Komen Back in Bed With Planned Parenthood

Isn’t it touching when gangsters dedicated to the industrial-scale slaughter of children are able to kiss and make up with the charity they managed to intimidate into quiescence?

New money will be flowing from Komen to Planned Parenthood from new grants issued after the policy that disqualified Planned Parenthood:

Grants from the Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure are flowing to Planned Parenthood, as the women’s health organizations seek to rebuild their relationship after the controversy in February over the breast cancer charity’s unsuccessful attempt to defund Planned Parenthood.

At least 17 Planned Parenthood affiliates will be funded this year, about the same number that received grants in 2011, according to a tally provided by Komen. The total amount of the grants, which are for breast-cancer screening and other breast-health services, is still being worked out. Most recipients this year also received funds last year.

When I covered this story for the National Catholic Register, it changed so fast I was rewriting every fifteen minutes. My takeaway when the dust had settled was that Komen did not like being set afire by thugs like Cecile Richard and her pro-abortion stooges across the country, and that further grants would be denied. I guess Komen decided they liked being popular with the mass-murder crowd more than they enjoyed the sudden and overwhelming outpouring of support from pro-lifers.

I’m tired of the whole sickening saga. The astonishing success of Planned Parenthood’s vicious smear tactics is simply nauseating. Everywhere I look people are moaning about schoolyard bullies as if they are something new in annals of childhood, while real-life adult bullies can take down a charity that actually saved lives and be rewarded for it.

Anthony Esolen: How Dark Were The Dark Ages?
Jellyfish DNA May Help Diagnose Ebola, Other Diseases
Our Ongoing Holocaust
Charlie Hebdo and a Broken Europe
About Thomas L. McDonald

Thomas L. McDonald writes about technology, theology, history, games, and shiny things. Details of his rather uneventful life as a professional writer and magazine editor can be found in the About tab.

  • Jason Phelan

    This “article” is a disgusting slab of libel. You sound like the biggest whiner since Rick Santorum.
    Do the world a favor and take up a new profession.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat/ The Crescat

    It’s only libel if it’s false. Which it isn’t. So quit your whining.

  • http://www.godandthemachine.com Thomas L. McDonald

    Mindless insult posts like yours usually just get the spam filter, but at least you’re using your own name and you use a word of interest to me, so I have to ask: which part was the libel? I’m pretty well versed in libel and slander, so I’m really interested in hearing your insights. Is is the characterization of Planned Parenthood as an organization dedicated to the murder of the unborn? The thug-like intimidation tactics of their assault on Komen’s decision? Their track record of lying and criminal behavior, which is what triggered Komen’s policy in the first place? You seem to know so much, so please share your wisdom.

  • john Kelly

    It would be nice if you took a break from the name-calling and purple prose and gave some attention to the facts of the case. Komen stopped funding Planned Parenthood’s breast exam services (they never funded PP’s abortion services, which in any event are not “industrial scale”). Many people objected and stopped sending money to Komen, often sending it to PP instead. Komen realized that depriving women of breast health services was not going to prevent abortions, and even if it did would be inconsistent with their mission–fighting breast cancer.
    There was some name-calling directed at Komen, and that’s a bad thing–just as bad as name-calling directed at Planned Parenthood.
    See how easy it is? I got through two whole paragraphs simply relating the facts and never once called you any names. That’s because I believe people should be treated with respect even when you disagree with their opinions. I respect your right to believe otherwise, of course.

  • http://www.godandthemachine.com Thomas L. McDonald

    It would be nice if you took a break from patting yourself on the back for your enlightened tone and bothered to read the original article in the National Catholic Register, which I wrote, and which points out all those facts you seem to think I don’t know.

    Drawing an equivalence between a charity dedicated to curing cancer and a business that kills 300,000 unborn children each year doesn’t really work. It ignores the fact that Planned Parenthood tried to destroy the Komen brand and encouraged people to punish Komen by switching their donations over to Planned Parenthood. It was an almost sublime example of a high-tech, social-media-driven protection racket. (And I’m sorry if 300,000 dead babies per year is not a high-enough body count for you qualify it as “industrial-scale”. I’m sure they’re working to get those numbers up.)

    You can take your “let’s be civilized” tone and stuff it. I have no interest at all in being civilized with people who can write off human life so casually. If you support abortion you support murder. Period. End stop. Go tut-tut at someone else.

  • victor

    At least I never again have to feel conflicted about not attending any RFTC activities here at work.

  • Laura

    Wow, that article really said it- clear, concise and sadly true.

  • simone g.

    I feel like your perception as someone who is fundamentally against one particular service of PP has prevented you from objectively analyzing what took place between the two organizations and ultimately the response to the situation on all sides. It was perceived by many who’s donations support the very existence of koman that members of the board were exercising their right as a private organization to decide where to spend their donation dollars based on a narrow set of religiously based moral beliefs. Because of the dubious reasons given for komens withdrawl of financial support for breast cancer screenings at PP centers this appeared to a large number of non-radicalized individuals as an attack upon women’s access to health care. Although not all financial supporters large and small dissented with the organization a large segment of their population did and spoke loudly with their dollars. Ultimately it was determined by the koman board that the exodus of members, dollars and supporters was to great to continue maintaining it’s ideoillogical position. The reversal of it’s stance has apparently been met with hostility from the pro-life camp as it took away a perceived victory against a mortal enemy. what those who are against PP need to realize is that in this situation koman chose to back away from your viewpoint not because of some ‘extremist’ attacks on them but because they chose to chase the dollars they were losing at a rapid rate to ensure their survival. While I can appreciate all sides of an argument and am always willing to engage in thoughtful discourse the language in your diatribe comes across as hateful and mean which isn’t winning over those still open to debate. I would hope that next time you sat down to write you’d think about how your lord and savior would have conveyed his messages to the population as I’m sure this would not have been it.

  • http://www.godandthemachine.com Thomas L. McDonald

    Komen’s initial decisions was based on two factors: 1) they wanted “out of the culture wars,” and the association with Planned Parenthood was damaging their brand, and 2) they wanted the grant money to go to a place that actually could provide full breast exams, not merely to a clinic writing referrals for exams at other locations. Planned Parenthood wanted to prove that no one walks away from them, and their campaign against Komen was loathsome. It was the genteel equivalent of the mafia burning down one business in a neighborhood as a warning to other business not to get any funny ideas.

  • lethargic

    I disagree with you Thomas. It was not genteel. Soldier on, brother.

  • RobertC.

    Religious organizations hate abortion because it decreases the number of children they can indoctrinate, while at the same time providing women with a means of escaping poverty by delaying childbirth.

    It’s obvious that the Catholic church’s position on social issues all directly relate to issues which provide them with the greatest amount of people, which provides them the most amount of profit.

    1) Death penalty? = Against it, religion is rampant through prisons.
    2) Abortion? = Against it, decreases religious population.
    3) Immigration? = Yes, please! The Catholic church can’t get enough of Latin America to become legalized because that’s where the religious population is shifting.
    4) Condoms? = No way!

  • http://www.godandthemachine.com Thomas L. McDonald

    Yes, all that horrible “profit” we use to … feed and care for those people you quite obviously despise.

  • RobertC.r

    “The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, the ninth annual audit by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which deals specifically with sex abuse cases, found that the church spent $144 million in the past year to deal with such issues.”

    $144 million spent in 2011.

    “A total of 489 people reported credible allegations of abuse against 406 priests or deacons, up from 2010 when such accusers numbered 428, while there were 346 offending priests.”


  • http://www.godandthemachine.com Thomas L. McDonald

    There’s a point in there somewhere, other than your toxic knee-jerk anti-Catholicism (and let’s not forget your racism and bloodthirst, as exhibited in your prior post). You do realize that one Catholic charitable group alone (Catholic Charities) has a $4.7 billion budget, right? That we are the largest provider of care for the sick and poor on the entire planet? Or does your Chick-tract level of knowledge not extend to that kind of information.

    Just a quick tip: flogging the abuse scandal is so 2008. We’re waging a war on women now. Didn’t you get the memo? If you’re going to hate mindlessly, at least try to keep up with the trends.

  • RobertC

    Wow, Catholic Charities has a $4.7 billion budget!

    Too bad $2.9 billion of that comes from the Federal Government.


  • http://www.godandthemachine.com Thomas L. McDonald

    Which means the rest comes from … cookie sales?

    Wow, you’ve discovered that the church functions as a social services contractor. Amazing.

    It’s been fun. Bored now.

  • RobertC

    Which means that with the snap of a finger the Federal Government can instantly strip $2.9 billion away from the Catholic church.

    It means that having insurance providers cover birth control for women who work at these (select) Government funded Catholic social service providers is not “encroaching religious liberty.”

    Lastly, it means that the Federal Government is going to begin stripping away funding for these social security providers if they don’t follow federal laws.

    Oh wait, it’s already begun.


  • http://www.godandthemachine.com Thomas L. McDonald

    Still bored, but you just go right ahead. I’ve never read any of these fascinating thoughts in a thousand other combox rants. Still not sure how it all ties to your initial “asses in the pews” theory about how the church just wants to get rich by attracting a bunch of … murderers, immigrants, poor people, and babies.

  • RobertC

    That’s because you deflected to the issue of “profit” in your first reply.

    {TLMcD: No longer bothering with replies, but let’s just take a trip in the Wayback Machine and remember Robert’s first post, which included the line: “It’s obvious that the Catholic church’s position on social issues all directly relate to issues which provide them with the greatest amount of people, which provides them the most amount of profit.” So, no, I didn’t “deflect” to the issue of profit: I replied to the entire point of your initial (and, let us not forget, VERY RACIST) post.}

  • RobertC


    Mentioning Latin America is not racist:

    “As the Latino share of the U.S. population grows, the proportion of American Catholics who are Latino is likely to grow as well. The Landscape Survey finds that Latinos now account for nearly a third (29%) of all Catholic adults in the U.S. Perhaps more significantly, Latinos account for nearly half of Catholics under age 40. ”


    As for any other racism you believe you detected, I’m Catholic.

    And since I can’t formally leave, I guess you’re stuck with me as a member of your religion.

    “In April of this year, the Catholic Church modified the Code of Canon Law to remove all references to the act of formal defection, the process used by those who wish to formally renounce their membership of the Church.”


  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat/ The Crescat

    HA HA HA … how precious. You actually believe PP offers breast cancer screening.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat/ The Crescat

    Jesus, Mary and Joseph, Thomas! Is it always like this over here in your com-boxes?

  • http://www.stateofplayblog.com Thomas L. McDonald

    No, it’s usually pretty quite around here. Most of the time I don’t let trolling posts through, but some of these seemed better phrased so I let them publish. “Abortion” and “Thomas Kinkade” are the two topics that generated the most heat this first month. I dumped most of the Kinkade comments because they were boring insults.

    Also, I let the “Robert” posts continue because they were such delicious nonsense: all Catholic teaching is based on getting murderers, furriners (scary Latino ones, no less!), babies, and poor people in the pews so we can rake in all that dough and buy a new gold plated Popemobile or something. My favorite part was when he accused me of “deflecting” his points onto another subject … which was his original subject! Wheeee!