So, I was wrong about the Susan G. Komen foundation and the de-funding of Planned Parenthood. I thought they had finally achieved a measure of moral clarity. Instead, they caved. Call it a bad case of the moral punies. It's a little understandable, given the thug tactics being used against them. As the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto puts it:
Planned Parenthood's bitter campaign against Komen--aided by left-liberal activists and media--is analogous to a protection racket: Nice charity you've got there. It'd be a shame if anything happened to it. The message to other Planned Parenthood donors is that if they don't play nice and keep coughing up the cash, they'll get the Komen treatment.Today I wrote the following email to email@example.com:
Your decision to de-fund Planned Parenthood marked the 8th anniversary of my own mother's death from breast cancer. Mom would have been pleased with your decision: she would not have wanted charitable donations intended to fight this terrible disease to be connected in any way to the barbaric practice of killing unborn children. It sounds like the Susan G. Komen foundation wants to do the right thing by focusing solely on curing breast cancer, and I applaud that.
So it was a disappointment to find out only a day later that your organization had apparently reversed itself, in response to pressure from Planned Parenthood and their supporters. While I understand that you faced very vocal and well-organized political opposition, I want you to understand that this reversal makes it impossible for me, and millions like me who hold pro-life convictions, to contribute financially to your organization.Planned Parenthood is quite safe from any financial hardship, regardless of any funding Komen gives it. And long-run, I can't imagine that the pressure tactics will be terribly successful... I mean, if I had money to give away, I would be SO much less likely to give it to agencies that had launched smear campaigns against me. The National Right to Life Committee's statement is here, if you'd like to read a little more in-depth than I'm able to write here.
Your first instinct was the right one: breast cancer is not a political issue, and your organization shouldn't have financial ties to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country, if it wants to represent all women who are affected by breast cancer.
And in case you want a little historical background on how Planned Parenthood got its start, here's what their founder, eugenicist Margaret Sanger, had to say in 1932, "A Plan for Peace." I especially like (not) the part where she says we should "apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring." She envisioned about 5 million Americans confined to labor camps. But then there would be World Peace. This is clearly a barbaric idea that deserves its place in the dustbin of history. Almost as insane as the idea that by funding organizations that kill babies, we can help cure breast cancer.