Mary McLellan, in her excellent recent article on this site, exposes all of the left wing pro kid sex, pro abortion, anti abstinence crap that Planned Parenthood stands for. Her piece should be required reading for anyone that might have mistakenly held a modicum of respect or admiration for PP. Her article might change your opinion. Thank you Mary!
Now, to the media feeding frenzy over the Susan B. Komen organization with its having made contributions to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screening.
Somehow some people at the top of the SBK decided awhile back to give money to uber-liberal Planned Parenthood. Now, my wife is a breast cancer survivor and we support SBK financially, but we had no idea that SBK had been doing this. Had we known, we’d have let them know what we thought, and it ain’t pretty.
SBK giving money to PP, purportedly for use in breast cancer screening (ignoring that PP is pro abortion, pro condoms for kindergartners and other out-of-the mainstream liberal sex pimping stuff) is like the NRA giving political contributions to Harry Reid simply because he owns guns and hunts (ignoring that he’s also a whacked out socialist and a big spending, big government, no handout left behind guy.)
That’s the challenge that single-issue groups often have — whom or what to support when the recipient holds controversial views or practices. When the excrement hits the fan over a particular contribution, they can’t avoid bowing to political pressure from supporters that live on both sides of the “aisle”, regardless of the spin from spokespeople.
Here’s the dilemma. If they fail to seriously consider the big picture of which group or person it is they are supporting and what the receiving group or person they are giving financial support to really stand for, then they’re setting themselves up for an eventual poop storm. As an example, consider the NRA and Harry Reid. The NRA early-on endorsed Harry Reid in 2010 in his run against his Republican rival. After a storm of protest from gazillions of NRA members (many of which are, of course, conservatives, and I count myself among them), NRA eventually reversed their endorsement decision. Good for them! (Unfortunately, Reid won anyway, the creep.)
Back to the relationship between SBK and PP. There’s a lot of posturing and apologizing and Kumbay-Ya statements emanating from both SBK and PP (check here), and the screaming and hollering from the left over this is almost deafening.
But SBK has apparently decided to withdraw from future funding of Planned Parenthood, for political or other reasons. Regardless of the back and forth of finger pointing and calling foul —- I hope they stick to their guns.
Pass the popcorn, this is getting interesting!
Thanks for the Atta-Girl, RightDog! Your article is awesome. Now, if we could expose the breast cancer/abortion/birth control connections maybe people would realize how very dangerous it is to mess with a woman’s hormones. Planned Parenthood’s services increase breast cancer and then Komen has to figure out how to cure it, but then they fund Planned Parenthood. What a shake down!
Food for Thought: I don’t get this dichotomy…For a country to have laws enacted specifically stating that it is a criminal act (with severe consequences) to commit fetal infanticide…how can we even think it’s okay for a woman to have the right to kill her own unborn child? And, how do we spell dichotomy?—L-I-B-E-R-A-L. Definition: Talking out of both sides of the mouth; to make opposites the same; to claim exception when it’s convenient, although the end results are always the same; to make a lie the truth, and the truth a lie.
The WH and Nancy Pelosi have qouted a source that says 98% of Catholic women use contraceptives. It’s based on a report by the Guttmacher Institute. The Guttmeyer Institute was founded by……………………………Planned Parenthood