Komen v Planned Parenthood

I put together a collection of observations on the Left's hysterical reaction to the Komen Foundation's decision not to send any more money to the abortion mill that is Planned Parenthood.

Mark Stein:
"Notwithstanding that those who give to the foundation are specifically giving to support breast-cancer research, Komen could not be permitted to get away with disrespecting Big Abortion. We don’t want to return to the bad old days of the back alley, when a poor vulnerable person who made the mistake of stepping out of line had to be forced into the shadows and have the realities explained to them with a tire iron."

Kathryn Jean Lopez:
"Much of the American media have been overtaken by a cancerous rhetoric in recent days: It has been suggested that the Susan G. Komen Foundation, the breast-cancer charity, should be no more. In the eyes of many, such as National Organization for Women president, Terry O’Neill, Komen has gone from being a women’s health charity to becoming “anti-woman.” O’Neill predicted to MSNBC host Ed Schulz that, within five years or so, Komen will cease to exist. And good riddance!"

Jim Daly:
"According to its annual report, the nation’s leading abortion provider is worth in excess of $1 billion. In 2010, abortion procedures constituted 91 percent (329,445) of Planned Parenthood’s services for pregnant women.

Yet, to follow their illogical argument, to have lost Komen’s projected yearly gift of $680,000 was somehow going to cripple their empire — and prevent them from continuing to offer mammograms. But Planned Parenthood centers do not offer mammograms, and instead refer women to other clinics for such services."

Daniel Foster:
"The anti-Komen backlash operated under the assumption that PP was somehow entitled to the Komen grants. A healthier, more proportionate response might have been for PP to thank Komen for its years of support and urge donors to make up the difference. What happened instead is — functionally if not intentionally — hard to distinguish from a shakedown. I can’t see how it is in any charity’s long-term interest to be seen as publicly cajoling donors who have the audacity to stop writing checks."

Daniel Foster (again):
"(T)here’s something quite a bit different, something creepy and not a little despicable, about the Planned Parenthood set’s besmirching Komen’s good name across a thousand platforms for having the audacity to stop giving them free money. And I don’t care why that decision was made, frankly."

Mark Krikorian:
"Who do the Planned Parenthood people think they are? It takes real chutzpah to think, and announce, that you’re entitled to someone else’s money."

James Taranto:
"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."