Komen Reverses Decision On Funding PP

[Pinkie]

(CNN) -- Faced with a deluge of opposition that included pressure from lawmakers and internal dissent, one of America's leading breast cancer advocacy groups on Friday reversed itself on a decision that would have cut off funding to some Planned Parenthood projects."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," the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation said in a statement. "We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities."The group's earlier decision not to renew part of its longstanding partnership with Planned Parenthood, which operates hundreds of family clinics that perform abortions, triggered strong emotions across the country. It provoked objection even from some of its own affiliates.

Komen Foundation reverses funding decision of Planned Parenthood - CNN.com
​

 

[Pinkie]

I think the damage to Koman has mostly been done already....but I applaud them for correcting a mistake.

 

[digsbe]

The damage to Komen has been done by reinstating grants to Planned Parenthood. I will not be supporting them.

 

[kenvin]

The damage to Komen has been done by reinstating grants to Planned Parenthood. I will not be supporting them.

The money you never gave in the past won't be missed in the future.

 

[danarhea]

The damage to Komen has been done by reinstating grants to Planned Parenthood. I will not be supporting them.

Actually, the damage to Komen has been caused by Komen itself. They are very good at getting people to buy pink spatulas and ribbons, and providing education about breast cancer, but who has been providing the actual breast exams? Planned Parenthood. Komen shot itself in the foot here.

 

[sangha]

who has been providing the actual breast exams? Planned Parenthood.

With money provided by Komen

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It seems foolish to me, for a charity that is focused on one particular cause, to involve itself in another unrelated cause, especially one that is controversial.

The Komen Foundation is ostensibly about fighting breast cancer. They ought to want the support of anyone who wants to help fight breast cancer.

Planned Parenthood is widely perceived as being about abortion. Americans are deeply divided about abortion. To be seen as supporting Planned Parenthood, and thus as supporting abortion, or to be seen as taking the side against Planned Parenthood and against abortion—either way—can be counted on to alienate a very large portion of people who otherwise would have supported the Komen Foundation.

It was very foolish of this organization to associate itself with Planned Parenthood in the first place.

 

[sangha]

It seems foolish to me, for a charity that is focused on one particular cause, to involve itself in another unrelated cause, especially one that is controversial.

The Komen Foundation is ostensibly about fighting breast cancer. They ought to want the support of anyone who wants to help fight breast cancer.

Planned Parenthood is widely perceived as being about abortion. Americans are deeply divided about abortion. To be seen as supporting Planned Parenthood, and thus as supporting abortion, or to be seen as taking the side against Planned Parenthood and against abortion—either way—can be counted on to alienate a very large portion of people who otherwise would have supported the Komen Foundation.

It was very foolish of this organization to associate itself with Planned Parenthood in the first place.

Seeing as how they've raised hundreds of millions of dollars, and you've raised none to my knowledge, we'll trust Komens' judgement more than yours

 

[iguanaman]

It seems foolish to me, for a charity that is focused on one particular cause, to involve itself in another unrelated cause, especially one that is controversial.

The Komen Foundation is ostensibly about fighting breast cancer. They ought to want the support of anyone who wants to help fight breast cancer.

Planned Parenthood is widely perceived as being about abortion. Americans are deeply divided about abortion. To be seen as supporting Planned Parenthood, and thus as supporting abortion, or to be seen as taking the side against Planned Parenthood and against abortion—either way—can be counted on to alienate a very large portion of people who otherwise would have supported the Komen Foundation.

It was very foolish of this organization to associate itself with Planned Parenthood in the first place.

More correctly PP has been the target of lies and half-truths to try an discredit their important work. I see you are one of those spreading the lies. Supporting PP means saving womens lives, people like you are killing women with your fanatic religous beliefs. Who says we don't have theTaliban in the U.S.?

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding

Reuters:

The Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation backed down from its decision to cut funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion and birth control services, following a massive outcry by supporters of the world's largest breast cancer charity.

"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," Komen said in a statement on Friday signed by its board of directors and its founder Nancy Brinker.

"We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities."

Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding | Reuters

This is good news and it shows the power that ordinary people can have in influencing the decisions of large institutions.

 

[emdash]

Re: Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding

I just hope it doesn't mean what they want us to think it means.

 

[Josie]

Re: Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding

Lame. They look like total morons.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding

I really don't see how that was anything but an unhinged, bullying tantrum on the part of PP and its supporters. They "hate poor women"? Really?

It's not like they're entitled to SGK's donations. Are they the mob? Once you're in, you're always in? Seems that way.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Re: Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding

I really don't see how that was anything but an unhinged, bullying tantrum on the part of PP and its supporters. They "hate poor women"? Really?

It's not like they're entitled to SGK's donations. Are they the mob? Once you're in, you're always in? Seems that way.

Well anyone who said, "they hate poor" women was obviously being hyperbolic. However, I don't think people's protests were rooted in thinking that PP is entitled to their funds, it was rooted in believing that Komen was putting politics before health. I also think a lot of people who support PP support Komen as well particularly since both focus on women's health issues, so when Komen took their support away from PP a lot of people who donate to Komen were pissed that they donated to an organization that would do that.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding

However, I don't think people's protests were rooted in thinking that PP is entitled to their funds, it was rooted in believing that Komen was putting politics before health.

How is that different? It's not like SGK isn't going to put the money it would have given to PP into some other venue concerning what they do, which IS women's health, so to even say this implies that PP = health and thus they're entitled to it.

So, if you don't give the money to the "right" place (PP), it's putting politics before health? Isn't demanding that SGK give its money to PP instead of wherever else it might decide to do so pretty much politics before health in its own right?

Well anyone who said, "they hate poor" women was obviously being hyperbolic.

Well, that's part of being a bully. And a whole great lot of them did (including the ones who hacked SGK's web page and edited their Wikipedia entry).

I also think a lot of people who support PP support Komen as well particularly since both focus on women's health issues, so when Komen took their support away from PP a lot of people who donate to Komen were pissed that they donated to an organization that would do that.

Yeah, they were obviously pissed. And threw a tantrum. (And, oddly, proved PP didn't need SGK's money.)

PP =/= "women's health." Especially when there are obvious reasons to withhold grants, such as federal investigation into PP.

Now, on the abortion thing, which come ON, we all know is fueling this -- is it "pro-choice" or is it "pro-abortion"? Everyone insists it's the former. If SGK is making its choice by declining to fund it, why isn't that OK? Why isn't that a legitimate choice? To somehow say that it isn't means it's not really about "choice" at all, but about pushing abortion.

 

[Dickieboy]

Re: Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding

Since one can contribute directly to PP it will be interesting what happens in the future. What are the demographics of the 'typical' SGK contributor? How many contributors knew SGK had awarded grants to PP? Will this new knowledge affect the contributions SGK receives in the future? They may have just shat in their nest. We'll see.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Re: Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding

How is that different? It's not like SGK isn't going to put the money it would have given to PP into some other venue concerning what they do, which IS women's health, so to even say this implies that PP = health and thus they're entitled to it.

No, entitlement isn't involved. PP has a unique position in serving low income women and so people thought that Komen was putting politics before health. The end.

So, if you don't give the money to the "right" place (PP), it's putting politics before health? Isn't demanding that SGK give its money to PP instead of wherever else it might decide to do so pretty much politics before health in its own right?

Yes. No.

Well, that's part of being a bully. And a whole great lot of them did (including the ones who hacked SGK's web page and edited their Wikipedia entry).

Sure.

Yeah, they were obviously pissed. And threw a tantrum. (And, oddly, proved PP didn't need SGK's money.)

PP =/= "women's health." Especially when there are obvious reasons to withhold grants, such as federal investigation into PP.

Now, on the abortion thing, which come ON, we all know is fueling this -- is it "pro-choice" or is it "pro-abortion"? Everyone insists it's the former. If SGK is making its choice by declining to fund it, why isn't that OK? Why isn't that a legitimate choice? To somehow say that it isn't means it's not really about "choice" at all, but about pushing abortion.

It can be okay to decline funding and it can be a legitimate choice. Whether it is or not depends entirely upon who you ask. However, if the people who donate to your foundation disagree with you, then they will take away their money and voice their disapproval. If you donated money to an organization that you cared about and then did something you thought was horrible, would you not voice your disapproval and stop donating?

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding

No, entitlement isn't involved. PP has a unique position in serving low income women and so people thought that Komen was putting politics before health. The end.

Well, not really. What makes them so unique? No one else at all does this? And besides, an interest in "women's health" requires you to fund EVERY POSSIBLE ASPECT of it, else you're putting politics before health?

Is that a slope you want to be on?

Yes. No.

OK, you need considerably more than that.

It can be okay to decline funding and it can be a legitimate choice. Whether it is or not depends entirely upon who you ask. However, if the people who donate to your foundation disagree with you, then they will take away their money and voice their disapproval. If you donated money to an organization that you cared about and then did something you thought was horrible, would you not voice your disapproval and stop donating?

Sure. But merely "voicing disapproval" and "stopping donations" is hardly what happened here. Never mind that the tantrum came from all sorts of people that appear not to be SGK supporters in the first place, or at least there's nothing to indicate that they are.

Besides, there's research which suggests that having an abortion can increase the risk of breast cancer. Seems to me that would be an unassailable reason that SGK wouldn't want to fund it. In that instance, who would be putting the politics before the health?

 

[Amigo]

Re: Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding

Reuters:


This is good news and it shows the power that ordinary people can have in influencing the decisions of large institutions.

Ordinary people?

Komen's donations went up 100% when it they cut off PP, now they caved in to PP. They'll lose support now!

 

[pbrauer]

Re: Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding

Reuters:


This is good news and it shows the power that ordinary people can have in influencing the decisions of large institutions.

The is wonderful news, from your link, the following appears to be key:

Komen said it will now amend its new funding criteria to "ensure that politics has no place in our grant process." The guidelines will make clear that a group under investigation will be disqualified only if the probe is "criminal and conclusive in nature and not political."​

That's the way it should be.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Re: Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding

Well, not really. What makes them so unique? No one else at all does this? And besides, an interest in "women's health" requires you to fund EVERY POSSIBLE ASPECT of it, else you're putting politics before health?

Is that a slope you want to be on?

Planned Parenthood is one of the largest organizations in the country that low income women have access to go for breast exams. That's a unique spot. Having one of the largest sponsors of breast health awareness cut funding to them is stupid. And I'm not on a slope - cutting funding to their entire organization cuts funding to a place with high access to low income women.

OK, you need considerably more than that.

Understanding the access PP has to low income women is not putting politics before health, it's the exact opposite.

Sure. But merely "voicing disapproval" and "stopping donations" is hardly what happened here. Never mind that the tantrum came from all sorts of people that appear not to be SGK supporters in the first place, or at least there's nothing to indicate that they are.

When something big happens, "merely voicing disapproval and stopping donations" is rarely what happens, but that sums up what happened and I would hardly call most people's actions tantrums. I don't approve of threats or hyperbolic responses, but I have no problem with people expressing their anger and frustration in appropriate ways.

Besides, there's research which suggests that having an abortion can increase the risk of breast cancer. Seems to me that would be an unassailable reason that SGK wouldn't want to fund it. In that instance, who would be putting the politics before the health?

That research is nonsense.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding

Planned Parenthood is one of the largest organizations in the country that low income women have access to go for breast exams. That's a unique spot.

Except they don't do any. They refer women to other clinics.

From SGK:

"We have decided not to fund, wherever possible, pass-through grants. We were giving them money, they were sending women out for mammograms. What we would like to have are clinics where we can directly fund mammograms."

Passing the money through PP means PP gets a cut and less money goes to the clinics which actually do the mammograms.

I'm certain you will disagree, but it certainly seems to me that on your own terms, insisting that the grant pass through PP, PP taking its cut, and less money going to the actual provider, is indeed politics before health. For the purposes you state, there's no reason PP needs the grant, and giving them a chunk actually means less spending on the actual "health."

Understanding the access PP has to low income women is not putting politics before health, it's the exact opposite.

Only if you insist that "health" means exactly the specific things you choose, and not other things they could decide to do with the money.

When something big happens, "merely voicing disapproval and stopping donations" is rarely what happens, but that sums up what happened and I would hardly call most people's actions tantrums. I don't approve of threats or hyperbolic responses, but I have no problem with people expressing their anger and frustration in appropriate ways.

When the hyperbole comprises the bulk of the response, then it's not quite as you describe.

That research is nonsense.

Because you so say. OK.

 

[Wessexman]

Re: Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding

Reuters:


This is good news and it shows the power that ordinary people can have in influencing the decisions of large institutions.

Is it ordinary people or is it the kind of people who use twitter a lot and have blogs? You often find this kind of people being called 'the people' or 'the community' lately, when common sense would suggest they are hardly representative.

Anyway, there is now no excuse for a pro-lifer to donate to this organisation.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Re: Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding

Except they don't do any. They refer women to other clinics.

From SGK:

"We have decided not to fund, wherever possible, pass-through grants. We were giving them money, they were sending women out for mammograms. What we would like to have are clinics where we can directly fund mammograms."

They don't do mammograms, you're right, they do breast exams which is what I said.

Passing the money through PP means PP gets a cut and less money goes to the clinics which actually do the mammograms.

Did Komen say that they were going to give the money to clinics that do mammograms? And if they did, do those clinics have the same wide reaching access to low income women?

I'm certain you will disagree, but it certainly seems to me that on your own terms, insisting that the grant pass through PP, PP taking its cut, and less money going to the actual provider, is indeed politics before health. For the purposes you state, there's no reason PP needs the grant, and giving them a chunk actually means less spending on the actual "health."

No, it's understanding that PP has a certain level of access to low income women.

Only if you insist that "health" means exactly the specific things you choose, and not other things they could decide to do with the money.

No, putting politics before access to low income women for breast exams is a big deal.

When the hyperbole comprises the bulk of the response, then it's not quite as you describe.

I don't think hyperbole comprises the bulk of the response. I think that's your skewed perception. In fact, I think you're being hyperbolic about how much hyperbole was actually involved.

Because you so say. OK.

No, because it actually is nonsense. Ask the American Cancer Society. In fact, they say that full term pregnancy increases ones risk for breast cancer for a short term, so it's actually the exact opposite of what you claim.

 

[Wessexman]

Re: Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding

No, putting politics before access to low income women for breast exams is a big deal.

This is just begging the question isn't it. You would not say it was just politics if you actually believed killing fetuses was the same as killing an adult or post-natal child. It is just politics to you because a fetus is not a person to you. Hence you are just assuming something that is in dispute between you and pro-lifers.