Answering criticisms of the MCCL-backed bills

Two MCCL-backed bills were discussed and approved yesterday in the Minnesota Senate Health and Human Services Committee. One (S.F. 1921) would require that abortion clinics be licensed and allow for inspections by the Department of Health. The other (S.F. 1912) would require a physician to be present during an RU486 chemical abortion, thereby prohibiting webcam (telemedicine) abortions.

Critics of the first bill suggested that it is a "solution in search of a problem." But the licensing requirement is so basic, so commonsensical, that we cannot even know if there are any health problems in abortion clinics unless this bill is enacted into law. Kermit Gosnell's now-infamous Philadelphia abortion clinic, for example, committed its atrocities over many years, and no one knew about them because there were no inspections.

MCCL's Andrea Rau testifies
at the Feb. 27 hearing

One senator thought that the bill is an attempt to single out abortion providers. On the contrary: Why are abortion providers currently singled out from the kind of basic licensing that is required of a wide variety of other facilities, including ones engaged in much less serious and health-related practices? No one seems to question such licensing; those who accept it should for the same reasons (to ensure public safety) accept the licensing of abortion clinics, which perform one of the most common surgical procedures in the state. To have one without the other does not seem to be a rationally defensible position.

Critics of the second bill touted the benefits of telemedicine. But the bill's advocates have not criticized telemedicine itself or in general -- it can be and is used to extend legitimate health care to many people who need it. Administering RU486 via telemedicine is simply a misuse of this technology. RU486 is an elective abortion method, not health care; it does not treat any medical condition. And it carries serious risks to the health of women that are exacerbated when a doctor is not present.

Senate panel approves two MCCL-backed bills on women’s safety

The following news release was issued today, Feb. 27, 2012.

ST. PAUL — Bills to prohibit dangerous "webcam abortions" and to require licensure of abortion centers were approved by the Minnesota Senate Health and Human Services Committee today on voice votes. It was the first hearing for both measures seeking women's safety, which have the strong support of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL).

S.F. 1912 (H.F. 2341), authored by Sen. Paul Gazelka, R-Brainerd, would stop dangerous webcam abortions by requiring that a physician be physically present during an abortion. Webcam abortions involve the RU486 abortion drug, administered via video conference with an abortion provider in another location. The doctor talks with the woman, then presses a button which remotely opens a drawer to dispense the drug. The doctor is never physically present to examine the woman for any problems such as a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy. Planned Parenthood began offering webcam abortions last year at its Rochester facility; women consult with a doctor in St. Paul.

"Abortion is like no other procedure, as the courts have recognized. As Justice Potter Stewart wrote for the majority in Harris v. McRae (1980), 'Abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life,'" said MCCL Legislative Associate Jordan Marie Harris in testimony. "This legislation seeks to protect women by requiring that a physician be in the same room and in the physical presence of the woman when administering RU486."

Three advocates of webcam abortion testified, including Dr. Carrie Terrell of Whole Women's Health abortion center in Minneapolis, and Karen Law of Pro-Choice Resources. No mention was made of the importance of the doctor-patient relationship, a hallmark of "pro-choice" arguments.

S.F. 1921 (H.F. 2340), authored by Sen. Claire Robling, R-Jordan, would require facilities that perform 10 or more abortions per month to be licensed. The state commissioner of health would establish rules necessary for licensure. The bill also authorizes the commissioner to perform inspections of abortion facilities as deemed necessary, with no prior notice required.

"The purpose of all government regulation is to protect the public by enforcing minimum standards. This legislation asks the Department of Health to determine specifically what these standards would be," MCCL Legislative Associate Andrea Rau testified.

No one testified in opposition to the bill. Both bills will now be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Shoddy Texas abortion chain comes to Minnesota

Midwest Health Center for Women, an abortion facility located in downtown Minneapolis, has been taken over by a Texas abortion clinic chain called Whole Woman's Health. The new center, now called Whole Women's Health of the Twin Cities, opened on Feb. 14. It will continue to provide both RU486 chemical abortions and surgical abortions through 16 weeks of pregnancy.

Sign outside WWH clinic in Texas

Midwest Health Center performed 1,961 abortions in 2010, according to the Minnesota Department of Health. It was the third leading performer of abortions in Minnesota, behind Planned Parenthood and Meadowbrook Women's Clinic.

Whole Woman's Health has been investigated by Operation Rescue, which reports:

Whole Woman's Health recently made headlines in Texas when two of its clinics in Austin and McAllen, were caught during an undercover investigation by Operation Rescue illegally dumping the remains of aborted babies in open and overflowing trash dumpsters. Together with Stericycle, the chain's medical waste disposal company, the abortion clinics were fined a total of $83,000.

In addition, Operation Rescue filed complaints against several abortionists associated with Whole Woman's Health to the Texas Medical Board, resulting in eight of those abortionists facing Board discipline for numerous allegations, including the illegal dumping of private patient medical records, HIPAA violations, and violations of the Texas informed consent laws. Several WWH abortionists have previous disciplinary histories, including one who was responsible for a patient death.

Some of these revelations were covered by LifeNews.com and the Associated Press, and you can read about WWH's enthusiastic approach to abortion here.

The shoddy history of Whole Woman's Health highlights the need for abortion clinic licensing and inspections. Current MCCL-backed legislation would require abortion clinics to be licensed and allow for inspections.

MCCL News is available online

MCCL News is mailed to all MCCL members, but it is also available to subscribers online. The latest issue (Jan.-Feb. 2012) includes stories on the state legislative session, the March for Life (a recap with photos), the upcoming MCCL Student Day at the Capitol, the importance of pro-life involvement in politics and legislation, and more.

Become a member to access all issues of MCCL News online.

Women’s safety is focus of two pro-life bills introduced today

The following news release was issued today, Feb. 16, 2012.

ST. PAUL — Minnesota women would be provided greater safety under two measures introduced today at the State Capitol. A bill to ban "webcam abortions" and another to allow abortion facilities to be inspected have the strong support of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), the state's oldest and largest pro-life organization.

S.F. 1912 and H.F. 2341, authored by Sen. Paul Gazelka, R-Brainerd, and Rep. Joyce Peppin, R-Rogers, would stop dangerous webcam abortions by requiring that a physician be physically present during an abortion. Webcam abortions involve the RU486 abortion drug, administered via video conference with an abortion provider in another location. The doctor talks with the woman, then presses a button which opens a drawer to remotely dispense the drug. The doctor is never physically present to examine the woman for any problems such as a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy. Planned Parenthood began offering webcam abortions last year at its Rochester facility; women consult with a doctor in St. Paul.

The risks of RU486 can be severe: 14 women are known to have died in the U.S. after taking the drugs, according to the Food and Drug Administration. Canada has banned the abortion method due to safety concerns.

"Webcam abortions are highly cost-effective for abortion providers, but far too risky for women," said MCCL Legislative Associate Jordan Marie Harris. "As with any medical procedure, the safety of the patient must be the primary concern, not profit."

S.F. 1921 and H.F. 2340, authored by Sen. Claire Robling, R-Jordan, and Rep. Mary Liz Holberg, R-Lakeville, would require facilities that perform 10 or more abortions per month to be licensed. The state commissioner of health would establish rules necessary for licensure. The bill also authorizes the commissioner to perform inspections of abortion facilities as deemed necessary, with no prior notice required.

Minnesota licenses game farms, youth camps, nursing homes and veterinary medicine facilities, but not abortion providers, even though abortion is one of the most common medical procedures in the state. Health dangers have been uncovered at unlicensed abortion centers in cities outside Minnesota in recent years.

"For far too long, Minnesota's abortion industry has operated outside the jurisdiction of the Department of Health, and this has left women vulnerable," Harris said. "It is time that the state ensure the safety of women."

The unborn: Not 'living and breathing'?

Sometimes pro-choice advocates say that pro-lifers care only about the unborn (i.e., the human fetus or embryo) rather than "actual living, breathing human beings" (or variations on that phrase). Of course, pro-lifers do care about already-born human beings, and to suggest otherwise is an indefensible slander (and an ad hominem attack irrelevant to the ethics of abortion). But here I want to address the implication that the unborn is not "living" and "breathing."

The unborn is obviously living in a biological sense, exhibiting metabolism, cellular reproduction, reaction to stimuli, and rapid growth. Indeed, the unborn is not only living, but is a distinct, complete, self-integrating, self-developing organism, and a member of the human species. He or she (sex is determined from conception) is a living human being.

An actual living, respiring human being

Perhaps the pro-choice advocate means "living" in a different sense -- a social or moral one. On this view, perhaps, the unborn does not yet possess the qualities necessary for the kind of "life" that is deserving of moral respect and protection. But it seems misleading to use the term "living" in this way, since we commonly use that term in the biological sense to describe living plants, animals, insects, etc. In any case, one must explain what "living" in this moral/social sense actually means, and offer reasons to think that it serves as a valid criterion for having the right not to be intentionally killed. It is far from obvious that we may discriminate between members of the species Homo sapiens on the basis of age/development and acquired characteristics, permitting the killing of some but not others. (I argue against such a view here.)

What about breathing? Breathing as we usually think of it, using the lungs, does not begin until birth (or shortly after). But the biological process of respiration, involving the transfer of oxygen, begins long before birth. The means of respiration is different for human beings still in the womb, but the fact of respiration is the same. The late Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a prolific abortionist and co-founder of NARAL (before he famously changed his mind), explains:

[A]t the end of pregnancy, [the fetus/newborn child's] growth needs simply outstrip the ability of the placenta to supply food and oxygen, so the lungs and mouth must take over. The organism is put into a different physiological milieu -- and nothing more. It is like switching from AC to DC current; the energy connection changes, but the basic mechanics remain the same.

The change in the mode of respiration obviously does not change the kind of thing the unborn/newborn is (a living organism of the human species). No scientifically informed person would ever say so. Nor is it clear how such a change could possibly be relevant to whether someone has fundamental dignity and basic rights. Indeed, I have never seen anyone seriously argue that it is. A person who has become dependent on a medical ventilator, for example, is still a person who may not be killed without just cause.

So: The being killed by abortion is a living, respiring, fast-growing organism, a human being, a member of our species, like you and me, only at a much earlier stage of life. Defenders of abortion favor denying unborn human beings the kind of moral respect and legal protection that are owed to human beings at later developmental stages. They are free to make their case. But it simply will not do to claim that human beings in the womb are not "living and breathing."

NRLC: New Obama scam lays groundwork for future abortion mandate

Many people across the country — regardless of their religion or personal position on contraception — have condemned the Obama administration's recent decision to legally force Catholic employers to violate their consciences by paying for birth control practices to which they morally object. The administration's new "accommodation," announced today, does nothing to abate this government attack on religious liberty and the rights of conscience.

The accounting trick used in the revised birth control mandate actually lays a foundation for a future "abortion mandate," as the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) explains in a news release issued today.

In response to criticism of its recent regulation requiring coverage of FDA-approved birth control drugs and devices, the White House today announced a purported "compromise" under which insurance plans will be required to provide the coverage in all plans, without charging anything additional for it.

The administration's position is that insurers can be required to provide the coverage for "free" because birth control is less expensive than childbirth. ...

"President Obama today promulgated a scam that, if he is re-elected, will allow him to mandate that every health plan in America cover abortion on demand," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. "The same twisted logic will be applied: By ordering health plans to cover elective abortion, health plans would save the much higher costs of prenatal care, childbirth, and care for the baby — and under the Obama scam, if a procedure saves money, then that means that you're not really paying for it when the government mandates it."

By this form of doublespeak, one could say that the federal Medicaid program was not really "funding abortion" when it paid for 300,000 abortions a year (prior to adoption of the Hyde Amendment in 1976), because after all, every abortion that the government paid for also saved the government money.

The Obama "you must pay, but nobody pays" scam might also be applied to other "cost-cutting" mandates. Perhaps every health plan will be mandated to cover physician-assisted suicide, in states in which assisted suicide is legal. After all, each suicide would result in a net savings to the plan, and under the Obama scam, that means it is really free and nobody really pays for it.

Some journalists have wrongly reported that the Obamacare law contains language prohibiting the federal government from mandating that health plans cover abortions. This is erroneous. The law prevents the Secretary of Health and Human Services from including abortion in a list of federally mandated "essential health benefits." But the birth control mandate is based on an entirely different provision of the law, which allows the Secretary to mandate that all health plans cover any service that the Secretary places on a list of "preventive" services. There is nothing in the law to prevent the Secretary from placing abortion, assisted suicide, or any other additional services on the preventive services list, nor does the Secretary require the agreement of any other authority in the government to do so — except, perhaps, the president. ...

NRLC supports enactment of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (S. 1467, H.R. 1179), which would allow health providers to decline to provide abortions or other specific medical services on the basis of religious belief or moral convictions.

'Planned Parenthood took breast cancer victims as hostages'

Planned Parenthood's new abortion center in St. Paul

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, professors Robert P. George (Princeton) and O. Carter Snead (Notre Dame) discuss the controversy over the recent effort by Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a breast cancer charity, to withhold future grants from Planned Parenthood, the nation's #1 performer and promoter of elective abortion.

The reality is that Planned Parenthood—with annual revenues exceeding $1 billion—does little in the way of screening for breast cancer. But the organization is very much in the business of selling abortions—more than 300,000 in 2010, according to Planned Parenthood. At an average cost of $500, according to various sources including Planned Parenthood's website, that translates to about $164 million of revenue per year.

So how did Planned Parenthood and its loyal allies in politics and the media react to Komen's efforts to be neutral in the controversy over abortion?

Faced with even the tiniest depletion in the massive river of funds Planned Parenthood receives yearly, the behemoth mobilized its enormous cultural, media, financial and political apparatus to attack the Komen Foundation in the press, on TV and through social media.

The organization's allies demonized the charity, attempting to depict the nation's most prominent anti-breast cancer organization as a bedfellow of religious extremists. A Facebook page was set up to "Defund the Komen Foundation." In short, Planned Parenthood took breast-cancer victims as hostages.

In my earlier post, I offered five reasons why it makes little sense for Komen to entangle itself with Planned Parenthood. George and Snead expound on some key details:

Among Komen's reasons for discontinuing grants to Planned Parenthood was its policy of avoiding entanglements with entities under government investigation. Planned Parenthood has been and is under congressional and criminal investigation (by attorneys general, local prosecutors and various regulatory agencies in Arizona, Indiana, Alabama, Kansas and Texas) for allegations including failure to report criminal child sex abuse, misuse of health-care and family-planning funds, and failure to comply with parental-involvement laws regarding abortions.

Planned Parenthood is very far from the uncontroversial organization the Susan G. Komen Foundation aspires to be. According to its most recent annual report, for 2010, Planned Parenthood sells abortions to nine out of every 10 pregnant women who come to its clinics. And it's known throughout the country as an implacable and aggressive opponent of any meaningful restrictions on deliberate feticide.

Planned Parenthood has spent millions fighting even those legislative initiatives that command extremely wide public support, such as laws requiring parental notification and informed consent for abortions, and those banning late-term abortions when the child developing in the womb is fully viable. Planned Parenthood even opposes a bill recently introduced in Congress to ban abortions for the purpose of sex selection.

It is easy to see why Komen might not wish to be associated with Planned Parenthood. Fighting breast cancer is something all Americans can and do agree on; promoting and performing abortions is something that divides us bitterly.

Finally, George and Snead track Planned Parenthood's recent history of ruthless money-grubbing:

While Planned Parenthood's target in the Komen case was new, its tactics are not. In the past two years, we have seen the abortion giant (and the politicians it funds) hold for ransom a diverse array of hostages.

In 2010, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress risked and narrowly averted the rejection of their signature health-care law in order to block the inclusion of provisions (such as the 1970s Hyde Amendment) that prevent federal abortion funding. At the 11th hour, a handful of "pro-life" Democrats capitulated, giving Mr. Obama and Planned Parenthood their victory.

Last year, in April, Mr. Obama risked a government shutdown over language in a resolution that would have defunded Planned Parenthood at the federal level. At the last moment, congressional Republicans gave way and allowed the federal money to keep flowing.

Also in 2011, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services threatened to withhold billions of dollars in Medicaid funds from those states such as Indiana that prohibit state funding of Planned Parenthood and other entities that provide elective abortions. Planned Parenthood strongly opposed Indiana's attempt to cut off its funding and celebrated the federal government's intervention. Indiana is currently litigating the matter in federal court. ...

Breast-cancer victims are only the latest hostages taken by Planned Parenthood. Unless the organization is finally held to account, they will surely not be the last.

Other commentators have also written thoughtfully and insightfully on the Komen/Planned Parenthood controversy, including Kathryn Jean Lopez, Mona Charen, Ross Douthat, Jennifer Rubin, Mark Steyn and Kathleen Parker.

Former clinic manager: Webcam abortions in Iowa were about money

In the Washington Times, Sue Thayer, a former manager of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Iowa, writes about the introduction of "webcam abortions" (also called "telemed" abortions) in her state.

In 1991, I began working at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Storm Lake, Iowa -- first as a family planning assistant, then as a manager. I had been drawn there, as other ex-employees will attest to, by my desire to help low-income women access affordable health care. In my mind, Planned Parenthood was the "trusted friend" it claimed to be, educating and providing women with effective contraceptives so that abortion could be avoided. My rationale was strengthened by the fact that the Planned Parenthood clinic where I worked provided only family planning services.

This all changed in 2008, when Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa (now known as Planned Parenthood of the Heartland) required our clinic to begin "telemed abortions." Telemed abortion is the practice by which an abortion doctor from a remote location simply presses a button, which opens a drawer containing the dangerous abortion pill, after a brief teleconference call with the woman.

Telemed abortion doesn't only result in the death of an unborn child; it strips women of their dignity by denying them the courtesy of an in-person visit from a doctor concerned for their health and well-being. It risks their lives by sending them away with no support and a drug that has led to massive bleeding and hemorrhaging, infection and even death.

So what does Planned Parenthood, the "trusted friend of women," love so much about telemed abortions? Low overhead costs.

My superiors justified telemed abortions, lauding the financial benefits of not having to worry about or pay for specialized equipment, staff and a traveling physician -- all required with surgical abortions. ...

The final veil had been lifted and Planned Parenthood's big lie was exposed: Planned Parenthood is not about helping women access health care. Instead, it is about making money. And abortion is its moneymaker. Telemed abortion is its mega moneymaker.

Read the entirety of Thayer's piece here.

Last summer, Planned Parenthood expanded webcam abortions into Minnesota. MCCL supports legislation (not yet introduced in the Minnesota Legislature) to ban webcam abortions in our state.

Attend your precinct caucus on Tuesday, Feb. 7

Participants at the 2012 MCCL March for Life call for laws to protect human life.

Tomorrow are Minnesota's precinct caucuses. Republicans, of course, will get to vote for one of the Republican presidential candidates to challenge President Obama, but members of both major political parties will select delegates and help shape the party platform. From an MCCL email today:

The precinct caucus is the most important political event of every two years for pro-lifers. Why? Pro-life laws will not be enacted unless pro-lifers are active in grassroots politics. Only then will Minnesota's pro-life majority win at the polls.

Precinct caucuses will be held Tuesday, Feb. 7, by Minnesota's Republican and Democratic-Farmer-Labor parties. We urge you to attend your caucus to help elect pro-life delegates and to propose pro-life resolutions. Only a small percentage of citizens attend precinct caucuses, which means your single vote profoundly impacts public policy.

Electing pro-life delegates and alternates is your first priority at your precinct caucus. We urge you to support a pro-life platform for your party by becoming a delegate to your district or county convention.

Resolutions passed at the precinct level can become part of your party's state platform. Sample pro-life resolutions can be found at the MCCL website. Any caucus participant may propose a resolution. Be sure to bring one or more written copies with you.

Find your precinct caucus location at the Minnesota Secretary of State's website — click on "Caucus Finder."

All precinct caucuses begin at 7 p.m. Please dedicate an hour or two of your time to uphold the right to life by attending your caucus on Tuesday!

Why Komen should not fund Planned Parenthood

A few days ago, we learned that Susan G. Komen for the Cure had decided to stop providing grants to Planned Parenthood and its affiliates. Planned Parenthood responded in a classless and threatening fashion, breaking the story to the media, publicly attacking Komen and raising lots and lots of money on the absurd premise that women would die because of Komen's decision. Now Komen has issued a statement that some interpret as a reversal of its new policy (it is not clear that it is).

Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life, responds:

Shortly after news broke earlier this week that Komen was withdrawing future grant funding to Planned Parenthood and its affiliates, the abortion giant and its allies began a shrill online campaign to bring Komen to its knees by bullying the organization into submission.

Any decision to provide future grants approved for Planned Parenthood, which boasts a $1.1 billion budget, would be extremely and sadly misguided. Any grants to Planned Parenthood would be detrimental to women and their unborn children. Even in their own press statements, Planned Parenthood states that they refer for mammograms, an indication they don't perform them.

Planned Parenthood is not in the business of fighting breast cancer, they're in the business of performing abortions to the tune of more than 300,000 a year, which accounts for at least one-third of Planned Parenthood's nongovernmental clinic income. In fact, Planned Parenthood has announced that all of their affiliates will be required to perform abortions.

National Right to Life strongly urges Susan G. Komen for the Cure and all cancer research organizations to approve no future funding to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest chain of abortion clinics. Right-to-life supporters do not want their donations for fighting cancer to go to organizations that perform abortions.

Indeed, Komen should not fund Planned Parenthood, for a variety of reasons. First, though Komen's grants are intended for breast exams and services, money given to Planned Parenthood is fungible and serves to support the other work (the main work) of the nation's leading performer and promoter of abortions. Statistics show that the more money Planned Parenthood receives, the (many) more abortions it performs. To support Planned Parenthood is to support the large-scale (about one-third of a million each year) killing of innocent human beings by abortion. And that, ironically, contradicts the same principle of human dignity that grounds Komen's efforts to help women and end the scourge of breast cancer.

Second, even if Komen's leaders have no qualms about the killing of abortion, it makes little sense to entangle a non-political breast cancer charity with the abortion industry. Many, many people who care deeply about fighting breast cancer cannot in good conscience support Komen if the group supports Planned Parenthood. Abortion advocates say the Komen decision to cut off funds was a "politicizing" of the issue of women's health. On the contrary: Deciding to fund a hyper-political, extremely-controversial abortion business in the first place was a politicizing of Komen's work. Komen needs to get out.

Third, Planned Parenthood doesn't even offer mammograms -- it refers women to other places that do offer mammograms. Does it not make more sense for Komen to focus valuable breast cancer funds on those other providers that offer real breast health services? Nancy Brinker, founder and CEO of Komen, said (in explaining the cut-off decision) that Komen had developed better funding criteria that will prioritize "higher impact programs." She explained: "Wherever possible, we want to grant to the provider that is actually providing the lifesaving mammogram." That rules out Planned Parenthood. To best advance the cause of combating breast cancer, money should be more effectively spent.

Abortion advocates responded as if the Komen decision was a decision to stop funding breast-related health care. No. The Komen decision was to continue spending the same money, but to do it more wisely for the benefit of women.

Fourth, Planned Parenthood, a billion-dollar "non-profit," cannot be said to "need" any funding. One would not know it from the ridiculously over-the-top reactions to the defunding, but Komen gave the group less than $700,000 per year to pay for about 4 percent of Planned Parenthood's (non-mammogram) breast exams. Planned Parenthood made up that lost money in about a day of fundraising. And even if it did lack funds for breast exams and referrals, it could simply rearrange its priorities; for instance, it could have a less-obsessive focus on providing and promoting elective abortion.

Finally, what does Planned Parenthood's response to the Komen decision reveal about the abortion industry leader? Planned Parenthood apparently feels entitled to a private charity's money. When that charity decided to stop giving, Planned Parenthood, rather than being grateful for all it had been given, chose to insult and attack. What other recipient of grant money behaves like that? James Taranto puts it this way:

Planned Parenthood's bitter campaign against Komen ... 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. ... Thus smart prospective donors -- especially ones that are apolitical, like Komen -- are getting the message that supporting Planned Parenthood is a trap. Give once, and you will give again -- or else you will pay.

Many abortion advocates called Komen names, assaulted its leaders' character, and urged a boycott. Some even hacked the Komen website. And sadly, U.S. Sens. from Minnesota Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken both joined the call for Komen to reinstate funding of Planned Parenthood.

Daniel Foster at National Review Online writes:

Look, the beauty of free speech is that, if you're inclined to do so, you can write a check to PP in an act of solidarity, or write a check to Komen as an expression of moral approval. That's all fine. But there'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. If it was made because PP is controversial and under congressional "investigation," that's a perfectly valid reason for an organization to disentangle itself. If it was made because they judged that money would have a greater impact if directed toward the provision of actual mammograms and not just clinical screenings, that makes sense. And if the decision was made because a controlling faction at Komen feels a moral disgust toward the dismemberment of viable fetuses and would rather not subsidize an outfit that does that 300,000 times a year -- well that's fine, too. None of those rationales justifies the outrageous non-sequiturs about how Komen "hates poor women."

Imagine I volunteered to run a cub scout troop, and for years, when the annual soapbox derby came near, I knew I could count on Joe's Deli as good for a hundred dollar donation. If one year Old Man Joe decided he didn't want to donate any more -- because he didn't like the design of our racer, or because he thought his hundred bucks was better spent on a little league team, or because he disapproved of the scouts' stance on gays -- what on earth would justify me going on public access TV to grill Old Man Joe on why he hates kids? What would justify me hacking the Joe's Deli web site or maliciously editing Old Man Joe's Wikipedia page? What would justify me goading a handful of my city councilmen into standing up at the next town meeting and publicly calling on Old Man Joe to reinstate his donation?

Nothing. Nothing would justify that. Nothing at all.

The Komen decision was hardly a financial blow to Planned Parenthood. So why the excessive, outrageous, character-revealing response? "Komen's decision [was] an important symbolic blow to Planned Parenthood, which likes to say its mission is about more than performing abortions and providing contraception," notes the Weekly Standard's John McCormack. "Planned Parenthood has tried to diversify its portfolio so it isn't publicly identified and isolated as simply the biggest part of the abortion industry. [Without the Komen grants,] Planned Parenthood [would] no longer be able to rely on the Komen foundation to help it pretend it is something that it is not."

A decision by a mainstream charity to steer clear of Planned Parenthood could reinforce a (correct) perception of Planned Parenthood as a controversial mega-abortion business. The mega-abortion business doesn't want that. (Hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are at stake.) So Planned Planned turns the tables, viciously tearing down its former partner and pounding a false narrative about the "politicization" of women's health and the "lifesaving work" of Planned Parenthood clinics.

No one should be fooled.

You can contact Komen at news@komen.org to politely urge the breast cancer charity to not provide any future grants to Planned Parenthood.