that arguement states like Pennsylvania are funding Religious school by providing textbook and material supplies to those school *Acts 35, 90 & 195) provided those material are not religious in nature.  So these schools can use their own funds for religious materials. So if these state government agencies want to reject funding for family planning becasue other monies are going to abortion services ( a legal and consitutional act) then these states will need to reconsider other funding that goes to programs similar to PA’s aid to non-public schools.

Richard Gable
Pittsburgh, PA

As I indicated a few shows ago, my doctor cannot give me the chemotherapy drug he would like to give me because the pharmaceutical company that makes it feels that they can no longer make enough money from it thanks to generics eating into their profit levels.  The chemo drug he’d like to give me is apparently very effective, very well tolerated, and has fewer toxins than some other drugs he may now have to choose for me.  Also, this particular drug is NOT an exotic drug for rare cases, but a drug that works very well for a broad number of people with breast cancer. This is happening to many, many people, and the situation applies to other illnesses  besides cancer.  The ability of pharmaceutical companies to do more research into newer drugs is ALSO affected by generics’ eating into their profits.  I HATE where the profit motive applies; I fear where the search is halted.   

(Just thought I’d add this to the mix of subjects on this topic.  Thanks!  Thanks, too, for the good wishes I got when I posted similar info a few weeks ago:  I wrote back with thanks, but I was several days late in reading the nice thoughts, so I’m not sure if my return thanks were ever seen.) 

(By the way, now I realize that I might possibly be cyber-tracked since I posted this information even though I use a screen name.  I post information to add to the general discussion of the important topics discussed on this show.  I don’t do Facebook, but someone tried to sign me up for it once, and I never actually managed to “get rid of it”; so, how soon will Facebook let my credit card company know that they should probably raise my interest rates because I mentioned having cancer, as I have in the past —  all for a PROFIT to Facebook!!  NPR was not the only news source talking about this Facebook and Google business this weekend:  the NY Times Opinion section on Sunday had quite a bit about it, too!  But, from the discussion so far (35 minutes into today’s show), we can see that the MORE points of view that can be aired on a topic, the more we might be able to understand the actual nature of the topic!  What if ONLY people without cancer feel safe in writing into public forums on the topic?  A lot of subtle understanding of the topic will go unaired.  It’s NOT that people without cancer cannot contribute — I do NOT mean that!  I mean, if for our own digital profile protection, those of us WITH diseases feel it is not safe for us to contribute to the discussion of these topics:  think of what will be lost.  

A number of people high up the Komen foundation resigned last week over their stance on PP. Sadly, this will shift Komen even more to the right with these voices no longer in the organization. 

Look at Komen’s recent hire of Karen Handel if you want to be outraged.  Not only is she almost certainly behind this latest incident, but she has some very ‘interesting’ beliefs about gay rights. 

Tom,
The point that seems to be missing here is that Komen can choose to be political — they should just be upfront about it. If they want to be the pro-life breast cancer group just say so and those who support that position will support them and those who do not will not. A lot of the anger here, mine included, is that they present themselves as apolitical which seems now not to be truthful.

The politics of this issue: Controlling women and their lives. Period. The only thing women have over men (cuz it ain’t salaries!) is the POWER to control their reproductive choices.

When we call it what it is, those who seek to squash women in this way will shut up.

What would be the discussion if men’s right to choose Viagra was challenged by people who believe no seed should be spilled/stopped? Come on!

The problem is not the Komen Foundation but our society.  P.P. , parents, educators should be giving folks the message that having an unwanted child is their responsibility (most of the time) and that everyone needs to try their very best to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.

This debate has always perplexed me in that it’s so focused on FOR and AGAINST.  All that passion and energy (and money and time) put toward the fight.  The issue of abortion needs to be addressed from the point of view of “how things are”, not “how things should be.”  

Unwanted pregnancy happens – fact.  Women will continue to seek out abortions – fact.  Shall we return to the days of back-alley abortions, illness, butchered insides, death, private fear and shame?   I’m not well-versed in the statistics, but I have a hunch that the same people who so vehemently want to end this safe, medical, monitored procedure are the same people who want to cut funding to social services and financial help to those who don’t have enough of their own family and community support.  So in a nutshell — let’s force women to have children but give them no support…yes, that’s ensuring a “right to a life” filled with many odd against you.  Abuse, poverty – the formula is well known.  You can’t have both, people, you can’t make it go away by making it illegal.

I wish all that fightin’ money and time could be put toward managing the problem rather than trying to wish it away with laws, ie:  pregnancy prevention education, guidance and access to adoption services, single parent support groups and resources,  review the laws around the “window of time” for getting an abortion, etc.

Government is there to help us manage our society, distribute the services, and address the needs of the people.  People (women) get pregnant, fathers and families often turns their backs on the woman – this is not rare.  Put something in place to address this.  These children born into these circumstances will one day be adults and playing a role in our society — they will be our neighbors, perhaps our co-workers — how “we” treat “them” early in life could dictate how “they” treat “us” later in life.  Are we fostering an interwoven community that takes care of all parts of itself…or a divided people who will combat each other? The children will STILL be lost in that battle.

To read the reaction to the Komen decision as overwhelming support for choice is an over reach.  PP has served women for decades– millions of them, maybe as many as 20% of American women have had at least one service from PP.  When any service from PP is threatened, these loyal former patients rise up to defend PP and its ability to maintain services because these women know PP was there for them when they needed it.  It is the commitment to essential access to services that drove the response, more than support for abortion per se.

As a long time supporter of both organizations, I definitely will cease my support of the Komen organization and continue with increased support for Planned Parenthood.  The work of Planned Parenthood is incredibly important for Alaskan women.  They provide wellness care that is supplied by no one else.  In Alaska, they provide breast care for most women below the regular mamogram age.  They provide referrals that will allow for breast issues to be investigated.  I fall strongly on the Planned Parent side of this arguement.

You should be clear that Komen hasn’t reversed it’s decisions, they’ve only said that PP is welcome to apply for grants next  year, they haven’t committed to give them any funding. It’s really not a reversal at all!!!

First, free a market works; if the way breast cancer awareness, research and screening/treatment programs needs to break into segments that allow people to give how they want then it will happen. Now people may have to understand that breaking the organization up will mean wasted dollars. Second, I prefer to donate to well run organizations. I can bet you no marketing analysis was done to determine the cost of this decision; the money lost vs gained. More over that would be the defining criteria for determining whether or not this was political. It has to be one or the other ; a financial move or an emotional political decision based on personal beliefs. Third- as to getting women without insurance mammograms I have to ask then what? Without insurance what can you do?

Susan Komen foundation fiasco points how charity does not come with any guarantees and can be pulled at any time. Government funds are the only guarantor of constitutional rights.

Komen is essentially silent on environmental and occupational factors in cancer rates. Perhaps because pink-washing means that a lot of green gets generated?

There are alternatives. Check out Breast Cancer Action at bcaction.org. 

I’m confused about the current state of Komen donations to planned parenthood.  Will you clarify that in the show?

LBJ gives us the war on poverty.The out of wedlock birthrate among blacks pops to 30%(from 15%).Today it’s 70% in the general black population and 90% in the ghetto.PP does 80% of it’s abortions(164 million bucks last year.)in the ghetto.Talk about Bad Karma.

    When they got in Dr.Tillers files they found many of the late term abortions were for the woman’s psychological health.Not her physical health,not because of a problem with the kid.Cosmetic surgery,in other words