Susan G. Komen Reverses Planned Parenthood Funding Decision That Would Have Created Dangerous Health Environment for Women

77
Planned Parenthood, Birth Control, Plan B, the Pill, Pregnancy scare, what do I do if I'm pregnant, pregnancy options, STD, STI, GOP, Mitt Romney, 2012

Susan G. Komen Reverses Planned Parenthood Funding Decision That Would Have Created Dangerous Health Environment for Women

The pink ribbon symbolizing breast cancer awareness represents something else this week: betrayal.

The Susan G. Komen foundation – a non-profit which has used the pink ribbon symbol since its inception in 1982 – announced Wednesday that it would cut funding to women’s health organization Planned Parenthood that would have been used for cancer screenings for low-income, uninsured, and under-insured women. But in a complete reversal of this decision, the organization on Friday announced that it would continue to fund Planned Parenthood in the future. 

“We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics — anyone’s politics,” a blog post by the organization read.

The decisions reversal was the result of an intense backlash from political officials and women’s health advocates, as well as the resignation of a senior official at Komen. By not funding Planned Parenthood, the long term implications would have created a more dangerous environment for women who cannot afford to pay for cancer screenings anywhere else but Planned Parenthood.

Research from the National Cancer Institute shows that regular breast cancer screenings in women aged 40 to 70 years old decreases breast cancer mortality. Most doctors agree that early detection is the best way to treat and cure cancer in patients.

The funding that Komen gave to Planned Parenthood through its five year partnership directly enabled 170,000 women to receive breast cancer exams and referrals for more than 6,400 mammograms. But by ending their partnership with Planned Parenthood, Komen essentially inhibited women from seeking the care and preventative services the organization has promoted for more than 30 years.

The initial decision to cut ties with Planned Parenthood was a calculated move by Komen whose new Vice President Karen Handel, who had publicly stated her opposition to abortion.

In 2010, while running for Governor of Georgia, Handel wrote on her campaign blog that she “did not support the mission of Planned Parenthood” and would end the group’s state government aid if elected, according to ABC News.

The Wednesday move was very much politically motivated, as Komen has been the target of a campaign launched by the anti-abortion organization, Life Issues Institute, to persuade Komen to halt its partnership with Planned Parenthood.

Ironically, reports show that less than 3% of Planned Parenthood’s funding goes to abortions. So, while anti-choice groups continue to pressure groups like Komen to stop funding organizations that support abortion, Planned Parenthood itself isn’t about abortion – it’s about cancer screenings, contraception and overall live saving health services.

As news blogger Dave Dayden explained to Politico, “Unless [Komen is] putting all that money into finding that cure for breast cancer they’ve been chasing all these years, the practical effect of this action is to deny women the ability to get screened for breast cancer – women who have nothing to do with this ideological fight over abortion.”

Planned Parenthood said it's working to raise money independent of Komen so that cancer screenings don't stop. The group launched a Breast Health Emergency Fund to ensure funding to affiliates that will lose their Komen funding.

On Thursday morning, Planned Parenthood said that donors had contributed $650,000 in 24 hours, nearly enough to replace last year’s Komen funding.

The bottom line is that organizations like Planned Parenthood provide the health services to women that help prevent cancer and actually reduce the demand for abortion by offering sex education, contraception and support. These are the kinds of programs that we should be supporting, not defunding.

Photo Credit: ladybugbkt

77

Sign up to join the discussion

Reply to this article
view profile

Stephanie Dreyer

Stephanie is the Media Relations Director for the Truman National Security Project, an institute that trains and positions progressives to lead o...

Most Mic'd Response

weekly-winner-headshot-fpo

Ethan Case

Warner, you know we're usually on the same side of things. But PP is NOT solely an abortion provider, and you know that as well as I do. If this is new information to you, then I suggest spending 5 minutes on wikipedia and becoming familiar with the issue before you bombard everyone with polemics that make our side of the argument look bad. Also worth noting, they don't provide abortions at every facility as well. Nor do they provide most services at every single facility, beyond selling condoms and offering counseling. and for the record, PP treats men too. They do comprehensive STD testing that is quick, cheap, and confidential, and I know many men who use PP rather than take a day off from work and deal with their insurance company.

Watch the PolicyMic Video Join PolicyMic

The Discussion

What cancer screening has to do with Planned Parenthood, I'll never know. However, the donations from private citizens to Planned Parenthood is a perfect example that no organized entity could ever out-give the American people. No More Government Intervention! Off-subject? YES.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!
  • No longer with us
  • 3 months ago

This account has been disabled.

  • Mic this! 3
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

To politicize women's health alienates the humanity in what it means to provide safe health care to those who need it. Religion does not belong in politics, and politics most certainly does not belong in organizations who claim to exist on behalf of promoting cures for breast cancer.

  • Mic this! 3
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Thank you for all the comments but to those who oppose abortion, please understand, this is not about abortion! This is about providing life saving cancer screenings to women who cannot otherwise afford them.

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

2 Replies

  • David Shane 3 months ago Then PP should break into two compa...

  • Danny Keener 3 months ago No, Stephanie, don't you know ...

Then PP should break into two companies, one providing abortion services, one providing cancer screenings. Then people could support the latter without supporting the former.

That makes good sense, but they almost certainly won't do this - ask yourself why. PP insures that any discussion involving them is really about abortion.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

No, Stephanie, don't you know that over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions? By the way, that is not intended to be a factual statement. :)

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Even though Komen reversed themselves, the damage is done. After the story broke, I learned more about the organization. Their business practices and distribution of donations have been called into question more than once. While Charity Navigator shows 80% of expenses are program related, the site does not define "program related". This episode raises a political side to Komen that has no place in this type of non-profit's operations. Today's reversal should not be a reason to forgive and forget. It should spark a closer look by those thinking of donating before making the decision.

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Though I concur with personal funding and private donations (and mic for the article - well written), I don't concur with Federal funding. But you didn't argue that point directly yet some may infer that you did in "we should be supporting". Let a person or group give out of their heart and wealth to causes they feel just. But with our current budget, we as a nation do not need to borrow on the backs of today's youth and tomorrows children to give away money to a cause we can't afford to pay for as we budget deficits each year. If we were budgeting surpluses with little debt the story may be different. But that is not now nor fact. I believe in charity in time, money or both. Let each decide for themselves as individuals. Not impose debt.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

To say "ironically, only 3% of their funding goes to abortion" - i.e., that's not important, shows that you do not understand the pro-life position. People who are pro-life think the fetus is a human being, and think abortion is murder. Saying "ironically, only 3%" is like saying "they only do a little bit of murder - what's the big deal?" A little bit of murder is a big deal! The evil of killing people swamps the good of cancer screenings.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

37 Replies

  • Lori Crossley 3 months ago Assuming pre-life supports life for...

  • Daniel Butler 3 months ago The irony is those who believe abor...

Assuming pre-life supports life for everyone, who within the group speaks for the women who die when forced to seek illegal abortions? Who speaks for the women who must choose an abortion or death themselves?

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

14 Replies

  • David Shane 3 months ago Someone who would force a woman to ...

Someone who would force a woman to abort should be punished severely. The reason the pro-life movement rarely discusses that potential problem is because it's facing a much bigger problem. ~1.4 million children are aborted every year. I don't think there would be anything close to that number of deaths (woman and child) from illegal abortions. It makes sense to deal with the much bigger problem first.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

13 Replies

  • David Shane 3 months ago That statistic was for the United S...

  • Ben Poole 3 months ago Anyone who imposes their will over ...

  • Robin Bugbee 3 months ago Another bald faced lie. PP does not...

That statistic was for the United States, by the way.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Anyone who imposes their will over that of another's free will is attempting to make a slave of them and thus should also be punished severely by your logic. I am very pro life of children and all people. But to say a fetus is a child is a lie. It is from religion and not fact. Separate church from state and state from church. Each has its place. Keep both out of my life for it is my free will and choice. Let me choose to vote or determine as I choose and believe as I choose. You too may have free will to choose as you believe in "god" or country. But don't mix the two or impose your will on another. This is part of the reason we are in the mess we are in as a country. Special interests left or right have taken sway to take away our choice.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Another bald faced lie. PP does not force anyone to abort a child. (In fact I have never heard of any organization that forced a woman to abort a child.) Where does this kind of foolish drivel come from or do you just make it up in your spare time? This site is supposed to be for reasonable debate on important issues, your silly charges are not worth the space you are using to unfurl them.

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Are you replying to me Robin? I was not imagining PP doing it. Nor, I think, was that Lori's thought.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

The pro-life position is not an exclusivly religious one Ben. Do you think it is wrong to kill a person? I'm sure you do. Do you think a newborn infant is a person? Certainly. What about a 9-month fetus? 8-month? 4-month? Where do we draw the line? Truth is, we have no idea. And that's why abortion should be illegal. If someone *might* be alive, you don't allow an action that would kill them. You don't need religion to see that.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Sorry David. I was replying to one of the many silly posts by Warner Todd Huston
(or was that Garner Ted Armstrong) and somehow it looked as if I was replying to you. My mistake.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!
  • No longer with us
  • 3 months ago

This account has been disabled.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Show me a live breathing human being and yep that's human. Show me a fetus and you've shown me what belongs to another's body but not a human being. A fetus is not "people". People live and breath independent upon attachment to another. You are going far afield from reality to justify your position and in the face of facts.

Ron Paul and I are completely at odds on this. I, like him, don't personally believe in abortion. But, Paul is not being consistent on his stance of liberty and freedom of choice of the individual. No one has the right to force another in servitude against their wishes.

SCOTUS didn't go far enough in the reasoning but determined viability far in excess of realities of science.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!
  • No longer with us
  • 3 months ago

This account has been disabled.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Do they have brain activity? If not, then the are "brain dead" and thus dead. Living tissue is not life as a human. It is an abomination of science and a distortion of life. If I am on life support with a ventilator and feeding tube even in a coma but have the possibility of resuming life, I'm not dead. If there is no hope, then let me go - I'm dead and get on with your lives. But in all the above cases, there is breathing. Any human who doesn't breathe dies. Life is more than blood.

Anyone who takes a religious side needs to understand breath of life for it is in the bible as how 'god' breathed in spirit. Even the molding in the womb is a potter forming clay. Clay is not soul. So even from a religious standpoint your position doesn't hold

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

If your a scientist then you know when the fetus becomes viable. You know when the lungs mature and you can't survive in our atmosphere without mature enough lungs.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Truth and mic - thus a fetus is not a viable life until mature enough to do so. Is it reasonable for the state to take a late stage fetus for life support to avoid an abortion. No. The cost is to great. A small but significant percentage of per-birth do not make it to term due to a variety of issues. Nature does abort. Perhaps they want to outlaw nature.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Before 27 weeks of gestation, we don't even have the NICU technology and skilled doctors and nurses for a fetus to survive--period. And like you say, it's very expensive. Moreover, not every state (NH doesn't have one), hospital or community has a NICU--they are a very special and rare commodity.

God or nature made the fetus unable to survive before 37 weeks. Nature does abort and the tragedy of the loss for the parents is similar to the loss that some experience with a procedural abortion (not all but some). PP provides counseling for both types of loss.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

The irony is those who believe abortion is murder also believe capital punishment is just.

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

21 Replies

  • David Shane 3 months ago You cannot compare killing a serial...

  • Tc Ct 3 months ago A broad brush can never paint an ac...

You cannot compare killing a serial killer for crimes with killing someone who literally hasn't had time to do anything wrong yet.

Do you also find people who are pro-choice, and anti-capital punishment, ironic? I think that makes a good deal less sense. If fact, one of the arguments against capital punishment, "they could be innocent, a jury could have made a mistake", finds an echo in the abortion-debate "the fetus might be a person".

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

19 Replies

  • Daniel Butler 3 months ago It's a matter of rationalizati...

  • David Shane 3 months ago But it doesn't matter if you *...

  • Daniel Butler 3 months ago There is no clarity in your retort;...

It's a matter of rationalization. The debate turns back to what it means to be a person, and if two sides do not agree on this crucial point then the argument becomes a stalemate. Wave your hands all you like, if one does not believe a fetus is a person then the definition of murder doesn't apply

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

But it doesn't matter if you *believe* a fetus is a person, what matters is whether they really are or not. And nobody *knows* that they aren't. (Do you *know*? How do you know?) We should all be able to acknowledge that. And that's why abortion should be illegal. If a person *might* be alive, you don't allow someone else to take action that would kill them.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

There is no clarity in your retort; it has turned to semantics ('know' or 'believe'). Do you *know* a fetus is a person? In being anti-choice, one is claiming a right in another person's right to safety. Pro-choice is not pro-abortion or anti-life; it is a matter of health safety for women.

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

I don't need to know that a fetus is a person, our positions are not symmetric. Life is important - if someone might be alive, we protect them. That is all. If the fetus might be a person, we should protect it. We don't need to know for certain that they are - our uncertainty is, in fact, the very reason we should act.

The "anti-choice" side is very concerned about safety - safety for the baby and the mother. Not just the mother.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

What happens to your position if a fetus is not a person? It crumbles. Therefore you, indeed, do need to know if a fetus is a person. Your example of "might" is hollow. No need for the quotes on anti-choice, because that is what that side effectively stands for-a woman has no right to choose

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

To continue- the anti-choice side cannot claim to be concerned about safety when it wishes to make abortion illegal. Abortions will happen whether it is illegal or not, and to make it illegal forces women into dangerously unsafe situations.

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

A child is in a cave. The mouth collapses. Do you tell the mother "well, we'll try to rescue your child, but only if you can prove right now that he is alive?" No. You say, "because your child might be alive, we will act as if he is, and attempt a rescue." So it should be with abortion. Unless you know for certain that the fetus is not a person - and you don't - then we should act as if they are, and protect them.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!
  • No longer with us
  • 3 months ago

This account has been disabled.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

And round and round we go. You believe, or excuse me, you *know* what you *know* and I will continue on with my opinion. I know I have no right to tell a stranger what to do with her body, and so I do not.

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!
  • No longer with us
  • 3 months ago

This account has been disabled.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Are you still bubbling on in your religious trance? The lunacy of your position is only dwarfed by your demagoguery and pushing your religious views on others. This is about policy not about religion. If you want to have a religious debate, you will be defeated by the very thing on which you stand. You have built your house on shifting sand. No one should listen to a point of view from anyone who has been deceived in their self-blinded faith and thus attempts to deceive others in propagating it. First go and take the log out of your own eye (remove your self-blindness) and then you at least have the possibility to see clearly how to help others.

A child in a cave? Your nutz and blind.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Should such non sequitur responses be allowed in what I assume is an intelligent public forum? A woman stabbing her child? What have I gotten myself into in engaging with two lunatics? Comparing blacks to unborn and undeveloped fetuses? Unbelievable.

  • Mic this! 3
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Show me the child and I'll divide it between you and her if you claim it is yours (Solomon) - you can't because there is no child and you have no claim or business in poking your nose and opinions in the rights of others. Solomon didn't divide the child either but "cut through the rhetoric" to find truth. Your's is a ridiculous argument and position to take.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!
  • No longer with us
  • 3 months ago

This account has been disabled.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!
  • No longer with us
  • 3 months ago

This account has been disabled.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Daniel, Ben,

Their argument that a fetus 'might' be alive, and therefore we should err on the side of caution and protect it, like we'd do in any other situation where someone 'might' be alive is perfectly valid and has nothing to do with religion. they're 'belief' that a fetus is a living person is just as valid as your 'belief' that a fetus is not. there is no science to justify your claim any more than there is to justify theirs. don't go religion hunting when you are subscribing to what technically is a 'faith' based conclusion yourself.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Ethan,

Though I appreciate the topical goodness of the sentiment, I must disagree on intrusion at the expense of other's free will and choice. That is more sacrosanct. It is a pragmatic realization of life and truth. It is the slippery slope of which leads to succumbing toward lives and servitude to the dictates of others. Is the end result of that a life worth living? Or a life of a thousand deaths?

Cation and watchfulness is good. But let it not inhibit action when principles are trampled underfoot.

All opinions are valid. But, not all opinions contain truth which is in freedom.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

This kind of thinking is really specious. Whether you agree with abortion or not, comparing the termination of a pregnancy when we really do not know when fertilized eggs become "people" to the possible murder of African-American People is absurd.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Ethan,

I have the Constitution if that is the moral standard, the "Bible" if religion is the moral stand, and science on my side.But to say I am less right is to disregard those three tenants. Anyone else has only their humanistic wisdom as their determining factor. They may gather around themselves other people that think and speak like they but that doesn't make them right.

Forcing one's will on another for the purpose of birth is involuntary servitude. Its pure and simple and defined in the Constitution in the 13th Amendment:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!
  • No longer with us
  • 3 months ago

This account has been disabled.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

PP also is a significant provider of affordable and no cost birth control which helps eliminate the need for their "fetus killing" services. All funding is critical for women in poverty especially in the current economic environment.

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Planned Parenthood provides far more healthcare options for low income women then it provides abortions. It is inaccurate to state the abortions is all they do. In poorer communities PP is often the only option for women. They screen for cancer, encourage screenings to id cancer early on.

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

This is the most ridiculous article I've seen on this site (granted I have not read them all). First of all Planned Parenthood is solely and only an abortion provider. PP has no interest in "women's health." It is a politically motivated organization geared toward destroying fetuses. That is all. Further, it does not at most facilities offer mammograms in the first place and that is what Komen is trying to fund. The fact is abortion is NOT "healthcare," and that is all PP is interested in.

  • Mic this! 3
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

22 Replies

  • Warner Todd Huston 3 months ago Shoot, I forgot to add.... and Kome...

  • David Shane 3 months ago If PP doesn't want to be known...

  • Ethan Case 3 months ago Warner, you know we're usually...

Shoot, I forgot to add.... and Komen gives only several hundred thousand dollars to PP. PP wouldn't miss their donation much if it did stop, so all this is fuss by PP is political, not fiduciary. In other words these PP liars are just using Komen as a fundraising effort and yet another way to push their lies.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

1 Replies

  • Ben Poole 3 months ago Warner, Do you always make ridiculo...

Warner, Do you always make ridiculous statements without fact? Where is it that PP is "solely and only an abortion provider"? That is a bold faced lie. The article is about funding for cancer screening. That alone should be sufficient understanding even for the most uneducated to see your statement is false as is "PP has not interest in women's health". Your demagoguery is beyond the pale. To lie about others you accuse of lying is just straight out hypocrisy pure and simple. What a private foundation does with its charity is up to them. Don't like it; don't give to them

Oh, and the article is well articulated and accurate. Prove otherwise, recant or resume your place as being a liar and hypocrite fully charged and proven by your own words

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

If PP doesn't want to be known as an abortion agency, they should stop doing abortions. (And really - why not break up into two organizations? You'd think it might be in their financial interest to separate the controversial part of their business from the non-controversial part.)

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

1 Replies

  • Warner Todd Huston 3 months ago Good point. Of course, we know why ...

Good point. Of course, we know why they don't. PP hides behind the false claim they are interested in "healthcare" in order to push abortion. PP is a politically motivated group, not one interested in "health." As far as they are concerned there isn't any other part TO their business but abortion.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Warner, you know we're usually on the same side of things. But PP is NOT solely an abortion provider, and you know that as well as I do. If this is new information to you, then I suggest spending 5 minutes on wikipedia and becoming familiar with the issue before you bombard everyone with polemics that make our side of the argument look bad.

Also worth noting, they don't provide abortions at every facility as well. Nor do they provide most services at every single facility, beyond selling condoms and offering counseling.

and for the record, PP treats men too. They do comprehensive STD testing that is quick, cheap, and confidential, and I know many men who use PP rather than take a day off from work and deal with their insurance company.

  • Mic this! 5
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

8 Replies

  • Warner Todd Huston 3 months ago Wikipedia? Really? Who relies on th...

  • Tc Ct 3 months ago PP is about limiting live births. ...

Wikipedia? Really? Who relies on that for facts?? Come on. Get serious.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

6 Replies

  • Jason Orr 3 months ago Food for thought: Wikipedia is abou...

  • Warner Todd Huston 3 months ago About three years ago, someone put ...

  • Robin Bugbee 3 months ago I have a feeling you are familar wi...

Food for thought: Wikipedia is about as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica (at least when it comes to science): http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

  • Mic this! 3
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

About three years ago, someone put up a Wikipedia page about me, believe it or not. The thing was filled with outright lies. They even made up an entire education record for me out of whole cloth saying I went to various universities that I had never attended. It took me over a year to get it removed from Wiki.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

I have a feeling you are familar with "outright lies".

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

I agree Jason. All sources must be vetted. I chose to look at opposing views for each are likely to show the mistakes of the other side. That takes work and few take the time to do the research needed. I have even been in err by quoting correctly that which is incorrect. We all are fallible. Point of View is important also in discover hidden agendas that can become slant. It is said none can be without slant. Perhaps it could be said that none can see the other POV from their own. If POV is given, then slant is understood. That is seldom the case of any poster to Wikipedia or other source. It is better to look at the source directly sited than to take as a given statements on Wikipedia. Locked Wikipedia pages are best as they've been vetted

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Wikipedia is accurate on science and is accurate on things that are exceptionally well known. Since users write it, but also vet it, the accuracy of an article is directly proportional to the amount of people to read it. Planned Parenthood is a very frequented wiki article, so it has a very high probability of being accurate.

But, you can look at the openly available statistics PP provides as a non-profit that recieves gov't funding. 3% of their revenue is from abortions. that means 97% of what they do isn't abortions.

In fact 16% of their operations are cancer screenings, a whopping 70% is contraception sales and STD testing. 11% is other women's health stuff, including nutrition and other mundane, non-evil things.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

I agree except with the funding. PP can survive without Federal funding. We can't solve everyone's wants and desires for funding. I'd rather see funding for SS, Med, and even ACA (minus personal mandates) before PP funding and certainly before another set of bunker buster bombs though a common defense is required. If there was a balanced budget and lower reasonable debt then yes, we could discuss what is better to spend our surplus on in providing a safety net for society.

I'd rather see PP funded than giving money to Egypt, Pakistan, Israel or other countries - its insane what we are doing and they in turn use our money to hire lobbyists to try to get more of our money. The US is acting like fools with our funds.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!
  • No longer with us
  • 3 months ago

This account has been disabled.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

"First of all Planned Parenthood is solely and only an abortion provider."

Last of all, you are absolutely wrong. Thanks for playing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

You are simply wrong on just about every count. But given the obvious reality that you come from a conservative republican point of view and your candidates have continually and repeatedly made false and obviously erroneous statements about this and multiple issues, I am not surprised. Before you make ignorant charges regarding Planned Parenthood, may I suggest you get your facts right. Repeating a lie does not make it true.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

3 Replies

  • Warner Todd Huston 3 months ago Not really. Planned Parenthood, for...

Not really. Planned Parenthood, for instance DOES NOT offer breast cancer screening and mammograms. All PP does is tell "patients" where to go get them in the area. PP is lying about offering it.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

2 Replies

  • Robin Bugbee 3 months ago You are the one that made the fooli...

  • Ethan Case 3 months ago a referral is more than just pointi...

You are the one that made the foolish claim that PP was solely an abortion provider. That is simply untrue and just because you keep repeating that does not make it true. You are entitled to oppose abortion. You are not entitled to repeat lies about any organization or individual that you know to be exaggerated or untrue. It is unethical and immoral to do so.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

a referral is more than just pointing them in a direction. it clears a paperwork hurdle that helps them get medicaid or their insurance provider to pay for the otherwise very expensive procedure.

also, i'm fairly certain PP also provides financial assistance to people who can prove they meet PP's low income category to help them pay for those procedures.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Warner, I urge you to look at this graph which shows what Planned Parenthood is really all about. Despite what you may think, PP spends the majority of its funding on providing life saving health services (like cancer screenings) to under insured women. That is what Komen's grant was funding. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-planned-parenthood-actually-does/2011/04/06/AFhBPa2C_blog.html

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

2 Replies

  • Tc Ct 3 months ago PP does no screening. That's ...

  • No longer with us
  • 3 months ago

This account has been disabled.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

1 Replies

  • Ethan Case 3 months ago they pay for it though. that is als...

they pay for it though. that is also a fact.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

That's not true at all Ben. They do far more than just provide abortions.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

So now that Komen has seen the light (or more accurately the probable decline in their bank balance) one day after agressively defending their initial decision they have made a u-turn and we're all supposed to forget that they made an obnoxious, dangerous decision based only on reaction to conservative Republican anti abortion stands to put basicaly poor at risk women at greater risk of breast cancer by defunding the screening they depend on.

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

3 Replies

  • Tc Ct 3 months ago God forbid Komen have the right to ...

  • No longer with us
  • 3 months ago

This account has been disabled.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

2 Replies

  • Robin Bugbee 3 months ago Komen does have the right to choose...

Komen does have the right to choose and so do millions of fair minded people who thought their choice was in the best interest of women to prevent cancer instead of simply another bunch of reactionary conservatives with a hate on for anyone who disagrees with them, I'm a Liberal, I'm proud of it and I'm through ducking from the baloney thrown at intelligent conversation from people like you interested in anything but. Don't give them a dime.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

1 Replies

  • Tc Ct 3 months ago PP didn't just say "gee, ...

  • No longer with us
  • 3 months ago

This account has been disabled.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Quick update on this story: Susan G. Komen has backed down and decided to reinstate its grants to Planned Parenthood. For more information: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72416.html

  • Mic this! 3
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

1 Replies

  • Michael Weiss 3 months ago I still won't support them...t...

I still won't support them...they could change their mind in three months. Next time they ask me to walk, I'll double the donation and send it to PP.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!
Join PolicyMic

What is PolicyMic?