The Susan G. Komen foundation on Friday announced its reversal of an earlier decision to withdraw a number of funding grants from Planned Parenthood. The grants from Komen provided hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding to local Planned Parenthood centers for cancer screenings. Early detection of breast cancer greatly increases survival rates. For decades Komen and Planned Parenthood had teamed together to promote early detection, undoubtedly saving the lives of many women along the way. However, over the last week, the issue of breast cancer prevention suddenly became politicized with the issue of abortion. Sadly, once abortion was brought into the equation, all sense of reason was lost. Now, even after reversing the original decision, Komen will likely pay a price for what was certainly a public relations nightmare.
For many years the grants to Planned Parenthood from Komen were a non-issue. However, over the last two years, Planned Parenthood has become a target of conservative attacks. Republicans in Congress fought hard to try and defund Planned Parenthood from within the federal budget. Supporters of Planned Parenthood argued that only 3% of their budget goes to “abortion services.” An overwhelming majority of what Planned Parenthood does concerns treatment for sexually-transmitted disease and infections, contraception, cancer screening and prevention, and other women’s health services. Through its contraception services, Planned Parenthood may very well prevent many abortions. In addition, federal law prohibits any government funds to be used for abortions.
However, the critics of Planned Parenthood argue that any funding the organization receives ultimately supports abortions. The theory is that the money given for other parts of the budget, i.e. cancer screenings, could free up other money for abortions. The problem with the theory is that it leads to the conclusion that all kinds of government funds go to abortions. If military service members get an abortion, it could be argued that their paychecks are “federal funding for abortions.” If a poor woman uses food stamps and then uses other income for an abortion, it could be argued the food stamps constituted “federal funding of an abortion.” Still, Komen evidently succumbed to the reasoning of this argument earlier this week, before relenting today.
Progressive organizations immediately began expressing their disgust once Planned Parenthood announced Komen’s defunding decision. The backlash evidently was severe enough to cause Komen to reverse its decision, but now Komen is catching heat from conservative groups. No matter what Komen does now, it is almost guaranteed to upset a good portion of the population. Many on the left believe Komen was trying to take away an essential freedom from women. Many in the right now believe Komen is funding abortions.
The controversy in many ways reflects the complete lack of reason continually displayed in the abortion debate. Both sides at times are guilty of using heated rhetoric, accusations, and emotion rather than reason. Ultimately, the debate comes down to one's belief of when life begins. Despite their best efforts, neither side has really done a successful job of convincing the other that life begins at conception or at birth. The issue is more philosophical than scientific, which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to agree on “facts” or the “truth.” Graphic signs of aborted fetuses and horrific stories of coat hanger abortions have not really advanced the debate.
Instead of focusing on real ways to reduce abortions, such as promoting adoptions, free prenatal care, and birth control methods, the debate focuses on a relative small amount of funding from a breast cancer prevention organization to a family planning center. The major causes of abortion are a lack of planning and poverty. The grants from Komen to Planned Parenthood will do nothing to solve these problems.
Comments