Susan G Komen policy change...

[thegreekdog]

Why would it be so horrible to pay for abortions?

You want to help women with breast cancer, but not women who need abortions. Why?

Because I don't believe that babies should be aborted.

Babies aren't aborted.

I don't believe that fetuses should be aborted.

What's your point here kiddo?

[Juan_Bottom]

For me it's not about politics. I am pro-life in my personal life and that includes how I spend my charitable contribution dollars. Maybe I'm being too paranoid or too strict or whatever, but abortion is such an anathema to my beliefs, that my potential overreaction is justified in my mind.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

You pay taxes that contribute mightily to after birth abortions. You're being hypocritical on some levels here.

I personally also find it odd that you donate to UNICEF as well, because they have been working to feed the Africans that our government has been working to starve. You're funding both sides like a GE lobbyist or something.

[Woodruff]

Why would it be so horrible to pay for abortions?
You want to help women with breast cancer, but not women who need abortions. Why?

Because it goes against his personal beliefs (and doesn't break any laws). Seems reasonable enough to me, given that it IS his money to donate.

[Woodruff]

For me it's not about politics. I am pro-life in my personal life and that includes how I spend my charitable contribution dollars. Maybe I'm being too paranoid or too strict or whatever, but abortion is such an anathema to my beliefs, that my potential overreaction is justified in my mind.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

You pay taxes that contribute mightily to after birth abortions. You're being hypocritical on some levels here.

I personally also find it odd that you donate to UNICEF as well, because they have been working to feed the Africans that our government has been working to starve. You're funding both sides like a GE lobbyist or something.

I don't see it as necessarily hypocritical in that he is under an onus to pay taxes, whereas his donations are done freely. I suppose he COULD refuse to pay his taxes, but he's really not going to accomplish anything by doing that other than land himself in jail. Nobody gets his donations then.

[Juan_Bottom]

Nobody gets his donations then.

What I'm trying to say, is that in the name of charity he should be sending his money to wherever he believes it will do the most possible good. The part that I quoted from you kinda says the same. I don't find his argument of conscious conscience to be compelling under the circumstances. Whatever it is that he does donate, Susan G has used to produce a lot of good things. Yeah, by a long shot proxy it's supporting the offering of abortions, but also by proxy his taxes are supporting genocide. If he looks deep enough he can find something he doesn't like about anything.
But! between genocide and abortion, where's the conscience getting silenced here? And why aren't we all conscious of it?

[thegreekdog]

For me it's not about politics. I am pro-life in my personal life and that includes how I spend my charitable contribution dollars. Maybe I'm being too paranoid or too strict or whatever, but abortion is such an anathema to my beliefs, that my potential overreaction is justified in my mind.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

You pay taxes that contribute mightily to after birth abortions. You're being hypocritical on some levels here.

I personally also find it odd that you donate to UNICEF as well, because they have been working to feed the Africans that our government has been working to starve. You're funding both sides like a GE lobbyist or something.

I'm required by law to pay taxes.

I do not contribute to UNICEF (not for any particular reason). I make donations to six charities.

[thegreekdog]

Nobody gets his donations then.

What I'm trying to say, is that in the name of charity he should be sending his money to wherever he believes it will do the most possible good. The part that I quoted from you kinda says the same. I don't find his argument of conscious conscience to be compelling under the circumstances. Whatever it is that he does donate, Susan G has used to produce a lot of good things. Yeah, by a long shot proxy it's supporting the offering of abortions, but also by proxy his taxes are supporting genocide. If he looks deep enough he can find something he doesn't like about anything.
But! between genocide and abortion, where's the conscience getting silenced here? And why aren't we all conscious of it?

Honestly, dude? It's my fucking money. I'll do whatever the f*ck I want with it. I want to give it to Komen, I will. I want to give it to the United Way, I will. I want to give it to Goldman Sachs I will. So, you, Symmetry, natty, whoever the f*ck - f*ck you guys. You want to give money to pay for abortions or to pay for UNICEF or whatever, go ahead.

[BigBallinStalin]

Besides, donating money to foreign aids mostly goes to a bad cause but with good intentions. The legacy of foreign aid is a failure. Basically, it subsidizes local political forces to continue messing up their country while the cash comes in to keep people marginally satisfied.

Much of the thought was influenced by the Solow Growth model from the 1950s. Basically, if you dumped capital (food, medicine, machines, etc.) into a poor economy, then the economy should lift. Unfortunately, no one at the time really understood how the growth of wealth was strongly influenced by the role of political, legal, and social institutions.

So, if you want to subsidize warlords of Chad, or name your favorite "3rd" world country, then donate via foreign aid. Feel good while overlooking your unintended consequences.

People want an easy answer, but there is no easy answer. All this criticism about donating to X instead of donating to Y is getting silly up in here-yA.

[Phatscotty]

Planned Parenthood is barely able to meet the requirements for receiving money from breast cancer foundations. They still may not be able to if it weren't for the lib storm that followed applying pressure from all ends of the earth.

They are getting special treatment. Plenty of other foundations have not been receiving the money they had become accustomed over the last 3 year either, but nobody gives a shit when they're not supposed to give a shit and only give it when they are supposed to.

[Woodruff]

Planned Parenthood is barely able to meet the requirements for receiving money from breast cancer foundations. They still may not be able to if it weren't for the lib storm that followed applying pressure from all ends of the earth.

They are getting special treatment. Plenty of other foundations have not been receiving the money they had become accustomed over the last 3 year either, but nobody gives a shit when they're not supposed to give a shit and only give it when they are supposed to.

That is an outstanding non-argument. Did you have an actual argument?

[PLAYER57832]

I think the mission of an organization should mirror it's name.

The name Planned Parenthood is to related to breast cancer screenings. It should not be in that business. If it wants to provide general health for women... which could include fertility planNing, breat screening, abortion, etc.. Then it should rename itself.

That IS part of the health of women, which has always been its mission. Its PLANNED parenthood, as opposed to just "do whatever you wish and don't bother with consequences". Too bad so many in the right seem intent on distorting that point.

[PLAYER57832]

When I read about this the other day, I was shocked. I'm surprised the foundation didn't consider the ramifications of their decision before making the decision.

The Goldberg article above is worth a look- it suggests they made the decision a while ago and were just fishing for a reason.

I read a couple of articles so I probably won't read the Goldberg article (no offense to you). As oVo stated, it seemed pretty stupid to do this and appears they did not consider the ramifications (or at least did not take the ramifications seriously). I suspect that most people were not even aware that Komen and Planned Parenthood were linked in any way. I certainly wasn't aware of it and I gave money to Komen every year (and knew a little bit about them). Parenthetically, if I had known they supported Planned Parenthood, I would not have given money to Komen.

Greekdog, you are mistaken. They absolutely DID consider the ramifications. They are courting the far right. This is yet one more example of how the far right is moving slowly, but firmly into all areas of US life. You will see similar people moving into places of power in many organizations.

My money could go completely to breast cancer screenings performed by Planned Parenthood (which I would be fine with). However, if Planned Parenthood used the other $3,000 from its $5,000 budget on abortions, but if it had not received by $2,000, would have used less on abortions, my money is indirectly supporting abortions.

The money from the Komen foundation ONLY went to mammograms and other cancer screenings.

[PLAYER57832]

And, why does ANYONE have the right to tell someone else what medical procedure they can and cannot have. This is a MIGHTY slippery slope.

The Roman Catholic Church is now up in arms becuase some associated organizations, like hospitals and the like that provide services to and that hire people of all faiths need to provide INSURANCE that pays for birth control.

What right do YOU or anyone else have to dictate this decision? This is not about freedom, it is about preventing women from obtaining the medical services THEY need, allowing THEM to practice their beliefs fully.

In this country, your right to dictate someone else's religion has always stopped at your door. Now.. that is changing. Using the guise of "its my money" is more than obnoxious, it is deceitful despicable.

This is NOT about allowing freedom of choice. The money from the foundation was NEVER used for any abortions. It was not even indirectly used for them, as greekdog above tried to insist. This is about a concerted campaign to remove any chance of women having abortions. AND.. again, most of you arguing this are not even paying attention to what that really means. A whole passel load of you all came out in the abortion threads saying "but I am OK if the baby is dead, of course".. Or" well.. if the woman's life is at risk"..and many even went so far as to say "if the child will endure a very shortened life full of pain".. etc, etc. YET, when it comes to the rubber hitting the road, its "NOPE, we cannot have anything like ABORTION!".


You know what, according to the Roman Catholic Church, I am going to HELL.. as are all of my children, because we are not members of their church. What can possibly be worse than that? ARe they now allowed to tell us we have to be Roman Catholics becuase else it would violate their beliefs?

[Night Strike]

I think the mission of an organization should mirror it's name.

The name Planned Parenthood is to related to breast cancer screenings. It should not be in that business. If it wants to provide general health for women... which could include fertility planNing, breat screening, abortion, etc.. Then it should rename itself.

That IS part of the health of women, which has always been its mission. Its PLANNED parenthood, as opposed to just "do whatever you wish and don't bother with consequences". Too bad so many in the right seem intent on distorting that point.

Sounds like the exact reason why we have at-will abortions: to "do whatever you wish and don't bother with consequences". We have abortions because people don't want to be inconvenienced with having a child.

The money from the Komen foundation ONLY went to mammograms and other cancer screenings.

One would assume that would be the case. But that's why their currently being investigated by members of Congress: part of their federal funding may have been going to fund abortions. This is because Planned Parenthood may have been just pooling their money and using it for whichever expenses were necessary instead of keeping it separated for specific areas.

And, why does ANYONE have the right to tell someone else what medical procedure they can and cannot have. This is a MIGHTY slippery slope.

The Roman Catholic Church is now up in arms becuase some associated organizations, like hospitals and the like that provide services to and that hire people of all faiths need to provide INSURANCE that pays for birth control.

What right do YOU or anyone else have to dictate this decision? This is not about freedom, it is about preventing women from obtaining the medical services THEY need, allowing THEM to practice their beliefs fully.

Just like you and many others claim that Christian beliefs can't be involved in the government, then the government needs to stay out of religious organizations. The government cannot pass laws that force a religion to go against their beliefs. If an organization that is founded on a set of religious beliefs believes that birth control is wrong, then the government can't go in and force them to offer it. That would ALSO violate the separation of church and state that so many people would argue for if the positions were reversed. That's why a proper understanding of the Constitution is vital for our freedoms. I disagree with Catholic views on birth control, but that doesn't mean the government has the power to interfere in their beliefs.

By the way, you're assuming that forcing insurance companies to provide free birth control is a good policy. It's not. It's simply another governmental mandate that raises insurance prices. If an insurance company chooses to offer it for free, then that should be up to them. If they want to cover part of the cost after a co-pay, then that should be up to them. If they don't want to cover it all because it's an elective medicine, then that should be up to them. Instead, the government is forcing ALL method of contraception to be covered, which is not cost effective or rational. When prices range from a few dollars a month for pills to hundreds of dollars each for shots, no company should be required to cover every single one of them for free.

In this country, your right to dictate someone else's religion has always stopped at your door. Now.. that is changing. Using the guise of "its my money" is more than obnoxious, it is deceitful despicable.

You're right, the power to dictate someone else's religion IS changing. Christians aren't allowed to do anything in public that signifies their religion because some random atheist will get "offended". And if you don't like what an organization is doing with your money, why should you be obligated to continue donating to them? It IS your money, and you can choose who you donate it to (well, until the government comes in and demands you donate it all to it).

[Woodruff]

That IS part of the health of women, which has always been its mission. Its PLANNED parenthood, as opposed to just "do whatever you wish and don't bother with consequences". Too bad so many in the right seem intent on distorting that point.

Sounds like the exact reason why we have at-will abortions: to "do whatever you wish and don't bother with consequences". We have abortions because people don't want to be inconvenienced with having a child.

Whereas people like you would prefer that these people be PUNISHED with being forced to have that child. See, the religious right cares about abortion, but they don't seem to give much of a shit about the kids once they're out of the womb. Pretty fucking hypocritical.

The money from the Komen foundation ONLY went to mammograms and other cancer screenings.

One would assume that would be the case. But that's why their currently being investigated by members of Congress: part of their federal funding may have been going to fund abortions. This is because Planned Parenthood may have been just pooling their money and using it for whichever expenses were necessary instead of keeping it separated for specific areas.

You'd like to think that, I know. However, it has been shown that the individual who initiated the investigation is one who has basically been trying every means possible to shut down Planned Parenthood due to the abortion issue. This has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood's methods, and it does have everything to do with right-wing bullshit politics.

And, why does ANYONE have the right to tell someone else what medical procedure they can and cannot have. This is a MIGHTY slippery slope.

The Roman Catholic Church is now up in arms becuase some associated organizations, like hospitals and the like that provide services to and that hire people of all faiths need to provide INSURANCE that pays for birth control.

What right do YOU or anyone else have to dictate this decision? This is not about freedom, it is about preventing women from obtaining the medical services THEY need, allowing THEM to practice their beliefs fully.

Just like you and many others claim that Christian beliefs can't be involved in the government, then the government needs to stay out of religious organizations. The government cannot pass laws that force a religion to go against their beliefs. If an organization that is founded on a set of religious beliefs believes that birth control is wrong, then the government can't go in and force them to offer it.

So then you're fully supportive of a Satanist being allowed to practice ritual slaughter of virgins? Because it seems to me that's what you're saying. Or is it that the government only has to stay out of religions that YOU like?

By the way, you're assuming that forcing insurance companies to provide free birth control is a good policy. It's not.

Yes, these women should be PUNISHED with a baby for having the absolute gall to have sex! It's dirty!

In this country, your right to dictate someone else's religion has always stopped at your door. Now.. that is changing. Using the guise of "its my money" is more than obnoxious, it is deceitful despicable.

You're right, the power to dictate someone else's religion IS changing. Christians aren't allowed to do anything in public that signifies their religion because some random atheist will get "offended".

Can you BE any more dishonest? Jesus, Night Strike, but this is a load of bullshit.

[oVo]

...inconvenienced with having a child.

Because all conceived pregnancies should be brought into this world,
regardless of the situation the child will endure once here.

...their they're currently being investigated by members of Congress:
part of their federal funding may have been going to fund abortions.

A bullshit political witch hunt initiated by one pro-life right wing Republican Congressman.

Christians aren't allowed to do anything in public that signifies their religion because some random atheist will get "offended".

More bs... it is only when "it" is imposed on others that there is an issue.

And if you don't like what an organization is doing with your money, why should you be obligated to continue donating to them?

When your "organization" relies on the good will of others for financial donations to carry out their mission and that same "organization" pulls funding from a group that is actually doing the job of executing that mission? There will be problems with public relations
and maintaining donor support.

[Juan_Bottom]

Nobody gets his donations then.

What I'm trying to say, is that in the name of charity he should be sending his money to wherever he believes it will do the most possible good. The part that I quoted from you kinda says the same. I don't find his argument of conscious conscience to be compelling under the circumstances. Whatever it is that he does donate, Susan G has used to produce a lot of good things. Yeah, by a long shot proxy it's supporting the offering of abortions, but also by proxy his taxes are supporting genocide. If he looks deep enough he can find something he doesn't like about anything.
But! between genocide and abortion, where's the conscience getting silenced here? And why aren't we all conscious of it?

Honestly, dude? It's my fucking money. I'll do whatever the f*ck I want with it. I want to give it to Komen, I will. I want to give it to the United Way, I will. I want to give it to Goldman Sachs I will. So, you, Symmetry, natty, whoever the f*ck - f*ck you guys. You want to give money to pay for abortions or to pay for UNICEF or whatever, go ahead.

Oh, I just thought that you were having fun with everyone debating against you for a change. I don't care about any of this myself.
Also, I always thought that United Way was tied with UNICEF somehow, but I just googled it and I think that I was wrong...?

[Aradhus]

Nobody gets his donations then.

What I'm trying to say, is that in the name of charity he should be sending his money to wherever he believes it will do the most possible good. The part that I quoted from you kinda says the same. I don't find his argument of conscious conscience to be compelling under the circumstances. Whatever it is that he does donate, Susan G has used to produce a lot of good things. Yeah, by a long shot proxy it's supporting the offering of abortions, but also by proxy his taxes are supporting genocide. If he looks deep enough he can find something he doesn't like about anything.
But! between genocide and abortion, where's the conscience getting silenced here? And why aren't we all conscious of it?

Honestly, dude? It's my fucking money. I'll do whatever the f*ck I want with it. I want to give it to Komen, I will. I want to give it to the United Way, I will. I want to give it to Goldman Sachs I will. So, you, Symmetry, natty, whoever the f*ck - f*ck you guys. You want to give money to pay for abortions or to pay for UNICEF or whatever, go ahead.

Fucking liberals, eh? Always trying to dictate what other people should do with their money. Like, I used to donate money to this prostitution ring because I wanted them to have better protection and stuff, but then I found out they were using some of my donation to buy drugs. So I cut that shit off, stat, but then they demanded that I had to pay them for sex, which I'm sorry, but to me that's just crossing the line. Then swedish Arvid and his boys got involved, an' Arvid was a big fellar, like, you know? but I was standing my ground until Arvid turned me upside down and emptied out my pockets. fucker. Last time I do anyone any favours.

[Symmetry]

Nobody gets his donations then.

What I'm trying to say, is that in the name of charity he should be sending his money to wherever he believes it will do the most possible good. The part that I quoted from you kinda says the same. I don't find his argument of conscious conscience to be compelling under the circumstances. Whatever it is that he does donate, Susan G has used to produce a lot of good things. Yeah, by a long shot proxy it's supporting the offering of abortions, but also by proxy his taxes are supporting genocide. If he looks deep enough he can find something he doesn't like about anything.
But! between genocide and abortion, where's the conscience getting silenced here? And why aren't we all conscious of it?

Honestly, dude? It's my fucking money. I'll do whatever the f*ck I want with it. I want to give it to Komen, I will. I want to give it to the United Way, I will. I want to give it to Goldman Sachs I will. So, you, Symmetry, natty, whoever the f*ck - f*ck you guys. You want to give money to pay for abortions or to pay for UNICEF or whatever, go ahead.

Fucking liberals, eh? Always trying to dictate what other people should do with their money. Like, I used to donate money to this prostitution ring because I wanted them to have better protection and stuff, but then I found out they were using some of my donation to buy drugs. So I cut that shit off, stat, but then they demanded that I had to pay them for sex, which I'm sorry, but to me that's just crossing the line. Then swedish Arvid and his boys got involved, an' Arvid was a big fellar, like, you know? but I was standing my ground until Arvid turned me upside down and emptied out my pockets. fucker. Last time I do anyone any favours.

That's likely why he called it his fucking money. I've got my beer money set aside after all, and my rent money is always set aside too.

No wonder he's so worried about paying for abortions. Parenthood ain't part of his financial plan.

[PLAYER57832]

I think the mission of an organization should mirror it's name.

The name Planned Parenthood is to related to breast cancer screenings. It should not be in that business. If it wants to provide general health for women... which could include fertility planNing, breat screening, abortion, etc.. Then it should rename itself.

That IS part of the health of women, which has always been its mission. Its PLANNED parenthood, as opposed to just "do whatever you wish and don't bother with consequences". Too bad so many in the right seem intent on distorting that point.

Sounds like the exact reason why we have at-will abortions: to "do whatever you wish and don't bother with consequences". We have abortions because people don't want to be inconvenienced with having a child.

True "at will" abortions are only a small percentage of the total. This has been pointed out to you over and over, but you continue insisting that is what this is about.

BUT.. for someone touting "freedom" all over the place, yours is a pretty hypocritical stance.

The money from the Komen foundation ONLY went to mammograms and other cancer screenings.

One would assume that would be the case. But that's why their currently being investigated by members of Congress: part of their federal funding may have been going to fund abortions. This is because Planned Parenthood may have been just pooling their money and using it for whichever expenses were necessary instead of keeping it separated for specific areas.

Yeah, just forget that old "innocent until proven guilty" when its the right doing the questioning.

IN TRUTH.. the right wing wants any excuse it can find to oppose this organization. Yet, when it comes to things they favor.. like, looking into adoption practices of Catholic Charities, etc, etc... the story changes.
Either we have freedom or we have freedom only when its convenient to the right.. which means we do NOT have freedom!

And, why does ANYONE have the right to tell someone else what medical procedure they can and cannot have. This is a MIGHTY slippery slope.

The Roman Catholic Church is now up in arms becuase some associated organizations, like hospitals and the like that provide services to and that hire people of all faiths need to provide INSURANCE that pays for birth control.

What right do YOU or anyone else have to dictate this decision? This is not about freedom, it is about preventing women from obtaining the medical services THEY need, allowing THEM to practice their beliefs fully.

Just like you and many others claim that Christian beliefs can't be involved in the government, then the government needs to stay out of religious organizations.

Then the churches need to not be sole providers of health care in an area, need to refrain from operating schools that teach more than religion, need to refrain from insisting that THEIR values be supported by ALL of our tax dollars. In fact, why should they even get tax breaks on their business dealings!

The government cannot pass laws that force a religion to go against their beliefs. If an organization that is founded on a set of religious beliefs believes that birth control is wrong, then the government can't go in and force them to offer it.

They are not imposing this on the religious institution. Priests and nuns are not covered here. I, working for a Roman Catholic run hospital, needing medical care at a Roman Catholic hospital, SHOULD BE!

Their right to dictate MY religion stops at the church doors!

That would ALSO violate the separation of church and state that so many people would argue for if the positions were reversed. That's why a proper understanding of the Constitution is vital for our freedoms. I disagree with Catholic views on birth control, but that doesn't mean the government has the power to interfere in their beliefs.

No dice. Their ability to honor their beliefs is not being inhibited. It is everyone else's ability to do as THEY see fit that is at risk.

By the way, you're assuming that forcing insurance companies to provide free birth control is a good policy. It's not.

If you want to launch another thread on birth control.. go ahead. The evidence refuting your position is too wide to post here in this thread.

BUT.. let's give you the shortened version.

A. There are MANY fully medical reasons why women might need birth control that have nothing to do with not wanting kids
B. MANY of the women using birth control are MARRIED.
C. Lack of birth control leads to both more abortions AND unwanted pregnancies. Children of unwanted pregnancies, do NOT fare as well as those who are wanted, not by far.

It's simply another governmental mandate that raises insurance prices. If an insurance company chooses to offer it for free, then that should be up to them. If they want to cover part of the cost after a co-pay, then that should be up to them. If they don't want to cover it all because it's an elective medicine, then that should be up to them. Instead, the government is forcing ALL method of contraception to be covered, which is not cost effective or rational. When prices range from a few dollars a month for pills to hundreds of dollars each for shots, no company should be required to cover every single one of them for free.

BULL.
There is no healthcare reason to deny birth control, only pretenses of morality. So next you can deny someone blood transfusions because a company is headed by a Jehovah's Witness? Not when people don't truly themselves have any real chioce in the healthcare they get. As long as the employer decides, then the employer cannot use his status as an employer to push his or her beliefs onto others. That is called "bullying", not "holding to one's beliefs".

In this country, your right to dictate someone else's religion has always stopped at your door. Now.. that is changing. Using the guise of "its my money" is more than obnoxious, it is deceitful despicable.

You're right, the power to dictate someone else's religion IS changing. Christians aren't allowed to do anything in public that signifies their religion because some random atheist will get "offended".

OH BULL!
They are not allowed to use PUBLIC money and PUBLIC spaces to do that. And, its not just atheists who get offended. Often, its other Christians who are repulsed by some stupid proclomations made by a few who pretend that their right wing views somehow are what Christ would want. Reread the Bible. Christ sat down with the tax collectors, the prostitutes, all the sinners. He condemned the rabbis and those thinking themselves "righteous" for putting themselves above others.

And if you don't like what an organization is doing with your money, why should you be obligated to continue donating to them? It IS your money, and you can choose who you donate it to (well, until the government comes in and demands you donate it all to it).

Twist this again, why dont you!
Komen has put itself up as the major supporter of breast cancer prevention. Now, AFTER millions have donated money, they decide that they are going to step away from that because some people want to attack Planned Parenthood. They could care less that the attacks ARE without merit. This is all about abortion.

The decision was made to ignore the needs of millions of poor women needing mammograms in favor of those who want Planned Parenthood to end because the right wing is so intent on anything that will inhibit abortions.

[Night Strike]

1. I think birth control IS a proper form of contraceptive, which is a disagreement I have with Catholics and many fundamental Christians.

2. If the government is mandating ALL forms of birth control, then they're doing nothing to cut the costs of health care (which was supposedly why they put in this stupid health care law). If you mandate something like birth control, then they should only be forced to cover the cheapest form out there. Maybe the two cheapest forms. However, you shouldn't be mandating that forms that cost more than $100 per dosages be covered without a copay. That just raises the costs for everybody else.

3. Planned Parenthood doesn't even provide mammograms. They refer their clients to other agencies who do them. So if Koman wants to help with breast cancer prevention, shouldn't they help fund those other agencies directly instead of funding an organization that just does referrals?
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/02/why-did-komen-stop-planned-parenthood-doesnt-do-mammograms/

[natty dread]

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/ ... ingle.html

[Woodruff]

When I read about this the other day, I was shocked. I'm surprised the foundation didn't consider the ramifications of their decision before making the decision.

I believe they DID consider the ramifications before they made their decision. I believe this was a calculated "test the waters" move entirely.

Parenthetically, if I had known they supported Planned Parenthood, I would not have given money to Komen.

Why? Do you hate the planning of parenthood? Do you have an agenda of wanting all parenthoods to go unplanned?

I would prefer not to give money that goes directly or indirectly to the performance of abortions.

Want to drive Planned Parenthood out of the abortion world? Here's how (yes, this is a serious article):
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/human_nature/2012/02/the_komen_fiasco_how_to_drive_planned_parenthood_out_of_the_abortion_business_.html

[PLAYER57832]

2. If the government is mandating ALL forms of birth control, then they're doing nothing to cut the costs of health care (which was supposedly why they put in this stupid health care law). If you mandate something like birth control, then they should only be forced to cover the cheapest form out there. Maybe the two cheapest forms. However, you shouldn't be mandating that forms that cost more than $100 per dosages be covered without a copay. That just raises the costs for everybody else.

No, in fact few companies need to be mandated because it IS cost-effective. HOWEVER, you have the Roman Catholic church attempting to subvert their not even Roman Catholic employees rights to the kind of coverage they need. THAT is why a mandate is necessary. It is necessary to ensure that all women who want this have access to the coverage.

[Night Strike]

2. If the government is mandating ALL forms of birth control, then they're doing nothing to cut the costs of health care (which was supposedly why they put in this stupid health care law). If you mandate something like birth control, then they should only be forced to cover the cheapest form out there. Maybe the two cheapest forms. However, you shouldn't be mandating that forms that cost more than $100 per dosages be covered without a copay. That just raises the costs for everybody else.

No, in fact few companies need to be mandated because it IS cost-effective. HOWEVER, you have the Roman Catholic church attempting to subvert their not even Roman Catholic employees rights to the kind of coverage they need. THAT is why a mandate is necessary. It is necessary to ensure that all women who want this have access to the coverage.

Generic birth control pills are $9 a month. You can afford that without insurance. Mandating that insurance pay for shots that cost hundreds of dollars just raises the rates for everybody else when there are many cheaper options available.