For whatever reason (it’s not really clear), Komen decides not to give any bucks to America’s largest abortion provider. They had sent money to Planned Parenthood before for breast cancer exams.

There was a vast, we are told, uprising decrying this “assault” on women’s health. Though one would reasonably guess that about half of the thousands and thousands abortions PP does each year mean the loss of the lives of women — clearly not healthy.

Now, Planned Parenthood is not the only organization that provides breast cancer screenings. So, would it matter, if the funding level stayed the same, whether the funds were just assigned to another group doing breast cancer screening? (That would be no.)

But then we learned that PP does not do mammograms, aka breast cancer screenings. They apparently do

“palpation of the breast, checking for detectable lumps.

“A woman’s best chances at beating her cancer are when the cancer is found through mammography before it is large enough to be palpated, or found through mammography in women whose breast density makes it difficult to detect by palpation. By funding PP, Komen funded the abortions that lead to increased risk of breast cancer, the distribution of oral contraceptives which are well known to cause breast cancer, and the lie that women were receiving mammograms,” according to Gerard Nadal.

Then it was said that donations to PP went way up because of Komen, as they reportedly did for Komen. NYC Mayor Bloomberg alone gave $250,000 to PP because of his concern for women, other than the ones aborted.

Yet, because of the bad publicity, the so-called assault on women, Komen reversed course and said that PP funding will continue.

So, nobody was really out any money, indeed they were probably getting more; PP doesn’t really directly provide mammograms; supporters of Planned Parenthood for women’s health ignore the evidence that links abortion and breast cancer, as they ignore the link between contraceptives, another PP favorite, and breast cancer; and we’re back where we started.

Just as the reality of abortion forces proponents, and those who claim opposition to abortion but say it must be an “option,” to use euphemisms and other mental gymnastics to be able to sleep, so must it be for the defenders of that great institution dedicated to women’s “health,” Planned Parenthood.

And the unborn? Well, we’ll lose another million plus this year, a total largely contributed to by Planned Parenthood, indirectly supported, because money is fungible, by Komen.

May God forgive us.

I have fond memories of Newt Gingrich. It was an amazing victory for conservatives when Republicans took the House. Many successes came with the help of his efforts. Perhaps some of them could be almost wholly attributable to him.

And, like most conservatives, he was attacked by the media as heartless. Remember the unflattering picture of him TIME used on its cover?

He’s brilliant. He has great ideas.

But his personal background, I think, makes it very difficult to support him for president of the United States. This is especially true since moral integrity was proclaimed such an important issue when Bill Clinton was running for president and after he became president.

Remember that there are the aspects of redemption, confession, and penance when acknowledging when we have fallen. And we all have. As Rick Perry said, who among us is unstained?

And one of the wonderful gifts of our shared Christian Catholic faith is that of the grace of forgiveness.

None of us can speak to what Gingrich personally, in his heart, has done to seek forgiveness. However, those in the public eye, such as politicians, have the additional burden in asking us to trust them that they prove to us that they deserve it. Do as I say, not as I do, doesn’t cut it.

And we saw and heard what he did in the last nationally televised debate. In his greatest public opportunity to date to exhibit genuine contrition, he did not answer the question regarding the TV interview his second wife gave about their marriage and his actions.

What his wife said in the interview was almost irrelevant. How he answered was and his response was to attack what he was asked and who asked it. This is someone who deeply regrets two extramarital affairs and two divorces?

Replace Gingrich with Clinton, make it a Democrat debate after a serious accusation of marital infidelity made against Clinton. Would Gingrich express the same shock had Clinton been asked about the accusation? He likely would have vigorously protested that the mainstream media was coddling Clinton had he not been asked.

Then there was this less-than-humble response:

On March 8, he told the Christian Broadcasting Network that his duty to his country contributed to the failure of his marriages. “There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.”

Granted, the same article linked above includes other things he has said that seem more indicative of someone who is genuinely repentant. And his daughters have offered support for their father – a very important fact.

So, it would be unchristian to reject Gingrich solely because of his past. But it would be the same to completely ignore it and elevate him to the presidency without concrete evidence of his remorse for repeatedly violating the sanctity of marriage.

Some recent comments of those in positions of power and influence reflect the thinking that blocks real economic recovery.

This from a congressman who worried that the government might not be spending enough to get the economy going — following the debt ceiling deal — as it has so successfully the last few years:

“This idea of pulling money out of the economy in the next couple of years is just bad economics.”

Wonder what he thinks about taxes? After all, taxes take money out of the economy. So, if the government takes the money away from earners, that’s OK. But if they save or spend it, whoa Nellie! (No, I am not saying all taxes are bad or that new taxes should never, ever happen.)

Unsurprisingly, this was the same attitude in a recent New York Times editorial. But it still is interesting to see the fervor they hold for government intervention.

“What the economy needs is real government investment to support demand and create new jobs.”

Amazing. They ignore private enterprise, seeing government as a creator of jobs and driver of demand. They relegate the ideas of free markets, entrepreneurship, private business and, by extension, ownership to also-rans.

Then they find someone who is a Republican – to show the obvious bipartisanship of their absolutely correct position – to agree.

“As … a Republican from Kalispell, Mont., told the pollsters: ‘Unless you have working people, you don’t have revenue from taxes. If you cut spending, jobs will be eliminated and you won’t get any revenue. Every dollar spent creates jobs.’”

Think about that second sentence. Following this reasoning, the government takes taxes from people and companies to pay for jobs. Those jobs generate taxes that are paid to the government. Thus, if the government spends fewer tax dollars, there will be fewer tax-funded jobs that are paying taxes to the government.

This circular thinking is considered a way to grow the economy. It would be comical if it wasn’t so costly and pointless.

Is there a better way to contrast the idea that it’s better to grow the pie than to just slice it up in infinite ways?

During the last campaign, this blog made note of the sadly monotonous trend: politicians will claim the prolife flag during the campaign but, after getting into office, they will eventually let the issue of abortion recede, until the next campaign.

This abandonment of the prolife imperative is reluctantly done by some as their genuine efforts go nowhere.

For others, it’s all part of the plan. They want the votes they can get for being prolife. But they never really intend to go to the mat, or even dress for competition, once in the “hallowed halls” of government.

But this election cycle in Ohio, it looks like some are determined to make a difference.

Soon after the Republicans gained control of both houses and the governor’s office, efforts to fight abortion were predicted. They have come to fruition. The House recently passed three abortion-related bills.

One of the bills was so substantial that Ohio Right to Life voiced its reservation. What that says about ORTL or the bill remains something to ponder.

It is this bill that has been called the most stringent in the nation. It will instantly be ruled unconstitutional, critics claim, so why bother?

Yes, why bother to challenge the status quo? No great advances in life – no pun intended — have ever been made in this manner, right?

This bill takes the startling position that a baby should be protected from abortion when a heartbeat can be detected. Imagine that. The same protection given all of us, that no one is allowed to stop our hearts from beating, will be extended to the unborn.

The reaction of Janet Folger Porter, who used to work for ORTL, to the bill’s passing in the House summed up how much the bill matters in the long slog since Roe:

“For every battle-weary pro-lifer who didn’t see how children were going to be protected in our lifetime, come see what God is doing in Ohio.”

Contrast that with the unbelievable – in both its vacuity and immaturity – comment of a state representative who opposed protecting young humans whose beating hearts can be heard:

“Look around, women. You are surrounded by men making decisions about your future … barefoot and pregnant, that’s where they want you, raising the kids while we are making a living.”

Really? This is what’s offered as a serious argument in such a critical debate? Of course, all one is left with when opposing such an eminently proper act is appeal to absurdity.

Now we will see if the bill moves beyond the House.

We will learn if the House vote was a game-changer or an exercise in futility.

We will find out if yet again hopes raised of Roe’s defeat collapse with the weight of legislators too fearful or too selfish to do the right thing.

While the need for SB5, or something quite close to it, seems to be a necessary component of getting Ohio back on track, the way it was passed in the Senate is no cause for celebration.

According to reports, Republicans on two committees had to be replaced to assure the bill got to the floor. How different is this from the Democrats who have left their states to prevent a vote on a bill they don’t like? Not very.

And let’s face it, this has moved quickly. That wouldn’t be a bad thing if it was relative minor legislation. However, since it’s a substantial change in a decades-old law and 475 pages long with a 99-page amendment, it’s been too fast. How different is this from the way the Democrat-controlled Congress pushed through Obamacare? Not very.

If you don’t have the guts to let the chips fall where they may on a vote, and if you fear letting legislation be examined thoroughly, at the least you diminish the perception of the legislation. At the worst, you essentially admit that the legislation is not ready for prime time.

Looks like some things will never change.

The contradictions in the public-employee union arguments are many.

We need the unions so we have good pay and benefits, but…

We don’t really have good pay and benefits.

We don’t really have good pay and benefits, but…

It’s time to tax the rich to pay for the budgets that pay for our pay and benefits.

We have to have public-employee unions and collective bargaining because it’s the only way we’ll improve our lot in life, but…

Union membership in the private sector continues to decline – don’t they need unions to improve their lot in life?

If you stop collective bargaining in the public sector you’ll eliminate the middles class, but…

Most people don’t work for the government and most people are in the middle class.

We need unions and collective bargaining in the public sector to protect us from the government “man,” but…

Aren’t the people who work in government good, unlike businessmen? Whom do you need protection from? The voters? The citizens?

They just want to end collective bargaining and public-employee unions to intentionally destroy the middle class, but…

Really, seriously, why?

The private sector has unions and collective bargaining and so should the public sector, but…

Private-sector unions have to deal with a free market, company profit and loss; public-sector unions are funded through mandatory taxes and the customers – citizens – are locked into the state monopoly.

People should be allowed to assemble as they see fit, but…

A right-to-work state that doesn’t require the payment of union dues to work is wrong?

Public employees deserve good or great pay because they do good and great jobs, but…

Requiring pay based on merit is an attack on public employees?

If collective bargaining is ended and unions weakened, all public employees will quit, but…

Well, probably not.

Ohio’s SB5, changing collective-bargaining for public employees, is difficult, no doubt about it. While I have only been the member of a union for a few months in my years of working, it’s understandable why people unionize.

Let’s be honest. While all employees are not saints, neither is all management. Just as unions have at times gone too far in their demands, management has done the same.

Still, it’s hard to believe that without substantial change, whether of collective bargaining, government programs, or outright elimination of some duties that government has undertaken over the years, we will not get our fiscal house in order.

While there seems to be some doubt whether government employees are at or above their private-sector counterparts in pay, there seems to be little confusion in the area of benefits – both how much is to be received and the percentage of contributions. Government employees look to have better benefits even as they contribute less toward those benefits.

And job security is generally greater. They accepted somewhat lower pay, at least in earlier days, in exchange for that security, we’ve been told.

Now, there have been many illustrations of unions agreeing to wage/benefit cuts/freezes in order to help difficult budget situations. They should be commended for doing so. However, that this is seen as such a great contribution underscores their impact on public budgets.

Civil service laws are ignored, too, when unions make their case that only they protect their members. Besides, should SB5 pass, any efforts by administrators that are seen as making life more dangerous or onerous for public employees will be front-page news. While enough voters might give SB5 the benefit of the doubt, they will surely recoil if it is used punitively.

But, ultimately, it seems SB5 is about who is in charge. Is it the elected officials and administrators, who are to be agents of the “owners” of the government, the citizens and taxpayers? Or is it the public employees — more specifically in this case, the public-employee unions?

While all of “Stretching the School Dollar” is a fascinating read, the following is especially germane:

“The influence of teachers and teacher unions in local school politics has important consequences for educational productivity and for efforts to improve it in response to fiscal pressures. In the majority of school districts nationwide which engage in formal contract negotiations with unionized employees, the collective bargaining process provides teachers unions with a unique venue through which to shape district policy.

“Topics typically covered in teacher collective bargaining agreements range from the bread-and-butter issues of salaries and benefits to procedures for teacher evaluation, allowances for preparation time, limitations on student contact time and class size, and a host of other work rules that structure everyday practices in the district’s schools.

“Indeed, the 199 contracts on file at the Bureau of Labor Statistics in January 2005 spanned, on average, 105 pages. Their sheer scope ensures that virtually any attempt to change an established policy or practice will conflict with the contract in some way and therefore require union approval. Accordingly, even researchers who downplay the role of teacher unions as a proactive force shaping district policy generally acknowledge that they have the ability to veto major policy changes.”

And this comes after a section explaining the political power that teachers and unions have in elections. Following it is a section that describes what happened in New York City when coffers were flush. The then-chancellor negotiated, over several years, contract changes that included “shorter summers, a six-period work day, streamlined grievance procedures, and a reinstatement of a policy under which teachers patrolled school lunchrooms.”

See, collective bargaining works. (Though one wonders how teachers ever got out of patrolling lunchrooms.) Or does it?

“Yet he was only able to convince United Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten to go along with these changes by agreeing to increase teacher salaries by more than 40 percent….

“In a subsequent negotiation, [the superintendent] won union approval for a modest merit pay program for schools serving low-income students only by agreeing to modify pension policies such that a twenty-five-year veteran could retire at age fifty-five, rather than sixty-two, with 50 percent of her salary guaranteed for life.”

SB5 might not be the best approach. But unless changes are quite substantial, we will continue down the path of ever increasing, i.e. unsustainable, costs. At some point, that path will end. As many see it today, it already has.

Times are tough. Just ask the fleeing Democratic senators who have left Wisconsin and Indiana instead of voting on labor-related laws. Nothing like protesting changes in labor laws by refusing to do your job. Do as I say, not as I do, lead by example, and so on are lost on these guys and gals.

Oh, the challenges they must be facing as they remain in hiding. Could it be going something like this?

“Rock, paper, scissors. Go!”

“One. Two. Three.”

“Again!”

“OK. Bill, you’re first in the breakfast line today. What’s that, like three times? You rock!”

“Bacon, here I come. And, just like all those benefits the GOP wants to cut from our working brothers and sisters, it’s free. At least to us!”

“Yes, Virginia, there is a free lunch. Well, at least breakfast. High five.”

“And think of all the travel reimbursements we’ll be getting – for doing nothing. Oops, don’t quote that. I mean, while we take the brave and bold stand of hiding out in hotels in another state in support of the working man!”

“Dude, I think I’d leave out the ‘hiding out in hotels’ part. Kinda clouds our narrative, ya know.”

“Good point.”

“I cannot believe they are out of hash browns again. I will have to inform this ‘fine’ establishment that we are Democratic senators on the lam and we expect a higher level of service. After all, we’re paying for this with tax dollars and we expect a high ‘return on our investment.’ ”

“Yeah, get that ‘ROI’ in there.”

“When we move tonight after midnight, we may not select another location under this chain’s management!”

“Here, here.”

“I second that.”

“All in favor?”

“Wait, we don’t have a quorum.”

“Ha, good one. You are on fire this a.m.”

“The next hotel better have a Jacuzzi. I’ve done more moving around in the last week than I’ve done in all those years at the statehouse. My muscles are sore.”

“Yeah, and a spa. I’m very tense from all this protesting. It’s time for some ‘me time.’ ”

“OK. Now for some business. It’s time we got serious and made a decision. The last few days really have been a struggle for everyone, am I right?”

“Yeah, you’re right. Let’s get down to business. We need to take action.”

“Thank you. Now, what’s it going to be for the 10 a.m. time slot: ‘Jerry Springer’ or ‘Judge Judy’?”

“Rock, paper, scissors. Go.”

As the Kasich administration makes moves that result in bad PR (the latest is here), its apparent adversary, public-employee unions, would be mistaken to enjoy Kasich’s troubles. Indeed, in their opposition to the proposed legislation revising their collective-bargaining agreements, they are making their own mistakes.

Public unions claim that Kasich and Republicans in the legislature want to destroy the state’s middle class. This is, frankly, asinine. It makes no sense whatsoever. Spouting such a silly idea sets off the noise of the BS bell we each have inside of us, making any legitimate arguments they might have all the harder to hear.

What the unions are ignoring too is that, as hard as their jobs can be, they have pretty good contracts. For the most part, their pay ain’t bad, and neither are their benefits. But what they sidestep is clear to the citizens who provide those wages and benefits.

And it’s abundantly apparent to those who are looking for employment because, as bad as public-employee unions paint their situation, the unemployed person is figuring they’re better off than he is.

The average citizen is also wondering how they got the time off to protest.

Unions are also creating a false choice. “We didn’t create the economic crisis, so why come after us?” But who is blaming them for the economic meltdown? What has happened is that the crisis has exposed yet another unsustainable government endeavor, pay and benefits that are too costly either now or in the future.

These protests at the Statehouse illustrate another problem.

Public-employee unions spend a lot of money and energy to elect politicians sympathetic to their demands. The corollary of that is true, too; they spend a lot to defeat those with differing viewpoints.

Thus, the taxpayers are not necessarily fairly represented in wage and benefit negotiations. For the elected official on the other side of the table, it can often become a bid for re-election, voluntary or otherwise, as these protests might show.

The demonstrations could be interpreted as fighting for what one believes in. But they could also be seen as strong-arm tactics, a Statehouse version of a schoolyard bully who expects to get his way simply because he’s big and strong, not because he is right.

Let’s look at it this way, from a public relations view.

As Ohio’s future governor was campaigning about the need to balance a budget that was expected to have a multi-billion dollar hole, would also planning to cost the state money protecting the new governor’s family home make sense?

Would choosing not to live in the already paid-for governor’s mansion and spending tax money for security at his home make sense if initially no information would be given about the cost of that extra security?

If as governor one was planning on supporting legislation that would make substantial changes to public-employee collective bargaining, would it have made sense to simultaneously plan on hiring some staff members at substantially higher salaries than before?

Would it also have made sense to plan on reducing the pay of some lower-level staff with the idea of being able to say that, overall, the total staff salary budget would not exceed that of the previous governor?

In a state where about 12 percent of the population is black, would it have been a good idea as the new governor to plan on not naming “a single nonwhite person in [the] first 22 cabinet appointments”?

This is not to say these decisions could not have reasonable, plausible, innocent explanations. Nor is it to say that these moves were indeed planned. But when looked at from the perspective of planning to do them, it’s easy to see how bad PR would follow.

Perhaps if we looked at more of our decisions from this standpoint, we might make better choices.

And if there is any doubt about the damage this has caused Kasich’s administration, a cursory look at letters to the editor and a “Kasich” search on Twitter can verify that it has been harmful.