Live Action Applauds Komen Defunding of Planned Parenthood; Cites Investigations

In response to the news today that the Susan G Komen foundation has ended their financial grant contributions of nearly $700,000 annually to abortion chain Planned Parenthood, Live Action President Lila Rose made the following statement:

“We applaud Susan G. Komen for its pro-woman decision to end their financial support of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s biggest abortion chain. After a slew of scandals at Planned Parenthood, and the opening of a Congressional investigation, Komen is wise to distance itself from the corrupt abortion giant. In just the last year, Live Action’s undercover footage revealed Planned Parenthood workers in 7 clinics aiding and abetting the sex trafficking of young girls, and Planned Parenthood falsely claiming they provide mammograms to women. In reality, our undercover investigation revealed that not a single Planned Parenthood clinic even has the equipment to do a mammogram. Komen realizes that their money to detect, prevent, and cure breast cancer is better spent elsewhere.

“Planned Parenthood misleads women and the public about the services they provide; but it is clear that behind a thin veneer of “preventative services,” their real focus is abortion. In just the last year, Planned Parenthood was the leading abortion chain in the world, committing over 300,000 abortions, which now account for over 40% of its clinic revenue. Together, we stand with Komen and reject Planned Parenthood’s corruption and extreme abortion-first ideology.”

To see the video exposing the false mammogram claim made by Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards, visit:
http://liveaction.org/blog/planned-parenthood-ceos-false-mammogram-claim-exposed/

To see the videos that exposed Planned Parenthood’s cover-up of child sex-trafficking, visit:
http://liveaction.org/traffick

To learn more about Live Action, visit: liveaction.org

To interview Lila Rose, please contact: Kate Bryan, (323) 454-3304, media@liveaction.org

###

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_EVNASOYNVLM7V67PGKLCFYJG5A Destrecht

    Just read the super biased NPR story (anti-choice was a term thrown around) And there are some angry people commenting. I’m smiling, but it’s sad all the anger from the pro-abortion crowd.

    • Anonymous

      Yea NPR is super for abortion.

    • Cosmic Muffin

      Anti-choice. Explain why you should be called pro-choice.

  • Guest

    Awesome. I read an ad once of Susan G. Komen’s that stated “Every 60 seconds a woman dies of breast cancer”. I wanted to add that every OTHER second a woman dies of abortion and yet the Komen foundation supported PP.
    I’m glad I no longer have to read labels in an attempt to keep $$ away from the Komen foundation.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carole-Miles/100001792850223 Carole Miles

      Women DON’T die from abortions because of PP and Roe v Wade! Where in the world do you people get this stuff. A woman is raped every 13 seconds. Having an abortion is a lot less dangerous than childbirth, something that should be taught in the “counseling” that states insist on. It’s the lies you people pass on that make me sick. I call it “lying for Jesus,” and I wouldn’t allow any of you on my property or near my family. 

      • Anonymous

        ??? Childbirth is a completely natural process, something the female body is created to do. I don’t get where people get this whole “abortion is less dangerous than childbirth” mantra. It’s not scientific fact. In fact, the study that recently said that was lambasted by doctors who had proof otherwise. The study took the numbers of deaths by abortions given by the Guttmacher Institute, who only really reports on numbers by Planned Parenthood, and are not based on any real medical study. In fact, their business is Planned Parenthood, so they have a vested interest in reporting the numbers as lower. The report claims that childbirth is more dangerous purely because the number of childbirth deaths is higher than abortion deaths. They only compared the numbers, and didn’t take anything else into consideration. Well, if there were as many abortions as there are live births, then that would pass as appropriate. However, the number of abortions is significantly lower than the number of live births, and therefore a ratio would be more appropriate (some number for every 1000 or so procedures, or a certain percentage of procedures ending in death). They also didn’t take into consideration the amount of complications from abortion that cause death later on in a woman’s life, such as placenta previa from a lacerated uterus, or gangrene from the abortionist leaving fetal tissue inside the women. Furthermore, deaths during pregnancy are always put under “maternal mortality” in the CDC’s database, even if the cause was a car accident, murder, or something that was not due to the pregnancy or childbirth. Abortion deaths are also listed as such, and not under “abortion”. The only ones listed under abortion are the cases in which the death certificates state abortion as the main cause. When abortion is the underlying cause, meaning abortion caused cervical lacerations, uterine perforations, etc., the deaths are listed under “maternal mortality”, not abortion. Therefore, very few abortion deaths are reported as such, and abortion deaths are counted toward maternal mortality.

        Truthfully, maternal mortality is lowest in countries where abortion is illegal, and higher in countries where abortion is more prevalent. Ireland, Chile, Sri Lanka, and Mauritius, where abortion is illegal, have the lowest maternal mortality rates in their respective continents. Meanwhile, Ethiopia, Guyana, and Nepal, the countries with the most liberal abortion laws in their respective continents, have the highest maternal mortality rate in those continents. According to a study from Chile, it’s maternal mortality rate was highest when abortion was legal, and dropped significantly when abortion was outlawed. A study in Poland showed the same: Maternal mortality was highest when abortion was legal, and dropped significantly upon outlawing it.

        In other words, the recent study does not back up your outlandish claim. However, here are some studies that have shown the abortion mortality rate to be higher:

        The deVeber Institute, “Women’s Health after Abortion: The Medical and Psychological Evidence.” April 2002.

        Gissler, M, et.al., “Pregnancy associated deaths in Finland 1987-1994″, Acta Obsetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 76:651-657 (1997).

        Gissler, M., et.al., “Suicides after pregnancy in Finland: 1987-1994: register linkage study.”  British Medical Journal 313:1431-34, (1996).

        Gissler M, Berg C, Bouvier-Colle MH, Buekens P. Pregnancy-associated mortality after birth, spontaneous abortion or induced abortion in Finland, 1987-2000. Am J Ob Gyn 2004; 190:422-427.

        Reardon DC, Ney PG, Scheuren F, Cougle J, Coleman PK, Strahan TW. Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study of low income women. South Med J 2002 Aug;95(8):834-41.

        Reardon DC, Strahan TW, Thorp JM, Shuping MW. “Deaths Associated with Abortion Compared to Childbirth – Review of Data & Implications” Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy, 2004.

        “Most Mother, Child Mortality Seen in Small High-Risk Group,” Ob Gyn News, 15 May 1981, quoted in Saltenberger, 52.

        M. Lanska, D. Lanska and A. Rimm, “Mortality From Abortion and Childbirth,”(letter), JAMA, 15 July 1983, 361- 362.

        Hausmann R, Tyson LD, Zahidi S, “The Global Gender Gap Report”, World Economic Forum, 2009.

      • Anonymous

         Oh, and legalizing a procedure does not make it safer. The term “back alley” refers to entering the doctors office from the alley entrance, so as not to draw attention from the regular patients that came through the front entrance. The day after abortion was legalized, those same doctors just put up signs saying, “Abortions done here!” They didn’t do anything different. It just made their practices legal. Therefore, Roe v. Wade did nothing to make them safer.

        I don’t know where you get the idea that legalization makes something safer, but the fact is that it doesn’t. Making medical marijuana legal in the state of California hasn’t made that any safer. Making all drugs legal in the Netherlands hasn’t made those safer. Making prostitution legal anywhere has never made that safer. Just because something is legal does not make it safe.

        Furthermore, here are a few quotes from former Planned Parenthood
        Medical Director Mary S. Calderone, 14 years prior to Roe v. Wade:
        “In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole
        country attributed to abortion of any kind.” (Meaning from either surgical abortion or spontaneous abortion, a.k.a. miscarriage)
        “In New York City in 1921 there were 144 abortion
        deaths, in 1951 there were only 15.”On how abortion deaths were being reduced without legalization.

        “First, chemotherapy and antibiotics have come
        in, benefitting all surgical procedures as well as abortion. Second, and
        even more important, the [1955 Planned Parenthood Conference on Induced
        Abortion] estimated that 90 per cent of all illegal abortions are presently
        being done by physicians.”Call them what you will, abortionists or anything
        else, they are still physicians, trained as such; and many of them are
        in good standing in their communities. They must do a pretty good job if
        the death rate is as low as it is.”Dr. Mary Calderone, “Illegal
        Abortion as a Public Health Problem,” American Journal of Public Health, July, 1960, (v. 50 no. 7), pages
        948 – 954.

        In other words, it wasn’t Planned Parenthood or Roe v. Wade that made abortion safe, it was chemotherapy, antibiotics, and the fact that abortions were being done by doctors – the same ones today being called “back alley butchers”.

  • http://www.facebook.com/RachelElessar Rachel Ford

    Of course you guys are celebrating. Granted, the money had nothing to do with abortion — it only went to cancer screening. Granted, PP has infrastructure that no other organization has in place to help women find health care. Granted, many women (and men) depend on PP for their reproductive health — far beyond “abortion”. Granted, this defunding will translate into more women dying of cancer. But, hey, you hate PP, so you score a political victory! Yay!

    The irony, of course, is that you people call yourselves pro-life, and yet applaud a decision that will only lead to the deaths of living, breathing women; but they’re already outside of a womb, so they can die of cancer and you can feel great about your moral crusade. Once again, you show us what you mean when you say “pro-life”.

    • http://twitter.com/MarauderTheSN Marauder

      Planned Parenthood never did mammograms in the first place. As for “helping women find health care,” it’s not exactly hard to find out where you can get a mammogram.

      • http://www.facebook.com/RachelElessar Rachel Ford

        No, but it’s hard to pay for it when you can’t afford it. That’s what PP does — they provide some services and, with the Komen grants, pay for women who cannot afford it to get the rest done elsewhere.  That’s why PP is essential — they are the “infrastructure” that connects women with health care. If you care about “life”, that’s a good thing. If you don’t, well, you don’t…

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jennifer-Sheffield/584786785 Jennifer Sheffield

          Now, the money can just go DIRECTLY to those places that do the actual health care. There is no need for a middle man. especially one that prides itself on baby murder. Why is there a need to pay PP to find a dr. for a woman? That makes no sense. Also, I keep hearing pro-choice people say how the funding “isn’t going towards abortions” … if the money is going to an organization that does abortions, then it is funding the abortions in one way or another. Maybe not directly, but indirectly.
          Bravo to Komen for FINALLY making the right move for women!

          • http://www.facebook.com/RachelElessar Rachel Ford

            Except…how do the women who need free mammograms know where to go to get a free mammogram? How do groups like Komen figure out how much money to give to each clinic in each area, etc.? That’s the thing! They do not have the resources to figure all of that out; they are the money raisers. They don’t have the infrastructure OR the patient contact to know where to send women. (Not to mention that PP does in fact do some exams.)
            And how on god’s green earth does giving money for a specific non-abortion cause “indirectly” give money for abortions? It doesn’t, any more than giving a friend who is headed to the store money to pick something up for you is enriching the friend. PP has the resources and infrastructure in place to maximize the number of women getting health care. Komen (or anyone else, for that matter) does not.
            This is a move that will result in women dying. Simple as that.

          • shells

            My guess those happy with this poor political-based decision are women that have insurance and have never had to try and find a free or low-cost clinc to help them with a woman’s health issue.  Easy to speak when you aren’t in the situation.  Now that Komen has made it known they are a polical organization rather than a fundraising organization for research…They will no longer be recieving my “contributions”.

          • anna powers

            Ms Ford – Please do some research.  I have been without insurance not infrequently; been broke, pregnant, post-partum, had infections, etc.  and it was never hard to find the kind of medical care you are talking about.  There is no reason Komen cannot give money to another neighborhood health clinic, and preferably one who can actually DO A MAMMOGRAM.  The idea that anyone is going to suffer from this withdrawal of funds is absurd.

          • http://www.facebook.com/RachelElessar Rachel Ford

            I’m glad you were able to find help, Anna, but the fact of the matter is that many women depend on PP — or they would go without help. Period.
            Are you really suggesting, btw, that Komen scout out all the clinics in all the areas that PP serves and attempt to set up a means of allocating funds such that no clinic ends up with too much money, and no clinic ends up with too little? Do you really think that’s the best way for them to use their resources — particularly when there is an organization already in place that can do that (because, instead of giving money in advance, they pay the bills)? Or would you propose that Komen sets up a sort of billing system by which, after scouting out all of these clinics, finding which ones fit their needs, which ones would be willing to work with them, etc., they then have the clinics bill them directly? Do you have any idea how much overhead you would be adding to Komen? Do you have any idea how much less money would go toward preventing cancer? The fact is that many, many women (and men) depend on PP, and visit it regularly for their reproductive health needs; PP also has the locations, the knowledge and manpower to do what needs to be done. They know the neighborhoods, they know the clinics in the areas, they know the patients. Komen cannot compete with that. So it is not only not absurd, but it is absolutely true that people will suffer from this. Women. Women who would have had preventative care now will not. Which means that those whose cancer might have been caught beforehand will now go with it undiagnosed. Yeah, that’s a job well done….

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000533014784 Jaime Bain Von Rader

            May I suggest that Planned Parenthood continue to help women find a provider of free mammograms? That’s what they did already, since there is not a single PP clinic IN THIS COUNTRY that has mammogram equipment. Why do they need to be a middle-man for Komen’s money? If PP truly cares about women’s health, they will shrug this “defunding” off and continue to provide whatever level of help they already gave to needy women.

          • http://www.facebook.com/RachelElessar Rachel Ford

            Except that they can’t pay for mammograms for women who need them…which is what they did with Komen’s money…

          • Anonymous

            Everyone still gets a free yellow pages every year. They can look in that. Or they can go to the library and look up where to get a mammogram online. Or they can get a referral from the free clinic. Not having funds doesn’t mean that Planned Parenthood can’t give out the information over the phone for free.

            Do you really think women don’t know how to find the information and services they need? That Planned Parenthood is the be-all, end-all of women’s health care? Get real. Seriously, you accuse us  of putting women back in the dark ages when we want to help women without resources, yet here you are asserting that women are helpless and brainless without Planned Parenthood, that even a multi-million dollar, national organization like Susan G. Komen for the Cure is even helpless without them.

            Sorry, I’m usually not so snooty. I just think it’s rather hypocritical of you to argue such a thing.

            Where does Komen get the information on where to send women for mammograms? They get the information from applications sent in to their Research and Grants program. Planned Parenthood does not always apply. In fact, SGK has never given to PP of San Diego, even though they exist. So if only PP had the information that SGK needs, then why would SGK skip over giving funds to the local branch? It’s because we don’t need Planned Parenthood. They exist, yes, but we have much better options, such as Scripps, Sharp, and Patient Navigation. I’m sure that many other areas have similar organizations, such as university hospitals, religiously affiliated medical centers, and the like. Planned Parenthood just isn’t needed, and that’s the cold, hard truth.

          • Oedipa Mossmoon

            Yellow pages. Really? I’d re-consider using that argument in public. Or better yet, pitch it to Mssr. Romney. He likes the ones that sound really weird and a little callous.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PEB7IIHS4G2C6KRXZSNVKWTW7I I had my beans

      No Rachel…you have your facts wrong. 

  • Cf02748

    I am pro-choice, I personally believe that abortion is wrong but women should have the choice.  I think they should be given options and if this is all that works, then fine.  I DO NOT think abortion should be used as BIRTH CONTROL, you can get that anywhere.  I think there should be limits on the reasons for an abortion and that the women should be urged toward adoption.  Again, that is my opinion and that abortion should be the last choice.  

    • Andy

      What if I said “I am pro-choice, I personally believe that killing pets is wrong, but people should have the option to kill their pets.” ? or “I believe slavery is wrong, but people should have the right to own slaves” ?

    • bubbalouwee

      Do you feel someone should have the right to kill their spouse if the relationship doesn’t work out.  Using your logic, something like, personally I am opposed to killing one’s spouse, but they should have the option to put a bullet through their spouse’s head and that is fine because they should have options.  God have mercy on us.  How can people get so brainwashed that human life has virtually no value?  Human life is precious.  It is not a commodity that can traded and disposed of at will because people desire options.   Killing human beings is murder.  It is murder to kill someone that is 85, it is murder to kill someone 62, or 48, or 31, or 22, or 17, or an 11 year old child, a 2 year old infant, a 1 week old infant,  or a 7 month preborn, or a 3 month old preborn, or a 6 week old preborn, or a 3 week old preborn, or a 1 day old preborn.  All are humans at different stages of development.  You and I were at one time preborn humans.  It is a very necessary part of life in the process of advancing in human development.   

  • Mahi Amerino

    Awesome! END $$ for planned parenthood!

  • Guest

    PRAISE THE LORD!! ONE STEP CLOSER IN OUR FIGHT FOR THE UNBORN! I applaud her brave and honorable decision and pray for all to open their hearts and come to the truth!!

  • Jenny B.

    Although this seems like good news, I ask that all pro-lifers do further research into what Susan G. Komen actually said. They said they were only temporarily stopping funding during the investigation but if PP is cleared they will start giving them money again.  They also stated that they maintain a good relationship with PP. So please, congratulate them on this initial move but wait before donating money to them. I’m attaching a link to a good article that speaks on this matter.

    http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/120201/index.htm

    • Oedipa Mossmoon

      Cleared from what? A House of Representatives hearing? Rep. Stearns’ little dog and pony show? That’s a pretty low bar.

      In any event, I get your point. The Komen CEO was just on with Andrea Mitchell saying PP “could be eligible” for the next cycle of grants.

  • Ilovelife

    Susan G. Koman should never have been associated with Planned Parenthood! An organization that focuses their services on life(SGK) has no business being connected in any way with one(PP) that mainly focuses their services on death. I’m glad SGK saw the light.

  • Guest

    Dear Susan Komen: Thank you for cutting off funding to cancer screening programs in order to prove that you are pro-life.

  • Aimeegail

    Has Live Action ever considered doing a project in Eugene, Oregon? There is significant human trafficking in this city. Specifically, of young women in the sex industry. There are a few Planned Parenthood clinics here and I wouldn’t be surprised if they knowingly serve many of these young women.
    I have heard rumors that our mayor is unwilling to fight the HT because it brings in business.