Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktAs okie mentioned in a comment on Part Two, Karen Handel resigned from Komen yesterday.
This was the statement issued at the time:
Statement from Susan G. Komen Founder and CEO Nancy G. Brinker
“Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s mission is the same today as it was the day of its founding: to find a cure and eradicate breast cancer.
“We owe no less to our partners, supporters and, above all, the millions of people who have been and continue to be impacted by this life-threatening disease. We have made mistakes in how we have handled recent decisions and take full accountability for what has resulted, but we cannot take our eye off the ball when it comes to our mission. To do this effectively, we must learn from what we’ve done right, what we’ve done wrong and achieve our goal for the millions of women who rely on us. The stakes are simply too high and providing hope for a cure must drive our efforts.
“Today I accepted the resignation of Karen Handel, who has served as Senior Vice President for Policy since April 2011. I have known Karen for many years, and we both share a common commitment to our organization’s lifelong mission, which must always remain our sole focus. I wish her the best in future endeavors.”
I hope that Nancy realizes that this is not going to quiet the firestorm, especially since Handel lashed out at dissenters in both her letter of resignation
“I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it,” Handel’s resignation letter read. “I openly acknowledge my role in the matter and continue to believe our decision was the best one for Komen’s future and the women we serve.”
and in at least one interview she gave afterwards
Handel first denied that the decision had been in any way related to the political controversy, and was quick to blame Planned Parenthood for politicizing the debate.
“The mission was always foremost in everyone’s mind: the mission and the women that we serve,” Handel said. “The only group that has made this issue political has been Planned Parenthood.”
But when asked later about her role in the decision, Handel appeared to admit that the group had long been under pressure from anti-abortion advocates.
“It’s no secret that Komen and other organizations that were funding Planned Parenthood had been under pressure for some years, long before my time,” Handel said, later adding, “Komen was doing its level best to move to neutral ground — and I will say, I was asked to look at options for doing that.”
But when asked whether the funding-cut push was her idea, as was contended in a Huffington Postinterview that cited internal emails, Handel sidestepped the question.
“I’m saying that this was long an issue for Komen, dealing with the controversies of Planned Parenthood,” she responded.
In addition, our Affiliate’s Executive Director wrote an opinion piece that was scheduled to be published in our local newspaper today (don’t know if it made it in yet as I haven’t seen the paper):
Susan G. Komen for the Cure found itself caught in a media storm this week. In short, a decision made by the head office regarding Planned Parenthood’s eligibility for grant funding was reversed.
Across the country, Komen affiliates felt the fallout. The Salt Lake City office received calls, Facebook posts and emails. Most expressed outrage at Komen’s move to pull funding from Planned Parenthood. When the decision was reversed, we had some angry feedback then too. Meanwhile, it was clear that many of the comments came from people who had little or no idea of what we do, who we are, or how we spend our money. So let me take the opportunity to clarify what Komen represents here in Utah.
First, we are small. We have two full-time and one part-time paid staff. But, with a corps of passionate volunteers, we raise a lot of money, thanks mainly to the 16,000 or more people who join us every year in the Komen Salt Lake City Race for the Cure.
Second, 75 percent of our net funds stay in our local community. We granted $735,000 in 2011 to Utah nonprofits. We fund mammograms performed by Intermountain Healthcare for the uninsured or underinsured. And we support breast health education and other programs, like a van service organized by a small group in Price to ensure that women can travel safely (and free of charge) to Provo for mammography, chemo, or radiation. Our grantees are listed on our local web site, www.komenslc.org. They also include groups that serve minority populations. One of our goals is to increase the mammography rate. Utah ranks second to lowest in the entire nation for screening. We want to change that ranking.
Third, 25 percent of our funds go to Komen headquarters–not for overhead, but for research projects selected at the national level to avoid duplication and ensure impact. Frequently, the funds that we send to Komen HQ for research come back to Utah. For example, Huntsman Cancer Institute is currently working on a project to learn how to isolate breast tumors and prevent them from spreading because that’s when cancer may lead to death. This research is occurring thanks to a $180,000 Komen national grant.
Many women are alive today because of Komen funding. Twenty five years ago, the five-year survival rate for a woman diagnosed with breast cancer (when detected early) was 75 percent. Now it’s 98 percent. Progress is being made. That said, breast cancer remains a serious, life-threatening disease that affects one in eight women.
Regarding Planned Parenthood: Have we given them money in the past? Yes. Will we continue to do so? Yes, if their request is related to breast health, and if our independent panel of reviewers decide that their proposal is a priority, given other requests and funds available. Some may still feel that the very fact that we provide funds of any kind to Planned Parenthood constitutes tacit endorsement of their organization. It is not an endorsement of any kind. It is simply a response to a need in this community for breast health information or services.
In summary, the REAL Komen, the Komen that I know, respect and support, is the Komen in your backyard.
We continue to hope for a great turnout at the Race for the Cure this year as fellow Utahns show their trust and belief in us, and join us in the war against breast cancer.
Debbie Mintowt, Executive Director, Salt Lake City Affiliate of Susan G. Komen for the Cure
Over the weekend I heard from our Board’s President that all of the Affiliates that were on that particular conference call with Nancy Brinker and HQ staff flat-out stated that Karen Handel had to go, and at that time Nancy didn’t want to do that. . . so something happened between Saturday and yesterday. Sooner or later I imagine I’ll hear what it was. Although I have always known that she is a Republican and a conservative Christian religiously conservative woman, up until now Nancy Brinker kept politics out of the Komen brand. I don’t think that we’ll ever shove that genie back in to bottle, so from here on out we’re going to have to be hypervigilant about sponsors, grantees, honorary chairs–everything that is the public face of Komen, and that’s a shame, because both Komen and Planned Parenthood do good work.
Part four is in the works: women’s health, Planned Parenthood, and Komen. I see that part two is up around 180 comments now. If nothing else, I seem to be able to write posts that spark a lot of discussion.
EDIT: Both Mark and Karla pointed out that Nancy Brinker is possibly Jewish rather than Christian; I don’t know why I’d always been led to believe that she’s Christian, but after looking into it I can’t find a citation one way or the other, so I edited it above. I know from meeting her at Komen events and public information that she is a conservative and religious woman (who I admire greatly), so I’ve decided to go with those two descriptors.
Filed under: Komen, Planned Parenthood, politics | Tagged: Charities |
All Things in Moderation 
Thanks for all the info. I really enjoy getting an insiders perspective and opinion. That local leader’s letter really hit the right tone.
LikeLike
I admire your admonishment above the comment box; respect will make things right in the world.
While Karen Handel was certainly a handicap to the Komen brand in this recent controversy, the public comments made by Nancy Brinker herself were the most damaging. The Komen website posted a video of Brinker claiming that the new policy on funding was not politically motivated, but she offered no supporting rationale. I think denying the obvious is insulting, and I suspect that many former Komen supporters (such as myself) resent the denial as much as we resent the obvious politicization of this charity.
From my own perspective, I was a long time and avid supporter of Komen because of a tragic loss to breast cancer within my family. I made my donations with the expectation that they would be used to fight cancer, and not be used as a pawn in some irrelevant political game. This controversy has been heartbreaking and disillusioning for my family. Brinker’s pretense that this move was something other than partisan politics hit a raw nerve and has cost our family’s support forever.
LikeLike
Hello, A New Age! I invite you to go back and read my two earlier posts–it might give you some insight into what happened and restore a little bit of your faith. It has caused an enormous upheaval throughout the entire Komen community, and you aren’t alone in your feeling heartbroken and disillusioned.
Edited to provide links: Part One and Part Two.
LikeLike
Thanks for the links. I will indeed read them.
LikeLike
‘Goose, I thought Susan Komen and her sister Nancy Brinkman were Jewish.
Thanx for the reportage which is unavailable anywhere but HERE.
LikeLike
i too thought komen family was jewish and would not be drawn into the prolife battle. giving support without regard to religion. that they were impartial. these new inights into how they operate will continue to influence many.
LikeLike
Thanks again Michi. Mark’s right, we can’t get this anywhere else.
A New Age of Reason……hello and welcome. If you plan on commenting occasionally or frequently why don’t you read our rules of engagement……we try……and the About Us tab at the top. We’re a diverse group and care about the level of our dialogue although occasionally we fall into silly mode, generally on Fridays.
LikeLike
Mark, since you live in-state I’ll trust you on this; I had always heard that she was a conservative Christian, but I can’t find a citation for that anywhere. I’m still just so surprised that she let the Foundation get dragged into the political battle that she’d successfully avoided for years.
LikeLike
Mich:
I’m still just so surprised that she let the Foundation get dragged into the political battle that she’d successfully avoided for years.
That’s an interesting thought, giving Brinker the credit for keeping the organization out of the political battle, and the blame for allowing it to get dragged in. Prior to this episode, did pro-life forces wage much of a war against Komen over its donations to PP?
LikeLike
Mich,
Again thanks for the solid reporting. One of the major reasons I come here is to learn and your reporting has been very informative.
LikeLike
Michi, all your Komen posts have been interesting. Our family has supported Komen in the past. I thought this was the end of it, but you’ve pushed me back onto the fence.
LikeLike
Mich, lmsinca, okie, and all of our ladies…..
As a mature man without any real dog in the reproductive fight, other than as a grandparent wondering what’s going to be around for my four year old grand daughter, I have to wonder if you guys aren’t getting a bit concerned?
Aside from the specifics of this particular situation, I think the Komen/PP story is simply another page in a growing story of a genuine attempt to reverse Roe versus Wade or at least the “effects” of Roe. If they can’t change the law they’re going to find every way they can to make it so difficult as to be impractical to get an abortion in this country.
It’s clear there is a concerted effort to pull back on women’s reproductive rights. Whether it’s the SGK/PP story, or the “Contraception story” or the “Personhood’ story in Mississippi or the ultra sounds being required in Florida and Texas…I mean ladies are you not getting concerned?
Call me a conspiratorialist but I came to your party late. I was raised to be a chauvinist pig and didn’t really get any of this until my late 20’s. I’m old but not that old…lmsinca and okie you should remember the hits of the mid 60’s…BEFORE Helen Reddy’s I Am Woman. How about Sandy Posey’s “When You’re Born a Woman”?
I’m sorry but I feel the need to share these lyrics. This was a hit when I was in high school…a country classic that grew so popular it became a top 40 hit. Read these lyrics and realize this song is not SATIRE….it’s SERIOUS…
It makes no difference if you’re rich or poor
Or if you’re smart or dumb
A woman’s place in this old world
Is under some man’s thumb
And if you’re born a woman
You’re born to be hurt
You’re born to be stepped on, lied to, cheated on
And treated like dirt
Ah if you’re born a woman
You’re born to be hurt
A woman’s lot is to give and give
And go on giving
A woman’s got to love and lose
And go on living
Pretty dismal eh…but listen to her reaction to a male dominated world…
Well I was born a woman
I didn’t have no say
And when my man finally comes home
He makes me glad it happened that way
Because to be his woman
No price is too great to pay
Wow…if that doesn’t jar the ladies a bit…again some of you are old enough to remember…this means that many of these “values” voters were literally raised with these values…doesn’t mean many haven’t changed…but how many still think like this song?
LikeLike
LMAO
Sorry I just had a vision of Walter trying that last line on lmsinca.
“Get thee behind me lmsinca because to be my woman…there is no price to great to pay.” I would just hope Walter is as quick as G.W. Bush when it comes to ducking flying objects hurled at his head.
LikeLike
LMAO, ruk. There were a whole slew of songs like that way back when, although I don’t recall that particular one. But they represented the mores of the time.
On a more serious note, I think all of us (lms, michi and me) have alluded in previous comments on this series to the fact that we are all concerned about a perceived newly concerted effort to roll back what we consider to be hard won gains in these areas. I’ve seen similar comments on PL by ticktock. lms and I, and I think ticktock, are old enough to remember BC not being readily available and the real price of dangerous back alley or attempted self-induced abortions. I can hardly believe that after all these years we still have to maintain such incredible vigilance.
OTOH, I’m 60 now and I don’t have to worry about this for myself any more! Hooray for that anyway.
LikeLike
michi, this is an incredible series of posts. I hope the next installment is coming soon.
LikeLike
I mean ladies are you not getting concerned?
Why do you think we’ve been talking about it for so many days now? lol You bet we’re worried. Only my tone is moderate on this issue, believe me. Luckily for me my husband is a romantic with a great sense of humor otherwise I doubt he’d put up with me. You should see our girls, they’re fearless. My daughter in law is shocked sometimes at how independent we all are…………….but she’s catching on.
LikeLike
Why do you think we’ve been talking about it for so many days now? lol You bet we’re worried.
I, too, am old enough to remember the good old days. They weren’t.
lms, I hope your daughters all wore “Act Like A Girl” t-shirts at some point. On fearless girls, it takes on a whole new meaning.
LikeLike
Scott:
Prior to this episode, did pro-life forces wage much of a war against Komen over its donations to PP?
There have been threats of protests at Races and letter-writing campaigns and the like, but as I said (I think in part two) they were largely toothless because of the minuscule amount of money and people involved when compared to the larger picture. When confronted, the standard boilerplate has always been that any granting to Planned Parenthood has been in support of educational materials and screening programs in those areas where PP has been the only healthcare provider to disadvantaged/low income women.
ruk:
I hope to get an answer to you later tonight. Now, coincidentally enough, I’m off to the monthly Race for the Cure committee meeting.
Later, all!
LikeLike
lms, I hope your daughters all wore “Act Like A Girl” t-shirts at some point. On fearless girls, it takes on a whole new meaning.
Oh yeah, MsJS, they know the scoop. The youngest especially. She effortlessly goes from boots, jeans and a rock hammer one day to a tight black skirt and heels the next.
michi, I hope your race survives and thrives in this environment. I’m still supporting our local race btw. One of my oldest daughters best friends is heavily involved…..a good Catholic girl btw.
LikeLike
Without knowing the chances that it is enacted, here’s the problem with the payroll tax cut from an economics standpoint.
It works out to about $90 a month for the ”average American family”, which in the below story works out to about 100 billion dollars for the overall economy over the next year. There’s supposed to be an additional 70 billion in continuing the unemployment benefits.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/07/usa-taxes-payroll-idUSL2E8D7DJO20120207
But we know from yesterday’s numbers that consumer credit took a very surprising jump:
“According to the consumer credit report for the month of December, released by the Federal Reserve yesterday, household borrowing (excluding mortgages), rose at 9.3% annual rate in December, following a 9.9% increase in November. That was the biggest two-month rise since 2001.
The increase mostly came from student loans, followed by auto loans and credit card loans.”
Total consumer borrowing now stands at $2.5 trillion, almost same level as before recession and up 4.4% from the September 2010 post-recession low.”
http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/69338/Rising+Consumer+Credit-Sign+of+Improving+Economy%3F
While that’s the sign of an improving economy, it makes it equally likely that workers might use the $90 a month to pay down existing consumer debt, as to do new spending
However the extension of the unemployment benefits is extremely important because obviously that money will be spent directly in the economy for rent, food etc. because there is no alternative. So it will have both the ameliorative and stimulative effects combined.
LikeLike
I agree with you John, and have been saying the payroll tax cut is a costly gimmick while extending UI is a necessary countercyclical for months. We must be right.
LikeLike
” any granting to Planned Parenthood has been in support of educational materials and screening programs in those areas where PP has been the only healthcare provider to disadvantaged/low income women.”
Seems to me that if the anti-PP crowd were serious about wanting to cut funding, they’d work to find alternate sources for the non-abortion related services PP offers. Their apparent unwillingness to do so creates an appearance of not caring about women’s health.
LikeLike
Good point, bsimon. Can I steal it for part four?
LikeLike
[…] Politics, Komen, and Planned Parenthood (and where I open the door to the dragon’s lair) Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the […]
LikeLike
And just in time for our discussion:
Anti-abortion groups to rally at Oklahoma Capitol. “Rose Day” has been an annual event for many years (21 according to the article). I believe this year’s speaker is an ex-employee of PP. According to the article, legislation being considered this year includes granting “personhood” status to a fertilized egg.
The rally is today (Feb 9th). I drive by the capitol on my way to/from work, and this rally usually draws large crowds (and clogs traffic).
LikeLike
Mich:
There have been threats of protests at Races and letter-writing campaigns and the like, but as I said (I think in part two) they were largely toothless because of the minuscule amount of money and people involved when compared to the larger picture.
So, then, it is not so much that the Komen had avoided the political battle, but rather the battle had avoided Komen. Which is interesting to me. It seems that the pro-life (anti-PP) crowd was either unable or unwilling to make a huge public issue out of Komen’s financial support of PP, while the pro-choice (pro-PP) crowd was manifestly willing and able to to make a huge public issue out of Komen’s attempt to end that support.
I think that once Komen began its financial donations to PP, it was unavoidable entangled in the political battle, and just how public that entanglement became was largely, perhaps exclusively, up to the two sides of the battle rather than Komen itself.
LikeLike
Mark
We must be right.
I know, a bunch of us have said this from the beginning. I hope they drop the payroll tax cut before it becomes entrenched and de-link it from another round of UI extensions. That makes much more sense to me and I’m fairly certain they could pay for it by less duplication in Federal agencies. With the lowest Congressional approval ever, you would think they’d attempt a new turf to engage the battle on.
LikeLike
Reading the resignation letter, I would say that hiring Handel brought the political battle inside the castle. It wasn’t inevitable that Komen be involved in this battle. They have criteria for grants and PP met those criteria. A simple statement that we support women’s breast health and the grants to PP were for those purposes only. Arguing about fungibility of funds is inside baseball.
The American Family Association liberally engages in boycotts. The one I remember most was its boycott of Disney because they offer benefits to same sex partners. They launched the boycott in 1996 and ended it in 2005. AFA’s Tim Wildmon stated “We feel after nine years of boycotting Disney we have made our point.” In other words, they had been completely ignored.
Caving to pressure often causes more trouble than the pressure itself. Consider Muslim in America, a banal reality program about some Michigan families. Muslims need paint, light bulbs, and faucets too and so Home Depot advertised on the show. Some firebrand preacher raises a stink and HD pulls its advertising to avoid the controversy, creating a real controversy.
These two paragraphs just had an amusing collision. I was checking on boycotts about Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and just found out that AFA has called for a boycott of Home Depot for its pro-gay agenda since August 2010. Has anyone here heard of that? HD largely ignored AFA and nothing happened.
http://action.afa.net/item.aspx?id=2147496231
Getting into the political battle is not inevitable.
BB
LikeLike
FB:
Getting into the political battle is not inevitable.
As I said, that is entirely dependent upon the ability and willingness of one side or the other to make it a public issue. Komen’s error seems to have been simply having misjudged the relative power and passion of the two sides of the political battle. Quite obviously, the anti-abortion, anti-PP crowd was significantly less able/willing to turn Komen’s PP donations into a public issue than was the pro-abortion, pro-PP crowd. This is self-evident from the course of events.
LikeLike
Scott, if Komen funded breast exams through the grant process to providers it found efficient for many years, including PP, while folks protested against PP on grounds other than breast exam delivery, then Komen furthered its own function without regard to extraneous details about its grantee. Sticking to relevant function analysis seems apolitical, to me.
If the woman who is now gone from SGK came in with a personal political agenda to dump PP b/c PP provides abortions, that seems political to me, and the trigger for this discussion. She was the one who turned Komen’s relationship with PP into a public issue.
In a parallel universe, where SGK dropped PP for cost or service inefficiency on breast exams, and the pro-PP folks raised the issue of abortions, they would have been the generators of the public issue.
But ‘Goose’s posts make clear that we are in our universe, not the parallel one.
LikeLike
Mark:
then Komen furthered its own function without regard to extraneous details about its grantee.
I think you are missing my point. The details are only “extraneous” to the extent that they have no effect on Komen’s ability to further its mission. If the anti-PP crowd made a big enough fuss over those details, to the point of effecting Komen’s abiity to fulfill its mission, those details are by definition no longer “extraneous”.
The point here is that outside political pressure can and does effect what Komen does. To the extent that Komen was unaffected until recently, that is because outside political pressure had not been brought to bear. But Komen itself has no control over how and when that political pressure might be brought, particularly once it started providing funds to PP. And it is clear from events that the pro-PP crowd is more willing/able to bring more political pressure than is the anti-PP crowd.
Perhaps where we disagree is over the political nature of PP itself. I think that, because of its position at the forefront of abortion politics, any financial association with it invites political pressure.
LikeLike
The payroll tax cut is bundled with the UI extensions for optics. It gives everybody a little as cover for giving a few people a lot. If the intent is to be stimulative, I don’t know why it needs to be paid for at all, by a millionaire surtax or any other accounting gimmick.
LikeLike
” Good point, bsimon. Can I steal it for part four?”
Absolutely.
LikeLike
bsimon:
Seems to me that if the anti-PP crowd were serious about wanting to cut funding, they’d work to find alternate sources for the non-abortion related services PP offers. Their apparent unwillingness to do so creates an appearance of not caring about women’s health.
One might also say that if the pro-PP crowd were serious about wanting to get more funding for non-abortion related services, they’d work to find a different organization to supply abortions. Their apparent unwillingness to do so creates an appearance of only caring about abortions.
(Feel free to use this, too, Mich.)
LikeLike
Scott, what is being postulated here is that PP is a major provider of women’s health services, of which abortions are a very small part, although a highly visible one. If as is being posed, only 3% of PP’s budget is for abortions, then women can be pro-PP based on any number of services PP provides, apparently cheaply and efficiently for the user. Apparently, PP is a major provider of breast exam services and education, thanks in part to SGK funding. So the only issue for most donors of breast exam services would be to find a replacement source for the SGK funding, which apparently they did by walking dollars directly from SGK to PP. Thus the more interesting question is whether SGK planned to replace PP’s funding with funding a service that was similarly or more equipped to service the user population on breast exams. I would guess that SGK had another provider in mind and that my question is easily answered, btw.
LikeLike
mark:
If as is being posed, only 3% of PP’s budget is for abortions…
I could be wrong, but I don’t think that is what has been claimed. I think the claim is that abortion represents only 3% of the services provided. So, for example, if a woman comes in to get an abortion, and PP does a gynecological exam, does the abortion, gives her some meds for recovery, and then gives her some birth control as she leaves, they would say that only abortion represented only 25% of the services provided to her.
I don’t think the 3% claim has anything to do with cost, budgeted or otherwise.
LikeLike
” Quite obviously, the anti-abortion, anti-PP crowd was significantly less able/willing to turn Komen’s PP donations into a public issue than was the pro-abortion, pro-PP crowd. This is self-evident from the course of events.”
Less able, yes. But not less willing.
LikeLike
bsimon:
Less able, yes. But not less willing.
Perhaps, but I don’t know for sure either way, which is why I listed them both.
LikeLike
As I said, that is entirely dependent upon the ability and willingness of one side or the other to make it a public issue.
Absolutely. The person who was willing and able to make it a public issue was Handel. She used the Komen foundation to further both her political agenda and political career. I suspect the denouement was inevitable not because of pressure from PP or pro-lifers, but rather from donors. It has relatively to do with power (there’s a lot of it on both sides) or passion (ditto).
Well, must run. My Scotland trip is theoretically tomorrow and the orders are still being held up. Oh, and I just got a call that I’ve got to do a half hour wrap for a five year program at 2. Oh goodie.
BB
LikeLike
Scott
the pro-abortion, pro-PP crowd
I’m playing catch up today at work as we finally got all three computers up and running again so I don’t have much time to weigh in. However, is there any way we could get you to call women and men who support choice as pro-choice rather than pro-abortion? I’m wondering if it’s intentional on your part or just a habit. I conceded the pro-life descriptor many years ago but heartily disagree that pro-abortion is the opposing view.
LikeLike
lms:
I’m wondering if it’s intentional on your part or just a habit.
I think if you look back at my posts you will see it is neither. I think I have used all the different descriptors for both parties at various times, including pro-choice. I’m not all that hung up on the label one way or another. Anyone who hear’s the term pro-abortion knows the people I am referring to, so it’s not like I’m subliminally implanting the notion that they actually want more people to have abortions. But if you prefer one to the other, that’s fine with me.
LikeLike
Pro-abortion is the same sort of nomenclature as anti-choice, neither of which (IMHO) helps the discussion.
LikeLike
” One might also say that if the pro-PP crowd were serious about wanting to get more funding for non-abortion related services, they’d work to find a different organization to supply abortions. Their apparent unwillingness to do so creates an appearance of only caring about abortions.”
I think you’re being obtuse. SGK’s goal is breast health. In certain communities & populations, planned parenthood is the only provider, so SGK supports those providers. The people who want SGK to stop funding PP are asking SGK to give up on their mission. They might be more successful at killing the PP funding if they offered SGK an alternate path that supports their mission of improved breast health.
LikeLike
bsimon:
The people who want SGK to stop funding PP are asking SGK to give up on their mission.
No they aren’t. They are asking them to stop financially supporting an abortion provider. And not just any abortion provider, but one of the biggest advocates for abortion in the nation.
They might be more successful at killing the PP funding if they offered SGK an alternate path that supports their mission of improved breast health.
Last year Komen donated more than $93 million in community grants for breast cancer education, screening, and treatment. The notion that it has no place other than PP to put the mere $600k in grants that are at issue is absurd. And the notion that PP, with an annual budget of more than $1 billion, couldn’t possibly continue to provide that service without the mere $600k in SGK grants is beyond absurd.
The uproar over this issue has nothing at all to do with whether Komen’s mission will be achieved or whether women will get breast cancer screening, and everything to do with legitimizing, or de-legitimizing, PP as an institution.
LikeLike
How about Planned Parenthood GPS and Planned Parenthood Crossroads. 😉
BB
LikeLike
What evidence is there that the anti-PP crowd made a big enough fuss to affect Komen’s mission? The case being made here is that it wasn’t external pressure that caused the decision, but rather internal pressure.
BB
LikeLike
” any granting to Planned Parenthood has been in support of educational materials and screening programs in those areas where PP has been the only healthcare provider to disadvantaged/low income women.”
This may have already been asked and answered and if so, I apologize – i have not been able to keep up with this discussion as much as I really want to. In any case, where are those areas where PP is the ONLY healthcare provider to disadvantaged/low income women? How many women are are we talking about? I know I have read statements like “it’s the only place in 50 miles” but that is simply anecdotal. Are there any (non-PP funded) studies that can quantify the magnitude of this issue?
LikeLike
Scott’s synopsis of the bookkeeping is the way I’ve seen it explained. The better statistic is that only 10% of their clients get an abortion. The other 90% are there for the exams, tests, contraception, etc. Focusing on abortion minimizes the many other very needed services they offer.
LikeLike
yello:
Focusing on abortion minimizes the many other very needed services they offer.
Agreed. So if PP wishes to maximize the many other very needed services it provides, it should get out of the highly charged and politically controversial business of providing abortions alongside those very needed services.
PP can’t have it both ways, proudly carrying the banner of advocacy for a highly controversial procedure, while insisting that there be no negative ramifications for it having done so.
LikeLike
Thanks Scott, I prefer pro-choice then. I think it’s more accurate and less emotionally charged.
LikeLike
“Thanks Scott, I prefer pro-choice then. I think it’s more accurate and less emotionally charged”
I am not at all hung up on the terms used and in no way want to continue a discussion on what I personally think is, in the scope of things, a minor point of contention…but I disagree with both the contention that it is more accurate and less emotionally charged. In my view, “pro-choice” is a misnomer and to use it gets my dander up more so than other terms (but not enough to engage in an endless non-winnable argument over it). Our opinions on this are what they are are we are free to view it differently. So all that said, I think it is much better to agree to disagree and move on.
LikeLike
PP could not continue to provide those services as they’re paid for by the grants. That isn’t to say that PP would be terminating all such services, just those paid for by SGK.
Abortion services are part of the core of Planned Parenthood. It is also a non-profit that competes for grants for other services that are part of its mission.
BB
LikeLike
FB:
PP could not continue to provide those services as they’re paid for by the grants.
Of course it could continue. It would just have to find the funding elsewhere…like from the money it uses to provide abortions.
Abortion services are part of the core of Planned Parenthood.
Yes, they are. That is precisely what so many people object to. Yet PP supporters routinely downplay this central fact, portraying abortion as a relatively minor and insignificant part of what PP does. Hence the discussion about only 3% of its activities.
LikeLike
So if PP wishes to maximize the many other very needed services it provides, it should get out of the highly charged and politically controversial business of providing abortions alongside those very needed services.
This would not prevent the very far right from continuing to demonize PP. Santorum and his ilk want to roll back Griswold vs. Connecticut, not just Roe v. Wade.
LikeLike
Not necessarily, Scott. I wrote a paragraph about funding in the context of having been at a non-profit research lab, but thought it was a bit off topic. It’s too simple to think of all funding as fungible.
My previous job was at the Draper Lab near Boston. Most of Draper’s work is funded through external grants, principally the Navy. Those funds are designated to those projects. Now, Draper uses a bit of its overhead to fund internal R&D projects. My job was one of those. It was actually a disaster as the premise was contingent on getting materials from an MIT professor who had more important things to do. It’s difficult to make a sensor from a nonexistent material. Later I worked on a few matters, one of which led to a fairly large external grant. The IR&D budget makes up a few percent of Draper’s budget. It can’t transfer funds from the fiber optic project to an internal project without serious penalties.
In the context of PP and funding from SGK, PP likely has some flexibility to cover the lost grants. However, it can’t simply transfer money from other grants to cover losses from SGK. PP wasn’t raising a ruckus about a few hundred K, it was making a ruckus now as Republicans are targeting the big game. As matters proved out, SGK was more vulnerable than PP to its donors.
By the way (to all), I made it through the presentation OK and my travel to Scotland was approved. Woo hoo!
BB
LikeLike
FB:
However, it can’t simply transfer money from other grants to cover losses from SGK.
Of course it depends on the stipulations in the grants. But it is impossible for me to believe that in an organization with a budget of over $1bn, it doesn’t have the flexibility to move $600k around freely. I find such a notion absurd. At no point were the services targeted by the SGK funds in any danger of disappearing, unless PP itself de-prioritized them.
PP wasn’t raising a ruckus about a few hundred K,
I know. That is precisely what I have been arguing for days. All the talk about how this was going to injure “women’s health” was just a bunch of smoke.
LikeLike