Susan G. Komen backs down

In an abrupt about-face, the Susan G. Komen Foundation decided to once again provide grants to Planned Parenthood for services related to breast cancer screenings and treatment. Needless to say, pro-life activists are up in arms about having defeat snatched from the jaws of victory. But the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the pro-abortion community was intense, and having 26 Democratic Senators send a letter to SGK condemning the move was probably enough to worry the breast cancer research giant into fearing a federal backlash. (By the way, it’s hardly surprising that both Maryland Senators Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin signed the letter.)

Ironically, the amount in question (about $680,000) was matched by several large donors to Planned Parenthood, so they would have been all right financially anyway. Planned Parenthood is a $1 billion-plus business, so in all honesty the SGK grant was a proverbial drop in the bucket to them – yet the screaming which ensued after SGK dropped its grant was enough to bring the abortion issue back to the forefront for a time. It’s sad because SGK does a lot of good but the comparatively tiny amount at stake will likely result in a net loss for that worthwhile organization (because donors will be turned off by the fact they donate to an abortion mill) and they’ll still be on the hook for the $680,000 or so. Meanwhile, I doubt Planned Parenthood is going to return any of the donations they received under what turned out to be somewhat false pretenses.

There’s also another difference between the two that’s worth pointing out. Insofar as I could tell, SGK either receives no or very little federal funding – the vast majority of their revenue comes from donations and the Race for the Cure. On the other hand, Planned Parenthood gets millions of federal dollars each year and uses the money freed up by the funding to perform over 300,000 abortions a year. One promotes a culture of life and hope, the other a culture of death and “convenience.” If they simply stuck to other birth control methods, perhaps Planned Parenthood would be a less controversial organization, but their roots go back to the dark aspect of eugenics and the molding of society as expressed by founder Margaret Sanger.

I suppose the only shock I had wasn’t the fact Komen backed down, but just that they did so quickly.

Friday night videos – episode 41

It’s back to the political for this edition of FNV, and I have plenty to choose from since I took the extra week.

You know, Americans aren’t happy with their government and its spending. So says the Senate Republicans.


Nice of them to use some video from my old hometown – the part about Senator Voinovich was taken from WNWO-TV, the NBC affiliate in Toledo.

As a matter of fact I find this next video pretty funny. The vain stumbling in search of a thought is the best part.

Sure Bob Ehrlich put it out, but when you’re caught you’re caught.

Even more funny is this spot for a phony product. Fortunately, I’m not in the market for it.

I still want the sticker I’ve seen which says: ‘You voted for Obama? Thanks a lot @$$hole!’

One group which still supports Obama and his agenda is the NAACP. While it smacks of ‘gotcha’ journalism, sometimes these guerrilla efforts are the best way to get the truth.

Human Events did the video, so consider the source before you demean the message.

Here’s another example of ‘gotcha’ journalism. But imagine if it were a pro-life group disseminating incorrect information – would you not see someone like Geraldo Rivera all over it?

I guess considering the fetus ‘medical waste’ makes it all better?

The next two videos are an impassioned plea from Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal regarding the oil drilling moratorium and jobs. This was at the ‘Rally for Economic Survival.’

If Governor Jindal can continue being a leader, he may yet be a factor in 2012. Do you wonder if President Obama is trying to make him look bad as a potential opponent?

I’m saving the best for last. Americans for Limited Government took time to remind us that next February marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of an American who fought for limited government as much as he could.

Ronald Reagan’s message seems a good way to bring this edition to a close.

Placing your views on your bumper

If you drive down America’s highways, sooner or later you’ll see a license plate bearing the message “Choose Life.” Even Maryland, home of some of America’s most fervent liberals, makes such a plate available. (Delaware is in the process of making their own version available, probably later this year.)

The commonwealth of Virginia has had Choose Life plates available for some time, but, according to an AP story by Dena Potter in today’s Washington Times, their legislature now faces the question of making a similar pro-choice (read: pro-abortion) plate available. The revenue from these proposed plates, which bear the message, “Trust Women…Respect Choice” would benefit Planned Parenthood.

For their part, Planned Parenthood claims the revenue ($15 per plate after the first 1,000 are sold) wouldn’t go to pay for abortions but to cover their other services.

But the argument is disingenuous because money is a fungible asset – adding money to pay for cancer screenings frees up Planned Parenthood to funnel money into paying the doctors who perform the abortions. This logic is what places newly elected Governor Bob McDonnell on the anti-plate side despite the threat of legal action.

On the other hand, funds raised by “Choose Life” plates go to crisis pregnancy centers and adoption services.

There’s no question that people are willing to pay a little extra for their license plates to promote a message or point of view, and generally part of the fees collected go to support the entity sponsoring the plate. In most states, the biggest benefactors of these specialty plates are colleges and universities where plates bear their logo or are designed to reflect school colors. (Maryland is an exception; our largest sellers are Chesapeake Bay-related tags.) Aside from a rivalry aspect these collegiate plates are fairly non-controversial.

But when the subject is as controversial as abortion, perhaps it’s time to step back and question the wisdom of having a plate which benefits a particular entity like Planned Parenthood. Perhaps a better alternative might be to have this benefit other womens’ health initiatives like prenatal services for high-risk pregnant women. After all, one choice would be to carry through with pregnancy and that choice seems to one least respected by those the plates would be marketed to.

Needless to say, should the pro-choice plate legislation be defeated the venue will certainly become that of the courts, as supporters peg the question as a First Amendment issue. Yet the question isn’t one of making the plate available, the question is about who benefits. Resolve that question in a way which both sides can agree to and without benefitting an abortion provider, and I’d have no problem with the plate being made available. Just don’t count on a lot of people buying them.