The Washington Post is reporting today that the Susan G. Komen foundation has revised its decision to end its funding of Planned Parenthood. It has now stated that Planned Parenthood would be allowed to apply for grants from the foundation.
There are a lot of aspects of this decision to end funding and the decision not to end funding. First of all–Planned Parenthood is not about protecting women from cancer. As previously reported (rightwinggranny.com), when a reporter called a number of Planned Parenthood locations seeking a mammogram, she was told they did not do mammograms–they were a surgical center (read as ‘abortion clinic’). So why is Planned Parenthood masquerading as a protector of women?
The Daily Caller reported yesterday:
In the wake of this week’s announcement that Susan G. Komen for the Cure will no longer be awarding grants to Planned Parenthood, the breast cancer organization’s donations have gone up 100 percent in the last two days.
On a Thursday conference call Nancy Brinker, the founder and CEO of the Komen Foundation, told reporters that the organization is “singularly focused” on combating breast cancer, and that the politics of the decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood has been distracting from their mission.
They should have stood by that statement and noticed the increase in donations and refused to buckle under the pressure. Unfortunately, they didn’t.
The Washington Post reported one groups reaction to the announcement that the Komen foundation would no longer fund Planned Parenthood:
The Washington-based American Association of University Women said it would no longer list Komen among the community service opportunities available to the 600 college women who attend the AAUW’s annual leadership conference in June. The headquarters office will no longer sponsor Washington teams in the Komen-sponsored Race for the Cure and expects its branches to follow suit, said Lisa Maatz, AAUW’s director of public policy and government relations.
On Wednesday, an article by Kathryn Jean Lopez at the National Review Online added to the discussion. Ms. Lopez quotes Abby Johnson, author of Unplanned, formerly a Planned Parenthood director in Texas:
I am thankful that Komen is finally acknowledging their harmful affiliation with Planned Parenthood. The money given has never gone for “mammograms and breast services” . . . since Planned Parenthood provides neither. I believed this has happened primarily because of the public outcry of pro-lifers. I hope they continue to halt giving to such a destructive organization.
So what is the bottom line here? A website called abort73.com puts the money involved in perspective:
The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), the research arm of Planned Parenthood, estimates that there were 1.21 million abortions performed in the U.S. in the year 2005. Of the 1.21 million annual abortions, approximately 88% (1.06 million) are performed during the first trimester. The other 12% (150,000) are performed during the second and third trimester. In 2005, the average cost of a nonhospital abortion with local anesthesia at 10 weeks of gestation was $413. The Women’s Medical Center estimates that a 2nd trimester abortion costs up to $3000 (with the price increasing the further along the pregnancy goes). If we take the $413 average for 1st trimester abortions and use a $3000 average for 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions, here’s what we get: $438 million is spent each year on first trimester abortions and $393 million is spent on late term abortions. That means that each year in the U.S., the abortion industry brings in approximately $831 million through their abortion services alone. If you add in the $337 million (or more) that Planned Parenthood (America’s largest abortion provider) receives annually in government grants and contracts for, the annual dollar amount moves well past 1 billion.
This is about money. It is not about providing health services to women any more than selling cigarettes is about causing the people buying them to relax. Planned Parenthood is protecting its interests (and finances) by asking those who support it to pressure the Komen Foundation. I hope the Komen Foundation will go back to their original decision–it was the correct one.