Planned Parenthood vs. Susan G. Komen: It's Not Over

I came home from work yesterday to find the world spinning out of control.  Planned Parenthood has bullied the Susan G. Komen Foundation into changing it's mind about defunding.  Both organizations reaped huge donations from the publicity that was garnered by the four day media blitz.  I found that interesting.  Maybe now my tax dollars won't be needed?

So what happened?  Did Planned Parenthood really bully the Komen Foundation into rescinding it's funding?  Or was the Koman Foundation's carefully worded press release something entirely different?  Here are few of the articles I found:

Komen for the Cure Statement

Statement from Dr. Alveda King

Decoding Komen's Supposed Cave

Craven For the Cure: Komen Caves To Pro-Abort Pressure

Komen Board Member:  Haven't Caved on Planned on Planned Parenthood Funding

Planned Parenthood Shakes Down Komen Like a Schoolyard Bully

Komen Reverses Move to Cut Planned Parenthood Funding

Komen and Planned Parenthood:  The Real Lesson

And this from Eric J. Scheidler, executive director of the Pro-Life Action League:

“Yesterday's statement by Susan G. Komen for the Cure apologizing for their decision to cease giving grants to Planned Parenthood leaves in doubt whether the nation’s largest abortion chain will actually be eligible for future grants from the breast cancer foundation, since they don’t actually provide mammograms.”

 “But what is clear is that Planned Parenthood is willing to hold breast cancer victims and their families hostage in order to preserve their phony positive public image, and to send a clear message to other corporate supporters that they can expect the same kind of treatment if they dare to withdraw funding from Planned Parenthood.

 “Planned Parenthood would rather abort Susan G. Komen than allow them to quietly withdraw from the culture wars.”

Obviously this isn't over.  Keep praying!





Leave a comment
  • I find it rich that Planned Parenthood is accused of bullying when everyone knows that Komen caved to right-wing bullying when it withdrew funding.
    The backlash to the Komen decision was not orchestrated by Planned Parenthood; it was public outrage to a decision that was blatantly motivated by money (funding to Komen) despite Komen's insistence that they were adhering to a flimsy new rule that an organization under investigation couldn't receive money. (If this were really true, why were a few states exempt?)
    Komen reversed its decision, not because of any moral re-thinking but because it could see thousands, if not millions of dollars disappearing over the horizon as more and more people turned away in disgust.
    And if anyone was playing with the lives of women (with or without breast cancer) it was the Komen Foundation. Oh wait, but the women who need Planned Parenthood are on the poorer end of the social spectrum, so maybe they don't count?

  • In reply to Expat in Chicago:

    What nonsense, expat. Your "everyone knows" line of BS is just one more example of left-wing bullying, in fact. Trying to act as if something is common knowledge (when it isn't) or simply gospel truth (when it isn't) and berating anyone that doesn't swallow your line of spin is the oldest form of bullying.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    If we're going to have a debate, can we refrain from words like "nonsense" and "BS" when stating opinions and beliefs? It's not 'Nonsense" it's my opinion and, as you are entitled to voice yours without being abused, so am I. I never "berate" anyone who doesn't agree with me; I respect debate as I usually learn a lot. When you can't even listen to another viewpoint without calling it "bullying" or "BS" it's a sad world but all too common.

  • In reply to Expat in Chicago:

    Ditto to Expat. Let me start by saying I am Catholic and I also believe in free speech. I'm ashamed that someone standing on the grounds of thier spiritual belief is so rude to another human being.

  • In reply to Expat in Chicago:

    Well said!!! What so many refuse to see in this is that it is NOT a case about abortion. Although it would be hard to convince right wing bullies of anything else.

  • In reply to Norm:

    This comment was not written by Norm, I was logged into his blog (he's my Dad). It was from me.

  • In reply to Teppi Jacobsen:

    Then you ought to know better if you claim a spiritual self and regard for human dignity even after birth.

  • Only 3% of Planned Parenthood services are abortion services. Its services help prevent more than 581,000 unintended pregnancies each year. It provides nearly 770,000 Pap tests and nearly 710,000 breast exams each year to prevent cancer. And it provides more than 4 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.

    These facts should be considered in judging the organization objectively.

  • This is what it's really about sex and money:

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to siblingless:

    Whats wrong with sex and money?

  • You are definitely correct, this issue is far from over for both Komen and Planned Parenthood.

    It's not over because a lot of damage was done to the Komen BRAND with the original decision, its backlash (unintended consequences), and Nancy Brinker's non-apology / plea for everyone to calm down. Komen, whether it wanted to or not (and that remains open to debate) has chosen a side in the never ending women's right to choose argument. Its future fortunes (and I use this word based on the fact that Komen has a ridiculously high administration and marketing expense) will either rise or fall based on Komen's new perception in the market place for women's health donations.

    Planned Parenthood has been embattled for well over a year now - a target of the anti-choice movement. Despite ample evidence that only 3% of what PP does is provide abortion services (which are perfectly legal and NOT paid for by any tax dollars), it will forever be perceived as an "abortion mill". The statistics cited above in Aquinas wired's comment will continue to be ignored by those who don't want to accept that PP can do ANYTHING of value.

    Women require health care for issues that are unique to women. Planned Parenthood relies on donations, subsidies, and insurance payments (including Medicaid) to continue providing a full range of services to women who cannot afford it. Should all the women PP provides services to be denied the basic right of health care because one group of individuals disagrees with a LAW that happens to apply to only a single aspect of women's health?

    The only organization getting bullied here is Planned Parenthood. What Komen did was draw attention to the fact that anti-choice advocates want to put PP out of business. (Read more about the full-scale war against PP here;

    For whatever reason, the right to lifers see absolutely nothing wrong with the collateral damage that will be experienced in their war to save the "unborn". The cause is willing to sacrifice the health of millions of disadvantaged women to protest a law that has been upheld by the Supreme Court. PP didn't invent abortions. PP didn't fight to make them legal. PP can't make them illegal.

    The anti-choice movement has a Constitutional right to address its grievances to the government and lobby to have laws enacted. It has no right to harass PP. It can lead a protest movement against PP. It can encourage other organizations to boycott PP (as it did with Komen). But it has to accept the one simple fact that whatever it does to PP, it will not change the law of the land.

    The anti-choice movement has to accept the fact that whatever it does, it has to accept the consequences. If women rise up against organizations like Komen - that is their right to do so. If women go to the polls in record numbers and vote to elect pro-choice candidates - that is their right to do so. If PP continues to receive funds from the Federal government because elected officials refuse to bow to the anti-choice movement's political pressure - harassing PP won't change that.

    From a purely pragmatic POV, if the anti-choice movement can't change the law, they need to work on changing women's minds one at a time. Just because something is legal, it doesn't make it mandatory. Mitt Romney doesn't HAVE to invest his money overseas, he could choose to invest it domestically. The law doesn't force him to.

    Young women (and men) can be counseled about personal responsibility, educated about birth control, and persuaded about adoption. The government doesn't have to make those choices for them. If you're against abortion - don't have one and don't recommend it to others.

    I don't invest money overseas and I don't recommend it to my friends because I don't believe in it...

    Susan G. Komen, "For the Cure", and pink ribbons are all about Komen's branding as the world's largest recipient of breast cancer research donations.

  • In reply to Brent Cohrs:

    Beautifully stated.

  • In reply to Brent Cohrs:

    I ran a adolescent pregnancy program for Catholic Charities for nearly 11 years. We had one of the lowest recidivism rates in the city. Did we push birthcontrol or abortion? Of course not. We stressed positive things. Girls who didn't get pregnant went on the two annual vacations out of town. If grades improved, they were rewarded. We didn't do babyshowers but we gave graduation parties. Did some of the girls use birth control? We had no idea. That was between the girls and their health care providers.

    Birthcontrol currently is a legal and medical matter. Please keep church and state separate or we're liable to end up with something akin to sharia.

  • Google AdSense is so pulling their ads from my site! ;-)

    Thanks for all your comments! I do appreciate the lively discussion!

Leave a comment