Keeping Politics Out of Cancer Research

    I think all would agree that the Komen-Planned Parenthood spectacle this past week was a political battle the likes of which have not been seen since September 2011 when the Senate Appropriations committee voted to cut the National Institutes of Health budget by $190 million.  Much of the work of the NIH is funding cancer research.  The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network put out a statement immediately:

The bill that passed out of committee today could slow progress in the fight to defeat cancer by cutting federal funding for cancer research for the second straight year. The bill would cut the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget by $190 million, reducing research grants and delaying the discovery of potential breakthroughs in new treatments for cancer....   Cancer still kills 1,500 Americans every day. Patients waiting for new treatments and therapies can’t afford to wait for a better budget environment, while potential discoveries are left to languish in the labs.

Reactions from other quarters were swift and unequivocal.  For instance, Planned Parenthood put out the following statement:

[crickets] 

Similarly, Harry Reid had this to say:

[crickets] 

In a joint statement, Patty Murray and Barbara Boxer declared:

[crickets]

 Nancy Pelosi was perhaps most eloquent:

There’s a cut in funding for the National Institutes of Health. This is not a healthy thing for our country because that research has answers. You know that every family in America is one telephone call, one diagnosis, one accident away from needing the kind of biomedical research that can cure--really have the biblical power to cure in a very, very special way and so to cut back on that research is wrong.

Oh, wait...

My bad.

    Pelosi's statement was from March 2011 when the House GOP passed a continuing resolution calling for $1 billion in NIH cuts.  In September, it was all 16 Democrats voting down all 14 Republicans on the Senate Appropriations committee to cut the NIH budget.   Never mind.  Nothing to see here.

Planned Politics

    "Politics!" was the predictable accusation from Planned Parenthood supporters in reaction to the Susan G. Komen for the Cure organization's announcement that they were ending their grant to Planned Parenthood.  In reality, the reaction itself heralded the introduction of politics to the controversy.  After all, it is not as if Komen planned to give the funds to National Right to Life or Concerned Women for America.  Komen's mission is about breast cancer - awareness, prevention, and research.  Doubtless the funds would have been redirected to other groups offering breast cancer screenings.  Nevertheless, 26 (Democratic) senators signed a letter to Komen which said in part:

“It would be tragic if any woman – let alone thousands of women – lost access to these potentially life-saving screenings because of a politically motivated attack,” the letter reads. “We earnestly hope that you will put women’s health before partisan politics and reconsider this decision for the sake of the women who depend on both your organizations for access to the health care they need.”

The letter went on to say: "This troubling decision threatens to reduce access to necessary, life-saving services."  Apparently a quarter of the US Senate found this move by Komen such a threat to the health of women that these politicians felt it was necessary to send a meddlesome letter decrying Komen's choice (choice!)  to reconfigure the way they distribute the charitable funds under their stewardship.
    If the loss of funds that paid for only about 4.3% of exams and mammography referrals by Planned Parenthood over the past five years (according to the Kansas City Star) is such a blow to women's health, the senators and like-minded Planned Parenthood supporters might want to investigate the 10% drop in "breast exams/breast care" figures in the organizations latest annual report.  In 2009, this figure was 830,312, but in 2010 dropped to 747,607.  (Total screening for all types of cancer dropped from 1,830,811 to 1,596,741, a 12% decrease.  Neither drop is reflective of a comparable decrease in total expenditures for Planned Parenthood which were $1,037.4 million in 2008-09 and $1,029.7 million in 2009-10.)  So in one year, life-saving screenings dropped at more than twice the rate that might have occurred from the loss of the Komen grant.  Doesn't Planned Parenthood have some explaining to do?  Did their priorities change?
    Of course, I am not suggesting a conspiracy by Planned Parenthood, although the logic of Komen's detractors would not only suggest it, but pronounce a guilty verdict.  I'm sure there are a variety of explanations as to why cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood may have dropped so significantly in 2010.  The point is, Planned Parenthood and Komen are both private organizations and make dozens of decisions about levels of service and use of funds based on varying criteria.  So the idea that a private charitable organization would be excoriated by 26 sitting senators for a relatively insignificant redirection of funds (Komen's grant represents less than one-tenth of one percent of Planned Parenthood's annual budget) when nearly half of Planned Parenthood's $1 billion in annual funding comes from the government is outrageous.
    And what of those same Senators that have been publicly agreeing with Warren Buffett that the "rich" could be paying billions more in taxes?  To hear them talk, one or two of these super rich millionaires or billionaires could make up Komen's $700,000 with the loose change in their couch cushions.  Come to think of it, since the estimated median net worth of current Senate members at about $2.5 million, perhaps one of those 26 senators themselves could have signed a check to Planned Parenthood instead of signing the querulous letter to Komen.  But pass up a chance to pummel a private sector charitable organization with the abortion cudgel?  Some pleasures are worth more than anything money can buy.

Planned Parenthood -- Or Not

   Much attention has been focused on Planned Parenthood recently over the very public, albeit temporary, falling out with the Susan G. Komen for the Cure organization.  Komen's announcement that Planned Parenthood's grant for breast cancer screenings would not be renewed triggered a cacophony of criticism and charges of a conspiracy to harm women's health.  The grant amounted to only 0.07% of Planned Parenthood's annual budget, so the reaction that dominated the news cycle for nearly a week seemed wildly out of proportion.  But perhaps this is not just a knee-jerk response on their part, but rather part of their business model.   Planned Parenthood has certainly demonstrated its lack of balance in other ways as well.
    Pro-life groups often point out the lopsided statistics in Planned Parenthood's own reports showing abortions outnumbering adoptions by huge margins.  In 2010, they performed 391 abortions for every one adoption referral.  Planned Parenthood has downplayed the imbalance, even calling critics "misleading" in their use of numbers.  The organization portrays itself as simply an advocate for women's health, laying out all the options and allowing each individual to make her own decision.  Pro-lifers have forcefully disputed that assertion.   And a closer look at Planned Parenthood's own website supports the pro-lifers' contention.
   The main Planned Parenthood website contains a menu titled "Health Info and Services".  Under this menu, "Abortion" is clearly visible, but "Adoption" is nowhere to be seen:

"Pregnancy", however, appears further down the list, and selecting that option brings up a new page - but "adoption" is still absent:

The main categories, including "Abortion" and "Morning-After-Pill (Emergency Contraception)" remain on the left side of the screen.  In the center of the screen, one might notice "Pregnancy Options."  Clicking that link finally presents visitors with the word "Adoption" for the first time:

However, it is listed on the left side of the screen as "Thinking About Adoption" under "Pregnancy Options" and following - you guessed it - "Thinking About Abortion".  But, then again, "Abortion" comes before "Adoption" alphabetically; perhaps that is the reason for the order.  The third option is "Thinking About Parenting."
   This is where things begin to get mildly creepy.  Clicking on any of the three options brings up a new page that begins with this paragraph:

Millions of women face unplanned pregnancies every year. If you are deciding what to do about an unplanned pregnancy, you have a lot to think about. You have three options — abortion, adoption, and parenting.

Then, in all three cases, the following paragraph is virtually identical, except for the words "abortion", "adoption", and "parenting.":

Whether you're thinking about having an abortion, you're helping a woman decide if abortion is right for her, or you're just curious about abortion, you may have many questions. Here are some of the most common questions we hear women ask when considering abortion. We hope you find the answers helpful. 

Whether you're thinking about placing a child for adoption, you're helping a woman decide if adoption is right for her, or you're just curious about adoption, you may have many questions. Here are some of the most common questions we hear women ask when considering adoption. We hope you find the answers helpful. 

Whether you're thinking about parenting, you're helping a woman decide if parenting is right for her, or you're just curious about parenting, you may have many questions. Here are some of the most common questions we hear women ask when considering becoming a parent. We hope you find the answers helpful. 

Granted, the presentation is consistent with the moral equivalence one would expect from Planned Parenthood, but it is jarring nonetheless.
    Six questions follow under each of the three headings relating to further information on each topic.  I will not take the time to go through all 18 questions, but rather focus on the first question under Abortion and the first question under Adoption.  Clicking on "How Can I Know If Abortion Is the Right Option for Me?" presents the reader with some information on pregnancy and abortion, as well as a list of primary reasons women might choose abortion.  Clicking on "How Can I Know If Adoption Is the Right Option for Me?" brings up a very similar presentation on adoption, even using many of the same words and phrases.  Women choose abortion or adoption "because they care about themselves and their families or their future families."  Under Abortion, we are told: "In fact, about half of all women in the U.S. have an unplanned pregnancy at some point in their lives. About 4 out of 10 women with unplanned pregnancies decide to have abortions. Overall, more than 1 out of 3 of all U.S. women will have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old."  The Adoption page repeats the "half of all women" statistic, but is silent about how common or rare adoption is.  Does this not appear to give women the "safety in numbers" argument about abortion?   After all, could that many women make the wrong choice?
    There is also a subtle difference in the reasons given for each pregnancy option.  Abortion is chosen because a woman "feels that having a baby now would make it too difficult to work, go to school, or care for her children."  The comparable item under Adoption leaves out the last phrase and says: "She feels that raising a baby now would make it too difficult to work or go to school."  The implication: women who choose abortion already have children, so they are mothers.  And mothers are not anti-baby, so abortion is not the choice of a selfish person - mothers choose it, for goodness sake!
     Further down each page is a box where more questions are posed: "Some Things to Ask Yourself If You Are Thinking About Abortion" and "Some Things to Ask Yourself If You Are Thinking About Adoption".  The Adoption list asks: "Does adoption feel like what I should do, not what I want to do?" There is no equivalent on the Abortion list.
    Perhaps most telling of all is one other question:  "Will I be able to cope with the feeling of loss that I may have?"  On which list does this question appear?  No, not the Abortion list.  The question in that case is simply: "Can I handle the experience of having an abortion?"   While the question is posed later "How Will I Feel After The Abortion/Adoption?," again only the Adoption answer refers to "loss."  There is no question women giving up a child for adoption would feel a sense of loss.  But surely a significant enough number of women would feel a sense of loss following an abortion to make it worth mentioning.   I am not suggesting post-abortion emotions are presented as insignificant, but Planned Parenthood is very careful to downplay the negatives.  The irony here is of course that adoption actually results in "parenthood"; abortion does not.
    In the interest of time, I have left a number of aspects of this issue unexplored (such as the parenting option.)  Planned Parenthood may cast itself as the Kris Kringle of women's health, cheerfully directing bewildered patrons to the best option, whether it be Macy's or Gimbels, or more to the point: abortion, adoption, or parenting.  But Planned Parenthood knows what it is selling, and much like the oft maligned corporations castigated by liberals for being greedy, they know what generates a profit.  Sadly, adoption referrals are irrelevant to their bottom line.