Komen, Planned Parenthood and Breast Health
By E M Barner | Friday, February 3rd, 2012 | Culture, PoliticsYesterday, we wrote about the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s new grant criteria which made Planned Parenthood ineligible for future funding. In their decision announced earlier this week, Komen cited stricter eligibility criteria, focusing on providing direct services to women and refraining from providing grants to organizations under federal, state or local investigation.
Komen had provided $680,000 to Planned Parenthood affiliates last year. These affiliates do not provide mammograms, so the monies appear to be designated for breast exams.
Planned Parenthood itself broke the story that it would be impacted by Komen’s new policy and launched an all out assault on Komen, accusing them in donor emails of yielding to “anti-choice” pressure. In an email to its supporters today, Planned Parenthood claims to have raised $3 million in two days off of the Komen story.
Meanwhile, Komen’s Facebook page exploded with more than 26,000 comments supporting and opposing their decision to make Planned Parenthood ineligible for future grants. A community page on Facebook thanking Komen for the decision gained 2,600 followers within three days. The issue was all over Twitter as well. Hundreds of thousands of signatures were collected in online petitions, including one by moveon.org, which urged Komen to reverse its decision and continue funding Planned Parenthood. Komen reported a 100% increase in donations following the decision.
Apparently overwhelmed by the political backlash from Planned Parenthood, the Komen board met Thursday night and clarified their new policy. In a statement posted to their Facebook, Komen said:
The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.
Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.
Komen also noted that their clarified grant eligibility criteria would allow Planned Parenthood to remain eligible for future grants.
Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood declared victory over pro-lifers who had supported Komen’s earlier decision: “In recent weeks, the treasured relationship between the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation and Planned Parenthood has been challenged, and we are now heartened that we can continue to work in partnership …,” she said.
Some pro-life groups had equally strong reactions, while others were more guarded.
The American Center for Law and Justice accused Komen of hypocrisy and said it is “very disappointing that this valuable cancer charity appears to be caving to the abortion industry.”
Virginia based Care Net, a national organization supporting over 1150 pregnancy care centers noted that “Millions of life-affirming Americans want to end breast cancer but do not want their donations going to support the nation’s largest abortion provider.” Care Net President Melinda Delahoyde urged Komen “to act in the best interest of all women by giving future grants to organizations whose sole mission is to save lives, not take them.”
Jeanne Monahan, Family Research Council‘s Director for the Center for Human Dignity, had the following to say: “It would be heartbreaking for women who suffer from breast cancer if Planned Parenthood has bullied Komen into loosening their higher standards.”
And, Dr. Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life, indicated that Planned Parenthood’s association with Komen has given political cover to the abortion provider: “Komen’s long-standing partnership with the nation’s largest abortion provider has allowed Planned Parenthood to whitewash the central fact that their core mission involves providing abortion.” She also commented: “As a breast cancer survivor, I am troubled that the Komen Foundation has come under such heavy fire for their recent decision to tighten and focus their funding guidelines. This week we have all been witness to highly partisan attacks from pro-abortion advocates and an ugly and disgraceful shakedown that highlights Planned Parenthood’s willingness to pursue a scorched-earth strategy to force compliance with their pro-abortion agenda.”
Komen board member John Raffaelli told the Washington Post that the newest Komen criteria allow Planned Parenthood to apply for funding in the future, but does not guarantee that they will receive it. Komen wants to focus on breast cancer, but recognizes it will lose some support regardless of its funding decisions. Raffaelli is quoted in the NYT:
“Is it possible for a women’s health organization to stay out of the abortion issue and help all women?” he asked. “I don’t know the answer to that yet. What we were doing before was angering the right-to-life crowd. Then, with our decision in December, we upset the pro-choice crowd. And now we’re going to make the right-to-life crowd mad all over again. How do we stop doing that?”
Will Komen affiliates fund Planned Parenthood in the future or will they focus on funding breast cancer research and community health organizations that provide direct breast health services, such as mammograms, to women? It looks like both sides will just have to wait and see.
In the meantime, the controversy over Komen funding has drawn attention to two important points:
Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms, which are the single most effective way to detect breast cancer, and the Komen Foundation, through some of its local affiliates, has historically funded breast cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood affiliates anyway. Of course, Planned Parenthood did perform 329,445 abortions last year, making it the largest abortion provider in the U.S.
—
Disclosure statement: The author of this post is employed at Care Net.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
E M Barner, the blogger formerly known as DCH / De Civitate Hominis (“concerning the city of man”), writes from a Northern Virginia perspective. Barner has been active in Republican politics and policy since 1994 – as a grassroots volunteer, party leader, and professional.
Comments
38 Responses to "Komen, Planned Parenthood and Breast Health"
Koman is not funding abortions. They provide funds for cancer screenings.
I believe they made the correct choice to provide funding as they have for years and reversed the earlier decision. Politics should not be part of charity and fundraising. JMO
Donations to PP fund abortions. If you think they do mammograms, think again. This quote is from PP’s website =
“Where Can I Get a Mammogram?
Ask your health care provider, health department, or staff at your local Planned Parenthood health center about where you can get a mammogram in your area.”
Doesn’t sound like they actually do them, just give you a phone number.
PP does not provide mammograms. In official documents, they don’t even claim to – although Cecile Richards claimed in a TV interview that federal de-funding of PP would eliminate mammograms for poor women.
PP does provide clinical breast exams; the grants from Komen were intended for these.
And you know what,Jo! A lot of poor women wouldn’t know how to find a place that does mammograms, but they do know that PP can help them. That’s what’s all about.
It’s difficult to watch this interview and not think it is not just political but broken arm wrestling of the leftest media. Susan G.Komen Foundation is a charity organization specifically for breast cancer and they have every right to decide what institutions qualify to receive donations. I hope in the future they will not choose to fund Planned Parenthood as they do nothing for breast cancer screenings but refer to others for those services.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/02/andrea-mitchell-komen-anger_n_1250962.html?ref=fb&utm_campaign=020312&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily+Brief&src=sp&comm_ref=false
And you know what,Mormor!
Many people ask “If I talk to trolls on a blog, will I end up with pubic lice or scabies or ebola?”
This, I know, is a question which causes anxiety for many of you.
Trolls are like toilet seats: though they are crawling with germs and other foul substances, you cannot usually becoming infected by simple contact with them.
Bearing Drift remains pubic-lice-, scabies- and ebola-free.
Meaning what?
(up early again, I see)
Gadzooks! I read it again / “pubic-lice etc /
GROSS!!!
Once again, pro-abortionists show that they aren’t interested in “choice”….just abortion.
http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm
On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
“…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”
On the extermination of blacks:
“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
Margaret Sanger
The republican party was and must maintain the abolishionist spirit or admit that the party is not as advertised. This act on the part of Susan G Komen foundation should backfire.. Heads need to roll.
“Millions of life-affirming Americans want to end breast cancer but do not want their donations going to support the nation’s largest abortion provider.”
It’s interesting that they use this line of attack. I seem to remember millions of American that did not want their tax dollars to go to the War in Iraq, the nations biggest waste of money which took the life of thousands of American and Iraqi lives.
James, it’s interesting with the history of Sanger, the first black President of the United States is a champion of abortion rights.
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/obama-abortion-can-help-daughters-fulfil-their-dreams/
Kathy
That is a low blow, and you (ought to) know it.
He also said: “Government should no intrude on private family matters.”
Mormor, as long as our Government provides a third of the funding for Planned Parenthood which is the largest abortion provider in the United States, it is not a private family matter since the taxpayers do ultimately pay for it. Yes, it is not supposed to be used for abortions, but, it certainly frees up the finances quite a bit for Planned Parenthood doesn’t it?
http://www.all.org/article/index/id/OTIwOQ
[...] E.M. Barner at Bearing Drift writes: In the meantime, the controversy over Komen funding has drawn attention to two important [...]
When will pro-birthers step down from the holier than thou rock and enlighten us as to the vision they see for America when and if abortion were to be declared illegal? What does this pristine vision look like? Are there no unwanted pregnancies? Do all women come to term? I want the rest of the pro-birth story, but they never elaborate past the position that “Abortion should be illegal.” I want to know the consequences for the woman who commits “pre-meditated murder.” I want to know what resources will be available for all of these unwanted children. Would one of you pro-birthers fill me in on the future as you would have it?
Oh, yea, old geezer, I have always respected this blog b/c it tolerates viewpoints other than its own. Have things changed since I was last here?
“Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn”
Odd, odd, evil old man. Your indifference to life is truly appalling. Your concern is not with children, is not with women, but only with a flagrant disregard for both. I think you epitomize the pro-birth movement.
Actually I am Pro-choice or Pro-abortion as some people look at it.
I am as bloody-minded an old murderer as you’d care not to meet in a dark alley anywhere. Ruthless, heartless and uncaring.
Sounds like the perfect Democrat.
You make no sense. Your response is that of a dullard. So, old dullard, don’t bother answering my original question because I now know that you don’t have the intellectual capacity to do so. I have no patience for those who obfuscate because they are just plain dumb.
Is there anyone here at Bearing Drift who will respond to my original query? I would truly like to know what the pro-birthers envision for an America where abortion is illegal.
“Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn”
Gee, Thor, speaking of lines of attack; have been watching the planes at Langley for the last couple of days. Have not seen activity like this since the Iraq invasion.
Not sure if Barry is planning to attack Iran or if his wife has been on another shopping trip and needs half of the Air Force to bring her things home.
Susan G, imagine living as if our actions had consequences. Imagine Women taking their reproductive risks more seriously. Sexual freedom is great for you Susan G but there are consequences when oops happens. Pro choice is all about justifying and accomodating the me I want it now mentality and truthfully it is a symptom of a social and cultural disorder we face.
Tell me if I am wrong but is aids not significantly higher among those who ascribe to the what me worry lifestyle so common among women who are pro choice. Hate me, it is not a man thing.
You just affirmed what I know all pro-birthers to be truly concerned about-the sexual act. You can’t even bring yourself to say the word “child” but “oops.” You care not one iota about a living, breathing hungry, nurture -needing child but the sexual act of a “what me worry” woman. How about the “what me worry” man? Never a consideration, right, James? It’s that promiscuous woman. How dare she have control of her body. Seventy-seven percent of all pro-birth leaders are male.
So how about answering my original question?
What does an America look like where abortion is illegal?
Susan G, why is the suicide rate higher among pro choicers who, uh.. made the choice? Here is some red meat for ya.. http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/08/24/cdc-finally-makes-it-official-gay-and-bi-men-50-times-more-likely-contract-hiv-than-other-groups How come they dont mention keeping pants zipped or, dare I say, conservative values such as.. oh darn what is that word I can’t think of relating to not having sex until marraige or something? What is that word, remind me SG..
Susan G, having an abortion is not an essential part of life for most women in the world. Even people who are pro-choice can’t pretend that getting an abortion is an inherently good thing. In their mind it’s a case of doing something bad to prevent something worse at best.. and this is where we differ. Pro life sees life as a gift from god and abortion as something bad that is to be prevented.
Hillary Clinton said “whether you are pro-life or pro-choice we can all agree that we’d like to reduce the number of abortions performed in our country” and that is kind of the middle ground for the left.
So, to answer your question, if abortion is illegal American will look pretty much the same and the population will not grow much faster. It will force more women to take their personal responsibility for their body more seriously too because there would be no more public funding for abortions.
What do gay men have to do with women’s reproductive rights?
What’s with the gay link, James?
Zipped pants and red meat and what not. I think you might need to clean up your hard drive.
I ask again, what does an America look like where abortion is illegal?
What does America look like where people are less promiscuous, gay or straight, Susan G?
What does America look like if taking out human life is not immoral? Is self gratification now, reproductive inconvenience be damned for heat of the moment narcissistic sexual satisfaction more precious than unborn human flesh, Susan G? When you get hot do you not want to be bothered by the consequances? Oh, that word I could not remember.. abstinence.
I never understood why they repealed Prohibition. Hadn’t the entire country turned teetotaler with its passage? I’m so glad there is no illegal drug use in this country because of our effective laws? Why do those nice statetroopers pull people over on I95? You get it, James. Making something illegal does not make it go away. So what will be the criminal penalty for getting an illegal abortion? If you know that a woman is going to harm her fetus by attempting to self induce an abortion, does the government have a stake in confining her to prevent this?
Will women of child-bearing age need to register their monthly status at the county courthouse?
I totally disagree with many of our failed drug laws.. legalize it and tax it. Let the IRS take them on. Susan G, I am unapologetically pro life. I also realize there will have to be some reasonable compromise in order to reduce the number of abortions and more importantly more reproductive responsibility among women. No, men do not get preganant, women do.. They have the burden to prevent pregnancy. Men have no responsiblity, figuratively and literally in the mind of a pro choicer but among pro life its the oposite for the most part.
Women have a special personal responsibility Susan, I will spare you and the readers of this blog the details.. it entails women keeping their eggs safe from fertilization by illigitimate would be fathers so women do not become illigitimate mothers.
James, you don’t have to apologize for having an opinion about abortion, but you do have to apologize for wanting our government to pass laws that make abortion illegal with no consideration of the harm that will befall women in this country if you got your way. You do not get pregnant. If men got pregnant, men would be able to get an abortion next to the nail salon in Walmart. No one likes abortion, no one likes a root canal. They are medical procedures. One done to save the tooth, and the other done because the woman chooses to not be pregnant for any of a number of reasons that I will spare the readers of this blog. The result is she has saved herself from something that she did not want to occur.. I do not judge.
Today, there are no legal differences between parasitic tissue masses growing in a body… whether it is a fetus, colon polyp, cancerous tumor, wart or a badly infected zit. Personal choice for removal extends to all afflictions, and whatever tissue mass is removed ends up in the same hazardous medical waste trash can. People with moral and religious convictions were taught that a fetus shouldn’t end up as medical waste, and should be given a chance.
Very good commentary on the Komen / PP controversy from Matthew Lee Anderson – Can politics really be taken out of the fight against breast cancer?
Human life is sacred, not politics.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/417120_294866527234843_113072892080875_765355_458323035_n.jpg
Well, regardless of where you stand on this issue, the blood-letting has started at SGK. Karen Handel, the brains behind the proposition to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, resigned this morning. I predict more heads will roll as the foundation seeks to regain their contributors and constituency. I think that speaks volumes about whether or not this was a good idea for SGK. You may be pro-life, but your crowd is obviously not the ones funding SGK.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.