Komen and Planned Parenthood

Enjoyful

Nope, people certainly don't have to give to Komen, or to PP, or to whomever.  But when an organization that purports to support breast health and has done so in the past suddenly withdraws funding from a primary breast health provider, and that occurs after a staunchly anti-abortion Republican politician is appointed VP of Komen policy, we certainly have the right to criticize, question, and defend the breast health of less fortunate women.

Freedom of speech and all that.

angelsister

It certainly felt like a backhand to me pompeed (although as stated i am from the uk). I have walked and run hundreds of miles, including a relay in which i physically supported my sister who was going through chemo and very weak. I have also spent hundreds of dollars and more importantly hundreds of hours making jewellry to be sold for komen. So i apologise if i sound like im ranting but it offends me and it is disrespectful to my sister that someone can say that grants are given 'out of the goodness of komens heart' .

Faye33

Pompeed,

It is Komen's responsiblity to make sure organizations they give their donors money to meet certain standards.  When their standards became too high for PP, Komen was the one that was bullied into changing their policies.  Backwards, if you ask me.

As far as the "guess", there is something going on,  I know for a fact that in the past year or so an office manager for a PP was fired, because she was caught giving advice to a "pimp" (undercover and recording the whole conversation)  as to how to hide his underage sex trafficing business of illegal immigrants, and still get them treated for STDs and provide abortions for them at PP.  So I know there was something going on...  or at least enough to do an investigation.

LovesChristmas-Barb

I don't like the way they've been fulfilling their mission either so I haven't given to them. You are free to state your opinion but you can't force them to do what you want...all you can do besides state your opinion is withhold your donations. It's not a group you're forced to give to. We prolife people have been doing that for years. That's the way things work here in the good old USA.

And I'm sorry about your sister cynsister....this disease does stink.

angelsister

Those grants to breast health are made out of the goodness of the donors hearts! And if donors support services for uninsured men and women to save lives without it being hijacked by political motivations then that is komens responsibility imo

Faye33

cynsister, backhand not intended.  I clarified. 

Enjoyful

Faye, I believe that was Breitbart and ACORN, not PP.

Edited to add:  Oops no, you're right.  Breitbart also went after PP.  He's such a master of editing, isn't he? 

LovesChristmas-Barb

Charitable organizations in the US are not democracies. They are run by people who are allowed to make decisions as to how they use their funds. If you don't like how they use their funds, you are free to withdraw. There are many other choices. My husband and I have chosen to support local Catholic groups that provide free screening for breast cancer for women who can't afford it and now I need to find someone to give to that does research. I've been so busy doing research for my own treatment, that I have not done that yet.

LovesChristmas-Barb

I read about that case too Faye.

Faye33

Scootaloo,

They actually released the full unedited video.  I watched the whole thing... disgusting.  It made me angry and sad.

If this truely was a case of one bad apple, nothing else will come of it, I'm sure, but if there is more  PP should be definitely be defunded.  I'm assuming this is part of the reason they are investigating. 

crazy4carrots

Yes, LovesChristmas;  charitable orgs are allowed to make decisions as to how they use their funds -- BUT only if those funds are used in the manner to which their DONORS are advised they are being used.  Again I must emphasize that their legal obligation is to their donors, otherwise they are in danger of having their charitable registration revoked.

This has nothing to do with Komen withdrawing its support of Planned Parenthood.  But now that so many donors have indicated their disenchantment with Komen having been politicized, to the extent that its Board has demonstrated its bias against PP, it's hardly surprising that there are many, many donors who will discontinue their support of Komen. 

And now that more and more donors are aware of how Komen chooses to use (or not use) their donations, through this public relations disaster, at least other breast cancer charities will fill the gap and perhaps be able to provide even more dollars towards BC research.  And that is a good thing!

 

 

angelsister

Wow...have any off you seen the utube video 'what breast cancer is and is not' sorry i cant copy the link its on another thread still on advocacy forump>

Pompeed

Faye wrote:

"As far as the "guess", there is something going on,  I know for a fact . . . So I know there was something going on..."

             First it's a guess. Then it's "I know" as if that's a statement of fact.  Then it's a reference to something totally unreleated.  Completely irrelevant: a straw man set up for the sole purpose of being able to then shoot it down.  Now it's asumptions without any basis for making them. 

             And all of that nonsense is offered as a list of reasons and excuses which Komen representatives never referenced at all.  A whole lot of speculation, exaggeration, suppositions and irrelevant stuff thrown up at the wall to see what might stick shouldn't be confused with actual, factual knowledge. 

             What is not addressed at all?  The fact that we have seen women's health in the US used for political purposes.  Guess what?  When the treatment or the testing that some here want for themselves or their daughters or their mothers or aunts or friends in order to save lives or get a clear diagnosis and correct therapy is blocked, because some politician or other decides it doesn't "fit" his or her personal whim, do not come here raging and raving and begging for help.  It will be much too late.  Just die quietly, along with the others who will be dying quietly, and don't complain about how the "system" works. 

            This is one of the very few moments in life which is all black or all white.  There is no grey.  One either supports politics as the guiding force for women's health or one is against it.  That is the issue.  There is no "safe" middle ground or straddle position.  One either wants and is happy to have politicians prescribe and dictate the future of one's own health concerns.  Or  one wants strangers to mind their own business. 

Faye33

Pompeed,

Do you really feel it's irrelevant if PP really is guilty of covering up sex trafficing?  The relevancy is, there is question out there... documented.  That warrants investigation.  Part of the investigation going on is whether or not sex trafficing is being covered up by PP. 

My understanding is there are reports out there as to questionable financial dealings as well.

Faye33

and Pompeed, Komen referenced the fact PP was under investigation as the reason they weren't supporting PP, right?  Would you have sooner had Komen say, "We can't support PP because they are under investigation for covering illegal, underage, sex-trafficing, and using tax payers dollars to pay for abortions."

RetiredLibby

Here is why I am angry at Komen and will never donate to them again, regardless of what they say their position is or may be in the future.

Komen portrayed itself as a non-partisan women's health care charity seeking a cure for breast cancer.

I donated to them based on that portrayal. 

I was well aware of Nancy Brinker's strong Republican affiliations, her fundraising for George W. Bush and her political involvement with him and his administration, including his appointment of her to be U.S. Ambassador to Hungary.  While those affiliations made me uneasy because I strongly opposed most of George W. Bush's policies and actions, I continued to support Komen because it gave me no reason to believe that it in any way behaved in a politically partisan manner.

I was also uneasy about the large salaries paid to the Foundation's executives, while realizing that in order to get top talent, you must pay decent salaries.  I was also uneasy about the relatively small percentage going to research as opposed to "education and awareness" (who is NOT aware of breast cancer?!).  But I continued to support Komen.

Then the recent series of events unfolded, and I learned:

Komen recently appointed a highly partisan political woman to the VP for Public Policy -- a woman who had run for Governor of Georgia as a Republican with a publicly-avowed purpose of defunding Planned Parenthood.  This was after numerous Republican attempts in Congress to defund Planned Parenthood -- including an attempt that nearly brought the government to shut down. 

Komen also recently changed its rules for awarding grants to exclude organizations that were "under investigation by federal or state officials." 

Planned Parenthood is the subject of a highly partisan inquiry by one far-right Congressman who has as an avowed position that he will defund Planned Parenthood.  It is not an investigation in the legal sense -- Congressmen are not empowered to conduct a civil or criminal investigation.  They are not law enforcement authorities.  They may only mount inquiries -- without the legal status of an investigation.

Komen then announced it would no longer fund Planned Parenthood because it was the subject of "an investigation" -- while leaving intact funding for Penn State, subject of numerous investigations, and accepting money from Bank of America (right there on the commercials for the 3-day!) which is the subject of some pretty serious Federal law enforcement investigations.

Planned Parenthood didn't mount a public relations campaign, nor did they "smear Komen's face in the mud."  PP merely told the public what had happened.  The public took it from there.

Komen first said they could not fund PP because of their rules.  When it came out that the rules were new, they said they were realigning their grant system, then again said they could not fund PP because of their new rules, and then again that they were realigning their grant system.  They couldn't make up their minds exactly what the reason was.  No credibility there!

If Komen had said, "We are looking at our grant-making and we have decided that we will institute new criteria in our next grant cycle.  One of the new criteria is that we will fund only direct-care grants for mammograms, not pass-thoughs.  We will fund facilities who give mammograms directly."  Oh.  OK.  End of discussion.  Changing the grant rules to more efficiently deliver mammograms.  I see.  No problem.

Instead, they made it clear that it was political -- and couldn't even manage to get the story straight or even develop a decent PR plan to handle it, in spite of hiring Ari Fleischer before the defunded PP just to help them manage the story (more GWBush ties ...).  And they couldn't get the story straight.  They went from a nonpartisan health care charity to one with a political agenda -- one that I do not support.  And thus ends my support -- and that of millions of other women.  Komen backtracked because they didn't want to lose our money, not because they changed their minds.  They still won't give any more grants to PP after this grant cycle.  But a far larger number of women will not give to them because they cannot be trusted to keep partisan politics out of their business.

They are perfectly free to become partisan.  In fact, they have.  But they have offended millions like me because they did not own up to it. 

Check out the Donors Bill of Rights that they have on their website at this link:

http://ww5.komen.org/Donate/DonorsBillofRights.html

Here are some excerpts:

Donor's Bill of Rights

At Susan G. Komen for the Cure we take great pride in our responsible fundraising practices. We provide this Donor's Bill of Rights as a tool for current and future donors to help raise awareness about charitable contributions:

Philanthropy is based on voluntary action for the common good. It is a tradition of giving and sharing that is primary to the quality of life. To assure that philanthropy merits the respect and trust of the general public and that donors and prospective donors can have full confidence in the not-for-profit organizations and causes they are asked to support, we declare that all donors have the rights:

1. To be informed of the organization's mission, of the way the organization intends to use donated resources and of its capacity to use donations effectively for their intended purposes.

2. To be informed of the identity of those serving on the organization's governing board and to expect the board to exercise prudent judgment in its stewardship responsibilities.

3. To have access to the organization's most recent financial statements.

4. To be assured their gifts will be used for the purposes for which they were given.

 There is more, but you can go there and read it.

That is why I will never give another dime to Komen.  You are all free to give or not to give based on your consciences.  Those of you who do not support PP are free not to give.  You are proud of not giving because you do not support PP.  Good for you -- but nobody is calling you a bully.  Why, then, do you object to millions of other women exercising their CHOICE to not give to an organization that they feel has betrayed their purpose?  Why do you call us bullies because we are voting with our dollars, just like you vote with yours?  Nobody smeared Komen's face in the mud -- they did that all on their own.

L

1Athena1

Great post, HL!

Curious to see which coward(s) reported the following post by me. I speak only rhetorically, of course. I don't expect anyone to 'fess up. I know it was reported because I no longer have the edit/delete option. I do wish BCO would restore e-mail notification, but there are other ways to find out (my italics):

Feb  3, 2012 06:09 pm1Athena1 wrote:

Karl Rove must be so proud of Bushie Brinker. Lie accuse others of your wrongdoing lie again and call it a compromise. Those of us who read English know better and Komen does not change its stripes.

The moderators have been reading this thread and didn't delete that. So I am curious as to how that offended anyone, or how it would make them something they don't want others to see? FYI, It's a violation of community guidelines to report a post that doesn't violate guidelines.

...unless Komen employees are here with reporting privileges. That's the only other option.

Part of being civil in a discussion is not taking underhanded measures to censure someone. Anybody was entitled to say what they wanted in plain English about this or any other post.

Pompeed

Faye wrote:

"Do you really feel it's irrelevant if PP really is guilty of covering up sex trafficing?  The relevancy is, there is question out there... documented.  That warrants investigation.  Part of the investigation going on is whether or not sex trafficing is being covered up by PP. 

My understanding is there are reports out there as to questionable financial dealings as well."

             Guilty?  Guilty of what?  When was the prosecution?  What court?  What's the case cite?  Who was the named defendant?  Was there more than one?  What was the verdict?  Don't know any of that?   

              Warrants investigation?  By whom?  A political colleague of the VP Handel?  Investigation of what?  Didn't Brinkley finally get herself so backed into a corner she had to admit that an investigation not even close to being criminal in nature, much less concluded with adverse consequences to PP and certainly not conclusive by any means could NOT be used as the basis for make funding decisions?  Or was that revamp of future decision making missed? Was the apology made to the entire World for making the defunding decision against PP made on that very basis missed? 

               Now it's "your understanding" of what is supposed and claimed to be "out there" in the world.  Not a fact.  Just an "understanding."   And we are supposed to rely on what someone with an ax to grind claims to "understand?"  Where are the citations and the sources?  So much is "out there" in the world that someone intending to gore some else's ox comes to an "understanding" but can't cite a single reputable source?  Credibility gap!

               And still not a single comment about the dangers of polititical interference in the health care of oneself or one's family.  Today or in the future.  Much easier to toss around a whole lot of unsupported "understandings" and wild speculations than think about the consequences of defending the imposition of politics into women's health care.

              

Pompeed

Faye wrote:

"and Pompeed, Komen referenced the fact PP was under investigation as the reason they weren't supporting PP, right?  Would you have sooner had Komen say, "We can't support PP because they are under investigation for covering illegal, underage, sex-trafficing, and using tax payers dollars to pay for abortions."

            See above: The president of Komen had to suck it up and admit before the entire World and say that the decision to defund PP was improperly made.  And she had to tell the World that no decision on funding would ever be made in the future on the basis of an "investigation" the way the decision was made about PP.  In other words and however you want to put it:  Komen came out in front of the world and made accusations which had a basis only in some politician's witch hunt and that, Brinkley admitted to the World, was a bad and improper decision which had to be reversed with a public assurance that it would never happen again in the future.

            What part of that factual scenario is difficult? 

Faye33

HL,

Do you really believe that if Komen had said,"We are pulling funding from PP because we feel it is ineffective to fund pass through facilities." everyone would have smiled and said, "OK, no problem.".

I would bet a very large sum of money the scenario would have played out nearly exactly as our real life scenario did last week. 

I've been arguing the inefficency of funding pass through organizations (PP) for pages, and I've had the political finger pointed at me non-stop here. I can't imagine that Komen would have gotten a better reception on that.

Anonymous

Pompeed wrote:

            "The political interference is what's at issue.   That's the only issue."

When a group of US Senators get together and pressure a non-profit to distrubute to a specific other group (which is part of why Komen reversed itself) that is political interference.

PP has shown that they are fully capable of raising money on their own.  No one at any point in all of this mess has tried to prevent PP from providing cancer screening services.  They were always free to raise money for that purpose directly without depending on Komen's grants.

Many smaller organizations that are less able to raise significant amounts of money on their own are now not going to get money from Komen to provide screenings because PP and their powerful supporters demanded that PP get the money that Komen wanted to give to other organizations.

There is a political agenda at work here, but not the one claimed by some on this thread.

RetiredLibby

No, that is not what I said.  You are misrepresenting what I said.  I said that if Komen had announced a change to their grants-making criteria for the next funding cycle and said they would no longer make grants to pass-throughs but to direct-care facilities, there would not have been a problem.  How many other organizations does Komen grant pass-throughs to?  They didn't have to single out PP -- by singling out PP, they made it about PP and not about the process.  The "under investigation " excuse was bogus and pathetic and completely false, since they didn't pull funding from Penn State and they happily slurp up funding from BofA. 

And yes, as a PR professional I do believe that if Komen had announced a change for their next funding cycle and APPLIED IT EQUALLY AND ACROSS-THE-BOARD, it would have made no news.  If you single out one entity for a punitive action, you get what you're asking for.

Faye33

PatMom

I couldn't agree more!

Wonderful post with many great points!

crazy4carrots

Many smaller organizations that are less able to raise significant amounts of money on their own are now not going to get money from Komen to provide screenings because PP and their powerful supporters demanded that PP get the money that Komen wanted to give to other organizations.

Really?  I'd say that, due to the Komen controversy, those smaller organizations might very well be able to attract more dollars, especially from those who refuse to support Komen in the future. 

And it's fairly obvious what Komen's political agenda actually is, in spite of all the "victimization" being claimed by the anti-PP folk.  JMHO, of course..... 

Faye33

Ah, I understand what you said now, HL.  I agree.  I have wondered why Komen made it such a public ordeal.... certainly not the wisest move, but then Komen doesn't have a great track record in the wise move catagory either.

1Athena1

Agreed there!

Pompeed

Thank you, Happy LIbby, for the clarity and the expertise as a PR professional.

All Komen had to do was give notice and fully disclose any changes to funding intentions in a timely manner to all recepients, do it right by applying the changes across the board and apply them in a non-partisan manner.  As you say: there would have been no news in any of that.

I have no idea what they pay their PR people to handle publicity.  But given the disaster created by the announcement, where I come from we don't pay salaries to incompetent people.  We fire them.  

Anonymous

Smaller, local, less well known charities and organizations don't have the name recognition, and aren't widely known, so they would have to spend money on promoting themselves to attract those additional donations.  They would not have had to make additional expenditures to get the Komen money. 

That so many women here would refer someone to PP because it is a national organization is part of the problem that those smaller organizations that are not national in scope face in fund raising.

1Athena1

where I come from we don't pay salaries to incompetent people.  We fire them. 

Where I come from, we PROMOTE them. Oh, life is sad!

RetiredLibby

Oh, hillck, I didn't think it was a GOOD excuse ... it was just one they could have used had they done it properly.  They would have gone back and ignored it and done what they wanted in the end, and been caught out lying.  Or they would have changed the rules again, or said that their affiliates could do what they wanted but National Komen's rules were thus.  There are many ways they could have weasled their way through this without showing their hindquarters ... their PR person (hired by Ari Fleischer, no less!) is really incompetent.  Apparently they had no strategy at all to deal with this.  There are already studies out there and this will be studied in marketing classes for years to come.  I don't think it's right and I think they suck and they will never get another dime from me -- and the end result would have been the same for me -- but there were smarter ways for them to handle this.  I am just shaking my head in amazement.