You have reached your limit of free articles this month.

Enjoy unlimited access to myAJC.com

Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks.

GREAT REASONS TO SUBSCRIBE TODAY!

  • IN-DEPTH REPORTING
  • INTERACTIVE STORYTELLING
  • NEW TOPICS & COVERAGE
  • ePAPER
X

You have read of premium articles.

Get unlimited access to all of our breaking news, in-depth coverage and bonus content- exclusively for subscribers. Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks

X

Welcome to myAJC.com

This subscriber-only site gives you exclusive access to breaking news, in-depth coverage, exclusive interactives and bonus content.

You can read free articles of your choice a month that are only available on myAJC.com.

Opinion: Ossoff’s false attack on Handel and women’s health


You knew it was coming. But you might have expected it to be a little more honest, or at least clever.

“It” is the Jon Ossoff campaign’s dredging up of GOP opponent Karen Handel’s brief tenure at the Susan G. Komen organization. It comes in a new ad featuring a Smyrna OB-GYN who says Handel “cut off funding for Planned Parenthood cancer screenings” while at Komen. “I don’t usually get involved in politics,” she says, “but as a doctor and a breast cancer survivor myself, what Karen Handel did is unforgivable.”

The doctor may not be just another truth-twisting politico, but she plays one on TV.

The controversy dates back to 2012, when Komen decided to stop providing grants to Planned Parenthood. The $600,000 in question was a rounding error: It represented about seven-tenths of 1 percent of Komen’s grants at the time, and less than seven-hundredths of 1 percent of Planned Parenthood’s total revenues. But culture warriors on the left defend nothing more fiercely than the nation’s leading provider of abortions, and their attack on Komen was coordinated and effective. Within a week, Handel had resigned as Komen’s vice president for public policy.

Since then, there has been much examination of why exactly Planned Parenthood deserves grants from a breast cancer-awareness organization, or righteous indignation if the grants go away. The conclusion is clear: It doesn’t.

Start with a fact hardly ever acknowledged about this episode: In no way would cutting ties with Planned Parenthood have reduced Komen’s funding for breast-cancer screenings. Period. Had Komen stuck with its decision instead of caving to PP’s PR onslaught and reversing its policy, the money in question would have gone to other service providers. That almost certainly would have helped Komen pay for far more effective breast-cancer screening.

Fact-checkers have verified time and again that Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms. Politifact in 2012 rated a statement to that effect by Handel herself as true. The Washington Post on a couple of occasions has awarded three (of a possible four) “Pinocchios” to supporters of Planned Parenthood, including Barack Obama, for claiming it offers mammograms.

What Planned Parenthood provides are clinical breast exams, in which doctors check patients for lumps by hand. To call this practice a “cancer screening,” as in the Ossoff ad’s script, is quite a stretch. The American Cancer Society does not recommend these exams because “research has not shown a clear benefit of physical breast exams done by either a health professional or by yourself.” (Interestingly, Planned Parenthood’s website acknowledges this shortcoming of self-examinations, but ignores the research on the kind it provides.) The National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention echo the lack of evidence supporting the exams and instead focus on when women should have the more reliable mammograms.

In effect, the “screening” performed by Planned Parenthood amounts to … telling women they should go get screened. Maybe that’s why fewer and fewer women concerned about breast cancer rely on Planned Parenthood: In its most recent annual report, the organization reported 43 percent fewer breast-cancer exams than it performed just three years earlier.

These facts are not in dispute, yet Jon Ossoff is the latest leftist to ignore the truth here. That’s only surprising if you believe him when he shows up on your TV claiming to be something else.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Crisp: There’s a reason why Colin Kaepernick doesn’t have a job
Crisp: There’s a reason why Colin Kaepernick doesn’t have a job

Former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick was in the news last week, in a story that gives me a nagging, uneasy feeling about the health of our republic. Kaepernick is the professional football player who experienced considerable notoriety last season by declining to stand during the pregame rendition of the national anthem. He was protesting...
Opinion: Preventing another property-tax meltdown

A burgeoning property-tax revolt in Fulton County ended with the county’s quick surrender. That doesn’t mean the issue is over, for Georgia’s largest county or the state as a whole. Fulton homeowners were outraged in May when new assessments started showing up in their mailboxes. Half of homeowners saw increases of at least 20 percent...
Krauthammer: What the parents of Charlie Gard should do for their baby
Krauthammer: What the parents of Charlie Gard should do for their baby

One cannot imagine a more wrenching moral dilemma than the case of little Charlie Gard. He is a beautiful 11-month-old boy with an incurable genetic disease. It depletes his cells’ energy-producing structures — the mitochondria — thereby progressively ravaging his organs. He cannot hear, he cannot see, he can barely open his eyes...
Opinion: Mainstream media and the real crimes of Russiagate

For a year, the big question of Russiagate has boiled down to this: Did Donald Trump’s campaign collude with the Russians in hacking the DNC? And until last week, the answer was “no.” As ex-CIA director Mike Morell said in March, “On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians … there is smoke, but...
Readers Write: July 21

Krauthammer column full of hot air Columnist Charles Krauthammer believes a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and other members of the Trump campaign and a couple of Russian officials was “collusion” (“Bungled collusion by Trump Jr. is still collusion,” Opinion, July 15). Collusion is the “secret agreement or cooperation...
More Stories