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. Oh really

    Biased limited research article, much? Does the author even have any idea about all the good work that planned parenthood does other than abortion?

    February 7, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      The author is obviously anti-abortion, and you know how that logic goes. 3% of services rendered being abortions = 100% of services paid attention to.

      February 7, 2012 at 3:25 pm |
    • JohnR

      I know a lot of people boycotting McDonald's because of one ad that was run in a few midwestern states. If you think that something that some corporation, be it Planned Parenthood or McDonald's, does is beyond the pale, you do things like boycott or lobby to defund or, if you run the show at some mega-bucks charity, defund yourself to influence policy.

      Besides, defunding just means not giving any more money. It doesn't mean taking money back, let alone taking anything beyond what you gave. I get shill letters from charities all the time and I donate to very few of them. I don't donate to Planned Parenthood. Does that make me evil? No, I just have limited funds and places I'd rather support with those funds.

      The pro-PP consti-tuency here have been total crybabies. They make it sound like one corporation is legally obliged to fund another in perpetuity.

      February 7, 2012 at 3:39 pm |
    • What Is Truth

      Right... so, if you put aside the fact that they kill babies, they do lots of good stuff too.

      February 7, 2012 at 4:37 pm |
    • πολεμικός

      Planned Parenthood does more that 300,000 abortions per year. If each one is termination of a human life, then that is greater than the death toll of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki events combined. That's compelling. Best we relabel unborn children fetuses and declare fetuses non-human and not think about it. Focus on all the good they do.

      February 7, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
    • SMH

      Good work, planned parenthood in same sentence...ROFL

      February 13, 2012 at 10:43 am |
    • Steve O

      Haters: if you don't adopt or foster, quit pretending you care about the aborted fetuses. You can't take a moral stance on something you don't have the gumption to improve.

      If you hate abortions, advocate for birth control and education. Open your home to a child without a family. Or shut the hell up.

      February 17, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
  2. Snow

    I really wonder if any people with limited means (to support their families) are against abortion.. people sitting on piles of money have big mouths and talk about life, but what do they do to help the less fortunate? Do they help open homes/trust funds to help the parents who are not ready to raise them? They just love to mouth-off about one side of the problem!

    Honestly, do they even think about how difficult it is for a teenage girl/parents to raise a child without proper means to support the child.. They would not have had enough chance to develop life skills yet..

    All these moral high horses love to say "To err is human", but how can they support their willingness to punish people who are not ready (or do not want kids at the time) to suffer for the rest of their lives for a single mistake made in the heat of a moment? or no mistake when the protection fails for no fault of theirs? Do they suggest even the married folks to not sleep together till they are ready to have kids?

    February 7, 2012 at 3:14 pm |
    • Be Responsible

      All of your actions have consquences, no matter the state of mind you made them in. That is the lesson here. No one wants to take responsibility for their actions, economic status, education, etc. Just have the government or someone else come in and fix their problem for them, so they can carry on with their life. That is the fundamental problem now, no one wants to take responsibility for anything that they do. Being rich doesn't give that to you, but people who have better education and economic standing have taken responsibility for their life, and made the right decisions to get where they are (including knowing when to keep their pants on).

      February 7, 2012 at 4:37 pm |
    • Snow

      Nobody is asking govt to take actions to bear consequences of others mistakes.. But simply don't put your nose in my affairs. The govt should not tell people how to live their lives.. if you do not understand that concept you do not deserve the freedom you use to spew garbage as you do here

      February 7, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
  3. The Facts Of The Case Speak For Themselves

    The author of the article sure dragged out all the usual suspect in the Great Conservative Wobbly Weltanschauung paranoia: Boxer, liberal press bias, evil Planned Parenthood. Too bad about the truth being that Karen Handel, a vice president with Susan G. Komen, orchestrated the whole thing, including the "investigation.

    Nice try on the political hack piece, Mollie Ziegler Hemingway. Fortunately, the truth speaks louder than your propaganda.

    February 7, 2012 at 3:13 pm |
    • JohnR

      Private charities are free to fund or not fund whoever they want to. They are free to fund Planned Parenthood. They are free to defund it on a calculated gamble that they could increase donations from people currently not donating to THEM because of their support for Planned Parenthood. And they are free to re-fund Planned Parenthood should the political calculation prove incorrect. That's all that is happening here. The decision to defund was about money and politics and the decision to re-fund is about money and politics. (And there were overpaid executives at both Komen and Planned Parenthood before, during and after the controversy.)

      February 7, 2012 at 3:31 pm |
    • The Facts Of The Case Speak For Themselves

      You are being too vague. The original political decision was guided by an anti-abortion zealot who had the power to do so. So was the cover-up "investigation. A right-wing mole pushed her hidden agenda, and it blew up in her face. She hurt her organization in doing so. She got caught red-handed.

      The question of how the foundation pays their executives is totally irrelevant to the events. You are just using that as a distraction. You also misrepresent the decision to defund as being aimed at more donations – no, it was the VP pushing her hidden political agenda and selling the deceit as a way to get more funding.

      This all happened because the VP, Karen Handel, put her hidden agenda first and exploited her position to do so.

      As I stated, the article is the same tired old right-wing paranoid straw man of the left, and the truth is the disaster was caused by a right-wing zealot who got caught.

      February 7, 2012 at 4:03 pm |
  4. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    Racism is easier to display when no one knows who you are. But this is 2012, not 1863 or 1950's Jim Crow era. You should be em·bar·rassed even in your anonymity to spew such hateful ignorant rhetoric.

    February 7, 2012 at 2:45 pm |
    • Denny Applebee Roundtable

      People whose lives are devoid of meaning will create perverse alternatives to fill the emptiness. Religion has long served that role. No surprise that most lynchings in the old South had preachers there participating in the ceremonies.

      February 7, 2012 at 2:55 pm |
  5. But the facts of the case prove otherwise.

    Of course, internal e-mails and memos have proven that the Komen thing was orchestrated by a highly political anti-abortion activist who saw the Senior Vice President, who also structured the investigationer-up to hide the political nature of the decision. She "resigned" today.

    This absolutely was a plot by right-wingers to force their agenda everywhere they can. Don't believe me? Google "Komen executive resigns".

    The author would have done well to get the facts before launching into a knee-jeck apologist screed.

    February 7, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • But the facts of the case prove otherwise.

      Oops, typo. That would be "who was the Senior Vice President", not "who saw the Senior Vice President"

      February 7, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • JohnR

      When it's the other side trying to implement their agenda, it's a "plot". You're post here is a bright shining example of why intelligent discussion of anything in this society has become all but impossible.

      February 7, 2012 at 3:16 pm |
    • Steve O

      John, if you disagree, then just state your points. Trying to discredit the author of these comments with school yard insults only hurts your case.

      If you disagree but don't have any points, maybe don't comment at all.

      February 17, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
  6. Sports Fan

    Half time. That is when the coaches have to, very quickly mind you, get in groups with the players and make adjustments. Each side is kind of feeling their way through the first half during which time a ton of data is collected by the assistants. Now that data must be disseminated in a meaningful way before the players return to the field. But that is the easy part. Execution is the key to success. If they only have recall of half the information, one mistake could cost the game. Execution down the stretch will decide who lives to play another game!

    February 7, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
  7. urafkntool

    Instead of having planned murderhood be legal, we could cut down on the birth rates very easily. Sterilize all the n-i-g-g-e-r-s in the country, whether male or female, so they cannot have multiple children with multiple "baby mama/daddy's." By doing this, the population of the US in the next 40 years would significantly shrink, the crime rates would plummet, the overcrowding issue would stop, there'd be more jobs for deserving people... it's a win win.

    February 7, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • iamdeadlyserious

      Well, if you're going to troll, might as well go all in.

      February 7, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
    • William Demuth


      Your post was the first one to find a chuckle in my busy day!

      February 7, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
    • Sports Fan

      Nicely put. That was in fact the Giant's mantra heading into the Super Bowl. "All In" It definately inspired them to victory!

      February 7, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
    • Say it, brother

      Don't be shy, we're talking about niggers!

      February 7, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
    • urafkntool

      @iamdeadlyserious: I'm not trolling. It's going to be my first order when I take over.

      February 7, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
    • Sports Fan

      Sports are the great equalizer, at least in terms of those activities that can be played in both suburbs and inner cities alike. The best players, the most motivated players play. Skin color does not dictate who competes. You prove it on the field or the ice or the court. Sure there are bigots in every business and those who would make racist comments; it is after a "good 'ol boy" network, but it unique in that if you do your job, you are rewarded. Plain and simple. You can't take the truly stupid people out of the mix, but you can fight for yourself regardless. Someday the world will change and the racists and bigots will just be a bad memory. Until then, sports are a great bridge.

      February 7, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
    • No please ...

      You can't "take over", until you get out.

      February 7, 2012 at 2:48 pm |
    • Hasa Diga Eebowai

      Not all of the degenerates, and that is outside the realm of color of your skin.. If you have more than two children and want welfare guess what its gonna cost you your ovaries.

      February 7, 2012 at 2:55 pm |
    • urafkntool

      actually, if you're not white, it should cost you your ovaries.

      February 7, 2012 at 3:20 pm |
    • sam

      Would you fck off? You're boring as hell, little one trick pony. Go find something else to do.

      February 7, 2012 at 3:33 pm |
    • GodIsTheWay

      @sam: bet you're not white!

      February 7, 2012 at 3:35 pm |
    • sam

      @GodIsTheWay – I'm blond and blue eyed. I'm so white I'm nearly fcking transparent. So what? That doesn't change the fact that this d.ouche is boring as hell.

      February 7, 2012 at 3:53 pm |
    • GodIsTheWay

      He, like anyone else, including you, has freedom of speech. While his speech may not be correct, or PC, it's his right to think and feel as he will. Just like anyone else.

      February 7, 2012 at 4:05 pm |
    • urafkntool

      @Sam: Blonde and blue eyed? dye your hair brown and wear brown contacts. you don't deserve to be white if you're against whites.

      February 7, 2012 at 4:06 pm |
    • iron man

      @GodIsTheWay – right, idiot, thanks for stating the obvious, I guess? And then I have a right to tell him he's boring, and annoying, and a troll, and it goes round and round. Thanks for chipping in.

      February 7, 2012 at 4:19 pm |
    • GodIsTheWay

      @iron man (sam): I did not attack you. I did not insult you. I speak respectfully to everyone I speak to. I expect the same. You will be reported for abuse.

      February 7, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
  8. William Demuth

    Is it just my cynical side, or does anyone else think these big charities are just self serving money grabing cons?

    500K per anum for the battle ax that runs Komen?

    February 7, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
    • fred

      it's not just you. i think you nailed it

      February 7, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      It's kinda like those ads you see on sundays – donate a dollar to feed, clothe, educate, vaccinate, and gold plate a starving african child.
      In reality, only a small percentage actually gets to that village – the rest is absorbed by "administrative overhead".
      And any charity that claims to be "no overhead" is selling snake oil – there's no such animal.
      Low overhead, yes – but NO overhead is impossible.
      But if you really want to help people – go there yourself and dig a well!
      *end rant*

      February 7, 2012 at 3:20 pm |
  9. iamdeadlyserious

    Planned Parenthood funds Democrats because Republicans are constantly trying to shut down the centers because of the abortion issue. Abortion is one of many, many, many services that PP provides to women across the country. The repeated partisan attempts to shut them down over the LEGAL services they provide have pushed them to become politically active in order to keep their doors open.

    The Komen Foundation's decision was the most petty, uncharitable action they could have taken. They were (and may still plan on) yanking funding from the only nationwide provider of free mammograms for underprivileged women. For an organization that claims to be about fighting breast cancer, this is inexcusable.

    February 7, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • Jonathan

      Funny. Planned Parenthood doesn't even have mammogram machines to do test with. They only do referrals and the exact same tests that you can do at home (ie, check for lumps). Why again is Komen giving them money?

      February 7, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
    • sam

      Jonathan, until you have boobs that you're checking for lumps at home, why don't you quit talking out your ass?

      February 7, 2012 at 3:34 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest


      Maybe this will enlighten you as to why PP only does mammogram referrals, and even then only if they are 100% sure that they are needed.

      "Back in 2009, for instance, a study presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) showed that continual low-dose radiation exposure from mammograms can cause breast cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/027641_mammograms_breast_cancer.html). Roughly one year later, researchers from Oslo University Hospital revealed that mammograms cut the risk of dying from breast cancer by about two percent, at best, while simultaneously causing many women to be falsely diagnosed with cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/029839_mammograms_risk.html)."

      Source website is h t t p://www.infowars.com/real-planned-parenthood-scandal-is-komens-mammograms-cause-breast-cancer/

      February 7, 2012 at 3:43 pm |
    • Jonathan


      You don't have to be something or have something to understand it or comment about it. You merely have to be educated in regards to it. Your comment is useless and will be ignored.


      Thank you for the links. It still does not explain why Komen gives money to planned parenthood referrals. If the woman finds a lump, they still have to pay for a mammogram, whether or not they are referred to a 3rd party or go there themselves. Planned Parenthood is being investigated. It is simple to understand why Komen does not want their name associated with them.

      February 7, 2012 at 4:01 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest


      Yes PP is being investigated, and at the head of the charges leveled against them is Cliff Stearns. On the word of an anti-abortion organization (AUL). Cliffs himself is staunchly against abortions, and PP in general. One of the things that the investigation has said it will be looking for is "•concerns that it is covering up cases of s.ex trafficking.". Concerns only? No hard evidence? Not even verifiable reports? Not to mention that this whole investigation began a few months after Handel took the VP of policy position. Immediately after she did, she began a major push for changing the criteria for funding. Put all these instances side by side, and things don't look good.

      February 7, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
    • Jonathan


      There have been undercover stings where PP employees have been caught (on tape) giving 'advice' and instructions on how a underage pregnant teen can avoid having to report their abortion to their parents. Some of this was even done over the phone, when an actor called in pretending to be a teen with questions.

      Regardless of who is behind the accusations, if PP is doing something wrong, they will be caught and put out of business. If there is no wrong-doing, they will be vindicated. I for one, have serious doubts about PP after seeing some of their tactics, especially with how they dealt with Komen.

      February 7, 2012 at 4:36 pm |
  10. William Demuth

    Thank GOD for abortion.

    Crime rates go down, welfare roles go down. Its a Win / Win / Win!

    One minute in a grade school in the Bronx and you will quickly realize that some fetuses' there ARE fates worse than death.

    Only religious nuts would scream like crazy to let them be born, and then watch them rot in a hell on earth.

    If you REALLY cared about kids, you would do more for the ones we already have, rather than insist on another generation that we will store in prisons.

    February 7, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
    • πολεμικός

      Your value for human life is well known. Postpartum abortion for Christians is on your agenda, is it not.

      February 7, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Not Christians in particular, just thiests.

      You guys have a tendency to breed like rats.

      February 7, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • urafkntool

      @William Demuth: If you want crime rates and birth rates to drop, they need to forcibly sterilize every n-i-g-g-e-r in the country, since they tend to pop out 5-6 kids with a different parent each.

      February 7, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • Nonimus

      uRafkntool aren't you? Such biases will be the downfall of those who promote them. Diversity is beneficial in nature, society, philosophy, and business.

      February 7, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
    • William Demuth


      Race dosen't determine those who over breed. Religion and economic status do.

      The argument is really if we are better off with or without those who are aborted. I strongly believe we are ALL better served if unwanted children are niped in the bud, because it is my observation that they do NOT just turn in good citizen if we merely save them from the abortion doctor and then do nothing for them.

      February 7, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • GodPot

      Barney Fife "Well, today's eight-year-olds are tomorrow's teenagers. I say this calls for action and now. Nip it in the bud. First sign of youngsters going wrong, you've got to nip it in the bud."
      Andy Taylor "I'm going to have a talk with them. What else do you want me to do?"
      Barney Fife "Well, don't just mollycoddle them.
      Andy Taylor "I won't."
      Barney Fife "Nip it. You go read any book you ant on the subject of child discipline and you'll find every one of them is in favor of bud-nipping."

      February 7, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
    • urafkntool

      @nominus: wow, I bet you think being gay is spiffy, too! My god you're an idiot. Go die.

      William: Actually, race does determine it. Do Asians have 70 kids, each by a different parent? Do whites? nope. Mexican'ts and N-i-g-g-e-r-s do tho. all the time. Those are also unwanted children, they end up growing into the murdering r-a-p-i-s-t violent racial destroyers of tomorrow due to their being unwanted and unneeded. Why shouldn't n-i-g-g-e-r-s be sterilized? What purpose do they serve other than to elect Ob-o-n-g-o another term and to suck up welfare dollars, while also costing tax payers through prison system maintenance.

      February 7, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @urafkntool (stormfront?),
      "wow, I bet you think being gay is spiffy, too! My god you're an idiot. Go die."
      wow. What's gay got to do with anything?... after you.

      "Actually, race does determine it. Do Asians have 70 kids, each by a different parent? Do whites? nope."
      Hyperbole. Has any couple ever had 70 kids?

      "Those are also unwanted children, they end up growing into the murdering r-a-p-i-s-t violent racial destroyers of tomorrow due to their being unwanted and unneeded. "
      Hasty generalization. They don't ALL grow up to be "murdering r-a-p-i-s-t violent racial destroyers of tomorrow". (what the hell is a "violent racial destroyers of tomorrow"?)

      "Why shouldn't [they] be sterilized? What purpose do they serve other than to elect Obongo [what's that?] another term and to suck up welfare dollars, while also costing tax payers through prison system maintenance."
      Everyone has a right to make their own medical decisions, to a certain extent. I think that was the essence of the "right to privacy" argument in roe v wade.
      Alternatively, why shouldn't you be sterilized, or euthanized for that matter?

      February 7, 2012 at 3:28 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest


      Exceedingly obvious troll is exceedingly obvious.

      February 7, 2012 at 3:35 pm |
    • urafkntool

      @nominus: Who?

      You asked: "wow. What's gay got to do with anything?... after you"

      Seems to me (and is absolute fact, check the research) libtards like to let people perform whatever degeneracy they put their minds to. I don't like degeneracy. It's messy and complicated. I like a clean, simple life.

      You said: "Hyperbole. Has any couple ever had 70 kids?"

      Generalized, intentional overstatement. The point being made, was that the ones who are overprocreating are also from third world countries.. namely Central and South America, and Africa. These are also the same who are NOT taking care of their children, especially financially. We are, through our tax money being given to them as welfare. Prove I'm wrong. Wait, you can't.

      You said: "Hasty generalization. They don't ALL grow up to be "murdering r-a-p-i-s-t violent racial destroyers of tomorrow"."

      Not particularily. According to the dept of justice, 85% of violent crime is committed BY minorities, and mainly against whites. Second most is against their own race, third is against each other. Lastly, against Asians. These are actual facts. Some people attribute that to growing up in a welfare household with no father or with that and a mother who won't work. I attribute it to their culture and genetics, which is more factual.

      You asked: "(what the hell is a "violent racial destroyers of tomorrow"?)"

      92% of all violent hate crime is actually committed by blacks and mexicans. Asians/"Native Americans" (same thing) not so much. It's not as if it's not believable. Look at the violence in Mexico, the violence in Africa... they're no different here than they are there. They're just better armed here. They aim their violence at whites specifically, however. We're 8% of the world's population according to what I found a few days ago. It's scary. Don't you find the idea of there being no white people at all to be the slightest bit worrying?

      You said: "Everyone has a right to make their own medical decisions, to a certain extent. I think that was the essence of the "right to privacy" argument in roe v wade."

      I honestly don't think people with an average IQ of 85 should be allowed to make medical decisions. A white person with that IQ would be considered almost completely special needs (retarded) and of unsound mind and judgement. Blacks, on the other hand, are allowed to have sub-90 IQ's and make decisions? Really?

      You said: "Alternatively, why shouldn't you be sterilized, or euthanized for that matter?"

      Threats. The one thing someone who can't actually argue a point descends to. Threats and insults. I am practically sterile, for all intents and purposes. More and more whites are having health issues where we can't have children. We're being outbred. Tell me how this is right. Oh wait, you can't.

      February 7, 2012 at 4:01 pm |
  11. GodPot

    So are you Christians going to stop allowing any of your tax dollars that go to medicare to be used for vasectomy's or tubal litigations? Is that not just a very very early form of abortion? If we can all agree that a line must be drawn somewhere then lets debate the 24 week line in the sand, not whether or not we have the right to upset your "Gods plan" for those of us who not only do not care about your God, we see no evidence he/it even exists. The lie's and deciept of the religious nutjobs in this country must stop because the ends do not justify the means.

    "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 se x ual abuse, se x ual trafficking and r a p e."

    "to raise doubts" "evidence suggesting" "some affiliates" – And this is an article about why the media won't be more honest? Are you Ephing kidding me?

    If you believe people who have abortions will not inherit Gods kingdom, then fine, thats their choice. The bible also says Liars will not inherit God's kingdom, so do you risk your soul and lie to save someone elses soul?

    February 7, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
    • πολεμικός

      "Is that not just a very very early form of abortion?" No, GodPot and why would anyone think so? They are birth control and anti-abortion procedures.

      February 7, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
    • urafkntool

      Actually godpot, I'd happily pay extra taxes if it meant sterilizing all the n-i-g-g-e-r-s in america.

      February 7, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
    • urafkntool

      I misread. You were asking xtians. I thought it was a general question lol

      February 7, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • GodPot

      "No, GodPot and why would anyone think so? They are birth control and anti-abortion procedures."

      I would call abortion "birth control" as well, wouldn't you? And is not cutting off the access of your little swimmers during coitous "aborting" the mission they had been given? To go forth and multiply? I was trying to push the Christian anti-abortion position to an extreme so you can see how ridiculous you look to everyone else.

      As for Tool, i'm sure that was just a troll post, but seriously, why the racism?

      February 7, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • Jonathan

      Abortion is not contraceptive, unless you choose to use a very narrow definition. Abortion is murder. It is the taking of a human life by human hands/tools for no justifiable reason. And yes, that life is human, just during the early stages of development. No human alive today was not a fertalized egg at one time.

      February 7, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
    • sam

      Jonathan – biology fail, logic fail, all over fail. YOUR definition of 'justifiable', not everyone's. Go crack a book and see how similar and non-sentient every mammal on the planet is for the first couple of months in the womb, you idiot.

      February 7, 2012 at 3:32 pm |
    • No please ...

      Jonathon...abortion is not "murder" unless the law defines it to be. The "taking of life" does not equal murder. If it is, many soldiers are murderers. Can"t have it both ways.

      February 7, 2012 at 3:45 pm |
    • GodPot

      " No human alive today was not a fertalized egg at one time." And back to my earlier premise, no human alive today was not a sperm at one time either, it's just further up the stream from your position. The law sets 24 weeks as the line in the sand. That is the law, go debate moving it to 23 if you want but following the Christian right path of logic I just murdered about a million possible humans this morning with a sock.

      February 7, 2012 at 4:30 pm |
  12. πολεμικός

    Everyone made money on the deal. People got to turn out in the streets in pink and have fun. Now it is status quo ante. CNN should call it a day.

    February 7, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
  13. Alastair Dallas

    I'm sure more than "half the American population identifies as pro-life," but that's for themselves. Only a tiny minority feels that they can dictate medical decisions to others. I agree with Kevin Nealon: "Some people say life begins at the moment of conception. I believe life begins at the moment you learn to mind your own business."

    February 7, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
    • Jo

      I am going to say I agree with you and leave it at that. You have made a very accurate demonstration about the concept of life in an equally simplistic way so that others can understand without turning to a dictionary.

      February 7, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
    • Hasa Diga Eebowai

      It failed in mississippi so I guess your analysis fails too.

      February 7, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
  14. Doc Vestibule

    Komen recently got a new Vice President who is virulently against Planned Parenthood.
    In fact, Karen Handel ran for governor of Georgie a couple of years ago. A big part of her platform was the elimination of state grants to PP, instead preferring to give them to unregulated, Christian-run operations whose main mission is to convince pregnant women not to have abortions. Sarah Palin gave her big kudos for that standpoint.
    She disparaged the PP organization on her campagin blog and directly stated her opposition to the whole group.

    Speaking of journalistic bias:
    "conservative activists have recently gone undercover to raise doubts about whether Planned Parenthood actually performs mammograms."
    You'll note that the author did not present any kind of substantiated proof of negligence on the part of PP despite the open admission that the people conducting teh investigation have a vested interest in finding evidence of malfeasence.

    Abortion is a hot button issue and BOTH sides are incredibly biased.
    The question each person needs to ask themselves is just how much freedom of conscience should the government control "for your own good".

    February 7, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
  15. ted

    The uproar was that the decision WAS POLITCAL. Komen insisted it wasn't, then they reverse due to political pressure.

    This stupid author doesn't realize that she is suggesting that Komen say straight out, we are terminating our contract with PP to broaden our donor base.
    This organization is scam anyway, 20% of their money goes to researching a cure. If you want to help with getting a cure then donate to american cancer society, where 100%, yes 100% goes to RESEARCH!!!!!!!!!!!

    February 7, 2012 at 1:11 pm |
    • The Facts Of The Case Speak For Themselves

      Google "Komen executive resigns" to find out the real story. One of their senior VPs was an anti-abortion activist who drove the decision. She also controlled the internal investigation, and of course hid the political nature of it all. She was a right mole in the organization.

      Ugly right wing tactics. No surprise at all.

      The author of the article clearly is not interested in the truth of the matter. She is only interested in pushing her agenda.

      February 7, 2012 at 3:03 pm |
  16. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things

    February 7, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
    • ted

      prayer doesn't change anything. if it did there wouldnot have been a holocaust.

      February 7, 2012 at 1:14 pm |
    • Jo

      Prayer changes the man who is praying, not the man he prays for. Then again, I doubt anyone prayed for Adolf Hilter. No, there were those who prayed for him, but it probably was not in good conscience.

      February 7, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      All of Germany prayed for Hitler – becuase they were forced to!
      The Hitler Youth were required to recite the following prayer:
      "Adolf Hitler, you are our great Führer. Thy name makes the enemy tremble. Thy Third Reich comes, thy will alone is law upon the earth. Let us hear daily thy voice and order us by thy leadership, for we will obey to the end and even with our lives. We praise thee!
      Führer, my Führer, give me by God. Protect and preserve my life for long. You saved Germany in time of need. I thank you for my daily bread. Be with me for a long time, do not leave me, Führer, my Führer, my faith, my light, Hail to my Führer!"

      Strange to imagine the current Pope reciting that, eh?

      February 7, 2012 at 1:29 pm |
    • Jo

      That is something to discuss. Praying for history. Does that mean you expect history to change? I have a little girl looking over my shoulder who says "Anything's possible."

      February 7, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      I think Dr. Sam Beckett is the answer to prayers regarding changing history.
      Between him, Al and Ziggy they can set right what once went wrong, hoping each time that the next leap will be the leap home.

      February 7, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
    • Tom

      We still think.

      Prayer does however often change those that are praying, It absolves them of the responsibility to take action.

      February 7, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
    • Sports Fan

      Prayer didn't help Mel Renfro in the 1979 AFC Championship game, the Houston Oilers were driving against the Pittsburgh Steelers. Dan Pastorini hit Mel Renfro in the corner of the end zone.

      Renfro without a doubt got two feet down, but the referee wasn't looking when he caught the ball and called the pass incomplete. Oops!

      February 7, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • Nope

      `The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs.

      February 7, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
    • Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

      Prayer changes things
      A good man prays
      A great man acts on prayer
      Prayer really changes things

      February 7, 2012 at 3:26 pm |
    • Nope

      ~~~~`The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs.""`

      February 7, 2012 at 3:27 pm |
    • Jared


      Say what you want, but I saw a man get his hearing back in a ear that was totally destroyed 20 years earlier by a 30-30 bullet. You should have seen the look on his face. That same bullet tore up his jaw. I felt it regrow week by week. He was friend before he was healed and still is.

      February 7, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
  17. Reality


    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 1:07 pm |
    • ......

      Warning hit report abuse on every reality post

      February 7, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
    • ......

      Warning hit report abuse on every reality post.

      February 7, 2012 at 1:10 pm |
  18. urafkntool

    Being pretty well secular myself, and worrying more about survival than anything, I have my own feelings about Planned Murderhood. Having studied biology and anatomy/physiology, as well as chemistry and some genetics for a lot of years, I know exactly when life begins. It begins the minute a s-p-e-r-m hits an egg. In other words, SCIENTIFICALLY SPEAKING, planned murderhood is just that.. first degree murder.

    February 7, 2012 at 1:06 pm |
    • Nonimus

      You may want to get your money back from the school you attended, but obviously even conception doesn't happen until the sperm burrows its way into the ovum, and fertilization itself can take 24 hours after that.

      February 7, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
    • urafkntool

      Actually nominus, life does begin at conception. This is scientific fact. Therefore, planned murderhood needs to be all executed for first degree murder.

      February 7, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
    • No please ...

      define "moment of conception"

      February 7, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
    • No please ...

      so better start executing soldiers.... planned "murderhood", (what the hell is "murderhood") ?

      February 7, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • BRC

      The terminology of "life" is subjective. Replication begins at conception. There is no garautnee that that replication will go on to produce an organism that is alive and self contained (in fact it's not even statistically the most likely outcome). There are many many steps between that first contact of genetic material and a living breathing human being. Many feel that to say life is achieved at that first milestone is innacurate, it is only the potntial for life. I would agree with that.

      February 7, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • TruthPrevails

      Uh no, abortions can't be performed past the first tri-mester, so anything before that is not murder. Planned Parenthood does a hell of a lot more than fund abortions though...they offer contraception, cancer screening, std testing, counseling, guidance throughout a pregnancy; help should a woman decide to put the child up for adoption...all people hear is the word 'abortion' and then they think they get a say-WRONG, it is a woman's body and therefore her choice. We are sitting at a world population of 7 billion that is estimated to increase by another 2 billion by 2020; we are depleting our food supply to the point that if we keep going the way we are we will have depleted it by 50% within the next 18 years and yet people are saying to stop funding to Planned Parenthood, in turn asking that mankind be wiped off the face of this planet sooner than they should be. No-one stops for one god damn minute to consider the impact of pregnancy on a woman or the consequences of bringing an unwanted child in to this world. Look around you, there are are far too many children going hungry, being abused and killed. Women who are ra.ped or become pregnant via inc.est relations should not have to endure that pregnancy. Women who do get abortions are counseled before they sign the papers...I'm guessing it is not an easy decision but it is a decision that only they can make and if you try to stop it you bring on another potentially deadly scenario-backyard abortions where the woman risks infections, a potential of the abortion not working, death...so what would you rather have-legalized abortion and in turn Planned Parenthood or let these women get their help from unreliable resource? Bottom line is that the only person who gets to speak for that woman is that woman herself, otherwise everyone needs to keep their noses in their own bodies business.

      February 7, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • Nonimus

      You did not say conception, you said, "It begins the minute a s-p-e-r-m hits an egg," which is not even fertilization. As @No please... indicated "conception" is not all that definitive either.

      February 7, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • No please ...

      most gynecologists define "conception" as implantation in the endometrial wall, THAT happens long after the sperm enters the egg, (AND the first DNA replication "takes a while")...where in there EXACTLY does "life" start???

      February 7, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • iamdeadlyserious

      By your definition, every sperm that doesn't make it to the egg is a lost life. Unless you want to claim that single-celled organisms capable of independent locomotion are somehow not alive.

      The debate needs to be over when the "potential life" is viable. If the baby couldn't survive outside the womb, then it's not yet an independent life.

      February 7, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • No please ...

      What is "viable" ? It can't survive unless they feed it. It is not independent for about 18 years.

      February 7, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • iamdeadlyserious

      How about we use our brains and define "viable" as the scientific community defines it? It means able to survive outside the uterus.

      February 7, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • No please ...

      define it any way you like...it's all relative, and don't you mean "survive with support" ? Should 20 week old preemies who cost $2,000,000 to "support", who end up blind and deaf, who might be "viable" be allowed to live ?

      February 7, 2012 at 2:52 pm |
    • Hasa Diga Eebowai

      Life began a few billion years ago. When the brain starts to process thoughts is what matters. Everything else is just dividing cells.

      February 7, 2012 at 2:58 pm |
    • sam

      'Having studied'. Right. Yet, with all this supposed education, you're still a narrow minded waste of space with no real viable opinion on anything. Keep trying.

      February 7, 2012 at 3:36 pm |
  19. Nonimus

    "We’re talking about the country’s largest abortion provider, an organization that performs 330,000 abortions a year.
    Planned Parenthood receives nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer funds, including from Medicaid payments. "

    Talk about half an argument. My understanding is that PP doesn't use federal funds for abortions, which makes the article's statement a bit misleading.

    February 7, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
    • Nonimus

      Not that I'm claiming the media is unbiased, just that if you are claiming that another is biased, you might consider your own biases as well.

      February 7, 2012 at 12:58 pm |
    • Jo

      Some media stations are actually made and paid for the sake of being biased. People like to agree with other people by nature, and with politics in America as they are the money is hot.

      February 7, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
    • Nonimus

      No argument here.

      February 7, 2012 at 1:06 pm |
  20. thomas mc

    The bigger scandal is that Komen doesn't really fight cancer. All they do is raise money, take a whopping 87% cut for themselves, then pass the rest on to others who take their cut, etc. It's nothing but a money scam, and they've been ripping off America for a decade.

    February 7, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @thomas mc,
      Are you sure about your numbers? The charity navigator site seems to indicate that Komen spends 82.% on programs, as opposed to administrative or fund-raising. (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4509)

      February 7, 2012 at 1:04 pm |
    • Tom

      If you would like to see what a nonprofit spends look at their 990 tax form, for 2010 Komesn says they only spend 20% on research, 19% on cancer screening and 5% on treatment, the rest out of 400 million a year goes to running the organization and making everything pink. IMHO they are a parasitic organization sucking up resources that would be better spent elsewhere.

      February 7, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • Nonimus

      I'm not tax attorney and may not understand all the details of a 990 forms, but it looks to me like they spent 75% on programs.

      $208M in revenue
      $75M exp. to research (35% of revenue)
      $71M exp. to education (34%)
      $9M exp. to treatment and screening (4%)
      == $156M Total Program exp.(75% of revenue)

      $24M Salaries (11% of rev)
      $0.8M professional fundraising (>1% of rev)
      == $25M Total Non-program exp (12% of rev)

      == $28M increase in Net Assets{from 990} (~13% of rev)

      Rrev: ($208M )
      – Program Exp + change in Assets: ($156M+$27M) [87% of rev. ?]
      – Non-program Exp: ($25M) [12%]
      = $0

      p.s. you may not agree with their distribution, but the original posting stated they took 87% for themselves, which appears to be exactly the opposite of what they did.

      February 7, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
    • Nonimus

      data from http://ww5.komen.org/uploadedFiles/Content/AboutUs/Financial/KOMEN%20PARENT%20PDC%20wout%20PW.pdf

      February 7, 2012 at 3:02 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
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.