[identity profile] dreadfulpenny00.livejournal.com
Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the nation's largest breast cancer charity, has pulled hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants toward breast cancer screenings from Planned Parenthood, citing it's newly implemented policy that they will not award grants to groups under investigation from the federal government. This is great news for many in the pro-life community who've in the past refused to donate to the charity (including myself, though I don't consider myself to be part of the pro-life movement) because of the connection to Planned Parenthood.

Of course the "pro-choice" crowd has their heads spinning, and the Susan G. Komen for the Cure page on Facebook was flooded with both positive and negative messages, including several faulting the charity for the future deaths of thousands of women due to breast cancer.

Here's the problem with that accusation. It's already been confirmed that Planned Parenthood doesn't actually perform mammograms. This was confirmed by a Planned Parenthood clinic employee/volunteer last year. They offer referrals for mammograms, which anyone can obtain from other free clinics not associated with Planned Parenthood or from a primary care physician. Not to mention that just because Planned Parenthood isn't receiving funds specifically earmarked for breast cancer screenings, they're going to stop the screenings all together. For Planned Parenthood to do that would confirm their status as an abortion-first market, and they would never expose themselves like that without running the risk of losing future donations.

Cecile Richards, the current president of Planned Parenthood, equated the actions of Susan G. Komen for the Cure to "bullying". However, this is what freedom of speech (spoken with dollars) is all about -- the ability to use your money to support organisations as you see fit based on your principals (or the principals of your organisation). Just as those against abortion chose not to donate to Susan G. Komen for the Cure while it was funnelling money to Planned Parenthood, those supporting Planned Parenthood can choose not to donate to the breast cancer charity. In my opinion, THAT shows an abortion-first mentality instead of someone willing to support women's health and well-being.

UPDATE: Susan G. Komen for the Cure is changing their tune AGAIN, stating they'll continue to fund Planned Parenthood. “Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation,” a Friday statement said. “ We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.”

This is what their policy should have been in the first place. Or better yet, they never should have provided funding to Planned Parenthood from the beginning. Now this about-face is angering those on both sides of the abortion argument. The lesson here is that Susan G. Komen for the Cure isn't about standing up for its principals -- it's about standing with whichever group is shouting the loudest.
[identity profile] kelincihutan.livejournal.com
Most of you probably already heard about Indiana's passage of a law that defunded Planned Parenthood within that state. Though the law is being challenged in the courts (which is something I find extraordinarily problematic, to say the least), it is currently in effect because the judge in the case would not issue an injunction against it.

So, Obama & co. are now threatening to take action against the law in order to keep money flowing into PP coffers.

Argh! )
[identity profile] lazypadawan.livejournal.com
When I posted about The First Nanny's "we can't just leave it up to the parents" statement the other day concerning the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act, there were a lot of things I wanted to respond to but instead of several scattershot replies, I'll collect my thoughts here.

What I find objectionable, aside from yet more subsidies sucking up taxpayer dollars, is the whole idea of the federal government acting in loco parentis to determine what your kids should be eating instead of oh, I don't know, the actual people who are supposed to be raising them. Parents have already surrendered too much authority to the government by allowing schools to function as a babysitting service. Schools are there to EDUCATE your children, teaching them to read, write, and compute. They are not there to micromanage the lives of their students.

When I went to school in the '70s and '80s, there were no vending machines available to students except for ones that sold juices. But we did have bake sales and clubs sold bagels, Krispy Kremes, candy bars, M&Ms, etc. as fundraisers. Nobody sweated it unless they were making sales during class. I managed a chocolate bar sale for the Philosophy Club in high school. Dolores Umbridge Obama wants to even ban those sales. I guess it would be all right with her if school clubs sold condoms and medicinal marijuana instead.

As for the argument that school lunches are unhealthy, well, there's a reason why in elementary school we had a song that went, "Great green glops of ooey gooey gopher guts, mutilated monkey meat, dirty little birdy feet" about the stuff we'd get in the cafeteria. Both private and public schools in California already offer things like veggie burgers and salad bars. But just because they're offered doesn't mean kids are going to eat it. Are we going to hire prison guards to moonlight in the cafeteria to make sure Chubbs finishes his damn salad or he'll get hosed down?

If they want to do something about making school lunches healthier, maybe they need to look at how what's served is affected by USDA subsidies and stuff. The kind of food little Jake and Ava get at school is exactly the same institutional grade stuff served to prisoners. Honest! If there are subsidies for cheese for instance, more cheese ends up in the food getting served to people. If the cafeteria gets the foodstuff, it has to put it out so it doesn't go to waste. If it's not subsidized, it's a lot more expensive to buy. And for what? Unless it comes from the tater tot food group, an awful lot of school cafeteria food ends up in the trash or as arsenal in a food fight. It's hard to make large amounts of food that's tasty for large numbers of people, and keep costs down.

Parents who are concerned about the fat, sodium, carbs, and cholesterol in school lunches can do what mine did...pack a lunch for their kids. It doesn't have to take up a lot of time or money. I'd only buy lunch on occasion. Don't give your kids money if you don't want them hitting the vending machines.

But schools are getting ready to start dictating what you can pack for them. One guy on Free Republic claimed a relative of his tried to bring a bag of McDonalds food to her kid at school during lunch; this kid is very slim and participates in gymnastics. School officials wouldn't let her on campus with the food because it's "fattening." Do you really want busybody school officials, many of which have the common sense of a butt pimple, poking into your son's or daughter's bento box to see if it meets their definition of "fattening?" Do you want them seizing a homemade cookie, leftover pizza or barbecue chicken, some potato salad, or a sandwich with too much mayo in it? Already they are using peanut allergies as an excuse to ban certain snacks. Already they are prohibiting parents from bringing in birthday cupcakes. I had birthday cupcakes when I was growing up and I was never a fat kid.

Do you want the politically incorrect truth as to why there's supposedly this problem with obesity? People relying too much on convenience foods filled with preservatives, sodium, and fat because tired, busy working moms don't want to have to cook or prepare anything. Couple that with kids who stay in and play video games instead of going outside to play, because there's no one home to supervise them, and you have more fat kids. It's a cultural problem, not a "national security" threat that necessitates less freedom and more government control.
[identity profile] lazypadawan.livejournal.com
The First Nanny got her big union payoff/control over America's children today in her pet project food bill. What she says is telling about the progressive mindset...we can't let people raise their own children:

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2010/12/flotus-on-deciding-what-kids-eat-we-cant-just-leave-it-up-to-the-parents/#comment-214312

Of course the first step is to control those kids getting free/reduced price meals. But since every public school also gets federal money somewhere in the pipeline, you know where this is going next.

Profile

therightfangirl: (Default)
The Right Fangirl

May 2017

S M T W T F S
 12345 6
789 10 111213
14 15 1617181920
2122 2324252627
28293031   

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 02:34 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios