Komen as an Example of Liberal Tolerance for Diversity

One of the key ironies of the times in which we live, is that those who prate most about tolerance tend to be the most intolerant.  A recent example is Komen and the hysterical reaction of the pro-aborts to the news that Komen was going to be neutral here on out in the abortion debate and would no longer be giving their annual tribute to Planned Parenthood a/k/a Worse Than Murder, Inc.  This was absolutely intolerable to almost all left-thinking liberals everywhere.   It could not be allowed to stand and they screamed and stamped their feet until the decision was reversed. Nothing is so much of a “high-worship word” on the left in this country as abortion, and Planned Parenthood is the guardian of this holiest of holies.  Such blasphemy against this sacred constitutional rite right could not be tolerated, and Mark Steyn explains why:

Until the other day, Komen were also generous patrons of Planned Parenthood, the “women’s health” organization. The foundation then decided it preferred to focus on organizations that are “providing the lifesaving mammogram.” Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms, despite its president, Cecile Richards, testifying to the contrary before Congress last year. Rather, Planned Parenthood provides abortions; it’s the biggest abortion provider in the United States. For the breast-cancer bigwigs to wish to target their grants more relevantly is surely understandable.

But not if you’re a liberal enforcer. Senator Barbara Boxer, with characteristic understatement, compared the Komen Foundation’s Nancy Brinker to Joe McCarthy: “I’m reminded of the McCarthy era, where somebody said: ‘Oh,’ a congressman stands up, a senator, ‘I’m investigating this organization and therefore people should stop funding them.’” But Komen is not a congressman or a senator or any other part of the government, only a private organization. And therefore it is free to give its money to whomever it wishes, isn’t it?

Dream on. Liberals take the same view as the proprietors of the Dar al-Islam: Once they hold this land, they hold it forever. Notwithstanding that those who give to the foundation are specifically giving to support breast-cancer research, Komen could not be permitted to get away with disrespecting Big Abortion. We don’t want to return to the bad old days of the back alley, when a poor vulnerable person who made the mistake of stepping out of line had to be forced into the shadows and have the realities explained to them with a tire iron. Now Big Liberalism’s enforcers do it on the front pages with the panjandrums of tolerance and diversity cheering them all the way. In the wake of Komen’s decision, the Yale School of Public Health told the Washington Post’s Sarah Kliff that its invitation to Nancy Brinker to be its commencement speaker was now “under careful review.” Because God forbid anybody doing a master’s program at an Ivy League institution should be exposed to anyone not in full 100 percent compliance with liberal orthodoxy. The American Association of University Women announced it would no longer sponsor teams for Komen’s “Race for the Cure.” Sure, Komen has raised $2 billion for the cure, but better we never cure breast cancer than let a single errant Injun wander off the abortion reservation. Terry O’Neill of the National Organization for Women said Komen “is no longer an organization whose mission is to advance women’s health.” You preach it, sister. I mean, doesn’t the very idea of an organization obsessively focused on breasts sound suspiciously patriarchal?

Go here to read the rest.  Why modern day liberalism has become joined at the hip with abortion would perhaps take a non-polititcally correct psychiatrist to explain, if such a person exists, but the reality is that for modern day liberals their unending right to slay their off-spring is more precious to them than any other right, and the Komen fiasco is merely the latest example of that fact.

Share With Friends
  • 8

Donald R. McClarey

Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three and happily married for 35 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.


  1. Ah, but it’s not intolerant to object to the injection of politics into something as important as health care! Politics, of course, meaning pretty much anything that doesn’t fit their world view…..

  2. Komen’s decision to defund Planned Parenthood was a purely political decision than would have put a number of women at risk for developing breast cancer, Rather than admitting that, Komen gave a variety of shifting and inaccurate rationales for their decision. Komen has every right to defund any group they choose. They don’t have a right to lie about their reasons for defunding a group that has provided four million breast exams in the last five years.

  3. The Komen Foundation reverse engineered this “controversy” when Ari Fleischer and Karen Handel first got Congressman Cliff Stearns to start an investigation, and then used that as a pretext to cut off funding to an organization that conservatives have been gunning for for years. Komen was, of course, within its rights to act like cowardly tools, just as it was the right of millions of women,and the men who support them to call Komen on its cowardice. Why do conservatives always sound so shocked to discover that freedom of speech cuts both ways.

  4. Of course freedom of speech works both ways Satch, which is why pro-aborts do their best in regard to the mainstream media organs that they control to keep the pro-life message from getting out. Thanks to the hysterical reaction of Planned Parenthood to Komen getting its snout out of their funding, everyone now knows now that Komen funding goes to the largest abortion provider in this country, something that pro-lifers have been talking about for years. A big round of thanks to the pro-aborts out there who helped get this finally reported on by the mainstream media!

  5. “Pro-aborts”, huh? Ooh… good one. Is that one of those “fact and logic” things you were talking about? And in what universe is the corporate controlled media “liberal”?

  6. Satch,

    Do you have a Obama2012 sticker on your Prius?

    Or, do you drive a Subaru?

    Also, Satch,

    Are you concerned that if I shot a sasquatch (they can’t get good pictorial evidence) and gave the specimen to the Smithsonian, the aliens would get angry and destroy the world?

  7. “Pro-abort” Satch is an accurate description of anyone who opposes banning abortion, just as “pro-slavery” was the proper description of anyone a century and a half ago in this nation who opposed banning slavery rather than calling those individuals “pro-choice” on the slavery question. As to the “corporate controlled media” you might be surprised at how many executives from those companies never show up for the annual March for Life, but how many do routinely contribute to pro-abort politicians. In any case, anyone who doesn’t concede that the mainstream media is not firmly in the pro-abort camp is simply not being intellectually honest.


  8. And, for the record, pro-slavery people likewise took offense at being called pro-slavery. Stephen A. Douglas’s wife owned slaves who worked the plantation her father had left her in his will, and which Douglas managed for her, but when Lincoln called Douglas “pro-slavery” in their famous debates, Douglas took great umbrage.

    Much as pro-aborts of today routinely do.

  9. Now, I go a little off base.

    I apologize in advance.

    I am a starkly heterosexual, 61-year-old male. If I were not endeavoring to follow Christ and the Gospels, I would not have opposed abortion since 1973.

    No, it is not about women’s rights or health; or to free women from male domination.

    It’s biology.

    Real men support abortion, PP, etc. for the greatly increased opportunities for gratuitous fornication.

    I have more stuff. But, I’ll stop.

  10. The logic is pretty simple:

    “pro” means “in favor of”, or also “in support of”
    “abortion” means “abortion”
    “pro-choice” means “in favor of choosing”

    Choosing what? Abortion, of course. Because that is the only choice that “pro-choicers” fear would be taken away.

    “pro-choice” therefore means “in favor of” or “supporting” the choice to abort, and therefore equals “pro-abortion”. QED

Comments are closed.