I am not crazy enough to believe that the U.S. culture wars ever ended, but it is kind of breathtaking to watch them reignite into flame before your eyes. After announcing just three days ago that it would no longer fund breast exams at a handful of Planned Parenthood affiliates, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure breast-cancer charity, having endured a relentless barrage from politicians, prochoice activists and soon to be ex-supporters, said today that it is reversing that decision.
"We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women's lives," a Komen statement said.
In previous statements Komen officials said their decision to drop Planned Parenthood affiliates wasn't "political"; I guess in the sense that its reversal likewise isn't political, which is to say it is all political.
The folks at Planned Parenthood, which orchestrated the shock and awe response to Komen's decision, have been busy on a number of different fronts this week and must be feeling pretty satisfied with their many public relations efforts. In fact the Komen controversy and the U.S. bishops response to HHS have proved something of a public relations and fiscal watershed for Planned Parenthood. In television ads this week PP is thanking President Obama and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for "standing firm" on contraception. PP may be overdoing the victory dance on this one; watching the self-righteous counterattack against the bishops and noting the increasingly Nativist tone of some of the sentiment expressed on that vast wasteland of the Interent, I can feel some atavistic response mechanism kicking in myself. Will liberal Catholics come home to stand by their bishops despite their differences? (We know the Lefebvrians won't.)
In today's Wall Street Journal Peggy Noonan argues ("A Battle the President Can't Win") that President has made a fatal blunder in this decision:
The church is split on many things. But do Catholics in the pews want the government telling their church to contravene its beliefs? A president affronting the leadership of the church, and blithely threatening its great institutions? No, they don't want that. They will unite against that.
The smallest part of this story is political. There are 77.7 million Catholics in the United States. In 2008 they made up 27% of the electorate, about 35 million people. Mr. Obama carried the Catholic vote, 54% to 45%. They helped him win.
They won't this year. And guess where a lot of Catholics live? In the battleground states.
There was no reason to pick this fight. It reflects political incompetence on a scale so great as to make Mitt Romney's gaffes a little bitty thing.
There was nothing for the president to gain, except, perhaps, the pleasure of making a great church bow to him.
Enjoy it while you can. You have awakened a sleeping giant.
-
Is it possible that women and men who are not stupid and who are not hypocrites could decide for themselves that Komen was wrong? Why assume the reaction was ''orchestrated''?
(Noonan's article silly as usual.)
Enjoy it while you can. You have awakened a sleeping giant.
-
In any disagreement, it's easy to tell who's right and who's wrong. Just notice who must lie, exaggerate, calumniate, etc. to make the argument.
The ''great church'' was not made to ''bow'' to the president. There is no ''sleeping giant''. (Would that be the 98% who use contraception?)
And there is no ''Nativist tone'' in the approval of President Obama's decision. To make that claim is to trivialize history.
As for Noonan's "sleeping giant" comment, our parish priest read the bishop's letter this past weekend and used the same phrase. Talk about "orchestrated". . .
I equate "nativist" criticism of the Roman Catholic Church with the political movement that was had its heyday with the Know Nothings party and has maintained isolated strains to the current day (“ Rum, Romanism and Rebellion”). This line of attack usually associates the Church as a foreign body that is somehow not truly American, associated with non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants, echoing a split that goes back to the Anglican schism, which is part of the reason the Knights of Columbus felt so important to emphasize the patriotism of Catholic men. Hence, the use of the shorthand "nativist" to suggest that Catholicism is not native to our land, even though it had a part, albeit less significant than today, in the faith of the founding generation, especially in Maryland.
I have seen none of that tone in the current debate. I have seen the reflexive reference to the sexual abuse scandals, which remains largely irrelevant. But I don't consider that nativist in my understanding of the term. I have not seen any nativist sentiments in comments anywhere, it would be surprised to see same, as nativist sentiments are usually associated with the Church's allies on this point, which could be very crudely referred to as the Tea Party element. I acknowledge that is reductive and oversimplistic; I'm just trying to make a general point.
Again to use a crude oversimplification, the Church’s critics on the Left usually do not come from a nativist perspective. Consequently, I also would disagree without use of the term.
Komen is a private foundation under no obligation to fund anyone, including PP, if they feel it would detract from its mission of curing breast cancer. PP assured and demonstrated dire reprisals if this private foundation didn't keep their gravy train going.
In short, this was a stick-up.
It just seems to me that people who truly want to advocate for women's health would wish to de-fund the organization that generates the most research and ongoing support to kill breast cancer. Looking throughout the blogosphere, even with this reversal, PP advocates are already hemming and hawing about NEXT year's funding and promising NOT to support Race for a Cure.
I guess the Cure will have to wait.
"It just seems to me that people who truly want to advocate for women's health would wish to de-fund the organization that generates the most research and ongoing support to kill breast cancer. "
SHOULD read "It just seems odd to me..."
Apologies...I need to proofread before I post.
-
Barricades? Exaggerate much?
-
I agree with Rick's comments.
To the extent that Komen legitimately perceive that its association with PP was legitimately detracting commission if you breast cancer, that could only be from the political dimension of such an association, not from the actual providing of screenings and women who, in most cases, would not otherwise receive such screens. It appears a more legitimate argument can be made that the withdrawal of the funding actually harms the mission, so long as the mission is viewed on its individual merits, and not as part of a larger political perspective.
http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2012/02/03/gun-distributor-komen-foundation-team-up-to-sell-pink-handgun/
Anyone who contributes one thin dime to this group deserves to be stepped upon by them.
As Rick mentioned, PP is an important women's health clinic for those without much money - it's one of the best places in which to invest in breast cancer screening.
As for the contraception reg being a battle the president can't win, I think you underestimate the women voters of this nation.
The Catholic Church should respond to abortion by teaching and reflecting ultimate respect for the sacredness and dignity of human life. Nothing else makes sense. Nothing else will truly change behavior. If Catholics were serious about ending abortion, they would be out there in the streets caring for unwanted babies, prisoners, the sick, the forgotten and abandoned. The bottom line is the sacredness of life. Until we get that, we'll lose every battle.
As for the pink ribbons of Susan Komen, I want none of it.
It's not all about mamograms - when women go to see their doctor for yearly pelvic exams, they also get physical breast exams .... visual exams and palpations, as well as advice on how to do their own at home exams. This is the front line of breast cancer screening.
You're a stone cold sucker if you believe that.
http://blog.mysanantonio.com/womensissues/files/2012/02/Planned_Parenthood.png
OK, I just read it. He writes that most people are pro-life and want to outlaw abortion and he says that it's just the media that is pro-choice. Many people may well identify as pro-life but the reality seems to be that many women, including Catholic women, don't "act" like pro-lifers (and don't vote like them, either). If I understand the statistics correctly, about a theird of the women who have unwanted pregnancies get abortions, and 37% of the women getting abortions are Catholic ..... http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
I don't think putting Planned Parenthood out of business will end abortions, abd making it illegal doesn't seem to lessen the number of abortions but to actually make things worse ... http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57362079-10391704/abortion-more-common-where-its-illegal-where-are-rates-highest/
The only way I can see to lessen abortion is to lessen unwanted pregnancies.
From FFL's mission statement:
If you believe in the strength of women and the potential of every human life,
If you refuse to choose between women and children,
If you believe no woman should be forced to choose between sacrificing her education and career plans and sacrificing her child,
If you reject violence and exploitation,
Join us in challenging the status quo.
Because women deserve better.
Welcome to Feminists for Life.
There is a better way.
http://www.feministsforlife.org/who/aboutus.htm
They happened in the bad old days pre RvW and will happen in any bad future days if RvW is outlawed.
Even in "Catholic" Ireland (my, how silly THAT sounds these days) where abortion is outlawed, the flights of good Catholic girls to England to solve the "bun in the oven" problem are well documented and well known.
I agree. But laws against drunk driving dont't prevent that practice either. If there were perfect preventative laws, there would be no need for a criminal justice system, prison system, etc.
IMO however, it's not black and white when it comes to abortion. For better or worse, this issue is charged to the hilt with white hot emotion and pain and guilt and fear. Many women who ''choose'' to abort have little to nothing in terms of financial, emotional or moral support. This is the antithesis of ''choice'' and this is what is not being addressed. It is not being addressed by the pro-choice ''it's just a lump of cells crowd'', NOR is it being effectively addressed by the pro-life ''abortion is murder'' crowd.
To the pro-choicers - If it is simply a ''lump of cells'' why say that abortion should be a ''rare procedure''? If you have to have on, and it's just a lump of cells, it shouldn't be any different than having a tooth extracted? Why the special treatment?
To the pro-lifers - If abortion is indeed murder, how can you tout the ''I regret my abortion'' slogan, or the Project Rachel retreats? Should you not be advocating for the incarceration of these perpetrators?
I know these are extreme examples I'm using to illustrate my point. Abortion is a unique legal and moral issue; anyone who pretends it is not simply is not paying attention. This issue deserves far more than the screeching of either the extreme pro or con position.
Breast Care is big business from the salaries of Komen and PP wants a piece of the action too. A cure would bankrupt many agencies and fundraisers.