One other thing about culture wars: One side typically has absolutely no understanding of what the other is trying to say.

That is why the battle over whether religious institutions should be required to cover contraception under the new health care law was so painful — and why it was so hard to comprehend why President Obama, who has been a critic of culture wars for so long, did not try to defuse this explosive question from the beginning.

It’s also why he was right, finally, to reach a compromise that respected the legitimate concerns of each side. He should have done this at the outset, but far better late than never.

That so many liberal Catholics supported the church’s core claim surprised both Catholic conservatives and more secular liberals. There are lessons here, and that includes lessons for Obama.

Those of us who are liberal Catholics have remained in the church for reasons beyond tribal loyalties or a desire to honor the traditions of our parents and grandparents. At the heart of the love many of us have for the church — despite our frustrations over its abysmal handling of the sexual abuse scandal and its reluctance to grant women the rights they are due — is a profound respect for the fact on so many questions that count, Catholicism walks its talk and harnesses its faith to the good works the Gospel demands.

When it comes to lifting up the poor, healing the sick, assisting immigrants and refugees, educating the young (especially in inner cities), comforting orphaned and abandoned children, and organizing the needy to act in their own interest, the church has been there with resources and an astoundingly committed band of sisters, priests, brothers and lay people. Organizations such as Catholic Charities, the Catholic Health Association, the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, and Catholic Relief Services make the words of Jesus come alive every day.

For liberals who sided with the church in this controversy, the most vexing problem with the original exemption on contraception is that it defined “religious” so narrowly that the reality that these organizations go out of their way to serve non-Catholics was held against them. Their Gospel-inspired work was defined as non-religious. This violated the very essence of Christian charity and the church’s social justice imperatives.

Some conservative Catholics still insist that the relief from regulation that Obama offered is not enough. I hope they reconsider, especially since the Catholic service providers most affected by the revised rule welcomed it. What bothers liberal Catholics about the arguments advanced by some of our conservative friends is that the Catholic right seems so eager to focus the church’s witness to the world on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research and, now, perhaps, contraception that they would effectively, if not necessarily intentionally, relegate the church’s social justice work and teaching to second-class status.

Liberal Catholics were proud to stand with conservatives in defending the church’s religious liberty rights in carrying out its social and charitable mission. Now, we’d ask conservatives to consider that what makes the Gospel so compelling — especially for the young, many of whom are leaving the church — is the central role it assigns to our responsibilities to act on behalf of the needy, the left-out and the abandoned.

And we’d ask our non-Catholic liberal friends to think about this, too. Many of us agreed that broad contraception coverage was, as a general matter, a good thing, and we shared their concern for women’s rights. But we were troubled that some with whom we usually agree seemed to relish a fight with the church and defined any effort to accommodate its anxieties as “selling out.”

As a young politician put it in 2006, “There are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word ‘Christian’ describes one’s political opponents, not people of faith.”

Barack Obama, who spoke those words, finally figured out that a sensible compromise on contraception was far better than a running cultural and religious war. The administration would do well not to lose track of that guy again.

E.J. Dionne’s email address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com. (c) 2012, Washington Post Writers Group

Daryl Cagle, MSNBC.com

This copyrighted cartoon is licensed to appear on TMV. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.

While positive ratings for Congress remain at an all-time low, more voters than ever see the Republican agenda in Congress as extreme.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 35% of Likely Voters say it would be more accurate to describe the agenda of Republicans in Congress as mainstream, while 52% feel extreme is a more accurate description. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure.

By election day we’ll know if Republicans have been correct and that they have accurately reflected what the bulk of Americans (which also means independents, moderates and centrist Democrats and not just those attending CPAC or listening to Rush Limbaugh) think or they are guilty of overreach.

If it’s the latter they’ll get a signal on election day..

Catholic voters largely approve of President Obama’s new policy on contraception, according to a poll released Saturday by groups that support the policy.

Supporters say the poll shows that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and congressional Republicans, who oppose the new policy as an affront to religious freedom, are out of step with the public. The new survey was conducted Friday evening, after Obama announced new “accommodations” for some religious employers.

According to the poll, 57 percent of Catholic voters — and 59 percent of Catholic women — support the mandate Obama outlined Friday. Under the new policy, women who work for institutions like Catholic hospitals and universities can obtain birth control from their insurance company without a co-pay, but their employers don’t have to include contraception in their healthcare plans.

Public Policy Polling conducted the new poll on behalf of a coalition that includes Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America. The findings indicate that Obama gained some ground with Catholics by alterning the policy. An earlier PPP poll found that 53 percent of Catholic voters approved of the White House’s original mandate, which required religious employers to provide contraception coverage directly.

Could Andrew Sullivan be right? He argues on The Daily Beast that rather than Obama committing a horrible, dumb political mistake, the way he handled it could be a political trap for Republicans. This poll would suggest (if it’s accurate) that it could turn into one, whether that was Obama’s intent or not. Here is a chunk of Sullivan’s analysis:

Suddenly no-drama Obama was neck deep in the kind of religious warfare he vowed to avoid. Many pundits—led by older white Catholic men, such as Joe Scarborough and my friend Chris Matthews and even the fair-minded liberal Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne—declared his decision on contraception as not only morally wrong but a politically disastrous violation of religious freedom. Suddenly the specter of 2004—when the culture-war issue of same-sex marriage gave Ohio and the entire election to George W. Bush—reemerged, and some conservative Catholic Democrats began to panic. Within the administration, almost all the white Catholic men opposed the decision—from Bill Daley to Leon Panetta. But critically, the support for the decision came from women, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and key adviser Valerie Jarrett chief among them. So Obama didn’t ignite just a culture war but a religious and gender war as well. Welcome to the election focused almost entirely on jobs.

But the conflict-driven headlines and predictions of disaster for Obama are, in my view, deeply misleading. Right now, they are driven both by cable news’s love of a good fight and high ratings and by the Republican primary campaign, in which the candidates, especially Newt Gingrich and Santorum, are desperately battling to unify the evangelical base, which is convinced its faith is somehow under attack. In the longer run, however, I suspect this sudden confluence of kerfuffles will be seen as one of the last gasps of the culture war, not its reignition. That’s especially possible since Obama’s swift walk-back last Friday, when he proposed an utterly sensible compromise, which exempts both churches and other religious institutions that cater to the general public from directly covering or paying for birth control, shifting the coverage requirement to insurance companies. So Catholic organizations will be able to stay out of the contraception question entirely, while contraception for all women will be kept free of charge. Instead of being lose-lose for the president, it became win-win. Most Catholics will be fine with this compromise, as are the Catholic Health Association and Planned Parenthood. But the bishops? They’ve gone out on a very long limb. This could be the moment when the culture-war tide finally turns and the social wedge issues long deployed so effectively by the Republican right begin to come back and bite them.

AND:

The more Machiavellian observer might even suspect this is actually an improved bait and switch by Obama to more firmly identify the religious right with opposition to contraception, its weakest issue by far, and to shore up support among independent women and his more liberal base. I’ve found by observing this president closely for years that what often seem like short-term tactical blunders turn out in the long run to be strategically shrewd. And if this was a trap, the religious right walked right into it.

Indeed, I thought the political war over contraception was over years ago.

On the other hand, I also thought that the battle over evolution was over years ago. So what do I know?

A bit more of Sullivan:

And on the issue of contraception itself, studies have shown that a staggering 98 percent of Catholic women not only believe in birth control but have used it. How is it possible to describe this issue as a violation of individual conscience, when no one is forced to use contraception against their will, and most Catholics have already consulted their conscience, are fine with the pill, and want it covered? This is not like abortion, a far, far graver issue…

….In other words, this is a potential political winner for President Obama, not just among liberals, many women, younger voters, and moderates—but among American Catholics! And even more so in light of the pragmatic compromise announced last week, which puts the administration precisely where it should be, and in a much better place than it was before the announcement, and reinforces Obama’s reputation as a man willing to compromise, one of his core strengths among independent voters. I found the original rule a step too far. To my mind, when religious institutions play invaluable roles in helping the poor, curing the sick, and housing the homeless, they should be rewarded, not punished. And within reasonable limits, their right to set their own rules on health-care plans should be respected. One reason they do such great work is their religious convictions. We should celebrate that—and try to balance their views (however wrongheaded we may consider them to be) with other legitimate social goals.

But some Republicans and conservative Catholics have already rejected the compromise.

Of course, the Bishops have rejected Obama’s plan – which leads to the question as to whether these numbers could change. Or whether, in the end, as Sullivan suspects, Obama is as dumb politically as Machiavelli.

Also be sure to read Taylor Marsh’s post HERE.

We know President Obama did something Friday related to rules covering contraception and health insurance for employees of religious organizations. But how do you characterize his action in a short headline? What’s the appropriate verb to follow “Obama…”?

Saturday’s front pages went in many, telling, directions. The Boston Globe and Seattle Times were among those who said, “Obama bends.” But The Wall Street Journal and the Providence Journal declared, “Obama retreats.”

Which was it, a bend or a retreat?

Several major papers, led by The New York Times and Miami Herald, took the most cautious approach by saying, “Obama adjusts.” A similarly neutral choice was “shifts,” according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Washington Post, and the San Jose Mercury News.

Perhaps the most benign selection, serving to cleanse the story of all meaning, came on page one of the Los Angeles Times, “Obama reacts.”

Other verbs of note: Sacramento Bee, “gives ground”; San Diego Union-Tribune, “revises”; Cleveland Plain Dealer, “eases”; Tampa Bay Times, “yields”; Fort Worth Star-Telegram, “finds compromise”; the Akron Beacon Journal, “reverses”; the Financial Times, “modifies.”

The Chicago Sun-Times and the Cincinnati Enquirer staked out much more aggressive positions with the words, “backed down.”

Rarely does a newspaper headline present such a challenge to editors, some of whom were clearly driven by objectivity, while others allowed their editorial stance to affect the front-page treatment. It underscores how divided the nation is on an issue that seems, to many on both sides, to be rather clear cut.

As for New York’s Post and Daily News, you’d never know from their front pages what Obama did Friday. Both papers put contraception aside, apparently, for full-page celebrations of Beyonce’s baby.

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com. ©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. His column is licensed to run in full on TMV.

And so we have the sight of Catholic bishops locking horns with the Obama administration over its principled view that all women need affordable access to contraceptive services and products, including the morning-after pill, which pro-lifers view as a form of abortion. This right happens to be a cornerstone of the Affordable Care Act.

The dust-up has Republicans adrool because it shows, in their view, that President Obama is anti-religion, something that they have said all along and gets sillier every time it is uttered.
–
A reasonable compromise would be to allow Catholic and other religiously affiliated institutions to outsource reproductive services for their employees to outside providers who do not have religious scruples, but the bishops are having none of that.

In this instance the guys in the funny hats are not on the side of the law. Secular laws trump religious beliefs, which is the reason that Mitt Romney could not take multiple wives if he was among the small minority of Mormons who still practice polygamy.

I happen to believe, perhaps naively, that a compromise will be hammered out sooner or later — and the White House did offer a fig leaf accommodating the church today — but not until the church and the Republicans have their fill of Obama bashing.

But Republicans are less reasonable with every passing election cycle, and so we had the specter this week of every Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee voting against the reauthorization of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act because the party is determinedly anti-gay and anti-immigrant.

The reauthorization bill, introduced in the spirit of bipartisanism by Senators Patrick Leahy and Michael Crapo, a Democrat and Republican respectively, includes improvements that encourage more effective enforcement of protective orders and reducing the national backlog of untested rape kits, but Republicans object to language in the bill that ensures that victims are not denied services because they are gay or transgender and a provision that would modestly expand the availability of special visas for undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic violence.

Senator Charles Grassley, the committee’s ranking Republican, has offered a substitute bill that not only cut out those improvements but called for a huge reduction in authorized financing, and elimination of the Justice Department office devoted to administering the law and coordinating the nation’s response to domestic violence and sexual assaults. The measure was defeated along party lines.

Thankfully, the GOP’s previous efforts in recent months in their war against women have fallen short. These include a law to permit hospitals that receive federal funding to deny women abortions even when their lives were at stake and a law redefining what constitutes forcible rape that would not protect women women who were drugged before sex and became pregnant, women whose health was in danger and became pregnant, and women who were mentally retarded and became pregnant.

The Violence Against Women Act was passed unanimously in 1994 but finding 60 votes in the Senate this time around will not be easy. Nor will it be easy for Republicans to explain to woman voters why their are turning to blind eye to their battered, stalked and assaulted sisters.

In a whiny, self-serving letter, the woman who engineered this public relations disaster says that she is declining the offer of a severance package from Komen which might have required her to keep silent:

“I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy [to end its relationship with Planned Parentood], its rationale, and my involvement in it. . . . Neither the decision nor the changes themselves were based on anyone’s political beliefs or ideology. Rather, both were based on Komen’s mission and how to better serve women, as well as a realization of the need to distance Komen from controversy. I believe that Komen, like any other nonprofit organization, has the right and the responsibility to set criteria and highest standards for how and to whom it grants.”

Being charitable, Handel is not outright lying but to believe that political beliefs had no place in the Planned Parenthood decision is to believe that the tooth fairy causes breast cancer.

Bill Day, Cagle Cartoons

For a women’s magazine editor of half a century ago, the Planned Parenthood-Komen Foundation ugly furor recalls the time from introduction of the Pill when women, no matter what their circumstances, were without safe, reliable birth control and, before Roe v. Wade, had the choice of bearing unwanted children or being butchered by back-alley abortions.

From the start, those new alternatives, sanctioned by science and government, were fiercely opposed by those of strong religious beliefs, who were not above using scare tactics to discourage their use. Ever since, women’s bodies have been a political battleground

By 1965, with five million women on the Pill after five years on the market, there was no reliable research about side effects and possible long-term dangers. As editor of McCalls, I put up $15,000 to find out what members of the American Academy of Obstetricians and Gynecologists were seeing in their practices. They distributed a detailed questionnaire and analyzed the results.

Almost 7,000 gynecologists answered, and the overwhelming majority found oral contraceptives safe and effective. There were a few doubts that would become subjects of later study, but the clear result was to allay women’s fears about the Pill that were being spread by whispers.

In the early 1970s, Betty Ford was in the White House. Undergoing a mastectomy for breast cancer, she spoke about it in public and wrote an article for me to encourage women to go for early screening.

Back then, a generalized fear of the unknown bound both surgeons and patients into accepting radical breast removal as the only acceptable choice. But Dr. William Nolen, a surgeon who wrote a monthly column for the magazine, reported on the effectiveness of less drastic lumpectomies, combined with radiation and chemotherapy.

This was followed by the account of a writer who tracked down the surgeon pioneering the treatment: “I said ‘No’ to a group of doctors who told me, ‘You must sign this paper, you don’t have to know what it’s all about.’”

MORE.

By now most readers know my (changed) position on the Afghanistan War.

I have expressed concern among other about rampant corruption and backstabbing at the highest levels in the Afghanistan government, incompetence of and disloyalty among its military and police and continuing human rights violations.

I have mourned our casualties and fretted about our huge financial costs.

But — perhaps insensitively so — I have not mentioned much about the suffering of the Afghan people.

A piece in the New York Times today, brought such suffering home in the most poignant way by focusing on the suffering — the dying — of the most vulnerable human beings: the children.

The article starts with the jarring intro: “KABUL, Afghanistan — The following children froze to death in Kabul over the past three weeks after their families had fled war zones in Afghanistan for refugee camps here…”

It then goes on to list the names and ages of four of the “at least 22 [children] who have died in the past month, a time of unseasonably fierce cold and snowstorms.”

Among those 22 children:

¶ Mirwais, son of Hayatullah Haideri. He was 1 ½ years old and had just started to learn how to walk, holding unsteadily to the poles of the family tent before flopping onto the frozen ridges of the muddy floor.

¶ Abdul Hadi, son of Abdul Ghani. He was not even a year old and was already trying to stand, although his father said that during those last few days he seemed more shaky than normal.

¶ Naghma and Nazia, the twin daughters of Musa Jan. They were only 3 months old and just starting to roll over.

¶ Ismail, the son of Juma Gul. “He was never warm in his entire life,” Mr. Gul said. “Not once.”

About Ismail the Times says, “It was a short life, 30 days long.”

According to the United Nations, there are 35,000 people living — barely surviving might be a more accurate term — in Kabul refugee camps, such as Charachi Cambar and Nasaji Bagrami where the children froze to death.

“Both camps are populated largely with refugees who fled the fighting in areas like Helmand Province in the south. Some people have been in the camps for as long as seven years; others arrived in the past year,” says the Times.

Those who claim that we are making progress in Afghanistan generally point to the schools we have built and other “infrastructure projects” (Let’s not forget the $60 million prison we built at Bagram Air Base), at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars.

That is all good and well. However, Americans need to raise the same question the Times poses:

After 10 years of a large international presence, comprising about 2,000 aid groups, at least $3.5 billion of humanitarian aid and $58 billion of development assistance, how could children be dying of something as predictable — and manageable — as the cold?

If you have the fortitude, you can read the heart-rending stories of how and why these children are dying in these wretched camps here — camps where Solidarités International, a French group that has had a limited program of emergency food aid and sanitation in the camps, surveyed mortality rates in recent months and came to the harrowing conclusion that, among children under 5, the camps’ death rate is 144 per 1,000 children.

According to the Times, this rate is “stunningly high even for Afghanistan, which already has the world’s third highest infant mortality rate” and means “one out of every seven children in the Kabul camps will not survive until his or her sixth birthday.”

For those of us who believe that we should get out of Afghanistan, there is the sad conundrum:

If we stay longer in Afghanistan, will we be able to save these children?

If we leave Afghanistan now, will more children die?

Of course, this is not the only criterion, but it is a very emotive one and one we should include in any decision making process about “the future of Afghanistan.”

The reader can also view a heartbreaking set of photos about this tragedy here.

Image: shutterstock.com

Update, 5 February:
I’ve looked at two years of IRS filings for United Way, two years for Red Cross and one year for Planned Parenthood: none mention severance on their filings.

It seems hard to fathom, but in three years Susan G. Komen paid an estimated $1.9 million in severance.

Former Komen CEO Hala Moddelmog, the woman who stepped down in November 2009 when Nancy Brinker resumed the reins, received $468,255 in compensation for the 2009 fiscal year although she worked only half of the year. The IRS filing for 2009 includes her in a list of employees who received severance packages that calendar year.

Moddelmog received another $279,734 severance payment from Komen the following fiscal year. Moddelmog was CEO of Komen from 2006-2009; she is currently President, Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc., a position she assumed in May 2010. Severance estimate: $234,127 (half of the 2009 compensation) + $279,734 = $513,861.

Komen’s fiscal year runs April – March. Here are the others listed on IRS filing documents:

1. Departed September 2010: Marianne Alciati was Vice President, Research and Scientific Affairs from June 2008 – September 2010. Her compensation in fiscal 2009 was $252,465. Her fiscal 2010 compensation (six months employed) was $208,231. She is currently a health research consultant. Severance estimate: $208,231 – $126,232 (6 months estimate) = $82,089.
2. Departed January 2010: Kimberly Earle was Chief Operating Officer at Komen from April 2007 – January 2010 ($354,642 compensation for fiscal 2008; $345,357 compensation for fiscal 2009). She became Chief Executive Officer of Mothers Against Drunk Driving in June 2010. Last month, she was named the inaugural President of the Edith Sanford Breast Cancer Foundation. Severance: $271,781 (fiscal 2010, April 2010-March 2011) + $57,559 (February-March 2010, estimate) = $329,340.
3. Departed January 2010: Annetta Hewko was Komen’s Vice President, Global Strategies and Programs from November 2008 – January 2010. Her compensation for fiscal 2009 was $343,986. She is currently a management consultant. Severance: $134,483 (fiscal 2010) + $57,331 (February-March, estimate) = $191,814.
4. Departed October 2009: Gary Dicovitsky was named Vice President of Development at Susan G. Komen for the Cure in October 2008. From October 2008-March 2009, he was paid $95,291. In October 2009 he joined the Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF) as Executive Vice President of Development. His salary and severance from Komen for six months work was $435,200. His compensation at PCF for fiscal 2010 was $318,921. Severance estimate: $435,200 – $95,291 = $339,909.
5. Departed July 2009: Wendeline A Jongenburger was VP Affiliate Relations at Susan G. Komen for the Cure from July 2008 – July 2009. For the seven months of fiscal 2008, she made $111,300. She is now Director Global Health Policies and Practices at UT Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, where her salary is $155,000. Severance estimate: $185,096 (fiscal 2009) – $79,500 (seven months working) = $105,596.
6. Severance Fiscal 2008: Timothy Doke was hired as Komen’s Chief Marketing Manager in December 2007. His compensation for that fiscal year was $78,305 (3-4 months). He was named vice president for communications, marketing and public affairs at UT Southwestern in December 2008. His compensation in fiscal 2008 was $397,547. Severance estimate: $132,515.
7. Severance Fiscal 2008: Peter Williams was the Susan G. Komen VP of Human Resources; start date unknown, departure sometime in calendar 2008. In fiscal 2008, his compensation was $433,174; in fiscal 2007, his compensation was $205,660. Severance estimate: $216,587.

Total for three fiscal years: an estimated $1.9 million.

Why do companies bestow severance? From About.com guide to human resources:

Normal circumstances that can warrant severance pay include layoffs, job elimination, and mutual agreement to part ways, for whatever reason… For executives, the severance pay may even constitute up to a month’s pay for each year of service. For senior positions, severance pay may be dictated by an employment contract. In some instances, a severance package might also include extended benefits and outplacement assistance.

And from FindLaw:

In a typical severance agreement, the outgoing employee agrees not to sue the employer for wrongful termination or related legal claims, while the employer agrees to give the employee some form of additional compensation, often called a “severance package.” Such compensation (called “consideration” in legal terms) is required in order for the departing employee’s release of liability to be valid…

The amount and type of compensation in an given severance agreement will vary according to specific circumstances, but the amount of severance pay is usually based on a number of factors, including:

1. Length of the employee’s tenure with the employer;
2. Circumstances under which the employment relationship ended (i.e. company “downsizing,” employee misconduct, or layoff)
3. Employer’s financial condition (i.e. filing for bankruptcy, or experiencing economic growth)

Somebody doesn’t look very good at picking people. Or negotiating contracts.

Or else Koman is simply an intermission functioning like a gravy train. Doke, for example, had worked for one of Briken’s husband’s companies.

Very few of these individuals had extensive tenure with Komen; the longest is Moddelmog and Earle (three years). The men seem to fare far better than the women, on average, proving stereotypes can play out in an organization founded and run by women.

I don’t know if this turnover rate and severance generosity is the norm for non-profits in the U.S. in general or Texas in particular. But it sure seems excessive on both counts.

Komen Sources:

1. 2010 – IRS 990, pdf
2. 2009 – IRS 990, pdf
3. 2008 – IRS 990, pdf
4. 2007 – IRS 990, pdf

Twitter Mentions Of Komen, Per Topsy

But this contextual stat is equally startling: over the same 7-day period, there were 507,000 Twitter mentions of the Super Bowl, America’s greatest sports spectacle which is scheduled for Sunday.

Susan G. Komen tweets: 306,000; Super Bowl tweets, 507,000.

Over a three day period, about 10,000 tweets contained the critical phrase #shameonkomen, according to Topsy Labs. During the same period, about 15,000 tweets included the supportive shorthand, #standwithpp.

Wow. That’s a lot of digital water cooler chatter about boobies.

The Sound Of Digital Silence

Throughout the media crisis, which began late on Tuesday, officials from Komen were distant, silent.

The AP wire story broke Tuesday afternoon:

@AP: AP Exclusive: Amid abortion debate, Susan G. Komen cancer charity halting grants to Planned Parenthood: http://apne.ws/AgalYr By @CraryAP

Komen communications folks seem to have closed their doors and turned out the lights long before 5 pm, given the story’s time stamp of 12:31 pm PST/14:31 CST. Not so Planned Parenthood: they had a statement and tweet posted less than 30 minutes later: 12:52 pm PST or 15:52 pm EST. Planned Parenthood posted 12 more tweets on Tuesday, the day the story broke.

But on Tuesday there was no acknowledgement of the controversy on @komenforthecure. Nothing from @NancyGBrinker, either. And nothing on the Komen Facebook page.

On Wednesday, Komen tweeted six times. Two were links to a video statement from Brinker (96+ retweets, combined), three were stats, and one was a reply about the Komen Facebook page. Brinker also tweeted her video statement (29 retweets). Planned Parenthood: 22 tweets (several with 50+ retweets).

Komen put a statement on Facebook just before 8.00 am Texas-time on Wednesday. It currently has 10,477 comments, 3,281 likes.

In contrast, 8,033 people have “liked” the Planned Parenthood “I stood up for women’s health” poster. And 3,278 have shared it.

Nancy Brinker With Andrea Mitchell

Over on Twitter, after it was far too late to stem the digital tide, Komen’s brand management folks began tweeting wildly: 42 tweets on Thursday! But most were statements, not interactions, so this was half-hearted at best. It took until Friday for Komen to finally began to talk to people on Twitter using @replies. By then, we know, it was too late. Komen had officially reversed itself. Sorta.

The Winners and Losers Game

The money winner? Planned Parenthood, by far. The organization temporarily lost about $680,000. In three days, they picked up $3 million in donations.

Planned Parenthood, meet the Haitian Earthquake effect. The Japanese Tsunami effect. The Barack Obama and Ron Paul campaign success.

A sufficiently charged up public will open its collective wallet, at least once.

The winner in the Twitterverse is also clearly Planned Parenthood. According to data from TwitterCounter, @ppact had about 1,400 fewer followers than Komen on January 25. The projection for Saturday? That @PPACT will exceed Komen by about 1,400. However, both organizations gained followers during the dispute. What’s the adage about there being no such thing as bad news?

TwitterCounter - Komen v Planned Parenthood

And then there’s Tumblr. plannedparenthoodsavedme takes a page from the “We are the 99 percent” playbook. And does it well. “Planned Parenthood actually helped me chose NOT to abort my baby.” “Planned Parenthood Found My Breast Cancer.”

And the Tumblr is “not affiliated” with Planned Parenthood.

The loser, all around, is Komen.

Whether or not the decision was actually politically-motivated, it looked like it was.

As Lawrence Lessig writes so eloquently in Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress–and a Plan to Stop It, the reasonable possibility of financial or political motivation is enough to breach trust. It’s Caesar’s wife.

Amy Tan @AmyTanWriter
Interesting fact: Susan Komen Cancer Foundation hired a anti-abortion activist, former right-wing candidate, and… fb.me/1eClzxZW9

Brandon VerVelde @bvervelde
Thank you, Susan G. Komen for rescinding your funding for the abortion factories known as “Planned Parenthood.” #wiright

“Unfortunately, it seems that Komen caved to political pressure from the pro-abortion movement and enforcers in the media.” – Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) in SJMN, 3 February

“To be giving grants to an organization that effectively ends so many lives — (it) just seems to me they made the right decision before and they’re making the wrong decision now.” – Rep. Kevin Brady R-TX) in Chicago Tribune

Peggy Orenstein @peggyorenstein
Breast cancer doesn’t care whether you are pro- or anti-choice, but the Komen Foundation does…. ow.ly/8Nz1L

And then there are these two:

Jade Morey (@JadeMorey) is the Southeast Director at GoVote.com; she has subsequently made her Twitter account private. Karen Handel (@KarenHandel) is a former GOP candidate for governor in Georgia and a SGK vice president; she has subsequently deleted this retweet, which was captured by @LisaMcIntire.

Jade Morey was RTed 10 times, but only nine show

Enough reasonable doubt about political motivation for you?

But what about that severance?

Komen’s 990s for 2008 – 2010 (the fiscal year runs April – March) reveal that the organization has coughed up an estimated $1.9 million in severance fees. Brikner resumed leadership of the organization in November 2009. I’ll have the details in a later post. But unless the mainstream media — TV and big name newspapers — find the salaries and severance shocking, don’t expect this to cripple Komen.

Yes, Twitter and Facebook amplify — but there has to be something to be amplified.

Lessons For Communicators

1. Embrace the fact that the Net never sleeps. PR no longer runs banker’s hours (if it ever did).
2. Use tools to monitor Twitter and Facebook for mentions of your organization. Then be ready to respond. In real time.
3. As in any sales discussion or confrontation, it’s important to acknowledge the other person’s “pain.” In the digital social realm, we do this by “talking” to people in a public space. It needs to feel like conversation but be aware that what we are simultaneously doing is publishing. (Karen Handel forgot that.)
4. Have communication plans ready for contingencies. Planned Parenthood had known for about six weeks that this decision had been made, that this announcement was coming. And they were prepared. Komen, who had known even longer than PP, wasn’t. [Added: I'm reading claims that it was PP that tipped AP to the story. Have not seen evidence, just claim. Will update if I do.]
5. Re-read the Tylenol case. Then Exxon. Which do you want on your resume?

Edited for spelling errors and to add a resource link; added link to TMV post about salaries.

Added: Digerati used in the sense of someone who is comfortable with technology. There are many definitions for the word, which at one time (and in some groups) means “digital elite” in the opinion/thought-leader sense.

:: Follow me on Twitter!

John Cole, The Scranton Times-Tribune

This copyrighted cartoon is licensed to run on TMV. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.

This is because a grave injustice has been corrected and it was corrected to a substantial degree by the pushback by many thousands of people who vented their displeasure with Komen on Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr, the first such instance in the U.S. of social media playing such an important role as it has in Arab Spring protests.

Breast cancer is a very real and too often fatal disease, which mad Komen’s decision as the leading breast cancer advocacy group all the more disturbing.

The more we learn about breast cancer the more links to lifestyle, diet and such become apparent. And who doesn’t know women who have survived breast cancer, as well as succumbed to it. I can count four of the former and one of the latter among my friends alone.

But beyond all of this is a puzzling conundrum: Why are more women dying for breast cancer-related reasons despite the increasingly sophisticated screenings that they undergo? And why has the disease become a right-wing Republican cudgel?

A big part of the answer to the first question is that the benefits of breast cancer screenings have been overstated and come with the risk of overtreating small cancers while missing cancers that are deadly. Same for prostate and some other cancers.

The Dear Friend & Conscience has been a health-care professional all her working life. She has toiled for many thousands of hours in intensive care units and is certified every which way. She regularly self examines her breasts but refuses to have mammograms because she has long believed their benefits to be wildly exaggerated. And the American Cancer Society, of all organizations, acknowledges that she is correct.

“We don’t want people to panic,” says Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the cancer society. “But I’m admitting that American medicine has overpromised when it comes to screening. The advantages to screening have been exaggerated.”

The American Cancer Society bombshell came on the heels of a recent study that recommended most women should start regular screenings at age 50, not 40, women age 50 to 74 should have mammograms every two years, rather than every year, and self-breast examinations are not what they’re cracked up to be.

Left unsaid in Brawley’s candid and perhaps even courageous comment is that breast-cancer screenings and the invasive radiation treatments, painful needle biopsies and surgeries that often result are a multi-billion dollar industry that gets filthy rich on overdiagnoses. Then there’s this: Too many women who have been treated for breast cancer-related reasons cannot get health insurance or are dropped by their insurers.

Being a woman can be pre-existing condition in and of itself, of course, and it will not be until 2014 that the Affordable Care Act will fully prohibit insurers from using pre-existing conditions as a pretext for denying or dropping coverage.

Though breast cancer researchers and advocates perpetually plead for more money, the disease is awash in it.

Last year, the National Institutes of Health, the nation’s top agency for health-related research, allocated $763 million to the study of breast cancer, more than double what it committed to any other cancer. The Department of Defense also funds breast cancer research ($150 million this year), as do several states. All that is in addition to the money raised by the roughly 1,400 IRS-recognized, tax-exempt charities devoted to breast cancer. Komen grossed $420 million last year alone.

Some breast cancer organizations, including Komen, have been highly critical of the screening study, asserting that more lives will be lost because of later and fewer screenings, and it is a fact that American women have the highest incidence rates of breast cancer in the world, 144 per 1,000 among white woman and 122 per 1,000 among African American women.

Komen, of course, is in the news because it had joined forces with the right-wing Republicans who wield that cudgel. And irony of ironies, it made a choice — now reversed — where many women cannot without Planned Parenthood.

The foundation had said it cut off funding to the group because it is under investigation, as in guilty until proven innocent. It is under investigation because of a right-wing Republican witch hunt against Planned Parenthood, which does 750,000 breast cancer screenings a year. Abortions make up only about 3 percent of its work, but the witch hunters also object to its leading role in providing access to contraceptives, many of which go to women who could not otherwise afford them.

Komen’s demonization of Planned Parenthood came at a time in which the Republican Party is doubling down on denying women many rights, when rape is viewed by one of its president candidates as “a gift from God,” and workplace gender discrimination is tacitly approve of by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Foundation CEO Nancy Brinker Komen, who was a protocol chief and ambassador during the Bush administration, tried to cover her tracks yesterday in claiming that the decision had nothing to do with Planned Parenthood specifically.

In a statement released today, the foundation asked everyone “who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.”

It was the perception that Komen was inserting politics into providing health care services, especially to underserved women, that helped prompt the firestorm of debate.

Koman’s president is Karen Handel, a conservative Republican who ran for governor in Georgia in 2010 and is believed to have pressured Koman, while the foundation’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 backlash against Komen was been severe with all seven California affiliates of the foundation saying that they opposed the decision. Several board members resigned in protest, and in the end the foundation, perhaps realizing that its public image had been sullied and this might result in a drop in donations, reconsidered its decision.

Twenty-six senators had urged the foundation to reconsider, while pledges to Planned Parenthood of $250,000 each from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Lee Fikes, a Texas oil baron, as well as small donations, have more than make up the $700,000 it lost, which was a tiny part of Komen’s $93 million budget.

To Planned Parenthood, the decision amounted to a betrayal of the organizations’ shared goal of saving lives through breast cancer screening programs. Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood’s president, said her organization was gratified by the support the controversy has brought and later praised Komen’s decision to resume funding.

“We provide care to one in five women in America, and over the last two days it seems we’ve heard from every one of them, through Facebook, Twitter, e-mail and all sorts of ways,” Ms. Richards said. “It’s a true show of women standing for women.”

Perhaps.

They say that the sisterhood is powerful, but in the case of breast cancer the sisterhood is caught between an industry that gets rich off of it and a political party that uses it as a punching bag.

In addition to pulling funds from Planned Parenthood, Komen also decided to stop funding embryonic stem cell research centers, which makes it clear that the organization has morphed from non-political non-profit to a partisan advocacy organization.

That means the loss of $3.75 million to the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, $4.5 million to the University of Kansas Medical Center, $1 million to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, $1 million to the Society for Women’s Health Research, and $600,000 to Yale University. That’s a loss of nearly $12 million dollars in research money to eradicate breast cancer this year alone.

Click here to make an tax deductible online contribution to Planned Parenthood.

A blurb at Discount Gun Sales’ website:

Discount Gun Sales is proud to team up with the Susan B. Koman Foundation to offer the Walther P-22 Hope Edition in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness Month. A portion of each P-22 Hope Edition will be donated to the Seattle Branch of the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

The P-22 Hope Edition has an exclusive DuraCoat Pink slide in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness month. Utilizing the same reliable controls and firing mechanism that has made the Walther P-22 America’s top selling handgun, the Hope Edition will be a limited production pistol offered exclusively through Discount Gun Sales.

If that’s the real reason this sudden reversal came about, (potential loss of sponsors) the sudden reversal by Komen wouldnt be an honest and dependable representation any more than the bungled previous attempt to be opaque about the real reasons PP was defunded to begin with. There is much more scoop to what’s going on inside Komen than they are saying, which only adds to reasoned minds wondering what’s to hide there, and in this decision to defund and then “allow PP to apply” again

…whose ox got gored that such a stentorian announcement about defunding became a whimper to allow PP back into the ‘good graces’ of Komen again. As the oldtimers say, there’s something fishy about this. But, it will all come out soon, I think. There are investigative reporters at work on it as we speak.

The operative words in Komen’s newest statement reversing themselves, are that Komen “will allow” Planned Parenthood “to apply” to them for grants. (while funding the existing grant for now). But Brinker’s statement says nothing whatsoever about commitment to help fund these programs within PP. There is no funding future in this sense. Only “permission” to apply. Big difference. The application by PP could be turned down in a heartbeat. I’d say to keep one’s eye on those words, for they surely can be weasel words, and many will be keeping an eye on Komen to see exactly how they fund PP, or not, past this funding period.

and also keep an eye on what Shaun Mullen brought up in his post below, about Komen defunding to the tune of many millions of dollars also, medical research at several big research centers, regarding cell research. That defunding still, for now, stands as a done deal in Komen’s eyes. A huge blow to the research centers, and smells again of politics in that defunding also, as there is a long history, save Nancy Reagan, of utter resistance to cell research on the part of the GOP now dominated by the far right religious groups.

Brinker has far far more acumen to know how Komen’s words defunding PP would affect much of the populace. There’s far more going on behind the scenes at Komen than is being said, I think, for Brinker was an ambassador and also the equivilent of ‘hostess’ for visiting dignitaries for a sitting president. To say that they are ‘distressed’ that anyone would imagine anything negative about Komen’s motives, seems entirely either disingenuous or being asleep at the wheel big time. Being an ambassador and ‘hostess’ to dignitaries from across the world, means having to know, in order to fit the job description the utmost in tact, diplomacy, decency, propriety, always watching to see who is going to like and and who is going to rail against any potential pronouncement, and a priori… and utter discretion being the greater part of valour.

Thereby Brinker’s wording in her “retraction” is doubly incomprehensible. Brinker is supposed to be the master at handling ‘people matters.’ Yet, she said as though this was just a little trip up: “We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives,” president and founder Nancy Brinker said in a statement today. “We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.”

Rather than her statement being about the suffering and anguish caused to poor women who heard of this defunding, and rather than speaking about PP wondering what they would now do to make it up $$-wise( and they seem to have, but only temporarily) and rather than speaking to people who were caused to suffer over this whole matter, it’s about Komen and Brinker being ‘misunderstood.’ My questions remain, whose ox got gored to bring this reversal around… whose heads rolled and why? And especially, how did this public non-profit, HOW did this truly happen that they put so many through so much and now say ooops.

Here is an excerpt from the WaPo article:

By Sarah Kliff, Friday, February 3, 9:41 AM

The Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure Foundation Friday announced it would revise a controversial new policy that barred the organization from funding Planned Parenthood.

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

“Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation,” a Friday statement said. “ We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.”

“We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities,” the statement continues.

The statement left some ambiguity, however, because it did not mention a second reason Komen has given for ending Planned Parenthood’s funding: That the group did not provide direct mammogram services, but instead referred patients out to other locations.

On Thursday, Komen President Elizabeth Thompson told reporters that the funding decision was unrelated to the Congressional investigation into whether Planned Parenthood was illegally using federal funds to pay for abortions.

Komen founder Nancy Brinker said the organization wants to support groups that directly provide breast health services, such as mammograms. She noted that Planned Parenthood was providing only mammogram referrals.

Planned Parenthood celebrated the news as a victory.

“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,” said Planne d Parenthood president Cecile Richards in a statement. “What these past few days have demonstrated is the deep resolve all Americans share in the fight against cancer, and we honor those who are at the helm of this battle.”

Randall Enos, Cagle Cartoons

This copyrighted cartoon is licensed to run on TMV. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.

Bob Englehart, The Hartford Courant

This copyrighted cartoon is licensed to run on TMV. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.

Duke, a progressive university with a strong med school may have ‘a problem, Houston.” They’ve invited Brinker along with four other notable people to do 2012 commencement. Problem may rise up with parts of vocal student body and profs, as they now realize Brinker just cut off Planned Parenthood from Komen funding for breast cancer screenings and breast cancer education for poor and needful women.

Brinker says she and her board convened some new ‘rules.’ That PP got cut off because of new stringent funding rules that preclude any org that is being investigated from receiving funds from Komen… even though, as I read it, Brinker says they fund in over 50 countries worldwide.

. My question would be then, so how do you know if clinics in other countries are being investigated or not? and would you trust third world and dictatorial or faux democratic or corp run governments to ‘investigate’ in all truth and justice? Really?

Here in the US, a republican congressperson began an ‘investigation’ into Planned Parenthood that sounds more like harrassment… “to see if PP is living up to the federal rules for abortion.”

I’m a woman who is a pro life person for myself and my daughters. Meaning I will do all I can, and have, to bring life to fruition, even though the circumstances have been far far from ideal. And for me, that was right. But/and, in no way will I try to pressure all others about what they ought do, especially in cases of rape and incest, abject poverty and being with abusers. If I’m asked, I will say/ offer my thoughts on what I see as precious life in utero, but knowing that most women find that so, even if they think/ feel they cannot continue the life of this embryo. That is why they suffer often with their choices.

The idea that some denigrators of women throw about… that women who come to the heavy decision to terminate the pregnancy are monsters…. reminds me of the spewers of propaganda against the Chinese in WWII [for a US secret at that time: horrible counter-moves against targeted segments of the Chinese in order to provoke rage and ramp up their support to fight Japan], creating posters showing deep yellow skin, slanted eyes and yellow buck teeth, with Chinese soldiers gutting babies on bayonets (this image was used for any Asian who was considered ‘enemy.’ And it is similar bloated propaganda re women. And, this attack on women insisting despite facts (such as I’ve heard in my consulting room for more than 40 years now, often many many years after a woman’s had an abortion and is still in sincere regret and sorrow) that women so choosing to end a pregnancy dont give a good g-d dang, makes no sense for most women I know… So, if I’m asked, I can gently say my piece which is mainly about not panicking, and seeking many means of support if one can, even from strangers if need be … but otherwise, I keep my own counsel.

I despise seeing anti-abortion groups standing on street corners screaming and screeching and bellowing like rutting animals at women who are entering a clinic, projecting onto her, most often falsely, that she’s on her way to go have her 20th abortion as idle entertainment. That projection onto strangers is egregious and in most cases, the bearing of false witness…which is completely antithetical to the premises of the religion the screamers say they follow.

But, I digress. Back to Duke’s invite to Brinker. We’ll have to wait to see what happens next. Brinker is a careerist woman, who has climbed the ladder of influence. Her organization has exploited to the max her sister’s dying request. I dont say that negatively, but with several books by Brinker, tours, speaking engagements, fund raising, putting in to be nominated for awards of all kinds, it appears that every avenue to raise money –and be recognized– has been hit and hard.

I see that the Komen org is 30 years old and claims it has given 2 billion dollars away in 30 years. For some reason, I’d thought it was far, far more than that per year. I’m still going to look at annual report, and also see about FOIA on line item budget for Komen for the Cure. I’d like to know how much the execs get paid, what perks the board gets, where they trim the budget, and most of all, where they dont.

As for Duke, we’ll see who’ll cut off whom, if/when.

Here’s more about Brinker’s life: Brinker in 1982 founded Susan G. Komen for the Cure after promising her dying sister, Susan G. Komen, that she would do everything in her power to end breast cancer. Komen for the Cure says they have invested almost $2 billion to research, community health, advocacy and global programs that serve hundreds of thousands of women in more than 50 countries.

Brinker, herself a breast cancer survivor, was U.S. Ambassador to Hungary (ambassadorships can come from having an ‘in’ via a president, and sometimes by having made a huge monetary contribution in support of that president or just be one of the in-crowd) from 2001 to 2003 and U.S. Chief of Protocol (which is like hospitality charge nurse, offering social times for foreign mission folks, and visiting leaders, and ensuring their time spent in the US is “positive and productive.) from 2007 to the end of the George W. Bush administration.

In 2009, President Barack Obama named Brinker a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, for her work to end breast cancer.

She serves as the World Health Organization’s Goodwill Ambassador for Cancer Control and has written four books, including the New York Times best-seller “Promise Me,” about Komen’s growth from a promise made to her sister to the global organization of today.

See also: Shaun Mullen writes about the Komen debacle above the fold today, and Taylor Marsh’s article calling out the liberals for being asleep is farther down the TMV stack.