by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- The Weekly Standard’s John McCormack makes a good point:
[W]hy does Planned Parenthood feel entitled to a private charity’s donations, especially considering the fact that Planned Parenthood’s president falsely claims on national television that the group provides mammograms? Isn’t Komen free to give its money to organizations that do more than provide mammogram “referrals” and breast cancer screenings?
Here is Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards caught stretching the truth about mammograms…
- Who says pro-life grassroots boycott efforts don’t work? Not people talking to The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg:
[Former Komen senior communications adviser John] Hammarley explained that the Planned Parenthood issue had vexed Komen for some time. “About a year ago, a small group of people got together inside the organization to talk about what the options were, what would be the ramifications of staying the course, or of telling our affiliates they can’t fund Planned Parenthood, or something in-between.” …
He called the controversy over Planned Parenthood funding “a burr in the saddle of Komen, but it withstood the issue for years and years.”
- Mollie Hemingway notes how the media finally noticed the connection between Planned Parenthood and Komen after Komen cut off grants:
Turn itself into? Turn itself into? Help me out here. Funding a group that terminates 330,000 pregnancies a year is not controversial but deciding not to fund that same group is? In what world? It’s important to note that Planned Parenthood doesn’t just do abortions. But many of the other things they do — teaching kids about sex through a text-chat program, receiving hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, spending high sums on fundraising and public policy to fight political opponents, selling or otherwise distributing contraception and abortifacients — are also controversial. Giving a woman a slip of paper to get a mammogram somewhere else is not controversial, unless by the standard that it’s not sufficient work for scarce breast cancer dollars, but you have to put the controversy in context.
[Photo via salon.com]