U.S. Senator Sock Puppet (D-NC) gets her dander up




The folks who enjoy abortion, and the generous government funding it enjoys, like to refer to themselves as “pro-choice.”  But anyone who dares to make a “choice” this crowd doesn’t like risks being subjected to heavy-handed political intimidation and lawsuits.  When the elected representatives of the people of North Carolina voted to cut funding for Planned Parenthood from the state budget, the “pro-choice” crowd sued and found a federal judge to keep the funding in place.

Susan G. Komen For The Cure, a private foundation devoted to breast cancer research, recently decided to stop doing business with Planned Parenthood.  Their donations went up through the roof, and the leftists went APE on this very worthwhile private charity.

Of course,  North Carolina’s accidental U.S. Senator, Kay Hagan, pictured at left, (AKA “Chuck Schumer’s sock puppet”)  joined the attack on Komen:

“I am deeply disappointed that Susan G. Komen for the Cure has pulled grant funding for preventive care, screenings, mammograms and education at Planned Parenthood clinics around the country. More than 25,000 North Carolinians depend on Planned Parenthood for health and education services including breast health care that saves lives and saves families. The women who depend on this care don’t deserve to be caught in the crossfire of politically motivated attacks. Unfortunately, most of us know at least one person whose life has been affected by breast cancer. We need to use every tool in the toolbox to fight this terrible disease. I urge Susan G. Komen for the Cure to reconsider this decision for the sake of women’s health in North Carolina and around the country.”

Really, Madame Sock Puppet? There are NO political motivations whatsoever in this rant of yours?

Michael Cannon, with The Cato Institute, put together some very rational commentary on the Komen decision:

I’m sure that many of you are following the controversy over the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation’s decision to suspend its partnership with and funding of Planned Parenthood. Two thoughts on this:

First, this controversy provides a delightful contrast to the Obama administration’s decision to force all Americans to purchase contraceptives and subsidize abortions.

The Susan G. Komen Foundation chose to stop providing grants to Planned Parenthood. Lots of people didn’t like (and/or don’t believe) Komen’s reasons. Some declared they would stop giving to Komen. Others approved of Komen’s decision and started giving to Komen. Many declared they would start donating to Planned Parenthood to show their disapproval of Komen’s decision.

Notice what didn’t happen. Nobody forced anybody to do anything that violated their conscience. People who don’t like Planned Parenthood’s mission can now support Komen without any misgivings. People who like Planned Parenthood’s mission can still support it, and can support other organizations that fight breast cancer. The whole episode may end up being a boon for both sides, if total contributions to the two organizations are any measure. Such are the blessings of liberty.

Contrast that to Obamacare, which forces people who don’t like Planned Parenthood’s mission to support it.

Second, there seems to be a bottomless well of delusion from which supporters of Planned Parenthood draw the idea that this decision shows Komen has injected politics into its grant-making.

Assume for the sake of argument that the Susan G. Komen Foundation has been hijacked by radical abortion opponents who forced the decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood. Even if that is true, that decision did not inject politics into a process previously devoid of politics.

Millions of Americans believe that Planned Parenthood routinely kills small, helpless human beings. Believe it or not, they have a problem with that. When Komen gives money to Planned Parenthood, it no doubt angers those Americans (and makes them less likely to contribute). When Komen decided that the good it would accomplish by funding Planned Parenthood’s provision of breast exams outweighed the concerns (and reaction) of those millions of Americans, Komen was making apolitical judgment.

Perhaps Planned Parenthood’s supporters didn’t notice the politics that was always there, since Komen had been making the same political judgment they themselves make. But if Planned Parenthood’s supporters are angry now, it’s not because Komen injected politics into its grant-making. It’s because Komen made a different political judgment and Planned Parenthood lost, for now anyway. (Then again, if donations to Planned Parenthood are the measure, the group may be winning by losing.)

I must confess to a little bit of Schadenfreude here, as those who are complaining about Komen’s decision to defund Planned Parenthood are largely the same folks who applaud President Obama’s decision to force everyone to fund it (and, without a trace of irony, describe themselves as “pro-choice”). I predict that when a future president reverses Obama’s decision, supporters of Obama’s policy will likewise delude themselves that the future president has “injected” politics into the dispute.

Now, the folks have backed off their decision to cut ties with Planned Parenthood.   (Apparently, having powerful leftists threaten and intimidate you via the media  STILL works.) Cato’s Cannon offered this on Komen’s reversal:

The Susan G. Komen Foundation has again adjusted its grant-making policies, and Planned Parenthood will once again be eligible for funding. A reporter asks me: “So what does it mean now that Komen’s reversed itself?” My reply:

It does not mean that politics has been banished from Komen’s decisions. It just means that Komen has again made a political decision that more closely reflects the values of Planned Parenthood’s supporters than its detractors. But that is how we should settle the question of who funds Planned Parenthood: with vigorous debate and by allowing individuals to follow their conscience. When Obamacare ‘settles’ the question by forcing taxpayers to fund Planned Parenthood, it violates everyone’s freedom and dignity.