WashPost Columnist Slams Komen As 'Bully', But Her Own Paper Reports Anti-Komen Bullying by Left
In her Metro section column today, Washington Post's Petula Dvorak complained that The Susan G. Komen Foundation was "the biggest bully on the playground this week" with the cancer charity's decision to end grants to Planned Parenthood.
But oddly enough, Dvorak's own paper, in a front-page story no less, reported numerous incidents which show that Komen itself is the victim of bullying as various groups are ending or threatening to end their relationship with Komen in retaliation:
Komen’s San Diego affiliate increased its security after receiving threatening e-mails about the new funding policy, even though it does not fund its local Planned Parenthood. Executive director Laura Farmer Sherman said she personally received nearly 400 e-mails on the subject — two in favor of the new policy and 386 against it.
She said she has lost two sponsors for its Race for the Cure next fall.
“The sad thing about this is it’s detracted from what our real mission is, which is the same as Planned Parenthood, which is to save women’s lives,” she said.
The decision has prompted some groups to reconsider or drop their affiliation with Komen, while others are praising Komen for their stance.
A Yale University spokesman said the School of Public Health is reviewing its decision to have Brinker speak at this year’s commencement.
The District-based American Association of University Women, a national women’s advocacy group with 1,000 branches across the country, said Thursday that it would no longer collaborate with Komen. The AAUW said it would not list Komen among the community service opportunities available to the 600 college women expected to attend the AAUW’s annual leadership conference in June. The headquarters office will also no longer sponsor Washington teams in the Race for the Cure and expects its branches to follow suit, said Lisa Maatz, the AAUW’s director of public policy and government relations.
As I learned while writing this post, Komen has reversed itself and will continue funding grants to Planned Parenthood. has apologized and amended part of its new criteria to note that grantees must be under criminal investigation to warrant the pulling of a grant, not merely congressional investigations.
Nonetheless, it seems the left-wing bully known as the liberal media has won another victory.
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
the Washington Post has its
Submitted by jkwtrading on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 12:55pm.
the Washington Post has its own tug of war occurring..
⇒ Those big bullies
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 12:58pm.
Whaah! Whaah! Susan Komen won't help us put these black babies into the grinder.
BREAKING: Just read that
Submitted by balboa on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 1:00pm.
BREAKING: Just read that Komen is reinstating funding to PP.
Not quite bal,
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 1:04pm.
but close. Regardless, as I said below, Komen has definitely walked it back and succumbed to the pressure from abortion activists. They should be so proud.
Well, since Komen has now walked it back
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 1:02pm.
it looks like the bullying from the left worked. Seems the Komen women have no b@lls.
Komen's money used for breast-cancer screenings
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 1:03pm.
I'm glad that Komen reversed their decision, since that money is used for breast-cancer screenings which are conducted at Planned Parenthood. So, Komen is against breast cancer; and they give money to combat breast cancer.
There seems to be some confusion around here that Planned Parenthood is Abortions 'R' Us, when abortions actually make up 3% of their business. (cite: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/292634/20120203/susan-g-komen-donation-c...)
Wow
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 2:43pm.
You walked into a buzzsaw.
[Edited at 1:44pm to add : Don't ask me how I know these things, I just do.]
Nicholas, Planned Parenthood
Submitted by Ken Shepherd on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 1:05pm.
Nicholas, Planned Parenthood conducts manual breast exams but only REFERS women to mammograms. It doesn't help pay for mammograms or follow-up care as far as I know.
And don't hold your breath for PP to hire oncologists or mammogram techs with all the new money they've gotten in the past 48 hours. Not going to happen.
Manual breast exams are breast exams
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 1:19pm.
Ken,
Manual breast exams are an important part of breast cancer screening. Referrals to get mammograms are an important part of catching cancer while it's still manageable. Therefore, when PP gets money, women's lives get saved. I support that.
As for what PP does with all that sweet, sweet Komen money, what do you think they do with it? Do you disagree with the chart reposted at the International Business Times that PP's business is only 3% abortion-related?
Think so? Check this
Submitted by Soldat44 on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 1:28pm.
Think so?
Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq0kBkUZbvQ&list=FLc6ig2nIUCaBGu3RA4GddNA...
Pay attention!
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 1:34pm.
I especially like how that video doesn't disprove what I said: manual breast exams are an important part of cancer screening. Mammograms are also an important part--but they are not the same thing.
(Also, check out the comments under the video where several people mention that they got mammograms at some PP facilities.)
Nicholas Nickleby LIES right through his green teeth.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 1:47pm.
Nicholas Nickleby: ...PP's business is only 3% abortion-related...
A BOLD FACED LIE RIGHT IN YOUR FACE.
Factcheck: Its 2011 fact sheet says it performed 332,278 abortion procedures in 2009. That would mean that roughly one out of every 10 clients received an abortion.
NPR: It is actually a little bit closer to the 10% that Marjorie Dannenfesler suggested, because there are about 3 million patients who come in. There are about 300,000 abortions provided.
NPR: CONAN: And the difference might be that the same woman who later received an abortion also got a pregnancy test and counseling and some other services.
HE LIES RIGHT IN YOUR FACE AND THEN SPITS AT YOU.
Why were these women coming to Planned Parenthood for their pregnancy tests, considering how they could have gotten a cheap pregnancy test at their local drug store? It certainly couldn’t be for the prenatal care, since so few Planned Parenthood centers offer it (FN According to the Services fact sheet, PPFA clinics provided prenatal services just 7,021 clients in 2009 in the U.S.).
A not so insignificant part of the bottom line
To get a real idea of how essential abortion is to Planned Parenthood, instead of comparing all services equally, one does well to take a look at the relative revenue brought in by each service.
While a pregnancy test may cost $15 and birth control pills may run $15-$50 a month, the average price a woman pays for basic first trimester surgical abortion in the U.S. is about $451, says a recent survey by the Guttmacher Institute (FN Rachel Jones and Kathryn Kooistra, “Abortion Incidence and Access to Services in the United States, 2008, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Vol. 43, No. 1 (March 2011), Table 6, p. 48).
If so, and all 332,278 abortions performed at Planned Parenthood in 2009 are counted as these first trimester surgical abortions, then the revenue generated by abortion would be $149.9 million. This would represent a full 37% of the $404.9 million in “health center income” Planned Parenthood reported for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009 (FN, Planned Parenthood Federation of American, Annual Report, 2008-2009,”The Promise of Change,” p.29)
Given that Planned Parenthood clinics advertise and perform more expensive chemical abortions with abortifacients like RU486 (average price paid $483) and later surgical abortions (average price of $1562 at 20 weeks), [4] the revenue stream generated by abortion and the percentage of clinic income it represents at Planned Parenthood is probably much higher.
Put all this together, largely taken from PPFA’s own reports, and it is clear that the “3%” figure is a myth intended to mask Planned Parenthood’s deep, wide, and lucrative involvement in abortion.
3% of all services vs. 10% of all clients
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 2:07pm.
It's true, I do spit on you, but it's for using this color in a comment.
But it's possible that both the Vet and I are correct here: in 2011, the abortions were 3% of all services provided--but it's possible that 10% of women seeking services got abortions. What that means is that, if you come in for an abortion, they might also teach you how to exam yourself for breast cancer.
But I'm not lying, Vet. (Though these numbers do come from PP, so if you think they're the devil, then you might not trust them.)
Double down on your lie. Like I care, troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 10:47pm.
You were a Bush hating liar 3 years ago. You are the same liar now.
The spokesman for Planned Parenthood ADMITS YOU LIE.
A friend of mine is calling
Submitted by Ken Shepherd on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 3:41pm.
A friend of mine is calling that the Gacy Clown defense: http://thecollegepolitico.com/the-gacy-clown-defense/
Just as John Wayne Gacy did some good things -- dressing as a clown to entertain kids -- he is notorious for being a serial killer. Ditto with Planned Parenthood.
Ha!
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 4:06pm.
If that's the way you feel about abortion, that's fine. Just say so.
But let's be clear here: if you care about women's health and you hate Planned Parenthood, then you should a) celebrate the defunding of PP (or be angry that Komen reversed themselves and will consider funding PP again) and b) figure out a way for women to get info on cancer screenings that they might not get without PP.
Because, like it or try to deny it, a lot of what PP does has nothing to do with abortion. After all, why would Komen give them money in the first place if it was all about abortion?
Ha2*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 4:19pm.
It is obvious you know little of PP or SGK, all you have is a liberal agenda. Reality does not come into play.
SGK has a reciprocal relationship with PP. SGK gives PP money, and PP refers women to SGK centers for mammograms. Any doctor will tell you, a physical or self exam is not enough to identify early cancer. Only a mammogram can do that. By the time a "lump" is found by physical exam, that means the cancer has advanced significantly adding to the seriousness of the cancer and risk to the patient.
SGK receives anywhere from $200 to $400 for a mammogram from insurance or medicaid and medicare. They make a lot more money on these referrals than their donations they made to PP.
Do not glorify either of these organizations.
OK
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 5:00pm.
But let's not demonize them before we look at the facts, right?
And there's been lots of interesting info that's come out about how Komen uses their funds, info which makes them seem like a badly-run charity.
Hey Nicky*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 6:10pm.
What makes you think that I do not know the facts? I am well aware of the intricacies of both organizations. As a social worker, I have had contact with issues of abortion both before and after Roe vs Wade. (yes, I am that old) I am also the 5th in my family diagnosed with breast cancer and familiar with SGK services. I do not base my opinions on ideology but reality. And sometimes reality is ugly. Anyone can distort numbers, rules, regulations, and "so called compassionate care" for women.
But mostly views on these issues are based on ideology and not reality. I have not been a fan of either of these organizations but at least SGK provides professional medical care with trained personnel for a specific cause. PP does not.
Demonizing PP is not that difficult if you have ever watched an abortion in progress. The procedure involves butchering a human infant that is ALIVE. It amazes me that someones ideology can completely ignore THAT reality.
Gosh,
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 1:08pm.
so only 3% is used to murder babies??? Well, that changes EVERYTHING!!!!!!
Thank God you told us.............
You're welcome!
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 1:39pm.
Hi NC Cop,
Just trying to help. There seems to be some misunderstanding about Komen's grants: some people here seem to think that Komen is funding abortions. I'm just pointing out that Komen is funding breast exams, which is totally consistent with their goal of saving women from breast cancer.
If you think that PP is evil because they do abortions, that's fine. But now you know a little more about what this brouhaha is all about.
Wow, thanks for educating us rubes, Nick.
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 1:49pm.
And, FYI, that was sarcasm, also.
You're welcome, too!
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 1:57pm.
I'm not up to the "S"s yet, so I don't get sarcasm. ;)
I'm pro-choice, so we're probably going to disagree. But at least we can agree on some facts: breast cancer is bad, so a charity that helps stop breast cancer is doing some good work. This idea that Planned Parenthood only does abortions is silly--but not uncommon here.
In other words, I'll stop educating you rubes when you stop being rubes.
And that's not sarcasm, unfortunately.
Yeah, and Hitler put most everyone back to work.
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 2:00pm.
That didn't make him an employer.
If you murder one, or one million, it doesn't make you a "health-care provider" it makes you a murderer.
Meanwhile, why don't you toddle back on over to PuffHo's or KOS, there's really nothing you can say that's of interest, mmmm-kay? But, thanks for confirming that liberals, generally, deem everyone not a liberal to not be their equals.
But now we're talking!
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 2:13pm.
UpNorth,
I don't actually like HuffPo or read DailyKOS; but you're right on one thing: I am a liberal.
But that's why I'm here, to talk to people who don't think the same things.
Like you, who has made some things clear: a) you believe abortion is murder; b) you think that any amount of murder is unjustifiable. Is that a fair assessment of your feelings on abortion?
(I agree with the second, by the way; I just don't agree with the first.)
Yeah, we can agree that abortion is murder.
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 3:37pm.
And, "I am a liberal". You didn't really have to confirm that which we all knew, already. But, thanks.
And, don't trot out the rape victim analogy, or the oops, I made a mistake and took an aspirin, not my BC pill one.
Hmmm...
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 4:08pm.
What's more important to you, UpNorth, feeling like you've beaten a liberal? Or having a conversation about what we believe? Wouldn't you want a chance to convert a bona fide liberal?
I support a woman's right to choose; do you oppose abortion in any situation? Because sometimes people get raped and get pregnant or sometimes a pregnancy might threaten the mother's life--do you still think abortion is wrong in those situations?
(Note: If you don't want to have a conversation, that's fine. I don't come here to convert people to liberalism; and sometimes I get caught up in arguments when people throw around "facts" that are wrong. But I am interested in what conservatives have to say.)
"Convert" a bona fide liberal?
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 4:28pm.
Into what, a sofa bed? Not worth the time or effort. Like Winston said, “Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.”.
And nice try, but I don't play that game, we're comparing PP to a murderer. They are, IMO.
UpNorth---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 10:21pm.
Rupert Caddell got the living shit kicked out of him, by The Vet and docsam, on another thread, regarding this very same subject.
nicholas nickleby spouts the same crap that Rupe did.
At least ol' Rupe manned up and admitted he was wrong.
Rupe was owned in debates with conservatives on the OWS threads (he eventually admitted to being in error about OWS), and pwned in debates with conservatives on the Planned Parenthood threads.
Still a proud lib, though.
Like nickleby.
Odd bunch, these libs.
MD
More bogus arguments to justify killing babies
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 10:37pm.
Rapes resulting in pregnancy are very rare. Even so, the crime doesn't justify killing the baby. It is also very rare to have to choose between the life of the mother and the life of the baby with today's technology. Premature babies are surviving at younger and younger ages.
Planned Parenthood, which
Submitted by celator on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 2:13pm.
Planned Parenthood, which should really be called Planned Abortion, provides about 30 percent of abortions in this country, or about 330,000 abortions per year. That's a lot of planned assassinations of unborn humans, no?
From LifeNews: ".... 97.6 percent of pregnant women going to Planned Parenthood are sold abortions while less than 2.4 percent of pregnant women received non-abortion services including adoption and prenatal care. That’s up from 96.5 percent of pregnant women going to Planned Parenthood getting abortions in 2008." This is from PP's own records.
Maybe calling Planned Parenthood an abortion factory isn't too far off, ya think?
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/02/23/new-planned-parenthood-report-record-...
OK
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 2:18pm.
I agree, they are a large provider of abortions in the US; but at the same time, abortions are only a small part of what they do to protect women's health.
~Really?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 2:20pm.
In what way does having an abortion protect a woman's health?
Abortions are only one service they provide
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 2:27pm.
Hey WB,
Abortions are only 3% of what they do at PP. So they also do breast exams and teach people how to watch for signs of cancer. That protects women's health.
~Backtracking, I see
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 2:37pm.
You said, "abortions are only a small part of what they do to protect women's health". What part of 'protecting health' is abortion?
Now, if you're referring to the women who get an abortion because their boyfriend will beat them up if they don't, I could see where you're coming from. But you think all those woman getting abortions are doing so of their own free 'choice', don't you?
Wha?
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 2:40pm.
WB,
I've said before and I say again: 97% of what PP does has nothing to do with abortion. They teach people to do breast self examinations. They refer people to mammograms (and in some locations, provide mammograms). Etc.
Do you agree that breast cancer is bad for women's health? If so, then you should also agree that teaching people about breast cancer is good for women's health.
~Oh WOW
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 3:08pm.
That's why they call their organization "Protecting the Breasteses and Other Fabulous Lady Parts" rather than something to do with pregnancy!
Oh, wait.
No matter how you spin it, you can't pretend that PP spends anywhere close to 97% of their time telling women to feel themselves up in a medically approved manner.
But that's the numbers they gave
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 4:14pm.
WB,
And all Chase Manhattan Banks are located in Manhattan, right? Sometimes names aren't perfect descriptions, WB. We all know the history of PP; but that doesn't mean they're the same organization now.
You can have your own opinion on abortion, but you can't have your own facts. I'm not spinning anything, I'm just quoting the numbers that PP gave--and if you want to say that PP is lying, that's fine, I have no proof that they aren't.
There is, of course, a simple way to end this argument: tell me that any amount of abortion is wrong. Can you tell me that?
~Curious
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 4:19pm.
"We all know the history of PP"
Do tell. What is their history?
Good one Bru*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 4:22pm.
Hold on a sec Nicky, gotta get me some popcorn....;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood#History
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 5:06pm.
Short version: Margaret Sanger, who had some eugenic ideas. (Which were pretty popular back then. Even W. E. B. DuBois has some eugenic ideas.)
Long version: Making public what had previously been a secret, a long history of women receiving herbal and mechanical contraceptives and abortions.
~It wasn't a secret
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 5:20pm.
Women have been trying to get rid of unwanted pregnancies since the first one. They did it because they didn't want to have a baby; Sanger promoted it on a widespread scale in hopes of wiping out significant portions of the population. It went from an individual (bad) decision made based on individual circumstances to a multi-million dollar a year industry wielding significant political clout.
I repeat, from PP's own
Submitted by celator on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 2:27pm.
I repeat, from PP's own records: ".... 97.6 percent of pregnant women going to Planned Parenthood are sold abortions while less than 2.4 percent of pregnant women received non-abortion services including adoption and prenatal care."
What are the number for non-pregnant women?
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 2:33pm.
Hey Celator,
You haven't disproven the claim that 3% of what PP does is abortions. You've just shown that abortions are popular with pregnant women who go to PP.
So what's the numbers for non-pregnant women? a) How many of them are there in proportion to pregnant women? and b) How many non-pregnant women are there for abortions?
Look, if you think that abortions are totally wrong and that any organization that provides an abortion is wrong, even if they do other stuff, that's fine. Just say so.
But if you're trying to prove that PP is all about abortions, then you're wrong. Because they do lots of other stuff. Like provide info on breast cancer--which is why Komen would give them any money in the first place.
~Disgrace to Dickens
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 2:37pm.
You're late to the party; your claim has already been disproven.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2012/02/01/wash-post-spin-kome...
Already dealt with that.
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 2:45pm.
WB,
The Vet copy-pasted that same info into this thread and I've already dealt with it. Short version: his numbers don't disprove my claim about abortion being just 3% of what PP does.
Now, if you want to say that any group that performs any amount of abortions is wrong, just say that. I'm cool with that.
~No you didn't
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 2:58pm.
And yes, they do. But since you don't comprehend what you read, I might as well be typing in Swahili.
Bru, it's like trying to explain electricity to a savage
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 3:04pm.
Can't be done.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
~Nope
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 3:12pm.
But it sure is fun telling them to grab the wire and see what happens.
Jambho!
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 3:13pm.
That's Kiva Swahili for "hello" (according to an old high school teacher of mine).
WB, I agreed that the Vet's numbers may be correct but those numbers say that PP provides 10% of its clients with abortions. (That number is consistent with their claim that only 3% of their services are abortions, by the way.)
But that means that 90% of the women who go into PP do not get abortions. That means they're there for other reasons, such as STD testing or breast cancer screening.
Let's be clear: is there any amount of abortion that you would find acceptable? If PP spent its time 99% stopping cancer with magic spells, but 1% giving abortions, would that be okay with you? If not, just say so.
The problem with your statistics
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 3:24pm.
-and this has been indicated over and over again during this recent debate- is that many of the services PP provides are contiguous with an abortion, but listed statistically separate. It's likely that every abortion patient also receives STD testing at the time of her abortion. She may also be counseled on numerous other female health conditions like breast exams and contraception. So while she's there to have an abortion, 5 other line items are performed; this drives the abortion percentage way down.
So spin it all you'd like- PP is in the abortion industry. They locate in poor areas primarily, and most often in states where public abortion money is provided. f you are a staunch supporter of abortion, you shouldn't need to try to couch their services with misleading statistics; you should be proud of the service they're providing- that primarily being abortion.
I stand with Planned Parenthood
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 4:16pm.
bkeyser, I am proud of Planned Parenthood and I am proud of their abortion services.
I'm not trying to gin the numbers, and you're right that many services PP provides are a) contiguous to abortion or b) very quick compared to abortion. (It's easy to give someone condoms and check off "safe sex education.")
The only reason I'm here, saying the same thing over and over, is that people here seem to think that Planned Parenthood = Abortion. Even with the numbers that the Vet gave, 1 in 10 customers get an abortion. So Planned Parenthood = 10% Abortion.
If that number is too high, just say so. (And why don't we try to make a new place that offers breast cancer screenings and pap smears but not abortions.) What's so confusing to me here is that no one here says "abortions should be totally illegal."
~Abortions should be totally illegal
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 4:20pm.
.
You're my new favorite!
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 4:26pm.
Thanks for that, WB.
I just sometimes feel like political arguments consist of people trying to hide what they really feel or just not being explicit about it.
~Don't you recognize me?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 4:38pm.
I'm your 'old' favorite too, choselife3x. Only that's 5x, now.
x6...
Submitted by vrwc13 on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 4:50pm.
...and you caught up with us!
And they are all a blessing!
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
~I think I may let you hold that record
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 4:59pm.
After 5 blessings in 7 years my uterus is waving a little white flag.
:-p
wow!
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 4:59pm.
I was just thinking about you! I remember I misread your old name for weeks and weeks back in the day: I thought it was "choose" and someone finally corrected me and said that I was being a bit of a jerk by misspelling your name. I felt very silly defending myself ("I'm not a jerk") by admitting that I can be dumb ("I just misread it--for weeks").
5, huh? That's a lot of work and hopefully a lot of fun, too; I just have a dog and even that tires me out.
What's with the name change? I just came back today randomly and my browser remembered my name/password. (Everyone who hated arguing today can thank Google Chrome for that.) Hope you're doing well.
P.S. I think I'm all done with arguing today, since no one here is going to change their mind; but I'm glad to see a range of opinions here (at least, say, between you, WB and Blonde (below)). And anyway, I always preferred those strange times where we stopped arguing politics and started discussing things we have in common. (If I remember correctly, Noel Sheppard and I share similar tv show tastes.)
~You can change your screen name now
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 5:11pm.
NB has been through a lot of changes in the past couple of years, including a wipeout of all the comments prior to October 2010.
My new sn is a long story. Short version: Brunette was my nickname elsewhere and I liked it's lack of detail about my family.
Dude, really. When did anyone ever change their mind based on an internet argument?
True that.
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 5:31pm.
Dude, really. When did anyone ever change their mind based on an internet argument?
Finally, something we can agree on. That brings to mind one of my favorite cartoons, which is too true: http://xkcd.com/386/
I do not miss any of my pre-2010 posts, though I spent hours on them. Maybe I should take that as a lesson, stop typing arguments, and just go watch Sons of Anarchy. (If you haven't seen it, it's fun, but violent and the characters in it are NOT nice, so don't take this as a recommendation.)
Take care, maybe I'll see you in another 3 years? (Actually, I tend to come here in election years...)
~I know, I remember your praise of Obama's inaugural 'poet'
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 5:46pm.
I'd enjoy reading my response one more time if it hadn't been blasted into the ether when NB re-booted.
I'll watch SofA right after you read War and Peace. :-D
Bye y'all, I'm off to re-pot a cattleya and make homemade baked mac'n'cheese.
The issue you're ignoring
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 4:36pm.
is the approach that PP takes in it's effort's to provide abortions. But back to the numbers- their revenue is almost entirely dependent on their abortion services. They're certainly not making money on providing free condoms or STD screening. They're not making money on directing women to outside mammogram services. They are, however, making money hand over fist on abortions.
They operate just like virtually every other left-wing operation; with misdirection and below-board tactics. This is why they don't want to inform parents when young girls come in for abortions services- they might lose the income. This is why they don't report to police when a minor informs them the father is in his 30's - they might lose the income. This is why they fight for partial birth abortion- to increase their income. It's exploitative capitalism; exactly what liberals claim to hate most and yet covertly support.
My personal opinions regarding abortion are immaterial, but to be upfront, I don't think they should be totally illegal. I also don't think they should be a method of birth control, and I don't think more than one should ever be allowed except under a condition that would end the life of the mother. That being said, the vast majority of PP patrons are almost certainly using abortion as a vehicle for eradicating an inconvenience; one that could have easily been prevented had the mother shown a modicum of responsibility. Abortion services, especially with a production line mentality as fostered by PP, are nothing more than a government-sanctioned abdication of responsible behavior. Not exactly the kind of productive citizen we'd all like to be generating.
" I am proud of their
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 5:00pm.
" I am proud of their abortion services."
Pretty much says it all, doesn't it?
If they only perform 1 abortion a year, it's too many.
Nobody is interested in converting you, nicholas. It's obvious you are way too deep to consider common sense, facts and truth. We wouldn't bother trying.
We get your kind in here every day. Your going to "educate" us. Try thinking for yourself for once and you might actually learn something yourself.
Yeah, you're right
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 5:10pm.
NC Cop,
No one at NewsBusters is going to read my posts and go, "hey, maybe abortion isn't so bad." I just want to make sure that we're all playing with the same info. If you don't like Planned Parenthood, you may try to defund it or make sure that it no longer provides abortions.
But if you do, I also hope you think ahead and say "now that PP is gone, how do we provide the good services that it provided?"
(But even though we're not going to convert each other, I sometimes can't help but try. After all, every American citizen has a vote--so I want you on my side.)
(Or at least, I do until I'm hungry for lunch. Politics isn't as important as food, right?)
We are well aware of Planned
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 5:13pm.
We are well aware of Planned Parenthood's "services" and please spare me the whole "Hey, I'm just trying to have an honest debate" crap. You came in here describing us as "rubes" and now are trying to have "civil" debate. Please.
You're little more than entertainment here.
NC Cop ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 10:30pm.
XLNT point reference "rubes".
The fact the little dickens admittedly shows up around election time speaks volumes about his "intent" on these threads.
MD
That's what it always comes down to-
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 6:24pm.
a relatively ridiculous argument. I'm not trying to be demeaning here, but you can get a ton of free information regarding women's health online, or at your local health department. You don't have to go to a PP to learn how to do a self breast exam (I'm told). If you have a primary care physician, you can get an STD test done there. After all, are women the only ones to get STD screening? I know for a fact you can get that done at the local health department in my area too.
PP doesn't hold a monopoly on women's health care. In fact, I'd almost be willing to bet that there are more actual doctors available in more locations than there are PP centers. And I'd also be willing bet that there are doctors and health care facilities in the same towns as PP centers- meaning PP is never the only choice for women, anywhere. They're redundant.
It's the same flawed argument as "saving GM". If GM went under, do you really think the 168 thousand GM vehicles sold in January of this year would not have been built by someone else? That were it not for the billions of taxpayer dollars sunk into GM and Chrysler that America's appetite for new vehicles would have abated by the their loss? Of course not. Other companies would have replaced them.
The problem isn't always the product, sometimes the problem is the way the organization is run. In PP's case, it's both.
And your remarks weren't clever either
Submitted by Free Stinker on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 2:22pm.
But we don't expect you'll notice
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
"I'm pro-choice, so we're probably going to disagree."
Submitted by vrwc13 on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 2:45pm.
...so which of these reasons of "choice" do you agree with?
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
I support them all.
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 2:56pm.
I realize that I'm in a minority here, but I support a woman's right to choose an abortion.
Do you oppose abortion in all of those cases?
~I find it so incredibly ironic
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 3:08pm.
That 'risk to fetal health' is actually listed as a reason for getting an abortion.
I find it so incredibly ironic that 'risk to fetal health'...
Submitted by vrwc13 on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 4:47pm.
I find it so incredibly ironic that 'risk to fetal health' is actually listed as a reason for getting an abortion.
...maybe they want a 'redo' so the next one can be perfect like themselves?
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
All of them...
Submitted by vrwc13 on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 4:43pm.
...what God has started, man/woman should not stop.
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
Nick
Submitted by action on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 2:10pm.
and exactly what "choice" are you in favor of??
So we're clear:
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 2:15pm.
I'm a supporter of a woman's right to choose an abortion.
But I also support agencies and charities that fight cancer. (Partly for selfish reasons, action: my family has some history of cancer, including breast cancer.)
And how do
Submitted by action on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 2:28pm.
you define an abortion
Abortion is...
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 2:38pm.
... the termination of a pregnancy, usually in the first 25 weeks. (Which has to do with fetal viability--whether a baby born before then can survive.)
"Whether a baby
Submitted by action on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 2:42pm.
born before then can survive." So you are stating that the pregnancy, even before 25 weeks, is defined as a baby-by your own words. Do you really believe that a woman has a right to end her BABY'S life? How do you diffentiate this from murder, since by your own definition a woman is pregnant with a baby?
How can I win?
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 2:51pm.
Action, I also said "fetal viability"--does that prove that you're wrong? Of course not! I switched up the words (used "fetal" and "baby" both once) because if I used "fetus" all the time, I'm sure someone (maybe not you) would've said "why can't you say 'baby,' baby-killer!" So that's why I used "fetal" and "baby" an equal amount of times.
Let's call it me being "fair and balanced."
If you want to know my feelings, I'll tell you: I don't think fetuses are human beings. If you think they are, then we're just going to disagree.
In fact, I hope we do disagree because then we can get to interesting questions like:
Do you support abortion if carrying the baby to term will kill the mother? If you think baby and mother are both human beings, which one gets to live? This to me is the hardest question for pro-life people to answer. If I were pro-life, I'm not sure what I would say.
I'll step up to the plate on that one
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 3:00pm.
I believe the mother has the option, yes. But I also believe that most mothers, like Pam Tebow, will choose to carry the child to term. It's called "maternal instinct".
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
So, sometimes a woman has the right to choose?
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 3:13pm.
Hey Blonde,
Thanks for the answer.
But just to be clear, you're saying that a woman does, in some circumstance, have the right to choose an abortion. You wouldn't want the mother to choose an abortion, but you think she should have that choice, yes?
~Skewing the board
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 3:29pm.
Your "carrying the baby to term will kill the mother" premise is a false one. In case of eclampsia a woman can simply have an early C-section; she doesn't have to ask to have the baby killed.
hypothetical useful for figuring out extremes
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 4:24pm.
WB,
I'm just trying to figure out what some people who post here think. Sometimes that means using facts and stats; and sometimes it means hypotheticals. If I ever mix those two up, please call me on it.
~I'll make it easy for you
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 5:50pm.
If a woman is quite literally about to die due to a complication of pregnancy, and the baby is too young to survive outside the womb and therefore cannot be saved by C-section, then since the baby would die with the mother it would make no sense to let them both die when one could be saved.
However, that situation is so incredibly rare it's not worth dragging into a debate on abortion, since liberals would absolutely lose their minds at the proposition that legal abortions be narrowed to those situations. The struggle here is over abortions being available, on demand, for any reason, which is what liberals want. Bringing a life or death scenario into it is only meant to cloud the issue and make conservatives appear heartless.
In that lone circumstance, yes.
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 3:29pm.
One circumstance, the 100% certainty of death to the mother if the baby is carried to term. Not some. Don't attempt to twist that.
Rape is an entirely different circumstance. And unlike many of the other conservatives here, I believe the Morning After pill is an appropriate option in the case of rape. Because conception isn't instantaneous, therefore with immediate medical care, a victim of rape can prevent the pregnancy.
That's it. I'm not a physician, but I'm sure the doctors here can get into the actual statistics terminated pregnancies where the life of the mother is at issue. It is, as I recall, an incredibly tiny number.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
no tricks, no traps
Submitted by nicholas nickleby on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 4:23pm.
hi Blonde,
I grant I don't know the numbers either; and I'm not trying to trap you into saying something. I'm just trying to figure out where the hypothetical cut-off is for some people. (And there are some people who don't have a cut-off anywhere; didn't Santorum say that raped, pregnant women who have babies should try to treasure that baby?)
So, your line seems to be "absolute health of the mother" but you also note that conception isn't immediate. So, do you think the Morning After pill is ok when rape isn't the issue?
Actually, I do.
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 4:48pm.
In that I differ from many conservatives. Again, that's my take on it. Having said that, a pound of prevention is a whole lot easier than an ounce of cure, and in this day and age of STDs, AIDs, etc. I also believe it's insane to not be protected if one is going to have sex outside of marriage. Inasmuch as I'm not a Catholic, I have no problem with practicing birth control. And have done so, fanatically. Relying on the morning after pill as a primary form of birth control is idiotic, IMO.
Finally, don't equate the two hypotheticals, either. A woman doesn't know she's in imminent danger of death due to pregnancy (in the very rare instances that occurs) until much later in the pregnancy.
I am against abortions in every instance except the narrowly defined one, above. But since many liberals can't seem to understand the difference between full-on pro-abortion stance, as you seem to advocate, and the conservative pro-life stance, I just wanted to clearly define what MY position on it is. Again, it's not typical of the conservative viewpoint on the issue.
[Edit] And yes, Rick Santorum, and many others, believe there is NO exception, ever. While I don't agree with that position, I respect it.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
the baby is always innocent
Submitted by TruthMonger on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 5:06pm.
that might help you - and if you don't think a fetus or embroyo is a human being then what kind of species is it - a kanine...? how do you define human being - a human species organism that is in existence seems the only logical def to me...
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
Zippolas Zippleby, 3 years, 23 weeks.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 2:56pm.
Zippers The Elder, 3 years, 19 weeks.
Get a life, weirdo.
Same rhetoric.
Submitted by ljacone on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 3:30pm.
Wow, the White House really got their act together in getting the MSM their prep sheets for this story. Every single story I have seen has used the same term to describe Komen -- "bully." I have to applaud their synergy if nothing else.
Of course, Komen folded, so it's all for naught. Expect stories about the "little guy" Planned Parenthood standing up to the big mean corporate (code: "Right Wing") "Bully" Komen.
My $0.02
Submitted by Shreve on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 4:41pm.
While I think a woman who is in an unplanned pregnancy should give the child up for adoption, if she feels she needs an abortion, I would rather her go to a place like PP instead of the hypothetical dark alley.
It is not up to me to judge her decision.
No one 'needs' an abortion...
Submitted by vrwc13 on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 4:54pm.
...they just want one. That's why they call 'it' a choice.
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
~Bingo!
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 5:22pm.
'Like'.
Bullying Susan G. Komen
Submitted by berlet98 on Mon, 02/06/2012 - 4:50pm.
Bullying Susan G. Komen
The huge flap over the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation’s decision to cease funding Planned Parenthood of America, PPOA, and then to rescind that recission is nothing more than a tempest in the abortion teapot. It’s also an excellent example of the power of bullying.
Susan G. Komen for the Cure is as dedicated to curing breast cancer as Planned Parenthood is dedicated to killing the pre-born. However, when the foundation pulled its funding of PPOA last week, it was a wake-up call, if one were needed, that libs are far more concerned for preserving abortion rights than they are with preserving the lives of women.
Under a torrent of incensed bullying attacks, the foundation quickly seemed to reverse its decision though not before libs launched a withering onslaught of abuse of Komen.
The bullying died down following the apparent reversal, which is ironic since the foundation simply decided to adhere to its previous commitment to pay PPOA over half a million dollars but would provide no additional funding because, despite its advertising, the nation’s most profitable and prolific abortionists doesn’t give a damn about breast cancer.
Komen caved to the bullying tactics then made it clear it won’t support organizations not engaged in breast cancer research or treatment or if they are proven guilty of criminal activities.
As background, Susan Komen died at age 36 in 1980, a victim of the plague of breast cancer after her sister Nancy Goodman Brinker swore to her that she would do all she could to eradicate that scourge. . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12591.)