Friday, February 03, 2012
Planned Parenthood vs. Susan G. Komen for the Cure
In case you missed it, the there was a great big blowup recently in the women’s health charity world. The big breast cancer and fundraising organization, Susan G. Komen for the Cure – the marketing geniuses who came up with the pink ribbon idea for breast cancer awareness, and who engage in a lot of marketing and fundraising for causes related to breast cancer. Whatever they don’t need for operations and overhead, they dispense to hundreds of different breast-cancer related organizations, funding education and awareness activities, screenings, mammograms, and research toward preventing and curing the terrible disease.
Susan G. Komen for the Cure sparked a controversy when they announced they were pulling their $600,000 annual grant to Planned Parenthood, claiming that a new internal rule adopted by the Komen board stated they can’t fund organizations that are currently under a congressional investigation. Planned Parenthood was the only charity currently receiving funds that fell into that category, so they felt singled out and objected – claiming that the Komen foundation’s decision was politically motivated and that the real issue was – que’lle surprise! – abortion.
Hilarity ensued.
Planned Parenthood supporters furiously accused Susan G. Komen for the Cure of making a principled stand. Meanwhile, fueled by Facebook, Twitter, blogs, other social media, Komen’s fundraising more than doubled in the days following the announcement, in what the media described as a severe anti-Komen backlash.
At stake, of course, was more than 0.6 percent of Planned Parenthood’s budget for the year. Planned Parenthood executives announced that without this funding, either they would have to collect another $1.75 for every abortion performed, or women would be denied mammograms.
Naturally, they were leaning towards getting out of the mammogram business. Which – of course, it turned out they already were: A pro-life activist recently called up 30 different Planned Parenthood facilities around the country, recording the results. All 30 facilities informed her that Planned Parenthood didn’t do mammograms.
Not to worry: Planned Parenthood supporters rode to the rescue – led by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. As a billionaire himself, and founder of the Bloomberg media empire, Mayor Bloomberg – a ferocious 2nd amendment opponent and the man who thinks government should be free to dictate your choice in French fries, pledged to donate $250,000 to demonstrate his commitment to a woman’s right to choose.
For its part, Susan G. Komen for the Cure was stung by the allegation that its decision to withdraw funding from Planned Parenthood may have secretly been rooted in principle. So about 48 hours after making the announcement that they would no longer provide funding to Planned Parenthood, the female-dominated leadership at Susan G. Komen for the Cure announced that they had changed their mind.
The decision was reversed, and Komen announced its commitment to continuing their “treasured relationship” with Planned Parenthood. So Susan G. Komen donors, regardless of their feelings on abortion, will still send $600,000 per year to an organization that doesn’t even do mammograms.
Susan G. Komen for the Cure sparked a controversy when they announced they were pulling their $600,000 annual grant to Planned Parenthood, claiming that a new internal rule adopted by the Komen board stated they can’t fund organizations that are currently under a congressional investigation. Planned Parenthood was the only charity currently receiving funds that fell into that category, so they felt singled out and objected – claiming that the Komen foundation’s decision was politically motivated and that the real issue was – que’lle surprise! – abortion.
Hilarity ensued.
Planned Parenthood supporters furiously accused Susan G. Komen for the Cure of making a principled stand. Meanwhile, fueled by Facebook, Twitter, blogs, other social media, Komen’s fundraising more than doubled in the days following the announcement, in what the media described as a severe anti-Komen backlash.
At stake, of course, was more than 0.6 percent of Planned Parenthood’s budget for the year. Planned Parenthood executives announced that without this funding, either they would have to collect another $1.75 for every abortion performed, or women would be denied mammograms.
Naturally, they were leaning towards getting out of the mammogram business. Which – of course, it turned out they already were: A pro-life activist recently called up 30 different Planned Parenthood facilities around the country, recording the results. All 30 facilities informed her that Planned Parenthood didn’t do mammograms.
Not to worry: Planned Parenthood supporters rode to the rescue – led by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. As a billionaire himself, and founder of the Bloomberg media empire, Mayor Bloomberg – a ferocious 2nd amendment opponent and the man who thinks government should be free to dictate your choice in French fries, pledged to donate $250,000 to demonstrate his commitment to a woman’s right to choose.
For its part, Susan G. Komen for the Cure was stung by the allegation that its decision to withdraw funding from Planned Parenthood may have secretly been rooted in principle. So about 48 hours after making the announcement that they would no longer provide funding to Planned Parenthood, the female-dominated leadership at Susan G. Komen for the Cure announced that they had changed their mind.
The decision was reversed, and Komen announced its commitment to continuing their “treasured relationship” with Planned Parenthood. So Susan G. Komen donors, regardless of their feelings on abortion, will still send $600,000 per year to an organization that doesn’t even do mammograms.
Labels: Abortion, cancer, charities, finance, health care, Politics, women
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Let's see if we can write a story on Senator Nelson and his decisive health care vote ...
...and not ONCE mention abortion!!!
Labels: Abortion, health care, journalism, Media, Obama, Senator Ben Nelson
Saturday, August 22, 2009
"Hello," he lied, part two
The latest episode of WeeWee's Big White House Adventure features our hero, St. Barry, Partner of God in Matters of Life and Death, lashing out at reform opponents (e.g., people who can read) for spreading "outrageous myths" concerning his health care plan.
Which myths? The Senior Partner(TM) specifically mentioned abortion, claiming that the bill will NOT allow for public funding of abortions. The problem: Not even the Associated Press believes him.
The predictable leftard argument is that Congress is insisting that abortions will not be paid for using tax dollars, but premium dollars. This is a distinction without a difference. Utterly dishonest. They pretend that money is not fungible. Government subsidizes the plan, the plan pays for abortions.
Obama also claimed that the plan would not fund benefits for illegal immigrants. If this is true, why did the Democrats in Congress vote, by party line, not to check patients for eligibility to prevent this very occurance? Obama also claimed that the "Death Panel" rumors are false. Not even the New York Times is signing on to that piece of tripe anymore.
Obama. While he's spending precious political capital on anything but shoring up support for the War in Afghanistan, he is squandering it here at home, using his bully pulpit not to beat down Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but to beat down his fellow Americans.
Obama. Everything he says about health care reform is a lie, except for "if," "but," and "the." And I'm not so sure about "the."
Which myths? The Senior Partner(TM) specifically mentioned abortion, claiming that the bill will NOT allow for public funding of abortions. The problem: Not even the Associated Press believes him.
Associated Press, August 5, 2009 -- Gov't Insurance Would Allow Coverage for Abortion
Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.
Federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. Abortion opponents say those restrictions should carry over to any health insurance sold through a new marketplace envisioned under the legislation, an exchange where people would choose private coverage or the public plan.
Abortion rights supporters say that would have the effect of denying coverage for abortion to millions of women who now have it through workplace insurance and are expected to join the exchange.
The predictable leftard argument is that Congress is insisting that abortions will not be paid for using tax dollars, but premium dollars. This is a distinction without a difference. Utterly dishonest. They pretend that money is not fungible. Government subsidizes the plan, the plan pays for abortions.
Obama also claimed that the plan would not fund benefits for illegal immigrants. If this is true, why did the Democrats in Congress vote, by party line, not to check patients for eligibility to prevent this very occurance? Obama also claimed that the "Death Panel" rumors are false. Not even the New York Times is signing on to that piece of tripe anymore.
New York Times: A Basis is Seen for Some Health Care Fears About the Elderly.
White House officials and Democrats in Congress say the fears of older Americans about possible rationing of health care are based on myths and falsehoods. But Medicare beneficiaries and insurance counselors say the concerns are not entirely irrational
Bills now in Congress would squeeze savings out of Medicare, a lifeline for the elderly, on the assumption that doctors and hospitals can be more efficient.
Obama. While he's spending precious political capital on anything but shoring up support for the War in Afghanistan, he is squandering it here at home, using his bully pulpit not to beat down Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but to beat down his fellow Americans.
Obama. Everything he says about health care reform is a lie, except for "if," "but," and "the." And I'm not so sure about "the."
Labels: Abortion, Afghanistan, Democrats, health care, immigration, Obama, stupid, The Left
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Is the recession causing more abortions?
"If it is, that's not neccessarily a bad thing."
Why would it be a "painful" choice?
Oh, no reason. No reason at all.
At the same time, opting not to have a child you can't afford to raise can be a realistic and responsible-if painful-choice, one often based on taking good care of the kids you already have.
Why would it be a "painful" choice?
Oh, no reason. No reason at all.
Labels: Abortion, doublex.com, The Left, women
Monday, June 01, 2009
The Killing of Tiller
A few quick thoughts about the killing of Tiller, the Kansas abortionist.
--Tiller himself was a childhood friend and neighbor to a professional acquaintance of mine. To draw things into perspective, this acquaintance of mine writes that, whatever anyone thinks about the man's profession, he was always a nice guy, and was a good father to his children.
--The shooting is an attack on and an affront to the rule of law.
--The libtards - drooling imbeciles to a man - are trying to frame the shooting as an act of terrorism. No. Any useful definition of the term terrorism requires the targeting of innocents in order to bring about a change in behavior. If Tiller's shooter were a terrorist, he would have targeted Tiller's family, friends, neighbors, people walking by the clinic, or whatever. Terrorism would have targeted anybody EXCEPT Tiller.
The fact that the killer targeted Tiller himself, and ONLY Tiller makes him not a terrorist, but an assassin.
-- The libtards are also framing the shooting as hypocritical. Again, they're wrong. If any individual who was not a strict Quaker-style pacifist were absolutely convinced that Tiller was a serial murderer of children, then NOT taking action to stop him would be a hypocritical act.
-- The libtards are also trying to hang the shooting on Bill O'Reilly. Yes, these bobble-headed ignoramuses who had nothing to say when Airhead America talk show host Randi Rhodes made reference to assassinating President Bush, who had nothing to say when Airhead America talk show host Matt Malloy referred to Vice President Dick Cheney as "A destroyer," "an eater of human flesh," when artist Richard Serra magazine portrayed an American President as a cannibal eating the head off of a child, all of a sudden these hypocritical bastards are fainting at O'Reilly's overheated rhetoric, when O'Reilly did nothing but accurately state what this cretin did for a living and said what he thought of it, without sugarcoating it.
--Tiller himself was a childhood friend and neighbor to a professional acquaintance of mine. To draw things into perspective, this acquaintance of mine writes that, whatever anyone thinks about the man's profession, he was always a nice guy, and was a good father to his children.
--The shooting is an attack on and an affront to the rule of law.
--The libtards - drooling imbeciles to a man - are trying to frame the shooting as an act of terrorism. No. Any useful definition of the term terrorism requires the targeting of innocents in order to bring about a change in behavior. If Tiller's shooter were a terrorist, he would have targeted Tiller's family, friends, neighbors, people walking by the clinic, or whatever. Terrorism would have targeted anybody EXCEPT Tiller.
The fact that the killer targeted Tiller himself, and ONLY Tiller makes him not a terrorist, but an assassin.
-- The libtards are also framing the shooting as hypocritical. Again, they're wrong. If any individual who was not a strict Quaker-style pacifist were absolutely convinced that Tiller was a serial murderer of children, then NOT taking action to stop him would be a hypocritical act.
-- The libtards are also trying to hang the shooting on Bill O'Reilly. Yes, these bobble-headed ignoramuses who had nothing to say when Airhead America talk show host Randi Rhodes made reference to assassinating President Bush, who had nothing to say when Airhead America talk show host Matt Malloy referred to Vice President Dick Cheney as "A destroyer," "an eater of human flesh," when artist Richard Serra magazine portrayed an American President as a cannibal eating the head off of a child, all of a sudden these hypocritical bastards are fainting at O'Reilly's overheated rhetoric, when O'Reilly did nothing but accurately state what this cretin did for a living and said what he thought of it, without sugarcoating it.
Labels: Abortion, Crime, ethics, Politics
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Isn't it ironic?
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Libtard doctor fears that Palin's example could reduce the number of abortions
If this were an Onion headline, it STILL wouldn't be funny.
But wait! There's even less!
I should hope so!
I wonder what this guy's wife thinks, when she lies next to him in bed. Lucky for him, I'm sure she probably loves him, despite his obvious psychic deformity.
What a ghoul.
Splash, out
Jason
Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt
ADDED: This is what socialized medicine can do to doctors. Capitated contracts... meaning health plans that pay a flat rate per assigned patient to doctors ... create a poisonous incentive to kill expensive, unprofitable people.
But a senior Canadian doctor is now expressing concerns that such a prominent public role model as the governor of Alaska and potential vice president of the United States completing a Down syndrome pregnancy may prompt other women to make the same decision against abortion because of that genetic abnormality. And thereby reduce the number of abortions.
Published reports in Canada say about 9 out of 10 women given a diagnosis of Down syndrome choose to terminate the pregnancy through abortion.
Dr. Andre Lalonde, executive vice president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Ottawa, worries that Palin's now renowned decision may cause abortions in Canada to decline as other women there and elsewhere opt to follow suit.
But wait! There's even less!
He says not every woman is prepared to deal with the consequences of Down babies, who have developmental delays, some physical difficulties and often a shortened lifespan.
Wider use of blood screening and amniocentesis during pregnancies can now accurately predict the presence of Down syndrome.
Lalonde says his primary concern is that women have the....
...choice of abortion and that greater public awareness of women making choices like Palin to complete a pregnancy and give birth to their genetically-abnormal baby could be detrimental and confusing to the women and their families.
"The worry is that this will have an implication for abortion issues in Canada," Lalonde tells the Globe and Mail.
I should hope so!
I wonder what this guy's wife thinks, when she lies next to him in bed. Lucky for him, I'm sure she probably loves him, despite his obvious psychic deformity.
What a ghoul.
Splash, out
Jason
Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt
ADDED: This is what socialized medicine can do to doctors. Capitated contracts... meaning health plans that pay a flat rate per assigned patient to doctors ... create a poisonous incentive to kill expensive, unprofitable people.
