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. anonymousauthor

    What sickens me the most is the pro-PP side failing to see that there alternative options to getting a mammogram at PP. If I want a veggie burger, I don't want it cooked on the same grill as meat. Similarly, if I'm pro-life, I don't want my donations to go somewhere that may ultimately end up in the hands of something I am morally opposed to. Is that so difficult to understand? You can disagree with me about my beliefs that life begins at conception and therefore deserves our protection, but can't you respect that fact that I am consistent?! I'm not some whacked our religious zealot nut-job like some would want to paint me. I believe something and I stand for it. That's all. And as such, if it has a pink ribbon, I'm not going to buy it. Why must this disintegrate into senseless name calling and religion/belief bashing? Don't be so lame . . .

    February 8, 2012 at 9:44 pm |
    • FatSean

      Then don't donate to them, find another charity. Komen is terrible. They enrich themselves and a small fraction actually helps people.

      Your beliefs are that I will be punished in Hell. I don't like being threatened, even if the threats are backed only by iron age criminals.

      February 8, 2012 at 10:03 pm |
  2. Athena

    Mollie, shut up. Fundraising problems due to an association with Planned Parenthood? They were getting ready to have major fundraising problems due to pro-lifers. If they thought for a minute that pro-life contributions outweighed pro-choice contributions, they would not have been so quick to recant their act. The truth is that the only thing pro-lifers contribute is their intolerance and insufferable opinions. You don't want to make this world a better place, you want to make it your version of a religious utopia. And, you are willing to do it on the backs of women–for whom religion has little respect–to force your will upon others. That you put women's health at risk in the process means nothing to you. I don't believe in a god, and I don't believe in a devil, but if I did logic would surely say you are the latter's work.

    February 8, 2012 at 8:09 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      You are surely living up to your namesake. Good post.

      February 8, 2012 at 8:32 pm |
    • reACTIONary

      The PP reaction was political? Huh? Komen made the first move – and it was 100% political to appease the religious right. PP did the right thing, the media did the right thing – don't be bullied!

      February 8, 2012 at 9:35 pm |
    • Kinnaret

      Whoever is moderating this list should cut out Athena's post. If you can't be civilized, you shouldn't be on this blog. When people throw dirt, it's because they have nothing to stand on.

      February 8, 2012 at 10:21 pm |
    • Keith

      reactionary, the media did the right thing? I thought it was media's job to report the news-not conjure it up.

      February 9, 2012 at 7:44 am |
  3. Cynthia C

    Technically she isn't wishing breast cancer on anyone... just noting that a lump NEEDS to be checked out regardless of your socio-economic status.

    February 8, 2012 at 5:53 pm |
    • debbie

      Read the sentence before her "lump" comment. She's wishing bad things on the writer of the article, then follows up "hope" to find the lump. Are you blind? No way to turn that around and make her sound like her "hope" is a positive thing. That's not how she intended it and everyone knows it. Get some glasses.

      February 8, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
  4. JohnG

    So scuttling PP would make more pro lifers feel good about donating to SGK? And how would it have made pro choice ppl feel about it? An offset???? Maybe. Remember, poll after poll says that a majority (around 2 out of 3) of the American ppl want abortion available on some level. The best situation would be for charities like SGK and PP to accept support from all of us AND for any active charity not to make extreme moves favoring either Pro Life or Pro Choice ppl. PP has always been supportive of SGK until targeted by the total extremist Karen Handel. Let's go back to fighting Breast Cancer – something we can all agree on.

    February 8, 2012 at 5:53 pm |
  5. bobbert

    Obama is killing children to lower unemployment, way it is less obvious that all our jobs have been shipped to china. Just look at the demographics and you can see. There is a plan at work here.

    Anyone but Obama 2012

    February 8, 2012 at 4:14 pm |
    • Lisa B.

      Wow, you're stupid.

      February 8, 2012 at 4:39 pm |
    • JohnG

      The Wing Nuts are swarming again!

      February 8, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
    • Cynthia C

      Do they allow internet access in the psych wards now?

      February 8, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
    • Athena

      They could put your brain in a gnat's ass and it would still nosedive. The Democrats aren't sending our jobs overseas. It's your Republican buddies that are doing it to make obscene profits because they don't want to pay fair wages. And, Obama killing children? I mean, are you really, really that stupid? Is there a moron factory that churns out air-wasters such as yourself. I find it truly disturbing that you are running around loose. Please, put a sign on yourself that identifies you as toxic waste.

      February 8, 2012 at 8:21 pm |
  6. RillyKewl

    This is the most blatantly partisan article yet on the Komen-tastrophe.
    I'd be glad to debate each + every last point in this article because it is all extremely debatable.

    Yet the biggest, most obvious misreading of the facts is right up front: This is not about funding abortions.
    This is about BREAST CANCER. Hello? Yeah. Ever heard of it?

    This is about early detection screenings. Its about services performed in a clinic, just like any other OBGYN office visit. You get your breast exam, they show you how to do it at home, when, what time a month, in the shower... blah, blah, blah. If its time for mammography, they'll give you a referral, and some locations where to find it. That's what this funding debacle was about.

    Its about depriving poor, uninsured women access to the same services, because they don't like where the services are being provided. And that's when it became political.

    I hope this author's period is late this month + she has no insurance coverage.
    Then on top of that, you find a lump.

    February 8, 2012 at 3:21 pm |
    • Crazyhorse

      Pull your head out of the sand.. PP offsets its costs for abortion with that $$.

      February 8, 2012 at 4:34 pm |
    • Wow

      Wishing breast cancer on someone? A bit harsh...

      Check again, this is an OPINION article... that's why it's biased. Admittedly, I am not very educated on this story. But, does PP or the Komen Foundation provide breast cancer care to women? If Komen gives the care, drops funding to PP, and then opens the floodgates of conservative anti-choice $ (the apparantly "rich") isn't that still a win for women who need breast cancer care? Why does the abortion piece play a part in breast cancer care?

      February 8, 2012 at 4:35 pm |
    • debbie

      You comments are childish and arrogant, making you look like a fool. No one would lend credence to a comment where one adult wished an unplanned pregnancy and no insurance, plus breast cancer, on another woman. So pathetic

      February 8, 2012 at 6:04 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest


      Show the financial statements that shows your information to be accurate.

      February 8, 2012 at 6:13 pm |
    • reACTIONary

      RE: Pull your head out of the sand.. PP offsets its costs for abortion with that $$.

      Not at all – as a non-profit they use extra money to provide NEW services, not subsidize services already being provided. It makes sense for women's health to put all of these services together – one stop health care.

      Abortion is safe, legal, in fact its a right. PP has nothing to apologize for, and neither did Komen before they put women at risk on behalf of the religious right.

      February 8, 2012 at 9:41 pm |
    • Keith

      reactionary, good thing your mother didn't think like you-you probably would've ended up in one of Gosnell's shoeboxes in the garbage out back.

      February 9, 2012 at 7:42 am |
  7. Keith

    Abortion is no different than Bashar Assad murdering people in Homs. Murder is murder. At least some of the people in Syria have weapons to fight back. An unborn baby has no such defense against a mother who is trying to kill them. No defense, that is, except the living who choose to make a stand for them. I have more respect for that butcher, Assad.

    February 8, 2012 at 12:07 pm |
    • Keith

      Calling Israel a danger to Islam, the conservative website Alef, with ties to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the opportunity must not be lost to remove “this corrupting material. It is a “‘jurisprudential justification” to kill all the Jews and annihilate Israel, and in that, the Islamic government of Iran must take the helm.”
      I have more respect for this dirt-bag than I do for someone who kills their own child. Both will give account to God.

      February 8, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
    • Lisa B.

      Someone should have aborted you.

      February 8, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
    • Keith

      Lisa B., truth hurts doesn't it?

      February 8, 2012 at 7:43 pm |
    • reACTIONary

      Abortion has never, EVER been considered the equivalent of murder even when it was considered illegal. This is a disgustingly inappropriate analogy. It shows the religious right to be morally bankrupt extremists.

      February 8, 2012 at 9:44 pm |
    • Keith

      reactionary, never considered murder? by whose standard? yours? Look at Lisa B.'s comment-she sounds like Casey Anthony, who murdered her child after she was born. Is that the left's answer? If someone opposes our lifestyle, we'll just kill them? You may find unborn babies to be soft targets for your murderous slaughter-but the adult who is alive will be hard to kill. But since you've managed to sodomize the military, you may just have the henchmen necessary for the task.

      February 9, 2012 at 7:39 am |
    • Cricket11

      Keith, "murder" is a legal term. Abortion is legal, therefore does not apply here. Your ignorance is showing. Tell me, will YOU be adopting all those unwanted babies? How many have you adopted so far? That's what I thought.

      February 9, 2012 at 8:42 am |
    • Keith

      Cricket11, Why should I adopt? I take full responsibility for raising my 3 children. The parents of these children should "man up" and take some damn responsibility themselves. If not, then they need to keep their legs closed.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:47 pm |
    • Cricket11

      Ah, the good ol' "keep your legs closed" . Please. Surely you can do better than that. And what of r ape victims? What about minors? It goes to show that the PL crowd just wants babies to be punishment. And if you were so gung ho about saving babies you'd put your money where your mouth is and support adoption.

      February 13, 2012 at 8:48 am |
  8. BoldGeorge

    They mean 330,000 legalized m-u-r-d-e-r-s a year. On another note: Does the media tell the full story of anything?

    February 8, 2012 at 10:02 am |
  9. Aine

    If you left out the ignorant comments like 'Komen’s decision to stop funding was “political.”', some of the facts at the end of this article–Komen having trouble getting funding cause of their association with PP–could have been seen as insightful. But now it just reads as another close-minded anti-abortion rant.

    February 8, 2012 at 9:15 am |
    • Goodness

      PP does serve a purpose but I think if they want to be an abortion clinic they should build a separate building behind the garbage dump and do all abortions there. Just to show people the human life they are trashing after they are done.

      February 8, 2012 at 10:02 am |
  10. captain america

    ah the fun of picking on canadian's...just sayin' (my alter-ego) and I think we have them down. they attacked our country in the 1800's and think they have a say now...they are full of sh!t. we believe that their anthem is a prayer, although we know that Doc Vestibule, AtheistSteve and TruthPrevails disagree-they think they know their country better than we do. they are full of sh!t.

    February 8, 2012 at 8:11 am |
    • captain america

      You don't really have the tone or the tune of the good captain, revealing canadian atheist wanna bees for the morons they are is just part of defending Truth , Justice and the American way. There's your sign

      February 8, 2012 at 10:14 am |
  11. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things
    Prayer changes lives!

    February 8, 2012 at 6:20 am |
    • TruthPrevails

      could you please attempt to add something useful to these blogs? Your rhetoric is becoming childish and immature!

      February 8, 2012 at 6:42 am |
    • captain america

      Since neither America or prayer is not any of your concern why don't you go screw yourself canadian? There's your sign

      February 8, 2012 at 7:11 am |
    • Prayer changes things

      Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things,

      February 8, 2012 at 7:12 am |
    • bringoutyourdead

      Keep the children from cold dead souls don't touch the dead soul atheist it is unclean

      February 8, 2012 at 7:13 am |
    • 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 8, 2012 at 8:00 am |
    • TruthPrevails

      A soul can't be proven to exist and until it can be, you look like a liar!

      February 8, 2012 at 8:03 am |
    • Lisa B.

      Wow, you're stupid too.

      February 8, 2012 at 4:42 pm |
  12. Suzy Silvestre

    Yes this article was a joke. I just posted this on Facebook. Whatever potential losses the Komen Foundation could have been feeling due to anti-abortion extremists, do not compare to the losses that they feel now due to dropping Planned Parenthood. Political or Non Political, they dropped an organization that helps women's health. That health includes breast exams. They dropped them because they also happen to provide abortions, which last time I checked is legal, thank goodness.

    So the fiasco was not about politics. Who cares what Planned Parenthood does politically. Oh they fight for women's health and women's rights. That is what they are supposed to do.

    February 8, 2012 at 2:09 am |
    • tired of those who advocate for murder

      Why are those who rally against the murder of innocent children and the butchering of women called 'extremists' yet those who support it as a 'choice' called 'advocates for womens health'? As a woman, I find that offensive.

      Planned Parenthood and its supporters have shown their ugly side through this whole debacle. News flash – half of America sees you for what you really are and the other half are getting there.

      February 8, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
  13. PSmith

    I'm really sad to see CNN publish this kind of political rhetoric masquerading as media criticism. The author makes a number of irrational comparisons. Half the country opposes abortions she claims in order to imply that an equal percentage would oppose Komen assisting Planned Parenthood's efforts at securing cancer screening for poor women. Clearly that is not true. Clearly most people who personally object to abortion applaud any efforts to promote cancer awareness and early detection.

    Relatedly she claims that giving money to Planned Parenthood is just as political as pulling it. Not even close. Giving money to Planned Parenthood, for the specific purpose of breast cancer detection, despite whatever else Planned Parenthood does is the definition of being apolitical. Pulling funding from Planned Parenthood because of the other things they do, and despite the fact that they money granted by Komen only goes to cancer screenings, is the definition of political. In other words when Komen focuses on its mission they remain apolitical. When they start to use their power to send political messages outside of their stated mission they become political. This isn't rocket science. So yeah. Poor form publishing this. I have no problem with different perspectives, but this isn't a perspective, it's just thinly disguised political rhetoric.

    February 8, 2012 at 12:27 am |
    • RillyKewl

      Agreed, wholeheartedly!

      February 8, 2012 at 3:25 pm |
    • Linette Greene

      very well stated and cogent.

      February 8, 2012 at 7:31 pm |
    • Mil9876

      thank you for posting something coherent!

      February 8, 2012 at 8:53 pm |
  14. Reality

    “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."

    As compared to:

    from guidestar.org

    Rev. Franklin Graham $800,000+/yr.

    Rev. Billy Graham, $400,000/yr

    Rabbi Bradley Hirschfield $331,708/yr

    Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, $200,000/yr

    Erica Brown $134,221/yr

    Eboo Patel $120,000/yr.and his over $ 1 million investment portfolio kept in his non-profit so he does not have to pay taxes on dividends and capital gains

    Imam Rauf and his wife Daisy, $800,000/yr/ea estimated

    From the Chicago Council on Global Affairs IRS Form 990:

    Investment holdings in publicly-traded securities, 2007-2008 tax period, $6,145,612. Dividends and interest from these investment for the same period, $705, 970.

    Director Josephine Heindel’s salary, $184,000 including savings plans. VP of Finance, Robert Cordes’ salary $159, 000 to include savings plans. Three other directors make in the range of $140,000/year.

    By the way, Michelle Obama was previously a director of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

    The Ac-umen Fund:

    Ms. Novogratz’s salary for 2008 was $260,000 which included a $20,000 bonus. The CFO and four other highest paid managers made on average over $150,000/year which included bonuses and benefits. They apparently lost $1,596,997 on the stock market/other investment in 2008. The biggest contributor in 2008 was the Gates Foundation, $13.6 million. Total assets for 2008 amounted to $87,965,276

    Center for American Progress

    (John Podesta is the president of the CFAP making over $250,000/yr with eight managers averaging $200,000/yr.

    The ACLU has over $250 million invested in the stock and bond markets. They pay no tax on the dividends, interest and capital gains.

    Special Olympics

    Dr. Shriver's salary at the Special Olympics, is $235,514 which includes benefits. Twelve other directors/managers make on average $175,000.

    Special Olympics has/had $38,145,655 invested in the Christmas Records Trust. Said trust apparently lost $18,757,600 in value in the 2007-2008 time period.

    Conclusion: "Non-profits" should not be allowed to have any tax advantages and salaries of all CEOs and administrators
    should be published on all ads distributed by said "non-profit".

    February 8, 2012 at 12:13 am |
    • Murph

      Awesome! Thank you for this information!

      February 8, 2012 at 8:31 am |
    • ......

      it is all bull sh it hit report abuse on all reality garbage posts

      February 8, 2012 at 11:33 am |
    • David

      Salaries are taxed and as you have been able to gather they are public information.

      February 8, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
    • Reality

      Salaries of course are taxed. What are not taxed are the dividends, interest and capital gains on the "non-profits" investments i.e. many "non-profits" are simply investment companies set up by the founders to beat paying taxes. Said founders (and CEOs) then use this money to pad their salaries plus having their non-profit pay for all of their travel expenses, etc.

      February 8, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
  15. tallulah13

    The author of this article forgot that CNN already posted the "whole story."


    A Tea Party Republican decided that her personal opinions were more important than the mission of the charity she worked for. Since people from all walks of life have donated to Komen, naturally some would get offended by this political maneuver and cease to support this group. The backlash was strong enough that Komen has changed it's tune, and the woman who orchestrated the drama has resigned.

    February 8, 2012 at 12:08 am |
    • Mollie Zeigler Hemmingway is a hack

      Yep. Mollie Ziegler Hemingway stuck her foot in her mouth, blaming it all on the liberal press and Boxer and all the usual boogie men, and whoops! The whole thing was actually caused by a right-wing activist who exploited her position to push her hidden agenda on a charity, who also steered the "investigation" to hide her agenda, and now is out in humiliation.

      Look to your own side when searching for nefarious political operators, Mollie!

      Care to print a retraction? No, of course not. People like you just pervert facts even further to convince themselves that they were actually right.

      February 8, 2012 at 1:45 am |
  16. 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 11:55 pm |
    • J

      Actually, the failure rate of the birth control pill is largely due to user error, such as missing pills or not understanding that it needs to be taken at the same time every day. Imperfect use causes a 2% – 8% failure rate. However, when used correctly, that rate drops to .03%. If PP were able to distribute information about the proper use of oral contraceptives, I imagine the 8% figure would drop significantly.

      February 9, 2012 at 5:58 am |
  17. TR6

    No one, except for some brain damaged refried Jesus wheezes. Because the SGC money went to breast cancer screenings and nothing else

    February 7, 2012 at 9:59 pm |
    • KLH

      Very eloquent– makes me want to strongly consider all that you have to say.

      February 7, 2012 at 10:28 pm |
  18. Bill

    Who would have thought that by donating to Breast Cancer research by giving money to the Susan G. Komen foundation, you were also helping Planned Parenthood pay for abortions.

    February 7, 2012 at 9:51 pm |
    • TR6

      No one except for some brain damaged refried Jesus wheezes. Because the SGC money went to breast cancer screenings and nothing else

      February 7, 2012 at 9:56 pm |
    • AGuest9

      What's wrong with that? Fewer unwanted children that will waste our children's and teachers' time, be abused, ra.ped, molested and go to prison.

      February 7, 2012 at 10:09 pm |
    • RightTurnClyde

      You know .. there is a reason why the ones who do this live in large estates and get chauffeured to work .. .. they don't say ALL of it goes to help anyone - just SOME of it .. maybe 5% .. they rest pays for the estate and the chauffeur. Believe half of what you see AND hear and nothing of what you hear (or see). The Red Cross is notorious for high salaries and perks .. out of the charity money .. only the Salvation Army actually does what it says. Food for disaster areas .. very little gets to anyone. (Read about the what the UN officials do with THAT money .. it's not funny because it is our money).

      February 7, 2012 at 11:12 pm |
    • David

      what the author fails to grasp is that shoring up with the conservative base to fight cancer is suicide. Geez much of the conservative base believes that breast cancer is 1)the will of God and 2) your own fault if you can't afford treatment. And those conservatives that do donate either a) shore up a tax deduction or b) is profiting from the spend from the foundation. Almost every charitable organization that conservatives support is just a front for converting them to religion. Sorry but unless you are the Catholic church you probably don't want to go against woman's rights and expect to keep donations coming in. As much as you may hate liberals they are the ones that sacrifice all else to support causes without hidden agendas. Sorry but when you think conservatives it doesn't come to mind the betterment of mankind.

      February 8, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
  19. Imho2d

    The day I allow any of you ppl to have say so over my reproductive system is the day I will determine what I'll do with yours. If you don't like that, then stick your nose somewhere else.

    February 7, 2012 at 9:25 pm |
  20. RightTurnClyde

    Obama and his mama are going to take care of everyone - nobody needs health care now the governments gonna pay for it all. So the rich lady can keep her money and the broads can spayed and neutered and get their rabies shots and worm pills all courtesy of Obama. That's what he said (of course you couldn't read the bill .. and nobody even today knows what it says) but HE says .. it's all free courtesy of your neighbor. Would Obama lie? (haha .. don't forget to vote .. )

    February 7, 2012 at 9:21 pm |
    • AGuest9

      "nobody needs health care now the governments gonna pay for it all"

      If you're a Boomer, Clyde, this is going to happen pretty soon for you, anyway.

      February 7, 2012 at 10:11 pm |
    • AGuest9

      What do YOU do that you get insurance, work for the government?

      February 7, 2012 at 10:11 pm |
    • RightTurnClyde

      You voted for it .. and nobody even knows what. Duh

      February 7, 2012 at 11:08 pm |
    • Amazing Larry

      Anyone who isn't really angry about the costs of healthcare in America and the hell of trying to deal with insurance companies is either very rich or just not looking at their bills. Anyone who thinks Obama's immasculated plan will improve the core problem is REALLY not paying attention.

      Time will make the problem so bad that somewhere in the next couple decades even the most neo-fasc neo-con will be begging for the single payer option.

      February 7, 2012 at 11:10 pm |
    • RightTurnClyde

      You do have to wonder how bad it has to get. They (the government) could cut the cost of health care by 75% simply by putting a cap on the damages lawyers can collect (say twice your actual damages). But the government are lawyers and they will not limit litigation. The could get jobs back (millions of jobs) by doing the same thing on product liability and making every place a right to work place. But they won't. And everybody likes it. SO they keep voting the same. The ones you mention are not enough to win even one election .. so they have no influence.

      February 8, 2012 at 9:41 am |
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.