Live Q&As

BOTH SIDES are playing politics here, though perhaps not as many people think.

That people are attacking Komen is presposterous, and largely due to the anger that Nancy Brinker, who created the foundation in memory of her sister, and many people in the foundation's leadership, happen to be more connected to the Republican party.  I think that many Liberals can not stand that politically conservative people have lead the way on significant areas of women's health initiatives -- it doesn't fit with the stereotypes to which they want to cling. 

So, in this case, is is activists on the left who are playing politics with an entriely reasonable decision by the Komen Foundation.  In fact, all the money they took away has already been replaced, and they will spend their dollars elsewhere.  At the end of the day, that means their decision actually created more financing for vitally important women's health work being done both by them and by Planned Parenthood.

As to Virginia, Republican politicans there should be ashamed of themselves.  They can take whatever position they want on abortion, but using guilt and manipulation, is scandalous.  How they can say with a straight face, as many have, that complelling women to have sonograms is a health issue, simply boggles the mind!

The "work around" approach you mention -- and the one being employed in Virginia but NOT by Komen, in my opinion -- would be ethical IF those doing it came clean about what they were doing. 

This is, whether we like it or not a legal/political issue and because of that, will be "worked".  But pretending that one is not doing so, when they clearly are, is NOT ethical.

Nobody will ever accuse highly ideological politicians, on either the left of the right, of being overly consistant!  That said, there is a logic to this.

The objection to forcing people to buy coverage which they may not want, is a real and legitimate legal issue.  At the same time, government can compel people to have specific medical procedures, and even to pay for them, when it's in the public interest e.g. vaccinations against communicable diseases or eye exams and corrective lenses for some drivers.  The issue in VA is that this is NOT a public health or saftey issue.

I want to be clear, I believe that abortion is far to common and far to easily resorted to in this country, but that is not an excuse for playing fast and loose with the lives of those seeking them.

You are so right!  Every study indicates that if we really wanted to reduce the number of abortions in a serious way, we would do all the things you suggest. 

I appreciate the urgency and reactivity of those who genuinely believe that abortion is murder, even though I so don't share their opinion, but actions like the one being taken in VA, actually work against their stated desire to reduce abortions.  They need to address that the short-term victory that this represents, may actually contribute to more abortions being performed over the long term.

Forgive me for being blunt -- but you are being foolish, and dangerously self-indugent.  Your obvious cyncisim and anger (think your bumper sticker) are getting in the way of supporting Komen's 93 million dollar investment in public health ventures for women.  Is that REALLY what you want to do?

I am sorry for being so tough, but as a "generous supporter" of an important project, you must be a very special person, and it would be a shame to undermine that.

The foundation's 700 thousand dollar committment to PP is barely an accounting error, given the scale of their work -- not to mention that the dollars have already been repleaced.  If you want to play politics with women's health, go ahead, but it's nothing to be proud of.

If you really want to spend your outrage wisely, go after those in the US Congress who placed PP under federal investigation.  They are the ones who made it impossible for Komen to keep funding PP.

it's an artful response, but not helpful for those who genuinely believe that abortion is murder.  so to the extent that is sounds good and made him feel good about his position, but failed to address the felt need of his constituents, it was not so wise, and maybe not even ethical.

if one truly believes that the fetus is a full human being, than forcing the mother to have the baby IS  appropriate.  The point is though, that most Americans don;t feel that way, so the real issue is what those people who want her to do so are willing to do for her to make it more likely that she will.  I think he should have written back with a list of suggestions that made those who oppose abortion rights responsible for all those women who want to have an abortion.

There really is zero evidence that the decision by Komen was politcal.  Their founder has been connected to Republican causes for years, as has much of their ledership, and their funding to Planned Parenthood has been increasing over the past years!

Komen finds itself in a difficult position because they want to assure that they are above any politcal fray.  By not funding groups under invesitgation, they will probaly cut funding to some worthy recipients, but in a venture as large as theirs, they must protect against the possibility of funding groups that are truly problematic.

The way to address this is by pressuring those in congress who put PP under investigation.

the answer is in your question.  SGK has funded PP, even increasing their funding over the past years -- years during which plenty of people were hammering PP.  What changed was simply the decison that as SGK grew, it needed to make tough decisions about groups under federal investigation.  it seems to me, in this case at least, that BOTH SGK AND PP are victims of political games being played in congress.

Yours is a perfect summary of a tragic situation.  it IS about ideological purity, and the real tragedy here is that because of it, more abortions are perfomed than otherwise would be.  That actually hurts my heart.

I don't think that abortion is murder, and I do think that we perfom far to many in this country -- a position which makes me like most Americans.  Until we take back this issue from the extemists -- the ideological purists -- on both sides, we will never have coherent and humane abortion policy in this country.

They actually will give the women two choices, and they MUST opt for one of them.  Either that must look at the pictures, or they must sign a document which says that they refused to do so.  So, at a particulalry critical moment in  woman's life, the Virginia law hopes to let her choose between what they clearly hope will be guilt or shame. 

Unless one's oposition to abortion is so total that it precludes any committment to the mom's dignity, they should oppose this law. 

Just to be clear, what you are calling for is exactly what created the whole problem -- outraged people calling for investigations of organizations simply because they disagree with some of what they do.  I would not, nor should anybody, question the authenticity of your outrage, especially as a breat cancer survivor, but as a matter of public policy, you are wrong.

All sides needs to turn down the outrage and do as much as they can, for as many as they can, working within the parameters of that which they believe.  Any other response simply says that it is more important to us that we convince other to share our views, or worse, impose our views on them, instead of assuring that people are served and that illness is fought.