Advertisement

Archive for Friday, February 3, 2012

Komen drops plan to cut Planned Parenthood grants

February 3, 2012

Advertisement

— After three days of controversy, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure breast-cancer charity says it is reversing its decision to cut breast-screening grants to Planned Parenthood.

"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," a Komen statement said.

As first reported by The Associated Press on Tuesday, Komen had adopted criteria excluding Planned Parenthood from grants because it was under government investigation, notably a probe launched in Congress at the urging of anti-abortion groups.

Komen said Friday it would change the criteria so it wouldn't apply to such investigations.

"We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants," the statement said.

Comments

Kirk Larson 2 years, 10 months ago

Good for them. Don't go caving in to those who would desecrate the truly American value of Freedom of Choice.

Cant_have_it_both_ways 2 years, 10 months ago

Many I know would be willing to do the exams for free.

Bunny_Hotcakes 2 years, 10 months ago

Read between the lines:

"We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants," the statement said.

Translated: we're giving ourselves a window of time to come up with some "bulletproof" excuses to deny their future grant applications.

SGK has exposed its ugly underbelly. There are better breast cancer charities out there to support.

saraj 2 years, 10 months ago

You are exactly right. This is not a time to 'celebrate' Komen's reversal. This is a time to keep the pressure on their board......They are the people who hired Karen Handly as their VP. You don't hire someone who goes against your own beliefs. It's pretty obvious what this group has become.

Matthew Herbert 2 years, 10 months ago

The CEO for Susan G Komen foundation paid herself a salary of over $500,000 last year. If you give money to this charity and think that your money is going to cancer research, you are sadly mistaken.

Bassetlover 2 years, 10 months ago

Their CEO salary is not out of line whatsoever, especially against revenues of $400M last year. The salary for a CEO of a non-profit shouldn't be considerably less than his/her counterparts at a for-profit entity. Same skill set required. Equal pay for equal work!

gccs14r 2 years, 10 months ago

Who says CEOs of other companies aren't overpaid? The President is paid $400k per year. You think running any other organization is more stressful or more difficult? You think a BOD is more difficult to work with than is Congress? $400k should be considered an upper limit for CEO pay, not the bottom.

Eileen Jones 2 years, 10 months ago

Thanks for that information. I will not donate money to them. That is obscene.

ivalueamerica 2 years, 10 months ago

It seems reasonable for someone who has to work day and night with few days off, spend much of her time flying all over the country and away from her family and for running an organization equal in size to many international corporations...all for about 20% of their salary.

It is clear that you think everyone should work for a non-profit for free or a sub-poverty wage.

Doing so does not serve well the nonprofit. It does not attract the best talent and it does not provide the best service to those in need.

Really, did you spend one second thinking before you made your knee-jerk reaction?

Yet, in this particular case, I think they screwed up when they pulled funding and did show they are out of touch with their funders and that should be a wake-up call that they need to clean house...however, it still does not mean they should all work for free.

jafs 2 years, 10 months ago

There's a lot of space between free/sub-poverty and 1/2 a million/yr, isn't there?

ivalueamerica 2 years, 10 months ago

you fail to address the going rate for running a national corporation of that same size.

jafs 2 years, 10 months ago

Not at all.

You said that a poster wanted everyone to work for "free or a sub-poverty wage".

Clearly there's a huge span in between that and $500K/yr, so people could run non-profits for a perfectly decent wage in that span.

ivalueamerica 2 years, 10 months ago

the only reason you are avoiding the point and the question at hand is because you have no answer for it.

Nuff said about you.

David Reynolds 2 years, 10 months ago

If this is all about saving lives, how about planned parenthood stop using funds to kill fetuses, 50+ million & counting, & devote those funds to cancer prevention. That would really save lives.

So called freedom if choice is not freedom of choice for those fetuses that are dying. Politics, semantics,& hypocrites make a deadly three some.

Armored_One 2 years, 10 months ago

Citizen, before I ask my primary question, I would like to ask you a simpler one.

Do you have children? Just a simple yes or no will suffice.

pace 2 years, 10 months ago

I am glad they changed their mind. I was worried that only the right breast would be examined with their new guidelines.

chet_larock 2 years, 10 months ago

Hypocrites?? this post could be sarcasm and if so, the rest of my post can be disregarded or ridiculed. either way. but if it's NOT, citizen1,

how do you feel about war? crippling poverty where adults and children are dying because they lack the means for health screenings or paying for healthcare?

why do "pro-lifers" only seem to care about life between conception and birth? why don't "small government" advocates who don't want government meddling in our lives seem to think it's ok for government to dictate what people decide to do with their own bodies? the rand paul TSA incident is a perfect example. ridiculousness defined.

Jean Robart 2 years, 10 months ago

You said it well, chet. You spoke my mind, too.

David Reynolds 2 years, 10 months ago

Well Chet-larock, I don't want government involved with anybody's body. What should be a concern is when a person chooses to have an act performed on their body that kills another persons body. With freedom of choice comes major responsibility. Who is responsible for the child is killed? No, I dispise war. We have had enough!

I am concerned about all life. If you would please reread my earlier post objectively that point would be abundantly clear.

beatrice 2 years, 10 months ago

So you want government to be un-involved with anybody's body -- except for women, whose bodies you want to make a breeding ground should an egg become fertilized. Well congratulations, you just made a rapist a daddy and allowed him to choose the mothers of his children.

grammaddy 2 years, 10 months ago

Regardless of the reversal, I will NOT support SGK any longer.Considering the amount of money raised by PP after the original decision,I'm hoping that someday soon SGK will have to ask PP for funding.

Don Whiteley 2 years, 10 months ago

My wife and I have given several thousand dollars to the S. G. Komen foundation over the years, believing they were using the money to fight cancer in women. Now I find they're funneling funds to the world's biggest abortion sales organization: planned parenthood. Komen won't see a penny of my money in the future, and lesson learned for other charitable institutions. Until I know where my money is going, they don't get it.

jafs 2 years, 10 months ago

I thought these sorts of things prevented implantation of a fertilized egg - is that wrong?

beatrice 2 years, 10 months ago

That is your choice. I am sure you will find a charitable cause to your liking since I doubt you will just stop giving. However, the funds went to screening women for cancer.

pace 2 years, 10 months ago

I doubt he ever donated. Listen to his voice.

Sunny Parker 2 years, 10 months ago

That is not what all the reports indicated. Most of them don't do any type of breast cancer screening!

jafs 2 years, 10 months ago

Yes, this is the famous "I didn't intend it to be a factual statement" comment.

David Reynolds 2 years, 10 months ago

Beatrice, rape Is the problem with the proabortion argument. It is hollow relative to the number of abortions each year.

I and others are concerned with the situation created by rape & incest. The issue is using abortion as a means of contraception.

Pro-Choice starts with self control prior to conception. Pro-Choice means exercising self control , restraint & taking proper precautions prior to having sex.

Before a man and women first practice to conceive, they should not deceive themselves about the probable results. If they did we would not be talking about Planned Parenthood.

With choice comes responsibility & consequences for those choices.

beatrice 2 years, 10 months ago

But if abortions are not available, your "concern" about rape means nothing. I don't mean that to just be offensive. It is based on the end result. Despite your concern, if abortions are made illegal It would still result in a child born to a woman of the rapist's choosing.

Yes, people should take precautions. No argument. Precautions, however, generally aren't 100% safe. Also, others intend to have a child, but then have complications. If a pregnancy threatens a woman's life, should we really insist that she must die so the child is born?

Also, mine isn't a proabortion argument, as you call it. I don't advocate for abortion. I would never tell someone they should have an abortion. That would be a pro -- or for -- abortion stand. If there was never another abortion, that would be fine with me. I do think, however, women should have the right to choose what they do with their own bodies.

I also feel that choice on ending a pregnancy should be limited to the first tri-mester. But that is my opinion. It places me outside the views of many of my fellow liberal friends.

voevoda 2 years, 10 months ago

citizen1, Are you saying that when abstinence and contraceptive methods fail, women should be required by law to carry through with the pregnancy? No matter what the consequences for their health, well-being, or financial stability?
Are you saying that when a pregnancy goes wrong, and the woman's health or even life is jeopardized, she should be required by law to carry through with the pregnancy? No matter what the consequences for her health, well-being, or financial stability? If so, you advocate sacrificing the rights of women in favor of those of unborn, non-viable embryos or fetuses. If you would allow exceptions in some of these cases, then you advocate turning women into petitioners before some state-established board. This board would impose its "superior judgment" on women, who would be forced to live--or die--with the consequences. I can hardly imagine any man agreeing to such a situation, where government intrudes upon their lives and can force them to make enormous personal and financial sacrifices, up to and including their lives. Especially men who claim to be defenders of liberty ought to be staunch defenders of women's rights to choose.

RogueThrill 2 years, 10 months ago

I like it when people say stuff like "those types of females". It's the way smart people frame intelligent arguments.

pace 2 years, 10 months ago

Not far enough. Castrate those types of boys, nip the problem in the bud.

Katara 2 years, 10 months ago

Do you consider birth control failure to be part of "careless sex"?

How do you deal with something like a birth control recall (which has happened several times in the past as well)?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/01/us-birthcontrol-recall-idUSTRE81007G20120201

voevoda 2 years, 10 months ago

So, riddler, you think that the proper penalty for couples that are so irresponsible as to have unprotected sex ought to be having lifetime responsibility for a child? And that's your way of "defending life"?
Pregnancy and child-rearing become a form of punishment?

David Reynolds 2 years, 10 months ago

Beatrice the issue is multifaceted. First is abortion on demand for any reason. Second is societal acceptance of promiscuity. Third is how to deal with real needs for abortion & the condition under which it is acceptable.

What is amazing is after 50+million abortions we do not call this situation genocide. We would in a 3rd world country. We railed against China restricting families to one cold with a preference for males.

RogueThrill 2 years, 10 months ago

I think you should find the nearest dictionary and find the definition of genocide. Second, you should tell "pro-lifers" that they can rail against promiscuity all they want and teach abstinence to high schoolers, but it's prevention (i.e. birth control) education that prevents abortions.

David Reynolds 2 years, 10 months ago

I agree on prevention, but it takes both prevention & a reduction in promiscuity & its acceptance.

My comment on genocide stands, as the point is abortion on demand is an attack on a particular segment of society.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 10 months ago

The only "segment of society" abortion may attack or threaten is men, because it places the responsibility for a woman's body squarely in her own hands.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 10 months ago

Cut off your nose to spite your face, then BAA. Because in the end, if you donate at all, you'll end up donating to a charity, like the American Cancer Society, that knows better than to play politics.

Armored_One 2 years, 10 months ago

There is a fairly simple solution to this whole abortion nonsense. Yes, I say nonsense because if men could have babies, this would be a non-issue.

Outlaw abortion, but that same legislation should create:

  • Child care based on your monthly income. If you have 1500 one month, you pay X amount next month. If that next month you make 1400, for one reason or another, you pay X-P%, P% being equal to the difference in income comparable to the base income.

  • State, federal or both funding established to pay for ALL neonatal care, including doctor visits, medicines, and in the advent that bedrest is required, workman's comp should pay 100% of the woman's income, based on an average of the 3 preceding months' income.

  • Legislation requiring employers to automatically approve time off for all medical needs, from doctor appointments to bedrest and everything in between. The fine for firing a woman for medical conditions related to her pregnancy, no matter the amount it contributes to the decision, should be prohibitively high, to the point of endangering the business' functionality itself.

  • Legislation passed that require hospitals to assign the costs of a live birth to be based on the woman previous 3 months income, unless on doctor prescribed bedrest, at which time the price would be based on the workman's comp decision.

I am sure that there are more points that would need to be addressed, but I know that those are monster ones.

Oh, and one more.

  • Women that are still in the public education system will be provided tutors, in the advent of bedrest, and all medical costs for them will be completely deferred, unless they have worked within the last 3 month preceding their pregnancy. In that case, the above rules for costs would be applied.

  • Women still int he public education system would be allowed to complete their education and receive their diploma as her medical needs require, with no forfiture of grades or any other requirements for graduation.

Or, in short, kids in high school would not be penalized in any shape, form or fashion for being pregnant.

But, since that might impact a man, doubt it would happen.

Katara 2 years, 10 months ago

"As first reported by The Associated Press on Tuesday, Komen had adopted criteria excluding Planned Parenthood from grants because it was under government investigation, notably a probe launched in Congress at the urging of anti-abortion groups."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yet they declined to eliminate a $7.5 million grant to Penn State which is also currently under federal investigation courtesy of Sandusky.

http://jezebel.com/5881802/an-accounting-of-komens-staggering-financial-hypocrisy

They also have no problem accepting money from groups that are under investigation as well.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 10 months ago

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/04/susan_g_komen%E2%80%99s_priceless_gift/

"The starkly observable attack against something as crucial and basic as breast exams for poor women, as well as the fact that so many divergent voices were pulled into it, meant that the conversation was not about partisan politics; it was about women. For the first time in what feels like forever, passion and fury were being loudly, proudly given in a full-throated voice, on behalf of women – women as moral actors; women as citizens with rights, health, bodies, freedoms; women as people with families and economic concerns."

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 10 months ago

Don't get your hopes up or celebrate too soon. All they have said is that they will honor existing contracts (which they would have to do anyway). You can just about bet that if/when PP reapplies for next year they will be turned down. These people have spun so many different directions I'm surprised they haven't passed out from dizziness. First, they dropped PP because of the new "organizations under investigation" policy. Then it was "No, no that's not it! It's because PP doesn't have direct mammography services.", ignoring the fact that PP is the only provider of women's services to poor and uninsured women in many parts of the country and that they DO do the follow up services; making the appointment, paying for it and sometimes even driving the women to it if it's out of the county and they don't have transportation. Now, in this little bit of public "head bowing", it's back to the "investigation" policy. It's all spin, spin, spin and damage control. Now, if they fired Karen Handel, I just might..MIGHT...start taking their "remorse" seriously. But I don't see that happening. In fact, I fully believe this latest bit of "spin" has nothing to do with the public outcry but far more to do with the fact that corporate sponsors have started dropping them like a used floozy on a Saturday night (and I use that analogy deliberately, given Komen's history of "pink washing". A pink GUN? Really????) One of the things I find interesting about Komen's charge that PP is a "pass through" organization is the fact that Komen, itself, is a "pass through" organization. Many people are deciding to just skip Komen and donate directly to PP anyway. At least that way they know their money isn't having the top skimmed off for Komen's administration fees. And boy is that top being skimmed HARD! Komen spends an average of 83 MILLION dollars a year on administration, salaries and fund raising. In fact, more is spent on administration (22%) than what's spent on research grants (20%). That's a heckuva lot of walking, running and bake sales.

deec 2 years, 10 months ago

Sanger opposed abortion. That's why she advocated for birth control. Read her books, not just selected quotes taken out of context. Also, estimates of abortions in the '30's were around a million a year, same as now. The only difference is, now women don't tend to die from them, or from repeated pregnancies.

voevoda 2 years, 10 months ago

its_just_math, Planned Parenthood has long since repudiated the eugenic side of Margaret Sanger's program. You are being dishonest to imply that it still embraces it. What's more, I am sure you realize that you're being dishonest.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 10 months ago

Hey math, there are meds on the market for that kinda paranoia. I suggest you give Bert Nash a call. I'm sure they can help you out.

Katara 2 years, 10 months ago

Then I am sure that you are going to support Planned Parenthood who provides care regardless of the person's income (sliding scale fees) or insurance status. They don't discriminate based on financial ability.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 10 months ago

Yeah, this is pretty much what I said in my post above. I fully and firmly believe that the "public outcry" had nothing at all to do with SGK's decision to backpedal. They could give a rat's rear end about what the public thinks (kinda like a GOP politician). That was evidenced by Karen Handel's retweet, when the ststorm broke, of "For God's sake, go cry me a fing river." That alone should have gotten her fired, but the fact that she wasn't is even further evidence that Nancy Brinker could care less what the plebes think. No, what got their attention was two things: 1. In a space of only 4-5 days Planned Parenthood brought in over 3 million dollars in donations. PP has promised that every penny will go their breast health initiative, putting them in the position of becoming one of the premiere providers in the country of breast care services. That's a heck of a lot of money and much of it was money that would have gone to SGK if they had kept their mouths shut and done "business as usual". 2. In that same amount of time, corporate sponsors started dropping them and distancing themselves from them like someone who had opened a birthday present and found a pile of used kitty litter. Add in that their sale of pink, cheap, plastic c*pola is going to go down the toilet and SGK is looking at a financial hit of Titanic proportions. Even so, SGK's back pedal was a weasely move. They only promised that existing contracts with PP would be honored (something that would likely lay them open to legal problems if they didn't) and that PP was free to apply for further grants when the new grant cycle came available. Well, whoop-dee-do. (Picture me twirling my finger in the air.) You, me and the wall know that all they did was buy time to come up with a newer and better excuse to deny PP, with the hope that by the time it does come around the hurricane of protest will have died down. And it WILL die down eventually. But many people are fairly certain that SGK's monopoly on breast cancer is broken. Too bad they did it to themselves.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 10 months ago

Nothing is harder than having a conversation with someone who is ignorant by choice.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 2 years, 10 months ago

If the religious zealots manage to get abortion limited or banned, the slippery slope will have started. These people are facists who want to have your rights suppressed so they can enforce their twisted sharia style laws on everyone. Beware of them.

Mike Ford 2 years, 10 months ago

dumb dumb babies overstepped......more blowback to follow......

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 10 months ago

Denying grants to Planned Parenthood was a huge, tone-deaf mistake by Komen.

Most wealthy philanthropists are what the right wing describes as the "liberal elite". While I think the term is incorrect, there is a kernal of truth here. Most folks who donate large sums to Komen and other charities are wealthy and support a woman's reproductive rights.

Why Komen decided to kow tow to the anti-abortion right wing is beyond me. These people generally don't support charities like Komen and instead give to religious based charities if at all.

From a purely strategic perspective, this was a dumb move. I think they realized that they could not count on the charity of right-wing anti-abortion zealots to support their cause, so they wisely backtracked.

The damage may have already been done. I will never again donate to Komen and will instead give more to Planned Parenthood, the American Cancer Society, and other charities dedicated to fighting breast cancer and improving women's health and freedom.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 10 months ago

"Why Komen decided to kow tow to the anti-abortion right wing is beyond me." Because Nancy Brinker, SGK's founder, sister of Susan G. Komen and the foundation's permanent CEO, is a hard line Republican who lives in TX and thinks Rick Perry has the greatest hair, EVAR. (She, herself, has had enough botox treatments to look like a plastic doll. The women couldn't crack a natural smile if she tried. Think Newt's current wife.) It's bothered Brinker for years that PP was getting money from SGK. and she's been looking for a way to cut them off for a long time. Karen Handler was hired specifically to do that.. Few people know that, some time ago, SGK also very quietly pulled all grants for stem cell research. Brinker made SGK a political organization. And the truth is, it's no more of a "charity" than the moon is made of green cheese, despite their 501(c) status. SGK is a business, pure and simple. It's whole function was to provide a handsome source of income for a few wealthy dilettantes. As for their name, Susan G. Komen for the CURE, they were never interested in finding a "cure". Finding an actual cure would have done their business in and they had a HUGE stake in preserving that business. Ironically, totally independent of the brouhaha over SGK, a movie, "Pink Ribbons", was released on Februrary 3. I predict it's going to raise the roof on, not just SGK, but a lot of so-called "breast cancer charities" Here's the link to the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QPZfc...

verity 2 years, 10 months ago

Maybe the most important lesson to be taken from this is to investigate any charity before donating. Too many charities spend a very large percentage of the money you give them on administration and fund raising and very little ever gets to the cause they are supposedly pushing. With the internet, it's not hard to do the research. Then, whatever your beliefs, give to the organizations you find worthy.

In my opinion, overhead should not be over 15% and preferably lower.

Sounds like the exposure of the SGK is not going to be good for their business.

purplesage 2 years, 10 months ago

Save lives and Planned Parenthood do not belong in the same sentence. Anyone supporting the pro-death abortion community has no support of mine. Shame on Komen for the Cure for backing off an ethical decision under political pressure.

cowboy 2 years, 10 months ago

New Information shows Komen organization flat out lied about cutting off Planned Parenthoods Cancer screening dollars.

Via Huffpost

But a Komen insider told HuffPost on Sunday that Karen Handel, Komen's staunchly anti-abortion vice president for public policy, was the main force behind the decision to defund Planned Parenthood and the attempt to make that decision look nonpolitical.

"Karen Handel was the prime instigator of this effort, and she herself personally came up with investigation criteria," the source, who requested anonymity for professional reasons, told HuffPost. "She said, 'If we just say it's about investigations, we can defund Planned Parenthood and no one can blame us for being political.'"

Emails between Komen leadership on the day the Planned Parenthood decision was announced, which were reviewed by HuffPost under the condition they not be published, confirm the source's description of Handel's sole "authority" in crafting and implementing the Planned Parenthood policy.

Handel's strategy to cut off Planned Parenthood involved drafting new guidelines that would prevent Komen from funding any organization that was under investigation by local, state or federal authorities. Since Planned Parenthood is currently the target of a congressional inquiry prompted by House Republicans into the way it uses government funds, the family planning provider would have been immediately disqualified from receiving new Komen grants.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 10 months ago

I've seen this video, Ag, and I agree with you. Linda's video is one of the most powerful things I've ever seen. But I also think the real losers are SGK and any other breast cancer "charity" that builds their business on the backs of people like Linda.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.