Komen as an Example of Liberal Tolerance for Diversity

Sunday, February 5, AD 2012

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?

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Komen as an Example of Liberal Tolerance for Diversity

  • 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…..

  • The only tolerant liberal I ever saw was dead.

  • 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.

  • Pingback: MONDAY SUSAN G. KOMEN FIASCO I | ThePulp.it
  • 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.

  • 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!

  • Ah, our pro-abort “guests” are coming in from this blog:


    I will be rather busy this day in the law mines, so I would appreciate our regular commenters giving our “guests” a helpful dose of logic and fact.

  • “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”?

  • 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?

  • “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.


  • 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.

  • 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.

  • UPDATE: 1,340 signed the petition yesterday, on Super Bowl Sunday. Help get the word out, por favor. http://fb.me/1kCEs81uk

  • 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

Susan G. Komen Foundation Did Not Reverse Course, But It’s an Epic P.R. Disaster on Their Part

Friday, February 3, AD 2012

The Susan G. Komen Foundation did not reverse course as many have thought, suggested, or commented all over the Interwebs today.

Even Austin Ruse President of C-FAM is not sure and has issued this press release:

Statement by Austin Ruse on the Susan G. Komen Foundation

“Today the Susan G. Komen Foundation made an announcement that appears that they have reversed themselves on funding of Planned Parenthood. While I do not believe they have reversed themselves, it may turn out to be the case. We do not know.

What happened this week was nothing short of a Mafia shakedown campaign by Planned Parenthood against the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

Planned Parenthood told the Komen Foundation “either give us money or we will destroy you.” They were aided and abetted in this hostage taking by the mainstream media.

At this point, pro-lifers should cease their support of the Susan G. Komen Foundation. We should wait and see what happens. We know there are five more Komen grants to Planned Parenthood in the pipeline. If any more come up, we will know we have lost and Planned Parenthood has won.

I do not regret the work I did over the past days on this issue, neither should any pro-lifer. I only regret we could not have done more to make Komen strong and able to fight off the thuggish abortion giant, Planned Parenthood.

What the week has shown is that Planned Parenthood, an organization that is under criminal investigation all over this country, will stop at nothing to maintain their stranglehold on organizations like the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

We should continue to pray for Nancy Brinker and all of her colleagues at the Susan G. Komen Foundation.”

The American Papist and Steven D. Greydanus agree with me on this one.

Look at it from Komen’s perspective, they’re taking a public relations hit by the punks and thugs from Planned Parenthood and their allies.  It’s a war, a Culture War out there!

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Susan G. Komen Foundation Did Not Reverse Course, But It’s an Epic P.R. Disaster on Their Part

  • Pingback: Komen Foundation Reverses Course, Promises to Keep Funding Planned Parenthood [UPDATED AGAIN] | The American Catholic
  • Pingback: . . .SUSAN G. KOMEN REVERSES DECISION?. . . | ThePulp.it
  • What no one’s picking up on is that Nancy Brinker isn’t just some ingenue who got taken advantage of by PP. Brinker has served on a Planned Parenthood board. She has accepted a personal award from PP. She has steered a fortune to PP, over many years. The woman is a savvy insider, not a well-meaning innocent who fell in with the wrong bunch. The Komen organization is fundamentally corrupt, infected with an anti-life ethos.

  • So, Lance Armstrong donates $100,000 to Planned Parenthood.

    On the exact same-day, the Obama Justice Dept., without explanation, drops its doping case against Lance Armstrong:


    Yeah, nothing fishy about that at all.

  • Re your postscript, hopefully NRTL is watching and adding to the boycott list.

  • Pingback: Komen knuckles under… | Catholic and Enjoying It!
  • Jay Anderson’s observation will sadly never find the light of day in main stream media.

  • Was’nt the woman herself, Susan G. Komen, Pro-Life? Susan G. Komen would have been ashamed to know that the foundation that bears her name is helping to support a business that provides abortions!

  • I guess the Susan G.Komen foundation found out what real political pressure is like.

  • Oh great. I once gave the LAF $100 out of my meager wallet. Cross him off the list too. What planet am I living on? Did the magnetic poles reverse and now we’re living in Bizarro World? All the donors are dogpiling on the one that doesn’t even DO mammograms!

  • A “mafia shakedown campaign by Planned Parenthood”? Really? We do ourselves no favors by finding hyperbole to delude ourselves. What it was a great wash of supporters from all over who reacted in knee-jerk opposition to what they saw as a hostile action.
    Planned Parenthood may act in some ways we strongly oppose, but blind demonizing and making them out to be the organized kingpin of some vast conspiracy only makes us the fool, and tools of those who have their own agendas. Austin Ruse is doing us no favors. Let’s keep a level head.

  • enness: I once admired Lance Armstrong very much myself. Then he hooked up with left-wing whacko Sheryl Crowe (who lectured us on the necessary of using only 1 square of toliet tissue per bathroom visit – to save Gaia) , which was a tip-off to Lance’s politics and ideology.

    I’m very happy I didn’t actually mail in a check to Komen the other day, although I considered doing so. Then I checked my bank balance. The few bucks I have to give to charity this month went to my parish and to the Scott Walker campaign (no, giving to a a political candidate isn’t charity, but it is a very good cause.)

    When my mother died of cancer back in the ’80’s, I, and my siblings began giving to the American Cancer Society. I haven’t sent them a check in years. I will again, but only after I look into them to ensure they aren’t relying on fetal stem cell research, or are aligned with some nefarious organization.

    If there is one lesson this whole nasty business has taught us it is: research your charities. I’ve been reading about the reaction to this on secular sites and there are plenty of pro-lifers who had given to SGK in good faith for years, without ever suspecting they were in league with PP. The only way I discovered the link was because of Catholic blogs.

  • Donna, ugh, I’d almost forgotten about that.

    I donated, taking the B.F. Skinner approach, as I’ve been calling it — heaping rewards on the smallest step in the right direction. For the briefest second I considered a chargeback, but I feel like that would be appalling ettiquette and I can’t bring myself to do it. I will say that I certainly would respect them more if they returned the money.