The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Outcry is Fierce to Cut in Funds by Cancer Group,” describes a furious reaction on social media regarding the decision by the Komen for the Cure foundation, one of the major anti-breast cancer organizations in the country, the one responsible for the pink ribbons, to suspend its support of breast cancer screenings by Planned Parenthood.

The decision was taken in cowardice, at fear of the same heated reaction that has now been generated, because of the dual nature of Planned Parenthood as both one of the major women’s health clinics in the nation and a source of abortions.

As a pro-life Democrat, I am torn by this controversy, understanding the fervor of emotions on both sides, and I am particularly swayed by the fact that one in five women rely on Planned Parenthood for their health coverage. Mayor Bloomberg, experiencing a similar split, donated $250,000 to Planned Parenthood after the Komen decision.

I am also acutely aware, however, of the feelings of pro-life activists who view the taking of an innocent life as murder, and that murder transcends most other considerations.

Since the government is not involved in this controversy, perhaps we should acknowledge the freedom of the Komen Group to make its own decisions in the abortion arena, and the similar freedom of pro-choice individuals to boycott the Komen Group in response. It is terrible, however, to watch the polarization caused by the entry of politics into women’s healthcare, and the deterioration of that healthcare as a result.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “F.D.A. Overruled on Availability of After-Sex Pill,” describes a wise move by Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, to halt a possible policy change regarding Plan B, a contraceptive designed to protect pregnancy after unprotected sex. Ms. Sebelius stopped their plan to make the drug available to young women under 17 without a prescription.

Common sense tells us that girls of this age do not have the maturity either for sex or for handling a contraceptive afterwards, and Ms. Sebelius recognized that fact. So for the first time ever, she overruled scientific evidence from the FDA showing the drug was safe for young girls. What Ms. Sebelius added to the conversation was the statement, “Maybe physically, not mentally.”

The idea of girls as young as 11 waltzing into a drug store and picking up a pack of Plan B should send shudders down the spine of any rational parent. And despite the propensity of those on the right to criticize the President on social issues, they will be faced with no choice but that his HHS Secretary made the right decision in overruling the FDA.

Many in our society have a problem with the use of Plan B in the best of circumstances. Thank God they will not have to worry about it in the worst.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Across Country, Lawmakers Push Abortion Curbs,” shows just one of the ways the 2010 election is affecting our nation’s legislative agenda. Though social issues stayed in the background during the campaign season, politicians are complex individuals with a whole series of commitments and beliefs. Their caricature as ego-centric, nefarious people, by either party, is simply and patently untrue.

Contrary to popular impression, the election caused the greatest shift in state governments, not the federal government, where the Senate and executive branch are still reliably Democrats. A total of 29 governors are now anti-abortion, compared to 21 before, and 15 states have pro-life legislatures and governors, compared to 10 before.

The pro-life lobbyists are pursuing a three-pronged effort to reverse Roe v. Wade including 1) moving up the cut-off date to prevent late-term abortions from 26 weeks to 20 weeks, the time when some scientists believe the fetus is able to feel pain, 2) Requiring women to view ultrasounds of their fetus before proceeding with abortion, and 3) banning abortion coverage by insurance. I think the last item should be opposed by pro-choice and pro-life groups alike. You don’t want to create a system where rich people have access to abortion, and poor people do not.

No matter where you stand on this controversial issue, you need to be aware that the momentum has clearly shifted to the pro-life side.