The Koman-Planned Parenthood Debacle: Don’t Just Get Mad, Get Even
The Susan Komen-Planned Parenthood debacle is a defining moment for women’s rights in America.
As Taylor Marsh writes, it is an egregious example of liberals being asleep at the wheel, but it is much, much more: It is a watershed event in the politicization of women’s reproductive rights in an era in which the Republican Party is doubling down on denying women virtually all rights, when rape is viewed by a president candidate as “a gift from God,” and workplace gender discrimination is tacitly approve of by the U.S. Supreme Court.
My initial reaction to the debacle was to go online and double my annual donation to Planned Parenthood. My second reaction was to become angry that in 2012 in the land of the free and home of the brave people are trying to dictate — and succeeding to an alarming extent — what my beloved, my daughter and my woman friends can and cannot do with their uteruses. My third reaction was to write this post, but I guess that is obvious.
What also is obvious is that there had been a time bombing ticking away at the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation for some time and the explosion in the form of Komen terminating funding to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings — no not abortions or even birth control but for a disease that afflicts one in eight women — is a result of CEO Nancy Brinker Komen coming out of the closet and revealing herself as just another heartless conservative who puts political considerations ahead of a woman’s well being.
Koman was President Bush’s chief protocol office and ambassador to Hungary, while Koman’s board includes the general chairman of the virulently anti-choice Susan B. Anthony List and the wife of right-wing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
The good news is that the backlash against Komen has been severe and I can only hope that it will be sustained.
Folks like myself have already more than covered Komen’s annual Planned Parenthood funding with a Texas oil baron donating $250,000, at least one Komen affiliate has withdrawn its affiliation with mother ship, and Senator Barbara Boxer, among other politicians, were harshly critical of the move.
Dawn Laguens, an executive vice president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said that Komen’s money had over the years underwritten breast cancer screenings for 170,000 women, some of whose lives were saved as a result. She said she had no sympathy for Komen’s attempt to mollify donors by ending its relationship with a provider of women’s health services for whom abortion services are only a small part.
Komen denies that it pulled funding in response for right-wing reactionary politics. A spokeswoman explained tha the main factor in the decision was a new rule adopted by Komen that prohibits grants to organizations being investigated by local, state or federal authorities. Planned Parenthood, of course, has been repeatedly investigated at the behest of right wingers, which makes the excuse disingenuous and the decision even more deplorable.
16 Responses to “The Koman-Planned Parenthood Debacle: Don’t Just Get Mad, Get Even”
In my view, there is a question left unanswered before I can reach a judgment: Were there other organizations whose grant renewals are being denied due to the more stringent standards? If not, then it does suggest the intent was to exclude planned parenthood. Otherwise, it’s not as clear.
Something to keep in mind is that the total amount of funding going toward screenings is not going to change (well, unless those calling for effective boycotts get their way). It’s just being directed to other providers. Is that right? Well, on one hand, the more providers that can provide screenings, the better chance that everyone can get screenings. On the other hand, there does have to be some minimum standard to ensure that the money is being used effectively. Why is there not a similar outcry whenever anyone’s grant application is denied?
The next question is whether an investigation should be grounds for denying an application. Whether or not you agree with it, on its face there’s nothing political about that. In fact, if the policy where to evaluate each investigation to determine if it warranted a denial, that process would almost certainly be polluted with politics. So, I think either you have to exclude all organizations under investigation, or none of them. And I think either option is defensible.
adelinesdad:
I will try to answer your questions.
According to press reports, Komen never suspended or discontinued funding to other organizations that were under investigation nor did so when Planned Parenthood has been investigated in the past. The reason it has done so now is clear.
Komen’s ham-handed and utterly disingenuous response as to why it cut off funding does not include mention of whether those monies will go.
Komen acknowledged that the standards are new. The question is whether the new standards were designed intentionally to exclude Planned Parenthood. It’s hard to say, but they do imply that PP was not the only organization that was affected:
“We regret that these new policies have impacted some longstanding grantees, such as Planned Parenthood.”
Now, that doesn’t prove that they weren’t trying to exclude PP, but it makes that a more difficult case to make, and one based on speculation.
“Komen denies that it pulled funding in response for right-wing reactionary politics.”
Bullsquat. Komen is hurting their own organization, but even more importantly they are hurting the very women they have pledged to help. The right word here is cowardice.
Will these new standards be applied globally, specifically their Global Initiative for Breast Cancer Awareness targetting Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Middle East? Will their administration expand to monitor potential investigations of clinics in those regions?
This is both disgusting and sad. There is clearly no justification for this move. It’s downright cruel and another example of making it just that much more difficult for poor and/or under served women to get services. It’s also a favorite routine of the far right to get folks within a group fighting with one another (in this case women versus women). My wife and I will send a donation to Planned Parenthood. I’ll also encourage folks to steer clear of the Komen group until they begin being concerned first and foremost about women’s health.
The upside of all of this is we can now see Komen for the Cure is a right wing scam. They push perfume that contains known carcinogens. It refuses to fund studies of the environmental causes of cancer – that would be bad for their corporate masters. The executives pay themselves mid six figure salaries. Most importantly they have accomplished very little as documented in Pink Ribbons, Inc.
Ron I can only speak to my town’s experience but Komen is much more than just a right wing scam. They have willingly funded numerous mammograms for low income women with zero hassles. I talked to a couple of friends who worked with the local women’s health center and their experiences with Komen were all positive.
I think Komen’s actions re Planned Parenthood were 100% wrong but people are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In their zeal to hurt Komen they are going to end up hurting the people they ultimately want to help.
When you do something bad or hurtful you need to get a spanking. Koman needs to visit the woodshed. valid punishment would fit the crime. They were denying funding, so deny funding. The other extreme would be if their actions cause a death, then maybe life in prison. Or maybe something in between.
A bishop in Toledo is joining the Wingnut crusade. Maybe SGK is just a front for the devil and witchcraft.
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/07/toledo_bishop_prohibits_fund-r.html
See if they float in a burning river…
I’m so glad SGK took a stand for the diginity of human life by ceasing donations to an organization that promotes and performs abortions. It’s a child, not a choice; and life begins at conception! What is of the devil is brainwashing women into thinking that choosing abortion is a good choice. LIFE is ALWAYS the best option. Read the Bible–your body is not your own, it is a temple of the Holy Spirit. When you realize that, you will think twice about what you do to or with your body. Abortion should not be a form of birth control. People need to step up and take personal responsibility for the potential result of their choice to have sex when a pregnancy is not the goal. Yes, that’s what I said–personal responsibility for your actions. Life is full of hard decisions; choosing life and defending the unborn shouldn’t be one of them.
To those who support denying funding to Komen due to their decision, I’ll repeat one my previous questions: Why is there not a similar outcry whenever any organization’s grant application is denied?
Presumably we all agree that Komen should have standards, which implies that some grant applications will be denied. Presumably we all understand that means that the women that utilize those providers may have less access to screenings. Should Komen be blamed for the deaths that result from that?
I understand that many are speculating that the decision was politically motivated, and they might be right. But, in terms of effect, this decision doesn’t hurt women any more than any other grant denial would. And it’s not like the money evaporates. It will go to other causes, whether it be research or screenings by other providers.
I agree with DaGoat that most of the harm that will come to women from this results from those calling for the boycott.
adelinesdad — there’s a new executive at Komen (in the last year or so) who is and has been publically and vocally anti-abortion for many years; she ran for governor of Georgia a while back on an extreme anti-abortion (and extreme anti-immigrant, BTW) platform. She is the one who proposed and implemented the new rules. The plot’s pretty obvious here.
“Get Mad, Get Even” paid off:
Cancer Group, Reversing Course, Says It Will Maintain Planned Parenthood Funding
Susan G. Komen for the Cure said on Friday it was retreating from a decision to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion and birth control services, and apologized for a move that thrust the breast cancer charity into a deeply politicized controversy.
Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/?emc=na
roro,
It’s a moot point now, but you may be right. It’s still speculation, even if it does look very suspicious. But, in this case I felt the need to urge caution, mostly because I felt the backlash could do much worse damage to the cause than the direct result of Komen’s decision.
In the end I’m glad that Komen has reversed its decision. Regardless of the motivation, it was clear that the decision was indirectly hurting their cause. I hope those who were fighting them will also do the right thing and accept the olive branch. Or, if that’s not possible, I hope that an effort will be made to find other, equally effective organizations. I don’t feel that donating directly to planned parenthood makes up for the loss, since their reach is much narrower.
I take it back. After what happened today I’m not proud of SGK and I will never support an origanization that supports abortion IN ANY WAY. There are better organizations to donate their money to.