Politics

Belated blocking of Komen coin bill has pro-aborts crying wolf

money2

Komen and Planned ParenthoodAs noted yesterday, GOP leadership has canceled a vote on a bill to make commemorative coins raising money for breast cancer research because one of the beneficiaries would be the Susan G. Komen Foundation, which donates to Planned Parenthood. But the suddenness with which so many Republicans lined up to get off the bill isn’t the only unusual thing about it:

The bipartisan breast cancer research bill, which was authored by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas), was slated for a vote Tuesday afternoon under a fast-track process that requires a two-thirds majority for passage. The procedure, known as suspension of the rules, is typically reserved for bills that pass with an overwhelming majority.

But without enough Republicans on board due to concerns about funding going toward abortions, the legislation lacked the votes for moving forward. The bill could be brought up again within the next two days as leadership moves to resolve concerns about which organizations would be recipients of research funding.

A resolution could come by the end of the week.

One can’t help but wonder how this happened in the first place, or why it took this long for anyone to notice a problem. Coauthor Sessions is a lifetime 100-percenter with National Right to Life Committee, 119 Republicans signed on as cosponsors, and it’s been over a month since its introduction.

Yet Komen wasn’t slipped in under their noses, but at the center from the beginning—it sings their praises in the findings section and would have given them half the proceeds. Did they forget about the previous Komen controversy? Did nobody read past the first few lines?

In any event, better late than never. Good thing Heritage Action was paying attention, at least.

Now that congressional pro-lifers are doing the right thing, pro-aborts are of course attacking them for it. Enter Emily Crockett at RH Reality Check:

The bill’s text would, in fact, require funds to be spent only on breast cancer research. Since Komen’s grants to Planned Parenthood fund screenings, not research, that means that no funds from the bill should go to Planned Parenthood at all.

One word: fungibility. Getting money from one source for Purpose A may not directly fund Purpose B, but it does mean you need to divert less money from other sources to A, and have more to spare on B.

Further, even if the money didn’t help abortion in any way, the fact remains that Planned Parenthood appalls millions of taxpayers, and one of the ways they express that opinion is by refusing to support its associates. For Congress to fund such an associate is being a disrespectful steward of their money.

“It’s unthinkable that Republicans would oppose funding breast cancer research for women in need,” Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said in a statement. “This legislation would fund valuable prevention and research that helps save women’s lives.”

Breast cancer is especially devastating to women of color. It is the leading cause of cancer death among Hispanic women, and Black women are more likely to die of breast cancer than any other group of women.

Nonsense. Just as they did with the ALS challenge, pro-aborts are shamelessly pretending that opposing their preferred vehicles for charity is tantamount to opposing charity itself (and racist, too!). For proof, look no further than the bill in question.

The other half of the proceeds would have gone to the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, which a preliminary search suggests has no connection to abortion. Assuming a full vetting gave them a clean bill of health, what would be the harm of them getting all the proceeds? Or splitting the money between BCRF and any number of other nonpartisan, morally harmless breast cancer organizations?

It shouldn’t matter, as long as the money goes to its stated purpose of finding a cure… unless Maloney and her fellow Democrats had an ulterior motive of preferential treatment for a political ally. Remind me again: who’s politicizing women’s health?

READ NEXT
Comments
To Top