jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (18 posts)

Susan G Komen cuts PP breast health screenings

  1. Mighty Mom profile image86
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    I find this despicable. How about you?

    Susan G. Komen for the Cure just cut all its funding to Planned Parenthood for breast health screenings, bowing to anti-choice pressure and making breast health care suddenly inaccessible to many women.1

    Planned Parenthood health centers are often the main source of health care for women in underserved communities, and they provide 830,000 breast exams every year.2 170,000 of these were funded through Komen, along with 6,400 mammogram referrals.3 Without Komen's funding, many of these women could be unable to get the screenings and early detection of breast cancer that save lives.

    It's incredibly disappointing for an organization founded to protect women's health to play politics with real women's lives.

    Tell Susan G. Komen for the Cure, "Don't bow to anti-choice pressure. Reestablish breast health funding for Planned Parenthood affiliates."

    Komen has raised tons of money and awareness about breast cancer from people who care about women's health. They need to know that they've gone too far by joining the right-wing war on Planned Parenthood—which, let's be honest, is really a war on women. That's why we're partnering with the new organization UltraViolet to get Komen to reverse this decision.

    Komen says this isn't about choice, but it recently changed its funding guidelines to exclude any organization under investigation by Congress, knowing that a baseless investigation into Planned Parenthood had been opened by Republican Representative Cliff Stearns at the request of anti-choice groups.4

    And Komen has strong links to the anti-choice movement. Its new vice president of public policy, Karen Handel, ran for governor of Georgia in 2010 on an aggressively anti-choice platform, part of which was a pledge to defund Planned Parenthood.5

    Komen needs to hear that we won't stand for this kind of political posturing when real lives are at stake.

    Tell them to reestablish funding for Planned Parenthood now.

    1. American View profile image61
      American Viewposted 6 years agoin reply to this


      It is sad that the funding was cut but I understand why. This could be fixed if PP simply created a new entity for the abortions they perform. I am not passing judgement on the issue, I am just making a suggestion so that PP can get the funding they need to do this important work like breast screening.

      1. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        I doubt any "paper fix" would solve it. 

        Especially as abortion was not actually the ostensible reason for the change.

        1. American View profile image61
          American Viewposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          It is not a paper fix. There needs to be two separate companies operating in different locations.
          Sorry to say but abortion was the issue when it came to the federal funding and as to the decision from this group. The Komen foundation wants to be sure 100% of the money goes to breast cancer screening. That was the grief they were catching from anti-choice. I understand their point. They give money for one cause but it gets spent on other causes as well. Every dollar spent on something else is one dollar less spent on breast cancer screening.

      2. Angie497 profile image78
        Angie497posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Actually, Planned Parenthood already IS two separate entities - the 'abortion' side is a separate organization from the 'no abortions' side. It's operated that way for probably 20 or more years because of the federal law prohibiting tax dollars from going towards abortion. Which means, just like with federal funding, Komen could quite easily continue to contribute *only* to the organization that does not offer abortion.

        The idea that there should be two separate locations is ridiculous. Aside from the fact that not all 820 locations even offer abortion services, it's simply a stupid idea to duplicate buildings and staff in order to appease a bunch of right-wing zealots that can't be satisfied in the first place. Why should the patients have to go to multiple locations to get services that could be provided in a single location? Not just patients, but staff as well, because either the staff would have to go from location to location, or more staff would have to be hired to run separate locations. Isn't it a better use of limited money to actually provide health care?

        Only 3% of PP funding is spent on abortion services. At our local PP site, abortions are performed only 1 day a week.  35% is spent on contraception and family planning - which, it should be pointed out, decreases the number of unplanned pregnancies and in turn decreases the demand for abortion. And 35% is spent on cancer screening.

        And no, the pro-birth crowd is NOT on some crusade to make sure that tax dollars aren't being spent on abortion. They know that. Now their argument is that by providing money that helps fund 97% of PP's services, tax dollars are *still* being used for abortion because PP can use private donations for those services instead of using *those* dollars for other things.

        1. American View profile image61
          American Viewposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Sorry Angie,

          A Federal audit shows there are not two separate organizations.

          You claimed:
          " stupid idea to duplicate buildings and staff in order to appease a bunch of right-wing zealots that can't be satisfied in the first place"

          To point out duplicating staff is a perfect admission there are not two separate companies. Two separate companies would have different employees.

          If you are correct that only 3% of there business is abortions, or 3 dollars out of every hundred dollars, then why do they spend 25 dollars for every hundred?  Simple, because they are using funds given them for other services to pay for those abortions.

          1. Nouveau Skeptic profile image75
            Nouveau Skepticposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            But they aren't, every dollar goes for a specific purpose.  The Komen money went only for breast scans.

            The disingenuous thing is Komen saying this isn't even about abortion.  That is part of the reason they lost my respect.  It clearly is.

          2. Angie497 profile image78
            Angie497posted 6 years agoin reply to this

            <sigh> 3% of services cost 25% of the budget (assuming you have that number correct - I have no idea where it came from, and I haven't been able to find a source for it) because not all services cost the same amount of money to provide. This shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp. If you go to the grocery store and buy a pound of hamburger and a pound of lettuce, 50% of your groceries are meat, but that pound of hamburger is probably going to be at least 75% of your bill.

            Federal audits have consistently shown that PP is *not* co-mingling funds, and is *not* diverting funds intended for other services to use them to pay for abortion services. Putting abortion services in a separate facility from the rest of PP's services would do absolutely nothing to prove that the funds were being utilized correctly.

            And yes, it is both entirely possible and entirely legal for two - or more - companies to operate out of the same facilities and use the same employees. (Shoot, there are technically 3 or 4 separate companies where I work; some people work for just 1 of them, some people work for all 4.)  It's not even difficult to manage, it just requires attention to detail and careful record-keeping and accounting. For heaven's sake, anyone that's ever had a roommate has the basic idea - hey, the electric bill is $100 this month, you need to give me $50 for your half.

            1. American View profile image61
              American Viewposted 6 years agoin reply to this


              You work for a company that shares, are you aware they are probably guilty of commingling. This is a federal offense that businesses get fined for quite often. If yours has not yet, sooner or later the IRS will figure it out and they will get audited. Commingling is not limited to bank accounts, income and expenditures, but payroll, benefits, and withholding. It is the last four items, especially the last three, where companies make those errors.

              Your percentages point was a good one and it was my fault for presenting it that way. I do not have the exact numbers or the federal report in front of me but here is where the problem is and why PP is still under investigation. Say the Feds give them 100 dollars grant money and none of it can be spent on abortions. They have a revenue source of 400 dollars giving them a budget of 500 dollars. They spent 450 on abortions, but only took in 400. Clearly 50 of the fed money went to pay for abortions. Again those are crude numbers but it accurately reflects why they are being investigated.

              I did some checking up on this and it turns out that PP really does very little for breast screening. They have no way of giving a mammogram or several other Kinds of tests. Seems my local bookie could give the same amount of help that PP is giving. I was not aware of this before, know knowing this I wonder why Komen ever gave PP money in the first place.

    2. profile image64
      logic,commonsenseposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Well, being pro choice yourself, why would you deny them the right to make their own choice?  It's their money, shouldn't they be able to choose who they give it to?  People who donate to them donate to them, not Planned Parenthood.  Otherwise they would donate to Planned Parenthood wouldn't they?
      Myself, I don't have much time for all these do good organizations.  Not that they may serve a useful purpose, but rather because the administrative costs take up so much of the funds that are donated.  You would think a nonprofit would be served mostly by volunteers or those that would receive little compensation.  But if you look into it, you would be outraged at how much many administrators and their staff cost.  Money that could be better spent.
      I used to donate money, now I donate time to Habitat.  It is much more appreciated by the recipients and much, much more satisfying knowing that you actually did something meaningful besides write a check.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image86
        Mighty Momposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Couldn't agree more.

  2. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    I agree.

  3. livelonger profile image94
    livelongerposted 6 years ago

    Completely. I've written them a letter, and will no longer support them.

  4. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago

    Well, i never supported them and certainly will not now, they just became a political organization.

  5. Mighty Mom profile image86
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Gotta wonder about goals here.
    Being about a "cure" is not the same as being about "prevention."

  6. lmmartin profile image90
    lmmartinposted 6 years ago

    Susan B Komen will never see another nickel of my money. Bad enough their percentage to actual causes is so low and administration so high; bad enough they've become such a giant that other charities with better records now go without, now they want to play politics at the expense of women's health -- the very cause they were supposed to be supporting! Shame on them, I say. Lynda

  7. Mighty Mom profile image86
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation announced Friday that it would revise a new policy that barred the organization from funding Planned Parenthood, a move that had thrust the breast cancer foundation into a national controversy.

    Komen apologized “to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.”

    Today's Washington Post carries an update on this story. Is it just me, or does it seem like the Komen people are talking out of both sides of their mouths and tap dancing pretty fast here?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ … l_national

    "...   The foundation said that Planned Parenthood would now be eligible to apply for grants. It did not, however, address other reasons Komen has cited for why it might choose not to approve such grants."

    Caught in the act and resorting to doublespeak.
    Shame on Komen.

    1. American View profile image61
      American Viewposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Shame on them indeed.