Was Komen’s decision ‘political’? Only because Planned Parenthood can’t have it any other way (Updated)
UPDATE at 11:25 a.m.: Well, the pro-abortion rights folks’ politicization of this decision had its intended effect: The Komen organization is, at least in part, backing off its earlier decision. Congratulations, Planned Parenthood: You’ve officially turned a leader in breast cancer research into another of your subordinates.
Let this be a warning to any group thinking of teaming up with Planned Parenthood in the future: You can check in any time you like, but you can never leave.
ORIGINAL POST:
The founder and head of Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure did an interview with the Washington Post that casts the cancer-fighting organization’s highly charged decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood in a different light. For starters, Komen isn’t really stopping its funding of Planned Parenthood, just sharply curtailing it: Komen will give grants to just three Planned Parenthood clinics rather than the previous 19. CEO Nancy Brinker explained the change this way: “We have decided not to fund, wherever possible, pass-through grants. We were giving [some of] them money, they were sending women out for mammograms. What we would like to have are clinics where we can directly fund mammograms.”
Whether that dampens the excitement of anti-abortion activists who’d cheered the decision remains to be seen. Judging by the comments below the Post’s story, however, pro-abortion rights activists aren’t going to accept this rationale any more than the initial explanation that Komen wouldn’t support organizations that are under investigation. This decision has already become as hyper-politicized as anything relating to abortion.
That’s the real story here. I can think of no organization, beyond political parties themselves, that is more politicized than Planned Parenthood. That’s because no issue is more politicized than abortion, and Planned Parenthood provides one in four abortions in this country. Nor are we talking about a shy political operator: During the past two decades, it has spent almost $31 million on campaign contributions and another $6.5 million on lobbying to push its cause (and, one assumes, keep government funding flowing).
Anything done in regard to Planned Parenthood, then, is bound to be deemed “political” by someone. It’s “political” for governments, or organizations like Komen, to give money to Planned Parenthood. It therefore becomes “political” for any entity to stop giving money to Planned Parenthood.
To act as if stopping the funding is any more “political” than the original decision to begin the funding is absurd.
If you disagree, tell me this: How exactly could Komen have decided to part ways with Planned Parenthood what wouldn’t have been decried as “political”? Having giving to Planned Parenthood once, was Komen bound either to continue giving forever or to suffer a smear campaign by Planned Parenthood and its supporters once it stopped?
If so, that’s not advising Komen to “stay out of politics.” It’s mob-style blackmail. Nice little charity you’ve got there. Shame if anything happened to it.
Planned Parenthood and its supporters are right about one thing: Fighting breast cancer shouldn’t be “political.” There are plenty of truly apolitical organizations and public agencies through which Komen can effectively work. But now that Komen has decided that working with Planned Parenthood isn’t the best way to achieve its goals, the supposedly anti-”political” types seem determined to make sure Komen is considered “political” from now on. And that’s a far worse sin than anything Komen committed by stopping funding to 16 clinics.
At its heart, this episode is about the broader movement to make everything “political”: the personal, the private, everything. This movement is primarily a cause of those on the progressive left, including a great many supporters of Planned Parenthood, who see no limits on what ought to be the sphere of government and, thus, politics. So, spare me the tears about a “political” action against little ol’ Planned Parenthood.
(Note: Normally, my first post on a Friday is a Poll Position question, and I was originally going to make the Komen decision the subject of today’s post. Then I decided I wanted to make a stronger statement of my own opinion on this story. A Poll Position post about a different topic will be posted later today.)
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
430 comments Add your comment
Aquagirl
February 3rd, 2012
11:52 am
.Not all women are for supporting a company that is under investigation. Also not all women are pro-choice.
Well, apparently those women (and you, and guys like Kyle) got a good solid kick square in the teeth and will have to find another group to hijack. That’s what happens when a charitable organization jumps on the bandwagon with a few screaming outsiders.
Need a hanky? Sorry, seem to have misplaced mine. It’s probably somewhere around your check to the “Koman” Foundation.
Mr. Holmes
February 3rd, 2012
11:54 am
Ah, so because they did try to take action, that means all action taken was due to them? Sorry, without some hard evidence–perhaps you have access to the Google Analytics for the PP website?
–I can’t accept that.
Simply showing they tried to motivate people is NOT evidence that all people motivated were made so by them. And frankly I’ve come to expect better from you. Much, much more likely is that a small group of outraged women–which I admit, may have prompted to a larger degree by PP–took to social media, and their networks picked up the story without any direct interaction with PP.
This is also a theory, I admit, but a much more plausible one than PP’s orchestrating everything on its own.
peter
February 3rd, 2012
11:54 am
Mr. Wingfield,
De-politicizing the decision to back off funding of Planned Parenthood is a failure of communications strategy. There’s a way that Komen could have done this that would have been above board and respectful by all parties.
1. Open a dialogue with supporters about Planned Parenthood. Communicate the struggle with aligning with an organization and publicize the findings. Surveys, public forums. etc. Create an open dialogue. Sure, it’ll hurt, but it will be transparent.
2. Communicate clearly and honestly how de-funding Planned Parenthood is in line with Komen’s mission. To me, this was a critical mistake. Their mission is what’s causing the uproar. Instead. Komen relied on a new rule and partnering criteria, which is red tape to most people and came across as dishonest.
3. If the org still wants to sever its partnership with PP, then announce that the end of the relationship will be a gradual one over the course of the next three years. The idea here is that Komen could acknowledge that its funding was important to an org that supports women, and that it’s still doing right by its mission.
4. As this announcement takes place, immediately announce a new partnership with another organization that everyone can agree on.
5. Continue open dialogue and transparency about the decision-making process and the path forward.
6. Communicate that the decision was not an easy one, but one that had to be made in order to avoid turning breast cancer into a political issue.
See…not so hard.The big problem though is would Komen for the Cure be honest about why it ended the relationship. It all starts with an honest accounting of why they wanted to end the relationship. Without that, there is no way Komen can effectively communicate its position. And I think that’s what we’re seeing now, an organization that’s not open and comfortable enough with the true reason, which only leads to obfuscation and avoidance, which only leads to more distrust.
John
February 3rd, 2012
11:54 am
Kyle Wingfield
“Btw, I’m still waiting for someone to suggest an apolitical way in which Komen could have decided not to fund PP anymore.”
Could probably be done once Republicans stop making PP and women’s health issue political issues.
UGA 1999
February 3rd, 2012
11:55 am
Disingenuity…..Congratulations….You win the award for most ignorant poster of the day!
UGA 1999
February 3rd, 2012
11:56 am
Aquagirl…..Nope not all…..I still support Komen for the work they do in the community. Never said I would stop due to the PP situation.
UGA 1999
February 3rd, 2012
11:56 am
John….Murder is a political issue.
ByteMe
February 3rd, 2012
11:57 am
In addition to pulling funds from Planned Parenthood for The Susan G. Komen Foundation also decided to stop funding embryonic stem cell research centers making it fully transparent the organization has evolved from non-political non-profit to a partisan advocacy organization.
That means the loss of $3.75 million to the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, $4.5 million to the University of Kansas Medical Center, $1 million to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, $1 million to the Society for Women’s Health Research, and $600,000 to Yale University. That’s a loss of nearly $12 million dollars in research money to eradicate breast cancer this year alone.
This is a new position for the organization which had previously supported all sorts of scientific research targeted at finding a cure for breast cancer and saving women’s lives. It’s new position is that the organization will categorically no longer support any embryonic stem cell research.
Instead of the loud, clumsy announcement Komen made in severing ties with Planned Parenthood, this is a decision they quietly slipped in during November 2011.
Things that make you go “Hmmmm….”
UGA 1999
February 3rd, 2012
11:59 am
ByteMe….Breast Cancer is somehow only delegated to partisan advocasy organizations? Wow that is interesting.
ByteMe
February 3rd, 2012
12:00 pm
UGA, who said that?
David
February 3rd, 2012
12:00 pm
Kyle: again, you’re not being truthful, re: Karen Handel. She was labeled “extremely liberal” because she had the audacity to agree that abortion was OK ONLY in cases of rape and incest (something which I’m sure you know). Additionally, she also allowed passthrough of federal funding for PP and other federally funded programs, as almost every conservative state official has done since Obama has been in office (while crying about how much they opposed that funding). Again, for once, just be truthful!
Mr. Holmes
February 3rd, 2012
12:01 pm
Big-time like to peter’s post @ 11:54. Though even this deliberate, strategic PR process begins after the initial decision has been made: “We’re going to cut ties with PP, so let’s find a way to do it that doesn’t piss off half the country.”
Kyle Wingfield mistakenly puts the onus on PP supporters to come up with a nonpolitical reason to not support the organization, when it should be the other way around: Assuming your missions still align (which they do), what could motivate you to cut funding in the first place? Explaining that should be the responsibility of the Komen apologists, not the other way around.
Kyle Wingfield
February 3rd, 2012
12:04 pm
David: I never said the label was fair. In fact, I’ve argued before that it was unfair.
John
February 3rd, 2012
12:07 pm
Let’s see…PP is being investigated by Republicans at the urging of anti-abortion groups even though no evidence exist that PP has done anything wrong. This after Republicans almost shut down the government over the issue of PP funding. Komen decided to pull funding of PP due to this investigation. Kyle, can you explain how this could be anything but political. Where PP is involved, it’s Republicans who have made it political…not PP.
John
February 3rd, 2012
12:09 pm
UGA 1999,
In case you haven’t heard…abortion is a legal right in this country.
Aquagirl
February 3rd, 2012
12:09 pm
Much, much more likely is that a small group of outraged women–which I admit, may have prompted to a larger degree by PP–
“Small?” The internet blew up yesterday.
IMHO men by and large were sort of meh, that certainly equates to small in a lot of small minds.
Mr. Holmes
February 3rd, 2012
12:10 pm
Kyle: You should be publicly flaying Karen Handel over this. Don’t bother pointing to the Komen folks claiming she wasn’t involved (what do you expect them to say?). Komen was doing good work and raising lots of $$$ for research, and now there are many, many people who will never donate to them again–those on the left for making this political decision in the first place, and now many on the right for not standing behind said political decision until the end of days.
Way to go, Karen! You have fun at the next Komen Christmas party.
Mr. Holmes
February 3rd, 2012
12:11 pm
“Small?” The internet blew up yesterday.
Err .. did you not read the rest of the sentence?
UGA 1999
February 3rd, 2012
12:11 pm
John…..Really? Why are late term abortions banned?
Legal does not equal right.
John
February 3rd, 2012
12:12 pm
Why is PP being investigated by Republicans in the first place? Isn’t it Republicans who yell about free enterprise and less government regulation? What hypocrisy!
N. Arnold
February 3rd, 2012
12:12 pm
Respectfully, Mr. Wingfield, this blog entry sounds like you’re starting with an established viewpoint, and modifying your presentation of the facts to fit it. Among other things, you are accepting the Komen for the Cure mouthpieces’ talking points uncritically.
First, there was no mention that three clinics would remain grantees (that funding was being lessened, rather than removed entirely) until well after the scandal had snowballed. The same applies to their claim that the open Congressional investigation was not the sole or primary motivator, and that the distinction between pass-through and direct mammography grants was a factor. Why would you consider these additions to the narrative, made when the organization was already in deep crisis, to be the more genuine explanation of their decision-making process?
Secondly, throughout this scandal I have seen no indication that the Komen foundation’s modified policies have affected any other grantee, even where it perhaps should. Komen’s donation to a medical school affiliated with Penn State, for example, appear to break policy while the parent institution remains under federal investigation for misbehavior related to the Jerry Sandusky scandal. As the Bible states: “Each tree is known by its own fruit.”, and “Even a child is known by his actions.” Similarly, the intent of Komen’s new policy or policies can best be judged by the sole obvious effect: substantially ending their association with Planned Parenthood. That ostensibly generalized policies can be applied with such specific effect reminds me of nothing so much as laws mandating voter “literacy tests” in the segregated south: despite their generalized language, “grandfather clauses” and uneven enforcement ensured they were predominantly used to disenfranchise black people.
There are now at least two sourced articles confirming the new policies were specifically crafted to target the Komen foundation’s ties to Planned Parenthood. This one includes a statement from a foundation official who reportedly resigned in protest. The statement does not directly confirm the information in the article, but is notable for its affirmation of the women’s health cause, and lack of anything approaching a denial of the article’s claims.
The Komen foundation claims that the decision was not politicized, and that Planned Parenthood was not targeted for the controversy it generates in some quarters. The targeted effect of the foundation’s policies, their shifting response to the crisis, and these sourced articles strongly suggest otherwise. The facts are now in dispute. If the apolitical motives expressed by the foundation are truly genuine, documentation in support, such as board meeting minutes and emails in which the policy was discussed, would go a long way toward defusing the crisis. That the foundation has neglected to offer such documentation even this far into the crisis is telling.
And finally, the Komen foundation’s claim that they are forgoing mere “pass-thru” screening services for direct relationships with mammography providers does not hold up well under scrutiny. Yes, all women should perform regular self-exams, but not all women do; and of those who do, not all are sufficiently educated and discerning to recognize an abnormality for themselves.
And even when a woman performs a breast self-exam and discovers an abnormality, do you think for a moment that the woman goes directly to a hospital or specialized oncology practice to demand a mammogram? No; If they have insurance and a doctor, they schedule an urgent care appointment. If they lack insurance, they go to a clinic. If they lack funds to go to a for-profit clinic, the poorest of the poor end up at places with the resources and moral conscience to provide free or reduced-cost care: places like Planned Parenthood.
peter
February 3rd, 2012
12:12 pm
Where Mr. Wingfield and I disagree is the decision to disassociate with PPH. Their reason is tough to swallow. It comes off as bureaucratic slight-of-hand, a newly formed rule used as a technicality. Maybe that’s not the intention, but it is certainly the appearance.
My stance is that Komen for the Cure should be up front, honest and transparent about why it made its decision (it has since, seemingly, reversed). Sure, it’ll still be seen as political, but at least it will be honest. Americans can respect that, even if they disagree with it. But the entire way Komen for the Cure went about this makes PPH look like the victim, the injured party here. If Komen had gone about it differently, acknowledging the impact of its decision and helping PPH navigate it over time, it would have been seen not only as an honorable action, but arguably a model for other non-profits.
Komen for the Cure failed miserably in this decision. And now that it’s reversed its decision, apparently, they’ve angered both sides of a debate that, for the most part, had little impact on the success of the organization the past 6 years.
John
February 3rd, 2012
12:14 pm
UGA 1999,
In Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court ruled women have the RIGHT to safe legal abortions.
Tired
February 3rd, 2012
12:14 pm
I just can’t believe that an organization I used to support – SGK – stabbed women in the back like that. Thanks for the reversal, but my checks and I are gone. More of my $ will go to support Planned Parenthood, and I will find other (better) recipients for my women’s health charity dollars.
Of note, since it seems a lot of people don’t know this, is that there are women who are prescribed birth control in order to PRESERVE their fertility. If you have endometriosis or uterine fibroids, one of the best ways for many women to control those conditions is birth control pills. And PP made mine much, much more affordable than the $42/month CVS wanted to charge me.
Do what??????
February 3rd, 2012
12:16 pm
“In Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court ruled women have the RIGHT to safe legal abortions.”
Killing babies is safe?
UGA 1999
February 3rd, 2012
12:16 pm
John…..you did not answer my question. Why are late term abortions banned?
Do what??????
February 3rd, 2012
12:17 pm
“Let this be a warning to any group thinking of teaming up with Planned Parenthood in the future”
Why anyone would want to team up with baby killers is beyond me.
getalife
February 3rd, 2012
12:19 pm
“‘We Want To Apologize To The American Public’
Stop the war on women cons.
Today.
UGA 1999
February 3rd, 2012
12:20 pm
Do what??? amen!
Do what??????
February 3rd, 2012
12:20 pm
getalife
I hope that one day you can apologize to Bookman so he’ll take you back. You offer nothing but nonsense.
Stop the war on stupidity.
UGA 1999
February 3rd, 2012
12:21 pm
“We Want to Apologize To The American Public”
Stop the war on babies Dems!
Donna P.
February 3rd, 2012
12:21 pm
I won’t be giving a donation to future Avon Walks sponsored by Komen. They use the monies donated for Planned Parenthood, i.e, abortions.
Do what??????
February 3rd, 2012
12:21 pm
UGA 1999
Libs are all giddy that unemployment is down to 8.3%. What’s even funnier is the fact that none of them know anything about how the economy works.
InAtl
February 3rd, 2012
12:22 pm
I’m pro choice but am not a fan of Planned Parenthood. I think mid- to late-term abortions are reprehensible unless there’s a really good medical reason for them. PP has been shown to be dishonest, and they are great at shifting funding around to claim they don’t use public money for abortions. If Komen doesn’t want to give them donations, that’s perfectly fine by me. I’ve never known anyone to even think of going to PP for breast care, so I seriously doubt that’s a big part of their mission.
Dirty Harry
February 3rd, 2012
12:22 pm
Yep, we’ve gotta make sure all of those helpless babies keep getting murdered…………..
Atticus Finch
February 3rd, 2012
12:22 pm
Kyle, nice multiple use of the loaded “pro-abortion” label.
People who believe in a woman’s right to choose are “Pro-choice”.
UGA 1999
February 3rd, 2012
12:22 pm
Do What…..agreed, they also do not realize that that number is not the true unemployment number.
Do what??????
February 3rd, 2012
12:22 pm
“More of my $ will go to support Planned Parenthood”
Funny how libs are all anti-war yet they’re all for killing babies.
pro-health
February 3rd, 2012
12:23 pm
Really? The whole point of the outcry over Komen’s original decision was that pro-life vs. pro-choice (or pro-abortion, as you so tactfully put it) shouldn’t enter into the discussion about breast cancer screening, or breast health education, or other breast health services. Komen is not obligated to fund PP until the end of time; PP has an obligation to meet their end of the deal. If they misuse funds, or don’t provide a needed service, or don’t provide access for HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF WOMEN who otherwise would not be able to have these life-saving screenings, then no one would fuss. What happened, rather, was that a new, seemingly arbitrary rule that just so happened to only cut off the funding to 1 of 2000 grantees was identified as the reason for the breakaway, and SGK, in a public relations nightmare, tried to play the “Our hands are tied” card.
Do what??????
February 3rd, 2012
12:23 pm
“People who believe in a woman’s right to choose are “Pro-choice”.”
Pro-murder.
Do what??????
February 3rd, 2012
12:24 pm
” HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF WOMEN who otherwise would not be able to have these life-saving screenings”
Ever heard of the free health clinic? Yeah, it’s free as are lots of free screenings for women.
UGA 1999
February 3rd, 2012
12:24 pm
Why was Scott Peterson charged with two counts of murder?
Aquagirl
February 3rd, 2012
12:24 pm
Err .. did you not read the rest of the sentence?
Err, yes, and your idea that it was a “small” group is not supported. Though I guess anything can be said to start with a small group. But if that group grew enough for Komen to reverse their decision so quickly, it’s not like a small group of agitators instigated the reversal. Maybe my take as a middle-class woman is not the same, because being inside the demographic I realize it’s not small. Ignored, maybe, but certainly not small.
Way to go, Karen! You have fun at the next Komen Christmas party.
You owe me a screen cleaner.
scrappy
February 3rd, 2012
12:24 pm
“Well, the pro-abortion folks’ politicization of this decision had its intended effect: The Komen organization is, at least in part, backing off its earlier decision. Congratulations, Planned Parenthood: You’ve officially turned a leader in breast cancer research into another of your subordinates.”
So much wrong in this statement, did you write this with a straight face and clear conscience?
1 – We (those that are supportors of womens rights) are not pro-abortion. Stop repeating this lie. We are pro-women & anti-government interference with our bodies.
2 – I don’t think PP had much to do with this decision and I would certainly not say Komen is now a subordinate. The backlash was nationwide, and was those of us that are pro-women. Every facebook post and petition that was started should be thanked for reversing this awful decision. Komen is supposed to be about helping women get screenings & treatment, cutting fundings was the opposite of this & it has now been corrected.
jconservative
February 3rd, 2012
12:25 pm
Komen’s mistake was first saying that the decision was because PP was under investigation. That was dumb. All Congressional investigations are political. That joined the Komen decision to drop funding for PP to a political action by Congress. That made the Komen decision a political decision.
Komen should have simply said that for the future they were only going to fund outside organizations that did the complete mammograms under their roof. They could then list a few PP sites along with others. A few months later list a few more.
Then they made a mistake in hiring a partisan political as an officer.
Bottom line is that “anti pro choice” (is that the correct code word) people are on the wrong side of history. I am pro life but I live in the real world.
Today in the United States abortion is a Constitutional right. That may change, but only after women lose the right to vote.
The Mic
February 3rd, 2012
12:25 pm
I will not support any organization that promotes the killing of unborn babies (abortion), Komen and Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood, a nice name for baby killer…….
And a word about the Obama-conomy, it’s the worst since the depression, just ask one of the millions who are unemployed!
Diana
February 3rd, 2012
12:25 pm
Kyle, You are right, the pro-abortion folks are behind this. I have never donate money to SGK but I never knew they funded PP. I will never donate money to them, now that I know they have been and will continue to be in the pro-abortion business. PP doesn’t save lives, it kills lives (innocent lives)
Joe the Prophet
February 3rd, 2012
12:26 pm
I don’t agree with abortion..but then, can we at the same time execute the enemies of justice..?
But more importantly…CAN WE ELECT A NON-CHRISTIAN POLYTHIEST TO THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND..?
Jai
February 3rd, 2012
12:26 pm
Looks like this was done in the first place so “somebody” can run for Governor again!
getalife
February 3rd, 2012
12:26 pm
A great day for our country means a horrible day for you cons.
We are back and you cons do not know what you are talking about.