- The Washington Times - Tuesday, February 7, 2012

The winners in last week’s battle between the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation and Planned Parenthood have discarded the pretense of a noble dedication to women’s health and revealed their sole interest: abortion.

Amanda Marcotte, writing for the Guardian in the United Kingdom on Feb. 3, explained to us how to interpret the Komen foundation’s reversal of its decision to halt its funding of Planned Parenthood:

“This week’s headline-grabbing fight between Planned Parenthood and the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure has one very important takeaway for pro-choice activists and organizations: If you put up a fight, you will win … . Planned Parenthood tapped a well of feminist rage, and neatly demonstrated how much the country believes that women should have access to comprehensive health care that includes contraception, STD prevention and treatment, andyes, abortion.” No mention is made of breast cancer screenings.

Evidently, this skirmish was never about breast cancer prevention and women’s health. It’s about demanding massive funding for the nation’s premiere abortion provider.

Katha Pollitt, writing in the Nation magazine on the same day, spells it out even more succinctly:

“The massive show of pro-choicestrengthworked.” Not “pro-women’s-health.” Pro-choice.

In their rush to bask in the glow of their quick victory, these folks aren’t even pretending they are concerned about women’s health.

“The great, sleeping giant that is pro-choice America was startled awake this week - and then, in about a nanosecond, proceeded tocrushpro-lifeforceslikeabug. Just steamrolled ‘em, actually. It was extremely gratifying, I must say,” wrote Margery Eagan in “Un-Planned controversy, Komendecisionignitespro-choicefirestorm” (Boston Herald, Feb. 5).

Does Ms. Eagan realize that her proud declaration, “proceeded to crush pro-life forces like a bug,” evokes an eerie, unwholesome image of life being conquered by, well, the powers of death?

We are told that abortion procedures account for just 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s client services. That number probably is closer to 10 percent. While the organization purports to be neutral in both its counseling and the outcome of the decisions its clients make, in 2010, just 841 elected to place their children for adoption versus 329,455 who chose abortions. In other words, Planned Parenthood performs hundreds of abortions for every adoption it takes part in. The lopsided statistics speak for themselves: The organization is not so much pro-choice as it is pro-abortion.

With this fracas, Planned Parenthood’s supporters have irrevocably pulled back the veil.

“Still, the organization that secretly tried to sacrifice women’s health at the altar of pro-life politics must now prove why it deserves any support at all,” Ms. Eagan said.

Because it dared suspend contributions to Planned Parenthood, Ms. Eagan questions whether the Komen foundation even deserves to continue to exist - an extraordinary statement pitting the two organizations against each other. It’s now perfectly clear: To those who champion Planned Parenthood, abortion is far more important than the quest to end breast cancer.

It’s funny how, when it comes to funding the abortion industry, the people who promote themselves as being “pro-choice” are not about choice; they use strong-arm tactics, tyrannizing private charitable organizations into doing their will.

All of this calls to mind the Tim Tebow dust-up last fall, which has been supplanted by the Komen/Planned Parenthood dust storm.

Story Continues →