Active Users:731 Time:25/11/2024 01:17:26 PM
Judge for yourself - Edit 1

Before modification by Isaac at 04/02/2012 12:03:45 AM

Dear Ambassador Brinker,
We write to express our disappointment with Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s decision to cut funding for breast cancer prevention, screening, and education at Planned Parenthood health centers. This troubling decision threatens to reduce access to necessary, life-saving services. We urge Komen to reconsider its decision.
Planned Parenthood is a trusted provider of health care for women and men. More than 90 percent of the services provided by Planned Parenthood are primary and preventative including wellness exams and cancers screenings that save lives. Each year, Planned Parenthood health clinics provide 750,000 breast exams, 770,000 pap tests and nearly 4 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted diseases. Twenty percent of all women in the U.S. have visited a Planned Parenthood health center.
For the past five years, grants to local affiliates of Planned Parenthood have been an important part of Planned Parenthood’s work to protect women from breast cancer. Komen funding for Planned Parenthood has provided nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams and resulted in 6,400 referrals for mammograms. In 2011 alone, grants from Komen provided Planned Parenthood with roughly $650,000 in funding for breast cancer prevention, screening, and education. According to a recent statement by Komen, “In some areas of the U.S., our affiliates have determined a Planned Parenthood clinic to be the best or only local place where women can receive breast health care.”
It would be tragic if any woman —let alone thousands of women — lost access to these potentially life-saving screenings because of a politically motivated attack.
We earnestly hope that you will put women’s health before partisan politics and reconsider this decision for the sake of the women who depend on both your organizations for access to the health care they need.

The letter is signed by Senators Lautenberg, Murray, Mikulski, Boxer, Cantwell, Gillibrand, Menendez, Wyden, Blumenthal, Shaheen, Begich, merkley, Tester, Akaka, Sanders, (Sherrod) Brown, Leahy, Baucus, Cardin, Feinstein, Franken, and Kerry.


Emphasis mine on 'partisan politics' because I find that horribly ironic in a letter signed by members of only one party.

Obviously the content of the deliberately public letter contains no threatening or inappropriate language, and I think we can skip formal analysis of it. I'm quite sure most of the signatories are speaking honestly and passionately here anyway, my issue is with them sending it at all.

Trying to appease all sides is usually a spectacular failure; one would have thought Obama had proven that (as big a football fan as he supposedly is one would have thought someone told him to dance with the one who brung him; oh, well.) At this point, their best bet is probably to shut up for a while and let things die down a bit before any more statements, since anything and everything they say now will just make it worse. The rule, though it can be demanding of ones discipline, is that when in a hole one should STOP DIGGING.


One can usually rely on someone grabbing a shovel anyway

Maybe I am cutting it too finely, but it makes a difference to me whether they used stamps or franking privileges. Senators should be allowed personal feelings and personal appeals apart from their offices so long as they do not involve the office. It sounds like these did, which would make it political pressure; not sure though.


I'm not accusing them of anything illegal here, even on the off chance someone violated one of the various arcane rules. I'm not questioning their intent either. It is political pressure, and its directed at a private charity. I don't want throw too much mud but imagine if a major Rape charity cut funding to self-defense courses because the local dojo also ran a pistol range. I'd think it pretty screwed up if half the GOP senators wrote a public letter to them, and I'm pretty sure media reaction would be negative.

Nature of the beast, but Komen set themselves up for it. Again, we should not pretend the decision happened in a vacuum. Also once again, I am forced to wonder why Komen bothered funding cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood in the first place since it seems to have made this day inevitable. Perhaps it was not inevitable from the start, but a certain small but vocal element within a certain political party made it so due to that partys connections with Komens founder. In that event, I am back to my last response to rt: However this ends, whether it was a political matter was decided the moment Komen made their first announcement (and the subsequent one you linked pretty much says that outright, without stating specific causes.)


I won't deny Komen played a role in their own current mess, I'm just expressing generalized bitterness and cynicism about how good causes get hijacked, worsened by the fact that from a realistic perspective its often the best thing for the cause. I've no real fingers to point at anyone, this is just a dumb thing which happened.

Return to message