Rod Dreher

King Eddie I of Atlanta, I salute you

The Planned Parenthood/media racket

By Rod Dreher • February 2, 2012, 8:03 PM

Did you know that the Komen foundation gave to Planned Parenthood for only two years before withdrawing? James Taranto of the Journal gets it right:

Planned Parenthood’s bitter campaign against Komen–aided by left-liberal activists and media–is analogous to a protection racket: Nice charity you’ve got there. It’d be a shame if anything happened to it. The message to other Planned Parenthood donors is that if they don’t play nice and keep coughing up the cash, they’ll get the Komen treatment.

There’s one crucial difference, however. In a real-life protection racket, the victim never pays voluntarily. The threat is present from the get-go. By contrast, Komen presumably was not under any duress when it made its grants–and it could have avoided all this nasty publicity by never dealing with Planned Parenthood in the first place.

Thus smart prospective donors–especially ones that are apolitical, like Komen–are getting the message that supporting Planned Parenthood is a trap. Give once, and you will give again–or else you will pay.

Now that we have cable TV again (well, for us, satellite TV), I’m getting back into the habit of watching nightly network newscasts. For some reason, no doubt a lingering loyalty to the late Peter Jennings, I usually watch ABC. Not after tonight. The network led with the Komen/Planned Parenthood controversy. Take a look at how they handled it. Two Planned Parenthood-sponsored interviews, and one sympathetic to PP’s position. A YouTube clip of Komen’s Nancy Brinker defending her organization. Zero interviews from anyone supporting Komen. Diane Sawyer quoted an e-mail from an unnamed woman accusing Komen of “politicizing women’s health.” Claire Shipman agreed that this episode shows what a big deal “women’s health” is. Nothing about the unborn, or people who think this issue is about the right to life. Where is the balance? Take a look at the caption on ABC’s health blog, identifying a Komen official as “Anti-Abortion Stalwart Karen Handel.” They might as well have called her a woman-hating hag.

33 Responses to The Planned Parenthood/media racket

Bruce Ross says:

February 2, 2012 at 8:10 pm

“They might as well have called her a woman-hating hag.”

Well, naturally that would depend on one’s opinion about abortion. Stalwart is a word with a generally positive connotation, and anti-abortion is a neutral enough description. Would any actual pro-life activist ever object to being called an “anti-abortion stalwart”?

(Incidentally, I can understand the fuss among liberals, but whoop-di-hoo. News flash! Foundations can fund whatever they want. Or not.)
William Burns says:

February 2, 2012 at 8:11 pm

Yes, nothing demonstrates the bias of the media like calling an “anti-abortion stalwart” an “anti-abortion stalwart.”
James says:

February 2, 2012 at 8:21 pm

The level of hypocrisy in PP calling Komen “politically motivated” is farcical. Racket, indeed.
Leo Ladenson says:

February 2, 2012 at 8:26 pm

How about a hat-tip for ol’ Leo?
Leo Ladenson says:

February 2, 2012 at 8:27 pm

@William Burns: Yes, nothing demonstrates the bias of the media like calling an “anti-abortion stalwart” an “anti-abortion stalwart.”

Exactly. I remember during the 2008 campaign the media frequently called Obama “the pro-infanticide candidate.”

Oh, wait, not.
MH - secular misanthropist says:

February 2, 2012 at 8:28 pm

Well to some degree what goes around comes around. The Komen Foundation has been litigious when other charities use the word cure in their slogans. They claim ‘for the cure’ is their intellectual property and other slogans infringed on it.
William Burns says:

February 2, 2012 at 8:35 pm

Mostly, Leo, because Obama did not actually support infanticide.
R Hampton says:

February 2, 2012 at 8:35 pm

I have found the PBS NewsHour to be consistently fair and comprehensive. Tonight (Thursday, February 2nd) they have a segment entitled, “Examining Komen Grant, Planned Parenthood Backlash,” which should be online tomorrow (Friday) at this link – http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/
Public Defender says:

February 2, 2012 at 9:04 pm

Why is there “nothing about the unborn”? Because Komen says that the decision had nothing to do with the unborn. The news media can’t put a principled gloss on Komen’s decision if Komen won’t give a principled reason.
Ted Fulmer says:

February 2, 2012 at 9:04 pm

Rod wrote:
“For some reason, no doubt a lingering loyalty to the late Peter Jennings, I usually watch ABC. Not after tonight.”

Rod – I disagree with some of the things you write, but the statement above is the first time in months that I’ve been disappointed in something you wrote (disappointed as in “you’re better than that, Rod”).

Don’t stop viewing – don’t even threaten to stop viewing – ENGAGE with ABC. Let them know that you found their piece biased, where it fell short of the standard you expect from the network of Peter Jennings.

I feel very strongly that everyone retreating to their own comfortable bubbles will prevent us from ever getting anywhere on these difficult issues.
Leo Ladenson says:

February 2, 2012 at 9:08 pm

@William Burns Mostly, Leo, because Obama did not actually support infanticide.

He certainly voted against outlawing it–when all civilized people did–and then lied about it. Even Factcheck.org admits he lied about it:

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-infanticide
Harry Beadle says:

February 2, 2012 at 9:15 pm

Let ‘em rant all they want … it seems cutting ties to PP is good for Komen’s bottom line …

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/02/after-cutting-ties-with-planned-parenthood-komen-donations-up-100-percent/
William Burns says:

February 2, 2012 at 9:41 pm

Let ‘em rant all they want … it seems cutting ties to PP is good for Komen’s bottom line …

It will probably be good for Planned Parenthood’s bottom line as well. Hmmm, maybe they actually planned it this way.
johan says:

February 2, 2012 at 9:49 pm

“Give once, and you will give again–or else you will pay.”

Too bad they didn’t anticipate the backlash. They quietly could have ramped down to a much smaller amount over a 5-year period and avoided all the hoopla.
EddieInCA says:

February 2, 2012 at 9:58 pm

“Let ‘em rant all they want … it seems cutting ties to PP is good for Komen’s bottom line … ”

Really? If Komen was raising $5000 per day, and last two days they raised $10,000, that would be a 100% gain.

Why won’t Komen say exactly what the dollar amount is, rather than “100% in the last two days?”

PP has announced almost $700,000 in two days, $250,000 alone coming from Mayor Bloomberg of NYC.

I’m guessing when they have to report, legally, we’ll see what a disaster it was. Unless the layoffs start first.
Charles Curtis says:

February 2, 2012 at 10:00 pm

I saw the same Brian Williams newscast tonight. It was shocking. Pure propaganda hit piece, citing not a single pro-life voice. The Catholic blogospere is rife with praise for Komen over this, and ABC couldn’t be bothered to find a single Catholic or other prolifer to give that perspective? That this may even be boon for Kome in terms of fundraising, now that hundreds of thousands of prolifers who felt constrained from donating, now will award them for their new stance?
philosopher says:

February 2, 2012 at 10:04 pm

Ditto to what Bruce et al. have been saying here — Karen Handel would surely be very proud to be known as an “anti-abortion stalwart”, as anyone familiar with her history in Georgia state politics would know! Citing this as evidence of some sort of media bias is really bizarre.

I also find the idea that this was some sort of extortionist plot by PP equally bizarre. This was very clearly a plan on the part of Handel and her allies for the express purpose of attacking PP, despite strong opposition from some within the board and with many of their regional member organizations. They took the (utterly bogus) Congressional “investigation” into PP as pretext for a political action. That’s the core of the story here. That the PR angle here has not turned out to be what the Komen executives thought it would be is hardly PP’s fault.
Elizabeth Anne says:

February 2, 2012 at 11:20 pm

Johan – they didn’t fail to anticipate the backlash. I contend they were counting on it. In fact, if I were even more deeply cynical than I am I’d almost think that both organizations were in it together to boost both their fundraising.
elizabeth says:

February 2, 2012 at 11:39 pm

The media circus has been good for both organizations. The money is pouring in, as citizens use donations as proxy votes.
Siarlys Jenkins says:

February 2, 2012 at 11:56 pm

“Did you know that the Komen foundation gave to Planned Parenthood for only two years before withdrawing?”

Gosh, you wouldn’t know THAT from the infernal racket the organized pro-life groups have been making ABOUT Komen donating to Planned Parenthood!!! Was it really such a molehill they were making a mountain out of?

I could swear that Dr. Gerard Nadal and his little fan club have been denouncing Komen for exactly that over a period of much longer than two years!

Or maybe I’m getting them mixed up with the Girl Scouts. I love thin-mints, and order several boxes every year. I haven’t given to Komen, unless that’s where the breast cancer funds donated via my state tax return go to.
Floridan says:

February 3, 2012 at 8:24 am

““Anti-Abortion Stalwart Karen Handel.”

I doubt Ms. Handel would object to this characterization. Wouldn’t you consider yourself an anti-abortion stalwart, Rod?
Francis Beckwith says:

February 3, 2012 at 9:59 am

“Anti-abortion” is technically inaccurate, since the prolifer would have no problem with abortion if and only if it did not result in the death of the unborn child. On the other hand, one wonders where prochoicers would stand if cheap artificial wombs were developed so that the woman could be unburdened from her pregnancy and the fetus removed and sheltered with no more difficulty than the typical abortion. This would make the term “anti-abortion” obsolete and force us to concentrate on the question on which the whole debate turns: Who and what are we, and do we have an obligation to care and nurture the most vulnerable members of our community whose existence is the consequence of our own agency? In such a context, to answer “no” this question’s second half is essentially to claim that the right to abortion requires a right to a dead fetus. I suspect that that is precisely where the other side would go.
CuriousReader says:

February 3, 2012 at 10:41 am

“Did you know that the Komen foundation gave to Planned Parenthood for only two years before withdrawing?”

Can you please help me understand where you obtained this information? It seems that many other news entities are indicating that Komen funded Planned Parenthood for several years (not just two years). The Planned Parenthood website itself says:

“Over the past five years, Planned Parenthood health centers with Komen program funding have provided nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams out of the more than four million clinical breast exams performed nationwide at Planned Parenthood health centers.”
Ray Kyle says:

February 3, 2012 at 11:01 am

Perhaps what Mr Dreher was referring to re the “anti-abortion stalwart” tag line is one of semantics. Those opposed to abortion are always labeled by major media as “anti-abortion” or “anti-choice”. Conversely, those supporting abortion are usually identified by the same media as “pro-choice” or “pro-reproductive rights”.
At some point after Roe v Wade, there was a conscious decision by major media organizations to label both sides of the issue consistently. Did they deliberately choose the more positive sounding prefix “pro” for one side due to bias, or did they put both terms in a hat and assign them at random?
What do you think?
cfountain72 says:

February 3, 2012 at 11:04 am

Well, for better or worse, the extortion racket seems to have worked. AP says they changed their mind, and will restart their tithe to the Holy Church of the Inconvenient Pregnancy.

Peace be with you.

As an aside, I never knew they gave to PP until this uproar…
Erin Manning says:

February 3, 2012 at 3:13 pm

Francis Beckwith writes, “In such a context, to answer “no” this question’s second half is essentially to claim that the right to abortion requires a right to a dead fetus. I suspect that that is precisely where the other side would go.”

You are exactly right. Let’s look for a moment at the words of our illustrious president on the subject of whether or not a baby who survives an abortion ought to be saved. The question was whether or not the law to require an additional doctor (other than the abortionist) to make an assessment as to whether or not the baby was still alive and order care if she was (following the attempted abortion) was a good idea. Obama said:

“…and that essentially adding an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.” Barack Obama on the Born Alive Infants Protection Act

In other words, if a woman pays for an abortion, she has the right to a dead baby. It is a “burden” to her if the child is determined to be alive and then must receive emergency care.
Daniel Shays says:

February 3, 2012 at 3:24 pm

Where did a private charity get the idea that it can simply dispose of the money donated to it in any way that it sees fit? Anyone giving cash to Komen is entitled to know that the money they give to “fight cancer” may,in fact, be used to help Democratic appendages like PP push Obama’s Marxist agenda
Peterk says:

February 3, 2012 at 7:41 pm

“Where is the balance?”

it’s been missing for quite sometime, it is why I stopped watching ABC/CBS/NBC a long long time ago

I don’t expect them to ever be balanced just like I don’t expect the NYT or WaPo to provide objective balanced news reporting.

It is why I rely on AlGore’s internet tubes to provide me with information from a vast number of sources
Cancerdoc says:

February 3, 2012 at 9:06 pm

I do not know why Komen gave grants to PP in the first place. Screening women in their reproductive years is not cost-effective, since most not (not all) breast cancers occur in older women. Breast self-examination is not a good screening method. Not to say that women should ignore changes in their breasts, but routine screening by this method does not have a measurable impact.
Gary says:

February 3, 2012 at 11:28 pm

Call me stupid, but how does one really know that the money given to PP is NOT used for abortions? Is there some accounting? Are there separate accounts for killing babies? Our tax money goes to this militant PP whose main function, despite its’ claim it’s all about ‘womens’ health,” is abortion. The name is a joke, Planned Parenthood? Abortion prevents parenthood, that’s the whole idea, see, getting rid of inconvenient babies. What percentage of abortions are for “health reasons?” Damn few I’ll bet, so quit with the “women’s health” false umbrella. Pregnancy is not a disease last time I checked.
Ray Kyle says:

February 4, 2012 at 7:22 am

This episode will, hopefully, give pause to all those who contribute regularly to charity, whether through payroll deduction or personal donation.
How many of us sign a form or write a check without really knowing where our money goes or how it is used? Just like any large organization, public or private, charities can be inefficient, misleading, or even incompetent. At least for now, we can control who gets these donations.
Maybe more advocacy groups should examine why the National Rifle Association has been so singularly successful over time. In spite of repeated calls for the NRA to broaden its political focus from gun rights issues, the organization has steadfastly based its financial support to politicians solely on their record vis a vis’ the Second Amendment, not party or movement affiliation.
David J. White says:

February 4, 2012 at 4:57 pm

Call me stupid, but how does one really know that the money given to PP is NOT used for abortions? Is there some accounting?

Thank you, Gary! This had occurred to me, too. Money is “fungible”, as they say. Any donations that PP receives probably just go into its general budget, to be allocated where PP sees fit.

This reminds me of the discussion about food stamps (yes, I know they are essentially debit cards now, but “food stamps” is still a convenient label; then again, I still talk about “dialing” phone numbers). If the government gives people money (or a debit account) to buy groceries, it’s very difficult if not impossible to make sure they use it for apples and milk rather than for Ho-Hos and soda.

It can be hard to attach strings to a charitable donation.
Siarlys Jenkins says:

February 5, 2012 at 8:38 pm

It is pretty simple Gary and David: if PP gets a grant for $500,000 for breast cancer screening, and pays out $500,000 with receipts for that purpose, the terms of the grant are complied with. If it received three separate grants of $200 thousand, $500 thousand, and $150 thousand, plus individual earmarked donations totalling $50,000, then it must show that it spent $900 thousand on breast cancer screening. Accountants probably have tighter procedures than that, but that would do it. If it actually showed expenditures of $1.3 million for this purpose, then it has complied with the terms of all grants, and added $400 thousand from discretionary funds. If if can actually only show $750 thousand expended for this purpose, they are in trouble.

Ray Kyle has a point though. I prefer to donate locally to organizations I have a chance to become personally familiar with, and take some time to study those of national or international scope I can’t check out first hand.