So this boils down to which can she afford to piss off. That seems to pretty much be a no-brainer. The ant-PP crowd will withdraw their support before they let any of their money go to PP. I doubt the pro-PP supporters will withhold their money simply because they are pissed. The math seems really easy on this one.
I think you're wrong on that doubt. There are many other cancer charities out there.
If she HAS to piss off one side, why piss off the group she did? Do we have proof that there is much more money coming from the pro-life crowd? The reality is that she's making the decision to cut funding to a group that does exactly what SGK needs to do - help women undergo screenings for breast cancer. The pro-life crowd gets nothing out of it other than to say they've helped stop abortions (yeah right). The pro-choice side would have kept the right to keep the choice open, but also still see money going to an organization that does something about breast cancer.
I suppose maybe they feel they can drop them because the people who need to use PP aren't donating money anyway?
Susan G. Komen cuts funds to Planned Parenthood. (with updated edit)
- 02/02/2012 04:32:27 PM
2193 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
1085 Views
I agree.
- 02/02/2012 05:20:17 PM
996 Views
Actually, there are longer-acting forms of birth control than the pill.
- 03/02/2012 12:37:42 AM
981 Views
I do think that preventing abortions is their primary goal.
- 03/02/2012 01:08:05 AM
943 Views
If they don't see that link, it's because they haven't looked.
- 03/02/2012 02:42:42 AM
1029 Views
That is a little unfair.
- 03/02/2012 12:48:46 PM
1238 Views
Won't someone please think of the children?!
- 04/02/2012 05:03:27 AM
1026 Views
I think you're leaving out some important points.
- 04/02/2012 03:40:48 PM
968 Views
Ah, the good ol' silent majority.
- 04/02/2012 07:32:29 PM
944 Views
So which moron is feeding you this crap?
- 04/02/2012 10:27:15 PM
967 Views
It worries me when we think alike.... 
- 05/02/2012 01:22:35 PM
1001 Views
- 05/02/2012 01:22:35 PM
1001 Views
Brain waves at 8 weeks are a myth.
- 05/02/2012 08:46:06 PM
1105 Views
"brain function... appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks' gestation."
- 05/02/2012 10:42:35 PM
1016 Views
Oh please.
- 05/02/2012 11:13:50 PM
981 Views
Re: Oh please yourself.
- 06/02/2012 09:15:26 PM
857 Views
Quite a telling reply.
- 07/02/2012 04:38:20 AM
924 Views
Re: I quite agree.
- 08/02/2012 06:03:23 PM
1129 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
968 Views
No, your source, in which there is very little that is objective, did that for me.
- 11/02/2012 02:59:45 AM
990 Views
I see you have continued to provide no factual arguments.
- 14/02/2012 04:53:28 AM
1227 Views
I presented factual rebuttals.
- 19/02/2012 01:56:45 AM
1019 Views
You continue to miss the point.
- 23/02/2012 10:22:24 PM
1108 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
1028 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
1065 Views
Well, yes.
- 04/02/2012 11:14:47 PM
1029 Views
A silent majority may as well not exist, if it has no tangible effects.
- 05/02/2012 12:54:34 AM
973 Views
You ignoring it is not the same thing as it having no tangible effect.
- 05/02/2012 02:11:36 AM
1067 Views
Since few people oppose ADULT contraception access, that might be wise in this case.
- 04/02/2012 08:25:49 PM
1055 Views
Re: Since few people oppose ADULT contraception access, that might be wise in this case.
- 05/02/2012 02:11:28 AM
967 Views
If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree.
- 05/02/2012 08:42:17 AM
801 Views
Re: If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree.
- 05/02/2012 10:04:59 PM
968 Views
Re: If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree.
- 06/02/2012 08:57:38 PM
950 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
1046 Views
Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 08/02/2012 06:01:32 PM
1137 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 09/02/2012 05:30:58 AM
1003 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 11/02/2012 02:58:00 AM
1034 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 14/02/2012 04:29:08 AM
1096 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 19/02/2012 01:54:30 AM
1013 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 23/02/2012 10:59:32 PM
1311 Views
There are problems with the implants
- 03/02/2012 01:42:55 AM
992 Views
Any form of birth control doesn't work for everyone, though.
- 03/02/2012 02:37:00 AM
1011 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
468 Views
*NM*
- 03/02/2012 03:38:05 AM
468 Views
What on earth does that have to do with anything?
- 03/02/2012 01:47:42 AM
925 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
954 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
1127 Views
I agree.
- 02/02/2012 06:00:17 PM
909 Views
yes she is going to have to piss off one group or the other
- 02/02/2012 06:12:31 PM
976 Views
Right
- 02/02/2012 06:24:14 PM
1027 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
897 Views
Do you see a way Komen could have avoided pissing off one side?
- 02/02/2012 06:55:36 PM
975 Views
No, I don't. I don't believe I said that?
- 02/02/2012 07:53:50 PM
883 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
965 Views
I know I'm not always clear.
- 02/02/2012 08:32:47 PM
968 Views
- 02/02/2012 08:32:47 PM
968 Views
Just curious...
- 02/02/2012 10:07:49 PM
950 Views
Not at all.
- 02/02/2012 10:24:19 PM
1012 Views
Not at all?
- 02/02/2012 10:32:31 PM
903 Views
No.
- 02/02/2012 10:47:04 PM
866 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
958 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
956 Views
wow that may be the worst advice I had in weeks
- 03/02/2012 12:13:18 AM
919 Views
- 03/02/2012 12:13:18 AM
919 Views
Ooor, the best.
- 03/02/2012 12:25:56 AM
900 Views
ok now you are just being mean *NM*
- 03/02/2012 12:46:12 AM
588 Views
The thread was going too well - I thought we needed the meanness. *NM*
- 03/02/2012 11:30:39 AM
534 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
1034 Views
You don't know stuff.
- 02/02/2012 08:43:38 PM
997 Views
I know the stuff that matters. 
- 02/02/2012 09:55:08 PM
897 Views
- 02/02/2012 09:55:08 PM
897 Views
they may also be a afraid that PP will go the way of ACORN
- 02/02/2012 11:04:16 PM
1041 Views
"Accused" of = unfounded slander.
- 03/02/2012 12:13:30 AM
1051 Views
did you notice I called tactic disgusting? That doesn't mean it isn't effective
- 03/02/2012 12:45:10 AM
982 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
644 Views
This is so foreign a debate for me
- 02/02/2012 10:16:15 PM
1015 Views
*NM*
Re: stuff
- 03/02/2012 09:18:53 AM
915 Views
I'm sorry, but what're we talking about when we're talking about "cancer"
- 03/02/2012 12:49:34 PM
947 Views
Obviously not adenocarcinoma, no.
- 04/02/2012 07:36:06 AM
959 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
905 Views
Once I looked up Nancy Brinker at Wikipedia it all made sense.
- 02/02/2012 10:54:34 PM
997 Views
Re: Once I looked up Nancy Brinker at Wikipedia it all made sense.
- 02/02/2012 11:03:32 PM
922 Views
After a little more digging I have to say you are probably right.
- 03/02/2012 02:23:14 AM
857 Views
They restored funding incidentally
- 03/02/2012 05:43:47 PM
893 Views
Unless I've missed it
- 03/02/2012 05:56:15 PM
981 Views
You must have missed it then
- 03/02/2012 07:07:13 PM
897 Views
If you're referring to Cannoli
- 03/02/2012 07:19:25 PM
1049 Views
Multiple was not an accidental choice of words
- 03/02/2012 11:46:30 PM
925 Views
Then I agree that maybe this is not the thread for you.
- 04/02/2012 12:41:42 AM
959 Views
Re: Then I agree that maybe this is not the thread for you.
- 04/02/2012 01:53:25 AM
1149 Views
well at least there will not be any doubt about this being a political decision
- 03/02/2012 06:24:14 PM
1093 Views
Re: well at least there will not be any doubt about this being a political decision
- 03/02/2012 06:29:34 PM
866 Views
I do wonder a bit which lawmakers Fox thinks "pressured" Komen.
- 03/02/2012 08:29:50 PM
894 Views
Beyond the 26 senators, I'd imagine rumor of the more reliable sort
- 03/02/2012 08:46:31 PM
964 Views
Well, if they wrote AS senators rather than friends of Nancy Brinker, that probably qualifies.
- 03/02/2012 10:24:11 PM
1011 Views
Judge for yourself
- 04/02/2012 12:01:06 AM
1020 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
949 Views
are you trying to disprove the study you posted?
- 03/02/2012 09:20:12 PM
1024 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
924 Views
you admit you have no incite into what happened
- 04/02/2012 04:27:17 AM
948 Views
Actually, it looks like Komens new VP (and former GOP GA gubernatorial candidate) had the incite.
- 04/02/2012 04:24:14 PM
997 Views
- 04/02/2012 04:24:14 PM
997 Views
educated guess don't work when you are tinfoil hat wearing kool-aid drinker
- 04/02/2012 09:33:49 PM
895 Views