Susan G. Komen Blinks- Page 5

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 2:42pm

It was just announced in the New York Times that they have reversed their decision!!!

“We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives,” Nancy G. Brinker, Komen’s chief executive, said in a statement posted on the organization’s Web site. The statement added, “We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants.”
Link

[NYadgal]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 2:46pm

I always refer to Charity Navigator to analyze what portion of my donation will go toward actual programs vs administrative expenses.

For Susan G. Komen - 19.3% goes to administrative and fundraising expenses combined.

Simply for comparison, the same source reports that Planned Parenthood spends 25.9% on administrative and fundraising expenses combined.

The point of this post is not to promote one organization over another. I don't intend to change anyone's mind, and it's been clear that the majority of people I know are no longer in support of the Susan G. Komen foundation. As a longtime supporter of the foundation, I am greatly distressed over many of the revelations this week. GREATLY distressed. I am giving alot of careful thought to it.

I simply thought, in response to a previous post, that it was fair to share this information.

Both organizations have provided immeasurable good.
There are countless other organizations that are worthy of our time and money.

There is great need in our world.

I try to focus my 'time, talent and treasure' in supporting organizations that support personal and/or local needs. And by 'personal' I include the needs that are important to my family and friends.

I hope this thread discussion, in general, has raised awareness that, especially in these difficult times, we need to support the organizations that are out there doing the work that needs to be done.

Charity Navigator: Susan G Komen

Updated On: 2/3/12 at 02:46 PM

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 3:05pm

I think, perhaps, the Komen Foundation has outsized itself. I saw it happen up close with a non-profit I worked with a number of years ago. It actually turned me off to the larger non-profits that have become more corporate-like in their mentality. I feel the same way about 'personal' organizations like HRC and GLAAD. I simply don't know why I would give them a penny, when I can give money directly to an organization that provides a bed to a homeless gay kid.

I think it's always easier for us to say, 'Sure...I'll donate to your Walk,' than it is to look deeply at our own communities to see what smaller, service-based organizations could be helped directly. Maybe this will encourage people to look closer to home for ways to use their donation dollars.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 3:11pm

Salon has an interesting article by Mary Elizabeth Williams on "How the Internet Changed Komen's Mind":

How the Internet Changed Komen's Mind

[NYadgal]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 3:19pm

Robbie, I agree with your thought that perhaps the Komen foundation has outsized itself. It's wonderful that support and awareness have grown, but the organization has to take a deep breath and make sure it's moving in appropriate directions.

I am a huge proponent of supporting local charities, as I mentioned in my previous post. They also enable us to literally roll up our sleeves and participate directly.

PalJoey, thanks for sharing that article. Interesting times in which we live...

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 3:41pm

FYI, in light of today's announcement, I changed the thread title.

[WOSQ]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 4:12pm

With this reversal, Komen has now alienated the right, the social conservatives. Since the social progressives already got thrown overboard, perhaps Komen's best bet would have been to double down and stay with their original decision however misguided. The foundation now has enemies all around, and it will take a long time for them to forgive and forget.

I think the foundation's credibility is, if not destroyed, then very damaged and it was needlessly self-inflicted. Somebody didn't think.

Heads will roll, but whose and how many? Perhaps all the high level people in the organization and on the Board would best serve Komen by tendering their resignations. This foundation has a lot of rebuilding to do and present management cannot do a credible job if they remain.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 4:42pm

A heartbreaking look at Komen's behind the scenes work to halt research into possible environmental causes of breast cancer, and their undermining of government support for diagnostic and treatment assistance.
to read it is to weep

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 4:46pm

Well, I was excited about the announcement until I read this article stating:

"I just got off the phone with a Komen board member, and he confirmed that the announcement does not mean that Planned Parenthood is guaranteed future grants — a demand he said would be “unfair” to impose on Komen. He also said the job of the group’s controversial director, Nancy Brinker, is safe, as far as the board is concerned.

As some were quick to point out, the statement put out by Komen doesn’t really clarify whether Planned Parenthood will actually continue to get money from the group. The original rationale for barring Planned Parenthood was that it was under investigation (a witch-hunt probe undertaken by GOP Rep Cliff Stearns). Komen said today that the group would “amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.”

Komen caved. Or did it?

[NYadgal]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 5:21pm

Oh, Namo... that truly is heartbreaking to read.

*sigh*

They've just lost my support.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 5:37pm

Here is the trailer for the "Pink Ribbons" movie.


Pink Ribbons

[mikey2573]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 5:40pm

"Sorry, when you said Planned Parenthood's numbers, I thought you meant Planned Parenthood's numbers, not a conclusion that someone else has come to."

FactCheck USED PP's numbers. They took PP's numbers, did the math (number of clienteles, number of clienteles getting abortions) and came up with 10%.

"As far as I'm concerned, it's a moot point, anyway. Call it 10% - hell, call it 50%. What of it? "

So disingenuous !! This happens all the time on this board. People argue, "POINT A, POINT A! POINT A!!" Then when someone proves POINT A is false, it becomes, "point A wasn't all that important anyway".

[mikey2573]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 5:42pm

So, is Komen STILL a bunch of cowards for giving in to left-wing pressure? Or is cowardice only when one caves in to RIGHT-wing pressure??

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 6:25pm

Yes.

[Plum]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 6:34pm

Mmm, I love the smell of false equivalencies in the morning.

When Komen withdrew the PP funding, it was cowardly because it was letting politics get in the way of its ostensible mission of fighting breast cancer. Restoring said funding is hardly an act of courage, but it's not the same brand of cowardice, either. They're going back to what they're supposed to be doing.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 6:41pm

"So disingenuous !! This happens all the time on this board. People argue, "POINT A, POINT A! POINT A!!" Then when someone proves POINT A is false, it becomes, "point A wasn't all that important anyway". "

Odd. I wasn't aware I was in an argument. All I did was counter your 10% figure, as the figure I had always heard was 3 - 10%, and I provided a link to show why I thought that. You spoke of an organization that claims it was a hard 10%, and I looked it up and read it. It wasn't conclusive, but I was willing to concede the point because I never cared how many abortions PP performed. I'm just glad that they do.

FYI: One organization making a claim does not constitute "proof".





Updated On: 2/3/12 at 06:41 PM

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 6:52pm

Wow. That article Namo posted is so damning all of this is kind of a moot point anyway.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 7:54pm

Addy, Erik, et al, perhaps the article's wrong? Or a horrible mischaracterization? I hope.

[mikey2573]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 8:10pm

"FYI: One organization making a claim does not constitute "proof". "

Your numbers were PP basically auditing itself. It might have a rational for misrepresenting its conclusions. FactCheck.org has no dog in the fight; it doesn't matter to them, they are just checking the facts. They ran the numbers and came up with 10% of PP clientele getting abortions.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 8:27pm

Yes, approximately 1 in 10 PP patients get abortions. A legal medical procedure. Many of those patients also have other basic health care services provided, which is why only 3% of the actual services provided by PP are abortions.

9 in 10 of PP patients do not get abortions. 97% of the services provided are not abortion-related, and include cancer screenings.

Ghostlight confused the percentage of services provided with the percentage of patients.

The truth remains that the vast majority of services provided (97%), and patients served (90%)are not abortion-related. Federal funds cannot be used to fund any abortions performed by PP. PP is in the business of providing health care services, including abortions and other family planning services. The above (Jon Kyle notwithstanding) are intended to be factual statements.

Updated On: 2/3/12 at 08:27 PM

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 8:34pm

"Your numbers were PP basically auditing itself. It might have a rational for misrepresenting its conclusions. FactCheck.org has no dog in the fight; it doesn't matter to them, they are just checking the facts. They ran the numbers and came up with 10% of PP clientele getting abortions."

Obviously. It's always helpful to link to the articles in question so that people can read it, instead of what you've cherry-picked from it. The article itself is less clear:

"Q: How much of Planned Parenthood’s services are dedicated to abortions? Does the federal government fund those procedures?

A: Abortions represent 3 percent of total services provided by Planned Parenthood, and roughly 10 percent of its clients received an abortion. "

But I ask again: what of it? They either perform abortions or they don't. What does the percentage have to do with it? It's called Planned Parenthood, and the bulk of their services, by anyone's estimate, are about information, health and prevention of disease.

What's your horse in this race?

eta: thanks, YWIW, for your clarification.










factcheck figures article Updated On: 2/4/12 at 08:34 PM

[madbrian]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 8:56pm

I hope this incident is just the beginning of a larger movement, one where the narrow-minded fringe is unsuccessful in making legal medical procedures for women difficult to obtain.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 9:31pm

I'm surprised Mikey hasn't picked up today's right-wing meme: that Planned Parenthood acted in a "gangster-like way" or used "Mafia tactics" or perpetrated a "shakedown" of Komen, saying "give us money or we'll destroy you."

We're going to hear more and more of that.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 12:41am

" Right now, they're opposing the Accelerating the End of Breast Cancer Act - a bill that will create an oversight panel to focus research funding on a streamlined agenda to create a breast cancer vaccine and to find a way to stop breast cancer metastasis. "

This kind of thing, and yes, I am taking it personally...is nothing new. I've been uncomfortable with them for a while. On one of the breast cancer sites I occasionally visit, I've seen mention of precious little going toward the prevention of metastasis. Not that I think that focusing on prevention is wrong. The branding of the Pink Ribbon Culture makes me squirm. Barbara Erhenrich has a wonder couple of chapters in her book Brightsided. Well worth the read. I always though it was me who cringed at all that damn pink ribbon merchandise. I want breast cancer to disappear as much as the next person, but doing so needs to be about supporting women. That needs to be the underlying mission statement. I am pissed and there will be no more purchasing of anything with that damned ribbon on it. Favorite cereal? I'll wait a month. Pink ribbon M&M's? I'll stick to the pretzels. Might be a bit like shooting myself in the foot, but there are certainly other less tainted places to donate.

I think this was a huge, HUGE, error of judgement on Koman's part and I doubt they will ever regain their Leader of the Pack status.

[Plum]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 1:50am

I don't know, iflit. I wouldn't underestimate Komen's staying power - they're the biggest breast cancer charity because they have the underlying structure and connections for it. They might get fewer donations after this, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was only a mild downfall.