Komen and Planned Parenthood

I didn't know that.  Thanks for clarifying.

HL added hyperlink for you:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/the-clinic-that-will-be-hit-hardest-by-the-komen-decision.php  

From huffingtonpost.com: 

"But a Komen insider told HuffPost on Sunday that Karen Handel, Komen's staunchly anti-abortion vice president for public policy, was the main force behind the decision to defund Planned Parenthood and the attempt to make that decision look nonpolitical.

Karen Handel was the prime instigator of this effort, and she herself personally came up with investigation criteria," the source, who requested anonymity for professional reasons, told HuffPost.  "She said, 'If we just say it's about investigations, we can defund Planned Parenthood and no one can blame us for being political.'"

Emails between Komen leadership on the day the Planned Parenthood decision was announced, which were reviewed by HuffPost under the condition they not be published, confirm the source's description of Handel's sole "authority" in crafting and implementing the Planned Parenthood policy

I saw the same piece in the NYTimes.  It was only a matter of time before a reliable insider told the rest of the story to a journalist.  More of the history of how she was hired and why and the progress of the defund PP plan will be forth coming in the near future is my guess.  Can't keep stuff like this about a well-known non-profit under wraps.  And some outsiders with the rest of the connections will be talking to journalists too.  The whole of the scandal is going to be much bigger than what Komen has put forward so far. Think of it as an iceburg: the biggest part is below the water.  Or an onion: lots and lots of layers to peel.

Politics?

Agenda?

Who cares if anyone has health insurance?  It is not insurance that is important, it is access to CARE!!! High quality, affordable care!!!!

Insurance is just an expensive piece of paper that too often doesn't cover what you need when you need it.

I tend to think that only people who have always had good health insurance have the luxury of thinking it's really not important.  In this country anyway. 

Actually no one in this Country is denied health care whether or not they have health insurance or whether or not they can pay.....that is the law......and has been for years........

Wow Enjoyful.......you seem to be a bit cranky........

Maybe you should stop by the bar and have a cocktail.........

shokk

And the people with lousy insurance can go bankrupt paying for care that the insurance doesn't cover, or only partially covers.

It is not, and never was about insurance.

It is all about access to high quality, affordable care.

If the care is available and affordable, then insurance is a moot point. 

Nice to have, but not imperative.

We have free breast screening over 40 or 45 in Australia compliments of the national medicare scheme. Breast screening is not covered by our Private Health Insurance. Maybe one day you won't have to rely on private non profits to get screening.

            I am the first to admit I don't know Thing One about statistics.  But I do know the basics of comparative analysis.

            Faye's anaysis is bizarre: it's a comparsion of kiwi fruit to fruit flies.  Faye says that the $600K from Komen to PP is a miniscule portion of gross PP funds.  Yeah, that's true: it's a small part of a much larger whole.  And that much larger hole provides all kinds of other services to women, men and their families.  Faye makes this phoney comparison to come to the conclusion that the loss of the funds to PP is so tiny it's of little to concern to PP or the women PP serves.  A few pennies a month which any downright poverty stricken woman can easily cobble together to get herself some breast health screening services.  Never mind whehter that's actually true or not.  The comparison wasn't done for objective purporses. 

           The Komen portion is specifically provided to PP for women's breast health services.  That and only that.  So the proper comparison, if one is going to make one at all is: what is the ratio of PP expenditures specifically spent and utilized to provide breast health care for women all over the US to the funds Komen granted to PP to serve that purpose and no other. 

Pompeed - You are twisting what I said.  By no means do I feel the uninsured or underinsured women should come up with the difference in what Komen provided.  I clearly stated it was PP responsibility to come up with the difference.

Scootaloo - I'm glad you are feeling better today.

 Pompeed wrote:

             Where did I suggest that the position is that "the uninsured or underinsured women should come up with the difference?" 

in your previous post you wrote:

"A few pennies a month which any downright poverty stricken woman can easily cobble together to get herself some breast health screening services".

Faye was quite clear that she expected PP to make up any difference in funding from other sources to cover the services if they were truly services that PP believed to be important, and not just a smokescreen to obscure PP's other activities. 

            It's quite clear what the motive for the comparision was: to prove that nothing much would be lost to thousands of women where politics and political motives are at stake.  

            By making the comparison, the political motives are defended and by being defended the motives are given far greater value and weight than access to breast care resources which could save women's lives. 

            What's the upshot?  As between the two, women's lives are expendable as long as they are expended to achieve particular political purposes.

            Pretty transparent.

Pompeed - I would really appreciate it if you quit editing your posts after the fact.  Editing for spelling and punction... OK... editing to change what you said, because you were called out on it, I feel, is deceptive, at best.  If you wish to clarify what you were saying, please make a new post, so people reading the thread have a clear idea what was said and in what context.  Thank you!

Faye33 wrote: "Pompeed - I would really appreciate it if you quit editing your posts after the fact.  Editing for spelling and punction... OK... editing to change what you said, because you were called out on it, I feel, is deceptive, at best.  If you wish to clarify what you were saying, please make a new post, so people reading the thread have a clear idea what was said and in what context.  Thank you!"

              I wasn't called out on anything.  By anyone.  If the people reading have a concern about what I write or what I write causes some confusion and requires clarification, seems to me that readers are free to ask questions or raise a concern on their own.  I don't see that one contributor is in a position to speak for all or direct traffic or tell others how to write.

              If there is some irritation about what I write, there is an "ignore" function which anyone can use.

Well.. this thread has gone no where in my mind... I keep reading the same debates and still believe that this issue should have NOTHING to do with abortions, pro-life, pro-choice view points... There seem to be extremists here,and I must move on and out... It is just going in circles and not productive for the reason I THOUGHT we were all on here, supporting a common goal for a CURE for cancer and for research.

Good luck ladies.