Susan G. Komen for the Cure has previously been ridiculed for its bullying of other charities and its lawsuit against any charity using “for the cure” in its name or advertising. Now it is receiving criticism for cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood affiliates and preventive screening services. It is the first time the organization has cut off such funding based on a new rule involving organizations under investigation by Congress.
The House oversight and investigations subcommittee announced in the fall that it would investigate Planned Parenthood’s funding. The organization often becomes a hot button issue during election periods due to the abortion controversy.
Komen has been targeted in a campaign to defund Planned Parenthood. Last year, it hired a vice president who had previously advocated for the group’s defunding in her run for Georgia governor.
Source: Washington Post
BS (pardon me) but to say this was not an outright political response does not pass the smell test.
Planned Parenthood Raises $400,000 in 24 Hours After Susan G. Komen Withdrawal of Support
By: David Dayen Wednesday February 1, 2012
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/02/01/planned-parenthood-raises-400000-in-24-hours-after-susan-g-komen-withdrawal-of-support/
Excerpt:
The Susan G. Komen for the Cure denied funding for breast cancer screenings to Planned Parenthood today, in an anti-abortion frenzy designed to hurt the women’s health provider. The effect was a glancing blow. In the past 24 hours, 6,000 donors have delivered $400,000 to Planned Parenthood, almost half of the annual donation from Susan G. Komen. Obviously, Komen provided an annual donation, and this is a one-time outpouring in reaction. So it will hurt Planned Parenthood. But they also gained a lot of allies and awareness from this exchange.
Did Susan G. Komen turn itself into a lightning rod?
By KATE NOCERA | 2/1/12 4:57 PM EST
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72328.html
Excerpt:
Susan G. Komen for the Cure says there wasn’t anything political about its decision to stop giving grants to Planned Parenthood.
But in Washington, every decision is political — and now the cancer-fighting organization may have turned itself from a “safe” charity into just another political lightning rod.
It may have ruined its fundraising, too, as its Facebook page filled up with messages from Planned Parenthood supporters promising they’ll never give a dime to the charity again.
“They pretty much cut their fundraising support in half. I don’t think they meant to make a huge political statement, but it was extremely naïve of them to think this wasn’t hyper-political,” said Kivi Leroux Miller, an expert in nonprofit communication strategies.
“They have dove head first into the abortion debate — in fact, they fell into the pool — and whoever is doing their communications doesn’t know how to swim,” Miller said.
are the days and times of America getting sadder and sadder? I never really liked the color pink, now it is more unattractive to me than ever. No Donations, no support, no participation and loud response to the idiocy of this decision. redirect all planned contributions to SGK to Planned Parenthood and tell them both why.
Idealist707, always jealous of the folks who can do the little yellow smiley. Don’t know where they get it (unless from the downloadable emoticons which messes up my already messed up and way overworked computer. ) Guess I could just do my ((*_*))
Wootsy’s still a cat, Thanks. Signed, facebook’d and tweeted
https://secure.ppaction.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=OnScreenThanks&id=14091
WOOSTY
I wish it would be so.
Carol,
why not adopt some marker, a ubiqutous (in terms of systems) but seldom used smiley to mark beginning and end of irony, sarcasm, etc.?
Only problem it has to be key-accessible on most systems. It could spread.
Great ideas end in small disasters. I said that.
Maybe it’s time for an “investigation” of the Komen Foundation, with its partisan politics and poor ratio of donations to charitable use. Following their own logic, they should then refuse to accept any further donations…. They should not ask any less of their donors than they do of themselves.
I hear you carol levy…..
Correction:
I am thinking that anyone that makes a Political Statement and has 501-(C) Status should not be able to tax exempt…That is just my thought….
Anonymously yours, The church does so why not Susan G, etc? (since tonality doesn’t come thru in post, I am being sarcastic.)
I am thinking that anyone that makes a 501-(C) that makes a political statement should not be able to claim tax exempt status…That is just my thought….
The McCarthy age is back, do not fund anyone or anything that has ties to what we are investigating. Okay we will not fight, even when what we are defunding does exactly what the Komen foundation was, to my understanding, help to fight breast cancer, which, I assume, women being able to get affordable screening, which PP does.
I imagine Susan G, Komen would be rollinig over in her grave that this is what the good she wanted has turned into.
S.M.,
For once, I agree with you! Clearly they are supporting a really bad candidate. You can’t stop people from supporting bad candidates. It is their right.
What people who don’t support a bad candidate and a crappy charity can do is withdraw money, time and any other support to this charity and let them know why we are doing this. This sends a strong message the their actions are wrong and we will oppose them in no uncertain terms!
The crazies never give up. Wherever there is some money to be scammed these people will have a booth and a bullhorn. They’ve moved on from churches (no longer very profitable due to falling membership numbers) to healthcare charities. Probably the reason they fought so hard against healthcare reform in the first place.
Stop donating to the crazies … it only encourages them. Once the money dries up, they’ll go away.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Even charitable power.
That Lord Acton knew a thing or two about powerful people and organizations.
Here’s the full quote:
I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.
(Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, April 5, 1887)
http://www.americablog.com/2012/01/komen-pro-life-vp-promised-to-defund.html The point is that komen is joining in the republican effort to defund Planned Parenthood. The new VP promised as much.
This charity is rated as very poor in actual giving verses use of donations for it’s intended purpose. It’s good to expose what they are doing. If people believe this is the correct thing for Komen to do and don’t mind funding extravagant administrative expenses, they should give to the foundation. If people believe this is wrong and further do not wish to fund extravagant administrative expenses, they should stop giving them money and tell them in no uncertain terms, why they are withdrawing their donations.
This is exactly what people need to do in general. The system is working here! Transparency gives people the information they need to either fund or quit supporting actions they either agree or don’t agree with. I my case I plan to sign the petition and give them a call! I consider their actionss sleazy!!!
I don’t see this as a big deal. People who support PP and what it does are free to lobby Komen, to donate directly to PP to achieve their aims, or to arrange a boycott of donations to Komen.
I acknowledge that I am working under the assumption that Komen will take the money and use it to fund others that have goals Komen agrees with. As a corollary, the boycott Komen approach (which is effectively espoused in a comment above) strikes me as “cutting off the nose” for anyone who believes that Komen’s work is a benefit to women’s health.