The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation, a well known breast cancer-fighting charity, decided to withhold further donations to the abortion provider for several reasons, one of which is that Planned Parenthood is under investigation by Congress for violating various state abortion laws.

Last month, the Associated Press reported Komen’s new criteria and why it is excluding PP. “Komen spokeswoman Leslie Aun said the cutoff results from the charity’s newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities,” the report said. “According to Komen, this applies to Planned Parenthood because it’s the focus of an inquiry launched by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., seeking to determine whether public money was improperly spent on abortions.”

The foundation gave more than $569,000 to Planned Parenthood in 2010.

As to the charges against Planned Parenthood that are pending in the congressional investigation, you might recall the stellar work of Lila Rose, whose videos brought to our attention that Planned Parenthood was violating state laws by ignoring requirements to report child abuse and rape while pushing abortions on minors.

But Planned Parenthood apparently isn’t taking this lying down. They aren’t just lamenting Komen’s decision; they are getting mad.

In a fundraising letter emailed to supporters, the abortion provider proved themselves to be less a “healthcare” organization, and more the ideologically driven advocacy group that detractors say they are. The email is blunt and asks supporters to sign onto the extremist rhetoric and send it on to others. Most interesting, the letter doesn’t just attack opponents in general but specifically attacks women that oppose Planned Parenthood.

Here is the text of that shockingly harsh letter:

This is for all the anti-choice, anti-women people out there.

Listen up.

You can spend every minute of every day trying to force the rest of us to live by your ideology. You can go after federal funds for health care and pressure private organizations like the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation to stop funding breast cancer screenings for poor women. You can try to make it impossible to get birth control.

But you know what you can’t do? You can’t win. You can’t break us. Planned Parenthood isn’t just a family of organizations. It’s a movement. It’s women and men of all ages who believe that health care — including reproductive health care — is a basic human right. We are millions strong. We are everywhere. We act, we give, and we do whatever it takes to make sure that Planned Parenthood is there for the women, men, and teens who rely on them.

Know this: When you go after Planned Parenthood and the people they serve, you go after ME. I stand with Planned Parenthood. I stand with them against anyone who wants to stop women from receiving the health care they need. I stand with them today, tomorrow, and for as long as I need to.

I don’t now about you, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a fundraising letter like this supposedly emanating from a “health care” organization. Imagine if a hospital or other medical organization sent such a letter as this to its customers.

Also amazing is the bald attack on women who don’t agree with PP. This also proves that they aren’t an organization interested in women but one only interested in women that agree with their ideologically extreme position on abortion.

In any case, what we seem to be seeing here is the last bit of a veneer of legitimacy ripped from Planned Parenthood. It is now fully embracing its ideological drive toward infanticide and has cast away any pretext that it is at all interested in mere healthcare. With this letter Planned Parenthood is admitting that it is a “movement,” not a healthcare provider.

Planned Parenthood has been insisting that they provide invaluable health services to “millions” of America women.

Just a few weeks ago, on national television, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said thisabout Rep. Mike Pence’s amendment to defund Planned Parenthood:

“If this bill ever becomes law, millions of women in this country are gonna lose their health care access–not to abortion services–to basic family planning, you
know, mammograms.”

Yet this is blatantly false.

We got a tip from former Planned Parenthood director, Abby Johnson, that Planned Parenthood does not provide any mammogram services. Just to be sure, our investigative team called up 30 Planned Parenthood
clinics in many major metropolitan areas. Every single one of the clinics told our actor that no, they do not provide mammograms. “We don’t provide those services whatsoever,” one staffer in Arizona said.
Another in Wisconsin remarked, “We are just a surgical center, we don’t really do health services.” In Overland Park, KS, at Planned Parenthood’s “Comprehensive Health Center,” they said, “We don’t
actually have a, um, mammogram machine, at our clinics.”

We called 27 states total. In none of those states does Planned Parenthood provide mammograms.

We challenge Planned Parenthood to provide evidence that they provide mammograms to “millions of American women”–or to any at all.

Almost everyone has a loved one affected by cancer. It is reprehensible to play on the fears of women and their families with lies, in an attempt to extort more money from taxpayers.

Sadly, such deception and manipulation should not surprise us.

This is only the latest in Planned Parenthood’s abusive and deceptive activity. Planned Parenthood claims to provide “pregnancy options” to women, yet over 97% of their services to pregnant women are abortions. The corporation aborts 332,278 unborn boys and girls each year, gives false medical information and manipulative counseling to women, covers up the sexual abuse of young girls, and cooperates with the sexual trafficking and commercial exploitation of children.

The technology used in the full body scanners is either backscatter x-ray or millimeter waves . Both use a form of radiation call terahertz photons (T-rays). T-rays are a form of infrared energy that lies between radio waves at the low-end and microwaves at its higher end. It may be non-ionizing unlike x-rays; however, the energy is able to penetrate tissue, clothing, paper, plastic, wood and ceramics among other things.

The TSA website represents the full body scanner as a safe method of screening. However, not only are we giving up our privacy, we are also playing Russian roulette with our safety. It is important to note:

1. No long term safety tests have been conducted on these scanners

2. The energy produced by T-rays gives off heat and lies close to the laser range.
Because of this, there is a question about how safe these machines would be in the
hands of individuals who may not be as well trained as a radiology technician.
(Theoretically there may be damage associated with prolonged thermal exposure.)

3. Alexandrov et al. at Los Alamos National Laboratory theorized that the
thermal energy given off by T-rays can damage DNA
By unwinding or unzipping the double helix strands of DNA. This could possibly lead
to mutations as the DNA attempts to repair itself.

It is clear that the rush to deploy these machines may put the public at unacceptable risk. The questions about safety for pregnant women, children, and the possibility of increased cancer risk need to be answered before these machines are put into place. It simply is not clear whether the risks are outweighed by the stated benefits.

When opponents claim that Obamacare will lead to rationing of medical services, defenders counter with an irrelevant but true retort that care is already rationed by insurance companies.  By this logic, everything is rationed by economics.  Housing is rationed by the availability of capital to invest in housing which is a collective market choice.  Cars are rationed in that you can’t just walk into a dealer and drive off the lot.  So, yes, currently the health care market, mostly in the form of third-party payers (insurers and public programs), rations care in that there are finite resources to pay for treatments and everyone cannot have everything any time they wish.

The reason that argument is irrelevant is that the debate here is about government rationing of care, which represents an entire new level of restrictions on individuals.  When the government sets up panels of “experts” to make recommendations of what kind of care is appropriate under what circumstances and those recommendations are implemented in the form of regulations over what care will and will not be paid for by both private and public insurance, it limits the rights of patients to control their care in consultation with their physicians.  It also destroys the market for those excluded treatments which then become either prohibitively expensive or entirely unavailable.

Under Obamacare, new cost effectiveness panels will join the advisory panels like the Preventive Services Task Force.  Instead of just making clinical recommendations primarily intended to improve the quality of patient care, they will make recommendations intended to also contain the cost of care.  So when the cost effectiveness folks decide that mammograms are only indicated every two years and only for women over 50, that will become the reimbursement policy for Medicare and Medicaid, and the mandate for private insurance that must comport with coverage standards.  Sure, you could pay higher premiums for more coverage or pay out of pocket if your and your doctor think it wise to have annual mammograms at age 40, but wait, we were told Obamacare would save us money and wouldn’t decrease our coverage.

So we have a federal panel of “experts” setting policies for medical treatment.  That will hopefully prevent people from consuming unnecessary care that drives up the total cost of health care.  (Never mind that defensive medicine caused by liability concerns are strictly off the table.)  But we have just seen the knee jerk reaction of Congress and the White House to what is only a non-binding recommendation, where they instantly caved to public opinion and special interests (in the form of radiologists and the American Cancer Society) and disavowed the recommendations and assured American women that they could go right ahead and keep getting all the mammograms they want.

What will Congress do when the cost effectiveness folks decide that expensive colonoscopies should be denied to all but a limited group of patients?  Is it possible that when voters start calling their offices that Congress will step in to protect access to limitless colonoscopies?  Every time Congress or future administrations bow to pressure cost containment becomes more and more impossible.

Health and Human Services Secretary Sibelius made the farcical excuse that the Preventive Services Task Force doesn’t make policy or coverage decisions so all the controversy is a political ploy.  But that is not the point.  The entire purpose of the various new panels created under Obamacare (and already created in the stimulus bill) is precisely to make policy and coverage decisions.  In fact, the Preventive Services Task Force will play just such a role in the new world order.  So if everyone is reacting this way to a mere recommendation, how will they react to an actual policy dictate that meets opposition from some constituencies?  And when they create political pressure and the politicians give in, what happens to cost containment?

Health care professionals who agree with the Task Force recommendations to reduce the use of mammograms recognize this for exactly what it is—politicization of health care.  Under Obamacare, the most effective lobbying efforts will have more impact on the care you can get than the opinion of your physician.

The White House has launched its usual ad hominem attacks against those who have pointed to this instance as a taste of things to come.  They accuse opponents of lying and being disingenuous. They even try to imply some sinister motive to the Task Force by pointing out that its members were appointed by the Bush administration.  Since they have reduced this debate to the level of a playground back-and-forth, the “rubber and glue” principle applies and these charges are beginning to bounce right back on to the administration.

This proposal will cost taxpayers up to $2.5 trillion, create a massive new entitlement, raise taxes, add to the federal deficit and fail to solve our nation’s health care crisis.  It is the kind of big government answer that we have come to expect from Democrats, particularly my opponent, Barbara Boxer. It is the same answer that has proven to fail this country time and time again.

Among the many problems with this legislation, of significant concern is the impact it will have on the ability of doctors and individuals to make decisions about care, particularly for women. Last week a government appointed panel issued a set of recommendations regarding mammograms and self-exams for women in their 40s and 50s. Specifically, this panel discouraged women from self-exams, said women in their 40s should not get annual mammograms as is currently advised, and recommended women in their 50s get mammograms just every two years. As a breast cancer survivor who found my own cancer through a self-exam just two weeks after a routine mammogram, I was alarmed.  To be honest, if I had followed these recommendations I am not sure what my own prognosis would have been.

This panel’s recommendations were more about costs than about saving the lives of women from one of the most common and treatable cancers our nation.  While the Obama Administration tried to calm the outrage created by these recommendations by saying they were just recommendations, Democrats in Congress were moving to give this very same panel more power over healthcare through the bill they moved forward with this weekend.

This bill actually gives much more power to this very same government panel. In fact, this panel would play a role in determining what care and preventative tests should be covered under the new system Washington seeks to create. In short, it is a serious step toward government intervention and away from patient and doctor control over individual healthcare decisions.

This is the kind of approach we have come to expect over the last year.  Whether it was with the stimulus package or this health reform package, the Democrats’ clear solution is more government intervention and more government spending. As a businessperson I look at these programs and ask “what were the results?” The answer: massive deficit spending, higher unemployment and more government involvement in our lives.

Rather than continue down this path toward approving a bill that prioritizes politics over quality healthcare, our leadership should put problem-solving over politics. Any change to our health care system should pursue solutions that would ensure quality of care, better access to quality health insurance, and stimulate competition in the health insurance market. These goals can be achieved by pursuing free market solutions instead of more big government.