Porn+Charity

If there was ever a good time to clear up any leftover misconceptions about the word "ironic," this is it. As in: is it ironic that PornHub.com is offering to pay one cent for every 30 unique page views on its "small tits" and "big tits" videos this month to charity?

The answer is no. It's just a nice way to celebrate Breast Cancer Awareness month while at the same time encouraging you to watch more pornography.
BUT:

Is it ironic that the money from said porn site will be going to the Susan G. Komen Foundation, whose founder Nancy Brinker tried earlier this year to stop her organization from giving money to Planned Parenthood because of anti-abortion pressure from GOP donors and the Catholic Church? A group whose ex-VP, former Georgia Secretary of State Nancy Handel, is so conservative that she makes Karl Rove look moderate?

Yes and no. It could be an example of irony, because you would expect a site that traffics in pornography to not donate to a charity being led by women affiliated with organizations that do not support contraceptives, abortions, free health clinics or, in the case of Ms. Handel, gay people.

But Ms. Brinker and Ms. Handel were disgraced right out of their jobs: Ms. Brinker is still the founder and has a management role at Komen's, but no longer makes an obscene amount of money as the nonprofit's CEO, while Ms. Handel is still trying to win this PR battle with a new book, Planned Bullyhood.

So go ahead and join PornHub as it spreads the word about whacking off to a good cause:

The Save the Boobs web page will keep track of the total unique visits for the month so be sure to encourage your red-blooded friends and family (yes, tell your fathers too) to become a hero of the headlamps and a champion of the cha-cha’s! While on the page you can also tweet the link to your social circles.

Together we can give fundraising our breast shot!

And remember: this isn't about politics. It's about breast cancer. And porn that you were probably going to end up looking at anyway. Everyone wins?

Nancy Brinker is really sorry she'd rather spend money on pink guns than Planned Parenthood

Ms. Brinker's statement came after 22 senators wrote to the foundation admonishing the decision to stop giving money for life-saving mammograms and breast cancer screenings to the non-profit organization because Republicans have linked Planned Parenthood with abortion clinics.

“We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.”

“Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation,” she added. “We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.”

This decision earned praise from the head of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, which must be the most grudging measure of goodwill ever put forth, considering that a) reading between the lines, Ms. Brinker was essentially saying that the foundation will honor the grants in place, and not necessarily donate money in the future, and b)Komen's spends most of its donors' money on promotional items, like pink handguns. Which we can all agree is a much better use of funds than to give it to a service that helps lower-income women obtain affordable health care.

Well that's how democracy works: Abortions for some, pink handguns for the rest!

According to The Washington Post, 22 senators are calling for a reversal of the highly-controversial decision, passed down on Tuesday.  Meanwhile, Congressman Jim Moran of Virginia is also calling for Komen's group to  give the money back. As to be expected, there is not one Republican in the bunch.

As this issue is so clearly about party lines and political affiliations (as we mentioned earlier this morning), a fun game to play is to figure out which members of congress and the senate actually voted to have Planned Parenthood shut off from any federal funding in 2011. (A bill which the Senate vetoed last year.) Have there been any flip-floppers now that we're getting close to a presidential election? Keep an eye out for Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski, one of the few Republican senators that actually supported Planned Parenthood last year. (And she opposed Obama's health care bill!) There's also Illinois Republican Senator Mark Kirk, but he's recovering from surgery right now after having a stroke in late January.

In Congress, Democrat Sanford Bishop actually voted against his own party lines to cut off federal funding for PP.

Of course, not granting federal money to an organization versus putting pressure on private foundations to rescind their money to groups should technically be two different issues.But seeing as how Planned Parenthood represents to the left the freedom of women to have affordable healthcare; and to the right, the ability for women to have all the abortions, it's doubtful that any politician would feel differently about the Komen Foundation than they do about their own government giving money to the non-profit.