« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Making Sense of the Komen Foundation’s Actions

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  February 3rd, 2012 at 02:37 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The left and right can together admit that the Susan G. Komen Foundation has just had three days of horrible publicity. They did the right thing and should have mapped out a release strategy better. My suspicion is that they assumed the purity of their intentions would override the abortion lobby’s demands.

I heard today that while small donations are up more than 100% to the Komen Foundation, major funders have threatened to pull money allocated to Komen because of Komen’s Planned Parenthood decision. Killing children in utero is the sacrament of the Church of the Secular Left and any person or organization that becomes the slightest threat to abortion rights must be destroyed. Because the Susan G. Komen Foundation dared to stop giving money to an organization that kills kids despite its spin, major liberal donors of Komen decided abortion outranks curing breast cancer and Komen had to be stopped.

The media headlines today are that the Komen Foundation has reversed itself. If you gave a donation in the past few days and want it back, you should call (800) 996-3329. But I hope I can provide for you some rational explanation for a mishandled PR exercise.

As a Komen Board member told Life News, the reversal is not really so much a reversal as a clarification of Komen’s grants procedures, which will still impact Planned Parenthood’s future funding from the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

The major outrage against Komen funding Planned Parenthood came after an undercover sting of Planned Parenthood proving conclusively that Planned Parenthood does not offer mammogram services. Komen claimed it funded Planned Parenthood because of its mammogram services. Planned Parenthood’s dodge is that they referred women to places to get discounted or free mammograms, which itself is not true.

In walking back its denial of funds to Planned Parenthood, my understanding is that Komen will not cancel already approved grants to Planned Parenthood, but in the future will only fund organizations that provide mammograms themselves. That, in effect, still shuts out Planned Parenthood unless they actually invest in in-house infrastructures to give mammograms instead of just killing kids in-house.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • jeepingeoff

    I almost sent in a donation to Komen after their first announcement, but something in the back of my head said wait…wait…there is gonna be a nuclear blast on the left over this. Sure enough…

    They lost my cash. Oh, and BTW, my wife is currently being treated for stage 2 breast cancer…..

  • jb13

    What organization in the U.S. could get away with dissing the Komen Foundation and live to tell about it? Now we know. And it leaves me feeling physically ill.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    …I would say the jury is still out on this one. They seem way too jubilant and self-righteous. As do Komen’s major donors.

    For the time being, I will give to my local center who can really use the money. At least I know firmly where they stand and I can guarantee you they are not making million dollar salaries. Plus I believe Komen only spends something like 40% of their total income on the actual cause. The rest is overhead and other nonsense. That’s horribly inefficient for a charity.

  • adamd

    I pray when we elected a Republican President in 2012 that they once and for all defund Planned Abortion. They can sugar coat it all they want but PP mission is to make money killing unborn babies. The organizations roots are pure racism and their founder attended KKK rallies.

  • txpat

    I emailed Komen twice in last 2 days. Once a email on not picking winners and losers with planned parenthood, and they had my support.
    I sent another email today on my disappointment, and will continue to support American Cancer Society.
    They should be happy that I am sending money to American Cancer Society, isn’t the point to cure cancer. I don’t think it is to kill babies.

  • quixote

    My more cynical side sees this as more like ACORN changing their name and popping up again as a dozen other entities including those behind the OWS criminals. But ACORN is gone, right? Komen doesn’t support Planned Parenthood. Just it’s chapters do. Well not really; their chapters pay somebody else to support Planned Parenthood. See? Nice clean hands…Send us some more money please. https://www.facebook.com/KomenSanDiego/posts/10150635444962464

    it’s actually kinda brilliant. The Komen people get more contributions from some who would not support them while they overtly supported PP. PP gets more contributions from people who aim to make up the difference. And Komen still sends the money through intermediaries. That’s a win-win for all but the truth.

  • jb13

    Like I said: Physically ill.

  • izoneguy

    They just cut off their nose to spite their face…..

    Why would a large leftist donor send Komen money
    when they can send it right to PP.

    Komen will lose all conservative and some moderate support.
    I don’t think the leftists have enough donors to fill the void.
    I see layoffs and cutbacks ahead for Komen – like what
    happened to ACORN.

  • rotinski

    It may make you uncomfortable but the truth is that despite your distaste for all their services, PP does help diagnose breast cancer and save lives.

    Many internists can’t provide onsite mammograms, but based on a screen for lumps and family history save lives by identifying high risk people who should get further tests.

    Of course this is true for many types of diseases and cancers. And PP is giving health care services to woman who don’t get it elsewhere, it hardly matters whether they have a full radiology lab. Had they not first been screened at PP some woman would never know they had cancer.

  • tandem

    have shown their faces again, and it’s still ugly.

    Komen is weaker than I thought,. But on a very fundamental level, as someone who works in the nonprofit sector ( grant writing) I am disgusted with the whole mess. Since when do foundations have to bow down to public about who and how they do their funding? It is a Private Foundation!If people don’t like it, they don’t have to support it…but the political pressure involved is ridiculous? They HAVE to support planned parenthood? I hope future corporate and private foundation donors stay far, far away from PP…God forbid they decide to stop funding them..

    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?”

  • jb13

    Once you do, this makes sense. The pro-murder bullies were upset because their money launderer decided to no longer funnel their money to the organization they support, quietly. So, the big money donors used the brouhaha stirred up by the openly pro-murder loudmouthed bullies to quietly inform Komen that they were going to lose millions of dollars in support. Were those people going to directly give their money to Planned Parenthood? Not likely. But they would have found some other money launderer to facilitate their transactions, and possibly put Komen out of business in the process.

  • tandem

    It will be a great day when PP is brought up on criminal charges. I would love to take a look at their books.Lord knows their auditors are probably on Pelosi’s payroll or something…

  • wayneinnh

    You don’t overlook evil because they also do good. Evil is evil no matter what kind of PR face they try to put on. PP is responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent children.

  • Jack_Savage

    Or if you can’t, admit you are a shill and a liar.

  • streiff

    there is not a single PP facility in the nation that provides mammograms. Not. A. Single. One.

    The only thing PP can do is exactly the same thing I can do: tell the woman to get a mammogram.

    What does make me uncomfortable is a shill for a corporation whose main line of business is infanticide posting here.

  • Jack_Savage

    Directly or indirectly (Race For The Cure).

  • Jack_Savage

    I plan on being there to confront their sponsors at the next race in the area.

  • runner12

    Race for the Cure is back in full force. I am very disappointed in Komen today. They caved to the Left.

    Sad.

  • chuckludd

    No matter what the details of the revised grant policy may be, Komen itself seems to be spinning this as a cave-in. Frankly, I was surprised and appalled to learn that they had given PP money in the past.

    Lesson learned: When you donate money to a charitable organization, know where the money goes. I will not give a dime to an organization that might give that dime to Planned Parenthood.

  • kowalski

    Disentangling the networks of charities that exist to give to other charities is purposefully difficult.

    The best thing you can do is not to go through an intermediary organization: donate directly to the charity and make sure they’re as single-purpose as possible.

    Really all the rest is a lot of glorified money laundering.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    if you made a donation online or otherwise that is not connected with the 3-Day Walk. The # given in EE”s diary is for the 3 Day donations if you gave in general or to a specific walker, and they will process those. At least that’s the info I received upon calling each number.

    I’m waiting on a call back to request a refund for my online donation.

  • grandma

    After being involved with the pro-life culture and activism for nearly 3 decades, I’ve been wary of all organizations until they prove to me they were innocuous.

    To me, the March of Dimes is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Their search and destroy mission is well cloaked in “dogoodism.”

  • MF

    My mom was over a 25 year survivor (double mastectomy) before succombing – to old age, not breast cancer – last year. Our prayers to your wife and entire family.

  • Jack_Savage

    Thanks for the clarification.

  • renl57

    I wish your wife the very best of luck.
    You guys will be in my thoughts.

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    I wonder to what extent Komen’s ties to G.W. Bush played a part in PP’s fast and furious implementation of the nuclear option. Komen founder, Nancy Brinker (Susan Komen’s sister) was Bush’s ambassador to Hungary and she and her husband have been big time donors and fundraisers for Bush. There are also ties to the Bush library.

    On the other side, running PP is Cecil Richards, daughter of the late TX Gov. Ann Richards.

    Ugly.

  • renl57

    The local PP center in Boston claims to offer mammograms and Pap smears on site.

    http://tinyurl.com/838uaf2

    I doubt they would be telling women how to prepare for these examinations if they weren’t offering them.

    Perhaps it varies by community; some PP centers may be better equipped than others. This one looks pretty big, judging by the photo.

    Of course, they do abortions too there.

  • buddyp

    “Infanticide”?

    If it is taboo to challenge on RS the premise that personhood begins at conception (or implantation), and thus that from that point there is a right to life, I won’t bother bringing it up again, but if it’s permissible to raise this objection here…

    1. To be a child one must be a person.

    2. What makes us persons is the nature and level of our brain activity.*

    3. At some point in gestation brain activity has reached a level at which the fetus should be considered a person, with the same associated right to life as any other person.

    4. Information related to # 3 is imprecise, and there is inherently some subjectivity in determining that point in gestation, as well as challenges of measurement.

    5. Despite the limitation of # 4, we can at least safely assume that, prior to any substantial brain activity, an embryo or fetus cannot possibly have brain activity sufficient to qualify it as a person and thus to have an associated right to life.

    Is there any reasonable secular way to consider an organism with little or no brain activity a person, or does it simply come down to the view of some that their respective scriptures say so?

    If there is no secular argument of a right to life up to that point in fetal development, is there any reason a person who doesn’t subscribe to a religious faith to that effect should accept that pregnant women shouldn’t have the liberty to end that organism’s life, given that it resides in her body and given that it is no more a “person” (or “child”) than is a worm (and perhaps even farther from personhood than than a worm, if we’re talking about an organism with no brain activity at all)?

    And “potential personhood” is not an argument for current personhood and the associated right to life. We are talking about the rights of that organism, as distinct from say, a “right to life” of the “not yet conceived” for which no one argues, so it comes down to what that organism is and what associated rights it should have.

    * Just to address the “brain dead” scenario, if a person has had the brain activity of a person, but loses it, and retains some some chance of recovering it, that person has established personhood and maintains it, along with the associated right to life.

  • Uma Richie

    If you are having debates with your friends and facebook friends over this, you may have gotten the pushback that PP uses the money to fund doctors who do manual breast exams and then refer women who have lumps.

    The counter to this argument is that PP is gung ho on using telemedicine for RU-486 prescriptions. There is no way that women are getting screened for breast lumps by a physician during their visits if they are only Skyping with the doc.

    Page 4 of this PP newsletter has the story on how great telemedicine is for killing babies.
    www.plannedparenthood.org/ppgnw/images/…/FocusSpring10web.pdf

  • http://teresainfortworth.wordpress.com/ Teresa in Fort Worth, TX

    They’ll have to find their blood money somewhere else.

    But PP doesn’t care about all of the good things that Komen has done for Breast Cancer Awareness.

    All they care about is making sure that they can continue to kill over 160,000 baby girls each year.

    I guess that’s Planned Parenthood’s idea of “preventing” future breast cancer…..

  • http://teresainfortworth.wordpress.com/ Teresa in Fort Worth, TX

    And have you seen the Guttmacher Institute’s reports through the years (that’s PP’s “record-keeping” arm)

    For every 100 “healthy” pregnancies (non-miscarried/stillbirth), 22 of them were aborted.

    That’s a 22% abortion RATE.

    That isn’t just “infanticide”, it’s GENOCIDE.

    The abortion rate in the black population is close to 50%.

    But. hey – I guess you’re just fine with defending any organization that is bound and determined to kill that many black babies, right?

  • Uma Richie

    Why don’t you tell us when life begins in your oh so special secular world?

    Then please tell us what you are doing to convince people to outlaw abortion after that point.

  • http://teresainfortworth.wordpress.com/ Teresa in Fort Worth, TX

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/4304111/pdf

    Skip down to Table 1 and behold the numbers: over 50 million abortions have “officially” been performed since 1973.

    Over 25 million of those were female.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    but let me answer you anyway. Killing children in utero? Yes, that’s exactly what they’re doing. But enlighten us, exactly at which stage below would you stop an abortion?

    1.The baby?s heart starts beating 18-25 days after conception.

    2.By the age of two months, the heart beats so strongly that a doctor actually can listen to it with a Doppler stethoscope.

    3.At about this same time, brain activity can be recorded by use of an electroencephalogram. Brain waves are readily apparent.

    4.By the age of two months, everything is ?in place??feet, hands, head, organs, etc. Upon close examination, fingerprints are evident. Although less than an inch long, the embryo has a head with eyes and ears, a simple digestive system, kidneys, liver, a heart that beats, a bloodstream of its own, and the beginning of a brain.

    5.The unborn child hiccups, sucks his or her thumb, wakes, and sleeps.

    6.The unborn child responds to touch, pain, cold, sound, and light. In fact, a study reported from Queen?s University revealed that, even in utero, human fetuses have the ability to recognize their mother?s voice (see ?Fetal Heart?,? 2003). This study demonstrated that the fetus not only could recognize its mother?s voice, but also could distinguish it from other female voices. Using thirty fetuses in their experiment, university researchers played a two-minute audiotape of each fetus? own mother reading a poem. The researchers then played a second, two-minute audiotape of another female voice reading a poem. The scientists discovered that the unborn babies responded to their own mother?s voice with heart-rate acceleration. When the stranger?s voice was played, the heart rates of the infants decelerated. This confirms what scientists have speculated for more than twenty years?that experiences in the womb help shape newborn preferences and behavior.

    From apologeticspress here.

  • languedoctor

    everybody loses?

    Speaking more from a management perspective than a political perspective:

    Conservatives see Komen walk back their opposition to planned parenthood. At least rhetorically. Which is what really matters, since Komen is a bit player on this issue. Next to Roe v Wade, you need an electron microscope to see Komen.

    Komen loses because they’ve jeopardized their brand . . . and for what gain? Lefties still view them with suspicion, and conservatives feel scorned. Say what you will about the media, liberal lobbies, and all that. I’m not sure I’d trust Komen’s leaders to run a lemonade stand right now. There are lots of organizations that are faithful to a mission without being incompetent.

    Liberals . . . I guess they win. At least in the short term. But they were reminded how precarious their position can be, so it’s not much of a win.

  • buddyp

    You didn’t address my argument and question at all.

    I’m challenging the premise that the organism is a child, and you reply with stats about how many organisms you are calling children are killed.

    I don’t know how many bacteria are killed each year, but however many are killed, that’s not genocide unless there’s a reason to consider bacteria persons. My question is: Why should I consider ANY organism with little or no brain activity to be a person? Isn’t the nature and level of our brain function what makes us people, as opposed to worms or rocks?

  • buddyp

    First, the question isn’t when the “life” of the organism begins. It is obviously alive. It is also obviously human life, as defined by having human DNA. The question is whether or not the organism is a person. I’ve already said that the point at which brain function suffices for personhood is both imprecise and subjective, but that doesn’t mean we can’t safely assume that the point has not been reached up to particular points in development, such as prior to any brain activity at all.

    As for “what I’m doing”, that’s irrelevant. As for my views re: abortion after the point in fetal development at which brain activity has sufficed for the organism to be considered a person — for example, I’d say it’s safe to say in the 9th month the fetus is a person — I would oppose legality of abortion in all cases (including rape, etc.) with the only possible (emphasis on “possible”) exception being a clear, extreme threat to the life of the mother, and perhaps not even then, since we are talking about a child at that point, not just a “fetus”, and we wouldn’t allow a mother (or anyone else) to kill a child to save the life of the mother.

  • buddyp

    Let’s start at the beginning and work from there.

    You seem to be arguing that, by my standard related to brain activity, I should consider the organism a person even at 18 days.

    I’ll leave aside for the moment the validity of your presentation of facts re: brain activity, because we should start at the simplest point — the beginning.

    Prior to ANY brain activity, do you agree there is no secular reason to consider the organism a person?

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    Your kind really is not welcome here. By your kind, I mean people who equate children in utero with bacteria.

  • rememberthealamo

    How about instead of saying they didn’t plan their response well, we just say they didn’t have the guts to face the heat. Nor the brains. Really short sided, bad planning is chapping off both sides of the donation stream. They had no idea they would get blasted by the left? They had no idea the right would shun them once they backtracked? But then, they were stupid to start giving PP money in the first plaace.

    It will take years for Komen to recover their donation levels. They will not recover the trust of either side.

    It’s not a kitten, it’s not a puppy, it’s a baby – therefore it is a human life. From the moment of conception.

  • Uma Richie

    Can we legalize sucking out the brains of preemies if they are below 36 weeks gestation and the parents don’t want them?

  • kipling

    (nt)

  • polarglen

    . . . to the Komen Foundation as long as they even hint they will fund Planned Parenthood. Who do they think they are fooling with the their wishie-washie pronouncements. There are other, more deserving, warriors against breast cancer to support.

  • jc230

    Thanks for sparing everybody from Peter’s demented posts. The root problem with the Komen/Planned Parenthood debacle (spectacle) is the militant left took a normal Foundation practice to appropriately fund or defund a program based on it’s mission to provide specific servies (breast screening services), and villianized Komen for this very practice. Planned Parenthood successfully used labor union bully tactics to mislead the general public. Planned Parenthood through its social hostile tactics created an unfair advantage in the marketplace that would surely have led to the distruction of this noble Foundation — sponsors we’re already calling to potentially withdraw their support. Regardless, Komen is on the side of saving lives, and providing their constituents with the best care possible. I think women who succumbed to the ridiculous, propagandist fear tactics that Planned Parenthood perpetrated on the public should be ashamed. Ashamed at how easily they were co-opted into this falsehood.

  • aesthete

    but I would like to answer the query in a forthright fashion, lest anyone believe that the pro-life movement has no answer to the question.

    First of all, we must all agree that the definition of “personhood” is itself rather difficult to tack down. Most of the attributes which distinguish humans from their simian brethren, or the rest of the animal kingdom, do not present themselves until years after the birth of the child. Sometimes, they do not present themselves at all (as is the case with some mentally disabled folks). This dilemma is from whence some of the most intriguing science fiction premises and short stories spring forth: in the fictional universe described by Frank Herbert’s “Dune”, for example, anyone who cannot respond rationally to extreme pain or duress is not considered a person. Any definition of personhood which requires attributes unique from life in the animal kingdom must exclude several groups which have traditionally characterized the debate over human life and a regime’s commitment to same, such as the mentally infirm and infants. Any definition which includes these groups is inherently arbitrary, as it must allow for the possibility of “persons” whose observable state of being is (from a scientific or social standpoint) no different, or perhaps even inferior, to some of the other species in the animal kingdom.

    Having acknowledged the arbitrary nature of a definition of “personhood”, it is of course true that a definition of personhood which excludes fetuses, or even embryos, is no more unique and restrictive than one which does include both of the above. Considering the difficulty that humanity has had in allowing for a universal conception of personhood to find wide purchase, it is perfectly reasonable for a secular person to wish to have the broadest possible view of personhood as is possible. This “better safe than sorry” approach is admittedly non-scientific, but it is certainly secular.

    Lastly, I take issue with the notion that we must find a “secular” definition of personhood. Given how arbitrary personhood is (it’s not a particularly , it is not inappropriate to draw on religious or metaphysical sources to inform our views. Personally, and as a Christian, I see little evidence in the Bible for the pro-life position, and the church has a mixed (though mostly pro-life) history on the issue. Most of the Jewish denominations seem to discard the notion of personhood at conception. However, I would not deny that what the Bible says on other life issues has informed me, and there is no compelling case which establishes secular arguments or sources as endemically better than sectarian or metaphysical sources on this issue. Indeed, many would argue that the epistemological nature of the debate makes religious and metaphysical sources superior on some counts to more secular sources.

    Full disclosure: I support using any brain activity whatsoever as a litmus test for personhood, while acknowledging that personhood is intrinsically difficult to define.

  • rogershru2

    there is no “secular reason” to consider abortion “wrong”. Just like there is no secular reason to stop me from killing my neighbor to get his vintage comic book collection if I really want it, and I can get away with it. Especially if he’s just some old man with no family or friends, drawing social security from the state as burden to society.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    we have to engage in a secular definition of person hood. The obvious reason is that not everyone is religious.

    But It is possible. Embryo’s receive consideration for the same reason that severely retarded people, and people in coma’s receive consideration, for the reason that they are HUMAN.

    That does not mean that there is no area of disagreement. The argument put forth by buddyyp is actually a strong one. Women often naturally miscarry when embryos are nothing more than a tiny mass of barely differentiated cells. If a woman really does not desire a child and wants to end the pregnancy at that stage then I think that is a difficult argument to oppose.

    The problem is that with medical science we raise all the time the day in which an embryo could survive and become a baby outside of the womb.

    There are “Literally” hundreds of thousands of people who would gladly adopt such children if available (I am one). That puts things in a different light.

  • aesthete

    Logically, however, a secular definition of personhood can be either unique (i.e., require something of the “person” which is not demonstrated by animals) and not include various groups of humans, or inclusive and non-unique. It cannot satisfy both conditions in any meaningful way.

    Personally, I am not a “pure” pro-lifer: I would have a ban contingent on brain activity, and there are more enforcement problems than many pro-lifers are willing to concede at this point.

    I can’t tell whether buddyp’s argument is a strong one or not, because he never got around to telling us how much brain activity is necessary to qualify a fetus as a person. Even though I’m not a “life begins at conception” pro-lifer, buddyp still overstates his case by implying that there is absolutely no secular argument for personhood beginning at conception.

  • trickamsterdam

    But only so that some people understand that there will be a cost.

    For example, there’s someone guy who always trolls my posts whenever I bring up that (IMO) Sen Santorum’s position that the unborn should be included under the equal protection clause of the Constitution makes him unelectable.

    I wasn’t even taking a side on the position itself (although I would be against it, because I consider it legislating from the bench, from the conservative side) but merely commenting on the position as far as his electability…you can be for letting states legalize heroin, or be against it, but can we acknowledge that it makes Rep Paul less electable (in fact, likely, unelectable)?

    Note: I’m not comparing the morality or importance, of Santorum’s and Paul’s positions, just saying that they would likely have the same electoral effect…that is, I don’t see how you don’t charge a woman w/ Murder One for an abortion (even if it was from a rape) if Santorum’s policy was executed by the Supreme Court…and I don’t see how he’s elected when most Americans understand that.

    Understand, when I say Rick Santorum is unelectable in any other post, this is one of the things I mean. Not to mention he is as horrible at defending the position as he was in arguing against gay marriage (“man on dog”)…w/ this he said…”you’d think Pres Obama would agree w/ me, as a black man he should know what it’s like not to be considered a person”.

    Yeah, way to sell it, Rick…

    The point, again, isn’t that people CAN’T go to the wall over what they believe in. It’s just that, let’s have enough free discussion of ideas so that people UNDERSTAND they’re going to the wall.

    In other words:

    It’s one thing to be Leonidas (300 Spartans) and realize you’re going to die that day and stay anyway because you think it’s right.

    It’s another thing to be Custer and ride in there thinking you’re going to win…and then die that day in a way you totally don’t expect.

  • 1spark

    As long as Komen’s goals and PP goals are align to help fight breast, and that is NOT a lie.

    You are right. PP does not provide mammograms… but they do referrals and adequately informs the woman on what her options are.

    I don’t see where you were going with this.

    *Note: PP may facilitate the abortion… but it is ultimately the woman’s choice to abort is the baby or not.

    I don’t label the executioner, who the state pays to execute a criminals, (who are sometimes innocent) as a killer himself.

    But what do I know, right? I’m just a man. Let the women shape their own destiny… it’s hard enough to find a job in this economy to end up getting caught up on a woman’s right issue.

  • greyeagle

    The majority do not do breast exams or pap smears. Again, their main business is abortion and they push that hard. I know nurses who used to work in that business.

  • greyeagle

    President Bush is strongly pro-life. Nancy Brinker is from Dallas and the Bush family and her family are friends. Cecil Richards is the daughter of Ann Richards, who was a Democrat. The daughter is also likely a Democrat.

  • greyeagle

    I cared for premature babies for a number of years, providing love, cuddling, and rocking them, when their parents could not visit. They all were different. My friend and I made doll clothes with little santa stocking hats. This helped parents bond with this tiny infant, who looked so fragile. We also taught parenting classes. The smallest infant I took care of, weight 1 pound 2 ounces. He was a little African American baby. I still remember his name. When he was no longer on oxygen, I wrapped him securely, and rocked him a lot and talked to him. His Mom was not able to visit very much. Eventually, whenever he heard my voice, he would stick his fingers in his mouth and act like he was starved, until I picked him up. He reached 5 pounds after remaining in the hospital for a little over 4 months. I saw little Eric about 18 months later. He was a healthy active little boy. All life is sacred to me.

  • aesthete

    All political movements suffer from the ability to not “live and fight another day” when they meet unfavorable ground: for a recent example, see the RTW movement, which per LUR seems to be committing a strategic blunder in Ohio as we speak.

    IMO, the best thing the pro-life movement has done in the past 30 years has been 1) focus on repeal of Roe v Wade, 2) establish themselves at the state level and continue passing things at that level, and 3) voter education. Laws won’t change — and won’t have as great an effect — if voter morality doesn’t change with them.

    Rick Santorum is representative of the less pragmatic branch of the pro-life movement, for the reasons you described.

  • RonLewenberg

    Your argument is based on a questionable assumption. Would a neural network approximating human intelligance be a human? No.

    A human Zygote, Embryo and Fetus are all developmental stages in the life cycle of Homo Sapiens. The are alive according to scientific definition of life. They are also human according to science on the basis of genes.

    A brain-dead person is DEAD. Any amount of life comes from artificial means. A Zygote, embryo of fetus is alive in its natural environment, the fallopian tubes or uterus.

    Now you may not care about science or basic morality any more than the average slaveholder did (or does), but science remains science. Your argument remains freshman composition sophistry.

  • Adjoran

    OR we could invite Charlie Manson to explain how his cult was only “liberating” the people they butchered.

  • Adjoran

    Obama had just announced he was going to force the Pope to pay for abortions and contraception, exciting a bloodlust on the left. Komen stepped into this frenzy, in which any hint of limiting their ability to kill babies only infuriated them.

    It’s actually rather fortunate the raving butchers didn’t burn down every church in the country in their rage.

  • palolojo

    I almost sent in a donation but decided to wait and see if they were going to cave and they did. There are alternatives to the Komen foundation, Dr. Mary L Davenport has a good article on The American Thinker website about this issue. I decided to give to the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute instead of Komen.

  • ragstoriches

    to purposefully take the life of another human being than it is a man’s right to do the same.

    I believe Dr. Kervorkian was considered guilty of being party to murder, was he not?

    Every doctor and nurse that assists in the elective murder of a human being is likewise morally culpable.

    As are those who stand by and allow it to happen.

    As was noted earlier, you aren’t absolved of all the evil you do merely because you do something good.

  • ragstoriches

    We do not need a secular definition of “person” and, in fact, we will never achieve such a thing because the concept of person and/or personhood is necessarily abstract and philosophical.

    When we proved a child in utero was more than a mass of cells and did, in fact, meet every scientific criteria to be considered a “life”, the left shifts the definition to some abstract, unprovable concept that is equivalent to proving we have a soul.

    Either life is protected regardless of stage of development or DNA characteristics (race, gender, abilities) or it is not.

    Life is life. It’s either valued or it isn’t. I’m tired of chasing goalposts that are continually being moved in an effort to protect the right to fecklessly eliminate a life to the benefit of someone else.

  • 1spark

    But who am I to say what’s in a woman’s best interest?

    To me, the days where men have a say in a woman’s body are over, are they not?

    Why I’m old enough to know that an American woman is strong enough and smart enough to fight her own battles.

    This abortion issue is not black and white as you like to make it out to seem… there’s always shades of gray.

    And you’re probably right, I may never be absolved of any or all the sins I may have commited in the time I’ve been alive. But I learn to live with and be at peace with my mistakes.

    That’s all we can do, really, until the day of our death.

    We may never know when, or how, it comes but it is the only certainty in our lives.