Op-ed pieces in some main stream media outlets are starting to realize that there was something overtly wrong with the response that Planned Parenthood and its supporters (media, individuals, companies, and politicians) had to the fact that Susan G. Komen for the Cure would no longer give grants in the future to Planned Parenthood. Make no mistake about it, the supporters of Planned Parenthood went into all-out attack mode when the announcement was made. What these supporters forgot was that Komen is an independent charitable organization that has every right to decide where their grant money goes.
The reaction of the Planned Parenthood supporters was also irrationally disproportionate to what Planned Parenthood would potentially lose. The amount of grant money that Planned Parenthood received from Komen in 2010 was about $600,000, merely 0.06 percent of Planned Parenthood’s FY2010 revenue figure of $1.05 billion. Yes, that BILLION with a “b.”
Here are some of the comments. From Kathleen Parker in the Washington Post:
Whatever one believes about the motivation behind its decision, the larger point is that Komen has no binding responsibility to allocate any part of its $93 million in grants to any organization. Komen is a nonprofit, free agent, and the good it has performed for millions of underserved women around the world is staggering.
Nevertheless, given the rabid response from abortion-rights supporters, you’d think that Brinker and her organization were running puppy mills for soup vendors. Even if their real reason for ending funding is because they no longer want to be associated with an organization as politically controversial as Planned Parenthood — or even if because some of their potential donors want the relationship severed — it is inarguably their right to change course.
Ross Douthat wrote in the New York Times regarding Komen’s decision to change it’s granting criteria and the charge that it was politically motivated: “…it’s no more “political” to disassociate oneself from the nation’s largest abortion provider than it is to associate with it in the first place.”
Regarding the media’s vicious attacks on Komen, Douthat wrote: “… journalists betray their calling when they simply ignore self-evident truths about a story” including this truth, “…for every American who greeted Komen’s shift with “anger and outrage” (as Andrea Mitchell put it), there was probably an American who was relieved and gratified.”
I would also include this truth to Douthat’s list that main stream media ignored: Planned Parenthood does not provide life-saving mammograms for anyone, let alone underserved women.
In the Wall Street Journal Review & Outlook column, they wrote:
Apart from the brutal lesson in the intolerance of abortion advocates, the larger principle at stake is the right of a charity to donate to whomever it likes, for whatever reason it likes. Mr. Bloomberg is free to do whatever he wants with his money. But it is to his great discredit that he would join a campaign to smear Komen for exercising exactly the same right.
Syndicated columnist Mark Steyn summed it up pretty nicely when he wrote about the severity of the attacks on Komen and the disproportionate response: “Komen could not be permitted to get away with disrespecting Big Abortion.”
I hope everyone is hearing the real message behind the Komen-Planned Parenthood fiasco: “Beware the Wrath of Planned Parenthood and its Supporters.”