You are here:
Home 
Opinion Rob Rogers' Cartoons The Cure
Opinion Rob Rogers' Cartoons The Cure
Friday, 03 February 2012 13:30
The same day this cartoon ran in the paper, Susan G. Komen, caving to mounting criticism, apologized for pulling funding from Planned Parenthood. I like to think she saw the cartoon and that's why she reversed course :-), but there were certainly a lot of other angry people expressing themselves.
It was clear to everyone that she had given in to the GOP conservative right who are bent on dismantling Planned Parenthood. The problem is, 90% of the services they provide to poor women are not abortion related, like breast cancer screenings.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Comments (2)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by code red, February 07, 2012 - 04:14 PM
How many "angry people" were spurred on misinformation?
The coverage of the "media" led those angry people to believe that Komen cruelly pulled funds from poor woman's mammograms, when it just planned to shift funds from an agency that largely DO NOT do mammograms to those that do?
SKG charity was trying to refocus grants on providers that are able to perform mammogram services rather than just breast screenings. SKG planned to give the money to other groups which also provde "low cost" health care.
Where was the outcry from those angry people in the Philly abortion clinic disaster - unsanitary conditions, brutalizing of young girls and women and full-term babies? No outrage there?
Is it a noble thing for public outcry to demand that once an organization gets funds (an organization whose leader makes $900,000 + a year) those funds can never be taken away?
If abortions represent only 3% of PP procedures and almost 100% of their controversy, why don't they simply spin off of its abortion operation?
Seems like it would be an easy decision.
Another case of people losing their marbles over a fragment of a sentence in a quote that was taken out of context, as in Romney's "poor" statement.
So, now it is OK that SGK gave in to the left, is it?
The coverage of the "media" led those angry people to believe that Komen cruelly pulled funds from poor woman's mammograms, when it just planned to shift funds from an agency that largely DO NOT do mammograms to those that do?
SKG charity was trying to refocus grants on providers that are able to perform mammogram services rather than just breast screenings. SKG planned to give the money to other groups which also provde "low cost" health care.
Where was the outcry from those angry people in the Philly abortion clinic disaster - unsanitary conditions, brutalizing of young girls and women and full-term babies? No outrage there?
Is it a noble thing for public outcry to demand that once an organization gets funds (an organization whose leader makes $900,000 + a year) those funds can never be taken away?
If abortions represent only 3% of PP procedures and almost 100% of their controversy, why don't they simply spin off of its abortion operation?
Seems like it would be an easy decision.
Another case of people losing their marbles over a fragment of a sentence in a quote that was taken out of context, as in Romney's "poor" statement.
So, now it is OK that SGK gave in to the left, is it?
-
- -7
-
-
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
|
PG editorial cartoonist Rob Rogers blogs about the process of creating his daily editorial cartoons.
|
