Susan G. Komen cuts funds to Planned Parenthood. (with updated edit)
nossy Send a noteboard - 02/02/2012 04:32:27 PM
SGK has reversed the cut: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/03/us-usa-healthcare-komen-idUSTRE8111WA20120203
The facts are in the linked article, but I found something from the Economist that comes closes to what I've been thinking about the whole thing:
Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood
The rift
Feb 1st 2012, 19:03 by E.G. | AUSTIN
YESTERDAY the Associated Press reported that the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure—America's most prominent breast-cancer charity—is stopping its grants to Planned Parenthood, America's leading reproductive health-care provider:
Planned Parenthood says the move results from Komen bowing to pressure from anti-abortion activists. Komen says the key reason is that Planned Parenthood is under investigation in Congress—a probe launched by a conservative Republican who was urged to act by anti-abortion groups.
Susan G. Komen provides grants dedicated to breast-cancer screening; Planned Parenthood says that of the 4m breast-cancer screenings it has conducted over the past five years, 170,000 have been paid for by the grants in question. On the left, the news has been greeted as a betrayal (see, for example, here, here, here, here, here, and from Planned Parenthood itself, here). On the right, it has been heralded (examples here, here, here, and here). What's interesting about the reactions is that neither side is giving any credence to Susan G. Komen's apparently anodyne explanation that it's a matter of policy to suspend funding for any organisation under congressional investigation. For progressives and feminists, the news is evidence that Susan G. Komen's commitment to women's health can be abrogated by political pressure from the pro-life right. For the pro-life right, in turn, the news is evidence that Susan G. Komen has taken a bold stance against the abortionists at Planned Parenthood.
It's a cynical thing to say, but I suspect this might cost Susan G. Komen more than it does Planned Parenthood. The former has long been criticised for sugar-coating or even commercialising breast cancer. See Barbara Ehrenreich's 2001 essay "Welcome to Cancerland" for an elegant indictment:
-
What has grown up around breast cancer in just the last fifteen years more nearly resembles a cult—or, given that it numbers more than two million women, their families, and friends—perhaps we should say a full-fledged religion. The products—teddy bears, pink-ribbon brooches, and so forth—serve as amulets and talismans, comforting the sufferer and providing visible evidence of faith. The personal narratives serve as testimonials and follow the same general arc as the confessional autobiographies required of seventeenth-century Puritans: first there is a crisis, often involving a sudden apprehension of mortality (the diagnosis or, in the old Puritan case, a stem word from on high); then comes a prolonged ordeal (the treatment or, in the religious case, internal struggle with the Devil); and finally, the blessed certainty of salvation, or its breast-cancer equivalent, survivorhood.
-
Planned Parenthood, by contrast, serves several million people a year; mostly women, but also men. The bulk of its activities are focused on contraception, STI screening, and cancer screening, and it places a particular emphasis on providing reproductive health care to people who otherwise wouldn't have access. They also provide abortions, which are controversial, obviously, but legal, obviously. And insofar as access to contraception and other family-planning services reduces the demand for abortion, Planned Parenthood also prevents abortion. In my view, it is an important part of civil society. Even from a pro-life position, I would think it qualifies: being pro-life is a coherent moral position, and not one that necessarily implies a lack of concern for women's health. So I really don't understand why Planned Parenthood gets so much grief from the right. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say that I understand what the complaints are, but I'm not really convinced. Last year, for example, Kathryn Jean Lopez published an admiring interview with Abby Johnson, a Planned Parenthood clinic director turned pro-life activist. Among other things, Ms Johnson said that Planned Parenthood should be defunded:
Planned Parenthood is an organization that does not provide quality health care. Our tax money should go to organizations that provide comprehensive care to women, men, and children. There are better uses of our money. Planned Parenthood provides shabby, limited health care. Why would we want women to get some health care when they can go to a different clinic, other than Planned Parenthood, and receive total health care?
That makes some sense—Planned Parenthood doesn't focus on comprehensive health care—but what clinics is she talking about? The emergency room? Crisis pregnancy centres? No organisation is beyond inquiry, of course, and if people want to have a debate about whether the government should help fund Planned Parenthood, that's fair; according to its most recent annual report, nearly half of its 2009-2010 revenue, or roughly $487m, came from government grants (federal, state or local). With that said, in the absence of a better safety net, it's a little bit churlish to be so reactionary about the organisations that are slogging away in this space. As for the Susan G. Komen grants, they added up to about $680,000 last year. I wouldn't be surprised if Planned Parenthood raises more than that from private donations in the wake of this announcement.
Link to the article (down in the middle of the blog): http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica
Imo, it seems more political than anything else, and even though it's extremely cynical, I can't help but wonder when SGK decided to implement the rules against giving funds to those under investigation. It seems like an awfully specific rule and appropriately timed change, given that PP is currently under inspection by congress. And as I said somewhere else, the only thing that pisses me off is that each side seems to think it's ok to only accept the view of PP that works for them: They are EITHER baby-killing murders OR people who offer helpful women's health education and services to the poor. Annoyingly misleading, either way.
The facts are in the linked article, but I found something from the Economist that comes closes to what I've been thinking about the whole thing:
Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood
The rift
Feb 1st 2012, 19:03 by E.G. | AUSTIN
YESTERDAY the Associated Press reported that the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure—America's most prominent breast-cancer charity—is stopping its grants to Planned Parenthood, America's leading reproductive health-care provider:
Planned Parenthood says the move results from Komen bowing to pressure from anti-abortion activists. Komen says the key reason is that Planned Parenthood is under investigation in Congress—a probe launched by a conservative Republican who was urged to act by anti-abortion groups.
Susan G. Komen provides grants dedicated to breast-cancer screening; Planned Parenthood says that of the 4m breast-cancer screenings it has conducted over the past five years, 170,000 have been paid for by the grants in question. On the left, the news has been greeted as a betrayal (see, for example, here, here, here, here, here, and from Planned Parenthood itself, here). On the right, it has been heralded (examples here, here, here, and here). What's interesting about the reactions is that neither side is giving any credence to Susan G. Komen's apparently anodyne explanation that it's a matter of policy to suspend funding for any organisation under congressional investigation. For progressives and feminists, the news is evidence that Susan G. Komen's commitment to women's health can be abrogated by political pressure from the pro-life right. For the pro-life right, in turn, the news is evidence that Susan G. Komen has taken a bold stance against the abortionists at Planned Parenthood.
It's a cynical thing to say, but I suspect this might cost Susan G. Komen more than it does Planned Parenthood. The former has long been criticised for sugar-coating or even commercialising breast cancer. See Barbara Ehrenreich's 2001 essay "Welcome to Cancerland" for an elegant indictment:
-
What has grown up around breast cancer in just the last fifteen years more nearly resembles a cult—or, given that it numbers more than two million women, their families, and friends—perhaps we should say a full-fledged religion. The products—teddy bears, pink-ribbon brooches, and so forth—serve as amulets and talismans, comforting the sufferer and providing visible evidence of faith. The personal narratives serve as testimonials and follow the same general arc as the confessional autobiographies required of seventeenth-century Puritans: first there is a crisis, often involving a sudden apprehension of mortality (the diagnosis or, in the old Puritan case, a stem word from on high); then comes a prolonged ordeal (the treatment or, in the religious case, internal struggle with the Devil); and finally, the blessed certainty of salvation, or its breast-cancer equivalent, survivorhood.
-
Planned Parenthood, by contrast, serves several million people a year; mostly women, but also men. The bulk of its activities are focused on contraception, STI screening, and cancer screening, and it places a particular emphasis on providing reproductive health care to people who otherwise wouldn't have access. They also provide abortions, which are controversial, obviously, but legal, obviously. And insofar as access to contraception and other family-planning services reduces the demand for abortion, Planned Parenthood also prevents abortion. In my view, it is an important part of civil society. Even from a pro-life position, I would think it qualifies: being pro-life is a coherent moral position, and not one that necessarily implies a lack of concern for women's health. So I really don't understand why Planned Parenthood gets so much grief from the right. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say that I understand what the complaints are, but I'm not really convinced. Last year, for example, Kathryn Jean Lopez published an admiring interview with Abby Johnson, a Planned Parenthood clinic director turned pro-life activist. Among other things, Ms Johnson said that Planned Parenthood should be defunded:
Planned Parenthood is an organization that does not provide quality health care. Our tax money should go to organizations that provide comprehensive care to women, men, and children. There are better uses of our money. Planned Parenthood provides shabby, limited health care. Why would we want women to get some health care when they can go to a different clinic, other than Planned Parenthood, and receive total health care?
That makes some sense—Planned Parenthood doesn't focus on comprehensive health care—but what clinics is she talking about? The emergency room? Crisis pregnancy centres? No organisation is beyond inquiry, of course, and if people want to have a debate about whether the government should help fund Planned Parenthood, that's fair; according to its most recent annual report, nearly half of its 2009-2010 revenue, or roughly $487m, came from government grants (federal, state or local). With that said, in the absence of a better safety net, it's a little bit churlish to be so reactionary about the organisations that are slogging away in this space. As for the Susan G. Komen grants, they added up to about $680,000 last year. I wouldn't be surprised if Planned Parenthood raises more than that from private donations in the wake of this announcement.
Link to the article (down in the middle of the blog): http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica
Imo, it seems more political than anything else, and even though it's extremely cynical, I can't help but wonder when SGK decided to implement the rules against giving funds to those under investigation. It seems like an awfully specific rule and appropriately timed change, given that PP is currently under inspection by congress. And as I said somewhere else, the only thing that pisses me off is that each side seems to think it's ok to only accept the view of PP that works for them: They are EITHER baby-killing murders OR people who offer helpful women's health education and services to the poor. Annoyingly misleading, either way.
This message last edited by nossy on 03/02/2012 at 06:20:04 PM
Susan G. Komen cuts funds to Planned Parenthood. (with updated edit)
02/02/2012 04:32:27 PM
- 2210 Views
The most annoying part is in the sixth paragraph- abortions are only a small part of their thing
02/02/2012 05:08:07 PM
- 1099 Views
I agree.
02/02/2012 05:20:17 PM
- 1003 Views
Actually, there are longer-acting forms of birth control than the pill.
03/02/2012 12:37:42 AM
- 989 Views
I do think that preventing abortions is their primary goal.
03/02/2012 01:08:05 AM
- 955 Views
If they don't see that link, it's because they haven't looked.
03/02/2012 02:42:42 AM
- 1039 Views
That is a little unfair.
03/02/2012 12:48:46 PM
- 1250 Views
Won't someone please think of the children?!
04/02/2012 05:03:27 AM
- 1034 Views
I think you're leaving out some important points.
04/02/2012 03:40:48 PM
- 979 Views
Ah, the good ol' silent majority.
04/02/2012 07:32:29 PM
- 956 Views
So which moron is feeding you this crap?
04/02/2012 10:27:15 PM
- 973 Views
It worries me when we think alike....
05/02/2012 01:22:35 PM
- 1013 Views
Brain waves at 8 weeks are a myth.
05/02/2012 08:46:06 PM
- 1115 Views
"brain function... appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks' gestation."
05/02/2012 10:42:35 PM
- 1028 Views
Oh please.
05/02/2012 11:13:50 PM
- 997 Views
Re: Oh please yourself.
06/02/2012 09:15:26 PM
- 869 Views
Quite a telling reply.
07/02/2012 04:38:20 AM
- 936 Views
Re: I quite agree.
08/02/2012 06:03:23 PM
- 1142 Views
You're taking an issue of objective facts and treating it like a day of playground gossip.
09/02/2012 03:47:06 AM
- 977 Views
No, your source, in which there is very little that is objective, did that for me.
11/02/2012 02:59:45 AM
- 998 Views
I see you have continued to provide no factual arguments.
14/02/2012 04:53:28 AM
- 1240 Views
I presented factual rebuttals.
19/02/2012 01:56:45 AM
- 1031 Views
You continue to miss the point.
23/02/2012 10:22:24 PM
- 1120 Views
No, I got the point: You expect me to accept a heavily biased, partisan and combative "source."
07/03/2012 01:47:37 AM
- 1039 Views
The claim of brain waves at 8 weeks is still unsupported by evidence, i.e. a myth.
15/03/2012 09:16:14 PM
- 1078 Views
Well, yes.
04/02/2012 11:14:47 PM
- 1041 Views
A silent majority may as well not exist, if it has no tangible effects.
05/02/2012 12:54:34 AM
- 982 Views
You ignoring it is not the same thing as it having no tangible effect.
05/02/2012 02:11:36 AM
- 1077 Views
Since few people oppose ADULT contraception access, that might be wise in this case.
04/02/2012 08:25:49 PM
- 1071 Views
Re: Since few people oppose ADULT contraception access, that might be wise in this case.
05/02/2012 02:11:28 AM
- 973 Views
If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree.
05/02/2012 08:42:17 AM
- 815 Views
Re: If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree.
05/02/2012 10:04:59 PM
- 982 Views
Re: If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree.
06/02/2012 08:57:38 PM
- 955 Views
I'm done discussing my use of the term "oppression." The Tim Ryan stuff is interesting, though.
07/02/2012 05:37:05 AM
- 1056 Views
Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
08/02/2012 06:01:32 PM
- 1152 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
09/02/2012 05:30:58 AM
- 1017 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
11/02/2012 02:58:00 AM
- 1045 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
14/02/2012 04:29:08 AM
- 1109 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
19/02/2012 01:54:30 AM
- 1028 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
23/02/2012 10:59:32 PM
- 1325 Views
There are problems with the implants
03/02/2012 01:42:55 AM
- 1002 Views
Any form of birth control doesn't work for everyone, though.
03/02/2012 02:37:00 AM
- 1028 Views
Oh yes, I totally agree! My point is just that there are some barriers to handing out implants *NM*
03/02/2012 03:38:05 AM
- 472 Views
What on earth does that have to do with anything?
03/02/2012 01:47:42 AM
- 936 Views
I was actually kinda with you until you closed with that anathema I condemned in my response to rt.
03/02/2012 01:39:06 PM
- 964 Views
I agree that they have made Beast Cancer a cult but splitting with PP is just smart
02/02/2012 05:39:49 PM
- 1137 Views
I agree.
02/02/2012 06:00:17 PM
- 921 Views
yes she is going to have to piss off one group or the other
02/02/2012 06:12:31 PM
- 988 Views
Right
02/02/2012 06:24:14 PM
- 1037 Views
it is a judgment call and I hope her decision is based on more than my guesses
02/02/2012 06:53:50 PM
- 910 Views
Do you see a way Komen could have avoided pissing off one side?
02/02/2012 06:55:36 PM
- 985 Views
No, I don't. I don't believe I said that?
02/02/2012 07:53:50 PM
- 895 Views
You didn't; I inferred it from the way you phrased that ("if she HAS to..."). Sorry.
02/02/2012 08:06:11 PM
- 975 Views
I know I'm not always clear.
02/02/2012 08:32:47 PM
- 979 Views
Just curious...
02/02/2012 10:07:49 PM
- 959 Views
Not at all.
02/02/2012 10:24:19 PM
- 1028 Views
Not at all?
02/02/2012 10:32:31 PM
- 919 Views
No.
02/02/2012 10:47:04 PM
- 873 Views
My argument is based on my belief that the pro-choice women are more dedicated to women's causes
02/02/2012 11:17:24 PM
- 972 Views
Re: My argument is based on my belief that the pro-choice women are more dedicated to women's causes
03/02/2012 12:08:01 AM
- 970 Views
wow that may be the worst advice I had in weeks
03/02/2012 12:13:18 AM
- 938 Views
Ooor, the best.
03/02/2012 12:25:56 AM
- 912 Views
ok now you are just being mean *NM*
03/02/2012 12:46:12 AM
- 592 Views
The thread was going too well - I thought we needed the meanness. *NM*
03/02/2012 11:30:39 AM
- 541 Views
Never having heard of any of those except PP, my opinion may not be the most relevant...
02/02/2012 08:32:48 PM
- 1041 Views
You don't know stuff.
02/02/2012 08:43:38 PM
- 1006 Views
I know the stuff that matters.
02/02/2012 09:55:08 PM
- 912 Views
they may also be a afraid that PP will go the way of ACORN
02/02/2012 11:04:16 PM
- 1053 Views
"Accused" of = unfounded slander.
03/02/2012 12:13:30 AM
- 1067 Views
did you notice I called tactic disgusting? That doesn't mean it isn't effective
03/02/2012 12:45:10 AM
- 996 Views
The investigation by Congress is well-known to be specious. It's the House GOP abusing their power. *NM*
03/02/2012 12:41:58 AM
- 649 Views
This is so foreign a debate for me
02/02/2012 10:16:15 PM
- 1024 Views
Re: stuff
03/02/2012 09:18:53 AM
- 922 Views
I'm sorry, but what're we talking about when we're talking about "cancer"
03/02/2012 12:49:34 PM
- 955 Views
Obviously not adenocarcinoma, no.
04/02/2012 07:36:06 AM
- 969 Views
I"m not that fussed. I'm just generally leary of research that has results like that
04/02/2012 08:35:04 PM
- 915 Views
Once I looked up Nancy Brinker at Wikipedia it all made sense.
02/02/2012 10:54:34 PM
- 1003 Views
Re: Once I looked up Nancy Brinker at Wikipedia it all made sense.
02/02/2012 11:03:32 PM
- 933 Views
After a little more digging I have to say you are probably right.
03/02/2012 02:23:14 AM
- 867 Views
They restored funding incidentally
03/02/2012 05:43:47 PM
- 908 Views
Unless I've missed it
03/02/2012 05:56:15 PM
- 991 Views
You must have missed it then
03/02/2012 07:07:13 PM
- 907 Views
If you're referring to Cannoli
03/02/2012 07:19:25 PM
- 1061 Views
Multiple was not an accidental choice of words
03/02/2012 11:46:30 PM
- 938 Views
Then I agree that maybe this is not the thread for you.
04/02/2012 12:41:42 AM
- 974 Views
Re: Then I agree that maybe this is not the thread for you.
04/02/2012 01:53:25 AM
- 1162 Views
well at least there will not be any doubt about this being a political decision
03/02/2012 06:24:14 PM
- 1101 Views
Re: well at least there will not be any doubt about this being a political decision
03/02/2012 06:29:34 PM
- 883 Views
I do wonder a bit which lawmakers Fox thinks "pressured" Komen.
03/02/2012 08:29:50 PM
- 906 Views
Beyond the 26 senators, I'd imagine rumor of the more reliable sort
03/02/2012 08:46:31 PM
- 971 Views
Well, if they wrote AS senators rather than friends of Nancy Brinker, that probably qualifies.
03/02/2012 10:24:11 PM
- 1025 Views
Judge for yourself
04/02/2012 12:01:06 AM
- 1036 Views
Well, a public letter makes whether they signed it "Sen. so-and-so" irrelevant: It is political.
04/02/2012 04:07:20 PM
- 957 Views
are you trying to disprove the study you posted?
03/02/2012 09:20:12 PM
- 1035 Views
To me, it depends on the nature of the contact, which I have not dug enough to discover.
03/02/2012 10:43:45 PM
- 935 Views
you admit you have no incite into what happened
04/02/2012 04:27:17 AM
- 957 Views
Actually, it looks like Komens new VP (and former GOP GA gubernatorial candidate) had the incite.
04/02/2012 04:24:14 PM
- 1008 Views
educated guess don't work when you are tinfoil hat wearing kool-aid drinker
04/02/2012 09:33:49 PM
- 907 Views