Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Involuntary Charity For Abortion

You’ve probably heard about this scandal involving the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation and Planned Parenthood (“PP”). On the one hand, I find this positively shocking. On the other hand, every aspect of this is what I’ve come to expect from intolerant modern liberalism.

Here’s what happened. The Komen Foundation is a charitable group that spends about $90 million annually on breast cancer research, education and screening. The Komen Foundation has been giving around $700,000 a year to PP so PP “could provide poor women with breast cancer screening, mammograms and education.”

Last week, the Komen Foundation announced that it would stop giving money to PP because PP was under investigation by Congress for using federal money for abortions and for failing to report child abuse. Komen has a policy that it will not give money to any organization under investigation by any state or federal agency until the organization is cleared. Simple enough. Only it wasn’t.

Every liberal from the abortion wing of the Democratic Party to Hollywood went apesh*t. They screamed that this was an outrage, a political decision, and the evil Komen Foundation was (insert nonsense claim here). Sadly, Komen folded under the pressure and agreed to continue funding the abortion lobby in violation of their own policies. Here are my thoughts:
● Liberals do not understand the concept of charity. Charity is something you give voluntarily. Liberals have taken the position that PP is entitled to money from Komen in perpetuity, even though PP has no right whatsoever to a single penny in charity from Komen. This is a perversion of the concept of charity and turns a good deed into perpetual slavery.

● Liberals claim this was a political decision. That’s wrong. Giving money to a controversial organization in the first place was the political decision. Stopping that money is NOT a political decision. It is the opposite. It is a depolitization decision.

● Also, the real political decision was restarting the funding. Komen has a policy, which it applies to all organization to which it contributes. Carving out an exception for PP because some liberals got upset is a political act. And how typically liberal to demand special rights for a liberal group.

● Don’t believe for a moment this won’t fund abortions. Money is fungible. That means giving money on the condition it won’t be used for some specific purpose is delusional because all that does is free up other money which can then be used for the forbidden purpose.

● PP is an abortion clinic and they only offer other services so they can pretend they are a women’s health clinic who just happens to provide abortions. When the government and charities fund these other activities, they are not only freeing up money for abortions, they are helping provide a smokescreen for PP to claim it’s something greater than just an abortion clinic.

● This is going to be a mess for Komen. Giving in to the left will stop the whining (for now... see next point), but will anger many more conservatives who don’t want their money going to PP and who probably had no idea they were funding PP through Komen. Conservatives give to charity, liberals don’t. So Komen may have placated the whiners, but it will anger the people who actually support it. It will be interesting to see what happens with their donations.

● Finally, pro-abortion groups were already upset at Komen because the founder of the group, Nancy Brinker, served as George W. Bush’s ambassador to Hungary and last year she appointed Georgia’s former secretary of state, Karen Handel, a pro-life Republican, to a senior policy post with the foundation. Expect these groups to try to use this incident as a pretext to force political change at the organization.
There are some lessons to be learned here. For one thing, if you don’t want to become a slave to a liberal cause, don’t ever start donating to their groups. Apparently, as with the mob, you can’t leave once you start. Also, it will be interesting to see who wins the funding war. Make no mistake, this is a political war and it will be between whiny-but-cheap liberals and blind-but-generous conservatives. If conservatives make a statement by closing their wallets, the ability of liberals to impose their will by whining may start to fail. On the other hand, if funding doesn’t drop, expect further aggression from the left to be aimed at controlling other charities.

Thoughts?

Also, don’t forget it’s Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.

47 comments:

CrisD said...

Good Morning, Andrew!
I was subjected to hourly updates and howling from an aging liberal suburban mom with too much time on her hands!
You have nailed the "smoke-screen" created by those wishing to see PP as women's health services for the needy. I think you are absolutely right that they will get rid of the conservative people on the foundation. The foundation has made its pro-choice positon clear now so the rest is a fait accompli. Now I have to listen to this know-it-all overbearing woman rant until that is done.

Tam said...

I read that one city (I wish I had the article in front of me so I could name the city) was already looking into cancelling or disallowing future Komen race/walks. I don't know what pretext they would use to do that, but someone smart could come up with a reason. I also saw that their donations went up by 100% the day they announced they would stop PP funding. THAT is going to piss off a lot of genuinely charitable people. And you know what they say about word of mouth advertising, especially with negative experiences. I think Komen did themselves a great disservice with this move. And frankly, they deserve it.

StanH said...

When it gets to this point, it seems more like extortion, blackmail, shakedown, you pick the criminal activity. Except with liberals in the name of the “just cause” anything goes.

Just give your money directly to the American Cancer Society, after all the fight against cancer is vital to us all.

Tennessee Jed said...

Andrew; great post - This is liberalism in full view. "apeshit" is perfect description of the lib reaction. Cris, "PP as women's health care for the needy" is a great descriptive. Tam, they absolutely do deserve what they reap don't they.

T-Rav said...

I was honestly a little surprised by the reaction to Komen folding. I was just as disappointed by it as everyone else, but considering the group's clout and reputation, I figured this would quiet down within a few days. Apparently not; from some of the feedback I've heard on talk radio, a lot of people who were supporters have essentially said "abortion trumps cancer" and have either vowed to stop their donations to Komen or are looking into donating to other cancer groups. It will be interesting to see what happens in a few months when they do their "For The Cure" runs.

CrisD said...

Karen handel just resigned.

Individualist said...

This is so disheartening. The only thing this does is make me more unlikely to donate to any charity group for fear that they will send the money to some cuase I disagree.

Problem is that conservatives don't muster the outrage machine like liberals do. Most won't take the time to be aware of this and the media will not publicise their complaints the way they will publicize the liberal venom.

We really need outlets to become more involved.

Writer X said...

I was disappointed in Komen for caving. In doing so, they appeased no one. Jeez. Take a stand, Komen. Needless to say, I won't be continuing my donations to this charity.

Side note: With all the millions going to breast cancer research, shouldn't we have a damn cure by now?

Rant over.

AndrewPrice said...

CrisD, Sorry to hear that, but I suspect your case is not unique. If there's one thing liberals love more than forcing their will on others, it's crowing about "being right" when they've beaten their target into submission.

I think the "smoke-screen" idea is accurate. Whenever they are attacked by conservatives they always go back to "we're not about abortions, we're about women's health... look at what we do." And then groups like Congress give them funding to do those things while pretending they aren't funding abortions, even though all they are really doing is freeing up other money so it can be used for abortions. It's a public relations shell game.

DUQ said...

This disappointed me so much when they gave in. Even putting the abortion issue itself aside, I don't like seeing people give in to liberal attacks. It's their money and they have the right to spend it however they want, not the way liberals demand!

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, Agreed. I think they have made a huge mistake here. I doubt many people knew they were funding Planned Parenthood and now that people know, many will reconsider their donations. Moreover, the whole "surrender to pressure" aspect will make it worse because it makes Komen look political, which will make people less inclined to circle the wagons. So I expect they're going to see a significant loss of support and funding, especially if there are alternatives.

I'd read that too about the donations going way up until they caved in, and I think that should have told Komen what they are risking here. Conservatives support charities with donations, liberals only bully them. They've chosen the wrong side. And I suspect they will start to feel that very quickly.

I hadn't read that about a city, but if it's a public event then they could cancel it (or at least cancel their sponsorship). But they won't be able to stop it if it's private.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, This is indeed one of those moments where people start looking for other charities. That's the danger Komen faces. They had an excellent reputation and that can be seriously harmed with one false move -- and this could be it.

It does feel like extortion, doesn't it? "You better give you charity to us or we're going to use the government to destroy you!" I thought it was particularly galling that Pelosi and Harry Reid were out there leading the charge on this -- which implies they will use political power (which you know they would).

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Jed! I really see this as a bigger issue than just the Planned Parenthood issue itself. This is about liberals taking over charities and forcing volunteerism to become mandatory. You see it in schools already where they are forcing kids to engage in "volunteer work" to graduate (that's called slavery) and they are forcing them to do it for liberal causes. And now we have a classic example of liberals forcing an organization to give its money to a liberal cause. This is extortion and abuse of power and needs to be stopped.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, That's the danger here. They have created a perception that leftist politics trumps their mission. And that will alienate people particularly because we've seen it all before a million times as groups like AARP went from being advocates for old people to becoming liberal pimps.

And abortion is an issue that people feel strongly about. Even those who don't care personally still don't want to fund it for someone else. So what they've done is make 20% of the public happy by enraging 20% and turning off 60%. That's not smart mathematics, especially since that first 20% give $0.00 each year to charity.

And since there are alternatives that don't fund Planned Parenthood, this decision really is risky because it's fairly easy for people to change charities.

AndrewPrice said...

Cris, That's interesting. Did they say why?

AndrewPrice said...

Writer X, I think you're not alone. I know a lot of people are just blowing smoke on the internet, but there are a lot of people who have stated that they will cancel their donations. I suspect this will hurt them significantly.

I agree about this being disappointing. It always disappoints me whenever these groups give in just because some liberals start whining. If your principles can't stand a few whining liberals (who will lose interest almost immediately) then what good are they?

Good question about cancer. You would think we'd have made more progress generally in stopping cancer by now?

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, That's true. Conservatives let liberals bully charities, government and corporations because we don't fight back. The right needs to learn to scramble counter-demonstrators, to attack the liberal attacks, to bring the same kinds of lawsuits and use the same tactics against liberal groups. You can't win a war when you never fight back, and liberals do see this as a war -- they want to impose liberalism on everything. We need to start fighting back.

T-Rav said...

According to the AP, Handel resigned due to her opposition to resuming Planned Parenthood funding.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, Not in the liberal world. In the liberal world they are stewards of the public, not individual charities with a right to make up their own minds.

What's telling here is that this decision was according to an across-the-board policy and yet liberals attacked it as political.

This really highlights the problems with liberalism. They see your money as their. They believe they are entitled to charity. And they don't care about rules, law or equal treatment.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Thanks. That's a very principled stance. I wish her the best.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: Fungibility is a problem that many people don't understand. It was important that you point that out. Even earmarked money (e.g. "no abortions with my money") is meaningless when it frees up funds which are not earmarked. It's the old shell game.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I'm always amazed how many people don't grasp that concept: "well, they said they couldn't use my money to buy crack." Money is fungible and when you give money for one purpose you simply free up other money for other purposes. I think it's also important to note the smokescreen aspect here because even if PP wouldn't have otherwise provided these services, by letting them offer those services they are making it easier for them to hide behind the other services. Not to mention, they are spreading out the significant overhead costs (e.g. rent, staff) which means they are still paying for it.

BevfromNYC said...

You should rename this "Damned if you do, damned if you don't"

All this a great shame. Nancy Brinker's sister Susan B. Komen died of breast cancer in 1980 at the age of 36. Nancy Brinker honored her sister by trying to save other women from her sister's fate. As that the foundation's headquarters are in Dallas, I have known about this organization since it's birth in the early '80's.

They have raised billions over the years for research and education and now they are pilloried because they didn't want to align themselves with organizations under investigation by the state/fed government for criminal activity.

Yes, they are a "brand" and spread their message by putting pink ribbons on everything. Women in NY are upset, but Komen Foundation does not even GIVE money to PP in NY. They are being extorted BECAUSE they are high profiled and have been successful in gettign their message out.

However, all that being said, they have the right as a private foundation to do with their money what they want and if they want to fund Planned Parenthood they have that right. If they think that it is important that women have access to abortions and they want to donate funds to PP for that purpose it is their right. But as we all know, that is not what they were funding to begin with, and that is not why they pulled the limited funding.

Oh, and our Mayor Bloomberg jump it into the fray by donating $250K to PP. Cheap billionaire - he should have donated the full $700,000...

rlaWTX said...

Every year there is a huge local United Way fund drive [and the City of Midland employees can give directly]. United Way began publishing exactly how much money went where (esp. none to the local PP) and how much to the national level UW. They emphasize the teensy tiny amount that goes national because of the opposition to the national group's policies... so the local keep getting local money... {years ago when my dad was working for the city, UW was still being hard-headed about PP, and they had many employees who wouldn't give - stuck together against the "100%" push. I guess they learned their lessons...]

rlaWTX said...

(my comment was RE "fungibility" and that conservatives understand the concept)

BevfromNYC said...

Oh, and the "fungibility" of funds in non-profit organizations is legendary - not just PP.

There's the Perot/Dallas Arboretum debacle of 1988 where Perot gave $10Million to refurbish the Dallas Arboretum. He gave money for a specific grand plan that was later downsized after the check cleared. Perot asked for his money back because he said he paid for a plan they said they could do for what he donated. That sent a shock wave through the fundraising community! How could he do that?!? He donated that money fair and square! It's our money now to use as we see fit!

It can be a curse too - The Red Cross cannot use funds that have been donated for a specific purpose. So if you give money for "Haitian Relief" it can ONLY be used for that purpose. It was a problem when they raised huge amounts of money for OKC bombing in 1996, but didn't really have anything to spend the donations on because there were very few displaced persons. However they could not use the funds for anything else. I think they had to get special permission from Congress to use the excess for general disaster relief. FYI - The Red Cross is mandated by Act of Congress, but no funded by tax dollars.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Bloomberg really is a turd. Has he ever not sided with the wrong side?

This is a bad spot for Komen, but it's one of their own making. They never should have started giving to PP in the first place. When you give to a controversial organization, it can only lead to trouble. And that's exactly what's happened here.

Now they've made themselves the target of liberal bullies. And by surrendering they have only made it worse for themselves because they've encouraged the bullies to keep trying. So any changes will be much harder after this.

I would recommend that it would be best for them to bite the bullet and cut the funding and realize that it will be forgotten about within a few weeks than to keep this "they fund abortion" cloud hanging over their heads.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, When I worked for Club Fed, they brought around donation letters each year where you could check off whoever you wanted to donate to and how much. I can tell you that the conservatives I knew talked very openly about which charities supported what and why you should or should not support them. So charities need to be very careful about stepping into these kinds of decisions because people do consider it.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I recall the Perot thing. I think others have tried that too and lost in court, but I don't recall any specific examples. In any event, it's stunning that they would accept money for a specific purpose and then try to divert the money! To me, that's basically fraud.

On the fungibility idea, the government is big on this. For example, they will pay for certain things but not others. So they make a huge show of forcing you to create separate accounting pools and everything. Only, it's nonsense because the money they do give just frees up money which can then be used on the prohibited activity. It's a publicity shell game.

ScyFyterry said...

I think it's despicable that people like Pelosi attacked Komen over this.

AndrewPrice said...

Terry, Agreed. And that should be the real focus here -- this highlights (again) what's wrong with liberalism. This was basically a powergrab aimed at forcing a charity to give money to liberal causes.

Ed said...

Excellent article Andrew. I think you've hit the nail on the head about how liberalism works and how they think they have the right to tell you what you can do with your money.

Ed said...

Also, the appeals court has struck down proposition 8 in California. Why am I not surprised?

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Ed. I think it does highlight their view of money: their money is their money and your money is their money and it's an outrage if you don't "voluntarily" hand over your money to them.

T-Rav said...

Ed, it's the 9th Circuit Court! What's not to be surprised over?!

I haven't read the ruling up yet, but from a cursory glance, the reasoning looks pretty @#$%ty. Again, very surprising.

AndrewPrice said...

I saw that about Prop. 8. The ruling looks ridiculous.

"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples."

Uh, no, there is a purpose here and it's related to all kinds of things like classifying benefits.

This was always headed to the Supreme Court and that will be the real test. I suspect this court will reverse, especially if they are hanging their hat on the idea that this had no purpose.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I've heard the 9th Circuit referred to in legal circles as "the acid Circuit" because their rulings are so bad they must be dropping acid.

LawHawkRFD said...

The Prop 8 proponents will appeal to the full Ninth Circuit Court, but I doubt the result will be any different. The three-judge decision is just nonsense. It reminds me of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor babbling on about "our place in the cosmos." Most of us have to live here on earth.

This case will be on its way to the US Supreme Court after the Ninth Circuit detour. I don't predict a different result, but I rather expect one.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, From what I've seen of the decision, there is no way the Supreme Court affirms this decision. It looks like the court basically ignored one side and then said, "well, since we didn't listen to you, you presented nothing and you lose."

AndrewPrice said...

Here's an interesting article about Planned Parenthood. They are making about $164 million a year performing abortions.

And yet, they get bent out of shape over a $700,000 donation?

This is about controlling the public, not supporting the organization economically. This is all propaganda.

Here's the link: LINK

T-Rav said...

To quote the Joker: "It's not about money. It's about sending a message."

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, True. This is about power, pure and simple. The article at the link does a good job of outlining that.

CrispyRice said...

Count me as one of those who had no idea Komen even gave money to PP. Wow.

As an aside, I read an interesting article about a year ago (sorry, don't remember where) that talked about how much money it takes to run all these charity events. And people give money, but so little of it ever gets to the actual cause, not because the charity is wasteful, but because it costs so much to do these events.

The "pink" things for breast cancer are also one of the worst offenders for ostensibly donating money, but really taking 95% of it in costs and expenses.

If you want to give, research carefully and give directly to what you want to fix or cure.

CrispyRice said...

Wait! Found it.

http://www.smartmoney.com/spend/travel/are-charity-walks-and-races-worth-the-effort-1306536923690/

This is a very interesting read.

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy, I've seen that before too that many of these charities end up giving very, very little -- like a couple percent to the actual cause because the rest goes to fundraising activities. That strikes me as very wrong.

Here's your link: LINK

Kelly said...

I saw an article which said that liberals are already targeting other charities now. Know that was coming.

AndrewPrice said...

Kelly, Yep. I would expect it. Backing down from a bully emboldens them and they will keep trying.

Post a Comment