home
RSS
My Take: On Komen controversy, media told half the story
The author says the news media took Planned Parenthood's side in the Susan G. Komen Foundation controversy.
February 7th, 2012
12:44 PM ET

My Take: On Komen controversy, media told half the story

Editor's Note: Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a media critic at GetReligion and editor at Ricochet.

By Mollie Ziegler Hemingway, Special to CNN

Faced with a deluge of media opposition and pressure from lawmakers, the Susan G. Komen foundation amended its decision to cut off funds to Planned Parenthood last week. Afterward, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer and NBC’s Andrea Mitchell complimented each other on getting Komen to buckle under pressure.

Mitchell’s hostile interrogation of Ambassador Nancy Brinker, Komen’s CEO and founder, was widely viewed as a key moment in Planned Parenthood’s campaign against Komen.

“I thought you did such an interesting interview with the ambassador yesterday,” Boxer said to Mitchell during a televised discussion, “which I think helped bring this about, if I might say.”

Mitchell later returned the favor: “Sen. Barbara Boxer, thank you very much. Thank you for everything you’ve done on this.”

Some claims of media bias are overwrought. But here, the media wasn’t even trying to hide its advocacy on behalf of Planned Parenthood.

And in so doing, the media only told half the story.

Half the political story.

The media bought Planned Parenthood’s public relations campaign hook, line and sinker. Planned Parenthood argued that Komen’s decision to stop funding was “political.” This was the way most media outlets framed the entire story. But logic dictates that it’s not more political to stop funding Planned Parenthood than it is to keep funding it.

We’re talking about the country’s largest abortion provider, an organization that performs 330,000 abortions a year. According to Gallup polls from recent years, about half the American population identifies as pro-life while half identify as pro-choice. If you don’t have a sense for how controversial abortion is, you simply shouldn’t be in journalism.

Planned Parenthood receives nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer funds, including from Medicaid payments. Along with its political arm, it spent at least $1.7 million on lobbying at the federal level last year. Its political expenditures for the 2012 cycle have swung 100% for Democrats and against Republicans. Its political web site ranks a series of Republicans as “chumps.”

The notion that such a huge partisan player could be characterized as apolitical is laughable.

Half the reaction.

Media outlets certainly captured the outrage of Planned Parenthood supporters, which led most newscasts and articles. But was it an accurate reflection of how everyone reacted to the news? Hardly.

To explain, Komen had a serious fundraising problem due to its engagement with Planned Parenthood. Though its grants to the organization were around $600,000 a year, a relatively small snippet of either group’s budget, the relationship kept many people who oppose abortion from donating.

By ending its relationship with an abortion provider, Komen would likely be able to broaden its base of support to include donors who strenuously oppose abortion. But in most media accounts, these people were completely invisible.

This is part of a disturbing pattern where the media downplay stories of importance and interest to pro-lifers, such as their annual March for Life in Washington or the Obama administration’s recent mandate that religious organizations provide insurance coverage for abortifacients.

The way the media presented the views of women and breast cancer survivors in particular was even worse, as if they unilaterally supported Planned Parenthood when about half of American women identify as pro-life.

Charmaine Yoest, the head of Americans United for Life, had called on Komen to stop working with Planned Parenthood. After Komen’s initial decision, she said, “As a breast cancer survivor, I was always troubled with this whole idea that the nation’s largest abortion provider was enmeshed in the breast cancer fight when they weren’t actually doing mammograms. I look at this as smart stewardship.”

Half the investigation

Even after Komen backed down, the media have continued to attack. What was once widely presented as one of the most unifying charities in the country is now being thoroughly investigated by reporters.

“Komen spends lavishly on salaries and promotion,” The Washington Post announced, highlighting Brinker’s $417,000 salary heading the group she founded 30 years ago. Nowhere in the article, however, did we learn what Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards makes ($354,000) or that her predecessor reportedly earned $900,000 in 2005.

While Komen will now be raked over the coals, will the media similarly investigate Planned Parenthood? It’s doubtful.

The media coverage has been so fawning over the years that conservative activists have recently gone undercover to raise doubts about whether Planned Parenthood actually performs mammograms. These independent journalists have also produced evidence suggesting that some affiliates have failed to report instances of sexual abuse, sexual trafficking and rape.

“There’s no question that the media,” said Daily Beast media critic Howard Kurtz, “have been approaching the whole narrative from the left.”

When the media tell only half the story, they become effective partisans, and they do so at the expense of accuracy, accountability and fairness.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Mollie Ziegler Hemingway.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Abortion • Opinion

soundoff (1,171 Responses)
  1. Vatikan

    Komen-Give one good reason why you should be supported when you don't believe in supporting life?

    February 7, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
    • Precious

      Race for Life!!!

      February 7, 2012 at 5:41 pm |
  2. Jackie

    I desperately wanted to hear and consider Komen's side of the story, so I sought it ought. Unfortunately in both the Mitchell interview and the video posted on Komen's Facebook page, Komen chose to articulate contradictory explanations for it decision. Instead of saying: we did this because it made financial sense given the pressure on us from Pro-Life groups, etc., they made up the "duplicative grant" explanation that frankly took my confidence away.

    February 7, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
  3. jacy tx

    Mollie, what you call bias, it is actually outrage because most people seem to conveniently overlook the fact that no tax-payer dollars are going towards abortions. Abortions are only a small fraction of the services Planned Parenthood provides, and they are legal. Also, being pro-choice is not the same as being pro-abortion. A lot of people rather don't have abortions or would not have one if they were in that situation; but at the same time, don't agree on the government impossing a religious belief on somebody. If I had it my way, nobody would have abortions, nobody would be murdered, nobody would cheat on their spouse, nobody would lie, etc etc, but these things happen. It is the reality. We can't have a "free" country and then turn around and impose a religious based behavior on someone. People who are not Christian are just as Americans as we are, they have the same civil rights, and abortion was decided to be legal. So, if people have an issue with that, then take it up with the law-makers, not the doctors, nurses, or any other kind of health provider. If you think that people are not going to have abortions because you take funding from them, then you don't know the facts. People get them anyway, people do whatever they are determined to do, they'll just do it by illegal providers then. Mollie, you seem to be as knowledgeable on this subject as a pickle, go home and do your research please. And when I say research, I don't mean Faux News, I mean some reputable, fact based medium.

    February 7, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
    • Nebobish

      To say that no taxpayer dollars are going to PP is uninformed. PP would have a hard time making ends meet if federal dollars were removed. And while they are not supposed to use funds for direct abortion procedures, they keep the front offices running. The money goes into one pot, no matter what the accounting dept. tabulates.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:50 pm |
  4. Reality

    1. WARNING!!! WARNING!!! WARNING!!!

    To all overse-xed h-o-mo-sapiens:

    : The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill ( 8.7% failure rate) and male con-dom (17.4% failure rate) have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or co-ndoms properly and/or use safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.- Failure rate statistics provided by the Gut-tmacher Inst-itute.

    Added information before making your next move:

    from the CDC-2006

    "Se-xually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psy-ch-ological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

    And from:

    Consumer Reports, January, 2012

    "Yes, or-al se-x is se-x, and it can boost cancer risk-
    Here's a crucial message for teens (and all se-xually active "post-teeners": Or-al se-x carries many of the same risks as va-ginal se-x, including human papilloma virus, or HPV. And HPV may now be overtaking tobacco as the leading cause of or-al cancers in America in people under age 50.

    "Adolescents don’t think or-al se-x is something to worry about," said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "They view it as a way to have intimacy without having 's-ex.'"

    Obviously, Planned Parenthood, parents and educational system have failed miserably on many fronts.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    February 7, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
    • Adam

      Get your facts checked. Those are made-up failure rates that have no basis in scientific studies.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:41 pm |
    • Reality

      "Facts on Contraceptive Use

      http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html
      January 2008

      "WHO NEEDS CONTRACEPTIVES?

      • 62 million U.S. women (and men?) are in their childbearing years (15–44).[1]

      • 43 million women (and men) of reproductive age, or 7 in 10, are se-xually active and do not want to become pregnant, but could become pregnant if they or their partners fail to use a con-traceptive method.[2]

      • The typical U.S. woman (man?) wants only 2 children. To achieve this goal, she (he?) must use cont-raceptives for roughly 3 decades.[3]

      WHO USES CON-TRACEPTIVES?

      • Virtually all women (98%) aged 15–44 who have ever had int-ercourse have used at least one con-traceptive method.[2](and men?)

      • Overall, 62% of the 62 million women aged 15–44 are currently using one.[2] (and men)

      • 31% of the 62 million women (and men?) do not need a method because they are infertile; are pregnant, postpartum or trying to become pregnant; have never had inte-rcourse; or are not se-xually active.[2]

      • Thus, only 7% of women aged 15–44 are at risk of unwanted pregnancy but are not using con-traceptives.[2] (and men?)

      • Among the 42 million fertile, s-exually active women who do not want to become pregnant, 89% are practicing con-traception.[2] (and men?)

      WHICH METHODS DO WOMEN (men?) USE?

      • 64% of reproductive-age women who practice con-traception use reversible methods, such as oral con-traceptives or condoms. The remaining women rely on female or male sterilization.[2]

      FIRST-YEAR CON-TRACEPTIVE FAILURE RATES

      Percentage of women (men?) experiencing an unintended pregnancy (a few examples)

      Method Typical

      Pill (combined)........ 8.7
      Tubal sterilization... 0.7
      Male condom........ 17.4
      Vasectomy.............. 0.2

      Periodic abstinence 25.3 (RCC Approved)
      Calendar 9.0 (RCC Approved)
      Ovulation Method 3.0 (RCC Approved )
      Sympto-thermal 2.0 ( RCC Approved)
      Post-ovulation 1.0 (RCC Approved)

      No method 85.0" (RCC approved and important for those women wanting to get pregnant)

      (Abstinence).............. 0 (RCC approved)

      (Masturbation) 0

      More facts about contraceptives from

      guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

      "CON-TRACEPTIVE METHOD CHOICE

      Cont-raceptive method use among U.S. women who practice con-traception, 2002

      Method No. of users (in 000s) % of users
      Pill ..................... 11,661 ,..........30.6
      Male condom....... 6,841 ...........18.0 "

      i.e.
      The pill fails to protect women 8.7% during the first year of use (from the same reference previously shown).

      i.e. 0.087 (failure rate)
      x 62 million (# child bearing women)
      x 0.62 ( % of these women using contraception )
      x 0.306 ( % of these using the pill) =

      1,020,000 unplanned pregnancies
      during the first year of pill use.

      For male condoms (failure rate of 17.4 and 18% use level)

      1,200,000 unplanned pregnancies during the first year of male condom use.

      The Gut-tmacher Inst-itute (same reference) notes also that the perfect use of the pill should result in a 0.3% failure rate
      (35,000 unplanned pregnancies) and for the male condom, a 2% failure rate (138,000 unplanned pregnancies).

      o Conclusion: The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the pill and male condom have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the pill or condoms properly and/or use other methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.

      February 7, 2012 at 11:54 pm |
  5. John

    It's so sad that Planned Parenthood and the media destroys a charity war chest that has done so much good over the years. It shows you how violently out of the mainstream these kooks really are...

    February 7, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
  6. Nagrad

    Your argument is invalid, as you yourself don't even provide half the story. Do a little more research first.

    Oh, and by the way, you can be pro-life all you want – but the Supreme Court has already made its ruling in this. You're only a few decades behind the news. It's time to pick yourself up and move on to issues you might actually be able to impact.

    February 7, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
    • Mary

      Do you really think that trying to dishearten someone you will succeed in getting them to be quiet? You are obviously pro-choice, yet you don't want to actually convince a pro-lifer with valid arguments, you just try to make them feel bad in the hopes you 'win.'

      Did it occur to you this is actually a serious ethical issue, and that MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT DISAGREE ON IT?

      YOUR argument is invalid. You argue because abortion is legal we should accept it. Breast cancer is incureable. Guess we should accept that too.

      GROW UP.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:47 pm |
  7. wayne

    Typical right wing distorted rebuttal.

    February 7, 2012 at 5:32 pm |
    • Craig

      It appears distorted because you don't have the facts.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:36 pm |
    • nope and nope

      read the gallup poll pointed to, 75% of americans want some form of abortion available. only 22% want complete ban. Read it yourself.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:40 pm |
    • CAL

      What a stupid article. Argue about politics and show how political decisions would bring Komen more money? The whole point was that they said the decision to stop funding wasn't political. That's why people were upset. It clearly was.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:43 pm |
    • stormclouds

      @craig one word "ditto'

      February 7, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
    • Mary

      Why yes, you're right! And you support that statement with so many compelling arguments!

      February 7, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
  8. JG

    Ah, the morally motivated Pro-lifer. You could stand to be more up front and honest.

    By "provide insurance coverage for abortifacients" you mean Catholic employers covering birth control. So why didn't you say birth control? Because sane people would see you coming from a mile away.

    None of the government funding you are talking about is used to fund abortions.

    Also Planned Parenthood doesn't do mammograms they do breast exams. Few of the women that they see are of an age where mammograms are recommended, but many of the women that they see won't see any other doctors. Breast exams are a cost effective way of screening these women for cancer risks.

    I just have a hard time believe that if you were really concerned about preventing abortion you wouldn't support Planned Parenthood.

    February 7, 2012 at 5:31 pm |
  9. SC

    Mollie, Komen insulted the intelligence of its supporters and the American public by lying about its motives for cutting PP's funding. A straightforward answer would have caused backlash, but the reason it rose to a fever pitch was because of the underhanded way in which it was done in the first place. And SGK knows it, or they wouldn't have backed down. Shame on them.

    February 7, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
  10. Maciej Lampe

    The money from Komen to Planned Parenthood helped provide a valuable service directly in line with the goals of the charity. Choosing to defund such a valuable program like that should have a reason more defensible than any provided by SKG or by the article above.

    February 7, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
    • Nebobish

      And what is that valuable service? PP does not do mammograms, so what service do you mean?

      February 7, 2012 at 5:41 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @Nebobish

      Do you know why PP does not do mammograms, and only refers when absolutely necessary?

      February 7, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
  11. Karri

    I have long made it a practice that when I see demonstrations against Planned Parenthood on the streets and sidewalks outside our local PP office, I stop and donate to the PP and thank the demonstrators for reminding me to donate. I look at this article and Komen's actions in the same way – I'll send my donation to PP right away.

    February 7, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
    • Jill

      Brilliant! I am adopting your tactic. Thanks!

      February 7, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
  12. Roland

    MZ,
    First you claim to be a member of the media.
    Then you write about... "(Andrea) Mitchell's hostile interrogation" and "Planned Parenthood's campaign against Komen".
    Then you claim that the media is bias against Komen.

    Are you a joke?

    February 7, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
    • stormclouds

      really bad week for the right wingers, first SGK backs away from their republican leaders attempt to label PP as abortionists, then the courts rule against them on their attempt to prevent gay marriage in CA. Sooner or later these "christians" will have to answer to their god for all the hate and malignant fear of their fellow human beings.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
  13. Brian

    Half the story? That shouldn't bother this author who has a religious agenda.

    February 7, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
    • Jed

      Brian, everyone has an agenda. I think the opinion piece merits discussion, regardless of which side you take.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:36 pm |
  14. Craig

    This kind of media bias is the norm on all issues near and dear to the media elite in this country. They bias it through headlines, placment of contradictory info in an article, ignoring stories that may be detrimental to their world view, focusing on negative stories associated with opponents of their world view.

    The media is not in the business of relaying the truth but to push an agenda.

    Who is not an advocate for womens health? The Taliban maybe.

    PP gets plenty of money from other organizations that support their pro abortion activities. Although they do significant work for womens health they also engage in the mass termination of unborn babies. It is hard to give them a pass for the good given the bad. Hitler enacted many positive things in Nazi germany but it is hard to overlook the whole WWII and Death Camp thing.

    February 7, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      "Hitler enacted many positive things in Nazi germany but it is hard to overlook the whole WWII and Death Camp thing."

      It's rhetoric like that which will never allow for a productive discussion. As long as a significant number of people want to only hold extreme views, no progress will be made on either side. Ironically, by being so uncompromising, the right will never advance their cause.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
    • Craig

      *facepalm*
      read about Margret Sanger the founder of PP and then tell me that the comment about Hitler does not have a legitimate place in this arguement.

      Given PP long history, they have terminated more lives than Hitler's regime ever did.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:30 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      Thanks for proving my point and not advancing your cause one iota.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:33 pm |
    • Adam

      You do realize that the line of argumentation you just used is called "reductio ad Hilterum"? Its a logical fallacy of irrelevance whereby you may have a point you're trying to convey and then just try to make people assume guilt by association. What's the next line you're going to use? How about: "The Humane Society euthanizes pets. Hitler euthanized the Jews! The Humane Society are Nazis!" Yeah, that sounds about right.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
  15. nope, nope, and nope

    The section 'half the political story' is based on wrong logic. The section 'half the reaction' i find untrue.The section 'half the investigation' seems far fetched as well. The author thinks extra scrutiny of the Komen organization that reversed and admitted a wrong is not founded unless all organizations the author doesn't like is equally scrutinized (for no reason). Silly. Last the author twists the statistics in the gallup poll. The big picture (from the same gallup poll) is that 75% of americans believe abortion should be legal in some cases. Only 22% believe abortion should be completely banned. Why should the 22% on the far right side get equal media attention to the 75%? All three of the authors arguments are short on merit.

    February 7, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
  16. Bofusabode

    Before I die, Roe v Wade will be overturned. The birth control homicide must stop.

    February 7, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
    • Muri

      Good luck with that.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
    • Rationalintn

      Abortion is legal in the United States, so is birth control. If you want to stop murder, go help the Syrian people. Stay out of the wombs of American women.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:42 pm |
  17. elsie

    This disingenuous article itself tells only a fraction of the story. The leaked emails from inside Komen show that this was indeed exclusively a political move and that Komen officials explicitly planned the bogus "policy change" as a cover for that political move. And there is the fact that only PP was affected by the change, while dozens of organizations that are under REAL (not politically motivated) investigations, did not have their grants revoked. Including, notably, Penn State. That's right – Planned Parenthood got its grant revoked, but Penn State kept theirs. Unbelievable – unless of course it was never really about "being under investigation" at all.

    And you completely failed to mention that the money Komen gave to PP was used for CANCER SCREENINGS ONLY. Regardless of what else PP provides, the PP grants served ONLY to provide screenings to women who otherwise would have no access to those screenings.

    That is the real source of all the public outrage – that in order to score a political point, Komen was willing to put poor women's lives at risk. Komen supposedly exists to fight breast cancer, but they put women at increased risk of dying of breast cancer due to lack of catching it early. Hypocrisy is far too polite a word for this behavior. It was simply evil.

    You can be "pro-life" as all get-out and still be outraged at Komen's behavior in this. They revoked cancer screenings for poor women. That is the bottom line, and it stinks.

    February 7, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
    • Harris

      There is freedom of speech...and then there's this ill-informed clown with her religiosity! Mind your own damn business, you half-witted republitroll.

      Get back under your bridge!

      February 7, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
    • nope and nope

      This part is my favorite... "Komen would likely be able to broaden its base of support"..."in most media accounts, these people were completely invisible". That darn biased media failed to report in their headlines the authors SPECULATED behavior of donors that don't exist yet! LOL! That's awesome. They should be jumping all over the speculated future if it promotes 22% of the religious people who want abortions banned (yes only 22% in that same gallup poll want PP totally defunded, while 75% of americans want some form of abortion available).

      February 7, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
  18. Erin

    Komen sues other charities that use "for the cure" wasting donations dollars to both Komen and these other organizations that could be going, you know, "for the cure." Komen hired a women vocally against female reproductive rights. Komen ignored other organizations that are actually under real, valid investigations continuing to give them money and take money from others including Penn State. I'll say this, you're right, we did only get half the story. That was Tuesday, by Friday we got the full story and the curtain was pulled on Komen. What we discovered is that Komen is using the public sympathy towards women with breast cancer to make those who work there wealthy with little concern at all "for a cure."

    February 7, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
    • TonyC

      I agree. They give tens of millions to China to have them make all the pink stuff. SGK has lost their focus. What was a noble cause now is a political pawn shop...

      February 7, 2012 at 5:31 pm |
  19. Muri

    America, we'll fight to make you have that baby and then condemn you and the child for milking social welfare programs.

    And we wonder why the rest of the world looks at us like the violently schizophrenic older brother.

    February 7, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
    • gerald

      Muri, most people do not condemn a mother and child for existing, most people just want mothers to take responsibility for her own actions, support her family and not expect tax payers to support her baby and her choice. That is the problem. Those who think tax payers should support mothers choices then they can pay all those taxes and the rest of us pay taxes for legitimate issues.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:32 pm |
    • Craig

      With that logic we should eliminate the elderly since they draw on the social welfare system too. What about the mentally ill or crippled?

      February 7, 2012 at 5:32 pm |
    • Muri

      Back peddle all you want Gerald. You know as well as anyone that when the pack mentality starts the output is no where nearly as refined and thought out as your reply.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
    • Muri

      Actually Craig is funny you mention that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHx8l1usD90

      February 7, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
  20. citizen x

    Andrea Mitchell did take a strong stand for PP in her interview and I applaud her!!! You are right on the mark she left her impartiality as a journalist at home that day but she put being a women who has a voice and a strong one first. I think she is a top notch analyst and is good and being impartial on many issues, but if she had to pick one issue to go after she picked one that all women should defend!! And if I see one more white, male politician try and dictate health issues for women I will scream! Stay out of my personal health choices.

    February 7, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
    • Bofusabode

      so killing unborn babies is ok with you--this whole even has nothing to do with cancer screening-it is about the large number of homicides PP committs each year--why should my tax money fund murders?

      February 7, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
    • Craig

      As a journalist...that is not her job. The left makes a living off doing this on all issues.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
    • JG

      Bofusabode: None of the money from the government is used to fund abortions. Look it up. Seriously, it would take you like five minutes. Seriously, please.

      Access to birth control and access to prenatal care are two of the best ways to prevent abortions. Something that is not effective at preventing abortion: government intervention. Again, look it up. Seriously, please. Half of the abortions performed each year globally are done in jurisdictions where it is illegal.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @Bofusabode

      Do your research, it is against federal law to use federal money to fund abortions (even with Medicaid).

      February 7, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
    • Chris

      Bofusabode – because once you pay your taxes you have no say what the $$ is used for. I don't want my taxes being used to fund outrageous wars with no purpose and no end – but I have no choice do I? So my money also funds murders – the murders of innocent people in foreign countries by our military actions.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:42 pm |
    • Bob

      DOOFUSabode, none of your tax dollars fund abortion. That is federal law. So get your facts straight. Secondly, PP is an safe and available outlet of women's medicine for many poor and underemployed women in the United States. The same preventative medicine that is part of Komen's main mission.

      PP used none of Komen's money for abortions. Abortion is legal and while you may find it morally repugnant, it is important to many women to have the choice and a safe place to excercise their legal right to choose how to live their life.

      The argument that Komen "broadened" their support is crap. Everyone hates cancer. Women hate a cancer that primarily attackes them most of all. They get their husbands and boyfriends to commit to fighting this cancer as well. All Komen decided to do was cut off that very supportive group that also think that you don't take away preventative medicine from some of the most at risk groups because you don't approve of all of the legal procedures they practice. At least you don't and still expect everyone to support you.

      The vocal protesters exercised their right to demand an accounting when their very real donations were being pulled from medical services they deem necessary to a their sisters. They had a direct relationship with the flow of their money. And now Komen understands just how far they are willing to go to see that if Komen is in it to truly end breast cancer, that they don't remove services that are proven to work from a provider that is truly reaching an underserved group.

      THAT is what happened. And none of it involved your tax dollars.

      February 7, 2012 at 5:46 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.