On: Politics and women's health

That sound you hear, is the quelling of a million or so stiletto heels, the combat boots of American feminism.

This time around, the cause of its militaristic attention is the Komen Foundation, which earlier this year reignited a facet of the culture wars unconsidered since gay rights took center stage. In choosing not to grant Planned Parenthood the approximately $700,000 it gives them annually, the Komen Foundation inadvertently caused America to reexamine the preeminent fissure in feminism today: abortion, and its relation to women’s health.

For men (who predominantly view the world from a tree house in which no women are allowed), it was an opportunity for intriguing study. From such a perch, the vehemence of the outcry implied Komen’s decision was an act of pure ignominiousness: While Planned Parenthood raked in money from concerned donors, the Komen Foundation faced scurrilous charges regarding the politicization of women’s health, charges which eventually forced Komen to reverse its decision.

Said Tait Sye, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood, “People respond powerfully when they see politics interfering with women’s health. That’s why we’ve seen a tremendous outpouring of support.”

That comment is partially right, but mostly wrong. There are two important sets of questions worth contemplating here.

First, is the crowd which laments “politics interfering with women’s health” the same crowd which praised the Obama Administration for requiring all healthcare providers supply access to birth control? One in six Americans receives their healthcare from a Catholic institution (which finds the use of such control anathema). Does this fact make the mandate a necessity or a government overreach? Those are certainly political questions.

Second, even if Komen’s decision were purely political, what does it matter? What would happen if, at the heart of Komen’s decision, were passionate pro-lifers, who were only looking for an excuse to stop providing funds to Planned Parenthood? That would be evidence of their feelings toward abortion, not breast cancer.

Contrary to the debate’s polarizing opinions (and here, my particular complaint is with the left) Americans aren’t disagreeing about who deserves healthcare. Rather, we’re arguing about what constitutes healthcare, and, once resolved, how best to go about providing the service.

We’ve barely begun to answer these questions, and there are more troubling ones to follow. Here are just a few:

If most Americans are fine with abortion in cases of rape or incest, can the government allow (or even subsidize) those instances? If so, would Americans feel comfortable with a system which mandates rape victims prove the sex wasn’t consensual? Does the mere existence of this ambiguity entail the complete legalization of abortion?

(We seem to have stumbled back into the horrors of politics.)

Regardless, supporters of Planned Parenthood must realize that, for almost 30 years, the Komen Foundation has been a titan of breast cancer assistance. During its tenure, it has donated nearly $2 billion to research, advocacy, education and health services. By my mind, it has been some time hence they earned the right to not have their every motive questioned when they reevaluate and change their policies.

This, especially when Komen was merely discussing the appropriation of funds, and in no way considering their lessening.

Ladies and gentleman of the left, this isn’t an attack on women’s health; Komen still cares. But the dilemma regarding how to change that sentiment into lives saved is difficult and necessitates attention, rigor of intellect and consistency of philosophy.  As Komen recently discovered, those considerations don’t always yield clear (or socially acceptable) results. Still, they can take solace knowing that many share in their difficulties.

"... a week's worth of passionate (if needless) argument..."

Notice: before the reversal, millions of dollars were gushing not only into Planned Parenthood, but into the Komen Foundation as well, evidence of the number of people willing to donate money to breast cancer services, but unwilling to support Planned Parenthood. Isn’t this sufficient evidence of good will?

The point is, if supporters of either organization weren’t so intent on bickering (and if the media weren’t so intent on stoking the fire), women – and men – discussing the issue might realize they have more in common than they’d care to admit.

After a week’s worth of passionate (if needless) argument, the result has been that more women will get more services in more places. Not only does Komen care about the fairer sex, so does America.

And you say politics is terrible. 


Those who enjoyed this editorial, might also enjoy: Presidential authority - Obama, Romney and bin Laden