Susan G Komen

Abortion is a hot button for millions of people across the world. It has been an even hotter issue in the United States. Since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, which so many thought finally settled the issue, it has gone from rhetoric and cold war to guerilla warfare.

According to the New York Times and the National Abortion Foundation, since 1977 there have been more than a dozen attempted murders, almost 400 death threats, 153 incidents of Assault and Battery, and 3 kidnappings, all committed against clinic workers and doctors. In the same period there have been a staggering number of attacks on property as well. The same sources report over 40 bombings, 1733 acts of arson, almost 100 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 acts of trespass, 1264 acts of vandalism, 100 "stink bomb" attacks, and since 1998 a stunning 655 bioterror threats have been made.
All of these acts are being and have been committed by people who claim they are fighting for the Right to Life; how they are able to reconcile that ideology with the taking of lives themselves, acts of violence and destruction remains an utter mystery. They are either a very small group of dangerously disturbed sociopaths, with remarkable resources behind them: or much more likely, a large number of zealots and ideologues, spurred on by the organizations that support anti-abortion legislation.

More than 30 years has passed since Roe v. Wade, and yet the adherents of "pro life' will simply not let go. I applaud their conviction and belief; provided that is they respect mine as well, and don't try to change my mind by assault. In fact, I agree to a limited extent with some of their points. I do not support the idea of abortion as birth control. If you choose to have sex without contraception, you pay for the abortion. You don't wait until the third trimester to have it done, either. Not and have it covered by insurance, anyway.

Even so, those two policies need to be applied intelligently. If you are raped or a victim of incest, you probably had little chance to request a condom be used. If you are in the third trimester and a doctor discovers a major health issue threatening the mother, the fetus, or both, it is then a medical necessity. In every instance the final choice belongs to one person, and one person only in my opinion; the mother.

Today we are faced with yet another glaring example of how willing the pro-life adherents seem to be to require everyone else to abide by the rules they want to enforce, while at the same time ignoring and deliberately breaking laws and rules themselves. I refer here to the decision by the Susan G. Komen Foundation to revoke funding for Planned Parenthood.

According to their initial press release on January 31st 2012, Susan G. Komen Foundations "recently adopted policy changes" forbade funding of any agency under investigation. Rep. Cliff Stearns (R Florida) had sent a letter to Planned Parenthood earlier in January 2012, informing them he was launching an investigation into violations of federal funding statutes. Several things about the timing of this were odd. Karen Handel, a staunchly anti-abortion politico, was hired as VP of Public Policy in April 2011 . On March 31st 2011 the Grant Policies and Procedures published by the foundation make no mention at all of revoking funding for a grantee who is under investigation. I can find no published record showing when in fact the foundation made these changes to policy. According to a comment by Karen Handel, these changes were approved in November 2011. However I see no such changes on file.

It seems obvious then that Karen Handel was the driving force here. Her own letter of resignation submitted on Feb 6 2012 admits this: “I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it. I openly acknowledge my role in the matter and continue to believe our decision was the best one for Komen’s future and the women we serve.” Yet this is in direct contradiction to the initial statement by Handel, that she "had no involvement" in the policy changes. She also uses the word "strategy" here. If the funding was only being revoked because policy changes required it, how was it a strategy? The investigation by Stearns also reeks of collusion.

This also brings up another point. The Sarbanes Oxley act applies to non-profits and charities as well. If in fact written procedure required revoking funds to Planned Parenthood, that funding could not be restored until such time as the policy was revoked or amended. Yet according to the latest press release, the Foundation reversed its suspension of funding first, then announced it would revise the purported policy. This is not the proper order under non-profit procedures. The board would have to meet, agree to the revisions, write and approve them by vote, and only then could funding be restored. I see no indication of such meetings prior to the latest announcement.

To me the only way this becomes an open and honest examination is if Rep Stearns now requests an investigation into the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Let's see if Rep. Stearns is a true Christian, doing unto others as he would have done unto him. Or is he in fact just like all the radical right-wing anti abortion members, who will throw aside all laws, ethics and morals in order to enforce their doctrines and beliefs on the rest of us.