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.