I for most of my life would consider myself a deeply liberal person, I belive each person has his or hers own right to choose what he or she belives to be inherently  correct for his or her own person. I feel this should be for most things that imply some sort of tie in to having a religious affiliation or other areas that are a choice between subjects that present as black and white topics. The problem that I was reading about almost kind of stymied my sense of why are people in positions that they are either pitted into strong view points, such as the Catholic Church or any religious entity for that matter which will more than likely take a stand on anti-abortion, rather than pro-abortion just for the simple argument that having an abortion is taking a life.

      What ever the arguement is, most people that have strong points of view on pro-abortion or anti-abortion will not bend the rod either way. People with strong points of view may include politicians who are forced to have to have thier constituents agree on increases  tax loads for their communities due to expansion of welfare. Others who may see the additional children as a burden rather than a "gift from up above" may include those that are hardened in some way towards people being irresponsible, (like that is their say anyway.) But rest assured when an opinion is needed and funding of some sort or the other is at stake, there are going to be ways in which the abstract arguments will get some sort of rise.

     Enter todays news story, I read through the regualar news top page, and got to the last page in  the Front News Segement, and I saw the caption "Komen halts aid to Planned Parenthood." I immediately thought of  2 people I know at my church a husband and wife who are active Anti-Abortion advocates who support the churches stand on anti-abortion. They have monnthly meetings or they used to, and are able to get the community together for Rosary and Prayer meetings outside of a local Planned Parenthood. I do not participate, but I do say prayers for all those that must come to the decision to either come to terms with the pregancy, or decide to give the child to a loving family. Some stastistics may point out to parents that may physically hurt the child, or worse kill the child altogether.

     However many examples come out, abortion as a rule is way to terminate a pregancy with out using non-medical items to terminate a unwanted pregancy. This may ride right up beside a person who is a strong proponet for Anti-Abortion, but the reality is many girls who are desperate to terminate a unwanted child will go through some amazing attempts to end the pregancy the term back alley abortion should send chills down some spine who either knew a friend or had to help perform some surgical procedure with out having any laymans ideas about what he or she was doing, except getting rid of a unwanted child. It is scarry that in an age with so much enlightment, the argument here is completely wrong.

      The article states the story is from New York and states that the Susan G. Komen the leading breast cancer charity will be cutting it's ties with Planned Parenthood, The change the article states will create a bitter rift between the two affliates being that the two groups have historically assisted millions of women. The change will mean cuts in funding  for  hundreds and thousands of dollars in grants to Planned Parenthood but heres the confusing part, the money is chiefly used for helping mostly women for breast exams. The article goes on to say that that a probe was launched by a conservative Republican who was urged to act by anti-abortion groups. Planned Parethood states that the grants totaled roughly $680,000.00 and $580,000.00 last year going to 19 of it's affliates for breast screening and other breast care services.

     As the aproximately 9 inch column winds down the Komen foundation based the cutoff as part of results for the charitys newly adopted criteria states spokeswoman that,"that barring grants to groups under invetigation by local state or federal authorities." Being Planned Parenthood is the focus of an inquiry seeking to determine whether public money was imporperly spend on abortions. The article ends there, I am not in any way an expert on the anti-abortion or pro-abortion issue, but for all purposes, I wonder what these agencies really specify as "real" and viable reasons they choose to support a position that is a topic capable of causing polarization, does it not surprise me, that being that this is an abortion year, that perhaps in reasoning that cuts in funding to breast care services would somehow stop funding for other particular services to women seeking abortions, is there something I am missing?

      Like what does breast care services have to do with someone having an abortion, whether it is agreeable or not should not even be part of the argument here as I can see it, no more than a women who needs to have a mammogram and is now being refused because of cuts in funding to Planned Parenthood and agencies that are subsidized by their funding. This arguement doesen't even contain a triangel of truth and should be referred to as  fraudulent and deceptive, how do you take money away from women who need breast screening, as opposed to punishing the rest of the agencies that are supporting or may not be supporting abortion?

     The idea here is hypocritical, but it may shine a different light, one that will usually not prevail, and that would be to have the man or woman responsible for their own moral or otherwise failure to procure their own form of abortion, it will never happen, in the majority. The vast few that will step up and offer funds for an abortion are far fewer, than those that want the agency to pay for it. Both arguements have too many loopholes, just as human nature asks people to be watchful, as we have responsibility to humanity and human beings, I don't see how the Susan G. Komen foundation sees this as either of these entities.