@BR- lighten up pal. The point is Bloomberg is as prochoice as they come accept when it comes to allowing NYers to smoke, eat and drink sugary foods and now I belive he wants to stop you from eating high cholesterol foods. Get it now- a phoney when it comes to allowing people to choose. Geez Relax -its Friday go get a beer and some greasy cheese fries while you still can :)

Steve G- You are right on two points I am not a woman and I am not a minimum wage earner, but I fail to see how that disqualifies me from expressing my opinion. Now if you hold ona second, let me get the ladder to get off my high horse. BTW, you do know that the vast majority of PP clinics dont even have mamography machines. If you look at their own data they show a paltry amount of breast cancer service works. So even if you were "poor" the likelihood of going to a PP for such services is quite minimal. This was part of the original rationales Koemen was applying in looking to give their $$$ where they felt it would have the higest impact for BREAST CANCER patients.

BR -you obviously have not atken my advice- go get a beer and calm down and use appropriate language or stop commenting. Be an adult

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me

SORRY ! but I do respect life ...

since you are a retired doctor, can you spell out for us how PP has "contributed mightily to finding and preventing breast cancer, especially for women of limited resources. ". When I look at their own data from their own website, I see very limited resources being used to treat or resrach a cure for breast cancer. I do see the majority of their funds used for reporoductive services. Thanks for your explanation doc

Lena, you need mammography machines to do breast cancer screening thoroughly and the vast majority of PP clinics don't have them so how will they expand this particular service? Is there a source you can point us to that verifies this plan? Thanks

Planned Parenthood does well woman exams and breast exams and family planning in its local offices for no or very modest fees. If they find something that needs surgery they refer to a surgeon, if a mammogram is indicated they are referred for one. They do not have those facilities in the local offices, this is why you do not see them expensed. They are often the only medical contact these women have. They save lives by finding problems early and by advising how problems can be avoided.
No one, I repeat no one is "pro abortion" It is much, much better to not have an unwanted pregnancy, and PP does a great job doing that.
Ammiel

They do the standard breast cancer screen: examination of the breasts, teach self-exam, and if indicated by age and exam findings arrange a mammogram. One of the reasons given by Komen for defunding is that they did not do the surgery or X-Ray, so they did not do the complete job and their money should go to that end. To require this would essentially make routine exams unreachable by many people as only large institutions would fill their criteria. Those institutions charge very much money for any contact. If the patient could not afford these bills (huge,as anyone who has been to a hospital ER can testify) *YOU* will pay that bill.

Mike so you consider 750,000 breast exams last year minimal? That's always the first step my wife's doctor takes before he recommends any additional procedures. Mammography is not a necessary procedure for all women for all of their doctor visits. If we didn't have good health care coverage I'd send my wife and daughters to planned parenthood for care. You're right though that we do need more and better funded local health clinics in this country for under privilaged women.

You sure got that right.

Here are statistics from NYC that prove the minority numbers: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/vs/2009sum.pdf
Here are the statistics on the abortion to adoption referrals ratio from Planned Parenthood:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_Services.pdf
Here is a quote from Margaret Sanger:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." (Margaret Sanger to Clarence Gamble, October 19, 1939, Sanger Smith Collection, quoted in Linda Gordon, Woman's Body, Woman's Right: Birth Control in America, second edition [New York: Penguin Books, 1990,] 332-33)
Source 1 is the City of New York, Source 2 is from Planned Parenthood itself, and source 3 is a direct quote from Margaret Sanger.
The statistics and the history of the organization prove that Planned Parenthood is an organization whose function is to abort minority children. It also does other things that are useful to any woman, but the fact is it specializes in the abortions of minority children, or would you prefer that sentence to read minority fetuses instead of minority children.

To put the abortion statistics in perspective: by your own source three percent of Planned Parenthood services were abortions. That leaves 97 percent of their services that include things like contraceptives (33.5 percent of services) and cancer screening (14.5 percent of services).
Your NYC minority numbers are a bit skewed since that's not a representative slice of America and certainly don't speak to your claim that well off suburban white women don't have abortions.
As for Margaret Sanger's quote, she appears to disavow extermination of the "negro population". If you can find her entire speech so that this sentence is in context and proves your point, please do so. (And, of course, I would like to point out that nothing has changed in the world since 1939.)
Suburban white women were often college students at one point and have used the low cost services of Planned Parenthood once the parents' insurance no longer provided coverage. It is also difficult to be a supporter if you are not well off. Well off suburban women are the ones who have the means to give financial support and will choose a cause that speaks to them. The right to govern your own body is very important to most women. The right to low cost healthcare services should be very important to everyone. Planned Parenthood concentrates on preventative services. Can you give me an alternate low cost health care agency for women should Planned Parenthood no longer exist?

Here are the statistics which are found on page 88 of the NYC document in table 4.19:
Hispanic termination of pregnancy 2000-2009 291,868
Black termination of pregancy 2000-2009 383,270
White termination of pregancy 2000-2009 90,023
Total Minority abortions 2000-2009 720,551 (inlcuding Asian and Pacific Islanders)
Total abortions all 2000-2009 907,211
As I was adding up these numbers this quote from Stalin kept coming back to me, "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic".

@notbob-very telling and sad stats. Clearly shows what PP is all about. Also when you look at heir revenue they make an awful lot of money providing abortions-it's a real money maker for them. Conversely , they make little if any for adoption referrals. See a link.

Planned Parenthood was under investigation by Republican Senators because they perform abortions, not for any other reason.

Susan G. Komen funded PP only for it's Breast Cancer Research- however nominal it may be, it was deemed worthy of monetary support .

Karen Handle behaved irresponsably, inappropriately and unprofessionally. Her remarks were personal and political and for that she should be relieved of her position with SGK, immediately and with no severance.

Planned Parenthood is under investigation by Representative Cliff Stearns, a Florida Republican and chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.
They are investigating whether Planned Parenthood uses Federal Grant Money to fund abortions, which is against current Federal Law.
Should the proper use of Federal Grant Money be investigated, or is it OK to just send a check and forget it?
There is no doubt that Cliff Sterans is a pro-life Congressman, so it is upsetting to him that he and his constituents, whose interests he represents, are paying for something that they don't believe in and consider the murder of a living child.
Personally, I undertand that people have differences as to whether a zygot or a fetus is a child or not, (as a matter of fact I am pro-choice) however it is not right that a religious person has to fund something that is abhorrently against their beliefs, especially when Federal law is suppossed to pretect them from just such a thing.

Yes I do often wonder about all those babies who were never born. The ones that could have been inventors, doctors, scientists, and others who could have contributed to our society. Too bad they were not given a choice.

Don't lose sleep over it, Mike. Born to that social strata that's so clearly addicted to endless entitlements, they would have just been a further drain on your all too precious tax dollar. One less liberal to vote for the socialists overrunning this country, I say. Though it would have been nice to have seen them safely through birth so we could ship them off to the middle east to die for us, later. Or watch 'em fry when they inevitably shoot a cop. Shame, actually.

Tell that to your Furer, oops I meant your dear leader BHO

PP dies not do Mamigrams. They make their money, a lot of it by charging for abortions, primarily on minorities.

What about the Father Herby? A woman cannot have a baby alone. Part of the father is also being killed.

Watchdog,
97% of what Planned Parenthood does is well woman care. The 3% which includes Abortion is prohibited from using Federal Funds and relies on private contributions.
One could make an argument that the father's fetus is being aborted but it would be an empty argument at best and probably left for another day. I'm not delusional enough to think I could ever change your mind so I'll stay on point. The point of this article is funding from the Koman Foundation that was used for cancer screening and in particular breast cancer which is Koman's mission. Even if you believe and I'm sure you do that women should not have the right of choice, do you believe that they must let cancer go undetected because they can't afford an examination? By the way, Planned Parenthood also provides contraception which actually prevents unwanted pregnancy thus reducing the amount of abortions. Perhaps if we actually had universal healthcare, then Planned Parenthood would become irrelevant, but right now they are badly needed particularly by the poor.

@Herbert- talk about a specious argument. So a male cannot have an opinion on abortion just because he is male? So I guess the same would hold true in your eyes for every other charcaterstic that human beings have. So an African American should not have any opinion on whites and vice -versa under your argument? Secondly, but more importantly before you and the other zealous defenders of PP spew back their data do some research and think on your own. You and others say that only 3% of PP is abortion services. If you look at their own data from their website you will see that the number is actually 12%. They did over 330,000 abortions and indicae they took care of 3 million patients. Math does not lie does it.Further, according to Tait Sye, national spokeswoman of Planned Parenthood, 63 of the more than 800 Planned Parenthood facilities in America provide the option of prenatal care to pregnant clients—that’s 7.8% of the clinics. On the other hand, 321 of the clinics—about 40%— provide abortion services, and every one refers for abortion, according to Planned Parenthood’s website. Perhaps the most blatant display of Planned Parenthood’s abortion-first agenda can be found by looking into the types of services they provide pregnant clients— 332,278 (97.6%) of Planned Parenthood’s pregnant clients obtain abortions, while 7,021 (2.1%) of them received prenatal care, and 977 (.3%) did adoption referrals through Planned Parenthood. Facts are facts.

Not about abortion, you goose.

the federal dollars given are so fungible that there is no way to say that are not used to support abortions. Even if PP could absolutely account for every dollar and how it was spect, the mere fact that they receive millions of federal dollars in one place frees p funds for the other services. Further, you do a grave diservice and mislead women when you appear to indicate that abortions today are risk free. Many studies have been done in peer reviwed medical jornals to indicate there are many risks and severe potentail complications.. And please show us where funding for poor women and children is occuring. Rather than rhetoric provides data and facts.

Ms. Schraier. I applaud your note.
It is interesting that this whole brouhaha which nominally started about women's rights to take care of her own body above the waist very quickly evolved into whether a woman has rights to control her own body below the waist.
We need another Betty Ford to bring this discussion into the light.

Mike,
I'm sorry, I never wanted to imply that you could not have an opinion on anything.
What I meant was your opinion needs to stop where someone else's rights begin.
Using your argument that giving them tax dollars for non-abortion related services frees up money to use for abortions is nonsensical. Under this measure, paying your hospital bills when you're a patient frees up the hospital to do the same thing, but yet you probably pay your bill either through insurance or your own pocket.
What is it that drives everyone nuts about this issue? It's simple. Don't believe you should have an abortion; don't. Why do we feel the need to control other people. I've saw what happened when abortion was illegal. Rich people still got them and poor people died.

The baby being killed in an abortion is as much the baby of the father as it is the baby of the mother who chooses to murder her child.

ok so then why has obama just forced religious intsitutions to provide for contraceptive services including abortions??? It is there choice-in fact their religiously held belief not to do so, but Hussein Obama is infriningupon thier consciences and their Constitutional right to ptactice their relgion. As ususal the liberal double standard in play

Actually, the mandate only requires Catholic colleges, hospitals and charitable groups to offer a health insurance program (to their students or employees) that offers these contraceptive options. It is still up to the individual whether they take advantage of the option or not. Think of it like Eve in the Garden of Eden. The apple is there as a temptation, but we all know anyone with a decent relationship with God would never take advantage of such options. Obamacare is merely offering up a test to Catholic free-will. If you have nothing to hide, why would you object??

The statement that no one will be forced to buy it is false.Women who want contraception will be able to obtain it without co-pay or deductible precisely because women who do not want contraception will be forced to help pay for it through their premiums.This mandate passes costs from those who want the service, to those who object to it.

Gotchya... sort of like how the costs of the Iraq / Afghanistan wars are passed on to me. Good point.

Why are you working against your own self interest, Watchdog? Every minority baby aborted by PP means one less welfare mother leeching off the system. Isn't that what you want? I say give PP more funding. It will save us god fearing taxpayers more money in the long run!!

Actually not, abortions demographics pretty much reflect the population as a whole. A typical women getting an abortion is white, Christian, in her 20's, already having a child, and at or near the poverty level. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

I agree your assessment CK. The same people complaining about killing babies by tax payer funded abortions are screaming about their tax dollars being squandered on welfare babies. Conservative zealots are never happy.

Please point to one post here where the so called conservative zealots said they would not use their tax dollars to help the poor. Ironically the very instition that is constantly bashed for its stance on abortion- the Catholic Church- provide more aid, care and services to the poor in this country and world wide than PP and Komen combined.

CK, your comments, assuming that all minority mothers seeking abortions are on welfare, are dispicable and Racist.

Issu, pay attention, we are talking about abortions performed by PP which are close to 90% minorities. Please focus, it s a waste of time and energy to continually correct comments.

Steve, who are these mysterious people, certainly not the Catholic Church who care for more unwed mothers, welfare clients and AIDS afflicted then you can possibly count.

Issy's statistics do not support his theory, they prove the opposite of of what he contends.
Non-Hispanic Whites = 64.7% of the population and have 36% of all abortions
Blacks = 12.9% of the population yet have 30% of all abortions
Hispanics = 16.7% of the population and have 25% of all abortions
The abortion demographics do not reflect the demographics of the country as a whole. The abortion statistics reflect the fact that abortions eliminate more minority children as a percentage of their own populations and if you add the Hispanics and Blacks together they account for 55%, or more than half, of the abortions, yet are are only 29.6% of the overall population.
Margaret Sanger would be proud of these statistics.

Issy unfortunately presents a link which actually refutes his point. This is common with Issy and when you call him on it his last retort will be something like "keep watching FOX NEWS or hannity etc., just like CK did after he made those Racist comments about Minirity women. They really have no answers.

Hey Watchdog, can you please help me? I don't see how the stats in Issy's link refute his point. My brain's been turned to mush watching too much Rachel Maddow. (Tip: next time attack the legitimacy of the linked data -- as in who the heck is Guttmacher and how much is Soras funding them? Also that the stats there are about abortion in general, not PP specifically which is the case you're arguing. Jeesh, do I have to do all the work for you guys?)

CK, read my comment posted at 7:16PM. Now wipe the egg off your face.

Not sure why I need to wipe egg of my face, Watchdog. I asked you to point something out and you obliged (I guess). Thank you. While I didn't find a 7:16pm post from you, in reviewing the thread I found notbob's links which were most helpful and seem to indicate Issy's stats are a little misleading.

notbob, you say Margaret Sanger would be proud. Not sure that's exactly true. While she was a huge proponent of contraception (for admittedly politically incorrect reasons) from what I understand she did not approve of abortion. Consider this from Wikipedia "Sanger was opposed to abortions, both because they were dangerous for the mother, and because she believed that life should not be terminated after conception. In her book Woman and the New Race, she wrote, "while there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization." So I am not so sure she'd be proud of the PP abortion stats (which, btw, only represent 3% of the services rendered there). Thanks for supplying helpful links.

The statistic I posted show that abortions reflect demographics of women at or near the poverty line.

Issy you are still not correct when you state, "...abortions demographics pretty much reflect the population as a whole.", unless you are reffering to a study that you have not provided a link for. Your posted study still refutes your contention, or to be charitable does not support your contention.
The statistics reflected in the Guttmacher study nowhere breaks down the demographics by income level and minority status:
This is the relevant study: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf
It does measure income level and it does measure race, but there is no study that combines race, income level, and abortion in the link you provided.
Find that study and post it, if you have it.

Good question. Inserting political views is a mistake. Komen and Breast Cancer contributions will suffer as a result.

Exactly Watchdog! This all started because Karen Handel, a well-known GOP pro-lifer, who became Public Policy Director at Komen, let her political views (and long-standing animosity towards Planned Parenthood) affect Policy at Komen. She used her office to go after her nemesis and initiated the suspension of PP funding. If only she hadn't inserted her political views... thanks for clearing that up.

PS: @JLS No one is legislating how Komen divvies up its funds. It is free to fund or not fund its programs at Planned Parenthood (none of which involve abortions) anyway they like. What's happened is they've made a business decision based on the feedback of their donators and volunteers. You know. The free market at work. Ayn would be so proud. The market forced them to reverse their decision. Not the evil Democrats or Obamacare.

CK, your comments suggesting all minorities seeking abortion are welfare mothers is dispicable and Racist.

tee hee... you guys are so classic Sean/Rush. When you can no longer debate the issue, you resort to name calling and discrediting your "caller". I'm proud how well you guys follow the playbook! Go Fox!

Then, it must be equally obvious tat you have never given birth to a beautiful, living child that you are so intent on murdering. That baby whom you are murdering has a father as well as a mother. What give you the right to take away the life of a fathers child?

Your remarks are absolutely absurd! A living child has every right it grow into a living human being as you did and you have no right to murder that child. You can ask "ROE". We, as a society of sane, compassionate people do not choose to murder millions of living human beings even if one child is impregnated by another child...a story impossible to collaborate and one of the stupidest arguments I have heard for rationalizing murder.

Being that most Americans 75-80% are Christians, that makes no sense considering that support for the death penalty is around 60%.

I find it interesting that you focus on this part of the article. What I find absolutely horrifying is the apparent threats that were and continue to be made against Komen. At the end of the day this shows me that a very naive and small charity like Komen was intimidated, harassed and some threatened with physical harm by a much larger and cohesive group of radicals. If the mafia is looking for good intimidators they only need to go to the local PP. One other thought, did the MSM or for that matter the Patch group follow up when an undercover sting operation last year showed PP employees advising "pimps" to lie about the underage girls they brought into PP clinics for abortions? No! So this organization which so many on these comment boards hails as champion for poor women, was very willing to commit a real crime. Get real. Hey patch editor-will you now run story on PP acting in criminal manner? I doubt it. Fake, phoney liberals all of you.

PATCH., Lanning, your post shows your true colors. It is very interesting to me that such a large group of people can have such a focus on the topic of abortion, the killing of innocent babies. Makes you think that this topic of abortion is not really about women and their bodies bu a hot button to be pressed whenever they want to attack groups who do not agree their left wing, radical message. WHERE IS THE OUTCRY ABOUT THE THREATS OF VIOLENCE against Komen?

Lanning, I still don't know what to make of their candor. Sure, they've admitted they screwed up and on the surface that seems admirable. But Handler has not stepped down (or been asked to), so where's the accountability? This leads me to wonder what SGK's next steps will be once the fervor dies down. I don't trust an non-profit that's this big. And urge everyone to keep an eye on their activities before agreeing to toss on a pink ribbon when Cure races start up again.

CK- you do realize that PP dwarfs Komen yet you worry how Komen spends it funds? Did you have thsi worry before or only after PP execs used extrortion and intimidation tactics. If anyone neds to be watched, its PP who has already shown it is willing to comit crimes. Disingenousness, a trait very well suited to those feigning distrust of Komen while praising PP

Mike: I've seen intimidation and extortion techniques used by this Congress, so I'm not phased by it so much when a organization that actually helps countless underprivileged people - - and is continuously attacked for doing so - - shows it has tough skin. At least PP is serving a purpose... even if you object to the 3% of their service offerings that include the A word.

Good for you..I;m glad you are proud to have been part of PP's targeted extortion and intimidation tactics to a relatively small charity that provides excellent cancer servcies to milliosn of woman. BTW, wonder why you and others who felt the need to punsih Komen, have never reached out to PP to question their ethical and criminal begavior when their employees advised potentail clinets to lie about their ages and offered advice on how to cover up sex trafficing involving minor children, One would think if you had the interest of poor woman really at heart you would have been equally incesned at PP as you were at Komen who acted in an ethical and legal manner when they initially decided to use their funds for breast cancer care (something that PP does very little of) in another manner. But, we know where you are all coming from. You played politics along with PP and really dont care about the health of woman. But I'm just a man according to another poster in these comments so my opinion in this area of womans health does not count.

Thanks for sharing that response from SGK, Ammiel. It's interesting to see how they are addressing the issue and how they are positioning their response. Probably, most of all, thanks for taking time to write them with your thoughts.

I'm still urging everyone I talk to about this NOT to support Komen financially. The more I've read about them, the more I think funds could be better used by smaller, more local groups. Or by giving direct contributions to Planned Parenthood itself.

So you would advise people to give their money to an organziation that acts in an unethical and illegal manner as shown in this tape:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCWf1MB92Pw

Yes, they really have the interset of poor woman at heart here. I notcie that not one supporter of PP has been able to refute any facts that have been laid before them. You all just regurgitate the lies you get from MSNBC

Thanks for sharing that link, Mike. I wasn't aware of that one. (But I gotta admit, the James O'Keefe ones are far more entertaining). It's actually inspired me to pull out the check book and send PP another donation! So yeah.

CK, now is your chance to PAY MORE. How much will you send to Obama?

Thanks for that link. I had heard about this fund. Bleh, but I don't want to contribute just to pay down a debt that eight years of war-and-spend-but-don't-tax Republican oversight brought us. It's sad chunks of our taxes have to go to it anyway. Don't you wish we could earmark where our tax dollars go? I would gladly pay more to build this country back up.

An unbelievable cop out! FAKE, PHONY, FRAUD.

I sort of look at like trickle down economics. If our teachers and school administrators are healthy. well trained, motivated and feel adequately compensated, benefits will trickle down to our kids. Oh wait? It's not working? Darn, and it was such a good theory! Still, I rather my tax revenues go there than killing thousands of "innocent babies who have no voice" in the middle east.

@ Herbert: I'm sure we haven't seen the last of her and she'll probably be putting those emails (and all her notes) to use on a book about this episode. She is not taking the severance deal offered by Komen, which would have come with a hush clause. So she'll be free to tell her story... and inevitably become a contributor on women's issues for Fox News and run as a candidate in the election cycle after this one.

Here's a link to her resignation letter - which is an interesting read. She makes a good case for being a victim, which says something about the management at Komen.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/07/karen-handel-s-resignation-letter-from-susan-g-komen.html

Your comments are farfetched, over-the-top, and stupid. PP is a "criminal enterprise"? Liberals are "disengenuous"? Aren't all types of people?? You guys are just intent on getting up on your high horses, being drama queens, ranting and raving and being angry about a lot of stuff that you don't really want to address in a comprehensive way. I am just here to call you out on it. Oh by the way, you did not hear me jumping all over Komen. Never said any such thing. Now that's what I call disengenuous!! :) xxoo

Disingenuity on an internet message board? Get outta here! Unfortunately most of these discussions, especially when anonymity is allowed, are always a downward spiraling race where the first person who calls an opponent a Nazi wins.

@BR- yes, when all else fails and you can no longer make cogent arguments to support your positon, retort to personal attacks. Peace out.

Just an FYI about lack of mammogram machines and breast cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood clients. As someone whose "comprehensive" health insurance did not cover mammograms, I had to go to a clinic to get one. The clinic does not offer the mammograms as that requires a radiologist. But, you need to be examined by a doctor to get a prescription for the mammogram. That happens at the clinic. They then refer you to a low cost mammogram provider.

No, we know how it works and that is the main point of conetention. PP made a huge uproar over an issue that really did not impact them- the provision of breast cancer services. They turned it into the political mafioso style hit job. Of course, patients for any diagnostic services get an Rx from a doctor and then get their test at a facility that provides those services. The point is PP doesnt provide those services and I would live to hear from one of the PP supporters how they "arrange for low cost services". "Arranging" for healthcare services from one provider to another under a referral arangement could run afoul of many laws including the Stark anti-kickback laws. Would be interesting for Patch or other news outlet to investigate the exact nature of these "arrangements"

I would imagine they do provide breast exams, and can funnel low income women who would otherwise not even get the initial exam into getting a mammogram.
Either way, Komen did not revoke funding because they were unhappy with PP's breast exams, this was all about the "investigation", which in turn was all about abortions.

Besides which, mammograms are not even *necessary* on a regular basis for lots of women, specifically those under age 40 (or even 50 under some recommendation charts). PP *can* and does offer manual breast exams for that huge group of women age 20-40, for whom going elsewhere may simply not be an option. Breast health is NOT only mammograms.

American Cancer Society recommends mammograms every year beginning at 40. Further from 20-40 they recommend CBE every 3 years. What is this huge group of woman tha have no where else to go? First off there are about 7-8 thousand FQHCs in US compared to 800 PP clinics (not all even do CBE's). If a person is low income then they are either entitled to Medicaid or can get care at the FQHC. This is a smoke screen that PP is at the forefront of providing preventitive cancer care. They are an abortion provider- have the guts and courage to at least admit that is what they do.

http://www.cancer.org/Healthy/FindCancerEarly/CancerScreeningGuidelines/american-cancer-society-guidelines-for-the-early-detection-of-cancer