After a little more digging I have to say you are probably right.
Joel Send a noteboard - 03/02/2012 02:23:14 AM
A politician got political; what a surprise. 
The only thing unexpected is that they had been funding Planned Parenthood in the first place.
The only thing unexpected is that they had been funding Planned Parenthood in the first place.In fact, given that Komen is focused exclusively on eliminating breast cancer, and the many studies showing a correlation between oral contraception and breast cancer incidence, that is somewhat unexpected even apart from political issues. One would think studies like this one:
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/09/the_pillbreast_cancer_connection.html
or those the National Cancer Institute cites (see link) would discourage Komen from funding an organization that actively promotes and assists widespread use of a known breast cancer risk factor. In terms of overall healthcare it is a mixed bag; the pill increases the risk of some cancers but reduces the risk of others, and reduces the risks of unplanned pregnancy. However, in terms of breast cancer alone (which is Komens sole concern,) it seems pretty straightforward.
I'm not sure I agree with that, primarily because I find it unlikely that many people stop taking birth control because they are afraid of breast cancer. The lack of funding from SGK would have no bearing on PP's distribution of birth control, though it might have an impact on how many women could receive a breast exam. Priorities, really. I can easily see how the two orgs might feel the need to work together to make sure women know all the options and keep up with the preventative care and breast exams.
Not so much because few women stop birth control from fear of breast cancer (though you are probably right about that, too; I am not sure how well known the correlation is) but because one article I saw at Slate stated Komens Planned Parenthood funding was ONLY for breast cancer screening. That makes the whole thing that much more ridiculous: Not a dime of their money was spent on abortions, and EVERY dime they cut is one less spent on breast cancer exams. It explains why they gave Planned Parenthood money despite the fact its promoting the pills heightens the risk of breast cancer, but not why they withdrew that money despite it being used exclusively to fight breast cancer.
Occams Razor says that, after decades of passionate complaints with Planned Parenthood from the vast majority of her friends and business associates, Nancy Brinker was ready to cave, and thought the specious Congressional investigation gave her the necessary cover. Guess not.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Susan G. Komen cuts funds to Planned Parenthood. (with updated edit)
- 02/02/2012 04:32:27 PM
2199 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
1090 Views
I agree.
- 02/02/2012 05:20:17 PM
1001 Views
Actually, there are longer-acting forms of birth control than the pill.
- 03/02/2012 12:37:42 AM
984 Views
I do think that preventing abortions is their primary goal.
- 03/02/2012 01:08:05 AM
949 Views
If they don't see that link, it's because they haven't looked.
- 03/02/2012 02:42:42 AM
1033 Views
That is a little unfair.
- 03/02/2012 12:48:46 PM
1241 Views
Won't someone please think of the children?!
- 04/02/2012 05:03:27 AM
1031 Views
I think you're leaving out some important points.
- 04/02/2012 03:40:48 PM
975 Views
Ah, the good ol' silent majority.
- 04/02/2012 07:32:29 PM
947 Views
So which moron is feeding you this crap?
- 04/02/2012 10:27:15 PM
970 Views
It worries me when we think alike.... 
- 05/02/2012 01:22:35 PM
1005 Views
- 05/02/2012 01:22:35 PM
1005 Views
Brain waves at 8 weeks are a myth.
- 05/02/2012 08:46:06 PM
1109 Views
"brain function... appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks' gestation."
- 05/02/2012 10:42:35 PM
1022 Views
Oh please.
- 05/02/2012 11:13:50 PM
986 Views
Re: Oh please yourself.
- 06/02/2012 09:15:26 PM
865 Views
Quite a telling reply.
- 07/02/2012 04:38:20 AM
928 Views
Re: I quite agree.
- 08/02/2012 06:03:23 PM
1133 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
972 Views
No, your source, in which there is very little that is objective, did that for me.
- 11/02/2012 02:59:45 AM
994 Views
I see you have continued to provide no factual arguments.
- 14/02/2012 04:53:28 AM
1231 Views
I presented factual rebuttals.
- 19/02/2012 01:56:45 AM
1022 Views
You continue to miss the point.
- 23/02/2012 10:22:24 PM
1113 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
1033 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
1071 Views
Well, yes.
- 04/02/2012 11:14:47 PM
1032 Views
A silent majority may as well not exist, if it has no tangible effects.
- 05/02/2012 12:54:34 AM
976 Views
You ignoring it is not the same thing as it having no tangible effect.
- 05/02/2012 02:11:36 AM
1071 Views
Since few people oppose ADULT contraception access, that might be wise in this case.
- 04/02/2012 08:25:49 PM
1060 Views
Re: Since few people oppose ADULT contraception access, that might be wise in this case.
- 05/02/2012 02:11:28 AM
970 Views
If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree.
- 05/02/2012 08:42:17 AM
804 Views
Re: If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree.
- 05/02/2012 10:04:59 PM
973 Views
Re: If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree.
- 06/02/2012 08:57:38 PM
953 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
1050 Views
Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 08/02/2012 06:01:32 PM
1143 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 09/02/2012 05:30:58 AM
1008 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 11/02/2012 02:58:00 AM
1037 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 14/02/2012 04:29:08 AM
1103 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 19/02/2012 01:54:30 AM
1018 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 23/02/2012 10:59:32 PM
1316 Views
There are problems with the implants
- 03/02/2012 01:42:55 AM
996 Views
Any form of birth control doesn't work for everyone, though.
- 03/02/2012 02:37:00 AM
1018 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
469 Views
*NM*
- 03/02/2012 03:38:05 AM
469 Views
What on earth does that have to do with anything?
- 03/02/2012 01:47:42 AM
930 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
958 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
1131 Views
I agree.
- 02/02/2012 06:00:17 PM
913 Views
yes she is going to have to piss off one group or the other
- 02/02/2012 06:12:31 PM
979 Views
Right
- 02/02/2012 06:24:14 PM
1031 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
900 Views
Do you see a way Komen could have avoided pissing off one side?
- 02/02/2012 06:55:36 PM
978 Views
No, I don't. I don't believe I said that?
- 02/02/2012 07:53:50 PM
887 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
969 Views
I know I'm not always clear.
- 02/02/2012 08:32:47 PM
971 Views
- 02/02/2012 08:32:47 PM
971 Views
Just curious...
- 02/02/2012 10:07:49 PM
953 Views
Not at all.
- 02/02/2012 10:24:19 PM
1019 Views
Not at all?
- 02/02/2012 10:32:31 PM
909 Views
No.
- 02/02/2012 10:47:04 PM
870 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
965 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
960 Views
wow that may be the worst advice I had in weeks
- 03/02/2012 12:13:18 AM
924 Views
- 03/02/2012 12:13:18 AM
924 Views
Ooor, the best.
- 03/02/2012 12:25:56 AM
904 Views
ok now you are just being mean *NM*
- 03/02/2012 12:46:12 AM
589 Views
The thread was going too well - I thought we needed the meanness. *NM*
- 03/02/2012 11:30:39 AM
536 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
1037 Views
You don't know stuff.
- 02/02/2012 08:43:38 PM
1000 Views
I know the stuff that matters. 
- 02/02/2012 09:55:08 PM
901 Views
- 02/02/2012 09:55:08 PM
901 Views
they may also be a afraid that PP will go the way of ACORN
- 02/02/2012 11:04:16 PM
1046 Views
"Accused" of = unfounded slander.
- 03/02/2012 12:13:30 AM
1056 Views
did you notice I called tactic disgusting? That doesn't mean it isn't effective
- 03/02/2012 12:45:10 AM
986 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
645 Views
This is so foreign a debate for me
- 02/02/2012 10:16:15 PM
1022 Views
Re: stuff
- 03/02/2012 09:18:53 AM
919 Views
I'm sorry, but what're we talking about when we're talking about "cancer"
- 03/02/2012 12:49:34 PM
950 Views
Obviously not adenocarcinoma, no.
- 04/02/2012 07:36:06 AM
963 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
908 Views
Once I looked up Nancy Brinker at Wikipedia it all made sense.
- 02/02/2012 10:54:34 PM
1001 Views
Re: Once I looked up Nancy Brinker at Wikipedia it all made sense.
- 02/02/2012 11:03:32 PM
926 Views
After a little more digging I have to say you are probably right.
- 03/02/2012 02:23:14 AM
864 Views
They restored funding incidentally
- 03/02/2012 05:43:47 PM
898 Views
Unless I've missed it
- 03/02/2012 05:56:15 PM
984 Views
You must have missed it then
- 03/02/2012 07:07:13 PM
900 Views
If you're referring to Cannoli
- 03/02/2012 07:19:25 PM
1053 Views
Multiple was not an accidental choice of words
- 03/02/2012 11:46:30 PM
930 Views
Then I agree that maybe this is not the thread for you.
- 04/02/2012 12:41:42 AM
962 Views
Re: Then I agree that maybe this is not the thread for you.
- 04/02/2012 01:53:25 AM
1153 Views
well at least there will not be any doubt about this being a political decision
- 03/02/2012 06:24:14 PM
1096 Views
Re: well at least there will not be any doubt about this being a political decision
- 03/02/2012 06:29:34 PM
869 Views
I do wonder a bit which lawmakers Fox thinks "pressured" Komen.
- 03/02/2012 08:29:50 PM
899 Views
Beyond the 26 senators, I'd imagine rumor of the more reliable sort
- 03/02/2012 08:46:31 PM
967 Views
Well, if they wrote AS senators rather than friends of Nancy Brinker, that probably qualifies.
- 03/02/2012 10:24:11 PM
1016 Views
Judge for yourself
- 04/02/2012 12:01:06 AM
1026 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
952 Views
are you trying to disprove the study you posted?
- 03/02/2012 09:20:12 PM
1028 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
930 Views
you admit you have no incite into what happened
- 04/02/2012 04:27:17 AM
951 Views
Actually, it looks like Komens new VP (and former GOP GA gubernatorial candidate) had the incite.
- 04/02/2012 04:24:14 PM
1001 Views
- 04/02/2012 04:24:14 PM
1001 Views
educated guess don't work when you are tinfoil hat wearing kool-aid drinker
- 04/02/2012 09:33:49 PM
899 Views