February 4, 2012
What is the truth about the Susan G. Komen foundation and Planned Parenthood?
There's a huge lump of politics, rhetoric, emotion, and ideology here — and here — and I'm not ready to make a diagnosis.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
77 comments:
That's been my general opinion, too. I can't believe how emotional people are about this - if you want money to go to PP, why not just donate it to PP? Why get so upset because some other, private organization is not donating to PP?
Also, from what I understand SGK mainly exists to donate money to other organizations - how is that effective or efficient? Makes no sense to me.
what bothers me is they were getting money for something (breast exams) that should be a standard part of the well woman exam. Did they get money from the American Heart Association for checking blood pressures too?
You want the TRUTH? You can't handle the truth!
Progressives want money spent to promote abotion, esp. in the low-income/minority population.
It's all very sad, really.
The truth? It's pretty simple. Komen saw the time as ripe to stop giving money to Planned Parenthood (because of the hullabaloo Anga2010 exemplifies). Komen was utterly caught off guard to learn that a substantial part of its support comes from people who aren't in agreement with the point of view Aga2010 exemplifies. Komen is frantic to get back in the good graces of that substantial part of its former support.
Is it more complicated than that?
I'm not sure either. The headlines say "Komen caved," but the statement as actually released is much more vague than that.
One thing I do notice: if everyone believes the headline version of events, it's Planned Parenthood who gains the most. They get to say "We won," and Komen gets punished even more.
Possibly Planned Parenthood has shot itself in the foot, though. What charity or corporation will *start* donating to them now, now that we've seen what happens if you decide to *stop?*
Also, (I've been overwhelmed with stuff about this stupid issue lately, so sorry for the double post), my overall opinion to people who want to claim that "It's not about abortion!":
If there were one organization, that does a lot of really great stuff that you think is awesome, but it also gave a tiny portion of money to the KKK, would you support that organization? Bear in mind that the KKK doesn't (well, didn't - let's go back to when they were big) only exist to burn crosses - during it's heyday, it was a huge community organization in many places, helping with schools, emergencies, law enforcement, etc.
I completely stand by my comparison of racism to abortion- they are both reprehensible in a comparable way. If Organization A wanted to give just a little bit of the money to the KKK, and the money that they gave was strictly earmarked for the KKK's non-racially related activities which were non-controversial(say, to help people who lost their homes to natural disasters), I would still find Organization A reprehensible and refuse to support it.
Also, I hate all that stupid pink stuff.
I support a certain amount of "abortion rights". However, what I got out of the broohaha is:
1. SGK was giving money to PP, most of which didn't support Breast Cancer prevention
2. they tried to stop
3. they changed their mind after the Left beat them up
4. Now a bunch of folks who donated to SGK have recognized that if they want to support Breast cancer prevention, SGK may not be the place to give.
There's a huge lump of politics, rhetoric, emotion, and ideology here — and here — and I'm not ready to make a diagnosis.
Still, better have that checked.
I suspect there were a multitude of factors (duh), but wonder if one of them was that Planned Parenthood was using their association with Komen for fundraising an a way that Komen found objectionable.
It doesn't matter anyway; there is a thing called "free association." Something liberals have a lot to learn about. Well that and most of the bill of rights.
Althouse is not ready to make a decision, then I suggest Althouse read Mark Steyn, PJ Tatler and Jim Daly of Focus on the Family's article in NR to help clarify her mind.
"What is the truth about the Susan G. Komen foundation and Planned Parenthood?"
What are the questions you would like answers to?
Diagnosis: people these days are crazy sure they are right and willing to trash others whose beliefs conflict.
Other diagnosis: the leaders of Komen need some political advice on how not to do things.
Planned Parenthood lost
one percent of their budget.
Women won't get care.
Ten abortions done
per pre-natal care client.
What's your f***ing prob?
I saw you flirting
with another charity.
Want friendship ring back.
I agree with Lyssa; I donate money and time directly to causes I am concerned about. But at the same time, every year, I am approached at work by the United Way to make a contribution.
I understand the purpose of the United Way, but other than the fact that an employer may match funds to United Way, I don't see much of a purpose to it. Much like SGK, I'd rather just do a direct donation to my charities of choice; why do we need middlemen for this?
PP is used to being attacked for it's position, in fact, they go on the offensive when they are attacked in the media. SGK was unprepared for how hard PP would come back at them for their decision. Other organizations that are considering dropping funding for PP need to be prepared, in advance, for the counteroffensive.
Womens' charities
are run by shrews and harpies.
Fund prostate research.
Mayor Mike Bloomberg
supports womens' right to choose
abortions, not fries.
Catholic hospitals
provide real mammograms.
Not Planned Parenthood.
boy in sideways hat:
like we give a flying fuck
about what you think.
The general trend of how charities and nonprofits operate is discouraging. Lots of shuffling, administrative costs, not so obvious and obvious political agendas, job security, etc., issues which tend to make the accomplishment of the stated goal less likely. Lets not even go into out and out lying and corruption.
Planned Parenthood is perhaps the worst at understating what they are really about and using a laudable mantra as a cover.
Okay. I'll give you the truth.
The Susan Komen Foundation had lawyers on its staff that it paid to sue other charities IF the other charity had "CURE" in its title. Komen was very aggressive about owning "CURE."
They are also "aggregators." They don't have a charity actually. They were like the March of Dimes. Collecting money. And, hoping no cure would be found.
As I've shared with you, here. Both Doctors Salk and Sabin couldn't get a dime for their research! Even though both Dr. Salk, and Dr. Sabin submited grant requests.
OKAY. As "aggregators" Susan Komen Foundation was rolling in dough. That they were getting because they were the Big Kahuna on the block.
They thought they'd pan Planned Parenthood. And, now? Their ability to collect money has dropped.
This is what you call "BURNING YOUR OWN LABEL." This is what is called DESTROYING your ability to keep on attracting people to give you money.
You see? Hanging out on the right, with all those pro-lifer's ... just had an effect of showing you the majority ain't there.
You could lose business.
But the stupid party also don't change much.
Lots more "pink" merchandise that Susan Komen sells will be showing up on the shelves of Marshall's.
Oh. And, just like women drivers, when they go in reverse to avoid an accident ahead, they bang up the back of the car, as well.
Did you know the Susan Komen Foundation was run by her sister? Do you know the kinds of money that was coming in?
BINGO. DISASTER.
Another non-profit goes off the rails.
I think with an annual budget of almost half a billion in donations, Komen has grown past the point of effectiveness. Time to pare down and refocus.
And why is "women's health" more important than "men's health" anyways? I surmise it's because it justifies a whole bunch of political chicanery and rent seeking.
Another non-profit goes off the rails.
I think with an annual budget of almost half a billion in donations, Komen has grown past the point of effectiveness. Time to pare down and refocus.
And why is "women's health" more important than "men's health" anyways? I surmise it's because it justifies a whole bunch of political chicanery and rent seeking.
Megan McArdle
has a good article up
on overhead costs.
"We changed our minds now."
This is how Susan Komen
makes principled stands.
Bottom line, at the very least, they miscalculated public opinion. Oops!
Big mistake for a charity organization, politics notwithstanding.
No wait wait wait.
Are you trying to tell me that Planned Parenthood isn't mostly about sitting down with young married people and discussing various long-term life options like education, housing, planning the number and the timing of children, help with financial planning and real estate considerations? Family? Planning? See, I know what those two words mean and I know what they mean when they're put together. And now you're over here in Oppositeland telling me that everything is opposite.
This was the Front Page story in the Phila Inquirer yesterday and has led the local TV and radio news for 2-3 days now. The local TV news last night called it the Komen Fiasco implying it was horrible or something.
It shows what happens when there is a a mass freakout in the librul ranks.
If Susan Komen is knocked off its perch and I never again have to sit through a pink-bedecked NFL game or buy a bag of Stacy's Pita Chips with a big pink ribbon, I will be thrilled.
I don't need you to be all pink and visibly concerned about women, corporations. I don't need everyone thinking about my boobs as two potential cancer balls for a month so you can feel virtuous.
So, do something less attention-seeking, SGK than your pink crusade. As for women who want to pretend PP isn't controversial, good luck with that.
Lyssa:
"Also, from what I understand SGK mainly exists to donate money to other organizations - how is that effective or efficient? Makes no sense to me."
Bingo!
Chip Ahoy said:
"No wait wait wait. Are you trying to tell me that Planned Parenthood isn't mostly about sitting down with young married people and discussing various long-term life options like education, housing, planning the number and the timing of children, help with financial planning and real estate considerations? Family? Planning? See, I know what those two words mean and I know what they mean when they're put together. And now you're over here in Oppositeland telling me that everything is opposite."
This is a prime example of why I read Althouse and its many brilliant commenters!
Maybee- the pink shoes and jerseys etc drives me nuts too and I will be glad to see that hokey schtick retired.
Lastly, my nephew has done the Breast Cancer annual walkathon [the 5k] but he also goes to DC to do the annual Walk for Life. I bet he stops supporting the Komen event.
"What is the truth about the Susan G. Komen foundation and Planned Parenthood?"
What are the questions you would like answers to?
Help me help you.
The upshot is the people who don't want to support PP are going to stop giving to SGK becasue they don't want to aid and abet PP.
They can and will find other places to support cancer research for women whether it is breast cancer, ovarian or whatever.
The people who don't have a problem can keep supporting Komen/PP.
But the PP non-supporters are not going to throw a tantrum. They will simply take their money elsewhere.
And, now being better informed, will probably check out a lot of the other places they have supported to see what goes on behind the sales pitches they get monthly.
My elderly mom has donated (being unaware of the connection) to SGK from her widow's mite.
No more.
It's all about PR. Charities live off generous feelings of their donors.
No charity can long survive the Dems standard Hour of Hate every day.
Negative ads are just a very good strategy, or so brags the winner of the GOP Florida Primary.
This is a pretty good analysis of the situation, I think.
Here are the numbers (from the annual report, 2010):
$75 million funding research grants.
$141 million on "education" (this is a lot and is very vague; I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of this doubles as publicity for Komen).
$47 million on screening, so the PP grant is a very minor piece. It's really not clear to me whether these were dedicated breast cancer screenings or funding general gyne. exams at sliding-scale clinics.
$20 million for treatment -- a much smaller number than I would have expected. If I had thought about it much, I would have assumed Komen largely provided mammograms and then paid for treatment for uninsured women.
$41 million for administration (a lot, if all they're doing is funnelling grants to other organizations, rather than running programs themselves).
$36 million for fundraising costs.
These numbers are not what I would have expected.
In any case, even before this issue came up, I wouldn't have been inclined to support them as it bugs me that Breast Cancer is singled out as uniquely worth fighting, more than other diseases. (The American Heart Association campaign for women's heart disease also bugs me -- why does women's health matter more? Women are already healthier than men, and my husband is at greater risk of heart disease than I am.)
But their horrid communication and then backing down in the face of PP bullying is disapointing. Why not just say drop the grant when renewal come times and say they want to focus on general clinics rather than ones where general healthcare is a sideline to a larger business?
Oh, and Komen has not "caved" exactly; it just said Planned Parenthood's "eligibility" would be reinstated, not that their requests would be granted.
As the article above surmises, it is likely they now consider PP to be a liability and will quietly fail to contribute.
@ Carole_Herman You see? Hanging out on the right, with all those pro-lifer's ... just had an effect of showing you the majority ain't there.
You could lose business.
Not sure if I read you right -- but you are thinking the pro PP people outnumber the non PP people at SGK's base?
The pro PP are the tantrum throwers.
The non PP are probably a very significant number. (And there is this -- conservatives tend to give a lot more money and time than lefties.) Being unaware of what was going on they gave to a "good cause." Now that the shoe has very publically changed the foot again -- well.
The non PPers don't do the tantrum thing. They walk away with their check books in their bags.
I think SGK by indulging the pro PP people is going to come undone as mentioned elsewhere.
This has guaranteed they have maxed out. They will never be the power house they have been.
Himmler's Penpal had become a huge headache for Komen and they thought they had an excuse to cut them loose.
Among the other things that the Lefties threw at them was a letter signed by 26 Senators (guess which party?) "entreating" Komen to relent.
This line included, It would be tragic if any woman —let alone thousands of women — lost access to these potentially life-saving screenings because of a politically motivated attack.
Translation:
Nice little charity you have there, hate to see the IRS, SEC, etc., have to look into it.
Another little bit of ZeroCare thuggery.
PS As for public opinion, donations to Komen doubled after they cut Sanger, Himmler, & Co loose.
Megan McArdle has what appears to be a pretty even-handed evaluation of the Komen decision to defund Planned Parenthood.
I think Drill SGT, at 12:13, pretty much covers things. I know that my wife was stunned to discover that money we've donated in the past is going anyplace other than to cancer research, providing mammograms to impoverished women, or very modest overhead and administrative costs. We are rethinking support to Komen, now that they've caved to the abortion-should-be-mandatory crowd.
And yesterday's post by Megan McArdle also raises some salient points.
Key sentence: "And to be fair, I do think that they should offer give back any money they raised over the last two days, since that was mostly coming from pro-lifers who were voicing support for the organization's decision not to fund Planned Parenthood."
McArdle wonders whether Komen has so "damaged their brand" that they will raise a lot less money from here out. Good question. The thing about caving to lefties is that lefties don't donate much to charities. Placating lefties doesn't seem like a winning strategy in the long run.
This dust-up and the Catholic ?Church told to open and swallow re ObamaCare and contraception. A coicidence?
In all my career, I have never associated Planned Parenthood with mammograms. I have had patients who get their paps there because they were more affordable, but none of them ever got their mammograms there. Does anyone know if they actually pay for women's mammograms or offer that? I suspect their patient demographics trends to a much younger age that would not make mammograms a sustainable business, even for a charity. You don't need funding to do breast exams, by the way. They take about three minutes at the most and should be a part of the gyn exam - not paid for with extra money from another charity.
Didn't I read somewhere that the amount of the grants to PP from Komen was only around $500k? And doesn't PP have a budget of something over $1b?
It seems to me they either underestimated the blowback or they had some kind of power struggle going on in their boardroom. The whole thing strikes me as a PR nightmare, because now they have people that feel passionately on both sides angry with them. I never knew before this that they had anything to do with abortions (PP if you prefer).
The truth is that "feminists" have little concern with women's health and a lot of concern about abortions.
The IRS Form 990 covers how their money is spent. They are required to file it every year.
And yeah, I am very tired of the ribbon thing.
"As the article above surmises, it is likely they now consider PP to be a liability and will quietly fail to contribute."
As many of their donors, public and private will quietly stop contributing $$$/grants to Komen and Komen will quietly cease to exist ...
In 2009 Planned Parenthood received $363.2 million in federal money.
In 2010, abortion procedures constituted 91 percent (329,445) of Planned Parenthood’s services for pregnant women.
Lovely.
sydney said...
In all my career, I have never associated Planned Parenthood with mammograms.
Sydney,
PP has no mammogram services as they don't own any equipment to do so.
Thanks for the link, Hagar.
Good point by someone there about why would PP -- which is supposed to be FOR WOMEN -- go out of their way publically to damage SGK.
The upside of this is people are now asking what those services were. Every dollar given that pays for something at PP means a dollar can be applied to services which many people would not want to fund.
When I was shopping for affordable mammogram a few years ago no one mentioned PP to me -- because they do not offer mammograms. So as sydney mentioned above -- what was the money to PP for?
As per usual, the left punishes those who deviate from their narrow "openmindedness" and bizarro "diversity."
Best line from Mark Steyn at The Corner:
My current favorite is the periwinkle ribbon for acid reflux. We have had phenomenal breakthroughs in hues of awareness-raising ribbons, and for this the Susan G. Komen Foundation deserves due credit.
So, Shiloh --
You like waht PP did to SGK?
When I tell people I have cancer, the frequent response is, "Oh, no? Breast?!"
"No. That's about 95% survivable these days. The statistics for other gynecologic cancers dip below 25% percent."
But those ugly cancers aren't about the TA-TAs.
Susan Komen multiple spasms.
Ribbons: They started out being wrapped around trees, back in the late 1960's. To stop the war in Vietnam.
So, no. Credit for "hues of ribbon colors" representing "feelings" ... And, also used as FUND RAISERS ... is not just the territory of Susan Komen's Foundation.
You lesson for today, children?
Charities are in business to raise money.
Back during WW2, DEAR ABBY got outraged that the RED CROSS was charging our soldiers ten-cents for a cup of coffee. While in America the RED CROSS was raising lots of money "for our troops."
Charities are actually businesses.
As to the Susan Komen Founation ... it's been a huge success. Making her sister into one rich woman! Susan, herself, turned out radical breast surgery ... because she didn't want to get disfigured.
Lots of women still take this road.
Like I said, it's like watching women drivers getting out of tight spots.
Will there be, ahead, a "reversal of fortunes," for this stinking charity?
What a pickle.
Taranto has it right.
The mistake SGK made was to ever give money to a polarizing organization like PP. Simply discontinuing funding PP caused overly sensitive pro-choice folks to go ballistic. Caving to PP demands ensures pro-life folks will see SGK as tainted.
I worked for a big company that did a lot of cross promotion work with SGK. That company created pink versions of their products and gave a portion of proceeds to SGK. Now that SGK is connected to PP, and it really doesn't matter whether SGK is seen as pro- or anti-PP, I can't imagine my old employer having anything more to do with SGK.
Moral of the story: If you are a neutral charity, do not go anywhere near a controversial one like Planned Parenthood.
I'm sure the PP folks are satisfied with their "victory," but they have forever damaged SGK, and have only marginally helped themselves.
The truth? We all know the truth.
Planned "Parenthood" is not in the breast cancer detection business. They are not in the fertility or parenthood business. They are not in the business of helping women.
They are in the abortion business, the anti-parenthood business, the anti-woman business, with distribution of contraceptives and abortifacients on the side, together with also being in the business of extremist politics.
Any money that goes to them goes to pay abortionists and related personnel to commit abortions, as well as going in the pockets of PP executives and lobbyists and lawyers.
It's not about "sensitivity."
It's about the Benjamins - and not necessarily for either mammograms or abortions, but just plain election politics.
The internet has grown into a toddler, wreaking havoc with its new found growth. It started with Arab Spring, SOPA and PIPA, and now this. What we are seeing is mob rule, or is it democracy hard at work? The answer is not known yet. That comes after the toddler stage when social norms and checks evolve.
It is scary right now and closer to mob rule.
edutcher says:As for public opinion, donations to Komen doubled after they cut Sanger, Himmler, & Co loose.
This little stat is trotted out by social conservatives with regard to this dustup, but it's pretty meaningless. The Komen/PP split lasted all of two or three days, so it's not a meaningful period for fundraising comparisons. Also, left unstated is the point of comparison - doubled over the previous two or three days, doubled over the same two or three day period in 2011? In any case, it's a short period of time that's not really significant. And nice Nazi reference there, chief. You show your great intellect with those.
Big Mike says: Placating lefties doesn't seem like a winning strategy in the long run.
I suspect Komen just figured out that the affluent, educated upper middle class and upper class women that support Planned Parenthood are a huge part of their donor base as well, so they realized placating them is a winning strategy or at the very least, alienating them is a losing one. I realize you're probably unfamiliar with that demographic, but feel free to thank me for that little lesson.
Bender said:
"Planned "Parenthood" is not in the breast cancer detection business. They are not in the fertility or parenthood business. They are not in the business of helping women.
They are in the abortion business..."
This, sadly, is true. I used to think that Planned Parenthood was primarily in the business of contraception and women's health services, such as affordable paps and birth control pills. However, throughout the George W. Bush years I received frequent mailings from Planned Parenthood asking me for donations to rid our nation of the nefarious Bush. I do not recall George W. Bush ever saying anything against contraception or pap smears. He did, however, take an anti-abortion stand.
Here's the thing - will people suddenly not care anymore about funding a cure for breast cancer so they can get REVENGE for abortionists? I'm pro-choice, but I have no love for the proud baby murderers. At least have some fucking shame about what you're doing.
OTOH, I always hated those pink ribbons everywhere, so anything that puts a STOP to that is good.
22 senators decry the injection of politics into women's health.
I suspect Komen just figured out that the affluent, educated upper middle class and upper class women that support Planned Parenthood are a huge part of their donor base as well, so they realized placating them is a winning strategy or at the very least, alienating them is a losing one.
Three decades of service to women fighting breast cancer, and having raised and distributed hundreds of millions of dollars and nearly $2 billion towards that goal, means absolutely nothing to those people.
But you have your little "lesson" I guess...
Jay - yup. In the end abortion is the #1 holy sacred thing to these ghoulish women.
Well, Jay, there's only one problem with your analogy. And, that is that the Komen group just saw a big drop in their donations.
Yes, they reversed this policy. So what? Pink ribbons and all, their donations aren't going to be coming back.
It's a social conservative issue. (This one even blew out Mitt's win from the front pages.) And, IF there's any lessons to be learned? It's the political one ... about the agenda ... that doesn't sell tickets.
Somefeller: "And nice Nazi reference there, chief."
If you can't call a fanatic racist baby killer eugenicist a Nazi (who actually did have Fascist sympathies -- Sanger), who can you call a Nazi?
I, on the other hand, would NEVER call my fellow citizen "chief." And even if I were to do so, I would capitalize the C.
I suspect Komen just figured out that the affluent, educated upper middle class and upper class women that support Planned Parenthood are a huge part of their donor base as well, so they realized placating them is a winning strategy or at the very least, alienating them is a losing one. I realize you're probably unfamiliar with that demographic, but feel free to thank me for that little lesson.
@somefeller, you missed -- or mistakenly dismissed -- what I wrote just before that. Frankly, every study I've ever read says the same thing, that the "affluent, educated upper middle class and upper class" demographic is the least likely to donate generously to charities. So I think that placating people who aren't likely to donate to you is probably the farthest thing from a winning strategy that there is.
But we will see what we will see, won't we?
planned parenthood hates them some black chillrens I bet. Yes they do.
Save the tatas!
Susan Komen foundation is a private organization. They can donate to whoever they want whenever they want without being intimidated by politics. I frankly don't like the Susan Komen foundation. I find it to be an organization that is in it for not really 'finding' a cure, but to exist for it's own sake and self-gratification (the pat on the back that says, "aw, you are such a noble person") and to capture as much money off of peoples grief as possible. Either way, seeing PP cry like a stuck pig was interesting. Also, seeing the foundation do a 180 only tells me that Nancy Pelosi and probably several other politicians made phone calls to Komen and forced them into this reversal, which if true, i would find wholly repugnant.
I suspect Komen just figured out that the affluent, educated upper middle class and upper class women that support Planned Parenthood are a huge part of their donor base as well, so they realized placating them is a winning strategy or at the very least, alienating them is a losing one.
Yep. Gotta keep the duskier minorities from reproducin'. There's just too damn many of hangin out in the malls as there is.
I realize you're probably unfamiliar with that demographic, but feel free to thank me for that little lesson.
Da african american hoochies are three times more likely to abort theys younguns. Yep they will.
I had no idea that the SGK Foundation supported Planned Parenthood. If I wanted to donate to PP, I would. One would surmise, accurately, that I do not.
This sort of thing is as scummy as the professional fundraisers who keep 95 to 98 percent of everything they raise.
Bloomberg loves planned parenthood. Bloomberg gave them $250,000 this week.
60% of all African-American babies in NYC die through abortion.
You connect the dots.
If you are in the business of raising money to fight a deadly disease, and if you have any measure of PR savvy you will not give out some of those funds to someone who a huge segment of the American population associates intimately with premature death. I don't care if that someone is Planned Parenthood, the Hemlock Society, R. J. Reynolds, Phillip Morris, Bill Ayers, Janet Reno, Henry "Let Saigon Be Bygone" Kissinger, or the estate of Ted Kennedy.
Two rules for charitable giving:
1) If an organization doesn’t directly provide the services that you want to support but instead gives grants, cut out the middle man and donate directly to the service provider. They’ll be happy to take your money and you’ll get more bang for your buck.
2) Any organization that is about “raising awareness” for something that the general public is already aware of is really out to “raise awareness” about their organization.
Post a Comment