Cialis
Cialis fr


The Wall Street Journal Suzie Komen Tickle Tantrum

abortion, controversy, ops and eds

As far as right-wing opinon-ers go, Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto is not the worst. He’s as overboard as anyone else is, but at least his stuff is written in a manner that’s easy on the brain. And he’s occasionally funny. So if you’re stuck, like me, reading these people, you know he’s not going to give you a headache.

Until today, when he weighed in on the Komen fiasco. This is pathetic:

Big Sister Is Watching You
Totalitarian feminism and the smearing of Susan G. Komen.
By James Taranto | Opinion | February 3 2012

Look at how we’ve imprisoned and tortured the poor Komen Foundation.

In breaking ties with Planned Parenthood, Komen made the same mistake: It failed to understand it was dealing with intolerant fanatics. Planned Parenthood’s attitude toward abortion opponents is not unlike that of Egyptian officials in the old regime toward Israelis.

When we’re not scouring the Sinai looking for pro-lifers to shoot, we’re putting the electrodes to anyone who’s circumcised. I’ve read enough: It’s time to pull the head off of James Taranto. Per usual, we’ll make him miserable first, perhaps by reading aloud editorials where he reminded us we’re given to hysteria.

The episode is reminiscent of George Orwell far more than Joe McCarthy. Komen’s actual aim was to extricate itself from the divisive national battle over abortion by severing its connection with a leading combatant.

There’s Planned Parenthood again, all hot-faced and fist-swinging in the national debate. I think Taranto actually believes this. I want a pound of whatever he’s smoking.

Yes, Planned Parenthood does abortions as a small part of its being the “nation’s leading sexual and reproductive health care provider.” No, it’s not a screaming partisan hack. Nor a keyboard-banging partisan hack writer. It just provides health services. Because 3% of this is abortion, James thinks that qualifies them as the hippie’s bug-eyed Bachmann. Grow a brain, pal.

And employing George Orwell for this? Photograph and all? Yes, isn’t liberal America a totalitarian government? Put your head in my cage of rats, Jim. You are the dead, buddy.

Totalitarianism politicizes everything, so that neutrality is betrayal–in this case, neutrality on abortion is portrayed as opposition to “women’s health.” As we wrote last year, this is also why purportedly pro-choice feminists can hate Sarah Palin and her daughter for choosing not to abort their children.

Oh, this sounds entirely plausible. Given the tenor of the piece so far, you wouldn’t expect James to back up his hallucinations with facts. But there is a link. So you click it, expecting to see the welcome page of “The Feminist Majority For Feeding Christians To The Abortion Machine”, but instead you get an opinion piece. Of his. Wherein, this:

Recently we were at a party where a woman in her 60s, a self-described feminist, called Palin a “moron” for having encouraged her daughter to carry her child to term and “to marry the sperm donor.”

Wow. Gaze upon the official gathering of America’s feminists. At some party.

Even apart from the gross language, this was a completely irrational thing to say.

Say what? How could that be? It’s the official political position of leftist women! Here they come, Jimmy. Pap Smear! Oogie Boogie!


JUST IN: Karen Handel, enemy of Planned Parenthood and political strategist behind the de-funding/bureaucratic purge, has resigned. Good riddance.

Share
21 COMMENTS

21 Comments

  1. RuthA  •  Feb 4, 2012 @10:33 pm
    avatar

    So do you agree with Taranto, or disagree with him, or what? I can’t tell from reading this. My, this is incoherent.

  2. Scorelli  •  Feb 5, 2012 @12:57 am
    avatar

    So…an organization was not publicly vilified by another organization, which it had been funding, merely for committing the charitycrime of discontinuing that funding?

  3. toma  •  Feb 5, 2012 @2:33 am
    avatar

    @RuthA: I would disagree with Taranto.

  4. toma  •  Feb 5, 2012 @2:52 am
    avatar

    @Scorelli: The Komen Foundation was so bent on de-funding Planned Parenthood, it hired W. Bush’s spokesman Ari Fleischer to tweak the media.

  5. PaulusMagnus  •  Feb 5, 2012 @5:42 am
    avatar

    Really dumb article. No point, no meaningful argument. Just name calling with someone you disagree with. Kinda like what Taranto was arguing PP was doing! You made his point for him

  6. JB  •  Feb 5, 2012 @5:48 am
    avatar

    Even if I accept your “3%” figure, Komen’s grant amounted to 0.07% of PP’s annual budget. That’s the equivalent of about a $35/year cut in income for a family making $50,000/year. Was that worth all the sound and fury?

  7. toma  •  Feb 5, 2012 @8:22 am
    avatar

    @Paulus: I called Taranto . . what?

  8. toma  •  Feb 5, 2012 @8:39 am
    avatar

    @JB: Komen Foundation is the armed forces ‘General’ in the war against breast cancer. Nobody’s bigger or more trusted. When they go out of their way to de-fund you, the media message is clear: ‘We don’t trust you in this fight.’ It’s like being sent stateside in the middle of the battle. And it’s a poor analogy to offer a family’s budget for substitute: there are 800 clinics and 5 million yearly users that would be subject to cutbacks. You and your kids will probably find a way to eat dinner. But who will do breast cancer screenings for the poor after the local clinic is closed?

  9. debiesam  •  Feb 6, 2012 @12:31 am
    avatar

    Hey toma, not like that was a ton of money. As has been pointed out elsewhere, Komen’s 2010 donation of $580,000 is less than PP’s President Cecile Richards’s salary and benefits. Moreover, the average salary of the top eight executives at PP is $270,000. Meanwhile, PP receives almost half a billion dollars from taxpayers! So I’m not going to get all worked up about those 800 clinics and 5 million yearly users potentially losing such a tiny sum. PP is a big bully and a crybaby. If they close that local clinic, I’m gonna blame Cecile Richards and her colleagues for being so selfish and paying themselves so lavishly that they are part of the 1%.

  10. toma  •  Feb 6, 2012 @3:40 am
    avatar

    A crybaby and a bully? Maybe they’re the alpha and omega as well? Brinker makes $459,406 a year. Is that sufficient evidence to beat your argument? I can’t tell, because you don’t seem to have one.

    Komen takes in something like $400 million a year by promising to fight breast cancer. It’s their job to pass along these funds to groups like PP who do breast cancer screenings. When they go out of their way to de-fund a group doing this important work, and only this one group, it better have a good reason. In this case, it doesn’t, other than politics. The fact that they tried to hide their politics behind a bureaucratic regulation is pathetic. If breast cancer is a big deal, if women’s lives are at risk, this is neither a caring nor a professional way to behave.

  11. debiesam  •  Feb 6, 2012 @10:04 am
    avatar

    Komen said it wanted to focus on groups “providing the lifesaving mammogram.” PP does not provide mammograms. What they provide is referrals.

  12. toma  •  Feb 6, 2012 @11:37 am
    avatar

    Nice try. They were temporarily de-funded after anti-abortion vice-president Handel concocted a regulation specifically targeting Planned Parenthood: “On January 31, 2012, the Susan G. Komen organization cut its funding to Planned Parenthood, citing as its reason new rules governing the foundation that bar the support of organizations under congressional investigation, in this case an inquiry by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.)”

    Stearns is on a pro-choice witchunt, and Handel’s political hackery dovetailed nicely with that fact. If they were to pull funding from PP for referring people for mammograms — and why bother, when they do so many things to promote breast health? — they’d have to pull if from other institutions as well.

    At any rate, they reversed themselves not because PP is some complaining juggernaut, but because so many people from across the political spectrum saw shallow politics that sold out women’s healthcare in the end. The Komen foundation knew their own mission would be harder to carry out in the future if they were famous for playing politics with health providers and donors’ money. Now you can go to Komen’s website and complain to them.

  13. PWL  •  Feb 7, 2012 @10:38 am
    avatar

    Just remember: the only good totalitarianism is Republican totalitarianism.

    So while it’s BAD to call out SGK on Karen Handel’s totally politically motivated hit on Planned Parenthood, it’s GOOD to craft laws that tell women what they can or can’t do with their bodies, or to tell people what the can or can’t do in the privacy of their own bedrooms…

  14. thebewilderness  •  Feb 7, 2012 @10:59 am
    avatar

    FYI, you can’t get a mam without a referral, so you can either pay a doctor a hundred dollars to say yep you’re right there is a lump there here is a referral, or you can go to PP to get a referral.
    The profit for the corporate sponsors is in the treatment, not the cure. As a result, Komen spends a great deal of the money they collect “for the cure” on treatment and very little on research. They have very successfully crowded out efforts to research cause and cure as that would negatively affect their corporate sponsors.

    Naturally this is all the fault of intolerant fanatic feminists who demand that every woman have an abortion immediately.

  15. jacbi  •  Feb 7, 2012 @11:42 am
    avatar

    Let us do a little compare here: We have 2 organizations who I will fact source from the Combined Federal Campaign 2011 Contributor’s Guide.
    ORG.1./ Susan B. Komen for the Cure,… listed service categories under medical research, disease, disorders, public and social benefit. They also describe themselves using words like life saving and health programs. Number of employees unknown, number of volunteers possibly hundreds of thousands but they DO manage to skim off 23.6% (listed overhead) of all monies taken in as admin expenses.
    ORG.2./ Planned Parenthood Foundation (including International) listed service categories under educational, health, social action and international. Self described using the words reproductive health, freedom and diginity. Number of employees unknown but it is stated here there are 800 clinics which would mean possible rents added, all 800 clinics with salaried staff we can assume. Planned parenthood’s listed overhead admin expenses, only 17.3% of all monies.

    I can only ask who could possibly be using charitable donations as a piggy bank?

  16. toma  •  Feb 7, 2012 @3:58 pm
    avatar

    @PWL: That goes without saying, doesn’t it? I’m glad we can all reasonably agree to be senseless in this regard.

  17. toma  •  Feb 7, 2012 @4:00 pm
    avatar

    @thebewilderness: Your point on referrals is a salient one, something I didn’t know. I can’t imagine how many working class women would never get a mammogram if they hadn’t been screened first at a PP clinic.

  18. toma  •  Feb 7, 2012 @4:01 pm
    avatar

    @jacbi: Thanks for hunting down those numbers. They fall in line nicely with the differing perceptions of the two entities.

  19. March  •  Feb 7, 2012 @7:03 pm
    avatar

    I think the firestorm is extremely political and out of accordance with the consequence of the act. Most of the posts I see about this are not totalitarian, but they are so full of righteous indignation that you might think that the left has become the new inheritors of puritanism in the U.S. That said, you can’t trust right-wing opinion-ators on this one for a second. Flashback: Terri Schiavo.

    Thats right, they just hate the politicization of life/health issues so darn much that they stuck their noses into a difficult family situation with great public fanfare. Democrats (Who deserve knocks when they deserve them and of which I am not a fan) wrote a reaosnably worded letter condemning something they disagreed with. oh no! Politicians expressed opinions publicly, what a horrible manipulation!

  20. jacbi  •  Feb 8, 2012 @11:52 am
    avatar

    I am unsure of these additional figures as they are based on info I remember from TeeVee last night. They stated that Komen only funds 140 centers/ offices while today’s scrutiny of Komen intake for I believe it was 2011 was $4.2 billion. Let us just rough it here but it seems they do take almost $1B off the top before they hand out one penny for the cause. 23.6% of 4.2 Billion. This gives new meaning for me when someone says a first class charity.

  21. toma  •  Feb 8, 2012 @1:11 pm
    avatar

    Wow. If that’s true, they’re a whopping capitalist organization. For that kind of money, they’d better employ an additional 10,000 people or cure breast cancer, soon.