Un-Planned controversy
Komen decision ignites pro-choice firestorm
Photo by AP
Just steamrolled ’em, actually. It was extremely gratifying, I must say.
This all happened after Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the pink-ribbon breast-cancer charity, announced it was cutting off money for breast-cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood. What?
How can a breast-cancer charity oppose breast-cancer screenings?
It turned out, of course, that Komen’s move was really about pro-life pressure on them to cut ties with Planned Parenthood, which does abortions. Komen, hoping no one would notice, buckled to that pressure.
And it was a big, big mistake. Social media went berserk — against Komen. Millions of dollars came into Planned Parenthood’s coffers — against Komen.
Such is the awesome power of pro-choice Americans who grew up with the understanding that the government no longer rules women’s bodies. Women do.
Such is the power of Facebook and Twitter. They have changed everything.
Such is the power, too, of the one in five American women who have visited Planned Parenthood for birth control and health care (only 3 percent of their money — private money, by the way — is used for abortions). Many of these women are young, poor, without insurance and sometimes even desperate when they go to Planned Parenthood. Check out some online postings. Women say over and over how grateful they are that Planned Parenthood is available to them. They also say how ready they are to leap to its defense.
Pro-life politicians should remember this moment. What happened to Komen — its power and reputation shredded in mere days — is akin to what will happen to any politician, or U.S. Supreme Court justice, who actually threatens women’s reproductive freedom. It’s been so long since 1973, when abortion became legal, many of us forget. Freedom is what abortion rights are all about: freedom from government meddling in the most personal, private and intimate decisions of a woman’s life. Clearly women are not about to give such hard-fought freedoms away.
Here’s what else we forget: It’s easy to be pro-life when the law of the land is pro-choice.
That stance risks, basically, nothing. To keep my head from exploding, I need to remind myself of this when I’m being lectured about morality by Mitt “My money’s in the Caymans” Romney and Newt “I seduce and abandon” Gingrich. I mean, really. Who do these guys think they are?
In fairness, many Komen regional offices, including the one here in Massachusetts, opposed the disastrous move by Komen’s national board. And the groups who benefit from Komen’s fundraisers here include numerous community health centers in poor communities such as Lawrence, Chelsea and Holyoke.
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.
But I’m grateful to them for this much. Komen reminded us all that the usually silent majority of pro-choice Americans — those who want abortions legal, safe, early and rare — can only be pushed so far.
Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1401317
The Comment:
The rapacity of the leftist sanctimonious smears on a charitable organization is breathtaking in its hubris, just as this column is jaw-dropping in its partisanship. Imagine you decide to donate to a cause you found worthy. Then when next year rolls around, you choose to refrain from another contribution. Then you start to receive phone calls, threatening phone calls: "Would you like to reconsider?"..."do you want to see your picture in the paper?"..."we know where your kids go to school". Your reputation becomes a target of a vulgar on-line smear campaign: smudges, taints and disgraceful innuendos.
What would you call this action?
I call it for what is is: extortion. Yep, it's an old-fashioned shakedown, 2012-style: vicious facebook rants, New York Times and weak sister (Hello Marge) editorials, bitter blasts from batty boobs, the whole nine yards.
A decision to withhold a voluntary contribution is painted unabashedly as a "Republican war on women".
This is the Totalitarian New Left, the "my way or the highway" modern liberal newthink - as far from the freedom loving, free-thinking intellectuals of the '60's as McDonald's is from Locke-Ober.
Pro-choice indeed, unless you make the wrong choice.
Big Sister is watching you.
What would you call this action?
I call it for what is is: extortion. Yep, it's an old-fashioned shakedown, 2012-style: vicious facebook rants, New York Times and weak sister (Hello Marge) editorials, bitter blasts from batty boobs, the whole nine yards.
A decision to withhold a voluntary contribution is painted unabashedly as a "Republican war on women".
This is the Totalitarian New Left, the "my way or the highway" modern liberal newthink - as far from the freedom loving, free-thinking intellectuals of the '60's as McDonald's is from Locke-Ober.
Pro-choice indeed, unless you make the wrong choice.
Big Sister is watching you.
No comments:
Post a Comment