Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktAll politics are local, although if you’re a giant fundraising charity they’re also national and, in Komen’s case, even global (we have Affiliates in Germany and Italy [Komen also counts our Puerto Rico Affiliate as an “international” one, although they do have US passports there. . . just sayin’] and Races in The Bahamas, Belgium, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Brazil, Egypt, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Israel and Tanzania). As I stated in Part One, Komen started as a volunteer-driven, grass-roots fundraising effort that has mushroomed into a huge effort in which the fundraising and granting is still done at the local level using guidelines and marketing developed at the central headquarters. So local politics has long been the deciding factor in some of our granting and the sponsorships that we seek for our events. I was mistaken Tuesday evening when I said that the SLC Affiliate hasn’t given grants to Planned Parenthood in the past—for three or four years we granted them Komen credits to purchase educational materials from the Komen store, a win-win since it got the materials out there at essentially no cost to the grantees (PP wasn’t the only one who got grants that way) with the Komen branding on them. We didn’t give them a grant last year and they didn’t apply for one in the current funding year. We (those of us who had been thrust into the limelight through our association with Komen this last week) got a crash course on our grant funding history Wednesday evening.
- Local politics as seen through the eyes of the Race Director for the Komen SLC Race for the Cure:
The very first thing that I noticed when I came on board as Assistant Race Director in 2000 was that there was virtually no involvement in the Race by the LDS Church, either participatory, volunteering, or contribution-wise. Why? That particular question has never been answered, although my suspicion is that it was a combination of things: 1) Any discussion of body parts associated with sexuality in any way, shape, or form is still strongly frowned upon. I’ve met LDS medical students—both male and female—who literally couldn’t say the words “breast”, “vagina”, or “penis”. And the dissection of the clitoris in the anatomy lab? Wouldn’t happen unless there were non-LDS students working at that table. To the best of my knowledge they all overcame their block about those things, but it is far more ingrained than I would have imagined if I hadn’t taught anatomy. 2) The LDS Church itself takes up huge chunks of its members’ time already; in addition to church on Sunday, Monday is Family Home Evening (just what it sounds like—an evening set aside solely for family activities), adults have Church callings to attend to, which can be anything and everything from being a Home Teacher (going into other members’ homes and teaching them doctrine and such) to being the Ward bishop or Stake (group of wards) president, to Boy Scout troops—the list is endless. 3) As is typical, our Race Committee and Affiliate Board is heavily dominated by women and we aren’t Church members. Participation on all levels has gotten much better over the years (or my Race wouldn’t be up to 18,000 participants and over 600 volunteers on Race day alone), so I guess we’re gaining acceptance but that is the religious side to the local politics.
Then there is the politics of sponsorship on the local level. Ford is, and has been, one of our National sponsors for as long as I’ve been involved with the Race, but the second thing I noticed early on was that we never got our Ford vehicles from the largest dealership in the state (Larry H. Miller) but, rather always from one of the smaller ones—why? Especially since Larry Miller also owned the Jazz, and if he’d provided us with vehicles he would have been able to advertise that fact during their home games. The I-kid-you-not answer? See reason number 1 above. After Larry passed away and his son took over the business we got our Fords from him that year. Over the years our local sponsors have largely been businesses that either don’t have to depend on the Church for business success—and that we won’t offend large segments of the population if we partner with them—or that are actually owned by the Church and seen by it as a wise investment (canny business people, those Mormons!). For instance, our media sponsor the last few years has been the TV station and newspaper that is owned by the Church. In the same vein as sponsorship, as far as I’m concerned as Race Director, is the role of Honorary Chair (I’m lucky in that, as RD, I don’t have to worry about recruiting/retaining sponsors or Honorary Chairs—that is way higher than my pay grade)(I would be abysmal at that side of things, also). We never had an actual politician as our Honorary Chair, although we’d approached many over the years, until the Democratic mayor of Salt Lake County agreed to do it in 2011 (non-election year and he’s term-limited, anyway). Komen is seen here as quite dangerous and Leftie (all those women in charge of something can’t be good) so the Republicans won’t touch us with a ten-foot pole; I had my hopes when Huntsman was Governor, especially after he won re-election, but even he wouldn’t do it.
Which leads to the politics of perception and influence, and this is where the local becomes national, and the national local. Komen is The Big Time. I was moved from Assistant Race Director to Race Director in 2001 when our Affiliate was officially formed and the woman who had founded the SLC Race for the Cure became our first Board President; I didn’t have a clue what I was walking in to. Salt Lake isn’t a terribly big place, when it comes right down to it, and Lisa—by starting the Race and then being its RD for five years—knew everybody. Luckily, she was very, very good at doing what she did and she is far more politically astute than I am, so I had a solid foundation to build on; but I was shocked the first time I walked into a City Events meeting and said “Hi, I’m Michigoose, I’m the new Race Director for the Race for the Cure,” and everybody dropped what they were doing and focused on me. As it happens, this (organizing and executing an event like this) is something that I am also very good at (thank you, US Army training) and I’ve been able to continue Lisa’s good work, but I was still fairly shocked again this year when—after telling the police at a meeting in November that my goal is to double the Race to 40,000 people by 2015—I’ve been able to sit down with the Fire Department Chief, a City Councilman, and the Mayor’s office in the past three months and have each of them ask me what they can do to help me. Now, this is another win-win (if I can grow the Race to 40K participants that’s a lot of tourist dollars that will be coming in to the City), but I’m beginning to understand the political tightrope that charitable organizations walk when they become big enough to be influential.
I think that’s what Komen HQ forgot when they stepped into the minefield. Because they are big and influential they’ve been acting unilaterally on a lot of things for a long time now without quite realizing the enemies they’d been making. Several people, both here and in the “real” world have pointed out to me that anti-abortion groups have been threatening to protest at Races and withhold funds for a long time, but the plain fact of the matter is that those threats are largely toothless to Komen. Protesting at a charitable Race? That would be like, well, protesting at a funeral of a veteran and we’ve seen how much good that’s done the Westboro Church. I’m not saying it hasn’t happened (I don’t know if it has or not, but none of the RDs that I talked to this week have ever seen it), but I don’t think it would further an anti-abortion group’s cause much to protest at a Komen event—although that may have changed now. And the dollars that those groups would be able to raise are a mere drop in the bucket compared to what breast cancer survivors themselves are able to raise—our top fund raiser for at least the last two years is a woman who singlehandedly pulls in around $10,000 in donations for us on Race day through her support network. And therein lies the rub, and why by letting themselves be yanked into the political arena Komen may have shot themselves in the foot.
Breast cancer is bigger than Komen, but Komen has tried to control the entire playing field. They tried to trademark the pink ribbon, but as it turns out you can’t trademark a color (but they did trademark the new shape of the ribbon they use—so don’t try to use a running ribbon to raise money, even if it’s for breast cancer research!). They sue everybody and anybody who uses the phrase “for the Cure”, but they play both sides of the coin by taking any and all funds raised at events using that phrase whenever offered. They have basically acted like a bully (we’re talking purely about the national, HQ-level stuff here now); I can’t allow other Race Directors to hand out flyers for their races at my event—even if they’re charitable events that have nothing whatsoever to do with breast cancer—nor can I allow local vendors who haven’t paid enough money to become sponsors to hand out food, water, buttons, pink ribbons etc., etc., etc.. That has created an enormous amount of ill-will on the local level, although most folks are resigned to it when I explain the situation to them, and it opened the door a crack for Komen supporters to think that there may be other places to donate their money that will support the same cause without being so heavy-handed.
And then came this week’s debacle. I know that Nancy Brinker is a Republican. I know that Karen Handel is a Republican. For many, many reasons Komen HQ is in Dallas, TX, and many (if not most) of the HQ staff are conservative Texas Christians (for the record, the wonderful woman who is our Affiliate’s contact person at HQ is as Leftie as lms and as graciously Southern as okie, so Komen is an Equal Opportunity Employer)(I only know that because she came to town to visit in December and she and I had a fantastic dinner together; I’ve always liked all of our Affiliate Representatives and have never before known any of their political leanings, but they’re small fish), and they’re living and working in a state where Planned Parenthood has long been under fire. Mark sent me this link earlier, and it’s a sad and sobering story that gave me a lot of context for what happened in the last few days. Why did they allow themselves to get sucked into politics, and abortion politics at that? I think it was a combination of a woman who has a great vision, but allowed herself to be caught up in the enormity of what she’s built (she’s been named a Goodwill Ambassador by President Obama, for heaven’s sake!), another woman with an agenda (Karen Handel) who was in the right place at the right time to implement it, and a surrounding political environment that is extraordinarily anti-Planned Parenthood.
So what are the politics going forward? Darn good question; I’ve read opinions from the Right, center, and Left and none of them are very optimistic. That last one is by a bioethicist, and I think his second paragraph sums it up well:
By even raising the possibility that they would pull the plug on the hundreds of thousands of dollars they give to Planned Parenthood to support breast cancer detection, they have lost the single-minded focus on finding a cure for a horrid disease that allowed them to become a charity giant envied by every other disease advocacy organization in the world. (Emphasis mine)
So I’m left with the fact that I’m very grateful that my Race isn’t until May, because by that time I’m hoping much of this will have blown over—I’ve already had to ensure all of those Powers That Be (Mayor’s office, City Council, Police and Fire Departments) that we aren’t, and never will be, a political advocacy event. Thank heavens for prior relationships with them that were solid and trustworthy. But this absolutely guarantees that I won’t be able to get any Republican support in the near future, because their ten-foot pole just became a one hundred-foot one thanks to the blunders in Dallas. And I’m also right at the beginning of volunteer recruitment for folks to do the heavy lifting on Race day (yeah, those 600+ people who show up to help me out), and I’m positive that I’ve just been issued an enormous roadblock to that. We haven’t lost any sponsors (yet) and, in fact, picked up a major one yesterday so I’m hoping that—just like with the Powers—our prior good record on the local level will overcome the national fallout. That’s the political reality at the local level.
Next: Politics, Komen, and Planned Parenthood (and where I open the door to the dragon’s lair)
All Things in Moderation 
[…] up: What I think the politics of the situation are now. Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this […]
LikeLike
Another terrific post Michi. I’m looking forward to part three. It’s even more interesting reading your unique perspective being in SLC. I’m getting ready to call a friend of mine from Hospice, who is part of a different grassroots network of breast cancer survivors and cure advocates, to ask her to remind me of an essay she pointed me to years ago that may fit in very well with part 3. I’m having a mental black out trying to remember the authors name.
And btw, thanks for all your work on behalf of the cure.
LikeLike
Fascinating insider’s view. Thanks for posting.
LikeLike
lms–I’ll be excited to hear your friend’s perspective and read the essay. The last part is going to be the longest to write, but is no doubt where the discussion will begin, I don’t know if you clicked on Mark’s link that I included, but PP has been essentially run out of Texas and all it’s doing is harming women’s health. And conservatives don’t understand why women feel under attack!
And btw, de nada. 🙂
bsimon–glad you enjoyed it. I’ll be interested in seeing what part three unleashes when I post it!
LikeLike
michi, what great posts! Even though I have not fully digested the first two yet, I eagerly await the next.
LikeLike
okie, you’re making me do that blushing thing again. . . glad you’re enjoying them. I wasn’t sure if anyone would actually read them once I saw how long they were going to be.
LikeLike
Good reads, Michi. I’d been involved in some local events (art auctions) in the past for Komen. Not at all to the extent you’ve been, but I had heard some angst from coordinators and directors here about the micro-management, so it doesn’t surprise me, but yet it does.
Two things to share, although you may already be aware of the first one:
The documentary “Pink Ribbons Inc.” opened yesterday in Canada.
http://www.nfb.ca/playlist/pink_ribbons_inc/
And this youtube from a survivor is pretty poignant (edit cuz okie made me do it…LOL) like a 2×4 to the head:
What breast cancer is and is not
LikeLike
Whoa, sue, that is one brave woman! I’m not sure “poignant” is the descriptor I would choose. Thanks for posting this.
LikeLike
Thanks, sue, and I’m flattered! I did know about “Pink Ribbons Inc”, although I haven’t had time to look at the story at all, so thanks for the link. And I haven’t clicked the “play” button yet on the video because I don’t have any kleenex handy, but I will in a minute or two.
I thank God/The Flying Spaghetti Monster/Budda/Whoever for my genes: the only cancer deaths in my family (paternal grandfather, lung, and dad’s older brother, head/neck) were both due to smoking. No cardiac events, no diabetes, nada. I’ve been truly blessed. When I started meeting breast cancer survivors through my involvement with the RFTC I started learning how lucky I am. My favorite single moment of every year for the last 11 years is that moment when the gun goes off at the start of the Race and I see all of those people start to move as one. . . every single time I have to sit down because my knees buckle. THAT is why I’m so supremely pissed off at Komen and what it has probably thrown away forever, and what I’m trying to figure out how to save.
LikeLike
Wow. Two amazing posts. Makes my what I do (about to be what I did) post looks like bush league. Thank you so much for the insight you’ve given us.
BB
LikeLike
Thank you very much for these two posts. I am convinced that the root cause of this problem was the insularity of the top leaders from the grass-roots activists and your posts seem to confirm that. I even used the word ‘bubble’ like you did. While I suspect a lot of the bloom is off the rose for SGK, I hope the bad publicity does not harm your event.
LikeLike
FB:
You are too kind (I always say that I have the easiest job with the Race, and it’s true. Our Volunteer coordinator is the woman at whose feet I worship). I’m glad you liked them–but about to be what I did. Does that mean you’ll be joining us at the U?????
LikeLike
yello:
You’re more than welcome. Stick around for part three when it goes up (I hope tomorrow, but it’s the hardest one to get right). I suspect you’re more than right about the bloom on the rose, but the fact that we got that new local sponsor yesterday gives me hope. It’s going to be a tough year to compare, because our volunteer numbers were down last year inexplicably, but I think the volunteer turnout will be the bellwether for me.
LikeLike
OMFG, sue, I didn’t need kleenex, I was on my feet giving that woman a standing ovation in my living room. That was AWESOME!!!!!
LikeLike
Back from early VDay dinner celebration for hundreds and taking just enough time to thank MG for her two extraordinary posts. Looking fwd to the third one. G’night!
LikeLike
Wonderful insight. Thanks.
LikeLike
Good morning!
Fab post, Michi!
Sue, I loved the video’s ending…You [SBK] showed your ass. Now you can kiss mine. Thank you."
The battle between pro-life and pro-choice didn’t originate here and it won’t end here. Everyone’s gonna regroup, reassess, and prepare for the next skirmish.
Mark, thank you for the link. What struck me while reading it is how many Texas women are suddenly without basic reproductive health services. The Parkland situation is mind-boggling.
How many folks out there think the Giants will win the SB? The Pats? Who watches just for the commercials? Who has no interest whatsoever?
Me, I’m saying Giants by 4.
LikeLike
Good morning, MsJS!
Glad you’re enjoying the Komen stuff. Part three is under construction, hopefully to go up before I depart for a Super Bowl party.
I want the Giants, and I predicted 42-10 in the office pool (a whole $7 is up for grabs if I’m right). I admit, I mainly watch the commercials during the SB, football fan that I am, and based on the poll that I embedded a couple of weekends ago in a post, I know that at least two people here couldn’t care less. 🙂
How’s the weather out your way today? Has that threatened storm slammed into IL yet?
LikeLike
Mich:
A bit of a drive-by, so apologies, but I will be checking back in periodically over the next couple of days, so any response will be seen.
Any idea how much money is spent on breast cancer research/prevention relative to other forms of cancer, and what is the incidence rate and mortality rate relative to other cancers? I have no idea and am genuinely curious.
LikeLike
Has that threatened storm slammed into IL yet?
In my part of the state it was a non-event. Some rain further south yesterday, but no snow.
Back in Oct., the weatherfolk predicted colder and snowier for northeast IL this winter. So far, they are oh for two.
LikeLike
And conservatives don’t understand why women feel under attack!
The semantics there seems to imply that all conservatives are non-women. I can assure you, that’s not true. 🙂 37% of women identified as conservative and 39% as moderate in a 2009 Gallup Poll.
LikeLike
Scott:
Any idea how much money is spent on breast cancer research/prevention relative to other forms of cancer, and what is the incidence rate and mortality rate relative to other cancers?
I don’t know the answer to these questions specifically, but I do know experientially (as a cancer researcher) the answer is “more than is proportional” to your first question. I’ll try to find the answer and include it in part three.
LikeLike
MsJS:
No significant winter weather at all yet in UT, and I believe we’re about to slip back into drought mode out here. Clear blue skies and sunny (while cold) for the last few days, and only one snowfall so far for the year. Scuttlebutt has it that we’re supposed to slip into a “monsoon” mode this month, but I have absolutely no idea what that means in UT. 🙂
LikeLike
Kevin:
I was inartful in my wording: I was referring specifically to you, qb and Scott on this blog. 🙂
LikeLike
Michi:
Thanks for your insight. These two posts have been great for understanding the whole story. I’m looking forward to part 3.
ScottC:
Off the top of my head, breast cancer gets the most money — something like $500M from NCI, another $120M from DOD, then whatever money comes from the private foundations like SGK. Overall, I think breast cancer has a 5 year survival rate of about 80%, but that is dependent on what stage it is caught at. About of 200K cases per year. For comparison, pancreatic cancer has a 5 year survival rate of about 10%, with about 40K cases per year. Pancreatic cancer gets less than $10M per year. Again, those are just ballpark figures rolling around my head — I’m sure Michi has better numbers available.
LikeLike
And conservatives don’t understand why women feel under attack!
It’s part of the current process that people on both sides of the ideological spectrum feel under attack by some of the policies and actions of the other side.
So yes, some women feel under attack by conservatives. But certainly not all. And there are conservatives who feel under attack by Obama and/or liberal initiatives.
But isn’t it cool we have the freedom to talk about it?
LikeLike
Goose – I got the news that I’ll be detailed, probably at the end of this month. Management decided to fund capital projects by jacking up overheads and blew a 6 figure whole in my section’s finances. That makes as much sense as cutting off utlility payments to fund renovating the kitchen.
So, I’m due to be shipped over to a group that has more money than people. I did this once before when I was sent over to work on a project designing lenses. It was interesting work, but mean that my ongoing research came to a halt. My detail was extended for a bit, but when it came to an end, another scientist short on funding was moved onto it.
I didn’t apply for the UU position. It was mainly a matter of timing. I had two big irons in the fire that would make me a much stronger candidate. So, my PRL is about to be published and I was recently named a fellow of the SPIE. On top of results that we have now, I’m a much stronger candidate than I was in October.
We’re going to try to stay in the DC area. I just checked the NSF website and they’ve got a lot of positions open as program managers. USPTO is another target for me.
Cheers!
Paul
LikeLike
I was recently named a fellow of the SPIE
Wow–congratulations are in order! And glad that, even though the short term doesn’t sound so exciting, the long term work prospect do. Let me know, though, if you’re ever coming out this way for a meeting or something and we’ll have to go to Squatters for a brew!
LikeLike
OK, Komen Part Three won’t be making it up today. The writing is wandering a bit far afield on me right now and I need to gather my thoughts. . . and, besides, it’s the Super Bowl and I’ll be going to a party in a couple of hours.
But it will make its appearance this week, I promise!
LikeLike
Thanks, Goose. I’ve cracked open a few bottles of champagne of late. The fellowship is nice. The PRL felt a lot better. It’s been a sore spot that I never got one of those on my own. Had some really nice work ca. 2003 – 2005, but I’ve already told that story. If this is the end of my research career, I’m glad to end it on a high. Elway did it right. Both Favre and Montana held on. I think Favre should have retired after the loss in New Orleans. No shame there. A tough road loss against a great team.
I’ll definitely make it out to SLC at some point. We have to hit the Red Iguana. It was my introduction to molé.
BB
LikeLike
Red Iguana–extraplustwo!!!
LikeLike
wow. hell of a video.
LikeLike
Isn’t it, though?!?!?!? I don’t think I’d want to mess with her.
LikeLike
Mich:
Just watched the video. Sorry, but I am not moved by her message. Of course breast cancer is a political issue. Why do you suppose breast cancer research gets more than double in federal funding than does research into prostate cancer? Why do you suppose it gets federal funding at all?
I have a lot of empathy for the woman’s personal plight, but the notions that 1) Komen’s philanthropic efforts cannot be legitimately influenced by concerns other than breast cancer alone and 2) Komen’s philanthropy cannot be effective without the inolvement of Planned Parenthood, both of which are implicit in the women’s video and the wider uproar over Komen’s original decision, are totally absurd. That Komen, which has done so much to help people like this woman, should be condemned and told to kiss her ass, simply because it is anti-abortion and wishes not to support the biggest abortion provider in the nation, shows a total loss of perspective.The woman’s loss of perspective is understandable, perhaps, but it is still a loss of perspective.
The simple fact is that the protest over Komen’s original decision was at least as “political” as the decision itself.
LikeLike
Mich:
We never had an actual politician as our Honorary Chair, although we’d approached many over the years, until the Democratic mayor of Salt Lake County agreed to do it in 2011 (non-election year and he’s term-limited, anyway). Komen is seen here as quite dangerous and Leftie (all those women in charge of something can’t be good) so the Republicans won’t touch us with a ten-foot pole; I had my hopes when Huntsman was Governor, especially after he won re-election, but even he wouldn’t do it.
If you don’t want breast cancer to be a political issue, why would you seek to have politicians involved?
LikeLike
Scott:
(1) I found the video refreshing and compelling as an example of a woman who was fighting her disease. Too many of the ones I see make me cry–her’s didn’t, it made me cheer. It has nothing to do with what I view Komen’s mission as. I’m actually very anti-breast-cancer-weepiness when it comes to my Race and I’ve been chastised for it more than once by my fellow RFTC committee members here. My point over the years is that it’s about the Race and its fundraising rather than the BC survivors, and, therefore, while it’s useful to be reminded occasionally about the effects the disease have on individuals and their families my job is to put on the best Race possible.. So I applaud that woman’s stand on her own two feet attitude toward life.
(2) Politicians are a necessary evil. I don’t want to politicize the Race, but politicians carry weight. We don’t have a whole lot of celebrities here in UT, and politicians—for good or evil–are some of the few we’ve got.
LikeLike
P.S. And if I could get just one damn Republican to stand up and fight for a women’s cause in this state it would unleash a floodgate of support. They’re all chickenshits.
LikeLike
“P.S. And if I could get just one damn Republican to stand up and fight for a women’s cause in this state it would unleash a floodgate of support. They’re all chickenshits.”
Not to be argumentative, but couldn’t a Republican believe that a “woman’s cause” be 180 degrees opposite of your view? And as a result, not be “chickenshit” but merely hold different opinion? I.e, acting in their idea of good faith as you believe you are?
LikeLike
George:
Sure they could believe that I’m 100% wrong–but I can’t get a single one of them to come down on the side of breast cancer awareness and prevention because every damn one of them is scared to talk about it. Read my posts (rather than the comments) and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
LikeLike
Mr. McWingnut, as I understand your comment, you suggest that it would be a “woman’s cause” to NOT fundraise for breast cancer research? Your caveat notwithstanding, I would consider that to be argumentative.
LikeLike
These are great posts, Michigoose.
Am I understanding you correctly …. the hesitation/refusal of the local pols to get involved is simply the nature of the disease and that it has the word “breast” in it?
LikeLike
P.S. And if I could get just one damn Republican to stand up and fight for a women’s cause in this state it would unleash a floodgate of support.
With 35% of when who identify or lean Republican, surely you could find one somewhere. 🙂
Getting politicians to dip their toe into anything that might impact elections or fund raising for themselves, that’s another thing again.
LikeLike
Scottt: If you don’t want breast cancer to be a political issue, why would you seek to have politicians involved?
Politicians carry weight and are connected, of course, but if you can get bipartisan support for your cause, it demonstrates the universality of the issue, and makes it safe for everybody, everywhere, to contribute. But it would be hard for an organization to attract many Republicans if they give grants to to anyone who is involved in abortion, even if the grants had nothing to do with abortion and the money didn’t involve abortion. Of course, the American Cancer Society has award grants to PP, I wonder if they have the same trouble with getting politicians to step up.
LikeLike
Why do you suppose breast cancer research gets more than double in federal funding than does research into prostate cancer?
They play a better ground game. And it’s a dog eat dog world. The rates of new cases are similar, the rates of death are higher for breast cancer. Of course, women have fewer cancers than men by about 7%, and fewer cancer deaths by about 9%, but that might be explained by a somewhat higher degree or risk taking or risky activities by men (read that somewhere, don’t have that number). So, who knows.
More here.
Who has got the fund raising apparatus, who is better at writing grant? A lot of money is donated in the fight against cancer, but a lot of that money is awarded to the folks who write the more attractive grant proposals. And the grant approval committees aren’t huge (generally), but if it’s get enough to settle guilt or innocence in our judicial system, one presumes it’s good enough to figure out whose got the better case for getting money for cancer research.
LikeLike
Why do you suppose breast cancer research gets more than double in federal funding than does research into prostate cancer?
There are differences between the two obviously. Besides the age demographic there are also outcome considerations. The survival rate for prostate cancer is much higher and according to the cancer society the 5 year survival rate is 100%. While even stage 1 breast cancer is only 88% for 5 years and goes all the way down to 15% for stage 4. It’s also true that 1 in 8 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in their lives, don’t know what the incidence for prostate cancer is but it’s presumably lower as there are fewer cases even when you incorporate the longer survival rate.
Scott, are you objecting to the government’s investment in scientific and medical research?
LikeLike
“Scott, are you objecting to the government’s investment in scientific and medical research?”
I don’t object (really). But I do think one of the questions (maybe for our top 50) should be ….
Life expectancy in this country is X*. What do you want it to be, how much should we spend to get it there and where would you allocate the resources?
*I understand there are demographic issues in play here .. but i think that gets to resource allocation.
LikeLike
“Mr. McWingnut, as I understand your comment, you suggest that it would be a “woman’s cause” to NOT fundraise for breast cancer research? “
My intent is not to suggest that I believe a “women’s cause” is limited to fundraising for breast cancer research.
LikeLike
As the dollar amounts are large, there are political considerations. Go back to the 1980s, when HIV first burst onto the national scene. The Reagan administration appeared to minimize the epidemic and more than a little blame was cast at the victims. Funny how God appears to favor lesbians, whose infection rates were lower than heterosexual women. But I digress. The early lack of emphasis appeared to correlate with the infected groups (at least in the U.S.)–gay men and IV drug users. Not to mention a socially conservative administration. C. Everett Koop’s comments are fairly clear on this matter.
The Komen foundation made what appears to be a political decision. Those involved should have been prepared for a political reaction.
As for bringing up other sex selective diseases, perhaps one might look into the disease. Prostate cancer tends to be slow growing, to the point where one can often outlive the disease, and curing prostate cancer has significant side effects. Leukemia has received intense interest for very good reasons.
Two recent decisions regarding screening for prostate cancer and breast cancer sparked considerable controversy. Both seemed quite rational to me, but there are entrenched interests.
BB
LikeLike
” couldn’t a Republican believe that a “woman’s cause” be 180 degrees opposite of your view?”
Did you have examples in mind or is this a hypothetical?
L
LikeLike
Mich:
Too many of the ones I see make me cry–her’s didn’t, it made me cheer.
If she had told breast cancer to kiss her ass, I would have cheered too. Telling Komen to kiss her ass just because she doesn’t like it’s politics on the issue of abortion, well, sorry, but I don’t see a whole lot to cheer about in that.
LikeLike
Kevin:
They play a better ground game.
Which is to say they are better at politics.
I don’t begrudge the breast cancer lobby its success in getting federal funds for the cause. (At least no more than I begrudge anyone who feeds at the federal trough.). My point was simply that it is absurd to condemn Komen for allowing “politics” to influence how it will use it’s money as if politics is not already a central part of the whole breast cancer awareness/treatment movement.
LikeLike
lms:
Scott, are you objecting to the government’s investment in scientific and medical research?
In a different context I might, but in the current context I was simply objecting to the pretense that “politics” is not already a central part of the success of the breast cancer research/awareness movement.
LikeLike
” Telling Komen to kiss her ass just because she doesn’t like it’s politics on the issue of abortion, well, sorry, but I don’t see a whole lot to cheer about in that.”
Its been 18 hours since I watched the video. Was she disparaging SGK over their ‘abortion’ politics, or over their Planned Parenthood politics?
LikeLike
“Did you have examples in mind or is this a hypothetical?”
I know individuals that are Republicans that believe that abortion is murder. Further, they believe that abortion is deeply harmful to women. To them, outlawing abortion is a “woman’s cause.”
LikeLike
I concur with Scott’s comment above (shocker!) about claims of improper intrusion of politics.
Most of this is not that complicated, in my opinion. If SGK imprudently ventured into political entanglement, it did so by funding PP in the first place, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with its now-reversed decision to stop that funding. PP is and always has been politically controversial and entangled. By providing funding to PP, SGK only empowers it and legitimizes its claims to be something other than what it is, a major abortion provider and institution of the cultural and political left.
This flap represents what in my view is a characteristic mode of discourse and political tactics of the left. It begins with trying to declare X to be “nonpolitical” and “not to be politicized,” and often wrapping X institutionally within less controversial subjects, call them Y, like support for breast cancer prevention and treatment. Any threat to Y is then deemed improperly motivated by X, along with condemnations of “politicizing Y.” Heads I win, tails you lose.
I viewed the firestorm of outrage as 90% motivated by the desire to compel validation of, and support for PP, and that is to say, PP in its more well-known identity as provider and defender of abortion. This is a cynical thing to say, perhaps. But I read enough vituperative comments about it. The substance of the matter simply was not that big a deal. Less than a million dollars, to be directed elsewhere instead of PP. But PP is a sacred cow. The charge of politicization fits the accusers just as well or better than it fits SGK. If SGK doesn’t want to be entangled with the nation’s leading abortion provider, I fail to see how that is even conceivably objectionable.
Indeed, the vast majority of commentary expressing outrage and calling for people to stop donating to SGK seemed blind to the irony inherent in such calls, for the reality was that SGK was simply exercising the same right to decide where to spend its money that the outraged and angry were invoking by withdrawing their own donations to SGK. SGK said it would not longer fund PP; supporters of PP said they would no longer support SGK, thus purporting to dictate to SGK whom it should fund, while accusing it of improperly politicizing breast cancer. A remarkable performance and laden with irony.
LikeLike
bsimon:
Was she disparaging SGK over their ‘abortion’ politics, or over their Planned Parenthood politics?
Is there a difference?
LikeLike
One of the other ironies of all this, in my view, appears upon stepping back to consider that the USPSTF concluded not long ago that evidence for routine breast cancer before age 50 is too weak for it to be recommended. (Of course, that scientific decision was met by an equal blast of outrage, more from the left than from the right. About that war on science ….) The core mission of Planned Parenthood, I gather, remains providing family planning and birth control (and abortion) services. Its core clientelle likely are not the population for whom breast cancer screening is even medically appropriate.
I have yet to see or hear anyont discuss this odd aspect of the affair.
Btw, I was tired long ago of watching pinkfest football and baseball games.
LikeLike
qb:
A remarkable performance and laden with irony.
Indeed.
Which organization has done more, and is more likely to do more, to advance the cause of breast cancer research and awareness, Komen or PP? The answer seems obvious to me. So if that is true, and Komen’s decision to stop donating to PP is an outrageous example of putting politics ahead of women’s health, isn’t the decision to stop donating to Komen in defense of PP an even more outrageous example?
As you say, laden with irony.
LikeLike
“pinkfest football and baseball games”
The NHL, in its infinite wisdom had “Hockey Fights Cancer Awareness” month, complete with pink sticks. And they wonder why they can’t get an ESPN deal.
But the sport does have this:
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/penguins-brooks-orpik-launches-daniel-paille-massive-hit-205048441.html
LikeLike
nova,
Wow. I forgot the hockey. Surreality. Not that it isn’t a worthy cause, but I do think it has come to be a little too monopolizing of public consciousness. There are many worthy causes and many people who suffer in many ways. Are these leagues going to wear pink forever?
LikeLike
” Is there a difference?”
Clearly there is. SGK was apparently funding breast cancer screening at Planned Parenthood. Breast cancer screening is not abortion politics.
LikeLike
Scott,
isn’t the decision to stop donating to Komen in defense of PP an even more outrageous example?
Yes, that’s one of the main problems I have with all this. If funding for breast cancer screening should be untainted by abortion politics, then that is the very reason why no one should insist that SGK fund PP, and it is the attacks on SGK for withdrawing the funding that are most responsible for injecting abortion politics.
In my cynical view, that is really the motivation for much of the protest.
LikeLike
The thing than struck me was the $$ amount involved. Less than $1 million. That doesn’t even qualify as budget dust.
LikeLike
NoVA:
That doesn’t even qualify as budget dust.
I’d be happy to take some of budget dust off your hands.
LikeLike
bsimon:
SGK was apparently funding breast cancer screening at Planned Parenthood. Breast cancer screening is not abortion politics.
The question was not whether there is a difference between breast cancer screening and abortion politics. The question was whether there is a difference between SGK’s abortion politics and it’s PP politics, specifically with regard to what the video woman was disparaging SGK over. I don’t see a difference.
The assumption seems to be that Komen’s original decision was driven by its opposition to abortion, and its understanding of PP’s role as the nation’s most prominent abortion provider. It is for this that it has been disparaged for injecting “politics” into breast cancer funding. Whether you want to call this “abortion politics” or “PP politics”, it is referring to the same thing.
LikeLike
As the dollar amounts are large, there are political considerations. Go back to the 1980s, when HIV first burst onto the national scene. The Reagan administration appeared to minimize the epidemic and more than a little blame was cast at the victims. Funny how God appears to favor lesbians, whose infection rates were lower than heterosexual women. But I digress. The early lack of emphasis appeared to correlate with the infected groups (at least in the U.S.)–gay men and IV drug users. Not to mention a socially conservative administration. C. Everett Koop’s comments are fairly clear on this matter.
I am trying to figure out how the resurrection of this old chestnut that Reagan was responsible for the spread of aids is relevant.
The ridicule doesn’t change the fact that AIDs was and is spread behaviorally, if not by two actors then at least by one. One needs to make no moral judgments about the behaviors to recognize that fact, but there was and still is a vocal minority resistant to the implications of that reality, sometimes militantly so. Speaking of ironies, it has always struck me as a supreme irony that Reagan is blamed by people who reviled him for somehow not stopping the spread of the disease, even while they often were unwilling to accept the basic facts of the matter or public health measures (like restrictions on blood donations) that might have helped.
LikeLike
nova:
The thing than struck me was the $$ amount involved. Less than $1 million. That doesn’t even qualify as budget dust.
Which is one reason why it is obvious to me that the whole uproar has much, much more to do with snuffing out any potential criticism of PP and it’s primary business, abortion, than it has to do with funding breast cancer screening/treatment.
LikeLike
Just dropping in for a second because work is shouting (not calling) today, but I’m glad to see that this is starting to provoke conversation. Some of your questions/comments I’m going to ignore for now because we’re going to get back into it—and with greater vigor—once I put up what now looks like part 3c—abortion politics (it’s looking like 3a will be breast cancer and politics and 3b will be women’s health and politics).
So in chronological order, here are my comments to answer yours so far:
Scott:
Of course breast cancer is a political issue. Why do you suppose breast cancer research gets more than double in federal funding than does research into prostate cancer? Why do you suppose it gets federal funding at all?
Breast cancer is not a political issue. Funding for research is. You’re not seriously questioning funding for research, are you? Breast cancer research is better funded than prostate cancer research for a plethora of reasons, but (personal experience and information here, not surveys or linkable studies) breast cancer research is better marketed (see Komen), breast cancer can strike more people at a younger age, breast cancer affects both genders (men get breast cancer, too, while women simply can’t get prostate cancer), and breasts are more visible than prostates. Plus, Komen was the ringleader—nobody ever envisioned being able to raise money the way Komen has until Komen did it.
NoVA:
the hesitation/refusal of the local pols to get involved is simply the nature of the disease and that it has the word “breast” in it?
Believe it or not, so far as I can tell, yes. Now that has been combined with the whole Planned Parenthood thing, but honestly, up till now, as far as I could tell when I was involved in conversations with them it was the word “breast”. Inconceivable, I know.
Kevin:
With 35% of when who identify or lean Republican, surely you could find one somewhere
Sorry, I was using shorthand. I didn’t mean Republicans in general, I meant politicians holding office. I’ll try to be distinct from here on out as to what I see office holders vs voters doing.
NoVA:
Life expectancy in this country is X*. What do you want it to be, how much should we spend to get it there and where would you allocate the resources?
You’ve hit another nail on the head. Can I plug it into the 50?
George/McWing:
I know individuals that are Republicans that believe that abortion is murder.
I know individuals that are Democrats who believe the same; the difference is that they don’t believe that they should legislate those beliefs. We’ll get into this more later, but that is the basis of that part of my multi-part post. So go ahead and start mustering your arguments, because that’s where we’ll fight this one out.
Qb:
I viewed the firestorm of outrage as 90% motivated by the desire to compel validation of, and support for PP,
There was internal (what I’m telling all of you about) and external (Facebook, etc.) outrage. The internal firestorm has less to do about support for PP than it does for women’s health in general.
evidence for routine breast cancer [screening/mammography–a bit of extrapolation on my part] before age 50 is too weak for it to be recommended.
Indeed. I quit getting them four years ago after two false positive scares. This is another point at which I part ways with breast cancer awareness advocates. But I’m a particularly well-informed consumer, so I don’t disparage their efforts to get less well informed women screened.
OK, out again for a while. I hope these have answered a few of your points.
LikeLike
Interesting comments. I said last week that if SGK doesn’t want to fund breast cancer screening through PP, I have no problem with that. They can do what they want obviously. I thought it was very disingenuous to pretend it was based on the fact that PP is under some Republican Congressional investigation. There has been a lot of pressure on them from the right to end those grants, so be it. Those of us who support both PP and breast cancer screening for disadvantaged women can carry the slack. I think SGK has done a lot to raise awareness which is nothing but good, and so everyone individually will have to decide whether they’ve politicized the issue or not. I think they have and I think it’s unfortunate because they will probably lose quite a bit of funding over it.
The assault on PP from the right is extremely short-sighted in my opinion and the fewer options women of less means have to access the health care system through Planned Parenthood or similar community oriented facilities the more expensive it will be for all of us in the long run.
One of those 19 affiliates is here in So Cal. San Bernardino fluctuates between being the poorest city/county in the state and one of the bottom five or so. The woman in the video mentioned the fact at the beginning that she had excellent care for her disease, but other women are not so fortunate, hence her assumed support of PP. I guess you guys missed that part of her statement.
To pretend that cancer screening for younger women is somehow not important is completely irrational. 1 in 233 women age 30-39 will get breast cancer and young women in their 20’s find lumps on their breasts. I do agree though that the pink ribbon stuff has gone overboard, but not because it demeans men’s sporting events but because I think it’s glamorized breast cancer as a rite of passage and made it too cute by half. A lot of us who went along with some of the nonsense did it because the cause is just, but I think you’ll see a lot of us re-evaluating that stand in the future.
LikeLike
FB:
The Komen foundation made what appears to be a political decision. Those involved should have been prepared for a political reaction.
I agree. Having involved itself with an organization which sits at the very epicenter of the most politically polarizing and enduring issue of the last 40 years, it was extremely naive of it to imagine it might extricate itself without the vitriol that has ensued.
LikeLike
Scott:
The assumption seems to be that Komen’s original decision was driven by its opposition to abortion, and its understanding of PP’s role as the nation’s most prominent abortion provider.
I’m not telling you about assumptions here, I’m telling you about what happened. An individual (Karen Handel) used Komen to drive her own personal train. Breast cancer and abortion are very different things, so let’s not confuse the issue.
LikeLike
Michi and lmsinca,
Thanks for the education…Just great stuff in your reporting Michi and I like your editorial responses lmsinca…as a man I’m always very, very concerned about how ladies feel about issues that primarily effect them and not men. This is not to say men should stay out of these issues…it’s just to confess one individual’s feelings. I think I see things differently when they are viewed through the prism of a woman’s eyes, but then that’s true abouy a lot of subjects…which is why we love their prisms right guys?
LikeLike
I am trying to figure out how the resurrection of this old chestnut that Reagan was responsible for the spread of aids is relevant.
That’s because this particular chestnut was left in the roasting pan. The comment was about the political nature of funding HIV research. But, hey, it’s so much more fun attacking a straw man.
Scott – If that wasn’t a relevant consideration in the Komen Foundation’s grant applications, then it wasn’t. Next thing, they’ll be going after the Girl Scouts. Oh wait. Already happened.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Girl-Scout-Troops-Banned-from-Church-137815843.html
BB
LikeLike
Whoops. Wrong bracket.
BB
LikeLike
And let me add that mammography is not the only screening process. Many young women go straight to an ultra-sound when they’ve found a lump, which cuts down on the false positives and determines the nature of the lump very quickly without further testing.
LikeLike
lms:
Many young women go straight to an ultra-sound
If my screenings had gone there (rather than mammography) I wouldn’t have had my scares. I don’t know why they don’t, and it’s a personal battle on a local front that I’m waging; from what I can tell mammograms pay more to the provider than ultrasounds.
LikeLike
To pretend that cancer screening for younger women is somehow not important is completely irrational. 1 in 233 women age 30-39 will get breast cancer and young women in their 20′s find lumps on their breasts.
I don’t consider the United States Preventive Services Task Force to be irrational or pretending anything. They review and analyze scientific evidence for health interventions. Failures of intuitive beliefs to pass scientific review are to be expected, unless one takes the position that everyone should have all possible screening tests irrespective of scientific analysis of their benefits and detriments.
I know quite a bit about breast cancer science and epidemiology, as well as epidemiological evaluation of screening tests. The number or percentage of a population who are diagnosed with a disease is only one relevant factor.
Btw, I have not watched the linked video. I’m not going to be persuaded of anything by some angry and (it sounds) irrational lady telling SGK to kiss it, so I don’t see a point it watching.
LikeLike
Mich:
An individual (Karen Handel) used Komen to drive her own personal train.
By which you mean what, exactly?
Just to be clear, are you saying that Komen’s original decision was not driven by an opposition to abortion, and the central role that PP plays in making them accessible?
Breast cancer and abortion are very different things, so let’s not confuse the issue.
I don’t think anyone has confused breast cancer for abortion. Not sure what your point is here.
LikeLike
The only reason I know about this michi is because both of our daughters are high risk and have both had ultra sounds. Lucky so far. And both of them have been to PP for screenings and birth control as college students or without insurance. From there they were sent to other lower cost women’s centers for the ultra sounds.
LikeLike
FB:
If that wasn’t a relevant consideration in the Komen Foundation’s grant applications, then it wasn’t.
I’m not at all sure of the relevance of this to what I said.
Next thing, they’ll be going after the Girl Scouts. Oh wait. Already happened.
That’s simply untrue. Perhaps you didn’t read it, but the article you linked to was about a church in Virginia, not Komen.
LikeLike
Scott:
I mean Karen Handel had an anti-abortion, anti-Planned Parenthood agenda long before she was hired by Komen. She drove that agenda through an organization that, up until now, has been very successfully non-political
Read back through the comments–PP/abortion are being confused with Komen’s mission..
LikeLike
qb, we’re talking about two different things. I’m not saying that it is a viable project to routinely screen younger women as a matter of course. I’m referring to the fact that there are younger women who need both a screening and a referral based on family history or finding a lump and that younger women do indeed get breast cancer. Women of all ages go to PP when they don’t have access or the financial ability to access the health care system. From there they send them on their way for further testing if it seems warranted. Not everyone in the country has easy access to an OB/GYN or even a GP who can refer them for testing.
LikeLike
Individualized screening recommendations based on factors like high risk factors are entirely legit, but to me it is still relevant that this is not really PP’s mission.
LikeLike
Mich:
She drove that agenda through an organization that, up until now, has been very successfully non-political
Again, just to be clear…was Komen’s original decision driven by an objection to abortion?
Read back through the comments–PP/abortion are being confused with Komen’s mission..
By who? Certainly not by me.
LikeLike
She drove that agenda through an organization that, up until now, has been very successfully non-political
I think this is where sides differ: whether funding PP, for whatever purpose, can be non-political.
Read back through the comments–PP/abortion are being confused with Komen’s mission..
I don’t see this. Perhaps it would make more sense to think of it this way: Komen’s mission may not be opposition to abortion, but they can by the same token legitimately have the view that giving money to a major abortion provider puts them on the other side of that issue and entangles them with it.
LikeLike
Planned Parenthood’s Mission Statement
Our mission is to actively promote family planning and healthy, responsible reproductive and sexual behavior through the provision of high-quality, comprehensive, educational, counseling, medical, and referral services.
We support the availability of these services, particularly to individuals whose access to other sources of help is limited.
We promote public understanding, acceptance and support for reproductive choice and family planning services.
We also promote public understanding of global problems that stem from population pressures and encourage support of programs working toward solutions to these problems.
LikeLike
RUK – On reproductive issues, I try to think how different the world is for “them” than it is for “us”. Old news, I know, but we keep revisiting it.
LikeLike
Scott – The Komen foundation awards grants for womens’ breast health. [Must. Not. Make. Cheap. Joke.] I’m guessing that the application form didn’t have a disclaimer stating that organizations “at the very epicenter of the most politically polarizing and enduring issue of the last 40 years” are not eligible.
Then again, I think your assessment is wrong. I would pick civil rights as the most politically polarizing issue of the last half century.
Let’s look a look at it from a different perspective. There is an organization which engaged in conspiracy to cover up pervasive sexual abuse of children. If the Komen Foundation were to fund that organization, have they chosen to ally themselves with sexual abuse of children? [Note – the Blade does not shy away from the occasional straw man himself.]
With regards to the other comment, you have (deliberately?) misinterpreted my cheeky comment. They was not the Komen Foundation, but rather those individuals and organizations who have chosen to attack Planned Parenthood by attacking any organization gthat can be associated with PP. Even imaginary associations. Did you read the article? The sub-heading read: St. Timothy in Chantilly cites Planned Parenthood “affiliation”. That is relevant to the current discussion.
BB
LikeLike
Ah, nuts. Must have had a typo and not turned off the bold. Only “They” was supposed to be bolded. Evidently, one can’t edit a comment that was made without logging in via WordPress.
BB
LikeLike
Scott:
was Komen’s original decision driven by an objection to abortion?
To the best of my knowledge, it was driven by Karen Handel’s objection to abortion, yes.
Qb:
I think this is where sides differ: whether funding PP, for whatever purpose, can be non-political.
Oh, yes, this is most definitely where sides differ. You conflate Planned Parenthood with abortion. That’s not what they do. See lms’s posting of their mission statement.
LikeLike
Just to be clear on PP, 35% of their services are contraceptive, 35% sexually transmitted disease, 16% cancer related (including men), 10% pregnancy and pre-natal, 3% abortion services and 1% other.
Anyone remember that horrifying story a couple of years ago about that illegal abortion clinic that was killing full term babies and women were dying etc. If it wasn’t for PP, that’s what we would have more of. Their goal in regards to abortion is safety and prevention. The director prior to Richards, enacted an ongoing campaign during her tenure to promote safe and accessible contraception with the goal of reducing pregnancies and abortions. If you don’t want Planned Parenthood around providing safe abortions then you’ll have to figure out a way to make them illegal again and see what crops up instead. There may be fewer of them but they’ll be more deadly.
The idea expressed here and elsewhere that PP is some sort of abortion mill is simply false. I don’t actually know anyone who is pro-abortion and I’ve been around since before they were legal, but most of us know that they’re not going away either, legal or not. Given the choices I’d rather have a PP around to counsel and provide the services to prevent them in the first place. I understand that abortion is morally reprehensible to some people, at any stage or for any reason, but I don’t think the alternative will work and there are just as many people who believe as long as it’s done early it’s not a moral issue. If I never heard about another young girl having an abortion I’d be elated, or if not a single other woman or child was raped, or if ectopic pregnancies didn’t exist and there was never a situation where anyone of us could possibly envision the need for a safe abortion, we’d all be a lot happier and rest a lot easier. Unfortunately that’s not the world we live in and you can’t always dictate to someone else your moral code or envision the weight they balance when making decisions.
LikeLike
Bravo, lms. Well said.
I am trying to reserve comment until I see michi’s third (last?) installment. But with you carrying the load perfectly for me, I don’t need to comment.
LikeLike
okie, I wanted to wait also, but couldn’t let a few of the comments go without some sort of response. I have wished my entire life that things were simpler and we emphatically knew exactly what to do in every circumstance. Unfortunately, it doesn’t always work out that way. There are competing benefits and costs to any decision and it’s not necessarily crystal clear in every situation, for most of us anyway.
Don’t worry I’m saving some fire power for the last installment.
**edited to remove a couple of always(es)
LikeLike
Woo hoo, lms!
that’s not the world we live in and you can’t dictate to someone else your moral code or envision the weight they balance when making decisions.
Slightly edited by me. You guys want to bring it, we’re going to fight back, and you won’t win. I promise that.
LikeLike
okie, the third installment is turning into three parts itself (breast cancer, Planned Parenthood, and abortion). I’ve said before and I’ll say again–I was blessed when it comes to genes. I don’t have cancer in my family, so my goal when it comes to Komen is to put on the best Race possible.
When you start talking about abortion rights you’re talking about a whole ‘nother can of worms, and I won’t back down on that, either.
LikeLike
great stuff in your reporting Michi
Coming from you, ruk, I’m highly flattered by that. I’m not good at providing dispassionate reporting, but I’m trying my best on this set of stories.
LikeLike
I’m off to bed…..another day of fighting my internet connection on one of our networked babies. Luckily my own computer geek (and a very nice one) is coming over to help me out tomorrow.
LikeLike
FB:
I’m guessing that the application form didn’t have a disclaimer stating that organizations “at the very epicenter of the most politically polarizing and enduring issue of the last 40 years” are not eligible.
That sounds like a good guess, but still irrelevant to what I originally said. Whether or not such a disclaimer existed, it was still naive of them to have thought they could extract themselves from PP without the outrage which has manifested itself. It is extremely odd that you think otherwise, especially since you yourself already said they should have expected the reaction they got.
Then again, I think your assessment is wrong. I would pick civil rights as the most politically polarizing issue of the last half century.
Again, I find that very odd. First, I said the last 40 years not the last half century. Second, the nation is, and has been for some time, split roughly evenly between those who are pro- and those who are anti-abortion. I know that many on the left like to pretend that there exists a significant portion of the population that is opposed to civil rights, but in fact there is essentially no such opposition, and very little polarization regarding the issue.
If the Komen Foundation were to fund that organization, have they chosen to ally themselves with sexual abuse of children?
I don’t know. But in such a case it would certainly be true to say that they had an association with an organization that had covered up sexual abuse, which is the proper analogy to it’s association with the nation’s largest abortion provider. And in such a situation, should they decide to stop funding whatever breast cancer screening/research that the organization was doing in order to disassociate themselves from it, it would certainly be interesting to see if the same people who are so upset today would be equally upset and accuse it of injecting politics into the issue of breast cancer. Somehow I doubt it very much.
Like I said, i think the uproar has much more to do with defending PP than it has to do with breast cancer funding.
Note – the Blade does not shy away from the occasional straw man himself.
You are far too modest.
With regards to the other comment, you have (deliberately?) misinterpreted my cheeky comment.
I interpreted it in the only way that allowed it to be at all relevant to our conversation. I suppose I could have assumed you were deliberately injecting a non- sequitur into the discussion. Were you?
They was not the Komen Foundation, but rather those individuals and organizations who have chosen to attack Planned Parenthood by attacking any organization gthat can be associated with PP.
But we were talking about Komen, not those individuals and organizations etc, etc.
<Did you read the article?
Of course. How else do you think I knew it wasn’t talking about Komen?
The sub-heading read: St. Timothy in Chantilly cites Planned Parenthood “affiliation”. That is relevant to the current discussion.
It’s not relevant in the slightest to what I have been talking about.
LikeLike
Mich:
To the best of my knowledge, it was driven by Karen Handel’s objection to abortion, yes.
So, then, I don’t understand your objection, at 3:19, to what I said.
LikeLike
Scott, you refer to PP as “the nation’s largest abortion provider.” Do you have something to back this up? I honestly don’t know. I do know, as lms stated above, it is a miniscule part of the services they provide.
LikeLike
lms:
that’s not the world we live in and you can’t dictate to someone else your moral code or envision the weight they balance when making decisions.
You mean like the weight that Komen gives to its opposition to abortion when making decisions about where to place its donations? Unfortunately, there seems to be an awful lot of people who want to dictate, or at least influence through the imposition of great political pressure, their moral code onto Komen.
LikeLike
Mich:
You guys want to bring it, we’re going to fight back, and you won’t win. I promise that.
who are you talking to, and what are you talking about?
LikeLike
okie:
Wikipedia along with several pro-life sites credit PP with being the largest provider of abortions in the US. (I’m on my iPad so hard to provide links, but just google “largest provider abortion us”.).
As for abortion being a miniscule portion of it’s services, I read somewhere that abortions provide PP with about 35% of it’s total income. I’d have to confirm that, and I’d also be interested in how much of its cost base is due to abortion services.
LikeLike
Well, Scott, you.
If you really don’t understand my earlier comment (“I’m not telling you about assumptions here, I’m telling you about what happened. An individual (Karen Handel) used Komen to drive her own personal train. Breast cancer and abortion are very different things, so let’s not confuse the issue.”)
then we don’t have a discussion.
LikeLike
Ah, Scott. As far as I know, the civil rights struggle was active in 1971. And abortion was an active political topic in the 60s. So, I’ll stick with the last half century and you can thank it for the election of Richard Nixon and a wave of southern Republicans. Indeed, the polarization between the parties
The linked article referenced Planned Parenthood. Rumors associating the GIRL SCOUTS with PLANNED PARENTHOOD led a Catholic priest to bar them from the grounds. Only the deliberately obtuse would fail to note a potential link to topics under discussion.
BB
LikeLike
Mich:
If you really don’t understand my earlier comment
I really don’t understand. It seems we agree on what caused Komen’s initial decision. So I don’t understand the challenging tone in response to having simply stated it.
Well, Scott, you
What are you inviting me to “bring”? Seriously.
I’ve made two primary points here. First, that politics has always played a significant role with regard to funding for breast cancer. One of the reasons that breast cancer is so well funded with federal dollars is that the breast cancer lobby has been much more politically astute than other lobbies. So the pretense that Komen is suddenly injecting politics into an otherwise non-political issue, as the woman in your video did, is just that…a pretense.
Second, I think that the over-the-top reaction to Komen’s initial decision generally derives not so much from passion about breast cancer but rather from defensiveness about PP and the central role it plays in the abortion debates.
What it is about these two points that might prompt your Bush-like “bring it” challenge and a promise to “fight” remains, I must confess, a mystery to me.
LikeLike
Scott, in this Wiki article, it states that as of 2009, abortion procedures were 15% of PP’s income. As opposed to this where Laura Ingraham erroneously claimed “we know that Planned Parenthood makes most of its money from the abortion procedure.” Or perhaps from LifeNews, which goes through a windy, tortured argument to “prove” that PP derived 38% of its 2009 income from abortion services. From the google you suggest, I see a number of references to PP as “nation’s largest abortion provider” but nothing that backs that up.
Why go into the weeds on this at all?
LikeLike
Oops, I lost the LifeNews link. But it’s late and I’m signing off. Night all.
LikeLike
FB:
As far as I know, the civil rights struggle was active in 1971.
Perhaps somewhat, but it was really wasn’t much of a “struggle” at that point since it had not only already achieved it’s goal of assuring blacks equal legal rights, but it had ceased to become an especially polarizing issue as hardly anyone actually opposed civil rights for blacks by then. And if not by then, certainly over the course of the ensuing 40 years. Civil rights just is not a particularly polarizing issue anymore, and has not been for a long time. Although I guess I do understand why some people cling to it as a political issue the way a child clings to his security blanket.
So, I’ll stick with the last half century
Stick to whatever you want, but if you are going to dispute something I said, it would be more productive to dispute what I actually said, not “stick” with something I didn’t say.
Only the deliberately obtuse would fail to note a potential link to topics under discussion.
What is the link between your article and what I have been talking about here?
LikeLike
okie:
Why go into the weeds on this at all?
Mainly because you asked me about it.
LikeLike
I guess I don’t know how to be more clear. Just because some Planned Parenthood clinics provide abortions doesn’t mean that every woman going to a PP clinic is going there to get one. And yet that is why conservatives want to run Planned Parenthood out of business—because every woman going into a PP clinic is a potential abortion seeker.
What you’re bringing is the argument that women should not be able to avail themselves of the full range of legally and medically appropriate health care options simply because you, as a man and as a conservative, don’t like the provider. You, as an individual, may not feel like you’re doing this but you support the political party that is doing this. So yes, this argument makes me very combative; when you exhibit no empathy or sympathy for women who have had to fight a battle that you never will it makes me less than willing to be polite and say “Well, you have a point.”
LikeLike
Scott, I asked you about calling PP the “nation’s largest abortion provider,” and it turns out you do not know if that is correct or not. But I did not go into the weeds and ask you about % income from abortion services, etc. Credit where credit is due and all that.
LikeLike
Mich:
And yet that is why conservatives want to run Planned Parenthood out of business—because every woman going into a PP clinic is a potential abortion seeker.
No, that is not why at all. They just don’t think the provision of other less objectionable services automatically gives them a pass on abortion. Would the fact that a pedophile also is a fantastic teacher make his pedophilia less objectionable to you?
What you’re bringing is the argument that women should not be able to avail themselves of the full range of legally and medically appropriate health care options simply because you, as a man and as a conservative, don’t like the provider.
I have made no such argument here.
I also don’t understand your introduction of my gender (“you, as a man…”). You are aware that a very significant portion of women oppose abortion, are you not? Indeed, the person whom you blame for Komen’s initial decision is a woman. It is an unfortunate tic of the pro-choice movement that it presumes to speak for women as if they were a homogenous group with a single thought on the issue of abortion.
when you exhibit no empathy or sympathy for women who have had to fight a battle that you never will
I see. So empathy and sympathy can only be expressed via agreement with what Mich says. Forgive me if I am unmoved by this type sexist argument and emotional blackmail.
LikeLike
So because abortion is objectionable to you less objectionable services shouldn’t be available. Don’t try to cloud the issue.
I don’t think that I’ve tried to engage in a sexist argument or emotional blackmail here. so much as I’ve called you out for defending what boils down to a sexist and emotional response to a medical procedure. Abortion exists. It always has and it always will. The question, to me, is do we make it safe and less necessary (birth control).
LikeLike
okie:
I asked you about calling PP the “nation’s largest abortion provider,” and it turns out you do not know if that is correct or not.
You are correct in that I have not done my own, independent analysis, so I don’t “know” it in the way I “know” what I had for dinner yesterday or I “know” what an interest rate swap is. Like most information that we “know”, I am assuming that trusted sources of information are correct. It is also a claim that makes intuitive sense to me, given the prominence of PP both among abortion foes and supporters, along with the fact that PP is a national rather than a local provider. If you have information that the claim is false, I am certainly open to hearing it, but the absence of ontological certainty on my part doesn’t seem like a convincing reason to dismiss the claim.
But I did not go into the weeds and ask you about % income from abortion services, etc.
Well, you did introduce the notion that abortion represents a “miniscule” portion of what PP does, raising the issue of just what might be “minuscule”.
LikeLike
Scott, I am not challenging that PP is the nation’s largest abortion provider, just curious myself. From my quick review, it would be very hard to prove or disprove that statement. It does not look like the base numbers would be very reliable, if existent. For example, would those numbers include all of the d&c procedures performed by private providers nominally for other purposes but in reality (my contention from anecdotal evidence) for the purpose of abortion for those who are able to pay for it?
I’ll await the next installment from Michi and we can see then if this is even worth discussing in that context.
BTW, are you back on quotation duty or is it still lms and michi? Whoever is putting them up, I’m impressed with the continued great job!
LikeLike
Mich:
So because abortion is objectionable to you less objectionable services shouldn’t be available.
Huh? I never said that. In fact I am not aware of anyone who says that. Although you seem to be arguing the mirror of this, ie that because less objectionable services are available, abortion shouldn’t be objectionable. I find that an odd argument.
Don’t try to cloud the issue.
An interesting accusation, given that the issue I have been talking about is Komen’s decision and the reaction to it, and you keep insisting that I am talking about something else.
I don’t think that I’ve tried to engage in a sexist argument…
When you say or imply that someone’s position on an issue is driven not by reason but by their gender, as you have done, you are making a sexist argument.
or emotional blackmail here.
When you say or imply that failure to agree with you on an issue means that someone lacks sympathy or empathy, as you have done, your are engaging in emotional blackmail. More strictly speaking, your are making a fallacious appeal to emotion.
so much as I’ve called you out for defending what boils down to a sexist and emotional response to a medical procedure.
Really? It is your considered opinion that opposition to abortion is “sexist”? All those women who oppose abortion are sexists? Now that is a unique perspective, for sure.
LikeLike
Oh, yes, this is most definitely where sides differ. You conflate Planned Parenthood with abortion. That’s not what they do. See lms’s posting of their mission statement.
Abortion most clearly is something PP does. It not only performs abortions but is reliably at the forefront of resisting all regulation of the practice. That is why, for example, a PP entity is the primary plaintiff in many, many constitutional attacks on abortion regulations, like Planned Parenthood v. Casey (names reversed in Supreme Court).
This is why I described PP somewhere above as an institution of the cultural and political left, and it is a very significant one. PP chooses to be at the center of abortion controversies, not only as a major provider but as a litigant and advocate. There is a persisent double-mindedness on your side about this, evident in this very discussion, in which you zealously defend PP for providing critical access to abortion and yet at the same time minimize that function and mission of PP and assail criticism of PP as having a misplaced focus on abortion. This is the contradiction at the heart of the attacks on Komen that started the flap. It is disingenuous to try to sever abortion from PP’s mission.
I’m frankly amused by the use of PP’s official mission statement to try to show that PP is not “about” abortion, or something to that effect. What is the logic here? That because only things like reproductive and sexual behavior are mentioned, and not “abortion,” PP isn’t involved in abortion issues or politics? It’s a universally agreed fact that PP performs abortions, a lot of abortions, no matter what percentage of services you want to believe they represent. The mission statement doesn’t mention breast cancer screening or even anything implying or including it. [Edit: What should we infer from that?]
Unfortunately that’s not the world we live in and you can’t always dictate to someone else your moral code or envision the weight they balance when making decisions.
Like Scott, I find statements like this ironic in the context of a controversy in which abortion defenders attacked SGK for withdrawing funds from an organization that provides and advocates for abortion services.
Aside from the irony, I don’t accept this type of “you couldn’t understand” argument as a valid form of moral argument. Such appeals to psychological inaccessibility simply lead to moral anarchy.
LikeLike
Michi said to Scott:
What you’re bringing is the argument that women should not be able to avail themselves of the full range of legally and medically appropriate health care options simply because you, as a man and as a conservative, don’t like the provider.
This indeed is something like gender-based and emotional blackmail; at least that is a good description of it. Perhaps I should ask my wife to weigh in and fight the fight. She is probably more militant in opposition to abortion than me. I’m not sure what the attack on her would be.
Abortion exists. It always has and it always will.
Murder exists and always has and always will. So has every type of crime and immorality. The existence of behavior does not justify it.
So because abortion is objectionable to you less objectionable services shouldn’t be available. Don’t try to cloud the issue.
Ginormous straw man. I’m pretty sure Scott would be fine with anyone who wants to provide unobjectionable services. I know I would.
LikeLike
raising the issue of just what might be “minuscule”.
I would characterize 3% as minuscule. I don’t think we should conflate charging for services with services provided. There has been bi-partisan support for the Federal government to fund the 97% of services provided by PP, although there have been attempts of late to reverse that, but not for the 3% of services provided. And as far as being the largest abortion provider in the nation…………….obviously. Most states have virtually eliminated any other low cost or legal clinic and so PP remains the only safe and legal entity for women of no or little means to acquire a service that, under certain circumstances, they can choose to have. As okie mentioned, there are other avenues open to women who have insurance and or doctors who are willing to call it something else.
LikeLike
Regarding the composition of PP’s services, I doubt there is any way for any outsider or indeed for 99% of insiders to know exact percentages or uses of funds. To me the fine details really do not matter. PP has positioned itself as the or a (whichever one wants) leading advocate and provider of abortion services. The rest is diversionary imo.
Have to sign off for now.
LikeLike
When you say or imply that someone’s position on an issue is driven not by reason but by their gender, as you have done, you are making a sexist argument.
Or the argument could be that you’re making a sexist argument, because you’re a man, and you can’t help yourself. Which would be a sexist argument, I guess. 😉
so much as I’ve called you out for defending what boils down to a sexist and emotional response to a medical procedure.
I’m not trying to make an analogy between abortion and capital punishment, per se (though I often have), but arguably “lethal injection” is a medical procedure. But clearly that’s an incomplete description, and ignores much broader arguments for and against.
Tangentially, I’ve often argued that the logically consistent arguments would have the left being pro-life and the right being pro-choice, thus making the abortion positions consistent (by and large) with their positions on capital punishment and the justification for the large numbers of deaths brought about by war, generally. Either we accept that there are morally justifiable reasons for ending human life (and certainly, life of the mother, even general medical health of the mother, would be a better reason that protecting the free flow of oil at market prices), or it’s just not, and shouldn’t be ended in the womb or in the electric chair. But this is, perhaps, more abstract than the debate about Komen.
About which I will say: they had funded PP breast cancer screenings for a while. This may have had political aspects, but if they were doing grants of breast cancer screenings, anyway, it doesn’t seem quite as overtly political a decision (or issue, certainly) as (A) the elimination of funding for cancer screening by some very pro-life women, or (B) the capitulation and quasi-reversal that satisfies no one because it sends money to PP, and they had just made a big deal about not doing it, so now the pro-life people are more pissed off than had this never happened in the first place, but it also doesn’t guarantee that it will continue to fund PP screenings in perpetuity, so the left is pissed off. And a lot of those folks who raised a ruckus will find some place else for their money, as will a lot of conservatives who might have donated in the past without considering the PP affiliation . . . it’s just boneheaded, all around. The folks in charge of this particular set of decisions ought to be ousted.
LikeLike
Murder exists and always has and always will. So has every type of crime and immorality.
They did not exist prior to, or for a billion years after, the Big Bang, presumably. And won’t exist at some point, if the second law of thermodynamics plays out to its logical conclusion. Now, entropy will always exist (unless, by some manner, the collapse and recreation of the universe alters the physical laws of the regenerated universe).
LikeLike
Would the fact that a pedophile also is a fantastic teacher make his pedophilia less objectionable to you?
So you are equating sexually abusing children with providing a safe and legal medical procedure?
LikeLike
So you are equating sexually abusing children with providing a safe and legal medical procedure?
And isn’t this the real issue? It is a safe and LEGAL procedure.
People who are shooting physicians and other providers and blowing up clinics are literally…by definition terrorists, no better than Al Qaeda or any other religious fanatics acting out of “their” perceived, all knowing, infallible, wisdom from some “higher being” that they claim special access to and receiving special privileges from. How does one debate an issue when one side claims infallibility as given from on high from DIVINITY?
It is as jkt points out a safe and LEGAL procedure. I’d feel a lot more sanguine about the so called feelings of our “religious” folks if they were a little more understanding of ours. We could start for example by pointing out that people who murder and kill and bomb clinics in the name of being “pro life” are nothing more than deranged common terrorists!
A significant group of Catholics, including one running for President, believe birth control is immoral. And so where do we draw the line here? Can we expect to see young children used by their parents as political props to picket the condom counters in the drug stores…will some group calling themselves…Catholics for LIfe start a boycott of CVS, Walgreens, WalMart or any retail outlet that sells condoms?
There has been a discussion about the impact of gender on this discussion…I can far more easily and logically discuss “reproductive issues” with a woman than with someone who claims Divine guidance in all these matters and has very little respect for the law where it differs with that person’s “Divine Guidance.”
LikeLike
yello:
So you are equating sexually abusing children with providing a safe and legal medical procedure?
Obviously not in every way imaginable. But in the narrow context of the analogy I provided, namely that the presence of non-objectionable activity along side objectionable activity does make the objectionable activity acceptable, yes
LikeLike
namely that the presence of non-objectionable activity along side objectionable activity does make the objectionable activity acceptable, yes
Or the reverse. Providing an objectionable activity (abortion) along side non-obectionable activities makes everybody focus on the objectionable activity, ala Planned Parenthood. So PP can argue it’s only 3%, but it’s the critical 3%.
LikeLike
Although if one were to really believe that abortion is murder, the existence of a killing chamber right in their home town would be the height of outrage. Anyone not bombing it or killing these baby murderers would be the ultimate hypocrite.
LikeLike
People who are shooting physicians and other providers and blowing up clinics are literally…by definition terrorists
I don’t think anybody is defending that (may have missed it, still have more to read), but in the U.S., eight people have been killed in anti-abortion violence.
So this seems tangential to the broader discussion regarding Komen and Planned Parenthood. Clearly, people who express their personal “conviction” regarding abortion by killing people are criminals, perhaps terrorists, and all suffering from a severe disconnect as regards the moral justification and the ultimate efficacy of their actions.
LikeLike
The other statistic which I have seen is that 10% of their patients get an abortion. The 3% number is consistent since having an abortion would also involve a pregnancy test, some intermediate office visits, follow-up visits, getting contraception and a number of other ‘procedures’ not related to the actual abortion.
The take-away is that 9 out of ten people who walk into a PP clinic do NOT get an abortion.
LikeLike
Although if one were to really believe that abortion is murder, the existence of a killing chamber right in their home town would be the height of outrage. Anyone not bombing it or killing these baby murderers would be the ultimate hypocrite.
This assumes that two wrongs make a right, which is not unusual when it comes to, say, the conduct of war, but wars at least have a somewhat broader consensus as regards their moral justifications (though hardly universal). The same argument could be said as regards anti-death penalty folks—that they are ultimate hypocrites unless they kill everybody involved in the execution of convicted murderers. As well as the penal system, for imprisoning most murderers, rather than killing them immediately, ala Judge Dredd.
LikeLike
How does one debate an issue when one side claims infallibility as given from on high from DIVINITY?
I don’t believe Scott, for example, makes that claim as regards his own position. People can have a moral objection to abortion without resorting to a supernatural creator, and the difference between the infanticide of a 2 day old infant and an 8 month developed fetus is not terribly definitive, thus as it moves backwards, the line between a baby and an unviable tissue mass is more obvious, but never unambiguous.
LikeLike
I was interested in Scott’s claim that the abortion issue splits roughly 50-50, so I had a look at some polling.
The first poll (CBS/NYT) seems to show that ~70% of those polled would prefer to have abortion legal, but half of those would like stricter limits. ~20% would not want to have abortion at all. The KFF poll shows that 66% of people polled are generally in favor of private insurance plans covering birth control and preventative services.
Then there is this ABC News poll:
“At 57 percent, support for legal abortion in all or most cases is about what it’s been on average in polls that have asked it this way since 1995. Most Americans eschew the extreme positions: 23 percent want abortion legal in all cases, and 17 percent want it illegal in all cases. About a third say it should be mostly legal; a quarter, mostly illegal.”
That number jumps to 80+% (for both men and women) when the woman’s life/health is at risk or in cases of incest/rape.
It appears, as always, that results depend on how you phrase the question.
LikeLike
>b>To me the fine details really do not matter. PP has positioned itself as the or a (whichever one wants) leading advocate and provider of abortion services. The rest is diversionary imo.
Gosh, that’s a convenient way to look at it.
Look, if you want to criminalize abortion again you’ll have to go at it from the Supreme Court level, not the provider level. As long as the nation has set standards for what constitutes a safe and legal right of women, wouldn’t it make sense that the service would be provided somewhere? Of course PP is an advocate as the only place in many parts of the country that incorporates that service in conjunction with their many other services to low income or disadvantaged women and men. But to conflate that advocacy with a pro abortion advocacy from a moral standpoint is wrong IMO.
One of the reasons, again IMO, that abortion is a very defensive position for many women who support choice is that those who oppose that choice treat the rest of us as though we’re criminals or morally deficient. It doesn’t seem to matter what our reasons are, or the thought process that goes into our support, or even what we’re saying in reality. There’s obviously something wrong with us on some level. Good luck. A larger percentage of women support choice than the opposite, there’s a reason for that. Maybe that’s something that SGK should consider as they move forward. Like I said though, now it’s become even more of a political decision than it previously was and so they’ll have to expect some push back. Individually women and other donors will decide for themselves which side they fall on now that the sides have been more clearly defined.
LikeLike
,,,the line between a baby and an unviable tissue mass is more obvious, but never unambiguous.
If one believes life begins at conception (sometimes defined as the second a sperm hits an egg), then the line is not ever ambiguous.
LikeLike
“You’ve hit another nail on the head. Can I plug it into the 50?”
Sure thing, thanks.
And the squeamishness might be the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard.
LikeLike
Look, if you want to criminalize abortion again you’ll have to go at it from the Supreme Court level, not the provider level.
Attacking the provider level is exactly the strategy being used. Parental/spousal notification, mandatory ultrasounds, waiting periods, and hospital grade facilities are all tactics designed to make obtaining an abortion as onerous and difficult as possible.
LikeLike
Attacking the provider level is exactly the strategy being used
Clearly that’s true and it is one of the reasons women who believe in choice feel generally under attack, although many claim otherwise.
LikeLike
although many claim otherwise
By that I mean those who are attempting to institute many of the “new” rules. One state, I think OK, even wanted to publish the names of women who’ve had abortions….sheesh
LikeLike
publish the names of women
that’s creepy as hell.
And I saw that the term “helicopter parent” is new to you (consider yourself lucky). My wife and I have discussed this at length. We’re convinced it’s a “rich, east/west coast, white person problem.”
LikeLike
One state, I think OK, even wanted to publish the names of women who’ve had abortions….sheesh
Sheesh is right. HIPAA privacy laws be damned.
LikeLike
One state, I think OK, even wanted to publish the names of women who’ve had abortions….sheesh
I’m guessing it was not the entire state, but one or more activists and or legislators?
That being said, what a horrible strategy, from any imaginable standpoint. And what ashot said. You want to shift popular opinion against your movement, provide fodder for various asocial folks to start harassing women who have had an abortion . . . assuming the even manage to harass the right women, and don’t get confused and target someone whose never had an abortion. And agitate for violation of privacy generally and medical privacy in particular. Brilliant!
LikeLike
If one believes life begins at conception (sometimes defined as the second a sperm hits an egg), then the line is not ever ambiguous.
Then you are under an obligation to explain why life begins precisely at conception, and not before, as the necessary genetic data and potential for life is in the ovum and sperm. One could, in theory, argue for the immorality of contraception and banning it, but making masturbation and menstruation illegal would be quixotic, to say the least.
While people have very firm beliefs on the matter, the line itself remains ambiguous.
LikeLike
Gallup poll on abortion.
Phrasing the question is always important, as is who is asked. But Gallups numbers have self-characterization as pro-life or pro-choice as evenly split.
Partial birth abortions are not popular, apparently.
LikeLike
In the U.S., violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.
This is where you go off the rails Kevin. 8 deaths hardly minimizes the problem If it was confined to “merely” 8 deaths perhaps, but that is far, far from reality. How many other Docs and providers and clinics have shut down out of fear and intimidation. How many Doc/providers/clinics have had their home addresses listed on websites…called things like Tiller the Baby Killer by nationally known TV personalities.
Tiller was only one death…although they shot him twice…but how much other heavy handed behavior short of actual murder is going on…how is this NOT terrorism..you equivocated a bit on that Kevin…do you not agree that any organization..religious or otherwise that places the home addresses of doctors and nurses who provide abortions and label them as evil..baby killers..etc…is that not terrorism. What effect do you suppose this has had for a woman looking for a LEGAL, procedure.
Have they used fear and intimidation to get their way? Or do you call that simply making their point. 8 deaths?…really Kevin shame on your insensitivity…those 8 heroes who died trying to provide LEGAL services are only the tip of this iceberg. This bullying and intimidation is exactly what was taking place at Komen on a political level. If one side can’t win politically they’ll use every device they have to avoid accepting the law of the land!
LikeLike
This is where you go off the rails Kevin.
Well, one of us is, at any rate. 🙂
you equivocated a bit on that Kevin
You need to illustrate specifically what you’re referring to, and I’ll try an clarify.
This bullying and intimidation is exactly what was taking place at Komen on a political level.
Really? Who won that battle?
…really Kevin shame on your insensitivity…
Well, okay. The CDC counted 386 deaths from safe and legal abortions between 1972 and 2003. While perhaps the pro-choice folks aren’t actually trying to kill any adult person, it would seem they have a higher body count. Sensitivity is perhaps in the eye of the beholder, but if were not going to introduce those 386 deaths into the discussion as being relevant to the politicization of Komen/PP, I’m not sure how the eight deaths, perpetrated by domestic terrorists (or, crazy people with access to weapons, if that’s equivocation then I’ll just have to be equivocal).
This bullying and intimidation is exactly what was taking place at Komen on a political level.
So trying to advance a cause through political activism and public pressure is the same thing as murder? Well, at least that’s not a equivocal position!
LikeLike
thus as it moves backwards, the line between a baby and an unviable tissue mass is more obvious, but never unambiguous.
Actually there is an unambiguous solution. We have a clearly defined moment of death, why not simply use the same standard for the beginning of life. Death is defined as when our brain’s flat line and there are no more brainwaves. I can’t think therefore I am not..eh? The same thing could be observed at birth..no brain waves no person…brain waves..a thinking life form….
LikeLike
Partial birth abortions are not popular, apparently.
Why would they be? I’m sure the percentage of people who support partial birth abortions is quite small in reality, especially if they understand the terminology. Supporting choice is not the same. Supporting PP is not the same either.
LikeLike
Why would they be? I’m sure the percentage of people who support partial birth abortions is quite small in reality, especially if they understand the terminology. Supporting choice is not the same. Supporting PP is not the same either.
Not remotely suggesting they were, just reading the poll.
LikeLike
So trying to advance a cause through political activism and public pressure is the same thing as murder? Well, at least that’s not a equivocal position!
Bullying and intimidation can include murder but are not the same as murder. They are the same as bullying and intimidation. You know..like putting out “Wanted Posters” of abortion providers. Or perhaps listing them on a website…or perhaps infiltrating a charity supposedly founded to help in the fight against breast cancer and turning it into a political organization opposed to a law of the land.
As for your equivocation as to whether these folks were terrorists or not….
“Clearly, people who express their personal “conviction” regarding abortion by killing people are criminals, perhaps terrorists,”
It’s not just the murders Kevin…this is a concerted, and coordinated effort that employees violence and the “threat of violence” to coerce their fellow Americans into accepting their beliefs. You diminish the “threat” of violence by limiting it only to it’s success..IE actual deaths…but it’s success could also be measured on the difficulty for many women trying to obtain a LEGAL procedure. Some states have made that a 3+ hour ride to the nearest provider, even for women living in urban areas.
Republican legislatures like the one here in Florida are requiring ultrasounds and doctors lectures and every hoop they can conjure and it’s all for the specific purpose of thwarting a law of our land.
LikeLike
You know..like putting out “Wanted Posters” of abortion providers. Or perhaps listing them on a website…or perhaps infiltrating a charity supposedly founded to help in the fight against breast cancer and turning it into a political organization opposed to a law of the land.
“Wanted Posters” are arguably incitement. Listing people on a website is also arguably a form of incitement, although the same could be said of urging people to write their congressmen. Some responsibilities to have to rest with the people who abuse such information.
As regards “infiltrating” a charity . . . the distinction between that at noble activism seems to be one of what is trying to be done. Becoming part of an organization and trying to shape its path seems, to me, to be the essence of politics. As I noted before, on Alternet, whenever Republican wins, democracy has failed. Whenever Democrats win, it proves democracy can still work. I think this has more to do with the desired outcome of certain parties, rather than representing a real degradation or improvement of the process of Democracy. Similarly, becoming part of an organization in order to shape its direction, or just becoming part of an organization and then, once in charge, changing things to better reflect your values as a leader is generally a good thing, if you (royal) agree with what’s happening philosophically.
LikeLike
One state, I think OK, even wanted to publish the names of women who’ve had abortions….sheesh.
All of you should know by now that you can count on OK to be a leader! The bill that passed in 2009 would not have explicitly published the names of women who had abortions but would have created a “research database” that likely would have made them easily identifiable, especially if they lived in a small town. It was declared unconstitutional, but only because it contained legislation on disparate topics (although all related to abortion) in violation of Oklahoma constitution. See Daily Kos for a pretty good discussion. I have not heard about this particular provision being reintroduced, but I may have missed it as the plethora of abortion restrictions introduced here start to blur after a bit.
LikeLike
Thanks for the clarification okie. I thought I remembered something about OK and the names. I was looking around the internet over the weekend and found a list of measures proposed and some passed throughout the states to either make it more difficult for women to get an abortion or even morning after contraception, or to simply intimidate pro choice advocates and it was really astonishing. I think conservatives pretend it’s only for our own good or hey, it’s still legal we just want the extra hoops in case you’ll change your mind, and ignore the reasons we tend to react a little defensively. Of course, we could just ignore it and hope it goes away…….just like sex among teenagers, rape and incest, medical emergencies, etc. etc.
LikeLike
To sift chaotically through the comments:
those 8 heroes who died trying to provide LEGAL services are only the tip of this iceberg.
Heroes? Really? What is it that makes them heroes? Doing abortions? Being killed? I can’t help but recall that Markos idiot’s verdict on deaths of US soldiers by comparison.
This bullying and intimidation is exactly what was taking place at Komen on a political level.
That is flat absurd. If you want to play that game, four fingers are pointing back at you.
LikeLike
Gosh, that’s a convenient way to look at it.
How is the precise percentage of services provided by PP constituting abortion, or the funding PP derives from it, relevant to these issues? If abortions were 10% or 25%, would that make it okay for SGK not to fund PP? Would that make it okay for someone like me to say that PP is an abortion provider?
I really don’t understand how those details matter when your entire argument is about how critical and valuable it is that PP provides this service. You really are trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Look, if you want to criminalize abortion again you’ll have to go at it from the Supreme Court level, not the provider level.
I’m not sure what that means. First, no one was talking about criminalizing abortion. The discussion was about a private group’s decision not to give money to abortion. Second, even if we were discussing criminalization, there is no way to raise the issue of abortion with the Supreme Court except by passing laws regulating it.
As long as the nation has set standards for what constitutes a safe and legal right of women, wouldn’t it make sense that the service would be provided somewhere?
Again, I don’t know what that means. Make sense? Perhaps to you. It doesn’t mean I have to support it with my money. Porn is legal. That doesn’t mean I have to endorse the work of porn distributors.
Of course PP is an advocate as the only place in many parts of the country that incorporates that service in conjunction with their many other services to low income or disadvantaged women and men. But to conflate that advocacy with a pro abortion advocacy from a moral standpoint is wrong IMO.
PP is a vigorous national advocate for abortion rights and a habitual litigant challenging abortion laws. Its name is on the most important, governing SCOTUS case for the past 20 years. That is the fact of the matter. Whether or not you think that equates to moral advocacy or approval, it is what they do. I personally think it is sophistry to say it is just defense of “choice” and not a moral stance, but PP chose many years ago to make itself a leading advocate and lightning rod.
LikeLike
As for publishing names (not that this was at issue, per Okie), I would not support it. But then I wouldn’t support publication of names of gun owners or signers of petitions to overturn judicial impositions of gay marriage, either, and those are both initiatives that factions on the left have in fact explicitly sought or actually accomplished. The initiative to publish names of opponents of SSM was explicitly an intimidation and threat campaign.
LikeLike
I really don’t understand, I’m not sure what that means, Again, I don’t know what that means. Make sense? Perhaps to you
And here I thought I was being so clear. I was merely trying to provide context re Planned Parenthood and their goals, what they actually do and how much of it and where things stand from the perspective of pro choice and Planned Parenthood advocates. I’m not going to repeat all of it. I clearly think the context is important as a balance to your statements. Porn? Nice touch.
LikeLike
Porn? Nice touch.
A nicer analogy than pedophilia.
LikeLike
True that yello.
LikeLike
yello:
A nicer analogy than pedophilia.
Great. So do you get it now?
LikeLike
But then I wouldn’t support publication of names of gun owners or signers of petitions to overturn judicial impositions of gay marriage, either, and those are both initiatives that factions on the left have in fact explicitly sought or actually accomplished.
Yawn…the tea partiers did that with the Wisconsin recall petitions.
I don’t think either of those activities, gun ownership or signing a public petition, rise to anywhere near the level of privacy that an abortion does. At the very least they don’t have a law that explicitly makes such information confidential and privileged. I had never thought about disclosure of names on petitions, but apparently the SCOTUS thinks its cool by an 8-1 margin. Although apparently you can stop the publication of names if you can show a threat. See Doe v. Reed
LikeLike
RUK:
And isn’t this the real issue? It is a safe and LEGAL procedure.
Well, yes, the fact that it is legal is indeed an issue for those who oppose it. They think it should be illegal.
But contrary to what you seem to think, the fact that it is legal is not a sensible defense of abortion. It is simply a restatement of the problem seen by abortion opponents.
LikeLike
okie:
BTW, are you back on quotation duty or is it still lms and michi?
I’m back tomorrow. Whoever put up the Socrates quote the other day, however, has certainly opened up Pandora’s box.
LikeLike
Scott
What exactly is your position? Should all abortion be illegal, in all cases? Do you believe life begins at conception? If you do, then what is your position on birth control and or the morning after pill? Is it the fertilized egg that represents life to you or the implantation on the uterine wall? If I’m being too personal just say so, but I’m having trouble understanding exactly what your position is.
LikeLike
Whoever put up the Socrates quote the other day, however, has certainly opened up Pandora’s box.
I know nothink……….
LikeLike
I don’t check the quote of the days every day. Is there a place where they are archived?
LikeLike
Sorry yello no archive…….we just edit a new one in every day…..usually Scott does it but we’re all free to email him with suggestions…..or myself or michigoose.
LikeLike
lms:
What exactly is your position?
As I said the other day, my primary position is that the issue belongs in the hands of state legislatures, so that different communities of people can establish for themselves what the right amount of regulation should be.
With regard to which abortion policy I would prefer, while I am sympathetic to the view that it should be outright illegal, I think as a practical matter it should be illegal any time past the point of viability. Which makes it, of course, a moving target.
Should all abortion be illegal, in all cases?
No.
Do you believe life begins at conception?
No other conclusion seems rational to me. Certainly something begins at conception. If it is not life, I don’t know what it is.
If you do, then what is your position on birth control and or the morning after pill?
I have no problem with birth control, and am somewhat ambivalent about the morning after pill.
…but I’m having trouble understanding exactly what your position is.
Maybe that’s because I have been trying to focus on the topic at hand, ie Komen’s decision and the reaction to it, not whether or not abortion should be legal.
LikeLike
LMS, to be frank, when life begins is a philosophical and/or biological argument, but the legal argument is “when does a person exist?”. The rights reserved to us are reserved to persons. Corporations, for example, are certainly persons for many legal purposes. Right now, before birth, a “person” begins when the fetus is viable outside the mother. That time changes with technical/medical advances – it gets earlier. Literally, rights of persons begin at birth, but the Supremes thought that birth should mean “born or could live outside womb”, to … uh … clarify matters.
Scalia has noted that some sharp immigration lawyer is going to argue that a 24 week fetus in an undoc womb on US soil is thus a birthright citizen. I don’t know if anyone has taken him up on that yet.
I am just saying that this discussion should be carried on at both levels, but the two levels should not be conflated.
LikeLike
“That time changes with technical/medical advances – it gets earlier”
22 weeks is the earliest that I’m aware of that survived. but she did.
LikeLike
22 weeks is the earliest that I’m aware of that survived. but she did.
That’s the earliest I have heard, too. What is amazing is how quickly morbidity and mortality statistics have improved for these very premature babies. I think as early as 25 weeks have a reasonable chance of surviving.
LikeLike
I understand that Mark. Is there then the suggestion that PP does not comply with the legal interpretation of life as set forth by the SC? Or is it indeed true that they are pushing or attempting to push the window of viability further out as qb seems to be saying? I admit, as always, to not be clear on the legal perspective. I think advocating to protect the rights we have is different than advocating for more.
Scott, thanks for the clarification. I originally was trying to keep the focus narrow on the debate as I think you’ll see if you read my previous comments……but as always with the abortion/life debate we run afoul. I agree with your comment earlier that it is one of the most divisive issues in the last 40 years so the conversation goes where it wants.
LikeLike
ashot:
What is amazing is how quickly morbidity and mortality statistics have improved for these very premature babies. I think as early as 25 weeks have a reasonable chance of surviving.
Probably even earlier in Cuba, then.
LikeLike
Probably even earlier in Cuba, then.
Nobody dies in Cuba! Except capitalist pigs, of course.
LikeLike
It is being reported that Handel resigned from SGK this afternoon.
See newsok.com..
[Edited to add link]
LikeLike
okie (from the article):
The breast cancer charity cited a probe backed by anti-abortion groups and launched by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., to determine if Planned Parenthood improperly spent public money on abortions. Planned Parenthood says taxpayer money is strictly separated.
That is such a joke. What do they do, mark taxpayer money with a little pink ribbon and only use those for non-abortion related services? Come on. Does anyone actually fall for what amounts to accounting semantics?
LikeLike
Scott, all kinds of professions have to segregate certain funds. We do where I work now. We did it in law firms. Don’t you have some such restrictions?
LikeLike
My best friend had a baby at 25 weeks over 20 years ago and she survived. She weighed just under two pounds. Unfortunately, she suffered for it in that she is mentally disabled, so maybe those kind of outcomes are better now. I hope so. She’s one of my Godchildren and as her older brother died in a car accident at 21, my children will become her guardian if something happens to her parents, unless I’m still around that is. They’re younger than we are though by a few years.
LikeLike
okie:
We do where I work now. We did it in law firms.
How so?
Don’t you have some such restrictions?
Nope.
Brokerage houses like MF Global are (now famously) supposed to keep client funds segregated from firm funds, but that is not simply an accounting gimmick. And if the firm turns it into a mere accounting gimmick, it gets in trouble. Witness MF Global.
LikeLike
Scott, I work now at a fairly large state university, with state funding. I’m sure actual dollars are commingled at some point, but I can assure you that there is no “borrowing” between accounts. We have a bureaucracy dedicated to ensuring that does not happen. At law firms, client funds had to actually be held in separate account(s).
Point is, you state that PP’s statement that “taxpayer money is strictly separated” is on its face a joke. Why so?
LikeLike
okie:
Why so?
Because unless all of the other money that PP receives is also specifically restricted in what it can be used for, then PP can simply use more unrestricted funds for abortion than it otherwise would, and less unrestricted funds for non-abortion services than it otherwise would.
Just for the sake of a simple example, suppose that, in the absence of federal funds, PP’s annual budget is $100 dollars, and it budgets $35 for use providing abortion and $65 for non-abortion services. Then the government decides to give it $30 dollars in federal funding, but the funds cannot be used to provide abortions. SO PP’s budget is now $130, and it decides to spend $50 on abortion services, and $80 on non-abortion services. But it is very strict about making sure that all $30 of the federal funds are allocated to the $80 budget for non-abortion services.
So, after receiving federal funds, PP has magically been able to increase the amount it spends providing abortions all without ever “using” federal funds for abortion services. Money is fungible.
Now, if it is true that PP has no general funds that it can allocate as it sees fit, and all of the money it receives is specifically restricted to the provision of specific, targeted services, then the money is not fungible, I am wrong and the provision of federal funds for one area cannot then be used to increase the budget in another. But if it does have general funds to be allocated however PP sees fit, then clearly the provision of any targeted funds can easily be used to increase non-targeted areas without technically violating the restriction.
LikeLike
Entities that are multiple grantees from government and NGO sources often have to segregate by source and sometimes have to maintain separate checking accounts. Lawyers all over America must keep client funds in separate checking accounts called “IOLTAs”.
I do not know how PPP accounts to its NGO and governmental sources, but I suspect they are audited by each one.
LikeLike
What do they do, mark taxpayer money with a little pink ribbon and only use those for non-abortion related services?
I do not know, but based on my experience find it entirely credible. I suspect that PP keeps tax payer money separate (i.e., in a separate account, and they probably have multiple accounts), upon which funds are drawn or transferred to other accounts, in order to pay certain budget items. If you’re a large organization with multiple sources of revenue and expense, this is almost necessary, and critical for the auditing that any organization that takes federal or state funds may expect. It’s possible they co-mingle and don’t know where the money goes (like the Pentagon), but I expect they have separate accounts and accurately track the funds. I know in our school system, there are multiple separate accounts (real accounts: there are hundreds of “virtual” accounts for the purpose of tracking and auditing), and that the allocation of funds for their intended purpose is scrupulous, documented, and audited. There is no co-mingling. 😉
At the same time (back to PP), it’s a non-issue as federal funding used for some programs free up other funds for abortion advocacy that might otherwise have to go to keeping the lights on or as grants to various types of cancer research. You cannot say that for sure, but you have to make fewer hard budgeting decisions with more money rather than less.
LikeLike
The CDC counted 386 deaths from safe and legal abortions between 1972 and 2003.
Those sound like better odds than carrying to term:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20427256/ns/health-pregnancy/t/more-us-women-dying-childbirth/#.TzH1KZ-iHng
“The U.S. maternal mortality rate rose to 13 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2004, according to statistics released this week by the National Center for Health Statistics.
The rate was 12 per 100,000 live births in 2003 — the first time the maternal death rate rose above 10 since 1977.”
… “Some health statisticians note the total number of maternal deaths — still fewer than 600 each year — is small” [bolding mine]
LikeLike
Those sound like better odds than carrying to term:
Good point. Babies are, for all practical purposes, the same as terrorists! (that’s actually directed at Ruk, bsimon, just to be clear 🙂 )
LikeLike
Scott, I understand the fungibility argument, which is not new and certainly is not limited to PP. I did not understand that to be the point you were making in your original comment quoting from the article. Since this thread is about the SGK decision not to grant money to PP and then reversing that decision, I’ll just leave it at that.
LikeLike