This has been an ongoing controversy and now that LiveAction has come out with another sting on Planned Parenthood, this is significant.  The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation states in its March 2011 Statement on Planned Parenthood:

Early screening through mammograms and education is critical to end the suffering from this disease: 98 percent of women treated for early stage breast cancer, before it spreads, are alive five years later. The widespread use of mammography and heightened public awareness of breast cancer both contribute to these favorable statistics.

And while Komen Affiliates provide funds to pay for screening, education and treatment programs in dozens of communities, in some areas, the only place that poor, uninsured or under-insured women can receive these services are through programs run by Planned Parenthood. [emphasis mine]

More information provided on the PP homepage shows they clearly refer out for these mammography services:

Where Can I Get a Mammogram?

Ask your health care provider, health department, or staff at your local Planned Parenthood health center about where you can get a mammogram in your area.

Additionally, it appears that PP does provide breast exams only. However, the Komen memo links mammography, screenings, education, and treatment of breast cancer as their list of reasons it contributes to PP. It’s perpetuated all across the media without validation.

Now that LiveAction has proved that PP does NOT provide mammography services to its clients, what is the money being used for, because clearly is not for mammography screenings?  Education, treatment? Are these questions we can expect our mainstream media propagandists to divulge in their articles? Or will the discovery stop with these citizen investigators and go unreported by the networks?

The Komen Foundation needs to come clean on specifically what those PP contributions are designated and why they really continue to support PP.

Crossposted at  The Minority Report

From Breitbart.tv: The new liberal talking point appears to be that the term “ObamaCare” is really meant as a derogatory, partisan attack word. If that’s true, then why did the Obama Administration buy GoogleAds directing “ObamaCare” search traffic to the government’s health care web site?

Buried at the bottom of a story published the other day, the New York Times printed a curious little correction:

The Political Times column last Sunday, about a generational divide over racial attitudes, erroneously linked one example of a racially charged statement to the Tea Party movement. While Tea Party supporters have been connected to a number of such statements, there is no evidence that epithets reportedly directed in March at Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, outside the Capitol, came from Tea Party members.

Let’s go over that again:

• The Times is admitting that there is absolutely no evidence that any epithets were shouted at the Congressman by any member of the Tea Party.
• This correction demonstrates we have finally proven our point to the nation’s most eminent and influential liberal media organ: that Rep. Andre Carson lied when he told the AP that members of the Tea Party hurled the “N-word” 15 times during the March 20 health-care rally that took place at the U.S. Capitol.

That’s great, as far as it goes – a thorough vindication of the Tea Party — but it doesn’t go far enough. (more…)

Who had the line of the night?  Was it Obama’s condemnation of the Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Alito mouthing of the words “that’s not true,” or was it this instant classic from MSNBC’s most gaffe-prone host?:

Your reactions below. Oh, and to be fair, make sure to watch Matthews embarrass Dem. Rep. Alan Grayson and then Howard Dean, both post-Brown victory last week.

UPDATE: Matthews issues a “clarification” of his statement to Politico:

I think he’s done something wonderful.  I think he’s taken us beyond black and white in our politics, wonderfully so, in just a year.

In a stunning repudiation of Obama’s entire program, Scott Brown made the 1969 Amazing Mets look like a foregone conclusion.

It wasn’t Scott Brown taking on the machine. It was America. Despite the media’s mad machinations, in coaxing the Kennedy faithful to come out for a Coakley victory, and assuming the sale, the people weren’t fooled. The Boston Globe went so far as to publish a map that showed pre-poll-closing results depicting Coakley winning. Of course, they were trapped, and apologized. (more…)

If you live in Chicago and your only source of news is the venerable Chicago Tribune, it would take you a while to figure out that something happened in Massachusetts Tuesday night. One would think that an editor might place a story with the following lead – oh, I don’t know – front page, top of the fold, maybe?

In a stunning blow to Democrats, Republican Scott Brown ended the party’s half-century grip on the Senate seat once held by Edward M. Kennedy, coming from nowhere to give the GOP the crucial 41st vote needed to thwart President Obama and his agenda, possibly starting with healthcare.

It ended up on page fourteen.

Allow me to repeat: page fourteen. An election that stunned both parties, sent a thundering message to the President and his party, threatens the very existence of the signature piece of legislation that this administration – and the Chicago Tribune – believe is vital to the health and welfare of Americans is a story that, in the judgment of what used to be the beacon of Midwestern values, less important than finding Asian carp DNA in Lake Michigan yet again. (more…)