I stand with Planned Parenthood [Archive]

mtnlaurel

2-2-12, 10:23am

I am very tired of the attack that Planned Parenthood is under.
I do not know each and every in & out of the issue, but here is the letter I just fired off to the Susan G. Komen Foundation. I don't think I've ever written a letter about much of anything, so it's not like I am a person that's just sitting around writing a million Letters to the Editor.

I do hate that the ire that I feel is directed toward a quality women's organization like the Susan G. Komen Foundation that does amazing work for women and their families.

Here is the rebuttal on youtube from Ambassador Nancy G. Brinker, Founder and CEO of Susan G. Komen to hear the other side
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4oOh6JhayA&feature=youtu.be

Here is my letter below.
You are welcome to copy and paste it anywhere you wish or send to any friends you wish.

My whole life I have wanted nothing more than to be a mom. I am now a stay at home mom to 2 beautiful children.
I went to Planned Parenthood for my basic women's healthcare during my 20s.
The reason - I valued my reproductive health, NOT because I needed an abortion.
Following college I was no longer on my parent's health insurance and my job did not provide full health benefits. So I bought a very cheap catastrophic policy, if anything terrible should happen and then I went to Planned Parenthood for my yearly exams and paid on a sliding scale out of pocket.
My care at Planned Parenthood caught a condition that if left unattended could have made me unable to have children.

I am standing up for Planned Parenthood.
Responsible people without access to full healthcare use Planned Parenthood as I did.
I now have full health benefits through my husband's job, but I am very grateful that Planned Parenthood was there when I needed it.
I received my breast health care at Planned Parenthood and cannot believe that the Komen Foundation will no longer support this mission.
I will not be donating any more money to the Komen Foundation or participate in any more events until the grants to Planned Parenthood are resumed.
I have watched the youtube video of Nancy Brinker's rebuttal so there is no need to refer me there.
I will be seeking another organization to express my concern for women's breast health.
Thank you for reading this letter.

creaker

2-2-12, 11:07am

I am very tired of the attack that Planned Parenthood is under.
I do not know each and every in & out of the issue, but here is the letter I just fired off to the Susan G. Komen Foundation. I don't think I've ever written a letter about much of anything, so it's not like I am a person that's just sitting around writing a million Letters to the Editor.

I do hate that the ire that I feel is directed toward a quality women's organization like the Susan G. Komen Foundation that does amazing work for women and their families.

Here is the rebuttal on youtube from Ambassador Nancy G. Brinker, Founder and CEO of Susan G. Komen to hear the other side
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4oOh6JhayA&feature=youtu.be

Here is my letter below.
You are welcome to copy and paste it anywhere you wish or send to any friends you wish.

My whole life I have wanted nothing more than to be a mom. I am now a stay at home mom to 2 beautiful children.
I went to Planned Parenthood for my basic women's healthcare during my 20s.
The reason - I valued my reproductive health, NOT because I needed an abortion.
Following college I was no longer on my parent's health insurance and my job did not provided full health benefits. So I bought a very cheap catastrophic policy, if anything terrible should happen and then I went to Planned Parenthood for my yearly exams and paid on a sliding scale out of pocket.
My care at Planned Parenthood caught a condition that if left unattended could have made me unable to have children.

I am standing up for Planned Parenthood.
Responsible people without access to full healthcare use Planned Parenthood as I did.
I now have full health benefits through my husband's job, but I am very grateful that Planned Parenthood was there when I needed it.
I received my breast health care at Planned Parenthood and cannot believe that the Komen Foundation will no longer support this mission.
I will not be donating any more money to the Komen Foundation or participate in any more events until the grants to Planned Parenthood are resumed.
I have watched the youtube video of Nancy Brinker's rebuttal so there is no need to refer me there.
I will be seeking another organization to express my concern for women's breast health.
Thank you for reading this letter.

+1

Valley

2-2-12, 11:49am

+1

+++++++2

Gregg

2-2-12, 12:04pm

In the 24 hours after the Susan G. Koman Foundation announced it was pulling its grants from Planned Parenthood, PP received $400,000 (http://gothamist.com/2012/02/01/will_women_drop_support_of_susan_g.php) in donations. Last year Koman gave $680,000 to PP. I will be sending something to help make up the rest of the difference today.

folkypoet

2-2-12, 12:21pm

Nodding.... I think there are other, better ways to fund breast cancer research. This article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/komen-foundation-charities-cure_n_793176.html) really brought down my view of the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Pulling their grants to Planned Parenthood just solidified my view of them. >:(

chanterelle

2-2-12, 1:42pm

Excellent letter! and so very much more polite than the one I sent!

Yup, PP just got another check from me. Women's health in general, and that of low income women in particular should not be held hostage to political dogma and gross misinformation from the 19th century.

loosechickens

2-2-12, 2:01pm

It's very unfortunate that the Foundation made the decision they did. We've always donated generously to them in honor of a relative who had breast cancer, but all future donations will be added to our support for Planned Parenthood.

I think this decision by the Susan G. Komen Foundation was ill advised, and based on the views of the far right fringe of anti-abortion activists, and a founder and new VP as well, who have a long history of such activism.

97% of Planned Parenthood's activities have nothing to do with abortion, and in fact, are major help in PREVENTING abortions, due to their family planning activities, not to mention the incredible good they do in screening women, many of whom would not be able to afford mammograms or are uninsured, for breast cancer.

Nope......this is the end of Komen Foundation for me, and a nice extra amount every year earmarked for Planned Parenthood instead.

JaneV2.0

2-2-12, 2:21pm

My correspondence to Komen said that I've long believed they're just another branch of Pharma--and btw, where's that cure?

Planned Parenthood was my health care provider when I was in college and they're one of the charities I've donated to ever since. When United Fund/United Way blackballed them I blackballed United Way right back. Like so many of you, I sent off an extra check to PP this morning.

Greg44

2-2-12, 2:40pm

This is why America is Great! Susan G. Komen has the right to do with their money as they please - as does Planned Parenthood. If you don't agree with either side -- you vote with your money.

I have tired of all the Pink products. I have tired of Planned Parenthood's almost militant reaction to any funding change that comes their way, as if they are entitled - they are not. IMHO.

Breast cancer is in our thoughts a lot of late. Neighbor across the street has just been diagnosed - they suspect it has already spread to her lung, more test results tomorrow to see if it has spread further. The neighbor behind us went through this a couple years ago, as well as the other neighbor across the street - a triangle of breast cancer... I am trying to convince my wife to go get checked again, it has been 4 years. She thinks because there has been no cancer in her family - she is a low risk...

Zoebird

2-2-12, 2:56pm

I've never really been for the SGK foundation. Never could figure out what it was about. Followed the money into grants, most of which didn't go to what they market it going to, and now it's got pretty hefty "admin" costs. But, hey, people put their money where they want, right?

I've always supported PP. Even as a teen when I was prolife/anti-abortion. Just made sense. they provided services well beyond abortion, and that's good stuff.

chanterelle

2-2-12, 3:05pm

"I have tired of Planned Parenthood's almost militant reaction to any funding change that comes their way, as if they are entitled - they are not. IMHO."

Gregg, PP serves low income women and working women who do not get health care through their jobs and cannot afford to pay the going sky high rates. Many women only have access to care through PP as they often are the ONLY place who will care for them in their area.
It's not PP who is entitled to the funding but 1000's upon 1000's of women who are entitled to basic care and screenings and are unable to get it any other way in this great country of ours. PP supplies that care.
Trust me, you would be militant too if your wife/daughter/mother could not afford even basic care and went undiagnosed with breast, ovarian or uterine cancer because of political grandstanding and primitive /punitive beliefs sought to deny such care in one of the only places available to them.

People need and deserve basic health care, we spends over 53% of our national budget on war and the military but people and institutions have to beg, scrounge and play political games to provide care which would keep people healthy and productive.

mira

2-2-12, 3:12pm

^ Well said, chanterelle.

I find this so disheartening and still can't believe such a healthcare system is in place that favours those who earn the most.

redfox

2-2-12, 3:12pm

I am also a PP supporter, and was very sad to read of Komen choosing to not continue their funding relationship with PP. It is their right as an independent Foundation, though it is regrettable that they chose to enter the fray based upon the so-called right-to-life stance of their leadership. Breast cancer knows no political or ideological boundaries, and it will take all of us to fight it successfully.

In this case, the market is speaking volumes, as PP garners donations. Hopefully, PP can covert these donors to long term ones, and can engage Komen in a conversation about the outcomes focus that Komen is currently hiding behind in an effort to re-frame this disaster, with the hope of re-engaging Komen in a funding relationship.

As a non-profit administrator, I was most interested in this article which came out yesterday, about this communications disaster for Komen:
http://www.nonprofitmarketingguide.com/blog/2012/02/01/the-accidental-rebranding-of-komen-for-the-cure/

dado potato

2-2-12, 8:09pm

I tried to e-mail the Komen Foundation, selecting as my Topic "Breast Health..." but the foundation's website gave me an error message. (Maybe there have been too many emails for them to handle on that topic.) I tried again using the topic "Race for the Cure", and was able to send without an error message.

My wife (who is a breast cancer survivor) and I are going through the house from top to bottom to throw out any pink ribbons or other dreck associated with the Komen Foundation. Your "new rule" that cuts funding from Planned Parenthood, while a Republican Representative from Florida conducts his "government investigation", is disgusting

By the way, Brinker said "it's not about abortion". The "new rule" is that grantees can not continue to receive funds if they are the subject of "government investigation". When they are "cleared" by the investigation, Brinker implies they can again be funded. But... as I understand it, the investigation of Planned Parenthood is a project of Representative Stearns of Florida, one Congressman, not a law-enforcement agency.

My next step will be to send a donation directly to Planned Parenthood. I have never benefitted personally from their services, but I know a low-income couple in New Hampshire who went to Planned Parenthood for STD testing, and "B-I-N-G-O", hubby tested positive. In that specific case, I don't believe there was any other way they could have gotten tested... Had they not been able to detect hubby's STD, I kinda think the wife would have been next.

Just as an aside, Georgia Pacific (Koch brothers) "Quilted Northern" bathroom tissue packaging now claims they have donated $600,000 to the "Susan Komen For the Cure" since 2004. Meanwhile the Georgia Pacific paper mill in Crossett, Arkansas, is the source of ambient carcinogens in the air and water. Huffington Post had an article about the documentary film being made about cancer deaths in Crossett. On Penn Road in Crossett, which I understand is a quarter mile downwind from the mill, there are 15 houses, and 11 of those houses have had a recent death from cancer.

peggy

2-2-12, 8:45pm

Alan

2-2-12, 9:07pm

puglogic

2-2-12, 9:44pm

Would you do the same if they had never given money to Planned Parenthood?

If they bowed to extremist pressure and denounced an organization doing so much critically-important work, for so many low- to mid-income women, without a shred of proof of wrongdoing? Of any kind?

If they politicized their organization to this ridiculous degree? Swinging so far to the right -- OR the left?

F*** yes I would. In a heartbeat.

But of course they're those lazy poor people, right? I'm sure if they worked as hard as they SHOULD, they wouldn't need to go to Planned Parenthood for cancer screening. >8)

Alan

2-2-12, 9:50pm

That's my biggest problem with an entitlement society. Everyone thinks they have a right to someone else's money.

iris lily

2-2-12, 9:51pm

OP, that's a nice letter.

But really, I think that everyone is sick to death of Komen. There have been articles about Komen backlash before this PP thing. The Komen pink thing is pervasive. My grocery store has all checkers wearing pink shirts and there are pink banners and balloons everywhere for what is I think a solid month ?) It is insane.

I am decorating my living room in pink and green and I wondered if I'd have to get permission from Komen to use pink since they taken over that color.

iris lily

2-2-12, 10:00pm

Well, the most productive way to express our displeasure with this decision by Susan G. Komen foundation is to stop buying the products that directly benefit that organization. I know of the yogurt, what are some others?

oh god, they plaster that stupid pink ribbon all over everything. last year I was in Office Depot and there were large wall calendars with pink junk on them to benefit Komen.
Enough already, end it.

For what it's worth, I stopped donating to Planned Parenthood some years ago (after being a regular donor) when the only pitch their phone solicitors could come up with was invectives against GW BUsh. It was stupid and boring. All they had to do was say: hey, we need money for providing abortion services or whatever. I even suggested that next year they call me with a different pitch, giving them the opportunity to craft something that would not turn me immediately off. But nope, one size fits all. If you hate GW you must like PP. Or something like that.

So now I guess that peggy will need to boycott me. oh, wait....! ha ha ha...

puglogic

2-2-12, 10:22pm

We'll have to find someone else who's working for the cure to give money to.

Oh, wait....I'm not supposed to use the phrase "for the cure." I'm sure SGK will be knocking on my door in the morning.

jp1

2-2-12, 11:03pm

That's my biggest problem with an entitlement society. Everyone thinks they have a right to someone else's money.

Whose post are you referring to? I didn't see anyone posting that they felt that PP had a right to SGK's money. I only see posts from people upset that SGK made a political decision to stop donating money to an organization that the posters feel does good work providing healthcare to people who otherwise would not likely receive it.

loosechickens

2-2-12, 11:05pm

The bottom line is that PP has been targeted by far right anti-abortion activists because they perform abortions, primarily in areas where there are no other abortion providers. But abortion uses only 3% of PP money, and NO public funding is used for abortions. 97% of PP work is in well woman exams, screenings for breast and other cancers, family planning, etc., and are the one in many areas who stands between the millions of uninsured women and no health care at all.

The SGK Foundation was both pressured by anti-abortion activists, AND has a founder who is a far right Republican and recently hired similarly situated VP vociferously against abortion and determined to kill PP. The new VP when running for office in GA, had a platform heavily into "destroying PP"......the "excuse" of the Congressional "investigation" was nothing but a smokescreen. But it is backfiring on them big time, and well deserved. IMHO

they will certainly get no more of MY money, and all will be added to our usual yearly donation to Planned Parenthood. It's only a matter of an additional several hundred dollars, but SGK has made it clear that they care more for partisan politics and ideology than they do for womens' health.

I'd already been uneasy about this organization because of their poor ratings in administrative costs, etc., and this really pushed me over the edge, although we have sent them support for years now in honor of a relative with breast cancer. No more.

redfox

2-2-12, 11:51pm

SGK has also decided to stop funding stem cell research. Which of course they are free to do... But they did a piss-poor job of managing the relationships, and the deserve the blowback they're getting... though I have been having much compassion for their line staff all day.

Here is an interesting article about the local chapter:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/02/02/komen-puget-sound-responds

jp1

2-3-12, 12:13am

It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out for SGK. As the article redfox linked to earlier points out, unless this somehow miraculously dies down and becomes a non-issue, it's hard to see how they aren't going to lose 50% of their supporters, no matter what they do at this point.

redfox

2-3-12, 2:39am

From The Atlantic Monthly: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/02/top-susan-g-komen-official-resigned-over-planned-parenthood-cave-in/252405/

redfox

2-3-12, 2:52am

That's my biggest problem with an entitlement society. Everyone thinks they have a right to someone else's money.

Then, by all means, give your charitable dollars only to who you wish! That's so much easier than trying to control others' thinking, don't you agree?

lizii

2-3-12, 4:42am

I totally disagree with aborting babies, but especially that it is being paid from my tax dollars.

I hate my money used to pay for free abortions.

Alan

2-3-12, 7:43am

Then, by all means, give your charitable dollars only to who you wish! That's so much easier than trying to control others' thinking, don't you agree?
Yes, I totally agree. If one charitable organization chooses not to donate to another, I would never try to control their thinking on the subject.

creaker

2-3-12, 8:11am

Yes, I totally agree. If one charitable organization chooses not to donate to another, I would never try to control their thinking on the subject.

Any action is going to cause reactions. People are just processing the new information and acting as they feel appropriate for them.

chanterelle

2-3-12, 8:23am

Yes, I totally agree. If one charitable organization chooses not to donate to another, I would never try to control their thinking on the subject.

However, as a charity, their funds come from many individuals who are giving funds toward the advertised goal of finding a cure for cancer and through early detection, eliminating the tragic toll it takes on both women and their families. This is what people thought they were giving their money towards.
These donors have every right to complain when their collective funds start being used as a weapon in a political fight they may not support, has no bearing on the original mandate of the charity, and in fact has no basis at all .
There have been at least 3 ligitimate studies/investigations, one from the GAO, and not once have they detected and public tax payer funds being dedicated to the less than 2% of PP's work re: abortions.
In taking this action and a similar one taken at the same time regarding stem cell research, thay have changed their mandate and focus from finding the cure to cancer to finding the cure through a pro-life, selective application of science stance.
They are in fact using other peoples money and the health/ lives of underserved women towards their partisan agenda.
In this instance people have a right not only to withdraw their support but to raise a hugh stink over what appears to be a sudden change of focus and mandate. You are either an agent to fight cancer or a prolife, antichoice political force. Let's not use the former to cloak the real actions of the latter.

Alan

2-3-12, 8:59am

However, as a charity, their funds come from many individuals who are giving funds toward the advertised goal of finding a cure for cancer and through early detection, eliminating the tragic toll it takes on both women and their families. This is what people thought they were giving their money towards.
These donors have every right to complain when their collective funds start being used as a weapon in a political fight they may not support, has no bearing on the original mandate of the charity, and in fact has no basis at all .
There have been at least 3 ligitimate studies/investigations, one from the GAO, and not once have they detected and public tax payer funds being dedicated to the less than 2% of PP's work re: abortions.
In taking this action and a similar one taken at the same time regarding stem cell research, thay have changed their mandate and focus from finding the cure to cancer to finding the cure through a pro-life, selective application of science stance.
They are in fact using other peoples money and the health/ lives of underserved women towards their partisan agenda.
In this instance people have a right not only to withdraw their support but to raise a hugh stink over what appears to be a sudden change of focus and mandate. You are either an agent to fight cancer or a prolife, antichoice political force. Let's not use the former to cloak the real actions of the latter.
I think that takes a narrow view of what is actually happening. Are you implying that the Komen organization are not diverting those funds to other direct service providers?

peggy

2-3-12, 9:14am

Yes, I totally agree. If one charitable organization chooses not to donate to another, I would never try to control their thinking on the subject.

Who's trying to control their thinking? Certainly not me. But, discovering and disagreeing with their political agenda just gives me more control over MY thinking, as in, I thought they were for women's health...all women. But now I see they are only for women of a certain political stripe/belief system. Gee, I don't think PP checks your party affiliation as you enter the door.
Actually I'm grateful for this coming out. I certainly don't want my donations to go to a divisive, anti-woman group fronting as a concerned charity for breast cancer. There are plenty of good charities who really are about the cure and not the politics. And yes, if one of them was found to discriminate against anti-choice people, I wouldn't donate to them either.
See, breast cancer and abortions have absolutely nothing to do with each other. That is inserting politics into something that shouldn't have politics. But I have noticed how many on the right like to do that. Kind of how in some languages everything has a gender. Well, to many on the right, everything has a 'political gender'. No one can say or do anything without them branding it left leaning, or leftist or liberal. It gets pretty tiresome actually. Kind of how you brand those of us who 'choose' to not donate our money to this political group as being of the 'entitlement society'. (code for lefty commie liberal)

chanterelle

2-3-12, 9:19am

I IMPLIED no such thing, as you well know. I STATED that their funds, DONATED MONIES, are being alloted with a changed view regarding their original mandate and advertised purpose. They have become a prolife organization using these donated monies for cancer prevention/research as it's funding vehicle and those who donated have a right to know that and speak out. In the entitlement meme, donors are entitled to know the where their money is going and why, and underserved women are entitled to know that their health and life take a backseat to partisan politics.
If Ambassador Brinker was to use her own money as the sole funding and was forthright in their primary mission there would be no issue. Komen feels that it is entitled to use other peoples money for their own agenda while keeping the focus fuzzy as to the new mandate.

LDAHL

2-3-12, 9:21am

The relatively small amount of money involved here hardly seems to justify the size of the kerfuffle. Could it be possible that PP is seizing an opportunity to portray itself as embattled by its enemies for fundraising purposes, or perhaps sending a message to other government or nonprofit funders of the price to be paid if the cash stops flowing?

Alan

2-3-12, 9:33am

Gregg

2-3-12, 9:35am

The relatively small amount of money involved here hardly seems to justify the size of the kerfuffle.

Agreed. A $650,000 donation in light of a $1,000,000,000+ budget is inconsequential. I have to be somewhat suspicious of election year politics being involved (but have neither evidence or a viable conspiracy theory).

Alan

2-3-12, 9:43am

I IMPLIED no such thing, as you well know. I STATED that their funds, DONATED MONIES, are being alloted with a changed view regarding their original mandate and advertised purpose.
I believe they have stated that they will direct their funds to organizations who provide direct mammography services to women rather than pass through organizations such as PP. I don't see how that affects their "original mandate" or "advertised purpose".

chanterelle

2-3-12, 9:45am

That $650,000 represents cancer screenings for 35,000 women who would not otherwise be able to get them.
Their lives are not inconsequential. Politics, election related or not, has no place in the lives and health of a nations citizens.

creaker

2-3-12, 10:09am

I believe they have stated that they will direct their funds to organizations who provide direct mammography services to women rather than pass through organizations such as PP. I don't see how that affects their "original mandate" or "advertised purpose".

So they've dropped PP directly? I thought their reasoning was that in order to remain within the rule they recently created that they would not fund any organization "under investigation", and PP currently falls under that, although it may not in the future.

Alan

2-3-12, 10:17am

So they've dropped PP directly? I thought their reasoning was that in order to remain within the rule they recently created that they would not fund any organization "under investigation", and PP currently falls under that, although it may not in the future.
No, they haven't dropped it directly. They're still funding PP in several markets where women have limited access to direct providers. I believe that covers Northern Colorado, Southern California and a portion of Texas.

creaker

2-3-12, 10:38am

No, they haven't dropped it directly. They're still funding PP in several markets where women have limited access to direct providers. I believe that covers Northern Colorado, Southern California and a portion of Texas.

I wonder how long that will last? Komen has set the bar for their funding, I expect we'll see additional "investigations" ramping up to cut off that funding.

Gingerella72

2-3-12, 10:45am

Interesting blog post about how Komen isn't all it's cracked up to be....

http://butterbeliever.com/2011/10/22/i-will-not-be-pinkwashed-why-i-do-not-support-susan-g-komen-for-the-cure/

“The Komen Foundation owns stock in General Electric, one of the largest makers of mammogram machines in the world. It also owns stock in several pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca (now AzkoNobel).

AstraZeneca has long been a Komen booster, making educational grants to Komen and having a visible presence at the Race For the Cure. At the 1998 Food and Drug Administration hearings, the Komen Foundation was the only national breast cancer group to endorse the AstraZeneca cancer treatment drug tamoxifen as a prevention device for healthy but high-risk women, despite vehement opposition by most other breast cancer groups because of its links to uterine cancer.

The organization’s biggest sponsors are — surprise! — the corporations that profit from cancer through chemotherapy and radiation. To them, Komen for the Cure isn’t really about finding a cure for cancer; it’s about promoting cancer so that they can sell more drugs and radiotherapy that keeps more patients locked into a cycle of dependence on toxic cancer treatments.”

Another tool for Big Pharma. Typical.

Gregg

2-3-12, 11:04am

If this is an accurate representation of how Koman's funds are distributed I don't think there is anything terribly out of line for a large, corporately sponsored charity.

670

JaneV2.0

2-3-12, 11:37am

It seems Komen has reversed itself, and will revise its rules to indicate that "under investigation" will only apply to criminal matters, and not to one congressman's personal witch hunt. I wonder what will happen to professional ideologue and Komen VP Karen Handel now. (Not only is she anti-choice, but she's rabidly anti-gay, as well. A real Georgia peach.)

Alan

2-3-12, 11:39am

creaker

2-3-12, 11:46am

Well, it looks like this controversy is over. http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2012/02/komen-apologizes-for-recent-de.html

For those keeping score: Planned Parenthood/Ideological Hysteria = 1 , Komen Foundation = 0

Komen wasn't forced to do anything - like the people that responded to their decision, Komen responded to theirs. As it should be.

I doubt the controversy is over - I expect many people who contributed to Komen over the past couple of days because of their revised stance are very upset.

Greg44

2-3-12, 11:56am

If I was part of a charitable foundation - I would now think twice about donating to PP - if this is the way they respond to changes in funding. I think both organizations leave with black eyes over this.

ljevtich

2-3-12, 12:08pm

Well, it looks like Komen has just reversed its decision! Yahoo, It took the might of Credo and others such as ourselves to make our voices heard. And they obviously did so.

komen-revises-funding-policy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/komen-revises-funding-policy/2012/02/03/gIQAVRa3mQ_story.html)

catherine

2-3-12, 12:12pm

Interesting blog post about how Komen isn't all it's cracked up to be....

http://butterbeliever.com/2011/10/22/i-will-not-be-pinkwashed-why-i-do-not-support-susan-g-komen-for-the-cure/

Another tool for Big Pharma. Typical.

Well, of course the alternative is dying. I'm in the middle of liver cancer interviews with doctors and patients and caregivers, and I've also done research on ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, melanoma, and renal cell carcinoma, and doctors are extremely frustrated by their inability to treat with conventional therapy. They are looking forward to the results of the innovative R&D that Big Pharma is engaged in to provide targeted therapies as well as innovative procedures that will give their patients hope. Right now, there's not much hope in many of these cancers.

Do I love everything about pharmaceutical companies? No. But they are neither angel nor demon. They are, however, succeeding in breaking through to improve the prospects of people with deadly disease. That's a fact.

Now, if they could expend more energy in disease prevention....

loosechickens

2-3-12, 12:50pm

Well, it's nice that the Komen Foundation has reversed their decision. But I won't be contributing to them any longer, regardless. Because as other posters have said, they have "dropped the mask" of what they have STATED their mission to be, to show what their mission ACTUALLY IS.

They are, at their highest levels, a far right, Republican, anti-abortion group, who will use that political view (which is their right, certainly) to make their decisions regarding womens' health in the screening of women for breast cancer, etc. and are willing to see women thrown under the bus in service of that anti-abortion stance, which has nothing whatsoever to do with breast cancer, anyway.

Not a problem to me if they hold those views, as they have an absolute right to do so. What they DON'T have is the right to "fly under one flag", that of womens' health in the area of breast cancer, while actually flying under a hidden flag of anti-abortion actions.

We've probably donated maybe a thousand dollars to the SGK foundation over the years, not a huge amount of money, but money that I think can be used much more productively by Planned Parenthood. Which is my right, as well.

I'm sure the SGK Foundation will become the new poster child for all that anti-abortion, rightwing Republican money, so I'm sure they won't miss my contributions at all.

And Planned Parenthood will benefit as well, as huge numbers of people will move their donations, as I did, to PP, which uses their funding to help ALL women, and does not discriminate by politics.

I don't even have a problem with the SGK Foundation position, only that it's clear they have had this position, yet kept it carefully cloaked, and the hypocrisy of that annoys me far more than their actions. I'm also not at all pleased by seeing the close connection of this organization with the large corporations who make huge profits on breast cancer. I was already uneasy by their rating by philanthropy organizations, showing quite a top heavy administration percentage of donations, and this just iced the cake for good for me.

They are dead to me. As Stephen Colbert says. ;-)

Alan

2-3-12, 12:57pm

They are, at their highest levels, a far right, Republican, anti-abortion group, who will use that political view (which is their right, certainly) to make their decisions regarding womens' health in the screening of women for breast cancer, etc. and are willing to see women thrown under the bus in service of that anti-abortion stance, which has nothing whatsoever to do with breast cancer, anyway.

Is it necessary to funnel money through a specific group in order to avoid the "throw women under the bus" accusation? Going around the pass-through agent and funding the point of service mammography providers is harmful to women? I'm not understanding this.

puglogic

2-3-12, 1:20pm

What part of an individual stating "I'm not giving any more money to an organization that I no longer personally believe in" don't you understand?

There's an entire segment of the population that must feel they will live forever, because they spend a lot of time & life energy trying to convince other people why their personal opinions are wrong, because they don't happen to share them.

loosechickens

2-3-12, 1:20pm

there's a lot you don't understand, Alan, IMHO, but it's not my job to enlighten you. It's obvious that SGK has been doing some serious "damage control" and highlighting that they would keep on donating, but just to different organizations, but I doubt they can show me organizations they are sending the money to, who are down there in the trenches in poor, rural areas, and inner cities, where Planned Parenthood stands between women and no access to health care at all.

The bottom line is that their founder has unmasked herself to show that she is a far right Republican anti-abortion person who is willing to use her organization in the service of that position. And has hired a new VP who has publicly stated her desire to destroy Planned Parenthood, and who is also an ardent far right anti-abortion person.

Now, it's also important to remember the central fact that breast cancer and abortion have no connection between the two, so views on abortion should have no bearing on any decisions regarding funding for breast cancer screenings, etc.

You know this, Alan.....you just can't resist making everything in the world into an argument. You LOVE to argue and debate, it's mother's milk to you. Me? Not so much.

Suffice it to say that I've made my decision regarding the Susan G. Komen Foundation, which is all that is really important to me. Making sure that the 10% of our income that we allocate to "spirit" for charity, goes to the best possible places, doing the best possible work, in our opinion. This little kerfluffle between SGK and many American women who had no idea (as I didn't) of their actual agenda, has been enlightening, and, I think, a good thing. Anti-abortion people can flock to the SGK now, secure in the fact that none of their donations toward breast cancer will go to any organizations who might also care for other areas of women's health (with their own money), but instead will help large multinational corporations with a strong desire to profit from breast cancer. hahahahaha. ;-)

Incidentally, Lizii.....rest assured, no tax money is going for "free abortions" anywhere in this country. Least of all Planned Parenthood. 3% of Planned Parenthood work is providing abortions, ALL of which is funded by private funds, and 97% of their work is providing for women's health in the areas of health and cancer screenings, well woman exams, family planning information, etc., much of which is paid by private donations, and some from public funding.

But NO public funding goes toward abortions, no matter HOW dire the situation, even a twelve year old child forcibly raped who becomes pregnant, or victims of incest. Your tax dollars are safe.

loosechickens

2-3-12, 1:35pm

Incidentally, folks should take this turnaround from SGK Foundation with a grain of salt. They are now saying they will "maintain current funding", which was NOT even the problem, that had never been at issue, already having been granted.

They are now saying that they will "consider" future applications from PP for grants, but nothing regarding whether they will GRANT them, and also ignoring that Planned Parenthood's grant application for the next year is already on their desks. AND is the one they refused to grant.

Lots of damage control going on, lots of smokescreens trying to salvage their funding base, but little of substance, and NO assurance that Planned Parenthood grants will ever be funded again. A lot of "wait and see" should be in the works for any who think this "apology" means much of anything from SGK Foundation.

ApatheticNoMore

2-3-12, 1:48pm

So what if you can't afford insurance, you get a free cancer screening from PP and it finds a lump? How can you possibly afford surgery at that time (given you couldn't afford health insurance and clearly surgery isn't affordable out of pocket)? So what do you do then, just die? I always figured that is how it worked without insurance. So oh hooray, you got a free screening, woop de do.

JaneV2.0

2-3-12, 2:00pm

I don't trust huge corporate-connected "advocacy" groups in general. I think they're mostly concerned with perpetuating themselves and the status quo. My list of human-centric charities is very short, including Planned Parenthood, Free Clinics, wounded veterans' charities, and Doctors Without Borders. I'd rather give my money to Fences for Fido, MEOW, and other animal rescues.

Alan

2-3-12, 2:02pm

peggy

2-3-12, 2:22pm

Well, it looks like this controversy is over. http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2012/02/komen-apologizes-for-recent-de.html

For those keeping score: Planned Parenthood/Ideological Hysteria = 1 , Komen Foundation = 0

Hysteria, huh? I guess it never occured to you or Gregg, or others, that just maybe all the women who did the runs, bought the pink everything, donated time and money to this orginazation thinking they were really all about curing breast cancer simply feel duped? Consider where you are. On a forum of people who pride themselves on thinking very carefully on how they spend every penny they used life-time earning. We were fooled, and no back tracking by this foundation is going to get me to run/buy anything 'pink' again.

Now, you want to talk Ideological hysteria, let's just find out that the president of Ducks unlimited is secretly working to ban handguns. Or armor piercing bullets. Then you'd see some hysteria (along with an increase in sales of MREs and shovels to dig hidey-holes) ;)
How about when they tried to ban guns from a college campus, for heavens sakes! I seem to remember a bit of hysteria then, wrapped in the flag, of course.

shadowmoss

2-3-12, 2:38pm

There obviously is a huge base of us women who have used PP when we had no money for health care and/or birth control at times in our lives. Having needed, and been welcomed by, PP back then I do take it personally when they are portrayed as villians. That is the backlash that wasn't expected, I think. The huge number of women who have personal experience with the good the PP does.

Alan

2-3-12, 2:45pm

....How about when they tried to ban guns from a college campus, for heavens sakes! I seem to remember a bit of hysteria then, wrapped in the flag, of course.....
That discussion was actually about lifting a blanket ban on the lawful carry of concealed weapons on a college campus, and despite the hysteria, it hasn't resulted in deaths at the hands of concealed carry permit holders. Shocking, I know. >8)

iris lily

2-3-12, 2:56pm

Glad to see you've reverted to your old self Loosechickens, I was afraid you'd lost the ability to redirect an issue while simultaneously attacking my motivations, rather than attempt to answer an honest question.

Believe it or not, I've missed that!! :D

At least she can't pull the plug on your membership now, and that's a positive change.

Zoebird

2-3-12, 3:39pm

I opted to use the Better Business Bureau's charity reviews to understand and compare organizations.

Susan G Koman Foundation (http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/houston/cancer/susan-g-komen-breast-cancer-foundation-houston-affiliate-in-houston-tx-14242): 7% fundraising, 6% administrative; 87% programming. Total income $6,600,000 (estimated amount rounded by me). Chief executive earns: None listed.

Planned Parenthood (http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/health/international-planned-parenthood-federation-western-hemisphere-region-in-new-york-ny-2486): 7% fundraising, 5% administrative; 88% programming. Total income $29,800,000. Chief executive earns: $330,000.

American Red Cross (http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/human-services/american-red-cross-in-washington-dc-679): 6% fundraising, 4% administrative, 90% programming. Total income $3,204,000,000. Chief Executive earns: $47,000.

Interesting information, no?

I think it's good that Koman reversed their decision based on public outcry. Many of their contributors were -- as the OP said herself/himself -- pulling their donations from this organization to support another organization. This is their right to do so, and doesn't say that anyone is "entitled" to anything -- that PP is "entitled" to Koman money.

Rather, it simply says -- if the organization will not support what I think is important, than I will not support that organization.

To give an example, my father was a boy scout growing up, and supported the organization (financially) as an adult. When the situation arose where homosexuals would no longer be included in the organization, my father withdrew his support. He still valued the boy scouts and what they do, and he valued his experience, and he even said that they had a right -- as private organization -- to exclude whomever they wish (and this was supported by the Supreme Court). He also had the right to say he was no longer donating.

When the organization wrote to him regarding his usual, annual donation, my father sent back a letter explaining that he couldn't support an organization that was openly prejudiced, and therefore would not be making a donation. The Boy Scouts of America were not "entitled" to his money. He gave his money to Easter Seals that year instead -- another organization that he supports.

It is perfectly fine for people to withdraw their support of an organization. Komen foundation had that right with regards to planned parenthood. Individual donors to the Komen foundation *also* had that right to withdraw funds from Komen.

In response, the Komen Foundation decided to reverse their decision. They probably saw the writing on the wall -- they stood to loose a great deal of their funding, the majority of which goes to research grants.

No one, anywhere, said that Planned Parenthood was "entitled" to the money from Komen. They only asserted that it is upsetting at the way this relationship was ending, and that they would support Planned Parenthood over Komen. I don't get what the big accusation about entitlements is about.

Zoebird

2-3-12, 3:49pm

Part of the reason the large organizations are trying to perpetuate themselves is because a lot of people rely on them.

Planned Parenthood, for example, provides services to potentially millions of women. If they don't come up with a way to keep their organization going, then that goes away.

Planned Parenthood applies for grants (in addition to fundraising) from government and charity organizations -- such as Komen -- in order to continue in their mission. These grants may or may not be granted -- based on those organization's decisions regarding whom to fund.

The real challenge with grants -- having been on a board that managed small grants -- is that not everyone gets one. We are were often choosing between equally deserving, needy, and beneficial individuals. The grant group I was a part of was an artist-grant. All of the artists qualified, and all of them had great projects.

So, yes, Komen can choose to no longer grant the money to PP. They always could do this, and if they hadn't made an announcement about it, then it probably wouldn't have caused a flap. I didn't even know that Komen gave to PP. I give to neither organization, so it's not htat big of a deal to me. Though, in general, I support Planned Parenthood over Komen, because I consider Komen to be a redundant organization.

But that's just my opinion on it.

peggy

2-3-12, 4:30pm

That discussion was actually about lifting a blanket ban on the lawful carry of concealed weapons on a college campus, and despite the hysteria, it hasn't resulted in deaths at the hands of concealed carry permit holders. Shocking, I know. >8)

As it would seem that despite the 'hysteria', the Komen foundation discovered that their love of money trumps their 'loving' political agenda, which trumped the millions of poor women who relied on PP. Shocking, I know! ;)

mtnlaurel

2-3-12, 4:54pm

Hi All - I haven't read through all the posts - it's been a busy couple of days for me running around doing my thing... but I was just checking my email and it looks Komen funding has been restored to Planned Parenthood.
Thank you for giving me a space to get things off my chest.

(I'm sure you all have heard this on the radio/tv by now) Here is the mass email I got from Planned Parenthood:

Dear [MtnLaurel],
Today, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation announced that it will continue to make grant funds for breast health and education available to Planned Parenthood health centers.
It's terrific news, and we are gratified that Planned Parenthood's partnership with the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation will continue to make this care available to women in need. We are also grateful for the simply astonishing outpouring of support for women's health this week.
In the past few days, millions of Americans have rededicated themselves to protecting women's health and expanding access to lifesaving breast cancer screenings to every woman. This compassionate outcry of support for those most in need rose above political, ideological, and cultural divides, and will surely be recognized as one of our nation's better moments during a contentious political time. I am so proud and so grateful for each and every person who has contributed to elevating the importance of breast cancer prevention for so many women in need.
Over the last three days, Planned Parenthood Federation of America's Breast Health Fund has received more than $3 million from thousands of people across the country. Every dollar we received for this fund will go directly to breast exams and diagnostic services, as well as breast health outreach and education so that more women can receive this critical care.
Our first priority is to fill any gaps in service in the 19 communities where Komen Foundation grants support Planned Parenthood health centers' breast care programs. The extraordinary generosity will also allow us to help expand Planned Parenthood breast health services nationwide far beyond what we ever thought possible. Planned Parenthood provides nearly 750,000 clinical breast exams each year at health centers across the country, but we know there are hundreds of thousands of women who need these services but still don't have access to them. The Planned Parenthood Breast Health Fund will enable us to reach these women and ensure they have access to affordable, quality clinical breast exams.
In short, this outpouring of public support will lead more women to detect breast cancer earlier, and will save more women's lives.
We are enormously grateful that the Komen Foundation has clarified its grantmaking criteria, and we look forward to continuing our partnership with Komen partners, leaders, and volunteers. What these past few days have demonstrated is the deep resolve all Americans share in the fight against cancer, and we are proud to be a leading source for women seeking preventive care.
Thank you for standing with Planned Parenthood, and for being a crucial part of the movement to protect and promote women's health.

Sincerely,
Cecile Richards, President
Planned Parenthood Federation of America

Alan

2-3-12, 6:19pm

As it would seem that despite the 'hysteria', the Komen foundation discovered that their love of money trumps their 'loving' political agenda, which trumped the millions of poor women who relied on PP. Shocking, I know! ;)
My guess is it probably has more to do with the very vocal outpouring of opinion that they don't care about women's health, such as you've seen here. Emotion always seems to trump reason and sometimes you just gotta bite the bullet, put your principles aside and move on.

JaneV2.0

2-3-12, 8:43pm

Oh yes, the old chestnut that women are emotional ninnies, while men operate on cool logic. Anyone who's awake and paying attention knows better.

pinkytoe

2-3-12, 8:54pm

Haven't read all the posts yet but nonprofits are always under the gun to keep their donors happy. DD is in that line of work and is always dealing with donor issues and trying to keep them happy so they will kedp giving. It is admirable that Komen finally did the right thing though.

creaker

2-3-12, 9:10pm

My guess is it probably has more to do with the very vocal outpouring of opinion that they don't care about women's health, such as you've seen here. Emotion always seems to trump reason and sometimes you just gotta bite the bullet, put your principles aside and move on.

I thought it was more an outpouring of opinion that the donors care about women's health and they were stating how they were reallocating donations or future donations accordingly. Many people think PP fills an important niche that is not being met by other means. Komen said they were pulling a resource and people stepped up to fill it. Komen changed their position because people were very vocal they were filling it with the dollars they might have given to Komen.

Alan

2-3-12, 9:20pm

I thought it was more an outpouring of opinion that the donors care about women's health and they were stating how they were reallocating donations or future donations accordingly. Many people think PP fills an important niche that is not being met by other means. Komen said they were pulling a resource and people stepped up to fill it. Komen changed their position because people were very vocal they were filling it with the dollars they might have given to Komen.
I can see where one might think that, but the Komen Foundation has reported a 100% increase in donations over the past few days. Monetarily, they've benefited from the broohaha as much or more than PP.

If it were only about the money they would do better to stick to their guns, which leads me to believe it's all about the negative punditry regarding lack of care about women's health which you've indicated in your post as well. I can't believe that so many people could think that way, and yet they seemingly do.

creaker

2-3-12, 9:43pm

I can see where one might think that, but the Komen Foundation has reported a 100% increase in donations over the past few days. Monetarily, they've benefited from the broohaha as much or more than PP.

If it were only about the money they would do better to stick to their guns, which leads me to believe it's all about the negative punditry regarding lack of care about women's health which you've indicated in your post as well. I can't believe that so many people could think that way, and yet they seemingly do.

I'm not sure I agree - a lot of the donations to Komen over the past few days I expect were because they took a stance that was interpeted as "prolife" by defunding PP. I don't think they could maintain that momentum going forward - announcements that they still don't fund PP wouldn't carry the same weight. On the other hand people were leaving on droves and announcements that they still don't fund PP would be sufficient to keep them away.

I think they could have deflected a lot of flack if they had said up front they were going to do more than just pull the funding, help PP find other sources, etc. Instead, regardless of the motives, it just sounded like they were pulling the rug out. And people reacted.

loosechickens

2-3-12, 11:27pm

Originally Posted by alan
Glad to see you've reverted to your old self Loosechickens, I was afraid you'd lost the ability to redirect an issue while simultaneously attacking my motivations, rather than attempt to answer an honest question.

Believe it or not, I've missed that!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At least she can't pull the plug on your membership now, and that's a positive change. (Iris Lily)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

oh.....would that I actually had had the powers you think I had, "to pull the plug", when I was moderator, dears........because if I had had those powers (which I didn't, having told you numerous times that any such actions were group decisions, by consensus of the moderator team), I might have been sorely tempted.....hahahahaha

redfox

2-3-12, 11:51pm

At least she can't pull the plug on your membership now, and that's a positive change.

Woah, dudes! Settle down...

redfox

2-3-12, 11:56pm

I can see where one might think that, but the Komen Foundation has reported a 100% increase in donations over the past few days. Monetarily, they've benefited from the broohaha as much or more than PP.

If it were only about the money they would do better to stick to their guns, which leads me to believe it's all about the negative punditry regarding lack of care about women's health which you've indicated in your post as well. I can't believe that so many people could think that way, and yet they seemingly do.

I must say that no matter what the issue, I am always happy when individuals step up to give to the non-profit sector. Givingi is one of the best ways to move your issue, concerns & solutions forward. It's such a uniquely American thing, and as I am entering my third decade working in this sector, which BTW is the 3rd largest employment sector in the country, I celebrate every gift, no matter what!

Philanthropy, in its linguistic roots, is this: Philos=love. Anthropos=human. For the love of humans. Dontcha' just dig this?

jp1

2-4-12, 12:08am

I can see where one might think that, but the Komen Foundation has reported a 100% increase in donations over the past few days. Monetarily, they've benefited from the broohaha as much or more than PP.

If it were only about the money they would do better to stick to their guns, which leads me to believe it's all about the negative punditry regarding lack of care about women's health which you've indicated in your post as well. I can't believe that so many people could think that way, and yet they seemingly do.

If one looks at the numbers it is/was pretty obvious that SGK had MUCH more to lose in this fight then PP. PP had gotten in new donations enough to cover the loss from SGK in just a day or two. PP only got a modest amount of money from SGK, so they would've gone on with their charity's life even without any new donations. SGK was running the risk of losing half their previous supporters because of this kerfuffle. (and may still lose many of them. TIme will tell...) Yes they may have had a 100% increase in donations during this time, but could/can those donors have kept/keep up that new level of donation over the long haul? Probably not.

loosechickens

2-4-12, 12:23am

I think SGK Foundation will have a much larger worry than donations, since the organization literally runs their Race for Life activities by the efforts of thousands upon thousands of volunteers, a huge number of whom will probably have had a very positive experience with Planned Parenthood in their lifetimes, and will have a hard time overlooking this situation. Donations is one thing, but unless they can count on the anti-abortion folks to stop picketing Planned Parenthood clinics, etc., and sit behind tables at Race for Life events, peddle pink ribbons all over, etc., they are going to find themselves with serious problems.

They realize that, and are doing some serious PR to try to address their problem, but their underlying problem is that their donors, and more importantly, their volunteers have had a good look "behind the curtain" at an agenda very different than that advertised, and for which those women (and often men) have volunteered. It's bad, and not only was bad that they did it, but worse that they handled it so clumsily. One almost thinks that they thought in an echo chamber of fellow anti-abortion folks and somehow thought that most would agree with their stab at Planned Parenthood. Boy, did they get a surprise.

This particular thing will pass, as they always do, but I suspect lasting harm will be done to the SGK organization, and I'm sorry that they allowed their political agenda to overshadow their stated mission regarding breast cancer. Because a huge number of women were depending on them for that, and they have let those women down, I'm afraid. JMHO

JaneV2.0

2-4-12, 1:45am

I would question the judgment of management that would hire a VP (Karen Handel) with so much baggage. Along with her vehement anti-reproductive freedom stance, she also instituted voter suppression sweeps in Georgia, targeting minorities, along with denouncing gays. All in all, it appears that SGK--which has also opposed stem-cell research--has established itself solidly right of center. Their attempted purge of PP has shone a bright light on the reality behind their relentless PR.

lizii

2-4-12, 3:28am

I totally disagree with aborting babies, but especially that it is being paid from my tax dollars.

I hate my money used to pay for free abortions.

Women here can get free abortions as many times as they need one. This is an immoral thing to me and is totally against my principles. This is why I agree with Planned Parenthood...I think they even supply preventitives to women who can't afford to buy them.

JaneV2.0

2-4-12, 11:58am

Planned Parenthood (according to recently published figures) spends over 70% of its intake on birth control, family planning, and related care, and only 3% on abortion services. I'm staunchly in favor of women terminating pregnancies if they must, but as Lizii points out, better to prevent them in the first place. When I visited PP for exams and contraceptives in my distant youth, fees were determined on a sliding scale by income.

rosebud

2-4-12, 12:21pm

If you connect the dots the decision by the board of SGK to deny funding to PP was motivated by pro-life politics. The anti-choice movement is now well represented on the board and PP is one of the favorite targets of the "pro-life" movement. This decision in conjunction with the decision not to fund embryonic stem cell research demonstrate the bias on the board. A story has emerged that Ari Fleischer served as a consultant to the board in advising them how to ditch PP with as little controversy as possible. Because of the high visibility, in fact demonization, of PP, there must have been much internal and external pressure to sever ties to PP to the greatest extent possible.

So the new standards and metrics it can be assumed were adopted specifically to give SGK the cover it needed to pursue an agenda that has nothing to do with breast cancer and women's health. Bolstering this conclusion were the flustered and incoherent explanations of SGK about their new policies and the applause that this decision received in pro-life circles.

The backlash was not unreasonable, bullying, hysterical or overly emotional although it did hit home for a lot of people. The problem is one of misrepresentation. You can't hold yourself out as a non- or trans- political charitable organization dedicated to women's health and then enact politically based policies that seem to go against your avowed mission. It really is as simple as that. People feel betrayed.

The other thing to understand is that people are just plain sick and tired of PP being a target. It is a well respected organization and the majority of people support its mission.

The "pro-life" folks over reached on this one and got smacked down. Americans are ambivalent about abortion, but not contraception and health care for women.

This was a very poorly thought out decision and has made SGK much more subject to critical scrutiny. That's not going to help them going forward if the board continues to wade into politically charged areas.

Alan, was that analysis dispassionate enough for you?

redfox

2-4-12, 12:42pm

I found PP in college, when I needed Pap & pelvic medical services, but had little $$ for it. They were my go-to place for years. When my stepdaughter became sexually active at age 17, I first took her to her MD for an exam & contraception. Later, when she was in college & off our insurance plan, I introduced her to PP so she could continue getting contraception. I showed her brother where the local PP is so he could get STD tested & receive low cost contraception if he chose to... In fact, there are many men who get their reproductive care at PP.

Here is a friend's story:
Just to put a face on it. Personally, I didn't visit a single private women's health clinic until I was about 27 years old -- after starting at my first corporate job about 2 weeks out of college. Prior to that, in colleges and various 20-something era jobs, I rarely had medical coverage. When I was covered, I have a natural aversion to the medical industrial complex that made it hard for me to visit GPs (often male) and start these discussions. My mom took me for my first visit to Planned Parenthood when I was about 17 years old. In later years, I went to the one locally. They helped me through every single stage of my early adult life with no judgment, no bull**** and "pay what you can". The reason I, as a wife & mom, am here today with two healthy kids and a functional life is largely because of the opportunity to control my own reproductive health via Planned Parenthood.

Gregg

2-4-12, 1:35pm

Here's a spin that hasn't come out yet... Donations to both organizations were down this year. With the announcement both organizations received a flood of donations, much of it from people who were not regular supporters. Could it simply have been an orchestrated move to kick start donations and get lots of free publicity?

JaneV2.0

2-4-12, 1:36pm

That the upshot of Komen's misstep is a virtual love fest celebration of Planned Parenthood makes me very happy indeed. As people find out about their good work, donations will follow.

loosechickens

2-4-12, 2:58pm

"Here's a spin that hasn't come out yet... Donations to both organizations were down this year. With the announcement both organizations received a flood of donations, much of it from people who were not regular supporters. Could it simply have been an orchestrated move to kick start donations and get lots of free publicity?" (Gregg)
------------------------------------------------
If it was, then it was one of the most incredibly bad decisions the management of SGK could ever have made. I'm not sure they will recover from this, Gregg. Truly.......which is a terrible shame, and a slap in the face to many, many thousands of people who have volunteered, walked their feet bloody at their events to raise money for them, etc. It's most unfortunate that they got caught up in their own political views about abortion in their top management, and forgot what their mission was and that the abortion issue is completely unconnected to that.

At this point, the curtain has been pulled away, women (and men) can see that the top management of SGK not only are active anti-abortion activists, but that they were willing to take their eyes off their primary mission, breast cancer, in the service of their political positions on abortion. Which explains the stem cell position as well. Once that "man behind the curtain" has been revealed, it's going to be difficult if not impossible to put that genie back in the box.

Many millions of women have had positive experiences with Planned Parenthood, often at times in their lives when they had little money, were uncomfortable with sexual and women's health issues, and the nonjudgmental, no bullsh*t advice and care they received at Planned Parenthood, they will never forget. It is an organization that has HUGE support among women in this country, other than the very hard core of anti-abortion folks, who are more than willing to ignore the 90% or more of work that Planned Parenthood does for women's health that has nothing to do with abortion, in favor of trying to destroy PP because 3% of their work is supplying LEGAL abortions to women as needed, often in parts of the country where no other opportunity for ending a pregnancy exists.

here's just one piece that illustrates how much large numbers of women feel betrayed by SGK Foundation. It's bad, Gregg, very bad.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jv8C7ApOOz3ZXyAYBNHDPMMbfU7Q?docId=e5b9d00aa 21e4c34bb7ee79f70508002

excerpt:

"The controversy was rawest, it seemed, for breast cancer survivors, especially those, like Joyce Miller, who'd donated many hours of time to Komen. After her first breast cancer treatment, Miller spent an hour a day manning Komen's phone lines, for nearly two years.

"I do not forgive them," the 70-year-old Dallas woman said Friday, after the reversal. She said she was also thinking of her daughter, Twinney, the Michigan woman, who spent years on the breast cancer walks. "Those bloody feet," Miller said. "The aching back!"

As for Twinney, she didn't try to hold back the tears as she spoke of the years of fundraising, which included bartending stints to get cash together, and the three-day walks, buoyed by supporters including her two sons, who even agreed to dress in pink.

"Those weekends, on those walks, were some of the most special times of my life, next to the birth of my children," she said. "You met the best people in the world. This organization began for such a special reason. And I am just so disappointed right now."

iris lily

2-4-12, 3:13pm

loosechickens

2-4-12, 3:25pm

I picked this up over at www.americablog.com about an excerpt from an article in Harper's:

In Harper's Magazine, November 2001, the great Barbara Ehrenreich writes (my emphasis and paragraphing):

Today [breast cancer is] the biggest disease on the cultural map, bigger than AIDS, cystic fibrosis, or spinal injury, bigger even than those more prolific killers of women -- heart disease, lung cancer, and stroke. There are roughly hundreds of websites devoted to it, not to mention newsletters, support groups, a whole genre of first-person breast-cancer books; even a glossy, upper-middle-brow, monthly magazine, Mamm.

There are four major national breast-cancer organizations, of which the mightiest, in financial terms, is The Susan G. Komen Foundation, headed by breast-cancer veteran and Bush's nominee for ambassador to Hungary Nancy Brinker. Komen organizes the annual Race for the Cure©, which attracts about a million people -- mostly survivors, friends, and family members. Its website provides a microcosm of the new breast-cancer culture, offering news of the races, message boards for accounts of individuals' struggles with the disease, and a "marketplace" of breast-cancer-related products to buy.
Ehrenreich then looks at why breast cancer is different and represents a different "opportunity."

[B]reast cancer has blossomed from wallflower to the most popular girl at the corporate charity prom. While AIDS goes begging and low-rent diseases like tuberculosis have no friends at all, breast cancer has been able to count on Revlon, Avon, Ford, Tiffany, Pier 1, Estee Lauder, Ralph Lauren, Lee Jeans, Saks Fifth Avenue, JC Penney, Boston Market, Wilson athletic gear -- and I apologize to those I've omitted.

You can "shop for the cure" during the week when Saks donates 2 percent of sales to a breast-cancer fund; "wear denim for the cure" during Lee National Denim Day, when for a $5 donation you get to wear blue jeans to work. You can even "invest for the cure," in the Kinetics Assets Management's new no-load Medical Fund, which specializes entirely in businesses involved in cancer research.

If you can't run, bike, or climb a mountain for the cure -- all of which endeavors are routine beneficiaries of corporate sponsorship -- you can always purchase one of the many products with a breast cancer theme.

There are 2.2 million American women in various stages of their breast-cancer careers, who, along with anxious relatives, make up a significant market for all things breast-cancer-related. Bears, for example: I have identified four distinct lines, or species, of these creatures, including "Carol," the Remembrance Bear; "Hope," the Breast Cancer Research Bear, which wears a pink turban as if to conceal chemotherapy-induced baldness; the "Susan Bear," named for Nancy Brinker's deceased sister, Susan; and the new Nick & Nora Wish Upon a Star Bear, available, along with the Susan Bear, at the Komen Foundation website's "marketplace."

And bears are only the tip, so to speak, of the cornucopia of pink-ribbon-themed breast-cancer products. ...
Despite the non-profit status, Komen and its aggressive and jealous trademarking and organizational branding looks a lot like like a major, professional, corporate operation, doesn't it?

rosebud

2-4-12, 3:34pm

Really, I've never been on a Komen walk and don't intend to, regardless of their political position on abortion. I don't get all emo about curing cancer of any kind and would not bloody my feet and frankly that kind of testimony just makes me want to back away from the speaker.

Like I said in an earlier post, Koman is loosing steam because they've got as big as they can get and have saturated the market and people are sick of them.

Listen, I don't fault you for rolling your eyes at the pinkization of breast cancer research fundraising, but it may sound a bit insensitive to cancer victims and their loved ones that you don't get "emo" about cancer. Being empathic and concerned is not a negative thing. "Emo" suggests adolescent angst over petty bs. There is nothing wrong with having an emotional connection with a charitable cause.

JaneV2.0

2-4-12, 4:25pm

It's worth noting that Ehrenreich has had breast cancer herself and has been vocal in her disgust with the whole creepy industry that has sprung up to make money off the disease.

loosechickens

2-5-12, 5:30pm

Well, the plot thickens, and I imagine at this point, the Susan G. Komen Foundation is rueing the day they hired their new, very rightwing, politically active new VP, and listened to all her ideas on just how to go about her particular vendetta against Planned Parenthood. Her big plan? First you draw up new criteria for funding that you can use to defund PP, AND make it look nonpolitical, and no one will know the difference........ Whoops........

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/05/karen-handel-susan-g-komen-decision-defund-planned-parenthood_n_1255948.html

I suspect this little caper will go down in the annals and be taught in public relations and management classes as a classic overreaching, and an excellent example of management listening to their own little echo chambers and thinking they understand the country at large.

And the thing is, Planned Parenthood has, unfortunately, had to become VERY adept at dealing with attempts to destroy them over the years, as they have been being targeted by far right and fundamentalist religious groups, not just on abortion, but on such basics as supplying family planning information and contraceptives, which many on the right (think Rick Santorum just as one example) believe are wrong, and if elected, would attempt to prevent women from even having access to contraceptives and education on family planning, let alone abortion information and access if needed.

So Karen Handel's very clumsy attempt was way too clumsy, not to mention inept. She may be toast with the SGK Foundation, but even if they cut her loose, it may be too late for them to recover from this until some major time has gone by, if ever. But I wouldn't be surprised if, in the very near future, she resigns to "spend more time with her family".

Alan

2-5-12, 6:29pm

I suspect this little caper will go down in the annals and be taught in public relations and management classes as a classic overreaching, and an excellent example of management listening to their own little echo chambers and thinking they understand the country at large.

I agree. Many people will remember that the Komen Foundation was bullied into providing funding for mammogram services to an organization which doesn't provide mammogram services.

And the thing is, Planned Parenthood has, unfortunately, had to become VERY adept at dealing with attempts to destroy them over the years....
Yes, they went on offensive pretty quickly on this one. Their funding was cut and they immediately began their public relations campaign. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/alarmed-saddened-komen-foundation-succumbing-political-pressure-planned-parenthood-launches-fun-38629.htm

Planned Parenthood Federation of America today expressed deep disappointment in response to the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation’s decision to stop funding breast cancer prevention, screenings and education at Planned Parenthood health centers. Anti-choice groups in America have repeatedly threatened the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation for partnering with Planned Parenthood to provide these lifesaving cancer screenings and news articles suggest that the Komen Foundation ultimately succumbed to these pressures.

I wonder how many other organizations will think twice about providing grants to an organization so adept at holding them hostage in perpetuity?

loosechickens

2-5-12, 7:29pm

Ah, Alan......at best, you also live in an echo chamber of rightwing sites blaring "PP doesn't even provide mammograms", and you're not a woman, and at worst, you are using your considerable debating skills to obfuscate and sow inaccurate allusions.

Planned Parenthood provides literally many millions of breast exams, and other services every year, such as physical exams, other cancer screenings, i.e., pap tests, occult blood tests for signs of bleeding from bowels, etc., makes mammograms referrals, even provides the actual mammograms themselves at some clinics, in areas where there isn't a local hospital or mammogram center that does them, to millions of women, and sees that women without insurance and/or without funds to pay for a mammogram, can be given a mammogram at no cost at the facilities they refer patients to. The Susan G. Komen funding represented something like 1% of the funding for such services, so to insinuate that PP wants to "hold them hostage in perpetuity" is ridiculous.

Think of Planned Parenthood as the average woman's (especially those without insurance, the poor and those without family doctors) as her family doctor. It's unlikely that YOUR family doctor actually pops your wife's breasts into a machine in his or her office and does her mammogram. Nope, like Planned Parenthood, he examines her, does other tests for cancer that can be done in his or her office, does a breast exam, and then REFERS her to her local mammogram facility. And, perhaps, if your wife had no insurance nor money, he or she might even try to connect her into a program where she could get her mammogram free or at very low cost, just as Planned Parenthood does. And, I'm assuming, your doctor has costs involved, so is paid for those services.

When you go to Planned Parenthood, if you have funds to pay, you pay, and if you don't, grant money and other funding sources pay, on a sliding scale, from services provided free of charge, to paying what you are able to pay.

While Planned Parenthood DOES do mammograms in some facilities without local options for obtaining mammograms, it would be a poor use of money for each Planned Parenthood office to have that expensive equipment, just as it would be foolish for your family doctor to do so. It takes special training to be able to READ a mammogram, if for no other reason, not to mention cost of equipment, etc. So for the rightwing blogosphere to be blaring everywhere you read that they "don't even provide mammograms", as though they are somehow fraudulent is both ignorant if said through ignorance, and reprehensible if said to mislead.

If you WERE a woman, you'd probably have HAD experience with Planned Parenthood in your own life, as a very large percentage of women have. And, as a woman, either with that experience herself, or knowing friends and family who have used Planned Parenthood, you probably wouldn't have taken so kindly to the assault on PP that has been being waged by the far right anti-abortion crowd, many of whom even oppose women having education on family planning or ability to receive contraceptives.

But, ya know what? That far right, very loud, but NOT by any means a majority of American women, has overreached, made a huge mistake, and done irreparable harm to their cause.

Because they have awakened a sleeping giant in the many, many millions of women who have gone to Planned Parenthood and received caring, nonjudgmental advice, physical exams, information on family planning, contraceptives, STDs, pregnancy, and yes, even abortion, if that LEGAL option is needed. And, we don't take kindly to a large, closely connected to multinational corporations making profits on breast cancer organization SUPPOSEDLY concerned about their mission, breast cancer, playing political games with their donors' time, energy, volunteer efforts, fundraising and donations, to derail that mission, to practice their political activism against abortion, which has NOTHING to do with breast cancer, and plot to underhandedly achieve their desires.

THAT is hypocrisy, Alan, and hypocrisy is as much the problem as withdrawal of funding. You seem completely unable to understand that. And I am not surprised. Carry on........ your major thrust is to sow doubts regarding Planned Parenthood, which is hard to do with women having long experience with using them, and to parrot the latest far rightwing talking points. Knock yourself out. It's your right.

American women have spoken, loud and clearly. The new VP of the Komen Foundation must live in an echo chamber herself, to have even THOUGHT she could pull this off.

Alan

2-5-12, 7:52pm

bae

2-5-12, 8:00pm

Komen should have been smart enough not to destroy their entire brand in a single day.

I have a hard time imagining the internal processes that would have allowed this to happen.

peggy

2-5-12, 8:14pm

I agree. Many people will remember that the Komen Foundation was bullied into providing funding for mammogram services to an organization which doesn't provide mammogram services.

Yes, they went on offensive pretty quickly on this one. Their funding was cut and they immediately began their public relations campaign. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/alarmed-saddened-komen-foundation-succumbing-political-pressure-planned-parenthood-launches-fun-38629.htm
[/I]

I wonder how many other organizations will think twice about providing grants to an organization so adept at holding them hostage in perpetuity?

You know Alan, it's really sad that the only way you can justify this in your mind is to believe that PP somehow bullied The Komen foundation. You really can't wrap your mind around the fact that the true moral majority voiced their disapproval of this political move by this foundation. And they weren't all liberal, as much as you want to believe that. The hundreds of thousands of people who spoke out about this were republican and democrat, a collective voice that wasn't partisan, but the voice of men and women who cared about women's health. Sons and husbands and brothers joined voices with the women in their lives who counted. In fact, this is probably one of the most nonpartisan actions we have come together on in many years. Only those who are blinded by their uber partisanship can't recognize this for what it was. Or they don't want to see this. I'm sure you want to believe that they were somehow bullied into this, but they weren't. If mass disapproval is bullying, then I suppose prison is full of 'bullied' people. I know you want to deny it but there really is a shared morality in this country, and what this foundation did was against this humanistic morality. Thus the outcry. I guarantee you the outcry would be just as loud if PP denied breast exams or family planning to those who were anti-choice.

peggy

2-5-12, 8:17pm

redfox

2-5-12, 8:24pm

Really, I've never been on a Komen walk and don't intend to, regardless of their political position on abortion. I don't get all emo about curing cancer of any kind and would not bloody my feet and frankly that kind of testimony just makes me want to back away from the speaker.

Like I said in an earlier post, Koman is loosing steam because they've got as big as they can get and have saturated the market and people are sick of them.

Wow, I am a bit shocked by your language... "get all emo...". It seems really disrespectful. I don't imagine you intended that. As someone who has seen the impacts of many kinds of cancer up close, it is an intense diagnosis and journey. People get emotional.

redfox

2-5-12, 8:25pm

Where did you pull that stat from? Where the sun don't shine?

People! Can the disrespectful language stop please??

peggy

2-5-12, 8:26pm

Komen should have held their ground and focused their giving to the various Catholic Hospitals in the U.S. to help fund mammography care for needy women. I believe those institutions serve about a third of all women on a yearly basis wherein PP serves about one fifth of women in each generation.

I'll bet even you could live with that, couldn't you?

Let's see...there are about 600 catholic hospitals nationwide, representing about 12% total hospitals in the US. So, if 1/3 of women are using these hospitals, boy those are some busy hospitals! A third of all women, poor women, are going to just 12% of the hospitals, all of which don't offer mammography of course, so the actual pool of hospitals that 1/3 use is much smaller, I'm guessing the waiting line is pretty dang long, don't you think Alan? Wanna try again?

Alan

2-5-12, 8:36pm

Where did you pull that stat from? Where the sun don't shine?
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/healthcare/documents/2005factsaboutcatholichealthcare.pdf

Alan

2-5-12, 8:37pm

Let's see...there are about 600 catholic hospitals nationwide, representing about 12% total hospitals in the US. So, if 1/3 of women are using these hospitals, boy those are some busy hospitals! A third of all women, poor women, are going to just 12% of the hospitals, all of which don't offer mammography of course, so the actual pool of hospitals that 1/3 use is much smaller, I'm guessing the waiting line is pretty dang long, don't you think Alan? Wanna try again?
No, I don't wanna try again. The facts speak for themselves and I'll stick with them, leaving speculation to others.

peggy

2-5-12, 8:44pm

So, the hundreds of thousands of men and women are just to stupid to know when they've been duped or fooled? The ones who were fooled, besides all the people who ran/walked/maned the phones/worked for the Komen foundation are the many anti-choice people who wrote a check over the last few days thinking their ideology would really trump the almighty dollar.
No one forced the Komen foundation to reverse their position. That's how choice works. This is a free country. They can give their money to whomever they want. You just can't accept that they would rather keep the money stream coming than let some silly VP disrupt that stream. I mean, it's all about the cure, right? Wouldn't this foundation be happy that people are focused on finding the cure, no matter who's pocket it went through? By turning it into a contest, and your acknowledgement of that, kind of takes the light off the 'stated' goal, women's health, and puts it on the corporate greed of this organization.
OH, and kudos for trying to link this organization to Catholic charities, and their good works, by implying that the monies 'wrongfully' taken by PP COULD have gone to Catholic charities. It also could have gone to "Devil Worshiping Women for Satan" but you don't see me trying to link them to that.

peggy

2-5-12, 8:51pm

"This would be of little interest or importance if it were not for the fact
that, as a result of Vatican-imposed guidelines, a full range of reproductive health
care services are routinely not offered at Catholic facilities.This especially impacts
people living in areas where the only health facility is a Catholic one, where it is
not obvious that a local facility is Catholic and low-income people who routinely
rely on emergency rooms at charitable hospitals for primary health care."

From your link. So, those 1/3 poor women are going there for...? certainly not women's' health issues. Splinters maybe? Again, 1/3 of women are not being treated at a catholic charity, certainly not for the types of services PP offers. Sorry Alan, your link supports my points.

redfox

2-5-12, 9:00pm

Komen should have been smart enough not to destroy their entire brand in a single day.

I have a hard time imagining the internal processes that would have allowed this to happen.

Seriously. And, foundations are never bullied to provide funding. Never. I have dealt with the biggest and smallest of them; they are smart about their money. Obviously SGK was not smart about their decision making process & their communications!

PP provides an array of services, including breast exams. Mammograms are done in a hospital or specialty clinic as they require pricey equipment and radiologists. PP has good referral relationships with area mammogram providers, and being a generalist, they refer out for any number of procedures.

PP is a basic health care provider for reproductive health. And, planning one's time to become a parent is a good thing!

Alan

2-5-12, 9:09pm

creaker

2-5-12, 9:24pm

Komen could have handled it differently - but it's all water under the bridge at this point.

As far as the internal processes that made it happen - it wasn't all consensus. The director of community health programs at Komen resigned over the funding cutoff.

ETA: That pdf comments on the CHA. the lobbying arm of the Catholic hospitals "it is clear that its agenda is driven by its adherence to Catholic doctrine, not its desire to assist the needy". It sounds like they may not interested in picking up pieces of what PP does anyway.

mtnlaurel

2-6-12, 7:58am

That's because you're making the wrong points. Komen funds breast cancer research and treatment, not reproductive health services. Planned Parenthood is not the best choice for their funds.

When I went to Planned Parenthood for my yearly gyno appts as a young woman I received a manual breast exam there and received info about doing monthly self-exams.

To me a location where women come for their 'lady health' seems like a natural fit for breast health preventative care.
Teach people how to do their own breast care exams, so people can take responsibility for their own health.

Gregg

2-6-12, 8:35am

People! Can the disrespectful language stop please??

Agreed. Please keep the discussion civil folks.

Alan

2-6-12, 8:44am

That pdf comments on the CHA. the lobbying arm of the Catholic hospitals "it is clear that its agenda is driven by its adherence to Catholic doctrine, not its desire to assist the needy". It sounds like they may not interested in picking up pieces of what PP does anyway.
I suppose one could make that point if one believed that the only way to "assist the needy" would be to violate Catholic doctrine. I'm fairly certain that Catholic hospitals are not interested in picking up any of PP's abortion related business, and that is fine. There's more to women's health than that, and I suspect Catholic doctrine has no bearing on the remainder.

Gregg

2-6-12, 8:45am

ETA: That pdf comments on the CHA. the lobbying arm of the Catholic hospitals "it is clear that its agenda is driven by its adherence to Catholic doctrine, not its desire to assist the needy". It sounds like they may not interested in picking up pieces of what PP does anyway.

Since most people who donate to the Catholic Church and/or Catholic charities presumably hold values in line with Catholic doctrine I think that all makes sense. They are not obligated to provide services to any particular group, needy or not, and they shouldn't be. They have every right to put their money where their faith is which at the core puts the Catholic Church in opposition to Planned Parenthood.

creaker

2-6-12, 9:35am

I suppose one could make that point if one believed that the only way to "assist the needy" would be to violate Catholic doctrine. I'm fairly certain that Catholic hospitals are not interested in picking up any of PP's abortion related business, and that is fine. There's more to women's health than that, and I suspect Catholic doctrine has no bearing on the remainder.

I would not expect them to pick up PP's abortion related business - but it sounds like they would not be particularly interested in providing other services for those who can't pay.

creaker

2-6-12, 9:40am

Since most people who donate to the Catholic Church and/or Catholic charities presumably hold values in line with Catholic doctrine I think that all makes sense. They are not obligated to provide services to any particular group, needy or not, and they shouldn't be. They have every right to put their money where their faith is which at the core puts the Catholic Church in opposition to Planned Parenthood.

Granted - what I'm saying is that makes them a poor candidate for providing women's health services to the needy, as alan suggested, which is a major part of what PP does.

Gregg

2-6-12, 10:24am

I'm kind of curious now, does anyone know what portion of PP's budget goes to non-reproductive screening/care (such as mammograms)?

Alan

2-6-12, 10:35am

I'm kind of curious now, does anyone know what portion of PP's budget goes to non-reproductive screening/care (such as mammograms)?

While they don't list it in $ terms, they do by percentage of procedures. Keeping that in mind, the number is 14.5% in 2010.
See http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_Services.pdf

jp1

2-6-12, 10:38am

I suppose one could make that point if one believed that the only way to "assist the needy" would be to violate Catholic doctrine. I'm fairly certain that Catholic hospitals are not interested in picking up any of PP's abortion related business, and that is fine. There's more to women's health than that, and I suspect Catholic doctrine has no bearing on the remainder.

I would imagine that the catholic facilities are also not providing birth control? If not then they aren't really providing for all of a women's female healthcare needs.

Alan

2-6-12, 11:29am

I would imagine that the catholic facilities are also not providing birth control? If not then they aren't really providing for all of a women's female healthcare needs.
I would imagine you're right, but does PP provide for all of a woman's healthcare needs? We're aware that PP covers contraception, abortion, basic cancer screenings and STD screenings & treatment. Does that cover everything?

redfox

2-6-12, 12:15pm

I'm kind of curious now, does anyone know what portion of PP's budget goes to non-reproductive screening/care (such as mammograms)?

Here is what the Washington Post is reporting:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-planned-parenthood-actually-does/2011/04/06/AFhBPa2C_blog.html

Alan

2-6-12, 12:43pm

Here is what the Washington Post is reporting:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-planned-parenthood-actually-does/2011/04/06/AFhBPa2C_blog.html
That is from 2009. My link has the same chart, updated to reflect 2010 activity. Interestingly, their cancer screening activity has decreased by 1.5% of total activity during that period.

Gregg

2-6-12, 12:52pm

redfox

2-6-12, 1:17pm

Interesting figures for PP. Most of the categories make sense, but I was kind of surprised how much of the budget goes toward STI/STD testing and treatment. One more statistic to back up the call for more and earlier education.

When I took my stepdaughter into her first appointment for contraception, part of her exam was routine STI testing. That's true at a gynecologist's office as well, in my experience. It's smart and a very cost effective way to stop and slow down STI incidences. Two especially; HIV of course, and HPV, as some variations of this virus are at the root of some cervical cancers. I see this testing as prevention. And, I agree that more & earlier education is critical.

PP gave my stepdaughter the information, care, and support she needed to manage her own sexual and reproductive life. We first took her to her MD, a young woman who was a fantastic practitioner... Once DSD left home & our insurance plan, PP was the most logical place for her to get care. She asked me to take her to her first appointment, and I was happy to do so. Since then, she has gone on her own, and feels listened to and cared for. Makes me as a parent and a woman very happy to hear!

My first PP experience was in 1974, when I was in college & needed to go in for my annual pelvic/PAP. The woman who examined me was a stern, serious, Swedish nurse, large bosomed & a bun, in a white uniform. She asked me a series of questions about my sexual activity, and when I told her I was a lesbian, she didn't blink an eye. In 1974, it was illegal to be gay in the state I lived in! I was very happy that she treated me like a human being, because that was not always the case then when one came out to a medical practitioner.

PP is a rock solid organization, and will be recipients of my giving for the rest of my life. I am so sorry SGK got themselves into the morass they did, and hope that this crisis will eventually help them get back to the roots of their mission, which is a solid one.