I know it’s late in the outrage cycle for the whole PP vs. Komen thing, but I’ve been thinking about the accusation made by some people that Planned Parenthood is political. It certainly gets involved in political debates, but what does it mean to say it’s “political”?
This is usually stated by the pro-life people, and is explicitly stated by those defending Komen’s decision, including by Karen Handel in this interview.
But that’s just bullspin.
Planned Parenthood exists to provide reproductive medicine to everyone who needs it. That’s not a political cause. It gets pulled into the political debate over abortion because abortion is reproductive medicine that some women need. So if PP stays true to its non-political purpose, politics forces itself on them, not vice versa. When politicians attempt to limit access to this kind of care, PP fights it because they believe in delivering that care.
As I see it, a political organization is one that exists to pursue a political end. NARAL is a political organization. Here’s a simple test: If the fight over abortion rights was settled in favor of choice, they’d (happily) go away.
But if political controversy went away, PP would not. It’s goal is not to fight for reproductive freedom. It’s goal is provide reproductive health. If choice became accepted, PP would be happier. They would just keep on doing what they prefer to do.
Defending choice makes them advocates. But it is not a political organization. They don’t choose to be in politics, politics chooses to be where they are. Similarly, I didn't think of Komen as political even though they are political advocates too (such as on research funding).
But the fight over abortion is political (sadly). Komen could have said that they are staying out of the fight by doing what the U.S. Congress does — putting their money into non-abortion PP services and requiring separate accounting. That’s the compromise that the U.S. has lived with for more than 30 years.
Komen was pressured to cut off PP by one party in the political debate. But cutting them off doesn’t get them out of the debate. It’s taking sides in the debate. Just as it would be if they decided to fund PP's abortion services. They took sides by bowing to pressure from one side to harm the other. That’s exactly what Handel says in so many words. That they were also cowardly about it — inventing “rules” to cover it up and lying about their motives — just makes them contemptible.
This is really basic stuff, a thing you learn in kindergarten. But it easy to lose it in the alternate reality of the pro-life movement. When you have your own history, I guess you get to make your own now.
10:45 AM PT: Kaili Joy Gray just posted a very revealing article about the internal Komen debate before the decision. And it’s clear that they made a clearly political decision: Their stated core function is to fight breast cancer. But this decision was made knowing that it would harm that fight. If they had honestly thought (hah!) that this is the right decision to fight breast cancer it would have been a non-political stupid decision. But to go against your core mission to get involved in a political fight is, well, political.
(updates don’ t have links, so the best I can do is the URL: http://www.dailykos.com/... )