What’s Wrong with the World

I've boycotted SGK for YEARS over this issue. I mean, even if it wasn't something intrinsically evil...even if it was a home for battered women, it's fiscally irresponsible. I would love to give to a home for battered women, but when I give to breast cancer research I don't want the money used in any other way than breast cancer research.

In debate team terms, shouldn't the advocates for PP's funding be bringing forward "need, plan, benefit" kinds of stuff? Shouldn't they be showing, clearly and in detail, how Planned Parenthood actually helps to save the lives of women or treat women in relation to breast cancer if they want to make an argument that they should be receiving funding from a breast cancer foundation? And in fact, since probably there are a lot of worthy organizations out there referring women for mammograms, shouldn't people who want Komen to fund PP have to provide evidence that PP is doing something especially noteworthy in this area?

We're talking about leftists here, people like al and worse. Intellectual honesty and first principles mean NOTHING to these people; they are totalitarians. I recently saw a good movie called Black Death about a group of medieval knights charged to root out and destroy a rumored necromancer in a remote village thus far spared of the plague. Observe the chillingly blank expressions of the pagans as the knights attempt to discredit their "beliefs." Or see the haunting final scene of the original The Wicker Man. Bruce Charlton is right. Every day, the world is getting more and more defined. The gray areas of life are shrinking as the world sorts itself out into two distinct essences of good and evil.

People who want babies to die are diabolical. They are more morally decadent than the psychopathic Mafiosi portrayed in the Godfather movies, who at least didn't indiscriminately slaughter babies. For that reason alone, it should not surprise anyone to suspect that, years ago, Planned Parenthood executives made it known to the Komen foundation that they would encourage their "patients" to get mammograms on the condition that the Komen foundation rhetorically support "choice" and donate a certain amount of money to PP every year--and that now that Komen has reneged on the agreement extorted from it PP is furious and is retaliating by feeding negative talking points to its yellow journalist lackeys.

I suppose part of what appalls me even as a philosopher is the illogicality of those "negative talking points." Just how stupid must people be actually to repeat them? Doesn't the man on the street, even the man on the street who has no strong pro-life opinions, say to himself when he hears some talking point that Komen is "putting abortion politics above the lives of women," "But wait? Does Planned Parenthood actually help with what Komen is supposed to be all about? Why were they funding them in the first place?" Just basic, logical questions.

I swear, it's like the mere suspicion that PP's abortion practices might have had something, anything, to do with Komen's decision is itself regarded as making that decision evil and bad. And that without any inquiry into the substantial question of whether PP is a worthy beneficiary of the foundation's money in ordinary terms. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Even though PP doesn't offer mammograms, they can probably claim that they do breast exams. Even if only one or two nurses do it once a year.

Anyways, I will be donating to SGK now.

I think that the odd response is not about Komen specifically, but about any organization considering a cessation of funding Planned Parenthood for any reason. The message is "Don't even think about cutting off those dollars, because we will drag you through the mud."

This doesn't strike me as a sensible policy with regard to donors. I doubt the Komen folks would even consider reinstating donations to Planned Parenthood after government investigations have been completed.

Even though PP doesn't offer mammograms, they can probably claim that they do breast exams. Even if only one or two nurses do it once a year.

But by that reasoning, Komen might as well take all OB-gyn doctors in the entire country, put them in an urn, and pick a few to which to donate, collectively, $700,000 per year. Or even all women's primary care physicians in the country. If that's PP's claim to the money, it's laughable.

There was quite a hit piece on NPR yesterday. It included the president of PP claiming that they perform over 700,000 breast exams every year and referrals for mammograms. This same figure is being bruited about elsewhere. I hold no brief for PP, but could there be something to this? If there is, how much money does it cost? Is there something to their claim that poor women come to them for breast exams? Seriously?

Any woman can do her own breast exam in the shower. I find it frankly incredible that women are going to PP specifically and uniquely for that purpose. PP _may_ perform breast exams on some women who come into their clinics and have physicals or female examinations of other kinds (e.g., pelvic exams). If so, it takes approximately thirty seconds of the appointment as a whole. As I said above, every woman's primary care physician who does a yearly physical will perform a breast exam unless the woman doesn't want it. PP has no more claim to special money on this account than any other doctors in the country who are women's doctors for, say, poor women.

This is obviously a counsel of desperation. As we'll all recall, PP's previous talking points when the "defund Planned Parenthood" movement got started included the outright lie that they provide mammograms. Having been caught out in that lie, they shifted to "mammogram referrals" (big whoop) and breast exams.

It's pathetic in its own way.

And it turns out that PP just refers women for "mammograms, treatment and diagnosis." That lie didn't last long.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/02/after-cutting-ties-with-planned-parenthood-komen-donations-up-100-percent/

"One of the most enduring features of the left is its unselfconscious projection of its own conspiratorial imaginings and corrupt modus operandi." Burleigh 'Earthly Powers'

Even if one were TOTALLY convinced that making abortion services available to women was a good thing, one need not support any specific organization who offers them. One might conclude that an organization that is perfectly willing to help out pimps / human slavery organizers isn't where you want to put your money for helping women. The reality is that the "you must support PP" goons aren't really all about helping women, they are all about whatever furthers the hedonistic pelvic lifestyle of the masses. Which agenda comes to us from a fiend from below.

Because abortion raises the chance a woman might get breast cancer, the case against Komen continuing to fund PP seems rather straight forward.

Because abortion raises the chance a woman might get breast cancer, the case against Komen continuing to fund PP seems rather straight forward.

A revelation for them that should have been as obvious in their line of work as AA not having its meetings in a bar.

Crescat is reporting that Komen's web site was hacked by leftist PP supporters. The armies of love and brotherhood.

Crescat is reporting that Komen's web site was hacked by leftist PP supporters. The armies of love and brotherhood.

It's too bad that Komen doesn't have some good incriminating evidence showing PP works with child molesters. Anonymous loves a chance to go postal on pedophiles and their enablers.

I think it's pretty clear that there are better ways of spending money, if you want to stop breast cancer, than sending it off to PP. That said, you write above:

"Surely we're not just expected to believe without any evidence that PP is a good outlet for Komen's dollars. If, in fact, PP's cheerleaders can't bring any evidence that PP actually prevents, detects, or treats breast cancer, then what possible excuse can they have for the outrage at Komen's cutting out the funding to PP?"

According to a NYT article about the decision to stop funding (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/us/cancer-group-halts-financing-to-planned-parenthood.html?_r=1):

Ms. Richards said all of Planned Parenthood’s affiliates provided around 770,000 women with breast examinations and paid for mammograms and ultrasounds for those who needed and could not afford further diagnostic services. She said she received the news from the Komen foundation in late December and had requested a meeting with officials there to discuss the matter but was rebuffed.

The article also adds:

Ms. Durgin, who has herself had breast cancer, said many low-income women visited Planned Parenthood for their primary health care needs and in the process received breast cancer education and screening that they would not otherwise have made the effort to seek out.

“Any kind of impediment for women, including a referral to go someplace else, will mean that women delay getting further screenings and women who may have cancer will discover it later than they might otherwise,” Ms. Durgin said. “A lot of our clients are just one hassle away from not getting services at all.”

When you write that no one has provided evidence that PP "actually prevents, detects, or treats breast cancer", are you saying that the claims of spokeswomen for PP don't count as evidence, even of a weak sort? That's a perfectly reasonable claim (not that you need my blessing), but for people like me, who don't follow this stuff, are the claims I block-quoted above the sorts of claims that an organization like PP can easily lie about with no repercussions? I know that sounds like a naive question, but it just seems like a claim like the above -- about precise things an organization does -- can easily be fact-checked. Has anyone fact-checked it, and if so, did they find it to be baseless?

(Incidentally, it should be noted that no pro-choice advocate has any doubt at all that Komen is lying about its reasons for the the decision to stop funding PP. They think it's obvious that pro-life efforts have pressured them into doing so, even though those pro-life efforts had previously gone on for years without any effect.)

Bobcat, there _have_ been outright lies previously. For example, initially PP said that it provides mammograms--implying that it actually does the mammograms. Then this was checked out and shown to be false, so this is a retreat position. Frankly, I would have to check independently _any_ such statements, such as that PP *pays for* mammograms.

Secondly, I've already addressed the "breast exam" thing in several comments above, so you can check those. A mere physical exam is exceedingly trivial in terms of time and effort and is done as part of an ordinary physical or other checkup. Again, as I said above, that would be an argument for sending money to _any_ primary care physician who treats low-income women at reduced rates or free, which would of course end up going for all the things that physician does for the women, not in any special way for breast exams.

I would imagine that the congressional investigation is part of the reason, or at least the cause, of Komen's dropping the funding now. As you point out, they didn't listen to the pro-life activists for years, so why just now? The congressional investigation, and the sting efforts that triggered it, have shone an unflattering light on PP's activities and made it an especially bad choice for funding, particularly by a charitable organization that has very narrow priorities.

I would be exceedingly surprised to find that as a matter of policy PP uses its own discretionary funds to pay outside (non-abortion-provider) agencies, like doctor's offices, to do ultrasounds on women other than in the course of preparing for abortions. Strange things happen in life, so I suppose it is not impossible, but it doesn't sound like PP's mode of operating. If PP is upset at losing grants that were explicitly paying for this kind of service, well, why in the world do the funds have to pass through PP's hands as a middleman? Why can't PP refer the needy women to Komen if they need a mammogram?

Wait, is it because middlemen usually get a cut of the pie?

I am in college and half of my Facebook "friends" are hysterical over this and encouraging boycotts of Komen. People are really willing to stick it to breast cancer victims because Komen isn't funding child-killing anymore? What kind of weird twilight zone am I living in? It is so bizarre that I have to actually defend my belief that ripping apart one's offspring is wrong.

"...even though those pro-life efforts had previously gone on for years without any effect."

I heard that an anti-abortion extremist who ran for governor in, I believe, Georgia recently joined Komen as an executive. Anyway, it seems the ship has been righted.

Sadie, welcome the hysterical world of "choice", where the choice to simply not pay for abortions yourself is verboten.

The Komen foundation has given in and is supporting abortion again.

I have friends who are victims of breast cancer, and I've supported the Komen foundation regularly. Of course it is now crystal clear that I cannot do that anymore. Millions are soon going to reach the same conclusion. What a tragedy for women and their families! It is time for those who don't support abortion be given a way to help the cause without supporting baby killing.

There is no evidence that abortion or contraceptives prevent breast cancer, but there is some evidence that they may increase the risk of breast cancer.

"What kind of weird twilight zone am I living in?"

~~A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, “You are mad, you are not like us.~~

St. Anthony the Great of Egypt, +356

Emily Dickinson:

Much Madness is divinest Sense —
To a discerning Eye —
Much Sense — the starkest Madness —
’Tis the Majority
In this, as All, prevail —
Assent — and you are sane —
Demur — you’re straightway dangerous —
And handled with a Chain —

"There is no evidence that abortion or contraceptives prevent breast cancer, but there is some evidence that they may increase the risk of breast cancer."

I believe that Steve has hit the core of the matter. Viewing this from the reality-based side of things, I observe that abortion is something like either 3% or 16% (depending on how one calculates things) of PP's activities and surmise that something else is going on and that something else is the anti-abortion movement leadership's problem with access to contraception as a right.

And here are the phone calls that prove that you cannot receive mammograms at PP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=umI-gLEC6C8

People are really willing to stick it to breast cancer victims because Komen isn't funding child-killing anymore?

Sadie: For many, breast cancer awareness (and prevention, research, etc.) stands in for "what's good for women," just like recycling stands in for "what's good for the environment." So they think of Komen as promoting "what's good for women." Since (according to the leftist) abortion is a major part of "what's good for women," then Komen should support abortion. If the organization refuses, then it's turning its back on women. In this case, breast cancer is just a side issue. That's my take, anyway.

---

Earlier, I wrote: "This doesn't strike me as a sensible policy with regard to donors. I doubt the Komen folks would even consider reinstating donations to Planned Parenthood after government investigations have been completed."

Well, I was wrong!

What's especially obvious is that this small fight is a stand-in for the bigger fight over federal funding of PP.

Komen should not have given in.

Ok, now we know for sure that someone at Komen is lying, Here's the before:

Brinker denied that new eligibility criteria had anything to do with a Congressional inquiry into Planned Parenthood. She emphasized it was a move toward more direct grants rather than pass-through funding.

“It was nothing they were doing wrong. It was that we have decided not to fund wherever possible, pass-through grants. They were sending women out for mammograms. They do not do these within their clinics,” Brinker said in a conference call with the media this afternoon. An affiliate-wide conference call was expected to follow. “What we like to have are clinics we can directly fund,” she said...

“These dollars for granting will not be going away, they will be redirected for programs in our communities more directly,” said Komen President Liz Thompson...

...and has nothing to do with the Congressional inquiry initiated by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.). “I don’t know much of anything about that investigation frankly,” she said.

And then here's the reversal explanation:

Brinker's statement reiterated that Komen's original decision was not "done for political reasons, or specifically to penalize Planned Parenthood."

The group will amend its new criteria to ensure that disqualifying investigations must be "criminal and conclusive" in nature, the statement said. Komen officials had originally said they cut funding to Planned Parenthood because the group is the subject of a Republican-led federal investigation fostered by anti-abortion advocates.

The executives at Komen can't talk straight because apparently they are lily-livered about offending the shrill abortion-lovers out there. And the media can't be bothered to investigate and ask the hard questions. They credit the "backlash" from the grass roots for getting the executives to reverse, but at the same time

The controversy regarding Susan G. Komen for the Cure and Planned Parenthood of America has lit a fire under supporters of both organizations, which both reported generous boosts in fundraising...

On a conference call with the media this afternoon, Komen for the Cure Founder & CEO Nancy Brinker reported that donations are up 100 percent in the past two days.

And since when is the investigation being "criminal and conclusive" the appropriate measure for deciding whether to invest your money into someone else's organization, someone who is being investigated for wrongdoing? The only kinds of wrongdoing you care about are crimes? And the only ones that support a change in position are ones where the guilt is determined beyond a reasonable doubt? That's not rational: Komen isn't the government, it is a private foundation. If I were a regular contributor, I would be LIVID at this repudiation of sound common sense.

If I were the board at Komen, I would fire the CEO immediately. If she didn't realize that taking away the grant from PP would ignite a firestorm, she is stupid. And if she did know it and didn't plan to deal with it, she is incompetent. Either way, she is unsuited to the job. (Oh, unless the WHOLE DAMN THING was a play for media coverage. Which is why we need the honest media - what there is of it - digging for the real truth.)

I think the pass-through grant comment was a temporarily intelligent point. (Are there such things as temporarily intelligent points? I mean because now it has apparently been set aside.) It got at exactly what you said above, Tony, about middlemen. It was a _sensible_ point concerning the actual purpose of the organization.

The "criminal and conclusive" thing is ridiculous, and I can't better Tony's ridicule of it.

Pandering, pandering, pandering. They literally made up this new-new policy to justify their latest turnaround. Pathetic.

Wesley J. Smith has a shrewd and pointed comment about this flip-flop:

I think this decision reflects the cultural segregation of our society. The same cultural elites tend to participate in leadership and fundraising for PP and for big non controversial establishment charities. It is hard to really upset one’s own social set.

The whole thing was quite embarrassing. Starting a snit over not getting free money anymore is infantile. That the tantrum thrown by pro-PP goons wasn't immediately slapped down by the greater culture, with prejudice, shows well just how far gone this country is.

al,

"I observe that abortion is something like either 3% or 16% (depending on how one calculates things) of PP's activities and surmise that something else is going on and that something else is the anti-abortion movement leadership's problem with access to contraception as a right.

Your surmise is contrary to reason and the facts.

1. Many members of the anti-abortion movement's leadership don't have any moral problem at all with contraception, never mind any legal questions.

2. Let's use the lower number, 3%. Remember that abortion kills the unborn, and even if you don't believe that's true you can correctly surmise that 100% of the anti-abortion movement's leadership knows that it's true. Saying "abortion is only 3% of Planned Parenthood's activities so the antiabortion movement must have some other reason to be concerned about Planned Parenthood" is like saying only 3% of a serial killer's activities involve killing people therefore therefore the police must have some other reason to be frantically trying to discover his identity and location. 3% is a lot when it involves killing people.

I observe that abortion is something like either 3% or 16% (depending on how one calculates things) of PP's activities and surmise that something else is going on and that something else is the anti-abortion movement leadership's problem with access to contraception as a right.

Please note: in the mouth of a conservative, "access to...is a right" means that the government does not erect by force or law an impediment against your locating it, making it, or buying it.

In the mouth of a liberal, "access to... is a right" means the government makes sure that EVERYONE has it in pocket or hand, even those children whose parents don't consent to it (knowing full well that the chemicals are are not medically trivial nor medically advised in all cases - among other reasons), even if the government has to pay for it out of coerced taxes and push it through schools, etc.

Well, under THAT definition of "access to", yes, conservatives (not just the pro-life ones) are against it. But of course, liberals don't explicitly state THAT definition when they are defending "access to", they just make it sound like they are defending simply what everyone would normally mean by "access to something." What could be wrong with allowing access to it?

If liberals were content to use their OWN money to support PP, and if PP were to offer services only to those considered capable of legal consent, conservatives as a whole would back off about the organization and let it be. Pro-lifers would still be upset about it, but not because of they provide "access to contraceptives".

Tony,

Good point about rights. In our system of government, a "right" is supposed to be a freedom that a government is forbidden to infringe upon.

In authoritarian and totalitarian countries, a "right" is an obligation a government imposes on people. That does seem to be what al meant by "right."

"Your surmise is contrary to reason and the facts."

I was sorta stepping back for a wider view,

"Let us consider three typical examples: the aeroplane, the wireless, and the contraceptive. In a civilized community, in peace-time, anyone who can pay for them may use these things. But it cannot strictly be said that when he does so he is exercising his own proper or individual power over Nature. If I pay you to carry me, I am not therefore myself a strong man. Any or all of the three things I have mentioned can be withheld from some men by other men—by those who sell, or those who allow the sale, or those who own the sources of production, or those who make the goods. What we call Man's power is, in reality, a power possessed by some men which they may, or may not, allow other men to profit by. Again, as regards the powers manifested in the aeroplane or the wireless, Man is as much the patient or subject as the possessor, since he is the target both for bombs and for propaganda. And as regards contraceptives, there is a paradoxical, negative sense in which all possible future generations are the patients or subjects of a power wielded by those already alive. By contraception simply, they are denied existence; by contraception used as a means of selective breeding, they are, without their concurring voice, made to be what one generation, for its own reasons, may choose to prefer. From this point of view, what we call Man's power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument."

Even if a liberal believes the questionable thesis that access to contraception is a right (!!), this hardly supports a breast cancer foundation's giving money to Planned Parenthood.

It depends on what you mean by "right." According to the definition that has been regnant in America for two centuries, if "access to contraception" is a right it means that a government cannot prevent it.

According to the liberal definition, a right, in particular one that is related to the freedom to have sex with whomever and whatever we chose at any time, imposes an obligation on all of is. If "access to contraception" is a right it means that the Komen foundation and all other organizations and individuals must actively make sure that everyone has lots of it. You, personally are obliged to hand out condoms to panhandlers and leaves bowls of birth control pills at your desk at work for coworkers and other passers-by to snack on.

3% lie of Planned Barrenhood http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slxDF42vk5s

"If liberals were content to use their OWN money to support PP, and if PP were to offer services only to those considered capable of legal consent, conservatives as a whole would back off about the organization and let it be."

Exactly. Liberals never get this, though, as they are congenitally disposed to exploit "the forgotten man," as well as to view opposition to their vision as a moral deficiency.

What we call Man's power is, in reality, a power possessed by some men which they may, or may not, allow other men to profit by.

What a crock, al, a little too much of the kool-aid this week. Back off and save your 4 remaining brain cells. That whole screed of 1:27pm is an exercise in claptrap mumbo jumbo masquerading as college sophomore poli-speak, repeating back at the ultra-lib professor his rootless, vapid theories of man and society.

If Johnny won't let you use his ultra-light (for free), build your own. The government doesn't tell you not to. That's LEGAL access. If the drug store won't hand you a contraceptive for free, grow some herbs and make your own. That's what the apothecaries of 300 to 3000 years ago did. The "power" is inherent in nature, all you have to do is harness it. The Bernoulli effect works just as well for you as for Johnny.

But it cannot strictly be said that when he does so he is exercising his own proper or individual power over Nature. If I pay you to carry me, I am not therefore myself a strong man. Any or all of the three things I have mentioned can be withheld from some men by other men

Irrational, illogical, unconnected to reality, that. If a strong man does carry you, you are not strong thereby. If a strong man does not carry you, he does NOT WITHHOLD from you being strong - nature withheld that. If a strong man will not carry you, it may be the case that he "withheld" carrying you, but it may not: it depends on whether he had some reason to do so on a rational basis, either in justice, charity, or other reason. If he had no reason to do so, it is STILL wrong to call it "withholding". And if he is not withholding anything, then he is not exercising a power with you as the object.

I'll give you an example of a power exercised by some men over other men : some men taking my money to pay for contraceptives for other people, when I can show on a rational basis that using contraceptives is evil and wrong.

They literally made up this new-new policy to justify their latest turnaround. Pathetic.

Their old-new policy was a pathetic mask for manufacturing a reason to only defund Planned Parenthood. So they are staying true to form. Now that the mask has slipped though, I hope both sides will shun the fail parade at Komen.

If liberals were content to use their OWN money to support PP, and if PP were to offer services only to those considered capable of legal consent, conservatives as a whole would back off about the organization and let it be. Pro-lifers would still be upset about it, but not because of they provide "access to contraceptives".

If Republicans will fund the Pentagon only from their own pockets during their next misadventure in the Middle East, I'm willing to play this game. If not, then citizens don't have an opt out ability on what gets funded. On the other hand, Planned Parenthood has raked in over $3 million in just the last few days - at this rate they will be able to replace the Komen money with the interest.

If the drug store won't hand you a contraceptive for free, grow some herbs and make your own.

I looked it up online, and nearly all of them are abortifacient. Only two were effective as spermicides and only two were supposed to prevent ovulation (with mixed results on the latter). Strangely, one of the spermicides can be taken orally by men to make them temporarily sterile after six weeks usage and it also prevents implantation when taken orally by women.

and nearly all of them are abortifacient

Yes, most of the drugs women take as contraceptives are abortifacient. This is true. How does this affect the argument?

If Republicans will fund the Pentagon only from their own pockets during their next misadventure in the Middle East, I'm willing to play this game

That makes sense. Sure. National security is a lot like offering for free optional life-style services that 3/4 of the population gets through other means anyway. Tell you what, when you cover your own security issues (foreign and domestic) out of your own pocket, we'll talk.

"What a crock, al, a little too much of the kool-aid this week. Back off and save your 4 remaining brain cells. That whole screed of 1:27pm is an exercise in claptrap mumbo jumbo masquerading as college sophomore poli-speak, repeating back at the ultra-lib professor his rootless, vapid theories of man and society."

"Irrational, illogical, unconnected to reality, that."

I don't know. Our friend Paul C. seems to thing highly of it as do some of your other colleagues. Tony, its really good not to hip shoot and you have totally missed my point. While I am inclined to agree with you, let me ask you a question:

On your honor, if you knew that passage was written by C.S. Lewis would you have reacted the same?

Paul, Lydia, how about it - Lewis is a crock?

Knew it was CSL from the get-go, Al, as I've read The Abolition of Man any number of times. It had me wondering why you were quoting him. In any case, he's exactly right on all counts. What he's describing is what Marion Montgomery refers to as modern man's Gnostic attempt to exert power over being by will. And if control over being requires some men's control over other men as a step along the way, well hey, that's just the way it goes. This is why Flannery O'Connor said that modern tenderness, tenderness without God, will always lead to the gas chamber or the concentration camp. Modernism, or liberalism if you will, cannot help but be tyrannical.

Why Al is bringing any of this up on a thread about why a breast cancer foundation should fund Planned Parenthood I'm still at a loss to figure out. By the way, Lewis's statements about contraception in the quotation are applied only to a) those who aren't conceived, which is a little odd in terms of speaking of actual individuals and b) the eugenic use of contraception "on" some people "by" others, something our present world knows a fair bit about. He doesn't say anything nor imply anything about those who are not positively _given_ contraception who want it. But all of that is off-topic in any event.

"Why Al is bringing any of this up on a thread about why a breast cancer foundation should fund Planned Parenthood I'm still at a loss to figure out."

I originally surmised that PP's role in providing contraception may also have been involved as there seems to be a certain animus towards contraception amongst the anti-abortion leadership. What brought that to mind was Steve's comment. Steve wrote nay and I responded with the quote from Lewis (see, this is all Paul's fault) which I intended as an indicator of a deep and longstanding hostility to contraception on the socially conservative right.

Tony then jumped all over my use of the Lewis quote. The little guy with the pitchfork who sits on my left shoulder found Tony's vitriolic denunciation of Lewis irresistible, so here we are. (NM my comment wasn't directed at you.)

Your reading of Lewis is far too generous but, as you point out, it is off topic so I shall leave things as they are.

This is interesting and one of the reasons i consider the Komen/PP thing to involve politics more than not,

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/02/03/418797/exclusive-ari-fleischer-komen-planned-parenthood/?mobile=nc

National security is a lot like offering for free optional life-style services that 3/4 of the population gets through other means anyway.

I wasn't the one who rhetorically compared accommodating homosexual unions to accommodating murder. That was all you. You avoided addressing my claim because I posed it in a narrow way to specifically make it a moral issue. Any more preemptive wars of choice in the Middle East are evil as far as I'm concerned. I was opposed to Obama's limited involvement in the Libyan civil war, so I view a war with Iran and/or Syria as pure insanity.

Tell you what, when you cover your own security issues (foreign and domestic) out of your own pocket, we'll talk.

I pay a higher tax rate than Gov. Romney, so I'll be talking even if you aren't listening.

And if control over being requires some men's control over other men as a step along the way, well hey, that's just the way it goes. This is why Flannery O'Connor said that modern tenderness, tenderness without God, will always lead to the gas chamber or the concentration camp.

Honestly, I hope you know how bizarre that sentence is. You could reverse it and say that anytime that one person exerts control over another, human will is exerting power over being. It sounds pretty darn sinister until you consider that it happens every second of every single day. But hey, it's the new Holocaust because...uh, nobody knows why.

One person exerting control over another (a parent over a child, for instance, or a policeman over a criminal) is not an instance of will over being, in that under normal circumstances the person in authority is making no attempt to alter the nature of the person under that authority. What Lewis, O'Connor, Montgomery, et al. are talking about is the Gnostic idea that nature (whether nature "out there" in the created world or human nature) is a hindrance to man's "progress" and thus needs to be transcended by the force of human will.

Al, I understand why you'd find Tony's attack on the CSL quote entertaining, but to be fair, pulling a quote out of context like that without attribution (esp. a quote which without context could be read a number of ways) isn't exactly playing on the up-and-up. Don't pat yourself too hard on the back...

One person exerting control over another (a parent over a child, for instance, or a policeman over a criminal) is not an instance of will over being, in that under normal circumstances the person in authority is making no attempt to alter the nature of the person under that authority.

They are attempting to alter one aspect of that person's nature. Let's go for a more Sunday appropriate authority and look at a priest and his parishioner. If a priest who gives moral guidance and penance isn't altering someone's nature, what exactly are they doing?

...the Gnostic idea that nature (whether nature "out there" in the created world or human nature) is a hindrance to man's "progress" and thus needs to be transcended by the force of human will.

I don't believe Gnostics have that particular view. To the admittedly limited extent I understand Gnostic thinking, it is about education as the path to progress, not force of will. You seem to be confusing Nietzsche and Gnosticism. Also, when you talk about "nature in the created world" of course humans want to control nature, the first human who built the first building was seeking refuge from nature. Likewise for the lightning rod and many other conveniences of the modern world, they were made to keep a barrier between us and nature.

I pay a higher tax rate than Gov. Romney

No you don't, and if you don't know the answer to why that's so, then I encourage you to stop getting all your information from the White House.

What seems obvious is that the liberals appearing in this thread are willing to say just about anything to avoid addressing the essential point at issue, or to address anything really important that Lydia has said, or to actually defend the hysterical campaign against Komen on its merits.

al,

Yes, you surmised that some the leadership of the pro-life movement "has a problem" with contraception BECAUSE you "observe that abortion is something like either 3% or 16% (depending on how one calculates things) of PP's activities" therefore "something else is going on..."

I wonder if you surmise that saying brainless things like that will make people laugh at you.

"Killing people is only something like 3 to 16% of that serial killers activities, and yet the police are frantic to find and catch him. I surmise that something else is going on that make the police not like him..."

NM, I quoted a whole paragraph, one which you instantly recognized. I could have indicated that it was from Lewis and perhaps we would have gotten a different response.

Things from wheat to dogs are humans altering and controlling nature.

Sage,

1. carried interest

2. the point is bogus but tell us how you know what his corporate rate was - few if any actually pay the 35% and state and local taxes are highly regressive.

Komen got sucked into the culture wars, made a bad decision, and got spanked; what more is there to say?

"What seems obvious is that the liberals appearing in this thread are willing to say just about anything to avoid addressing the essential point at issue, or to address anything really important that Lydia has said, or to actually defend the hysterical campaign against Komen on its merits."

OK Sage. It's becoming clearer that this was nothing but culture war politics in an election year:

“Fleischer said Saturday night that he had not been asked but that if he could help, perhaps he would.” Separately, Fleischer confirmed to ThinkProgress that he is in regular contact with Komen CEO Nancy Brinker and she had sought his counsel on the Planned Parenthood issue."

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/02/04/419020/update-komen-announces-continued-involvement-of-ari-fleischer-on-planned-parenthood-strategy/

I'm going to take a different tact from al and say that Lydia's points were valid as far as they went, but that wasn't the explanation Komen first trotted out. They tried to make this about PP being under a congressional investigation which is widely considered a political witch hunt by liberals, and on top of that they implicitly assumed that this investigation will find PP guilty of something, therefore they ended their funding. After the firestorm started, their second explanation came out that Lydia mentioned about wanting to do direct funding of mammograms, stricter rules for showing results, etc. So in our eyes, this overt politically motivated policy from a supposedly non-partisan group was a huge betrayal. I mean, if they don't want to fund a group that is their prerogative as a private charity, but it is clear both from a leadership angle and from reports of internal dissent at Komen that they did this for political reasons. If they want to run a Republican oriented charity that is fine, go for it, just don't expect all the liberals who previously supported them (in part because they believed they were non-partisan) to continue or to be happy about it.

Re: Romney's tax rate. Buy a new calculator, your math is wrong.

"If a priest who gives moral guidance and penance isn't altering someone's nature, what exactly are they doing?"

More on this later, but it's not nature that's being changed here. What they're doing is assisting a person in living more in accordance with their nature.

I just heard on MSNBC that the Komen VP who was likely behind the move - a former Georgia conservative Republican politician - has resigned.

Karen Handel (the now former Komen VP for policy referenced just above) has now made Komen CEO Nancy Brinker out to be a liar. It keeps getting better.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/02/planned-parenthoods-deep-bench/252726/

Step2, I think their rather strange thing about the congressional investigation was meant to seal it up in some high-falutin' fashion. It was an extremely ill-judged attempt to fend off exactly the virulent response from the left that they have received.

Leftists hacked into their web site. It's *incredibly* classless for an organization that has received grants to sic congressmen and activists (not to mention hackers) on the grant-making entity because they stop their grants. Planned Parenthood could have kept the moral high ground by expressing disappointment *and thanks* for grants received and going their way, then applying again later on.

The response instead was *highly* politicized and the opposite of classy.

Sure, it was a bungle on Komen's part not to make the points I made to begin with and calmly move on, with no further statements or apologies. People were going to think what they were going to think. Komen has bungled this at every turn, including "revising" their new grant-making policies in a way expressly designed to make room for Planned Parenthood in the future.

This hardly in any way excuses the virulence and bullying nature of the response from the left, which has been both revealing and unedifying. This should be obvious to any fair-minded man.

Actually, the Atlantic article is somewhat suspect in the truthfulness department. The "wonderful" testimonial from the one lady appears off.

So when I took my first job, I readily opted into my employer's insurance plan. After submitting my application, I was told that the insurance company would not cover any tests/procedures/expenses related to my pre-existing condition...breast cancer.

I know this changed in the 90's because my wife has a pre-existing condition. Before the change was made to the law, insurance companies could deny covering pre-existing conditions for one year. After the law changed, as long as you maintained coverage between job changes, you could not be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition. So, at most, she wouldn't have been covered for one year.

Additionally, I am limited as to what hormonal birth control I can take as a result of the cancer.

Because we all know there is only hormonal birth control.

I've been in a relationship with my significant other for about six years. While we have regularly discussed the possibility of children, we are simply not ready.

Obviously not significant enough where he would help with the medical bills.

Birth control is essential for our life plan. Luckily, not only was I able to turn to Planned Parenthood for my mammogram needs, they became my ONLY source for affordable birth control.

PP doesn't do mammograms they just refer to people who do which was one of Komen's points. Again, hormonal birth control is not the only option.

All this has shown is the PP will do whatever it takes to keep the cash flowing in.

Here's the latest with links to yet another self-serving and dodgy "apology" from Nancy Brinker:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-leadership/post/komen-leaders-latest-apology-about-planned-parenthood-fiasco-goes-only-halfway/2011/04/01/gIQAHaRh1Q_blog.html

I also googled Planned Parenthood and mammograms and one of the links was written by a chap who claimed he was a salesman for the scanners used for that procedure and he knew of no PP clinic who had one.

I also found this,

"Planned Parenthood in Waco is a Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening (BCCS) provider in Texas and receives funds from the Susan G. Komen Foundation to help women get mammography and follow-up care."

"Through a grant from the local Central Texas Affiliate of the Susan G. Komen Foundation, Planned Parenthood in Waco provides life-saving mammogram screening and abnormal mammogram follow-up diagnostic testing for low-income women."

"You may qualify for a free mammogram if you are..."

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ppwaco/BCCS%20Komen-28753.htm

Now I have a question: Every time I've had a scan of some sort the pathway has been primary care physician to specialist to imaging center. I get the impression that PP serves as a primary care provider for uninsured women who otherwise wouldn't have a pathway to these services. If that is the case then PP clinics having the actual machinery would seem irrelevant. How is this not the case?

Now I have a question: Every time I've had a scan of some sort the pathway has been primary care physician to specialist to imaging center. I get the impression that PP serves as a primary care provider for uninsured women who otherwise wouldn't have a pathway to these services. If that is the case then PP clinics having the actual machinery would seem irrelevant. How is this not the case?

Because, do you send hundreds of thousands in grant money to an organization that is just going to refer to someone else? Based on your logic, Komen should give grants to every family physician because they refer people for mammograms. That is a waste of money.

I also found this,...

Interestingly they don't show up under mammograms in the yellow pages or other directory listings. The only category they show up under is abortion services.

"Komen should give grants to every family physician because they refer people for mammograms."

Chris, if women who use PP for referrals don't have a family physician because they don't have insurance then I'm not sure what difference your proposal would make. Also dispersing the amounts involved over every family physician would likely not be very efficient. If this is the case then a grant to PP as in Waco would solve both the referral problem and the affordability problem.

The ACA has, I believe, funding for community health centers. That may help solve the problem facing those women who currently depend on PP for basic care.

"Interestingly they don't show up under mammograms in the yellow pages or other directory listings."

Which makes my point. In my phone book the only entries are the imaging centers - the ones to which one needs a referral
.
"The only category they show up under is abortion services."

I fear the "only" reflects a lack of imagination on your part. They also are listed under "birth control" in mine.

Now if I go on line (even poor folk have computers nowadays), google "planned parenthood", and type in my zip, I get referred to a local site that offers a number of services. If i click on "Women's Health Care" I get this,

"...Clinic offers the following women's health services:

checkups when you have a reproductive/sexual health problem
breast exams
cervical cancer screening
colposcopy
mammogram referrals
menopause and midlife — testing and treatment
Pap test
routine physicals for women age 13 and older
urinary tract infections — testing and treatment
vaginal infections — testing and treatment
Other services we may provide include help with irregular periods or no periods, painful periods, painful sex, bleeding between periods, menstrual problems (premenstrual syndrome)..."

"Women's health services are available: during all business hours by appointment"

Now we could avoid all this my enacting single payer universal health care couldn't we?

Al, I was simply pointing out that it doesn't make sense to provide money to an agency that is just going to refer people to someone else who is going to do the work. You asked the question and I answered it. I would assume that PP would still refer women to mammogram providers.

The rest of your point seems to wander off into obfuscation. Does the Waco PP offer mammograms? On PP's national website they say to ask you doctor, clinic, or PP location where you can get mammograms. The Waco one, as I pointed out, isn't listed in any website I saw as a mammogram provider (looked at about 5). Last year several PP's were called, including the Waco one, and they said they did not provide mammograms. Simple question, simple answer. Based on the way the Komen funding works, it is more likely that the Waco PP provides mammograms in the sense of they refer the patient to someone else and then reimburse the provider. That though is not the traditional sense of providing a service. I have a feeling that if my doctor said he provided x-rays but was actually just referring me to someone else, there might be some false advertising issues.

No we can't agree on single payer. People making conflicting moral choices is a messy thing. I know you would prefer just dictating to everyone but you might not like it if the people doing the dictating change.

"I know you would prefer just dictating to everyone but you might not like it if the people doing the dictating change."

Yep, today's liberals often forget that there will always be someone more liberal than them. Today's liberal may very well end up being tomorrow's conservative.