Planned Bullyhood: Revisiting Planned Parenthood’s attempts to destroy the Komen Foundation

We’ve known for a long time that Planned Parenthood kills babies for a living, systematically hides statutory rape and sex trafficking, encourages kids to have all sorts of out-of-wedlock sex and pretends that it can be done without risks, and more.  But until last year we didn’t realize that this allegedly pro-women group would rather destroy a breast cancer charity than part ways amicably. How anti-women is that?

Please read Komen Insider’s New Book Exposes How Planned Parenthood Bullied It for more, and remember that they get hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds each year and that countless false teachers support PP.  It takes a special kind of evil to do what they did, but what should we expect from professional baby-killers?

Karen Handel, former Senior Vice President for the breast cancer group Susan G. Komen for the Cure is the author of a new book, Planned Bullyhood.

Hitting bookshelves tomorrow, the new book is a behind-the-scenes exposé of Planned Parenthood’s ruthless, orchestrated efforts to take down Komen in February for making a decision to revoke its funding for the abortion business.

Planned Bullyhood: The Truth Behind the Headlines About the Planned Parenthood Funding Battle With Susan G. Komen for the Cure is the title of the tome and it will be an eye-opening experience for readers. Handel was intimately involved in the decision-making process that led to de-funding Planned Parenthood and she was excoriated by the press and pro-abortion activists for doing so.

A lead-in promotional for the book set the stage this way:

In 2011, Susan G. Komen for the Cure was growing weary of the “pink” being tarnished by its health grants to Planned Parenthood (PPH), whose many controversies were fueling backlash against Komen. They wanted to remove themselves from the pro-life/abortion debate and made what they thought was a rational, reasonable decision: seek neutral ground in the culture war by severing ties with Planned Parenthood—and in turn, eliminate a major headache while opening a new, robust fund-raising channel.

Karen Handel, the organization’s Senior Vice President of Public Policy, was tasked with identifying options to disengage. In November, the Komen management and board decided to move forward.

Komen believed that they and PPH had made a “gentle ladies” pact, agreeing to part ways amicably and acknowledging that a media firestorm was in no one’s best interest. Yet, six weeks later, PPH unleashed a media campaign so viral and so seamlessly executed that it must have been in the works for some time. PPH attacked Komen against the backdrop of the Obama administration’s clash with the Catholic Church over contraception. After just three days, following hysterical cries that “Komen was abandoning women,” Komen capitulated and reversed course. Handel—a lifelong pro-life Republican who was raised Catholic—was immediately made the target. She resigned within days of Komen’s reversal. Liberals called her a right-wing Trojan horse. The pro-life community hailed her as a hero. She insists she is neither.

. . .

Because Komen’s staff and employees were spending an extraordinary amount of time responding to complaints about its grants given to Planned Parenthood –  “pass through” grants that were supposedly intended for breast cancer screening and education but merely had the abortion giant refer women to other agencies — Komen made the decision to halt funding. Citing the fact that Planned Parenthood only provided manual exams and referred patients elsewhere when mammograms were indicated, Komen said it would not fund future pass-through grants to the abortion agency.

. . .

“Although Komen had given Planned Parenthood millions of dollars over a period of two decades, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards was furious,” Malec recalls. “She spent the next six weeks quietly organizing a brutal political attack on her former friends at Komen.”

With the media, top Democrats in Congress, and other pro-abortion groups standing by their side, Planned Parenthood attacked Komen so heavily that, after three days of being battered by liberals and the media, Komen’s founder, Nancy Goodman Brinker, as Malec describes it, “wilted under pressure and capitulated to her tormenters.”

. . .

Today, Komen funds Planned Parenthood — despite the fact that abortion is linked to breast cancer and that carrying a pregnancy to term, especially at an earlier age, helps reduce the breast cancer risk.

“Komen’s grants directed to Planned Parenthood represent a conflict of interest for the breast cancer group,” Malec says. “According to medical texts and medical authorities, accepted risk factors for breast cancer include childlessness, small family size, delaying a first full term pregnancy, and little or no breastfeeding. Planned Parenthood sells women abortions, abortifacient drugs and contraceptives – all of which cause women to forfeit the protective effect of full term pregnancy.”

 

A Facebook conversation on abortion

I had an extended-play discussion with someone on Facebook that I didn’t want to go to waste.  It was fairly classic reasoning from someone on the pro-legalized abortion side, and it remained civil throughout.  I hope people will take the time to go through it and see how to navigate through these conversations.  It takes a little practice but we’ve got the science and logic on our side (and the word of God, if they are interested in that!).  The other commenter used the same arguments and tactics (i.e., changing the subject) that professional pro-aborts use.

—–

EMatters:  And he [Obama, at the recent prayer breakfast] spoke of speaking up for those who can’t speak for themselves, yet he’s the most pro-abortion President ever.

Other person:  how is he any more pro choice than clinton?

EMatters:  Obama wants taxpayer-funded abortions and even opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. When you are so pro-choice that you read the Constitution and see a right to a dead baby, even if she survives the abortion, then you are pro-abortion.

Other person:  no one is pro abortion. you can skew the argument all you want. Its Pro Choice

EMatters:  If someone supports taxpayer-funded abortions then I think it is fair to refer to them as pro-abortion. Think about their premise: “There should be more abortions than there are already, so we need taxpayers to fund them — many of which are pro-life.” If wanting to increase abortions isn’t pro-abortion I don’t know what is.

EMatters:  Having said that, I don’t care if someone is “just” pro-choice to crush and dismember innocent yet unwanted human beings. It is still wrong to take innocent human life for 99% of the reasons given for abortions.

Other person:  you have every right to have that opinion. as i do mine.

Other person:  but you still havent made the case for this president being the MOST pro abortion president ever.

EMatters:  Show me one who was pro-taxpayer funded abortions and who fought against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

EMatters:  Yes, you have a right to your opinion. I never thought otherwise. I encourage people to base opinions on facts and logic. Here’s mine: It is a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings from fertilization (http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq). And most people agree that you shouldn’t kill an innocent human being just for reasons of economics, romantic life, education, career, etc. Therefore, abortion is immoral in 99% of the cases (the exception being to save the life of the mother, which is consistent with the pro-life ethic).

You can have a different opinion on whether the unborn are human beings, but I have all the embryology textbooks on my side.

You can have a different opinion on whether innocent but unwanted human beings can be killed as well.

The Case Against Abortion: Medical Testimony  www.abort73.com  A new human being comes into existence during the process of fertilization.

Other person:  http://www.issues2000.org/celeb/Bill_Clinton_Abortion.htm  Clinton actually used a number of executive orders to undo some pro-life legislation. i dont believe obama has.  if its so cut and dry then why did the supreme court rule the way they did…..or with their conservative advantage overturned it. Why hasnt congress drafted legislation to ban abortion if its so apparent

EMatters:  Re. Clinton — I assume you don’t think I’m a Clinton fan ;-). He was bad on abortion as well. That is a contest no one should be proud to win. Obama has also done his best to export abortion.

EMatters:  I encourage you to study Roe v Wade and how Justice Blackmun was pressured to make it happen. It doesn’t get overturned (yet) because of all the money involved. Planned Parenthood and the other aborts make huge $$ and funnel it back and forth to politicians.

Interestingly, Blackmun conceded that if if we knew life began that would change things. He made a major scientific error there. Even PP used to be pro-life and knew when life began — http://tinyurl.com/ykeex9e — that is, until they realized how much money they could make.

Having said all that, I don’t follow your point about it not being cut and dried. My scientific fact and simple logic are there to criticize, if you like. But there existence of an opposing view doesn’t mean there is no morally correct view.

The issues surrounding abortion are psychologically complex. I do pregnancy center ministry and can attest that the pressures on women are severe (often from boyfriends pushing them to “choose” to abort). But there is moral simplicity: You shouldn’t kill an unborn human being for the reasons given for abortion.

Other person:  there is just a much pressure on women to have a baby they arent capable (or willing) to care for. There are also women that are very much in control of their lives that find themselves in a motherly way who want to maintain the right to determine whether or not to have a child…..just the speed of the backlash against Komen today should show you that women will fight to preserve this right

So eMatters: , let me ask you, are you pro capital punishment? What do you think about us killing Bin Laden? Are you in the “all life is sacred” camp or do you pick and choose which already “birthed” people deserve to live?

EMatters:  Re. capital punishment, there are questions of practice (e.g., Can you get a fair enough trial given our lax treatment of perjury?) and questions of principle (i.e., is it always wrong to use CP?). Your question was about the principle of CP, and I’ll answer it with a question.

Do you see any difference between A and B?

A. Completely innocent human being — no record of any crimes, ever — being put to death for being unwanted, with no appeals.

B. Human being guilty of capital murder beyond a reasonable doubt who survived 10+ years of appeals.

EMatters:  ‎”there is just a much pressure on women to have a baby they arent capable (or willing) to care for.”

I conceded that abortion situations are psychologically complex. In fact, if there weren’t some factors that made the situation psychologically complex I doubt anyone would consider an abortion. So that isn’t the question.

The question is whether feeling ill equipped to care for a baby is justification to kill her.

For every situation you come up with to rationalize abortion, I encourage you to ask the same question with a toddler plugged in the example. What if the toddler is causing economic / romance / career / education problems? Can you kill her for those reasons? Most people would say no.

Therefore, the only question is, “What is the unborn?” The answer is that they are human beings that are simply at a different stage of development than the toddler, but with the same right to life.

EMatters:  ‎”There are also women that are very much in control of their lives that find themselves in a motherly way who want to maintain the right to determine whether or not to have a child…..”

If I understood that correctly then you are making a factual error. The woman already has reproduced a human being, so she has a child. The question is about birth control (whether or not to have a child), it is about abortion (whether or not to kill the child).

“just the speed of the backlash against Komen today should show you that women will fight to preserve this right”

I don’t dispute that. The fact that the pro-aborts are venomous and radical in their pursuit of the legal right to kill innocent human beings is true, of course, but completely irrelevant to the question of whether it should be legal.

Other person:  venomous and radical? i only see doctors being killed and clinics bombed by one side, my friend.

EMatters:  So we agree that killing humans is bad. Your side kills 3,000+ daily with your apparent approval. My side vehemently denounces murders and violence against abortionists, which are extremely rare. And your media apparently forgot to tell you about the pro-lifer killed a couple years ago.

Other person:  abortion is legal in this land. has been since 1973. so you statement is wrong…..legally speaking

EMatters:  Huh? We are debating whether it should be legal. The fact that it is currently legal is irrelevant. It is a fact that abortion kills an innocent human being.

Other person:  we’re getting no where here. you may want to stick to the moral arguments, because currently you dont have a legal one. You can work you elect folks to overturn Roe v Wade to change that, but you arent ever going to convince citizens who believe in choice to change their minds…..and as of today, we dont HAVE to convince to come over to our side.

EMatters:  I’ve noticed that you change the subject every time I make a point. I’d appreciate if you’d close out on a topic or let me know if you see my point. Examples:

1. Do you see the difference between aborting a completely innocent child who had no appeals (20,000 per week in the U.S.) and executing a first-degree murderer who lost 10+ years of appeals?

2. Do you see how the fact that pro-abortionists are really committed to their cause has nothing to do with whether their cause is just? (Same thing for pro-lifers, btw)

3. The reasons you are giving for abortion (women wanting to control their lives, not equipped to care for kids, etc.) would justify killing infants and toddlers as well?

4. The existence of two sides to an issue doesn’t mean neither is correct.

Etc.

EMatters:  Your last comment made no sense. Saying I don’t have a legal argument is merely stating that abortion is legal. That proves nothing, because we both agree that it is legal. Do you see how anyone could make that claim as justification for keeping the status quo at all times? Using your logic, the pro-lifers were correct before Roe v Wade because the law said abortion was illegal. Therefore, they had no legal argument. Now does that make sense?

I’m arguing that abortion kills an innocent human being and that it should be illegal. Your response is that it is currently legal. But my argument assumes that already.

I hope you give this important issue more serious thought than you have to date.

Other person:  ‎1. We’ve executed innocent people. Even if they were possibly “bad” in some other way, they werent guilty of capital murder. One of these “mistakes” is one too many IMO.

EMatters:  I agree that we shouldn’t execute innocent people. You are the one whose views are in conflict. Using your logic, we make 3,000+ mistakes per day — but you are OK with those (that is, unless you are going to attempt to refute my scientific argument that the unborn are human beings).

And using your logic, capital punishment is legal, so you shouldn’t complain about it or expect it to be changed.

Other person:  ‎2. We ARENT pro abortionist. We are pro choice. Must pro choice women never make the decision to actually abort their babies. I never said my side is more JUST than yours…its just legally supported.

Other person:  what dont you get about my statement that I DONT THINK ABORTION ARE MURDER

Other person:  ‎3. That is a ridiculous statement. Since we believe people are given rights at birth, killing a toddler WOULD be murder

EMatters:  Right, but you aren’t offering any facts. Which do you deny, and why?

1. The unborn are human beings from fertilization. I’m claiming that as a scientific fact and offered references to 10+ embryology texts — not to mention common sense (what else would two human beings create?)

2. Abortion kills human beings.

So do you deny that the unborn are human beings or that abortion doesn’t kill something?

Other person:  why doesnt the supreme court deem it so then?

EMatters:  ‎”Since we believe people are given rights at birth, killing a toddler WOULD be murder”

You are once again begging the question and assuming what you should be proving. We are debating whether unborn human beings have rights, so you can’t just claim that they don’t have rights.

EMatters:  ‎”why doesnt the supreme court deem it so then?”

I’ve addressed that above (money & politics) and you’ve ignored it and once again changed the subject. I’ve answered your questions. Why do you ignore mine?

Other person:  i just answered them all. i believe rights to be granted at birth…which is the law

EMatters:  ‎”I never said my side is more JUST than yours…its just legally supported.”

And for the 3rd or 4th time I’m pointing out that you are making an illogical statement. Saying, “abortion is legal,” when I concede that and when we are debating whether it should be legal is meaningless.

Other person:  ok. so lets stick to the moral argument

EMatters:  ‎”i believe rights to be granted at birth…which is the law”

You stated your opinion without reasons and for the 5th time you’ve begged the question on the law issue. If that is the best you’ve got you may want to reconsider your position.

EMatters:  Yes, let’s stick to that.

EMatters:  Is it moral to kill human beings because they are unwanted?

Other person:  i dont think its moral to kill ANY human being.

Other person:  but we do for all sort of reasons

EMatters:  So you think abortions are immoral?

Other person:  in war, criminals. if they really scare us

Other person:  but we kill in war because it makes us more secure…but its not moral

Other person:  was the constitution moral? is everything in the Bible moral?

Other person:  eye for an eye or turn the other cheek? which is it?

Other person:  my point is moral is malleable. mostly shaped by the culture, the victors. Is abortion a good thing to be doing….absolutely not. but 35% of US children in poverty isnt very moral either. a large number of those babies would be in poverty

EMatters:  Interesting questions, but irrelevant to the debate. We are debating whether abortions are moral, and if so, should they be illegal (we probably agree that you don’t want gov’t micro-managing every activity of our lives and assessing whether they are moral or not).

I think we agree that war and capital punishment exist, and people can debate the “just cause” theory of war and the principle and practice of CP. But we can address abortion whether those exist or not or whether they are just or not.

I will answer a side note: Of course everything in the Bible isn’t moral. That’s the point! Even Homer Simpson quipped, “And talk about a preachy book! I mean, everyone’s a sinner . . . except this guy.”

So, I’ll ask again: Do you think abortions are immoral?

Other person:  why is every point i make irrelevant to you. i think all my points form why i think the way i think. just because you dont like the points dont make them irrelevant

EMatters:  Yeah, we agree that poverty is bad, too. But using your logic, it is legal and exists, so you definitely wouldn’t ask the gov’t to do anything about that.

And I realize that societies have different views at different times. Abortion was illegal, now it is legal. But it was either always moral or always immoral. Same thing with slavery and many other ills.

EMatters:  You are welcome to your opinions, but I am free to point out whether those have anything to do with whether abortion is moral or should be legal.

Back to the topic: Is abortion moral or not? You say it isn’t a good thing. Why not? I say it is a bad thing because an innocent human being is killed with no appeals. And if government exists to do anything, it exists to protect the lives of human beings. Therefore, it should be illegal.

Feel free to use facts and logic to point out why my premises or conclusions or false.

Other person:  its not moral

EMatters:  Thanks, that helps the dialogue. Why do you think it is immoral?

Other person:  i dont think its immoral.

Other person:  i think the mother has rights until the baby is born. period

EMatters:  I’m confused — did our comments get out of order? You said “its not moral” then you said “i don’t think its immoral” . . .

Other person:  i got ahead of myself. sorry….and we’l have to pick this up later

EMatters:  ‎”i think the mother has rights until the baby is born. period”

Yes, we’ve established that you hold that opinion. I’m asking you to be more specific. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the mother should have the right to kill an innocent human being.

EMatters:  No problem! I need to run as well. I appreciate the charitable dialogue. I know these things can get testy so it is nice to be able to discuss it with someone who is civil. I just think it is a very important topic.  Have a blessed day!

Update: Not surprisingly, he never came back.  Hopefully it planted a seed.

Roundup

Beatles fans will totally get this.  I’m pretty sure that song was Yoko’s fault.

Question evolution — a terrific overview of the problems of Darwinian evolution.  Even many atheist scientists concede how the evidence opposes it.

This is more of a time saver than a money saver, but my daughter’s Chase checking account lets you scan checks with an iPhone app to deposit them.  That is very convenient.  I hope my credit union does the same as well.  Just another example of technology doing more to save time and energy (think of all the trips to the bank!) than Greenpeace ever dreamed of.

From the “That’s going to leave a mark!” category, see How to think like a Roman Catholic.  Here’s a sample:

Now, let’s begin.

To see if you think like a Roman Catholic, what is your response to each of the the following pictures (the “proper” Romanist responses are indicated below each image).

Pagan idol worship condemned by scripture.

_______________________________

Veneration.

_______________________________

Pagan idol worship condemned by scripture.

_______________________________

Veneration.

Good points by James about the reasoning for a believer’s baptism rather than infant baptism.

10 Reasons to Believe in a Historical Adam — It is more important than many people realize.

“Christian Yoga” = oxymoron — My former church had yoga classes.  I think it is great to encourage believers to fellowship and exercise together, but there are only about a thousand other workout programs one could use besides yoga. There is nothing wrong with some of their specific moves.  I’m pretty sure that if cats and dogs had lawyers they would have copyrighted the cat stretch and upward / downward dog moves a long time ago.  But taken as a whole yoga is explicitly religious.

 

“The Holocaust was probably less than 3% of Germany’s budget” and other responses to Planned Parenthood distortions

Much has been made of Planned Parenthood’s marketing spin about “only” 3% of their services being abortions.  This is one of their lead arguments and it has been quickly swallowed and advanced by their supporters.  It is part of their effective campaign to conflate abortions (which are increasingly unpopular — especially with young people) with birth control (which most people reflexively support).  Yes, it is deceptive, but remember that Satan is evil, not stupid.  They could separate the businesses tomorrow and have zero problems getting funding for the contraceptive side, but that will never happen.

Here are some quick responses to make when you hear the “only 3%” line.

1. So?  The Holocaust was probably less than 3% of Germany’s budget.  If part of an organization’s charter involves killing innocent but unwanted human beings, then I don’t really care what other good they allegedly do.

2. I didn’t notice a wedge in the pie chart for systematically hiding statutory rape and sex trafficking.  How much of their resources are dedicated to those well-documented activities, and shouldn’t those who perpetuate those crimes be in jail instead of getting massive Federal funding?  [Note: Human sex trafficking is one of those rare issues that unites Liberals and Conservatives, so this is a great topic to focus on.]

3. The 3% figure deliberately understates the situation.  Just do some simple math: They did 329,000 abortions for 3,000,000 clients.  That means 11% of the people walking through the doors got abortions (or, more specifically, 11% of the people came in carrying an innocent but unwanted human being but left alone).  And it is very likely that abortions consumed even more services than average.

4. HP’s PC Division sells far more accessories than computers, but which is their primary business?  You need to look at where PP gets most of their revenue, which is from abortions.  PP doesn’t pay these salaries based on how many condoms they give away, they get it from performing 329,455 abortions. (P.S. They are the 1% so I hope the Occupy Crowd protests them.)

President Cecile Richards $353,819
Chief Operating Officer Maryana Iskander $288,886
Chief Financial Officer Maria Acosta $263,443
VP of Medical Affairs Vanessa Cullins $257,115
VP of General Counsel Barbara Otten $251,379
VP of Public Policy Laurie Rubiner $248,438
VP of Operations Karen Ruffatto $247,932
VP of Affiliates Lisa David $245,322

——

Please commit a couple of those responses to memory and don’t let people get away with the “only 3%” distortion.  Feel free to copy and paste without attribution.

P.S. Yes, I’m familiar with Godwin’s Law.  I’m also familiar with Simpson’s Law, which says that I’ll make all the appropriate Nazi references I like without apology.

Pie chart shows devastating impact of reducing Komen donations to Planned Parenthood

By which I mean, the donations were less than a rounding error.  That slide of the pie is actually smaller than it appears.  You have to triple the amount to make the shape grow.  Actually, it isn’t a slice of the pie at all, as the knife to cut the pie is wider than that.

Komen gave Planned Parenthood $680,000, which is 0.07% of their total budget.  Note: That isn’t 7%, but point-zero-seven percent — less than one tenth of one percent.

So in response to that, PP and its radical pro-abortion supporters went on a scorched earth policy to destroy Komen.  They pretended to be all about women’s health — uh, other than the health of the victims of statutory rape and sex trafficking whose crimes they have been caught hiding, the health of all the females destroyed by abortion and the health of the women who will be hurt by the drop in donations to Komen.

Then Komen relented.  But as they are about to learn, their Netflix inspired strategy has doomed them forever.  Before, only some pro-lifers knew about the association with PP.  Now nearly everyone knows of it and pro-lifers won’t trust them.

It reminds me of the old story about the person who was convinced by a snake to pick him up and carry him.  After the naive person gets bitten he is reminded by the snake that he knew what he was picking up.  If you partner with people who kill innocent human beings for a living, don’t be surprised when they would rather see your charity destroyed than to give up point-zero-seven percent of their funding and to have anyone event hint that the death industry isn’t a swell place to be.

—–

Here’s a comment that I left over at Hillbuzz that Kevin Dujan liked so much he added it to his post (he does great work over there battling the Leftists — be sure to check it out!):

Just when you think the Left couldn’t be more evil . . .

Let’s recap: A organization that kills innocent human beings for a living and its radical supporters were so offended by the elimination of a voluntary contribution by a non-profit dedicated to curing breast cancer that was a whopping 0.07% of their annual budget that they set out to destroy the non-profit, all the while claiming that they weren’t the ones politicizing the issue, that they were being bullied and that they were pro-women’s health. And the Leftist media supported them all the way, including perpetuating the Planned Parenthood CEO’s lies about them doing mammograms. Now Komen is distrusted and disliked by both sides and the Leftists are cheering their destruction.

The only good news is that others will think more carefully before getting involved with Planned Parenthood. Oddly enough, people who kill babies for cash or support those who do the same have some other unpleasant traits.

Komen caves?

There was a reason I cautioned against donating to Komen until they proved they wouldn’t support Planned Parenthood again.  See Breaking: Komen announces that Planned Parenthood eligibility for funding will continue.

Regardless of where this ends up, their Netflix-style leadership has been horrible.  That alone is a reason to avoid them for now.  They should have known more about PP before they started funding them.  Breaking off relations with a group whose primary purpose is destroying human life is bound to be messy. Now Komen has managed to alienate both sides.

Will they be refunding all the donations that pro-lifers made yesterday?  That would be the honest thing to do.

Side note: Much has been made of the “abortions are only 3% of the services provided” statistical game PP plays.  Click here for an excellent analysis of that.

First, I don’t care if killing innocent human beings is only 0.00001% of your business model.  If it is more than zero then I won’t support you.   Same thing for systematically hiding statutory rape and sex trafficking.

Just dig a little deeper on those PP stats. Clients obviously get multiple services, as 1 out of 9 got an abortion. So the figure is at least 11%.  Women are 400 times more likely to get an abortion than to be referred for an adoption.

And as Abby Johnson (former PP director) will attest, they get a lot of pressure to increase abortions (as opposed to getting pressure to pass out condoms or do pap smears).

And where does their revenue come from? PP doesn’t pay these salaries based on how many condoms they give away, they get it from performing 329,455 abortions. (P.S. They are the 1% so I hope the Occupy Crowd protests them.)

President Cecile Richards $353,819
Chief Operating Officer Maryana Iskander $288,886
Chief Financial Officer Maria Acosta $263,443
VP of Medical Affairs Vanessa Cullins $257,115
VP of General Counsel Barbara Otten $251,379
VP of Public Policy Laurie Rubiner $248,438
VP of Operations Karen Ruffatto $247,932
VP of Affiliates Lisa David $245,322

I’m with Kevin DeYoung:

So for whatever useful purposes they may serve on ocassion, I’m not ashamed to admit that of all the things I don’t trust in the world two of them at the top of the list are statistics and Planned Parenthood.

More about Komen

Pro-aborts hack Komen website over cutting Planned Parenthood — can’t you just feel the love and caring from the Planned Parenthood crowd?

—-

See Komen cleansing and more inside chatter for this and more:

Huffington Post gleefully reported today that three Komen officials have now resigned and one more is threatening to, as the “backlash gains steam” over its decision to sever financial ties with Planned Parenthood.

The fools don’t realize what is happening. Every Komen exec who quits over the Planned Parenthood flak is good news for our side, one less pro-abort with clout in the United States’ most influential breast cancer foundation. Komen is undergoing a cleansing of its liberal bastion.

Perhaps now Komen will acknowledge the link between abortion and breast cancer, which, thanks to the Planned Parenthood flak, is getting renewed attention.

And be sure to send them an encouraging email.  Consider asking them to acknowledge the abortion / breast cancer link.  Remember, Planned Parenthood probably causes more breast cancer than it ever diagnosed.

The emails are 2-to-1 pro-life so far, and my guess is that many of the ones from the pro-aborts / anti-breast cancer cure people are less than winsome.

—–

The wolves in sheep’s clothing have been predictable.  See People Of Faith Should Stop Giving To Susan G. Komen for the Cure where false teacher and anti-breast cancer research Chuck Currie plays politics with health care while complaining about people playing politics with health care.  Hypocrisy: He’s doin’ it right!

Good thing for Komen that donations are up 100% since their announcement.  Maybe Chuck was a big giver but if he is like other Liberals he is mostly talk and expresses his “generosity” by coveting the wealth of others by asking Caesar to take more of it to give in his name.  We know that conservatives give more money and even blood than Liberals.

Just for defunding less than 1% of Planned Parenthood’s extravagant budget Chuck & Co. are willing to see Komen suffer.  It is hard to imagine people being more pro-abortion and anti-women than that.  Then again, “Reverend” Chuck thinks we don’t have enough abortions in this country and things won’t get better until taxpayers pay for more of them.

The only good news is that the wolves have taken off the sheep’s clothing.  It must have been getting too warm.

Also see Komen donations up 100% in the past two days;Update: Komen to continue funding some Planned Parenthood chapters?  The first part is a positive, at least as an in-your-face to the pro-aborts.  The 2nd is a concern.  I wouldn’t donate to them until they demonstrate they will never work with PP again.

Mega-roundup

I’ve been trying to do more individual posts instead of roundups, but there has been a lot of craziness lately.  Here goes.

—–

A great response to Bill Keller of the NY Times — He may be intelligent but he isn’t wise.  His analysis was horrible.  He also tips his hand in conceding the phony religiosity of people like Obama and Clinton.  After all, they claim the name of Christ as well.  But the Left doesn’t think they are really Christians so they don’t get upset about it.  But when Perry and Bachmann appear to really believe, then Keller and the other bigots freak out.

—–

I’m all for breast cancer research, but here’s why I don’t donate to the Susan Komen Foundation: Komen 2010 donation to Planned Parenthood hits $569,000

When asked, Komen states that gifts to Planned Parenthood are justified because PP does mammograms. The black eye got even darker when it was revealed that PP actually does not do mammograms, but routine breast exams that a woman can do on herself.

The biggest problem with the PP donation is that a legitimate abortion-breast cancer link has been documented in studies. So, Komen gives funds raised to cure breast cancer to an organization that is increasing breast cancer risk as the nation’s largest abortion provider.

Hey Komen organization:  Call me when you stop supporting an organization that kills babies for a living.

—–

Is the mainstream press addressing how Gibson Guitars, owned by a Republican contributor, was raided by the Department of Justice on a petty charge while its competitor, owned by a Democratic contributor, was not?   Do Liberals care about what might be a massive abuse of power?

—–

Are you smarter than Rick Perry?  Here’s a test for the oh-so-smart class: Do you think there is a Social Security “trust fund” or “lockbox” where the contributions to date are stored?  If so, then Rick Perry is a lot smarter than you.  He knows that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.  Anyone who tells you otherwise is ignorant or lying to you.  From the video at the link:

We need to have a conversation with America, just like we’re having right here today. And admit that it is a Ponzi scheme for these young people. The idea that they’re working and paying into Social Security today, that under the current program is going to be there for them, is a lie. It is a monstrous lie on this generation and we can’t do that to them

Perry also said he stood for the rights of non-believers.

Also see Perry on Obama: How “smart” do you have to be to let the economy get this bad? — This should be fun!  The DNC and its media and theologically liberal allies are going through the laundry list of memes about Rick Perry — religious nut, stupid, etc.  But if Obama & Co. are so brilliant why have they failed to achieve any of their economic commitments?

And if Obama is so smart, what were his college grades?  Oh, right, he won’t release them.

—–

Here’s a good response to the made-up “dominionist” charge against Bachmann and Perry.  The anti-religion bigots / haters seem to be test-marketing that meme.
—–

Great analysis by Stan on the “God and sex-slaves” debate.

—–

Homosexual students automatically eligible for scholarship: Elmhurst college — So how do they test for that?  Here’s a shocker: The college is associated with the apostate United Church of Christ.

In a recent statement, David Smith, executive director of the Illinois Family Institute, criticized the college’s comparison between sexual orientation and ethnic identity

“In defending their decision to include a question about ‘sexual orientation,’ by asserting an offensive and absurd comparison of race to a condition constituted by subjective desire and volitional sexual acts, Elmhurst College administrators reveal their own ignorance,” said Smith.
Elmhurst is affiliated with the liberal leaning United Church of Christ, which became the first denomination in the country with an openly gay minister when it ordained William Johnson in 1972.

—–

Rep. Carson Accuses Tea Party Representatives in Congress of Wanting to Lynch Blacks — Subtle.  I think this is the guy who declared war on the Tea Party.  And we have Congresswoman Maxine Waters saying Tea Partiers should go to Hell.  Can’t you feel the love and tolerance?

So when race riots break out can we blame Carson and all the other race-baiters?  Shouldn’t the media be asking if the black-on-white flash mob attacks have been instigated by this inflammatory rhetoric?

Rep. Carson has a history of making unsupported accusations of racism at the Tea Party. You may recall that he is the Rep. who claimed to have been called the N-word “15 times” while passing through a group of Tea Party protesters on Capitol Hill. When video appeared that refuted part of his story (he wasn’t mobbed and received no police escort) he changed his story. No video supporting his N-word claim ever appeared.

—–

If you ever wondered how coordinated the liberal media bias is, read about Journolist.  It is interesting how quickly these “independent” fact finding types all agree on the same meme, such as tying Sarah Palin to the Arizona shootings.  What is really interesting is how fake Christians like Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie immediately came out with the same Palin chatter — almost as if he was on the distribution list for the DNC talking points!  He was right on time and on script with the Perry bashing as well.

—–

Good overview of false teacher Benny Hinn.  He is so transparently fake that I barely feel sorry for those duped by him.

—–

President Obama has Tour Buses Flown to Stump Speeches — Remember the taxpayer-funded campaign tour?  It is much worse than you thought.  He didn’t just blow $2m on buses made in Canada, he had them flown around just so he could appear to be riding in them.  Your tax dollars (not) at work!

—–

Gay activist explains how same-sex marriage will change marriage — Hey, I thought they didn’t want to change it?!   Seriously, read the post and note how flippant they are about “non-monogamous same-sex marriage.”