A lot of money goes to Susan B. Komen with the hope of curing a terrible disease that takes the lives of far too many women, and well it should be. It is a noble cause! But, for some time, Komen has had an association with Planned Parenthood, an organization that is prominent in providing abortion services. Recently, we've seen news that Komen had decided to break its bonds with Planned Parenthood. That decision was to applauded.
Since there are numerous contributors that support the fight against breast cancer, but do not favor legalized abortion, this was the most honest decision that Komen could have made. To do otherwise would have been to continue to accept donations under false pretense and contradiction.
But, as of Friday morning, 1/3/12, Komen decided to relent to pressure from pro-abortion groups. They have decided to continue to support Planned Parenthood. They have chosen those with whom they wish to be identified. Now, it is for contributors to Komen to decide with whom it is that they will be identified.
Contributors should be able to make their donations with a clear conscience. Should they give to an organization that seeks to save lives, but then turns around and funds an organization that takes the most innocent of lives? Can we not be allowed to make our own minds up whether to fund Planned Parenthood or not?
It is unfortunate that the fight against a killing disease must be associated with the scourge of infanticide. If Komen cannot find it within themselves to separate from Planned Parenthood as it should, then it is up to those who are pro-life to separate themselves from Komen, and then find some other way to continue to help find a cure.
How can Komen claim on the one hand to want to work to preserve life and then fund those who want to take life? The two positions are so contradictory that it is hard to believe that Komen any longer wants to be taken seriously. Of course, Komen is free to decide for themselves, as we all are!
Many do not support Planned Parenthood and deeply resent Komen's use of their money to promote abortion! Perhaps when the Left got up un arms about Komen's reported break from Planned Parenthood and Komen relented, they did not consider the possibility that when they hold their next "Race For A Cure", those who also believe in the sanctity of life might not show up. Then, Planned Parenthood can hold their first ever "Dirge For Death".
Tags: Komen, Parenthood, Planned, cancer
Permalink Reply by Sue Carroll on How about "pay to play". You prefer to punish the baby for the ineptitude of the mother, and selfishness of both the mother/father. In NH, not 1, I repeat not 1, PP offers mamograms...they sure offer obortion, which is their biggest $$$ maker. It's bad enough it's illegally legal, but forcing pro life advocates to pay for it with their tax $$, is un Constitutional, immoral and reprehensible...and further" Pro Choice" is a convenient way to deny life, it is more correctly called Anti-Life.
Permalink Reply by john everhart on To Nancy GRACE. Dang near everyone seems to be missing a MAJOR point here. I dont give a hoot who does what with there body. However I would appreciate some HONEST full disclosure about what my money is ACTUALLY being used for. That way if Komen chooses to donate funds to whomever, they can WITH A CLEAR conscious while NOT missleading the base doners. But since our Mom died last year of breast cancer, & we donated over $1000 to Komen for research to FIND A CURE for breast cancer, Then thats where we want OUR donation to go.
Permalink Reply by Jeff Waller on John,
Sometimes people purposely "miss the point" when they have an agenda!
Permalink Reply by Catherine Platano on I believe that the donations sent to Komen are 'fungible," meaning they are accepted into a general fund, not earmarked to be used specifically for breast exams/mammogram expenditures. Bill O'Reily (last year) posed to a PP spokesperson that the simple remedy to the concerns would be to set aside those monies from Komen or other organizations or individuals, and used only for breast exams. Seems reasonable to me.
In response to Nancy Grace's arguments:
It should be remembered that slavery, also, was once the law of the land. In other words ... it was a legal practice (for which in some ways we are still suffering). Thankfully, we had/have the legal means to change those/these laws!
And hasn't abortion always been legal when the life of the mother is in danger ... meaning that she could die unless the pregnancy was terminated? This does not mean that the child's life would have to be terminated, just the pregnancy. We've seen so many wonderful advances in medicine that children have been born (saved) in some of these cases. And can't we be thankful for this!
Permalink Reply by Jeff Waller on Catherine, I agree with you on all but one thing. No matter the terms and conditions under which contributions are made to any organization, the contributors deserve to know beforehand what the money "might" be used for. Like I said to another person in this discussion, if you knew up front that I was a crack addict and you gave me money for my car payment, you might have the impression that a car payment is all that you have paid for. But in reality you are just freeing up the money that I do have so that I can got get some more crack.
As long as PP has control of the funds, they can do whatever they want. One of those things happens to be something that a lot people do not support, like I am sure you would not knowingly support someone's crack habit.
But if you still want to give someone your money, please make your check out to "Cash" and mail it to the address I will provide you. I promise to make good use of it...but hurry...spring break is coming soon! :)
Permalink Reply by keith cristopher on "By the way, as a pro-choice(not pro-abortion, jeff) "
no such animal ms. grace. you're either fer it or agin it. constitutionaly speaking life trumps liberty.
so unless you believe the un-born are not living beings, the 'rights' of women to control their bodies
are superceded by the 'rights' of the un-born to their 'life'.
Permalink Reply by Jeff Waller on Don't go posting a bunch of statistics here about who's doing what? I will delete those posts!
Komen is misusing contributions for a purpose which they were not intended. That is the only issue here! I just happen to be against the subject of the misuse, so I feel that much more strongly about it.
Please, folks, stay on subject. If you want to debate the virtues of Komen's dishonesty, I'm here!
Permalink Reply by john everhart on Thank You Jeff Waller. You are absolutely correct.
Permalink Reply by Jeff Waller on Let's turn this around!
What if Komen was using their contributions to fund the Newt Gingrich 2012 Campaign and didn't make it public knowledge?
Shouldn't they expect some of their cash flow to dry up?
Permalink Reply by Debrajoe Smith-Beatty on Wonder boy has a way of getting his way doesn't he?
Permalink Reply by Albert M. Bryson on Apparently they and the American Cancer Society has raised millions to battle and defeat cancer since Nixon started the so-called war against Cancer. Apparently they have not been as successful as they liked. It looks it lots of waste to give money to causes that sound good. I have not given to Komen since I knew that some of their funds were going to Planned Parenthood. If you want to battle cancer then the American Cancer Society might be best of the lot.
Permalink Reply by JC Patriot on Albert, I think you hit the nail on the head with the superficial "feel-good" sound of the cause, which then lacks the hoped-for follow-through, which should be spending the money wisely on the cause it was solicited for. As Jeff is pointing out, the dishonesty of such a situation with Komen is no different than the same tactic liberals have been using to push their agenda with public funds for other causes. Take for example the welfare experiment -- we found that giving people aid without limits or strings attached just makes them dependent. So the feel-good idea actually hurts the people it was supposed to help in the long run.
Whether it's a private organization or a public one seeking funds, it is the motivation of the people running the organization or the beaurocracy that are too often the ones benefiting the most. Those with compassion are taken advantage of constantly.
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
