Komen says “No, No, No” to Abortion.

The Susan G. Komen Foundation has recently decided to cease making donations to Planned Parenthood in light of the organization’s continued involvement in abortions.  An Washington Post/ AP article broke the news yesterday.

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, released a statement in which he said,

“We are alarmed and saddened that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation appears to have succumbed to political pressure. Our greatest desire is for Komen to reconsider this policy and recommit to the partnership on which so many women count.”

To be fair, not all women who attend Planned Parenthood do so for abortion purposes.  Some attend for free womens’ care, gynecological needs, and breast exams.  Thus, some women will certainly be impacted by decisions like these.  Still yet, the “other needs” option may be a drop in the bucket compared to the massive numbers of women who use Planned Parenthood for abortion purposes.

As a result of the Komen Foundation’s decision, Planned Parenthood saw a spike in giving and the Komen Foundation saw a decreasing in giving.  Thus, the ideological divide grew larger as the news cycle progressed.

Now, I am not a fan of politicians who use abortion rhetoric to garner support in the form of votes.  I am also not necessarily offended by politicians who side-step abortion related conversations in an attempt to avoid political traps. Nonetheless, I am opposed to abortions. These procedures kill human beings.  Period.  Even those who argue for abortions to protect the mothers’ life must admit that they do so by ending another life.

So if the Komen foundation, who exists to prevent the loss of life due to cancer, wants to stop funding an organization that aims to prevent the loss of life by killing lives, then so be it.  It is Komen’s choice to do so.  If people want to be upset with Komen for their decision, that is their choice as well.  If people want to praise Planned Parenthood’s pap smear and breast exam services, that is wonderful.  But can we please ask them to stop killing kids?

About Doug Hankins

Although not a Christian in his youth, Doug came to believe in Jesus during his teenage years. When not playing sports or pastoring Doug is probably spending time with his wife, reading a good book, or drinking some hot tea. Doug's first book Dawson Trotman: In His Own Words is available wherever books are sold. You can follow Doug on twitter.
This entry was posted in Culture and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Komen says “No, No, No” to Abortion.

  1. Caterine says:

    hey i did not understand what are you saying about. somewhat i understood on that basis i don’t agree with this. thanks for posting.http://www.musicaparabaixar.net

  2. Dalva says:

    the post is actually the freshest on this laudable subject. i harmonize with your conclusions and will look forward to see your approaching updates.http://www.icarlyjogos.net

  3. Amen. I am very thankful for this news. No matter the “good” services Planned Parenthood may tout, just the mention of their name is synonymous with abortion….any monies that supposedly ONLY go towards the mammograms and pap smears, still keep it’s services in business and it’s primary business is abortion.

    • Soufiane says:

      Hi Shelly,I’m the finerd Kaitlin quoted and I’m really disappointed to see the lack of concern for the very real danger defunding Planned Parenthood poses for women with health conditions. We disagree on abortion. I am a proud pro-choice activist who donates all extra income to NARAL-Pro Choice America and PP. I have lobbied on Capitol Hill, written on women’s rights for various publications, and marched in demonstrations. I will continue the fight for reproductive rights NOT because I want to end lives, but because I want to save them. Mine included. You offer no practical solutions for women like me, only condemnation.Also, it’s simply not true that federal funding for PP frees up funds for abortions. That’s been debunked many times, as a quick Google search will tell you. That’s really Kaitlin’s point do your research. You haven’t, clearly, if you’re going to use that argument. It’s also not true that contraception works as an abortifacient. That too has been debunked, again, many times over. You seem especially confused about the function of IUDs. An IUD prevents an egg from being released at all. Fertilization can’t occur. This is basic medical fact.You’re right about Margaret Sanger’s views on eugenics, but PP does not uphold eugenic values. That’s clearly visible from the organization’s mission and its incredibly diverse workforce. I’d also like to point out that the Bible never mentions abortions. People take a few verses out of context and twist them to suit their political opinions. It’s very sad.

      • Hemyerbe says:

        Maha -Thanks for taking the time to write more about the Defining aoiotbrn terms’ part of your post, and point. I can’t argue with them at all because one, I definitely don’t have the facility with this topic that you seem to, second, it reads reasonably and three, it isn’t really what provoked me re: what Obama is quoted as saying.As you can guess from my comment, it’s the explaining Obama part of your post’s title that intrigues me, and that your comment doesn’t address as much. I think you try to here, Maybe a psychiatrist would have a different view. I don’t have a problem with having the mental health exception on the books, but I wonder how often it actually applies to real-world situations, if ever?My impression is that offering to compromise on the mental health exception (if that’s what Obama was doing; it’s not clear) is a symbolic gesture that would have no effect on the real world, but makes Obama seem less radical to the electorate. Or something.There have been some attempts by Democratic legislators going back to the late 1980s to pass a gestational limit that would ban third trimester aoiotbrns with only a physical health of the mother exception. The thinking behind this is that it would take the fire out of a lot of Fetus People propaganda. It never goes anywhere because right-wingers kill it. They want the propaganda more than the ban.But the fact remains, Obama and his campaign really need to explain, themselves, what he was thinking and is thinking. We can’t judge whether the quote shows a lack of sophistication in understanding mental health or if he was deliberately using the language he used (and he’s usually pretty deliberate, from what I can tell).And, again, the implications elsewhere for downgrading mental health in this scenario could be grave, if Obama does not clarify his meaning here.I come at this from the perspective of someone who has followed and wanted mental health parity at different levels for almost three decades. Red flags go up and they can be brought down.But the explanation of the aoiotbrn terms alone, isn’t making it go down yet.

Comments are closed.