Komen reverses plan to pull Planned Parenthood grants
By The Associated Press
This article was published February 3, 2012 at 10:39 a.m.
PHOTO BY BENJAMIN KRAIN
Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure participants cheer after finishing the race in downtown Little Rock. The board of the Arkansas Komen affiliate said that the decision to pull Planned Parenthood grants for breast screenings was made at Komen headquarters “without input from affiliates.”
- Comments (63)
- aAFont Size
NEW YORK — Susan G. Komen for the Cure said Friday that it was reversing its decision to cut breast-screening grants to Planned Parenthood.
“We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives,” a Komen statement said.
As first reported by The Associated Press on Tuesday, Komen had adopted criteria excluding Planned Parenthood from grants because it was under government investigation, notably an investigation launched in Congress at the urging of anti-abortion groups.
Komen said Friday it would change the criteria so it wouldn’t apply to such investigations.
“We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants,” the statement said.
The board of the Arkansas affiliate had issued a statement earlier in the noting that the decision was made at Komen headquarters “without input from affiliates,” and called for the policy to be changed.
“We hope Komen national will reverse its position on granting to organizations under investigation because we feel decisions of this nature should be made only after the investigation is complete,” the statement said.
Read tomorrow's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette for full details.
Thank you for coming to the website of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. We're working to keep you informed with the latest breaking news.
Comments on: Komen reverses plan to pull Planned Parenthood grants
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.
You must login to make comments.
jackalope says... February 3, 2012 at 11:16 a.m.
Good news! But SGK has badly damaged their image over this. Perhaps as badly as using donated funds to sue any other organization using the color pink or the term "for the cure"
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 3, 2012 at 11:32 a.m.
They may wish they hadn't reversed their decision became alot of people didn't know they donated to PP.
( permalink | suggest removal )
jackalope says... February 3, 2012 at 11:33 a.m.
Trouble, the money they give to PP is not charity, it's grants specifically to be used to provide breast cancer screenings and free/low-cost mammograms.
( permalink | suggest removal )
MenLR2 says... February 3, 2012 at 11:59 a.m.
GREAT!!!!
( permalink | suggest removal )
arkateacher54_aol.com says... February 3, 2012 at 12:30 p.m.
Shame on the Komen Foundation for caving to political pressure. Shame on them for financially supporting the Planned Infanticide abortion mill in the first place. Whatever else PP does is merely a screen for their reason for existing - making lots of money by cranking out thousands of abortions.
( permalink | suggest removal )
jackalope says... February 3, 2012 at 12:44 p.m.
@arkateacher54_aol. com (BTW, I'll never understand why people leave their email addresses out there as their username, not smart)
The political pressure was what caused them to remove the funding in the first place.
I'm sure you'd like to be defined by 3% of what you do... so, I'm gong to say that whatever else you do (and hopefully you're not a teacher) is just a screen and your sole reason for existence is... going to the bathroom. Yes, that takes about 3% of your time. Absolutely nothing else you do is as important as using the restroom and it's how everyone in the world now identifies you.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 3, 2012 at 12:47 p.m.
Sorry that should have been because.
Jackalope, I had heard years ago the SGK foundation supported PP and never contributed to them again. I'm sure alot of people will feel the same way once it's known that SGK is linked to PP.
( permalink | suggest removal )
jackalope says... February 3, 2012 at 12:58 p.m.
Trouble, the grants go to women, not into PP's coffers. The money just has to be filtered through PP because SGK cannot (by law) give the money directly to doctors or healthcare providers for the mammograms because they cannot give money to for-profit entities. The money goes to providing breast exams and then (if such is necessary) to provide a voucher for a free/low-cost mammogram at a doctor's office, clinic, or hospital.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 3, 2012 at 2:41 p.m.
Jackalope, what you say may or may not be the way it is. There are always ways to get around anything.
( permalink | suggest removal )
jackalope says... February 3, 2012 at 2:56 p.m.
Planned Parenthood must submit to extreme scrutiny with their books every year because of the Hyde Amendment, and all the grants and Title X funds they receive, plus the fact that the non-abortion providing portion of PP is non-profit. I'm sure their accounting is at least as well kept as other non-profits, including SGK themselves. Of course, SGK does like to use donations to sue any other non-profit or business who attempts to use the color pink or the words "for the Cure" for any reason. Maybe their books need to be looked at.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Aimee says... February 3, 2012 at 6:20 p.m.
T6:
*
You're all the time complaining about the poor having children they can't afford, and NOW you want to get rid of Planned Parenthood..!!! You conservatives need to get your act together and figure out what you DO want..!!!
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 3, 2012 at 9:46 p.m.
Aimee, I don't believe in abortion on demand. I don't support anyone or any organization that does. If those "poor females" knew they wouldn't be able to draw welfare if they get pregnant maybe that would be a deterrent. What do ya think?
( permalink | suggest removal )
Aimee says... February 4, 2012 at 12:08 a.m.
T6:
*
Are you suggesting that abortion is the only form of "planning" in Planned Parenthood..??? Also denying help to poor mothers with babies is asinine... Why not just provide them help with birth control..??? "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure", right..???
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 4, 2012 at 9:34 a.m.
aimee says "Also denying help to poor mothers with babies is asinine...If those mothers knew there wouldn't be help, (abortions or welfare) that they would have to support a baby financially, they might think twice about having sex....... Why not just provide them help with birth control..??? Isn't some form of birth control whether it be condoms, pills, or abstinence readily available. The problem is these are not USED.
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... February 4, 2012 at 9:45 a.m.
Not don't go gettin' fussy 'bout them Duggars swarmin' all over the place. That's planned parenthood also. They're plannin' on having a buncha kids.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 4, 2012 at 10:13 a.m.
JakeT, So you're saying the Duggars are on welfare and the taxpayers paid for them to have everyone one of their kids?
( permalink | suggest removal )
Aimee says... February 4, 2012 at 10:49 a.m.
T6:
*
Yes, contraceptives ARE "readily available" AT PLANNED PARENTHOOD..!!! Sheesh..!!!
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... February 4, 2012 at 11:50 a.m.
T6, it's easy to see how facts elude you because you make up so much that isn't even said. You're actually the only one who has made a statement associating the Duggars with welfare. Sheesh!
Nope, the Duggars did it all on their own (with the assistance of a TV network and a few other folks).
Meanwhile, let's go kick sand in the Good Samaritan's face. He's such a pu$$y-footin' liberal do-goodin' schmuck and really doesn't understand how wicked, malingerin' and despicable poor folks really are.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 4, 2012 at 12:18 p.m.
JakeT, How is one supposed to interpret your snide remark about the Duggars? The Duggars already had 14 or 15 kids by the time they got the TV show. MY point is they didn't rely on the Taxpayer to pay for their kids. To my knowledge they still don't. They live frugally.
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... February 4, 2012 at 12:25 p.m.
There are other ways. You didn't interpret it correctly and probably it's best you quit trying to be the one "interpreting." It's not your strong suit.
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... February 4, 2012 at 1:32 p.m.
One must recognize the difference between pointing out a specific case, the Duggars for example, and resorting to some vague stereotype based on what research has shown to be a myth.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Packman says... February 4, 2012 at 5:54 p.m.
Wow, never realized the Susan G. Komen Foundation was a racist organization. Susan G. Komen Foundation supports Planned Parenthood to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. Planned Parenthood supports and funds abortion on demand. Blacks babies are aborted at a rate almost 4 times greater than white babies. White supremiscists are said to want to do away with the black race. Susan G. Komen seems to be helping in this regard, as are jackalope, JakeT, aimee, et al. Actions really do speak louder than words.
( permalink | suggest removal )
jackalope says... February 4, 2012 at 6:33 p.m.
And of course, here comes Packman bringing up the rear. Of course, he believes that PP just drags black women in off the street to forcibly abort their babies. It can't possibly be that systemic and institutionalized racism and sexism means that black women make less than 70% of what white men do (10% less than white women as compared to white men), meaning they can't afford to care for as many children as whites. It can't be that black people of both genders are far more likely to be imprisoned for drug related charges, even when countless studies have shown that black and white people consume and sell drugs at the same rate. It can't be that they have far fewer opportunities for education and bettering their lives than whites and men in general, particularly higher education. All of this combined meaning that black women have less of a support system in the form of family and community. No, of course, Packman believes (therefore it must be true) that PP forces black women to have abortions.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 4, 2012 at 7:36 p.m.
Jackalope and right on Que you pull out the racists crap.
For any contraceptive to WORK to prevent pregnancies it has to be used consistently.
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... February 4, 2012 at 8:31 p.m.
“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 4, 2012 at 11:33 p.m.
JakeT, I don't want to misinterpret your last post so could you kindly do it for us?
( permalink | suggest removal )
Aimee says... February 5, 2012 at 2:14 a.m.
Packman:
*
The rate of poverty is 27.4 percent of blacks and only 9.9 percent for whites in 2010... That would amount to about 3 times as many in poverty.. Also as this article points out
*
rhrealitycheck. org/blog/2010/03/01/abortion-women-color-bigger-picture
*
blacks have more "unintended" pregnancies stemming from their difficulty in obtaining and following through with reliable birth control products...
*
And YOU conservatives want to get rid of Planned Parenthood.. How hypocritical..!!! Shame on you...!!!
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... February 5, 2012 at 6:14 a.m.
Re: Darwin quote
I was looking for more info about Planned Parenthood & this unusual quote popped up. I've read it three times and am still not sure exactly what it's trying to communicate. I merely added it as a side dish to the mixture already on the table.
History shows that the Nazis cited Darwin as some justification for their policies towards purifying the race although many disagreed that such was his intentions.
Anyway, it's merely for your edification although I'm not sure how much enlightenment it contains since his reasoning seems to vacillate between the nature of instinct versus the goals of a "civilized" society.
You might say that Darwin is suggesting that Nature itself is an innately "planned parenthood' in the sense of survival of the species.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Populist says... February 5, 2012 at 7:25 a.m.
I am an advocate of birth control as a means of ending poverty, but I find abortion repugnant except in cases in which the fetus is damaged or the life of the mother is in danger. While I recognize the importance of the great work that Planned Parenthood does, I also am afraid that too many people minimize the moral implications of abortion and are too hesitant to support adoption as an alternative to abortion. Packman likes to ridicule my moderateness, and it is on this issue that I am so totally stuck in the middle that the views of both political parties just astound me. The Republicans seem so intent on protecting every fetus, but then seem not to care about whether the child gets enough food or education after he or she is born. The Democrats seem to want free services for the child after he or she is born, but many of them support abortion even after the fetus is viable. Shouldn't we protect the rights of the fetus --especially after viability? Shouldn't we do more to prevent unplanned preganancies? Shouldn't we be more supportive of adoption as an option? Shouldn't we recognize that if a fetus is very damaged that abortion may be the kindest alternative? I suspect that I am not the only person in the middle on this subject, but the extremists of the far right and the far left make the most noise.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 5, 2012 at 10:05 a.m.
JakeT, In The Descent of Man, Darwin’s scientifically based proposals was the elimination of “the negro and Australian peoples,” which he considered to be savage races whose continued survival was hindering the progress of civilisation. Darwin went so far as to rank races in terms of what he believed was their nearness and likeness to gorillas. He further proposed the extermination of those races which he “scientifically” defined as inferior. To not do so, he claimed, would result in those races, which have much higher birth rates than his designated superior races, exhausting the resources needed for the survival of better people, and eventually dragging down all of civilization.
Darwin even argued against advanced societies wasting time and money on caring for those who are insane, or suffer from birth defects. To him, these unfit members of our species ought not to survive.
The biologist, Ernst Haeckel, also drew on Darwin’s writings as they helped Hitler develop those racist ideas that led to the Holocaust.
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... February 5, 2012 at 12:19 p.m.
Thanks T6! Maybe you noticed in today's D-G the two opposing viewpoints regarding Margaret Sanger, founder of PP. The anti-Sanger position took a stance that portrayed Sanger as Darwinist in her view about race and population control.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Populist says... February 5, 2012 at 1:14 p.m.
Many people who have accomplished good things have entertained racist notions, eg Thomas Jefferson. Until pretty recently, most Americans and people were pretty racist. Racism is still very common among the elderly and certain pockets of the country where educated blacks choose not to live. However, it is fallacious to totally debunk a person's good works because they mistakenly thought that lighter people were inferior to darker people. The fallaciousness of this line of thinking would be akin to saying that our Constitution is a bad document because our founding fathers were racist.
Sanger apparently also favored sterilization of retarded people--which used to be followed in this country. While it used to be widely thought that iq is mostly an inherited trait, more evidence suggests that it may have more to do with culture than any genetic predisposition to intelligence. I highly recommend the book, "The Genius in All of Us", by David Shenk.
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... February 5, 2012 at 1:30 p.m.
Well said Populist. Racism Review posits the same notion.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 5, 2012 at 4:01 p.m.
The founder of PP Margaret Sanger was a racist and hated blacks. The legacy that she left to our culture is the sexual revolution. Illicit sex without consequences was her philosophy. She was an alcoholic and drug addict and she died a very unhappy woman and I would say she is where she belongs for killing so many innocent lives. She's burning in Hell.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Reason says... February 5, 2012 at 5:13 p.m.
T6: People might burn in hell for playing politics with women's health.
Some would love to return to the days when women were treated like a piece of property. Oh, the good ole days, when the upstanding husbands would drink, beat, rape, have multiple mistresses and women were to obey because it was the bed that she had made. Every aspect of a woman's life was controlled by a man. What she wore, where she went, whether she could work outside the home, whether or not she could drive... and this was all pretty much the norm and socially understood that men would be men and this stuff was not to be talked about but a strong woman could survive, keep the secrets and pretend all was well... And men would keep their wives pregnant to let them know that they were in control. Not much different from Sharia law.
Women finally had enough... Hence, the women's movements. It is 2012 and women are still having to fight for their rights. And if they are smart... They will keep fighting.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 5, 2012 at 8:15 p.m.
Whether it's 2012 or 1912 eugenics and genocide of blacks or any race is wrong.
Isn't it odd that the Susan G. Komen Foundation's fundraising for cancer is involved with PP. The organization whose abortions may contribute to breast cancer.
The Komen annual report reveals Komen brought in almost $22 million less, or 6% less, in 2009 than it made in 2008.
The newest research on the link between abortion and breast cancer reveals abortion plays a role in increasing the breast cancer risk.
A January 2010 study called abortion a “known risk factor” for breast cancer and cited a study conducted by the prestigious Janet Daling group of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
Daling and her colleagues showed between a 20 and 50 percent increased breast cancer risk for women having abortions compare to those who carried their pregnancies to term.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 5, 2012 at 8:23 p.m.
Komen for the Cure gave $7.5 million to the Planned Parenthood abortion business in 2009.
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... February 5, 2012 at 10:12 p.m.
The largest, and probably the most reliable, study on this topic was done during the 1990s in Denmark, a country with very detailed medical records on all its citizens. In this study, all Danish women born between 1935 and 1978 (a total of 1.5 million women) were linked with the National Registry of Induced Abortions and with the Danish Cancer Registry. All of the information about their abortions and their breast cancer came from registries – it was very complete and was not influenced by recall bias.
After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found that induced abortion(s) had no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer. The size of this study and the manner in which it was done provide good evidence that induced abortion does not affect a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer.
Another large, prospective study was reported on by Harvard researchers in 2007. This study included more than 100,000 women who were between the ages of 29 and 46 at the start of the study in 1993. These women were followed until 2003.
Again, because they were asked about childbirths and abortions at the start of the study, recall bias was unlikely to be a problem. After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found no link between either spontaneous or induced abortions and breast cancer.
The California Teachers Study also reported on more than 100,000 women in 2008. Researchers asked the women in 1995 about past induced and spontaneous abortions. While the women were being followed in the study, more than 3,300 developed invasive breast cancer. There was no difference in breast cancer risk between the group who had either spontaneous or induced abortions and those who had not had an abortion.
Conclusion
The topic of abortion and breast cancer highlights many of the most challenging aspects of studies of people and how those studies do or do not translate into public health guidelines. The issue of abortion generates passionate viewpoints in many people. Breast cancer is the most common cancer, and it is the second leading cancer killer in women. Still, the public is not well-served by false alarms. At this time, the scientific evidence does not support the notion that abortion of any kind raises the risk of breast cancer or any other type of cancer.
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... February 5, 2012 at 11:34 p.m.
Dalings studies were done in the mid 1990s and its important to note that they used only 845 "interviews" to develop their correlation; also, their second study done two years later failed to correlate with the first.
Note that the studies I cited earlier involved 100x larger groups, are more recent than Daling's, and used more valid research methods and statistical analysis. One loses the moral ground staked out on this issue when one resorts to unsound research and is afflicted by tunnel vision when examining it's validity.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Aimee says... February 6, 2012 at 12:27 a.m.
Populist:
*
You said, "The Democrats seem to want free services for the child after he or she is born, but many of them support abortion even after the fetus is viable. Shouldn't we protect the rights of the fetus --especially after viability?"
*
A Gallup poll done in August of 2011 showed that 79% of those calling themselves "Pro-choice" and 94% of those calling themselves "Pro-life" believed in making abortion illegal in the third trimester when the fetus is considered viable...
*
gallup. com /poll/148880/Plenty-Common-Ground-Found-Abortion-Debate.aspx...
( permalink | suggest removal )
23cal says... February 6, 2012 at 5:57 a.m.
Jake....oh, snap!
( permalink | suggest removal )
Packman says... February 6, 2012 at 9:22 a.m.
Hey jackalope - It's telling how you attacked me and launched into a diatribe of excuse making instead of disputing any of the points I made. Thanks for helping make my case. Black women allow their unborn babies to be killed for the same reason white women allow their unborn babies to be killed. Make all the excuses you want, but a dead baby is a dead baby nevertheless, and black babies are killed at a rate almost four times greater than white babies which is something liberals and white supremecists have like minds.
Hey aimee - Those unintended pregnancies result from fully intended sex. It's called personal responsibility, a concept you obviously fail to grasp.
Hey Populist - Is "moderateness" a word??? "Shouldn't we recognize that if a fetus is very damaged that abortion may be the kindest alternative?" Do you consider a baby in the womb with missing limbs "very damaged"? Do you consider a baby in the womb diagnosed with CP as "very damaged"? Do you consider a female baby in the womb as "very damaged" because it has a vagina instead of a penis and the parents wanted a penis? Just pointing out the slippery slope of using your "very damaged" logic. You might also want to check on the amount of money churches spend in America taking care of orphaned and abandoned children each and every year. It's simply a lie to say religious conservatives don't practice what they preach regarding the care and well-being of orphaned and abandoned children.
( permalink | suggest removal )
jackalope says... February 6, 2012 at 4:18 p.m.
Packman, your only "point" was that black women choose to abort their fetuses at a higher rate than white women. I explained various reasons why that might be the case.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Jjackk says... February 6, 2012 at 5:33 p.m.
What they do with their money is between them and their donors, not a bunch of blowhards that can't help but pass judgment on everything and everyone but themselves. If you don't donate money to them then it really isn't any of your business, now is it?
( permalink | suggest removal )
Coralie says... February 6, 2012 at 6:01 p.m.
Planned Parenthood is about a lot more than abortions. Most of its services — 71 percent — are for birth control and testing and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases. Abortions made up 3 percent of its services in 2010. Cancer screening accounted for about 15 percent.
Komen's grants paid for a small fraction of the cancer screening.
This is FREE breast and cervical cancer screenings for low-income, uninsured, under-served women that few other providers are helping.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 6, 2012 at 7:52 p.m.
Wrong coralie, Abortions makeup 11% of PP services.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Populist says... February 6, 2012 at 9:26 p.m.
Packman,
I think that it is important to respect human life. However, sometimes difficult decisions must be made. We live in a world of limited resources. Does it make sense to bring a badly damaged fetus to full term only to die after a few weeks of thousands of dollars of medical expenses while at the same time relatively healthy children are dying for lack of simple, inexpensive medical care? A twelve-year-old in Maryland died of an absessed tooth. I don't believe that healthy fetuses should be aborted. I am opposed to it on moral grounds. While I think abortion should be legal in the first 4 months, I am morally opposed to it unless there are serious medical issues involved.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 7, 2012 at 1:40 a.m.
Populist, a badly damaged fetus is what the Drs. told Pam Tebow her baby, Tim Tebow would be. Drs are not always right. Sometimes you just have to have faith. Any abortion is an interruption of life.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Populist says... February 7, 2012 at 7:33 a.m.
T6,
While you are against abortion, you also seem to be against education spending and healthcare. I do not understand those who are so adamant about protecting the life of a fetus and then are unconcerned about the quality of life after the child is born. Mike Huckabee has made similar comments. Go to Forbesdotcome and look at the ratings of the best countries in the world to live. Healthcare is important. We just rank 10th no doubt due to our problems with crime and government inefficiency and corruption.
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... February 7, 2012 at 8:15 a.m.
Factcheck shows that both Coralie & T6 are correct. Apparently it depends on whether one refers to the budget or to the number of services rendered. Either way, the right-wing politician who said abortions were 90% of PP services/budget was a fool bent on stirring up the foolish.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 7, 2012 at 9:23 a.m.
Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Packman says... February 7, 2012 at 10:35 a.m.
No, jackalope, that (black women choose the baby killing option more than white women) was not my point. You and your fellow pro-choicers support the killing of unborn black babies at a rate almost 4 times greater than white babies. White supremecists who want to exterminate the black race are surely supportive of this as well. Regardless, the points you made were just tireless liberal talking points. How racist of you to say black women choose convenience over affordability more than whites! So, jackalope, do you send your white sheets to the cleaners or wash them at home after your social meetings?
Hey Populist - It all depends how you define "badly damaged". Again, an unborn child with a vagina may be considered badly damaged for no better reason than it doesn't have a penis instead. I know you pride yourself on being a moderate but more often than not it makes you look wishy-washy and indecisive to a fault.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Populist says... February 7, 2012 at 2:03 p.m.
Packman,
There you go again with the sexist remarks. Of course, a fetus with a vagina would not be considered damaged as the female sex is superior to the male. Men commit most of the crimes and cause most of the trouble in this world.
( permalink | suggest removal )
dman says... February 7, 2012 at 3:49 p.m.
Most of you are still avoiding the point. SGK has the right to direct their funds in whatever direction they choose. The left critisized them for caving for political reasons in pulling funding from PP and the right crisized them for caving for political reasons in reinstating the funding. Shocking!
( permalink | suggest removal )
Packman says... February 7, 2012 at 4:28 p.m.
Hey Populist - Tell me please exactly which remark I made you consider "sexist", or apologize forthwith. Are you saying it's OK to abort an unborn child if it is "damaged" by having a penis because it is more likely to cause trouble than if it had a vagina instead? Well, well, well, look who's being sexist now.....
Just read where Ms. Handel resigned from SKG. I hope she puts her talent and energy to good use by starting a national non-profit dedicated to the same goals and objectives as SKG but not affiliated in any shape, form, or fashion with a pro-abortion organization. The new organization would give people opposed to abortion an option on donating their money to help fight breast cancer. What a wonderful outcome that would be.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Populist says... February 7, 2012 at 6:53 p.m.
Packman,
You commented that a baby with a vagina might be considered damaged. I just made a smart aleck retort.
When I say damaged, I mean without an expectancy of a decent and meaningful life. There are some genetic defects which cause the child not to be able to expect to live beyond a certain age or a fetus with severe deformities. In those cases the government should not be interfering. There are plenty of healthy children in this world without decent homes and care. It is preferable that we spend more of our resources helping these children.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Populist says... February 8, 2012 at 7:15 a.m.
Packman,
If somebody started a foundation which financed birth control access without providing abortions, I would donate to it. The prolifers could help their own movement more if they contributed more to the adoption cause. Many young teenage girls just do not see it as an option. I am just so grateful that my boys' two birth mothers decided to go to full term and give me their babies. My boys have brought such joy to my life. I also was blessed that my mother was adopted out of St. Joseph's orphanage by wonderful parents, and I loved them dearly. My life has been so wonderful because of adoption. You do not have to be biologically related to somebody to love them.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Jjackk says... February 8, 2012 at 9:34 a.m.
I think we all can agree that abortion is a bad thing and most instances today is the wrong choice. Abortion being used for social or monetary reasons are not medical issues and should be open for debate on moral grounds. The Supreme Court ruling identified the woman's right to privacy but also the state's right for regulation. That in itself is a good argument against federal money being spent for it. I really think a vast majority of abortions can be ruled as optional and not a medical treatment. So I don't see where any kind of government money or insurance claim should pay for those. There is a big difference in acceptance and assistance.
But then you get back to the threat of back alley operations. That falls under state responsibility, not federal.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Packman says... February 8, 2012 at 11:15 a.m.
Hey Populist - What's your definition of a "decent and meaningful life"? I've spent a lot of time over many years with special needs kids and adults. Something tells me many of these wonderful people would have been aborted under many definitions of a "decent and meaningful life". Kudos for adopting those babies. Sounds like all involved have been equally blessed.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Populist says... February 10, 2012 at 5:31 a.m.
Packman,
Some genetic disorders and deformities are so horrible that the child ends up suffering much pain. Also, if the baby does not have a decent life expectancy and will only look forward to a short life full of doctors, I think that abortion is a moral and acceptable choice for the parents and society. In some cases, we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on some children and relatively nothing on children with easily curable problems. Medical ethics issues are not easy. We simply do not have enough resources to solve all problems and difficult choices have to be made.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 10, 2012 at 8:35 a.m.
Populist, As others have said you are going down a slippery slope. Because when the government starts dictating what can and can't be done, we know it NEVER stops at that point. Consider this Pop, what if one of your children or grandchildren developed a disease for which there was no good outcome and it would require many thousands of dollars to keep your child or grandchild alive. The government mandates do not waste money on a life that will end in death anyway. Or to keep from spending resources euthanasia is in order? The same will pertain to the elderly. Power hungry government is not to be trusted with life or death matters. IMO
( permalink | suggest removal )
Populist says... February 12, 2012 at 7:41 a.m.
T6,
You are the one who wants to give government the power to ban abortions of even the most damaged fetuses. It just does not make sense to bring a horribly deformed or ill baby into this world and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep that child alive. The PARENTS and their doctor should have the choice to have an abortion under these circumstances and not have the government mandate that the baby be born. However, the government should not allow the termination of a viable baby. The purpose of government is to make reasonable regulations for the protection of its citizens. Some people are against government in all forms to the extent that are almost anarchists (eg Ron Paul), and some people think government is the solution to all problems and should control everything (Aimee). While I have been criticized for being a "moderate," I will not apologize for being reasonable and rational. Government should not be too big or too small. It does some things well and not others. Government should help fund education and jobs programs, run our defense, protect the environment and food safety etc. We really should not have too much bureacracy or unnecessary opportunities for graft and inefficiency which have been the hallmark of Fannie Mae and housing programs. We have a great country, but it could be better.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Reason says... February 12, 2012 at 10:01 a.m.
T6: "government starting to dictate" ... Is exactly what you are asking government to do.
.
We have already been through this. Abortion was illegal and guess what.... It did NOT stop abortion then and it sure want stop it now. And there are a whole host of circumstances, life and death moment decisions and it fills up the courts. And not only the unborn dies, but many teens that take matters into their own hands, also die.
.
And now the republicans are against contraceptives. Good grief!
( permalink | suggest removal )
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.