The decision by the Susan G. Komen Foundation to cut Planned Parenthood’s funding has caused a lot of shrieking from the feminists. The two female senators of my state (Washington) – both staunch feminists – weighed in with condemnation of the move. Feminists in Portland, Oregon are making vague threats and lots of noise. Local news has covered it more thoroughly than I expected, and one might think it’s a national crisis of sorts from all the attention it’s getting. All the hysteria did finally force Komen to reverse the decision, but it’s remarkable that it happened in the first place.
While I’m no fan of abortion, I’m not a fanatic right-to-lifer, and might even be inclined to tolerate Planned Parenthood for its clean, safe provision of birth control and sexual health exams for women (men have a stake in this, too, for obvious reasons). However, I’ve known a couple people who worked there, and it is part and parcel of the feminist movement, and has a hostile attitude toward men. In fact, the organization shouldn’t be called “Planned Parenthood,” but rather “Planned Motherhood;” there’s nothing about it that helps fathers at all.
But regardless of how men might feel about it, why would Susan G. Komen cut off Planned Parenthood? The reason the anti-breast cancer foundation gave was that Planned Parenthood is under investigation for using taxpayer money to provide abortions (probably true — since when have feminists turned down public funds?), but I think there was more to it than that. Breast cancer, although supposedly a feminist issue, is actually more of an older women’s issue. It’s true that breast cancer sometimes strikes younger women with tragic results, but the overwhelming majority of its victims are post-menopausal, the median age of onset being 61. Feminism, which is more concerned with leveraging female sexual power (including fertility) than anything else, is primarily a younger woman’s cause. Yes, there are plenty of older feminist fanatics out there, but the ordinary women who supported feminism politically in the 70s and 80s have largely aged out of it, and are no longer so enthusiastic about “right to choose” (i.e. right to exterminate one’s children) and other feminist causes.
I’ve seen this change happen first hand in some women I’m acquainted with. Prior to menopause, many women are blasé or enthusiastic about abortion, but after their own infertility is undeniable, they change their tune. Suddenly, children take on more importance. Not their own children, because they can’t have them any longer, but children in general, and grandchildren in particular. Now, they no longer have anything to fear from an “unplanned pregnancy,” but they do face the prospect of never having access to children ever again, and that is not a happy thought for normal women.
Given that the average age of a Susan G. Komen donor is probably somewhere north of 60, I’d be willing to bet that there is a lot of opposition to funding any organization dedicated largely to the extermination of potential grandchildren. A significant proportion of these older women, many of whom no doubt suffer from breast cancer themselves, want to at least have the opportunity to hold a baby again before the disease kills them, so funding Planned Parenthood creates a conflict of interest.
This is a terrible dilemma for Susan G. Komen, which has wilted under an overwhelming attack from the “save the whales, kill the children” faction on the left. However, the absolute freak-out we have witnessed over the last couple days coming from the feminist camp suggests that this move really scared them. They do not have absolute hegemony over women’s issues, and that’s got to be a frightening realization for them. Many of their former rank-and-file supporters, loyal troopers in decades past, are not so excited about the program any longer, and this rift will only grow.
