Susan G Komen policy change...

[natty dread]

Parenthetically, if I had known they supported Planned Parenthood, I would not have given money to Komen.

Why? Do you hate the planning of parenthood? Do you have an agenda of wanting all parenthoods to go unplanned?

[thegreekdog]

Parenthetically, if I had known they supported Planned Parenthood, I would not have given money to Komen.

Why? Do you hate the planning of parenthood? Do you have an agenda of wanting all parenthoods to go unplanned?

I would prefer not to give money that goes directly or indirectly to the performance of abortions.

[Woodruff]

When I read about this the other day, I was shocked. I'm surprised the foundation didn't consider the ramifications of their decision before making the decision.

The Goldberg article above is worth a look- it suggests they made the decision a while ago and were just fishing for a reason.

I read a couple of articles so I probably won't read the Goldberg article (no offense to you). As oVo stated, it seemed pretty stupid to do this and appears they did not consider the ramifications (or at least did not take the ramifications seriously). I suspect that most people were not even aware that Komen and Planned Parenthood were linked in any way. I certainly wasn't aware of it and I gave money to Komen every year (and knew a little bit about them). Parenthetically, if I had known they supported Planned Parenthood, I would not have given money to Komen.

I also wasn't aware the two were linked. It wouldn't have affected me any if I had known, but as you say...I'm not sure that it was viewed in a particularly bad way simply because it wasn't that well-advertised. But boy, it is now, and not in the way they'd like, I suspect.

[Woodruff]

The number of people who have resigned their positions with SGK
should cause them to rethink this decision.

No it shouldn't. They're a charity, not a political outfit.

Unfortunately, they're operating as a political outfit now, not as a charity.

[oVo]

I would prefer not to give money that goes directly
or indirectly to the performance of abortions.

It doesn't. The Komen funding is all about helping Planned Parenthood make Cancer Screenings & Diagnosis available to all women who need it. There is no malfeasance, misappropriation of funds or abuse of grant monies. The funds are being spent exactly as intended, which helps the SGK accomplish their stated mission.

The number of people who have resigned their positions with SGK
should cause them to rethink this decision.

No it shouldn't. They're a charity, not a political outfit.

Prominent board members across the country are resigning for exactly that reason, the Vice President of Komen has placed her Republican political agenda above the goals of the charitable organization she represents. Politics and personal opinions about abortion should not even be in this equation at all. Koman grants are spent by Planned Parenthood for the exact purpose those donations were intended.

[thegreekdog]

It doesn't. The Komen funding is all about helping Planned Parenthood make Cancer Screenings & Diagnosis available to all women who need it. There is no malfeasance, misappropriation of funds or abuse of grant monies. The funds are being spent exactly as intended, which helps the SGK accomplish their stated mission.

The ability for Planned Parenthood to use funds to do cancer screenings and diagnoses allows it to use other funds to help women get abortions. That is why I used the term indirectly.

[Symmetry]

It doesn't. The Komen funding is all about helping Planned Parenthood make Cancer Screenings & Diagnosis available to all women who need it. There is no malfeasance, misappropriation of funds or abuse of grant monies. The funds are being spent exactly as intended, which helps the SGK accomplish their stated mission.

The ability for Planned Parenthood to use funds to do cancer screenings and diagnoses allows it to use other funds to help women get abortions. That is why I used the term indirectly.

If i understand the way that Planned Parenthood use their funding correctly, it's pretty specifically targetted depending on the source. The idea that the funding "indirectly" funds abortions seems a little off, and of course, was not the reason given for the withdrawl of funding.

I suspect that you are partly correct, and that abortion is why Komen decided to stop providing funding for breast cancer screenings, but I doubt that it was because they were worried about their money paying for abortions directly or indirectly. It never bothered them before a Republican politician was appointed as the head of the organisation.

The aim here seems to be to put Planned Parenthood out of business entirely, based on political pressure.

Because there's only really two ways this trend is going, right?

1) PP use their other funds to somehow keep doing what they're doing, cutting back on other services.
2) PP start cutting back on their breast cancer screenings.

[thegreekdog]

It doesn't. The Komen funding is all about helping Planned Parenthood make Cancer Screenings & Diagnosis available to all women who need it. There is no malfeasance, misappropriation of funds or abuse of grant monies. The funds are being spent exactly as intended, which helps the SGK accomplish their stated mission.

The ability for Planned Parenthood to use funds to do cancer screenings and diagnoses allows it to use other funds to help women get abortions. That is why I used the term indirectly.

If i understand the way that Planned Parenthood use their funding correctly, it's pretty specifically targetted depending on the source. The idea that the funding "indirectly" funds abortions seems a little off, and of course, was not the reason given for the withdrawl of funding.

I suspect that you are partly correct, and that abortion is why Komen decided to stop providing funding for breast cancer screenings, but I doubt that it was because they were worried about their money paying for abortions directly or indirectly. It never bothered them before a Republican politician was appointed as the head of the organisation.

The aim here seems to be to put Planned Parenthood out of business entirely, based on political pressure.

Because there's only really two ways this trend is going, right?

1) PP use their other funds to somehow keep doing what they're doing, cutting back on other services.
2) PP start cutting back on their breast cancer screenings.

I'm not suggesting that is why Komen cut their ties with Planned Parenthood. I'm suggesting that I would have cut my ties with Komen because they may give my money to Planned Parenthood.

I would not be adverse to putting Planned Parenthood out of business entirely. I believe that it's a woman's right to choose based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent. However, I do not support abortions and therefore would not provide funding of my own to allow an organization that helps women have abortions.

[Symmetry]

It doesn't. The Komen funding is all about helping Planned Parenthood make Cancer Screenings & Diagnosis available to all women who need it. There is no malfeasance, misappropriation of funds or abuse of grant monies. The funds are being spent exactly as intended, which helps the SGK accomplish their stated mission.

The ability for Planned Parenthood to use funds to do cancer screenings and diagnoses allows it to use other funds to help women get abortions. That is why I used the term indirectly.

If i understand the way that Planned Parenthood use their funding correctly, it's pretty specifically targetted depending on the source. The idea that the funding "indirectly" funds abortions seems a little off, and of course, was not the reason given for the withdrawl of funding.

I suspect that you are partly correct, and that abortion is why Komen decided to stop providing funding for breast cancer screenings, but I doubt that it was because they were worried about their money paying for abortions directly or indirectly. It never bothered them before a Republican politician was appointed as the head of the organisation.

The aim here seems to be to put Planned Parenthood out of business entirely, based on political pressure.

Because there's only really two ways this trend is going, right?

1) PP use their other funds to somehow keep doing what they're doing, cutting back on other services.
2) PP start cutting back on their breast cancer screenings.

I'm not suggesting that is why Komen cut their ties with Planned Parenthood. I'm suggesting that I would have cut my ties with Komen because they may give my money to Planned Parenthood.

I would not be adverse to putting Planned Parenthood out of business entirely. I believe that it's a woman's right to choose based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent. However, I do not support abortions and therefore would not provide funding of my own to allow an organization that helps women have abortions.

But that wasn't where your money was going. It went to help women have breast cancer screenings. That's what you would have been cutting your ties to, and what Komen cut its ties to.

The rest is politics.

[BigBallinStalin]

How many different ways to TGD have to express his preferences?

[thegreekdog]

But that wasn't where your money was going. It went to help women have breast cancer screenings. That's what you would have been cutting your ties to, and what Komen cut its ties to.

The rest is politics.

I don't agree. Let's say Komen got $10,000. $2,000 from me and $8,000 from other people.

Planned Parenthood got $5,000 from all sources, $2,000 of which came from Komen for breast cancer screenings.

My money could go completely to breast cancer screenings performed by Planned Parenthood (which I would be fine with). However, if Planned Parenthood used the other $3,000 from its $5,000 budget on abortions, but if it had not received by $2,000, would have used less on abortions, my money is indirectly supporting abortions.

For me it's not about politics. I am pro-life in my personal life and that includes how I spend my charitable contribution dollars. Maybe I'm being too paranoid or too strict or whatever, but abortion is such an anathema to my beliefs, that my potential overreaction is justified in my mind.

[AndyDufresne]

...that my potential overreaction is justified in my mind.

Probably, though I think the reaction by supporters of Planned Parenthood's reaction to poo-pooing SGK is also probably justified in their minds.


--Andy

[Symmetry]

But that wasn't where your money was going. It went to help women have breast cancer screenings. That's what you would have been cutting your ties to, and what Komen cut its ties to.

The rest is politics.

I don't agree. Let's say Komen got $10,000. $2,000 from me and $8,000 from other people.

Planned Parenthood got $5,000 from all sources, $2,000 of which came from Komen for breast cancer screenings.

My money could go completely to breast cancer screenings performed by Planned Parenthood (which I would be fine with). However, if Planned Parenthood used the other $3,000 from its $5,000 budget on abortions, but if it had not received by $2,000, would have used less on abortions, my money is indirectly supporting abortions.

For me it's not about politics. I am pro-life in my personal life and that includes how I spend my charitable contribution dollars. Maybe I'm being too paranoid or too strict or whatever, but abortion is such an anathema to my beliefs, that my potential overreaction is justified in my mind.

You're assuming that all the money they receive goes into a pool from which they fund everything they do.

That's really not how these things work. The money is targeted, and likely there will be a sophisticated application process and budget submitted with a plan as to exactly how those funds will be used.

Anyway, apparently Komen is walking back this absurd policy:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/02/03/bloomberg_articlesLYTS8J6K50YI01-LYTYX.DTL

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/02/susan-g-komen-reverses-course-will-allow-planned-parenthood-funding/252519/

[Symmetry]

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.

The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women. We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics - anyone's politics.

Starting this afternoon, we will have calls with our network and key supporters to refocus our attention on our mission and get back to doing our work. We ask for the public's understanding and patience as we gather our Komen affiliates from around the country to determine how to move forward in the best interests of the women and people we serve.

We extend our deepest thanks for the outpouring of support we have received from so many in the past few days and we sincerely hope that these changes will be welcomed by those who have expressed their concern.

[thegreekdog]

But that wasn't where your money was going. It went to help women have breast cancer screenings. That's what you would have been cutting your ties to, and what Komen cut its ties to.

The rest is politics.

I don't agree. Let's say Komen got $10,000. $2,000 from me and $8,000 from other people.

Planned Parenthood got $5,000 from all sources, $2,000 of which came from Komen for breast cancer screenings.

My money could go completely to breast cancer screenings performed by Planned Parenthood (which I would be fine with). However, if Planned Parenthood used the other $3,000 from its $5,000 budget on abortions, but if it had not received by $2,000, would have used less on abortions, my money is indirectly supporting abortions.

For me it's not about politics. I am pro-life in my personal life and that includes how I spend my charitable contribution dollars. Maybe I'm being too paranoid or too strict or whatever, but abortion is such an anathema to my beliefs, that my potential overreaction is justified in my mind.

You're assuming that all the money they receive goes into a pool from which they fund everything they do.

That's really not how these things work. The money is targeted, and likely there will be a sophisticated application process and budget submitted with a plan as to exactly how those funds will be used.

Anyway, apparently Komen is walking back this absurd policy:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/02/03/bloomberg_articlesLYTS8J6K50YI01-LYTYX.DTL

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/02/susan-g-komen-reverses-course-will-allow-planned-parenthood-funding/252519/

In my experience, unless the person making the donation specifically targets the money he donates, the money is placed into the general pool. For example, I also give money to United Way, but I get to choose how that money is donated. I do not get to choose how my Susan G. Komen donations are used.

If Komen does back away from this policy, I will stop giving them money (unless I can qualify the money in some way).

[oVo]

I have no problem with your views on abortion greekdog. My current belief is that women should have the freedom to do what they believe is best for them, so I am pro Choice. It is not a decision I have ever had to make and I won't make such a choice --one way or the other-- without the situation becoming a reality.

I'd like to see Pro Lifers use some of their energy --and clout-- to help all the babies that already exist in the world have a better life. There's too many orphans and starving kids on the planet already with little hope in sight of a better tomorrow.

Earlier today I heard 3 different reasons for the policy shift for grants by representatives of the Susan G Komen Foundation attempting to justify their actions and none of them escaped political motives. So I'm kind of relieved that they've reconsidered their position and how it was perceived by a public that wants to support the cause.

[thegreekdog]

...that my potential overreaction is justified in my mind.

Probably, though I think the reaction by supporters of Planned Parenthood's reaction to poo-pooing SGK is also probably justified in their minds.


--Andy

And it's justified in my mind as well.

Again (for the 4th time?), I am offering no opinion as to whether Susan G. Komen was right or not to stop giving money to Planned Parenthood. That's the Komen Board's decision, not mind. If the Komen Board consists of a lot of pro-lifers or if they think they will get more money by not giving to Planned Parenthood, that's their decision. I do think it was stupid from a public relations perspective and I really don't think people knew they were giving money to Planned Parnethood regardless, so doubly stupid I suppose.

My disagreement or beef here is that I don't like to give my donations to organizations that directly or indirectly support abortions. So, if Komen is going to continue to give money to Planned Parenthood, I will stop giving money to Komen.

[thegreekdog]

I have no problem with your views on abortion greekdog. My current belief is that women should have the freedom to do what they believe is best for them, so I am pro Choice. It is not a decision I have ever had to make and I won't make such a choice --one way or the other-- without the situation becoming a reality.

I'd like to see Pro Lifers use some of their energy --and clout-- to help all the babies that already exist in the world have a better life. There's too many orphans and starving kids on the planet already with little hope in sight of a better tomorrow.

I agree completely. In fact, I tend to think pro-lifers should involve themselves less in politics. I don't believe there is a good chance that any laws will be changed that result in abortion being illegal throughout the United States (i.e. from a federal level). Therefore, their efforts would be better served doing other things, including caring for children who already exist in this world.

[Symmetry]

But that wasn't where your money was going. It went to help women have breast cancer screenings. That's what you would have been cutting your ties to, and what Komen cut its ties to.

The rest is politics.

I don't agree. Let's say Komen got $10,000. $2,000 from me and $8,000 from other people.

Planned Parenthood got $5,000 from all sources, $2,000 of which came from Komen for breast cancer screenings.

My money could go completely to breast cancer screenings performed by Planned Parenthood (which I would be fine with). However, if Planned Parenthood used the other $3,000 from its $5,000 budget on abortions, but if it had not received by $2,000, would have used less on abortions, my money is indirectly supporting abortions.

For me it's not about politics. I am pro-life in my personal life and that includes how I spend my charitable contribution dollars. Maybe I'm being too paranoid or too strict or whatever, but abortion is such an anathema to my beliefs, that my potential overreaction is justified in my mind.

You're assuming that all the money they receive goes into a pool from which they fund everything they do.

That's really not how these things work. The money is targeted, and likely there will be a sophisticated application process and budget submitted with a plan as to exactly how those funds will be used.

Anyway, apparently Komen is walking back this absurd policy:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/02/03/bloomberg_articlesLYTS8J6K50YI01-LYTYX.DTL

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/02/susan-g-komen-reverses-course-will-allow-planned-parenthood-funding/252519/

In my experience, unless the person making the donation specifically targets the money he donates, the money is placed into the general pool. For example, I also give money to United Way, but I get to choose how that money is donated. I do not get to choose how my Susan G. Komen donations are used.

If Komen does back away from this policy, I will stop giving them money (unless I can qualify the money in some way).

The money is targeted for cancer screenings by Komen. I had a look at their application process for funding on their website, and it seems pretty standard.

The pool I was referring to was not Komen's, but PP's. They don't get to spend money granted to them for cancer screenings on abortions, or any other procedure or service they provide. The grant is for a specific purpose.

Of course, it's up to you how, if, and where you donate your money. Do what you feel is right, but you're not paying for abortions, just helping women with breast cancer.

Whatever you decide to do from now on, I think you're a pretty decent guy for donating in the first place, regardless of our differences in opinions on abortion and politics.

[thegreekdog]

First, I don't donate through Komen's website.

Second, I looked at the Komen website and it does not appear that one can choose what happens to his or her donation.

[Symmetry]

First, I don't donate through Komen's website.

Second, I looked at the Komen website and it does not appear that one can choose what happens to his or her donation.

I probably was a bit vague. Your donation goes to Komen, and I doubt you have much choice in how it's allocated after that. When PP apply for a grant to Komen, however, they have to have a specific plan as to how much they want, and how the resources will be allocated.

As Komen is a foundation that combats breast cancer, they allocate funds to organisations that combat breast cancer specifically for combating breast cancer. That's how the grant process from Komen works, and what you can examine on their website.

PP gets a grant from Komen, which does not go into a general pool. Your money goes to Komen, which does go into a general pool.

Your money goes to Komen, and is distributed from there. Some of which will go to PP for cancer screenings. None of it will go towards abortions.

[thegreekdog]

First, I don't donate through Komen's website.

Second, I looked at the Komen website and it does not appear that one can choose what happens to his or her donation.

I probably was a bit vague. Your donation goes to Komen, and I doubt you have much choice in how it's allocated after that. When PP apply for a grant to Komen, however, they have to have a specific plan as to how much they want, and how the resources will be allocated.

As Komen is a foundation that combats breast cancer, they allocate funds to organisations that combat breast cancer specifically for combating breast cancer. That's how the grant process from Komen works, and what you can examine on their website.

PP gets a grant from Komen, which does not go into a general pool. Your money goes to Komen, which does go into a general pool.

Your money goes to Komen, and is distributed from there. Some of which will go to PP for cancer screenings. None of it will go towards abortions.

I'm not saying I don't believe you when I type this, but I'm going to elect to donate my money to other causes to avoid the potential that you're wrong about this.

[natty dread]

Why would it be so horrible to pay for abortions?

You want to help women with breast cancer, but not women who need abortions. Why?

[thegreekdog]

Why would it be so horrible to pay for abortions?

You want to help women with breast cancer, but not women who need abortions. Why?

Because I don't believe that babies should be aborted.

[natty dread]

Why would it be so horrible to pay for abortions?

You want to help women with breast cancer, but not women who need abortions. Why?

Because I don't believe that babies should be aborted.

Babies aren't aborted.