1. 2015 is going to be a great year for Android! Why wait??
    Samsung Galaxy Note 5 | Samsung Galaxy S6 | HTC One M9
  2. New Forum Created: Samsung Gear VR!

Susan G. Komen vs. Planned Parenthood


  1. AntimonyER

    AntimonyER AF Addict VIP Member

    So its been pretty heavy in the news, but a brief synopsis in case you missed it: Susan G. Komen foundation announced they were ceasing funding of Planned Parenthood due to 1. A change in their grant procedure to avoid donating to organizations under investigation, and 2. To better serve women, they felt the money was better served going to organizations that actually give mammograms, instead of just pre-screenings (i.e. doctors/nurses just doing an examination using their hands) which is all that PP offers.

    As a result of this, PP, and PP supporters, have gone ballistic claiming such things as it was only done for political reasons, or worse, that SGK is throwing poor women under the bus (SGK's website was actually hacked, and something along these lines replaced their motto), and they don't actually care about women's health. SGK has since apologized and said they will re-review the changes to their grant procedures as a result of this event.

    And now to my views on the subject.

    1. SGK is a private non-profit organization, they have a right to do whatever they want with their money, for whatever reason.

    2. PP has no god-given right to the money, and the PP supporters actions regarding this, is nothing short of juvenile. Furthermore, after the disastrous year the pro-choice agenda has had this year (The Philly abortion clinic doctor, the investigations of pro-life groups finding dozens of un-reported instances of sexual abuse by PP clinics, not to mention the shady funding transfers which prompted the congressional investigation SGK claimed as a reason for the funding stoppage), they really need to lay low and out of the spotlight, not crucify a well-respected, previously non-controversial charity, over .1% of their yearly funding.

    3.Which sounds more anti-women's health to you?

    A. Deciding to give 500k to clinics who aren't under government investigation and who give actual mammograms instead of just pre-screenings...

    B. Hiding dozens of cases of sexual assault, especially against young girls. (My favorite was a 13 year old girl who was raped (at least twice, probably more) and impregnated twice by her older foster brother, and the foster parents brought her in for a hush hush abortion each time to hide it. PP obliged).

    Advertisement
    :
    BabyBlues and Copacetic like this.
  2. mystic7

    mystic7 Well-Known Member

    I agree with you 100% and I don't care how many liberal minded folk consider us "neanderthals".
    AntimonyER likes this.
  3. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    Do not put it all on Planned Parenthood. The foster parents were just as guilty of covering this up. If true, these "parents" need to have their kids taken away and the parents need to go to jail.
  4. AntimonyER

    AntimonyER AF Addict VIP Member

    Don't get me wrong, I am not putting it all on them. But just pointing out, for making so much noise about women's health, you would think they would be screaming from the rooftops when something like that happened. Not giving an abortion to a 13 year old without notifying the authorities.
  5. AntimonyER

    AntimonyER AF Addict VIP Member

    I wish the context you posted wasn't so obviously skewed in favor of one view point. So to be fair, here is some more context.

    PP was formed on the basis of eugenics, perhaps the most despicable form of racism and bigotry ever practiced. And today they skew their numbers to look more than what they really are, which is an abortion clinic with some extra services on the side. They require/encourage each abortion patient to also undergo a bunch of free screenings/services, so they can report abortion is only a small percentage of their business, when in reality, the majority of women who visit a PP clinic are there for one reason. This info is from a previous doctor who used to work there. They use government money to fund every ounce of their operation other than abortion, all capital costs, non-abortion medical practices, etc, and use private donations to subsidize the abortions. This is how they avoid going against the law, but its really just an accounting trick. Add on top of that they are willing to look the other way, and not ask questions when questionable cases come in, and end up violating the law, and furthering child and sexual abuse. If I wanted to be a reputable charity dealing with women's health, I would try to avoid PP, because that is really not what they stand for. Its just what they pay lip service to.
  6. melim

    melim Disabled

    Have you provided anything other than your own skewed view? Are you a woman? (I am) Have you ever needed/used PP's services? (I have) You obviously have a problem with abortion, full stop, and have little idea what you're talking about. Many, many women use PP as their PRIMARY source of healthcare.
  7. AntimonyER

    AntimonyER AF Addict VIP Member

    Obviously my context was in response to the context you posted, as a view from the other side, since that is what context is, a picture of the surroundings of an issue. You contributed context from one side of the discussion, I contributed another.

    To answer your questions, I am not a woman, and I have never used PP's services. I DO have a problem with abortion, and while I am predisposed to be against it, I have also experienced situations which only further my position in that direction. I have lost a good friend as a result of an abortion, and have had a doctor recommend abortion for my first child without as much as recommending a second opinion first (which his was incredibly wrong). While I do not have the first hand experience with PP that you do, Among the education I have recieved from people far more knowledgeable than I, I have read Abby Johnson's book regarding her time as a doctor and director of PP, and I would recommend it to any and all who are interested to gain a fuller understanding of what PP is about.

    Furthermore, what sense does it make for a reputable charity (who's goal is to apparently further women's health) to drag another respected charity (who's goal is also women's health) through the gutter, to have their supporters cry out for the death of the charity, to deface their web page and slander them on wikipedia, over .1% of their yearly revenue? Charities don't do that. Activists do.
  8. copestag

    copestag Well-Known Member

    now that we have obamacare to save us all this is no longer an issue...... all medical related issues can be handled by legitimate providers......... this is now 100% an abortion clinic plain and simple
  9. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    Please do not play the "Are you a woman" card. Geeze Louise. Some of us guys know more about what effects abortion can often have on a woman than many women.

    I have a problem with abortion because it is often used by SOME women as a birth control method.

    An abortion should be a rare thing and counseling outside PP before an abortion should be a law.
  10. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    I understand Obama care also covers cat fixing and hairball removal. I can hardly wait for Obama care to arrive.
  11. end of discussion.

    oh well...it should have been the end of discussion but too many people cried and SGK capitulated.

    go go entitlement society!!! wooo hooo!!!
  12. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    The organization received lots of grant money. Some from community groups. I do not have the time to research every dollar but I feel certain some tax money ends up there.

    The people will speak. They will donate or pull donations. This has upset many people and I am sure they are rethinking their PP decision. what i want to know is why they are scared of PP.
  13. copestag

    copestag Well-Known Member

    n the end they are going to lose far more dollars.......... if you believe the democrats in saying that only the republicans are rich.......... and lets assume for a minute that the majority of pro-babyslaughter people are democrats (which is a proven fact)............ lets look at how it all breaks out

    since we know from what the democrats tell us.......... that being that republicans are all rich and greedy...... and democrats are all poor and generous............. and we have statistically proven time and again facts that republicans are the ones who donate to charities many times fold over dumotards.... then its pretty obvious what the results here will be

    first lets analyze without talking rep vs dem...... you have a few groups of people:

    those who are pro-choice and are 100% on board with SGK as long as they give money to the death chambers

    those who are pro-life who had no clue that SGK was giving money to the slaughterhouse.... and will now withhold any donation to SGK because their money is killing babies

    those who are pro-life who did not know where the money was going....... but dont care as long as the money is helping breast cancer research

    those who are pro_whogivesaratsarse as long as I can donate some money and get a tax break

    now of these groups based on idealology we can deduce that half dont really give any money since theyre obviously libtards............

    of the other 2 groups that actually donate money......... we see that half really dont care as long as they get a tax break for donating money to a 'worthy' cause

    that leaves us with 1 out of 4 ........ the group that is anti-slaughterhouse who will now withhold funding based simply on the fact that SGK has decided to support a human meat grinding facility

    so lets look at how that breaks out.......... 1/4 of the people (thats being generous because statistically its closer to half) now will not support SGK based on their decision to grind fetuses

    but lets remember this is 1/4 of the population of which half wouldnt shed a penny to save their own life let alone that of an unborn child...... so we can discount the other 50% and multiply 1/4 to 1/2 of total where 1/2 would have been 1 ( I know this is hard for democrats to figure out so if you need help with basic math feel free to PM me)

    so now that we know (based on discounting the 50% of idiots) that 1/2 of the possible groups will not give a dime to SGK based on their belief that you shouldnt donate money to a company that lies and says they are using it for research while they are really sponsoring genocide....... we can easily deduce that SGK will be losing a vast majority of their donations (remembering that republicans are rich/bad while stupidocrats are poor/good ............and statistically only the rich/bad people dontate money while the poor/good people greedily keep their money)..... shuttering their doors within 3 years and any hope that they may have had with breast cancer research will quickly die along with the babies they pay to have murdered
  14. now that is an interesting take!
  15. JimmyRayBob

    JimmyRayBob Well-Known Member

    My problem with this whole thing was that the Komen folks are taking money given to support cancer research and then turning around and giving it away to different organization(s) via grants.

    When I give money to charities, i expect that money to be used by that charity, not given to a different charity / organization whose goals are different. (the notable exception is the United Way, which is exactly how they work). Naive, maybe. Unrealistic, not in my opinion.
  16. AntimonyER

    AntimonyER AF Addict VIP Member

    Well they were giving them money to perform pre-screenings in their clinics. So I don't think its controversial in as far as SGK's motive to give them money.

    I think the naive ones are those who donate to PP thinking their #1 issue is women's health, when it is actually abortion. Again I point to what PP and their supporters did to SGK. How is attempting to kill off a women's charity that recieves $420 million a year in contributions which it puts to use fighting breast cancer, furthering women's health? Over a measly $680,000, 0.1% of your revenue? It makes no sense if you try to view PP as a women's health advocate.

    But if you view PP has an abortion advocate, well killing off a charity that is unrelated to their mission is no big deal, and 680k lost is a drop in the bucket. If they are an abortion advocate instead of a women's health advocate, then their hiding of sexual and child abuse is a little more logical, since they are just trying to show that they are even more discrete than the law allows, to protect your privacy, furthering the cause of abortion. Even if a few young girls have to suffer repeated abuses and their abusers are free to repeat their acts. Even if human traffickers can continue their sex slave businesses by bringing in the women they have smuggled from overseas to get a quiet abortion, and after a little healing time, return to action. These documented cases would horrify anyone whose goal in life was improving women's health. But PP allowed them to happen.

    Need I say more?
  17. AndyLL

    AndyLL Well-Known Member

    Why is it ok for a private organization to determine where their money goes to but when individual people want to determine where their money goes they are 'entitled'?

    And what does abortion have to do with breast cancer screenings?
  18. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    It is always OK for private organizations to do whatever they want to do, within reason. But when people contribute, they expect the organization to be in-line with certain desires, beliefs and expectations. When SGK supports PP, they in effect, support abortions. You asked, "And what does abortion have to do with breast cancer screenings?" Well, there is your answer.

    When I donate, I do so with the understanding that my money will support specific causes. If the group ignores my wishes, I withdraw support.

    Some people despise PP because PP is all for abortions. People give to SGK because they approve of what SGK is all about. Then they learn that SGK also supports abortions so the cash is withdrawn.

    In this climate, these groups must learn to do what they are supposed to do and not screw with people and their donations. Those of us that donate have power and we do not like our money going to others we do not support.

    I think we need to get rid of abortions. Row V. Wade needs to be overturned and then we need to establish rules for those rare cases where an abortion is perhaps a good idea. As it is now, abortions are just part of the price a woman pays for being careless.

    If a woman decides to enjoy sex and she gets pregnant, she should be denied an abortion. She took a chance and she lost, so she must carry the child to term and go to jail if she seeks an abortion.

    Yes, I am making this the woman's fault because it largely is. She can say no. The guy must be accountable as well, but barring changes in the law that require a man and woman to get married is passed, sorry, but it is all on the woman.
  19. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest

    My take, it's damn sad when a non-profit organization fighting to save women from a disease that afflicts women regardless of age, race, or religion decides to put religious beliefs ahead of their fight for a cure.

    If you follow the "thinking" of some people that call themselves "Christians", like Pat Robertson then you'd probably say that women who get breast cancer are getting it because they're sinners and are getting what they deserve. If you think I'm off-base then I ask you to consider what he said about Haiti and the U.S. after the 9/11 attacks and then try to convince me otherwise.

    You'd think those types of views would be enough for SGK to want to keep religious influence at arm's reach. Besides, if you cure cancer aren't you really just playing God, which is a direct conflict of interest of the church?



    And, for the record, when I heard that SGK was not going to help sponsor Planned Parenthood because of religious pressure, I actively refrained from buying products that had any SGK labeling on it.
  20. breadnatty08

    breadnatty08 pain rustique VIP Member

    Not to bring abortion into the debate but all I know is my wife took advantage of a lot of PPs services when she didn't have insurance and/or needed care when her primary/gyno was unavailable. I still think PP provides much needed care to women who have no other options. Just my 2cents.
  21. copestag

    copestag Well-Known Member

    as already mentioned ..... thanks to obamacare there are no women who have no options anymore....... so this relegates PP to 100% butcher shop
  22. AntimonyER

    AntimonyER AF Addict VIP Member

    I have not seen any official statements (or even reliable ones for that matter) spelling out religious pressures as the reason for the funding cut-off. It was more PP's handling of funds was questionable at best, and violating the law at worst, and SGK couldn't be sure their money was actually furthering breast cancer prevention and cure by contributing to PP (nevermind that birth control, PP's bread and butter, is a known carcinogen). On top of the fact that no mammograms were actually conducted using that money, since PP doesn't do mammograms. The religion aspect was brought up by the left to sully SGK's name, and to take the attention off of PP and their finances, and the fact that SGK's concerns were legitimate.
  23. breadnatty08

    breadnatty08 pain rustique VIP Member

    Love it:
    [​IMG]
  24. AntimonyER

    AntimonyER AF Addict VIP Member

    Very clever.
Loading...

Share This Page