The media bought Planned Parenthood’s public relations campaign hook, line and sinker. Planned Parenthood argued that Komen’s decision to stop funding was “political.” This was the way most media outlets framed the entire story. But logic dictates that it’s not more political to stop funding Planned Parenthood than it is to keep funding it.

We’re talking about the country’s largest abortion provider, an organization that performs 330,000 abortions a year. According to Gallup polls from recent years, about half the American population identifies as pro-life while half identify as pro-choice. If you don’t have a sense for how controversial abortion is, you simply shouldn’t be in journalism.

Planned Parenthood receives nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer funds, including from Medicaid payments. Along with its political arm, it spent at least $1.7 million on lobbying at the federal level last year. Its political expenditures for the 2012 cycle have swung 100% for Democrats and against Republicans. Its political web site ranks a series of Republicans as “chumps.”

The notion that such a huge partisan player could be characterized as apolitical is laughable.

Read the rest here.

I don’t think he realizes it, but this statement reveals as much about Rosen as it does about Komen. For pro-choicers, perhaps, the Komen foundation was not viewed as a political organization before they defunded Planned Parenthood. But that is not the point of view of pro-lifers. Planned Parenthood is the main engine for abortion in the United States. For prolifers, Komen became political when it began its affiliation with Planned Parenthood, not when it attempted to end it. Prolifers have been protesting Komen for years. Prolifers, however, do not have allies in the national media, so their outrage has passed by unnoticed in the national media.

So when did Komen become “political”? Any rational observer would have to conclude that Komen began its involvement with abortion politics the moment it decided to issue grants to Planned Parenthood. Yet Americans have by and large been ignorant of this. That says as much about the media’s own politics as it does about Komen’s.

By the way, if you’re not signed up for Mohler’s daily podcast “The Briefing,” you need to be.

What makes the bias so galling, however, is the inability of those reporters to be self-conscious of their own presuppositions in their reporting. The last two weeks of coverage about the two biggest abortion stories of the year has been particularly galling.

First, there is the matter of President Obama’s recent decision to force religious groups to pay for abortions. The decision has hardly registered in the national media except when GOP candidates bring it up on the trail. The national media have largely relegated it as an archane discussion about birth control without reporting that some of these “birth control” methods cause abortions.

Second, there is the matter of the Komen foundation’s recent attempt to cut ties with Planned Parenthood. Again, the national media has treated Planned Parenthood as if there were a national consensus of support for the largest provider of abortions in America (about 300,000 annually). Yet nothing could be further from the truth. Americans remain deeply divided on the issue of abortion, though a majority of Americans believe abortion rights should be more limited than they are now. But you wouldn’t know any of that if you have been watching “straight” news reporters dressing down the Komen foundation last week. In my view, Andrea Mitchell’s interview with Nancy Brinker last week was the most egregious (see below).

Ross Douthat voices the frustration that many pro-lifers have felt over the last couple of weeks. His column on “The Media’s Abortion Blinders” is one of the few times you’ll read an acknowledgement of liberal media bias from the Old Gray Lady. He writes:

From the nightly news shows to print and online media, the coverage’s tone alternated between wonder and outrage — wonder that anyone could possibly find Planned Parenthood even remotely controversial and outrage that the Komen foundation had “politicized” the cause of women’s health.

“That ubiquitous pink ribbon … is sporting a black eye today,” Claire Shipman announced on ABC News Thursday, while Diane Sawyer nodded along. On MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell dressed down the Komen foundation’s founder, Nancy Brinker: “I have to tell you,” Mitchell said, “this is shocking to a lot of your longtime supporters. … How could this have taken place?” In story after story, journalists explicitly passed judgment on Komen for creating a controversy where none need ever have existed.

Conservative complaints about media bias are sometimes overdrawn. But on the abortion issue, the press’s prejudices are often absolute, its biases blatant and its blinders impenetrable. In many newsrooms and television studios across the country, Planned Parenthood is regarded as the equivalent of, well, the Komen foundation: an apolitical, high-minded and humanitarian institution whose work no rational person — and certainly no self-respecting woman — could possibly question or oppose.

But of course millions of Americans — including, yes, millions of American women — do oppose Planned Parenthood. They oppose the 300,000-plus abortions it performs every year (making it the largest abortion provider in the country), and they oppose its tireless opposition to even modest limits on abortion.

Pro-lifers are not interested only in changing the law, but also in changing hearts and minds. The culture of death knows that they must keep their death-mills in the dark and covered in euphemism. They are enabled in this effort by a national media that is flush with reporters like Andrea Mitchell who apparently believe that funding Planned Parenthood is completely uncontroversial.

If Americans actually saw what goes on every day inside Planned Parenthood, support for abortion rights (and Planned Parenthood) would drop precipitously in this country. Even though the national media by and large conceals the truth of abortion, the possibility for exposing it is now more possible than ever because of the internet and social media. And that is good news, even though the national media is still chasing its own tail on this issue.

In my piece that I wrote Friday for my website and the Baptist Press, I questioned whether or not Komen has really reversed its decision to defund Planned Parenthood. After reading headlines all day reporting definitively that Komen had caved, I wondered if I was the only one seeing that Komen had left the door open to deny future funds to Planned Parenthood.

After doing some research this evening, I found that I am not alone. In fact, both liberal and conservative writers have noticed that Komen may have given an apology but not a reversal. This observation seems to be confirmed by CEO Nancy Brinker’s public statements along with other remarks from Board members and executives at Komen. Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek has provided a nice round-up of these statements. Here are the excerpts you need to consider:

From The Huffington Post:

To be clear, Komen’s apology is not a promise to renew Planned Parenthood grants. It’s a promise to “continue to fund existing grants” to the organization — which it was already planning on doing — and to make it eligible for future grants. At no point in the press release does Brinker promise that Komen will renew grants to Planned Parenthood.

Will Neville writes at the abortion rights site RH Reality Check:

From the beginning, the Foundation has been clear that no current grants will be affected. As such, this is NOT a reversal of any kind.

Planned Parenthood will remain “eligible” for future grants, but the Komen Foundation has made no commitment to continue funding or to preserve its relationship with Planned Parenthood in years to come…

Whether the Komen Foundation’s statement does in fact signal a reversal of its policy towards Planned Parenthood remains to be seen. It is entirely possible that they intend to fund Planned Parenthood cancer screening services in the future, and we hope they do. It is equally possible that this is simply a public relations move designed to diffuse a lucrative brand from spiraling out of control – and the Komen Foundation will quietly reject future grant proposals from Planned Parenthood once they are out of the media spotlight.

A Washington Post reporter snagged an interview with Komen board member John Raffaelli. Note Raffaelli’s careful parsing of words:

I asked Komen board member John Raffaelli to respond to those who are now saying that the announcement doesn’t necessarily constitute a reversal until Planned Parenthood actually sees more funding. He insisted it would be unfair to expect the group to commit to future grants.

“It would be highly unfair to ask us to commit to any organization that doesn’t go through a grant process that shows that the money we raise is used to carry out our mission,” Raffaelli told me. “We’re a humanitarian organization. We have a mission. Tell me you can help carry out our mission and we will sit down at the table.”

Pushed on whether this means the new announcement wasn’t really a reversal, Raffaelli pushed back, arguing that Komen, in response to all the criticism, had removed politics from the grant-making process. “Is it really unclear that we’re changing the policy to address criticism?” he said.

Washington Post writer Ezra Klein also questions whether or not Komen has really reversed itself. Klein questioned a Komen executive directly, and got a cagey response:

So they are, perhaps, backing down. Or perhaps not. Yesterday, the Komen Foundation said the investigation was not the cause of their reduced support for Planned Parenthood, and that the real issue was that Planned Parenthood did not directly provide mammograms. This statement doesn’t address that concern at all. So it would appear to leave open the possibility that the foundation intends to reject Planned Parenthood’s future grant applications — albeit on less overtly political grounds.

I posed these questions to Leslie Aun, vice president for communications at the Komen Foundation. “I think our statement speaks for itself,” she replied. You can be the judge of that.

Did Komen reverse themselves or not? I think we are going to have to wait and see. If Komen approves future grants to Planned Parenthood, we’ll know the answer is yes. If they don’t, we’ll know the answer is no.

What is notable about today’s official release from Komen is what it didn’t say. It made no guarantees about future grants to Planned Parenthood, nor did it say anything about waiving Komen’s new policy limiting grants to direct providers of mammograms. Add to that the ambiguous statements from leadership at Komen, and you can see that this is still very much an open question.

Today’s press release from Komen may have been designed to get the press off their backs in the short term so that they can quietly refuse grants to Planned Parenthood later. We’ll see. In the meantime, I agree with Albert Mohler that there is no neutral ground when it comes to Planned Parenthood. Pro-lifers should still withhold donations from Komen until this matter is clarified.

1. The statement is clearly designed to placate the publicity assault mounted by Planned Parenthood and its supporters. Whatever the substance of the statement, Komen wants to appear that it has backed down.

2. The statement pledges not to withhold funds based on political investigations. There’s a GOP Congressman investigating Planned Parenthood now, but the Komen foundation doesn’t want its funding determined by partisan politics. They will change their grant standards to make that clear. So Planned Parenthood becomes eligible for grants again on that criterion. But as we shall see, there is another criterion that Planned Parenthood still doesn’t meet.

3. The Komen foundation agreed to pay-out existing grants and says that Planned Parenthood is eligible to apply for future grants. Here’s the language:

We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

Here is what is not clear. Brinker, founder and CEO of Komen, was saying precisely the same thing the day before the statement was released. She was already arguing that Planned Parenthood would continue to receive existing grants and would be eligible to apply for future grants. She also said that the Komen foundation would prioritize their grants for facilities that actually perform mammograms. Planned Parenthood gives referrals for mammograms, but they don’t provide mammograms. Komen reserves the right to refuse future grants based on the fact that Planned Parenthood still does not offer mammograms in their facilities.

The Washington Post makes the same observation:

The statement left some ambiguity, however, because it did not mention a second reason Komen has given for ending Planned Parenthood’s funding: That the group did not provide direct mammogram services, but instead referred patients out to other locations.

So the real issue is whether or not the Komen foundation will approve future grants to Planned Parenthood. There’s nothing in this statement that says they will. They still have a grant standard that prioritizes facilities that actually perform mammograms. Are they going to make an exception with Planned Parenthood? This statement doesn’t say so one way or the other.

In any case, the moral calculus doesn’t change. If the Komen foundation is going to fund Planned Parenthood—the nation’s leading provider of elective abortions—then pro-life people are not going to be able to donate to Komen’s otherwise worthy cause. It is an outrage that the Planned Parenthood and their allies hold the Komen foundation hostage. It is even more outrageous that Komen retains a connection to the abortion mills.

Any other group thinking about donating to Planned Parenthood ought to take note. If you ever decide to stop giving them money, Planned Parenthood may try to destroy you and your group’s reputation—just like they have done to Komen. Planned Parenthood has powerful allies in Congress, in the White House, and in the media. Don’t think they won’t use that influence against anyone who crosses them. As I said before, abortion is their sacrament, and Planned Parenthood is their temple. They will not tolerate anyone treading upon their holy ground.

The Komen foundation has really botched the communication of its new policies. As a result, Komen is even more tied to Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby than it ever was before. For an organization that wants to stay out of the culture wars, Komen is worse off now than it was a month ago, when many Americans didn’t even know about this controversy. Many pro-lifers also were unaware of Komen’s connection to Planned Parenthood. But that is no longer the case. Going forward, Komen will be viewed by Americans as a lackey of Planned Parenthood. Komen looks more like a leftist political group than it ever did. The only way to change this impression is to make a decisive break with the abortion mills of Planned Parenthood.

Komen has given some grants to Planned Parenthood in the past but has now decided it can better spend its money by funding groups that actually provide mammograms. Planned Parenthood has some educational services related to breast cancer, and they give referrals for mammograms. But they don’t do mammograms themselves (see video below). Komen CEO Nancy Brinker said it this way, “We were giving them money; they were sending women out for mammograms. What we would like to have are clinics where we can directly fund mammograms.” That Komen would reconsider giving grants to Planned Parenthood is no surprise. It was a strategic decision, and a good one at that.

Yet the response from liberals and their cohorts in the media has been stunning. They have excoriated Komen’s decision as bowing to pro-life pressure to dissociate from Planned Parenthood. I would like to think that pro-lifers have such influence over an enormous charity like Komen, but I doubt that they do—despite the congressional investigation of Planned Parenthood that critics keep citing.

In any case, I don’t think the facts matter at this point. Pro-abortion zealots are trying to weave a narrative to the public so that they can portray Komen as the bad guy. They want Komen to either change their standards or feel the wrath of millions of pro-abortion donors who will no longer support Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Yes, you heard that right. The pro-abortionists are so committed to their sacrament of abortion and to their temple of Planned Parenthood, that they would rather see the breast cancer charity die than lose funding for their abortion mills. That is a sick and distorted calculus, but there it is.

By the way, Komen’s grants were but a drop in the bucket of Planned Parenthood’s annual budget. Planned Parenthood’s budget is about one billion dollars. Komen’s grant last year was $680,000. The attempt to smear and destroy our nation’s leading breast cancer charity is all about a fraction of a percent of Planned Parenthood’s annual budget (.068% to be exact).

Planned Parenthood and their allies in the media are in open war right now with Susan G. Komen for the Cure. I hope Komen can stick to their guns on this one.

———-

Suggested reading and resources:

“Media discover Planned Parenthood is controversial” by Mollie Ziegler Hemingway – Get Religion

“Why Did Komen Stop? Planned Parenthood Doesn’t Do Mammograms” by Steven Ertelt – LifeNews.com

“Komen Get It” by James Taranto – Wall Street Journal

“Under fire, Komen CEO denies politics in Planned Parenthood cuts” by JoNel Aleccia – MSNBC.com

“Straight Talk from Ambassador Nancy G. Brinker, Founder and CEO of Susan G. Komen” – Komen for the Cure’s YouTube Channel

The regulation is all a part of Obamacare, and it requires faith-based hospitals and universities to provide birth-control without a co-pay. Many Christian groups (especially Roman Catholics) have religious objections to birth control, but those groups will now have to pay for it. What is worse is that some of the birth control methods that will be covered are abortifacients. Nearly all conservative Christian groups (both Protestant and Catholic) oppose abortifacients because they are medicines that cause abortions. In effect, Obamacare now requires these Christian groups to pay for the killing of unborn human life.

Responses from religious leaders and even some secular voices have been virulent:

Last week, Albert Mohler addressed the decision in terms that are as strong as I have ever heard from him. Mohler said that he holds President Obama personally responsible for what is truly a “reprehensible policy” and is a “violent attack on the idea of religious liberty.” He also called it a “slap in the face to religious employers.”

Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, decries the decision saying,

In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences… To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable.It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. Historically this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty.

Michael Gerson rails against the new law as an outright assault on religious freedom:

Christian colleges and universities of various denominations will resist providing insurance coverage for abortifacients. And the astounding ambition of this federal precedent will soon be apparent to every religious institution. Obama is claiming the executive authority to determine which missions of believers are religious and which are not — and then to aggressively regulate institutions the government declares to be secular. It is a view of religious liberty so narrow and privatized that it barely covers the space between a believer’s ears.

Obama’s decision also reflects a certain view of liberalism. Classical liberalism was concerned with the freedom to hold and practice beliefs at odds with a public consensus. Modern liberalism uses the power of the state to impose liberal values on institutions it regards as backward. It is the difference between pluralism and anti-clericalism.

The administration’s ultimate motivation is uncertain. Has it adopted a radical secularism out of conviction, or is it cynically appealing to radical secularists? In either case, the war on religion is now formally declared.

We should note that dissent is not just coming from conservatives. E. J. Dionne, one of the most liberal columnists in the country, has argued against the ruling. Even The Washington Post editorialized against the move saying that President Obama is “requiring religiously affiliated entities to spend their own money in a way that contradicts the tenets of their faith.”

Elections do have consequences. And all those who were arguing in 2008 that candidate Obama would favor policies that reduce abortions have been proven tragically wrong. Not only has he adopted policies that will expand abortions, he is favoring laws that coerce Christians into funding abortions. President Obama’s latest actions are an appalling overreach that will have sad implications for pro-life Christians. I don’t think we’ve ever seen a President open up a more radical and intrusive attack on religious liberty and on unborn human life than what we are witnessing right now.