If Komen for the Cure hoped its Planned Parenthood controversy would be a one-day story, it has to be terribly disappointed. If anything, the furor is intensifying.
One of yesterday's more striking developments came when Komen officials changed their story when explaining why they cut off funding for Planned Parenthood.
Komen had said the decision was the result of newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations under investigation -- affecting Planned Parenthood because of an inquiry by a Republican congressman.
On Thursday, Komen President Elizabeth Thompson told reporters that the funding decision was unrelated to the investigation into whether Planned Parenthood was illegally using federal funds to pay for abortions.
Komen founder Nancy Brinker said the organization wants to support groups that directly provide breast health services, such as mammograms. She noted that Planned Parenthood was providing only mammogram referrals.
As a rule, when an organization is struggling to keep its story straight, it's not a good sign.
In the case of Komen's shifting rationales, critics weren't exactly persuaded. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), said the new explanation was tantamount to "revisionist history," adding, "This new reason is so obviously fake that you'd have to be born today to believe it."
Incoherence, however, is only part of Komen's troubles at this point.
The Planned Parenthood decision has caused widespread dissension within the organization, causing all seven Komen Race for the Cure Foundation affiliates in California to denounce the national group's move. Some additional foundation officials are also resigning in protest.
The controversy has also captured the attention of the Senate Democratic caucus, with 26 senators, led by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) co-authoring a letter to the foundation, urging Komen to reconsider. The caucus has been surprisingly aggressive on this -- Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) even tweeted Komen's phone number, urging allies to "call Komen" and ask the foundation "to reverse their damaging and misguided decision."
The New York Times added a strong editorial on the issue today, calling Komen's move "a painful betrayal."
This is a mistake from which Komen will not soon recover.
Leave a Comment:
Talk about the GOP, they have become more disgusting beyond compare. All of their actions consist of a darkness that cannot even be put into words with their hatred, removal of peoples rights, loss of peoples freedoms, and degrading a person to the point of poverty. This is not what America is meant to be, but the GOP definitely does have leanings toward what people would call White Supremacist groups such as the Nazi’s or Communist philosophies. President Obama went to that Prayer Lunch and I would not have wasted my time with such a hatred group. President Obama do not be wasting your time with such a group, form your own Prayer Lunch and have someone more appropriate like Rev. Al Sharpton lead a prayer. Do you actually think God or Jesus would approve of this GOP behavior? I think not and know it too well. The GOP needs to go extinct, it has done nothing but disgrace what American values are. And a group like yours will never endure in America. No never!!!
Well said, well said
According to Dr. Mercola website (www.mercola.com), Zeneca Group plc., a pharmaceutical subsidiary of Imperial Chemical Industries and manufacturer of the blockbuster breast cancer drugs Arimidex and Tamoxifen, founded the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month in 1985 in order to promote the widespread adoption of x-ray mammography (and the sale of their products).1
While the increase in routine screenings has resulted in soaring breast cancer diagnoses, rates of invasive breast cancer have actually INCREASED in certain populations.2
Shocking Statistic: False Alarms May Be as High as 40 Percent!
A recent study and editorial published in the New England Journal of Medicine indicated that x-ray mammography screening may "save" only 1 person for every 2,500 screened.
Among the 2,500 screened at least 1,000 will have a false alarm, 500 would undergo an unnecessary biopsy, and 5 or more would become treated for abnormal finds that would never become fatal, i.e. their lives will be shortened due to medication/surgical/stress-induced adverse effects.
Given these findings X-ray mammography may be far more effective at generating increased numbers of breast cancer diagnoses than in "preventing" malignancy and mortality associated with the disease. To the contrary, a growing body of clinical evidence indicates that the "low energy" x-rays used in breast screenings are up to 500% more carcinogenic than previously assumed and upon which current radiation risk models that favor mass breast screenings with ionizing diagnostic technologies find justification.
The success of this highly popularized model of "prevention," which prevents nothing, is explained when we look deeper into who is behind AstraZeneca, the founding sponsor of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
AstraZeneca's Role in the Cancer Industry
AstraZeneca was in fact a by-product of one of the world's largest chemical (and carcinogen) producers, Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI). Before being acquired by AkzoNobel in 2008, ICI produced millions of pounds annually of known mammary carcinogens such as vinyl chloride. ICI demerged its pharmaceutical bioscience businesses in 1993 to form Zeneca Group plc., which later merged with Astra AB to form AstraZeneca in 1999.
AstraZeneca's best-selling cancer drug Tamoxifen is actually classified by the World Health Organization as a carcinogen. (To view toxicological data on this chemical visit our Problem Substances Database page on Tamoxifen). Presently all campaign ads and promotional events that are run by the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month foundation (which operates year round) must be "approved," i.e. "pink-washed," by AstraZeneca before being released for public consumption.
Other experts and organizations have pointed out this glaring conflict of interest:
"A decade-old multi-million dollar deal between National Breast Cancer Awareness Month sponsors and Imperical Chemical Industries (ICI) has produced reckless misinformation on breast cancer," ~ Dr. Samuel Epstein [a leading international authority on cancer-causing effects of environmental pollutants.]
"Imperial Chemical Industries has supported the cancer establishment's blame-the-victim attitude toward the causes of breast and other cancers. This theory attributes escalating cancer rates to heredity and faulty lifestyle, rather than avoidable exposures to industrial carcinogens contaminating air, water, food, consumer products, and the workplace."
~ Cancer Prevention Coalition
Prevention as Watchful Profiteering
Sadly, Breast Cancer Awareness Month has not become a time of increasing awareness of the preventable causes of breast cancer and has instead fed the breast cancer industry's insatiable need to raise money for research into a pharmaceutical cure, and to promote its primary means of "prevention": early detection via x-ray mammography.
On first account, a pharmaceutical "cure" is as unlikely as it is oxymoronic. Drugs do not cure disease anymore than bullets cure war. Beneath modern medicine's showy display of diagnostic contraptions, heroic "life-saving" procedures, and an armory of exotic drugs of strange origin and power, it is the body's ability to heal itself – beneath the pomp and circumstance – that is truly responsible for medicine's apparent successes. Too often, in spite of what medicine does to "treat" or "save" the body, it is the body which, while against invasive chemical and surgical medical interventions, silently treats and saves itself.
If it were not for the body's truly miraculous self-healing abilities, and the ceaseless self-correction process that occurs each and every moment within each and every cell, our bodies would perish within a matter of minutes. The mystery is not in how our body succumbs to cancer; rather the mystery is in how, after years and even decades of chemical exposure and nutrient deprivation our bodies prevail against cancer for so long.
Prevention versus Early Diagnosis
The primary causes of breast cancer: nutritional deficiencies, exposure to environmental toxicity, inflammation, estrogen dominance and the resultant breakdown in genetic integrity and immune surveillance, are entirely overlooked by this fixation on drug therapy and its would-be "magic bullets" and the completely dumbed down and pseudo-scientific concept that "genes cause disease." (See: DNA: Not The Final Word On Health).
Billions of dollars are raised and funneled towards drug research, when the lowly turmeric plant, the humble cabbage and the unassuming bowl of miso soup may offer far more promise in the prevention and treatment of breast cancer than all the toximolecular drugs on the market put together. (To view several dozen substances go to GreenMedinfo: Breast Cancer)
When it comes to the breast cancer industry's emphasis on equating "prevention" with "early detection" through x-ray mammography, nowhere is the inherently pathological ideology of allopathic medicine more clearly evident.
Not only is the ionizing radiation used to discern pathological lesions in breast tissue one of the very risk factors for the development of breast cancer, but the identification of the word "prevention" with "early detection," is a disingenuous way of saying that all we can do to prevent breast cancer is to detect its inevitable presence sooner than would be possible without this technology. (View our X-Ray Mammography page on our Anti-Therapeutic Actions database).
If women succumb to the idea of prevention as doing nothing but waiting for the detection of the disease, many will find a similarly deranged logic re-emerge later when the self-fulfilling prophecy of prevention-through-doing-nothing is fulfilled and "treatment" is now required. "Treatment," when not strictly surgical, involves the use of very powerful chemicals and high doses of ionizing radiation which "poison" the cancer cells.
The obvious problem with this approach is that the application of either form of death energy is not suitably selective, and in the long run, many women die sooner from the side effects of toximolecular "therapy" than from the cancer itself. Why is the obvious question never asked: if exposure to the genotoxic and immune system disabling effects of chemicals and radiation is causative in breast cancer, then why is blasting the body with more poisonous chemicals and radiation considered sound treatment?
The answer to this question has much more to do with ignorance than it does an intentional desire to do harm. But the results are the same: unnecessary pain, suffering and death.
Faced with a situation where medieval notions of prevention and treatment of breast cancer are the norm, it is no wonder that when polled over 40% of women believe they will contract breast cancer sometime in their life – well over three times their actual risk. After all, have any of them been given a sense that there is something they can do to actually prevent their disease other than "watchful waiting"?
Pink-Washing Away the Preventable Causes of Breast Cancer
Obfuscating the real preventative measures available to women to combat breast cancer, and all cancers for that matter, trusted "authoritative" sources like the Susan G. Komen Foundation publish irresponsible statements like this:
"It is unclear what the exact relationship is between eating fruits and vegetables and breast cancer risk…little, if any link was found between the two in a pooled analysis that combined data from eight large studies."
Have we really come to the point where the common sense consumption of fruits and vegetables in the prevention of disease can so matter-of-factly be called into question? Do we really need randomized, double-blind and placebo controlled clinical trials to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that our bodies can benefit from the phytonutrients and antioxidants in fruits and vegetables in the prevention of cancer?
Another atrocious example of this conspiracy against identifying the obvious causes and cures for diseases like breast cancer is the National Breast Cancer Foundation's website. Go to the bottom of their homepage and type in "carcinogen" in their site wide search box. This is what will appear on the results page:
"Your search – carcinogen – did not match any documents. No pages were found containing "carcinogen".
On Susan G. Komen's website the term only emerges three times, and always in the context of minimizing the causative connection between smoking, high saturated fat consumption from meat and breast cancer. If you can remove the reality of carcinogenicity by erasing from the minds of would-be cancer sufferers the word carcinogen, and thereby conceal the link between environmental and dietary exposures of a multitude of toxins, then the obvious "cure" these massive organizations which are vacuuming in billions of dollars of donations every year to find, namely, the removal of carcinogens and detoxification of the system, will never be discovered.
Final Thoughts
Examples like these make it increasingly apparent that orthodox medicine, and the world view it represents, is approaching a theoretical end-time perhaps most accurately described as Pharmageddon. Within the horizon of this perspective vitamins are considered toxic, fruits and vegetables simply a source of caloric content (a poor one, at that), and cancer-causing drugs are understood as the only legitimate and, for that matter, legal, way to combat cancer. Are we really at the tipping point, or is there still hope?
Fortunately there are thousands of scientific studies extant today on the therapeutic value of foods, herbs and spices in breast health, many of which can be found on the government's own biomedical database known as MEDLINE. Decades of research have confirmed the veracity of the Hippocratic phrase: "Let food be thy medicine," and until a prescription is required to obtain and consume organic food, we can still draw from a vast cornucopia of natural substances whose safety and efficacy put the conventional pharmacopeia to shame.
Sorry but your sales pitch for organic medicine is NOT convincing. The fact that I have 7 relatives (2 aunts and 5 first cousins) who are ALL breast cancer survivors - most of whom found out about the cancer via breast exam and/or mammogram, and all of whom underwent both surgery and chemo, is far more convincing.
Further, there is my husband. We didn't know he had stomach cancer until the tumor caused a bleeding ulcer. The only effective treatment for this aggressive form of cancer was complete removal of his stomach (luckily the cancer had not yet metastasized), and 6 brutal months of chemo to kill off any cancer cells left in his lymphatic system.
Today he is cancer free and regaining his strength and weight daily.
In other words - my husband, my aunts and my cousins are all alive thanks to the "invasive chemical and surgical medical interventions" you find such fault with.
I'll take the miracles of modern medicine over your "organic faith healing" any day!
Sally-
WOW... is it my imagination or does your post lead one to believe that this entire "pink" campaign was a carefully structured scheme from day-one ?? A neat little money maker that just shines with "we love you" and other emo stuff, but in reality is a creepy scheme to bilk money from both the public and the government...?
No organization can be that nasty and evil... right.. ? Hello ?
<sarcasm off>
Very possibly didn't start out that way but, this wouldn't be the first time a good - even honourable - idea was turned into an "opportunity" (for financial, political or other gain)
...isn't that how cancer works?
There is a less invasive alternative to Mammography that my own mother uses and she is a breast cancer survivor as well. It's called Breast Thermography. It uses infrared detection and no mashing of the breasts which can cause cancer cells to be spread further into breast tissues. You can read about it here:
http://www.creationsmagazine.com/articles/C113/Dekel.html
Well, the founder of Planned Parenthood was:
On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon
Yeah....this is why you shouldn't just read snippets. She's talking about why it's important for black people to use birth control and why their movement should be open to recruiting ministers to help black communities. Interestingly enough she talks openly about how there's multiple groups of people: those who are sexually responsible and either abstain or who use birth control and those who are irresponsible and either for religious practices or for lack of education do not take responsibility for their sexual behavior. In context what she is saying is that blacks have been forced into believing they have to have children when in fact they don't. But, ya know, why bother when you can just misquote
Want to spin this one Mouzer?
Eric,
It's obvious that you plucked that comment off a quote site and never bothered to read the context in which that line appears in "Women and the New Race" or even the chart that precedes it, that shows the mortality rate of the 12th child in a family compared to the 1st. If you care to actually read the book, you can find it on Google books for free.
Conditions for very poor, large families in the early 20th century were not the same as today's "19 and Counting" reality show stars. It seems to me the whole premise of the book was to advocate for smaller families and the ability for women to be able to choose to have fewer children and not be forced into having as many as possible.
@Maureen Mower
So your point is that because your family used traditional pharmaceutical medicine, any other type of treatment couldn't possibly work?
Oh please... this is taken completely out of context and you sir are trying to spin this comment by Sanger to imply that she favored infanticide. Nothing could be further from the truth.
This comment by Sanger was made (see full context here) while she was bemoaning the high infant mortality rate among large families in the early twentieth century. Here she was simply pointing out that perhaps the death that large families seemed to cause might well be preferable to the poverty, poor health, child-labor, prostitution, etc... that the surviving members were many times forced to deal with. She was not in ANY way suggesting that parents kill their children!!!
How about we just let the woman's words speak for herself in contex. And then you can see if the context of that statement ameliorates it in anyway...
http://www.bartleby.com/1013/5.html
@catladyintraining:
My point is that if we had put our faith in organics and meditation, I would most likely be a widow who had attended far too many funerals of female family members who died far too young.
I've seen people try alternative therapies for cancer - holistics, crazy "health" shakes and diets, meditation, visualization, etc. I've seen them all die too.
I'll stick with what works.
Eric!: ["Want to spin this one Mouzer?"]
Oh please, you feckless liar, you're the one spinning it. You yanked that quote so far out of context you probably couldn't even see it with the Hubble telescope.
=====
catladyintraining: ["So your point is that because your family used traditional pharmaceutical medicine, any other type of treatment couldn't possibly work?"]
What's *your* point? Every study ever done has concluded that "hollistic" or "organic" treatments are ineffective snake oil. People who rely on them end up dying from their cancer. See: Jobs, Steve.
The whole "point" of "hollistic" and "organic" treatments are that they are not really treatments, they are preventative measures. Meaning that if you are trying to apply them when you already have cancer, you're already too late and fighting a loosing battle. The point is to prevent getting cancer, through propper nutrition, etc.
Oh, and Steve Jobs? He lived far longer than people are normally given with a cancer like his. Just saying.
The Susan G. Komen Foundation is now "unofficially" a full member of the Republican Wingnut Welfare System. Firing the staff who are dems to hire out of work repuke politicians is almost textbook wingnut welfare.
Like John Walsh, who turned a family tragedy into a lucrative career, Nancy Brinker turned her sister's death into a $500K+ a year income. How very republican of her!
If you Google the controversies of the Susan G. Komen Foundation, their historical ties to corporate cancer pollutant industries and the pharmaceutical industry makes you wonder why they were not exposed as a fraud long ago.
Susan G. Komen dead in 2012
Because the organization decided to blow the devil a kiss!
The Susan G. Komen Foundation is forever dead for me. I don't deal with organizations that bow to nutty political pressures, I will not donate any more money or time to this now uninspiring organization.
My mother died from a progressive form of breast cancer and if she was not already dead she would be after viewing what this organization has become. I took their little pink sticker off my car and threw away my little pink pin. I hope the Republicans will fund this organization from now on because the average woman probably will not!
What's next, the Susan G. Komen Foundation doing business with the pharmaceutical giants?
Susan G. Komen for profit organization just died of breast cancer as far as Ilm concerned. Rest in peace - Not.
I used to give whatever I could to Susan G. Komen, because I believed in the work and I too have lost members of my family to cancer. After this specious politically motivated nonsense, I can no longer provide them with the few resources that I am able to spare! What they have done is to further put poor women's health on the back-burner!
Is that really what this nation has devolved to? Are those really the "values" that the GOP continues to blather on hypocritically about? Have WE as a society become so selfish and individualistic that we have lost the ability to have empathy and concern for "the least among US"? The fact that the "story" has started to change is just further proof that this was a GOP sanctioned operation!!
I asked [Komen founder and CEO] Brinker and [President] Thompson what reaction they had seen, both from donors as well as their own affiliates, to the new funding policies.
“One of the things we’re acknowledging is that this is a difficult issue,” Thompson said. “It’s made more difficult by gross mischaracteriziations...”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/komen-speaks/2012/02/02/gIQArKI9kQ_blog.html
For the record, those so-called "gross mischaracterizations" were made by Komen's spokewoman to the Associated Press when initially explaining their decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood.
I am glad that you discussed the Planned Parenthood/ Komen Foundation controversy so thoroughly. I have long been a supporter of Planned Parenthood but had never heard of the Komen Foundation. One wonders whether the foundation is fulfilling the desires of those who created it.
I would also like to suggest that you invite Joe Scarborough to be on your program for an hour or two. The two of you are among the brightest and most honest commentators who represent different points of view. Politicians seem unwilling or unable to deliberate publicly. But the two of you could really educate us all by engaging in a meaningful exchange of ideas on significant issues. It could be a modern Lincoln Douglas debate with no winners or losers, just an enlightened public. You have honest respect for one another so that your discussion could avoid the ridiculous personal attacks that are the primary gist of political discourse today. I would be happy to suggest topics if you take up this challenge. I really hope that you do!!!
Respectfully, equating Joe Scarborough with Rachel Maddow is like equating candy orange slices with oranges. Scarborough is wrong more often than not, and the more wrong he is, the more he repeats himself: "Torture worked! Torture worked! Torture worked!"
New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I) said Thursday that he would donate $1 for every new dollar Planned Parenthood raises, up to $250,000.
If you want to donate to Planned Parenthood, here's the link: https://secure.ppaction.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=pp_ppol_Nondirected_OneTimeGift&s_src=ppol_onetimegift_old
If they had been honest from the beginning I could have maybe mustered up a little respect for their decision.
Still would have thought it was ugly and wrong but at least they would have been standing by their anti-abortion convictions.
The problem is they could not use that defense because the funds they send do not go to abortions, they are for breast cancer patients and the early detection of it. So whether you are for abortions or not is not a factor, the only thing that matters is whether you are for women dying of breast cancer or not. Now we know where they really stand
thank you! The real problem with Komen is they decided that the 97% good that Planned Parenthood does with women's health issues was not enough to override the 3% abortion services they provide. And the women that supported Komen decided that that was bogus.
And what has also emerged is that Komen has also halted funding to institutions which do any embryonic stem cell research. It's restrictions far exceed any imposed by GWB. This research is done by virtually all of the most respected institutions in the country. But finding a cure is secondary to making a political statement about protecting embryos. No, this isn't political at all.
Koman's leadership is trying desperately to defuse a landmine it planted and I don't think it will be successful. As a guest on last night's show said, Koman may not survive and be around in five years. If that happens, it would be a shame since Koman did put a face to breast cancer and other women's health issues. But the organization brought this on itself by coming under the influence of right wing extremists who have a political - as opposed to a women's health - agenda.
As for why the Planned Parenthood defunding raised such a hue and cry in the land while Congressional efforts to do the same thing didn't, I think the answer isn't as complicated as some people have tried to make it.
Every city, village, hamlet and burgh has a Koman race or walk or fun runs to benefit breast cancer research and treatment, and millions of men and wmen either participate or help sponsor someone who is participating. Many businesses match employee pledges. So the Koman decision was like a slap in the face to the enormous number of people who thought they were doing something good - as opposed to being involved with a political organization. What Washington does seems like it's happening a million miles away; running in a Koman race is very personal.
Komen's only positive step forward is this one, "We made a mistake. We let our foundation be led by people who put politics over women's health. We've have taken a step back, fired those individuals, and will work very hard over the next few months to prove that our efforts are not politically motivated, beginning with today's restoration of grants to Planned Parenthood."
Something tells me that Komen doesn't have the integrity to go down that path.
This is my favorite post of the morning. As an insurance broker for non-profits, and having served on several boards myself, I know how easy it is to be swayed and to sway. It's so important for non-profits to chose board members and staff who don't prioritize their own (religious or political) agenda. Everyone has an agenda, to some degree, but in the case of re-writing grant policy, it's best to ABSTAIN from the decision making if you, for example, are anti-abortion and hate PP. Conflict of Interest policies should be reexamined constantly, as new issues arise. They made a management"mistake"... discrimination, and they'll pay for that. Think PP won't sue? Riiiiiight. They will, and they might even win. Everyone wants SGK to fund cancer research, so they're not going to pull that funding, even if PENN State is in the headlines. But are the headlines that different than PP's? I don't think so. Due diligence was possibly not given to tearing apart the language of the new guidelines, and the intent behind them, and the whole board is responsible. It happens. Too bad this is a decision that pissed off so much of America. (I'm a dissenting republican, btw.)
I wonder what kind of breast cancer services are provided by this pretty pink Komen firearm
http://www.businessinsider.com/hope-kills-susan-g-komen-foundation-would-rather-be-associated-with-a-handgun-than-planned-parenthood-2012-2
I think it's important to point out that there is a difference between a mammogram and a breast exam. Women "should" know this. However, based on yesterday's postings all over FB, apparently not all do. Men, i can understand not knowing. A breast exam is done manually by a doctor and is used to search for lumps or other indicators by hand. A mammogram is the nasty GE machine that squeezes your breasts to a pulp and then takes a picture which is then interpreted by a radiologist. Breast exams are done by PP and if anything requires follow up, they then talk to the woman about getting a mammogram and referring them to a place that does them.
Regardless of whether PP is providing breast exams and referring....they are still providing a necessary service to women. In a society where many many women use planned parenthood as their primary source of education and treatment regarding these issues...the more available resources the better. Komen is just trying to back pedal with a super lame excuse.
Screening involves more than just a manual breast exam, and it doesn't matter if Planned Parenthood doesn't have the actual machines within their offices. Very few women's health providers do. The important thing here is that they provide screening and healthcare and provide necessary mammograms to low income women by paying for the procedure.
I saw this in the NYT letters:
Penn State is also currently under federal
investigation, and its medical center received a 7.5
million dollar grant for its cancer research from the
Komen Foundation. By the Komen foundations's
logic, Penn State (and all its affiliates) should also
have lost funding... but of course, there's been not a
word about retracting their funding from the Komen
Foundation.
Medical McCarthyism
The @!$%# is going to hit the fan when they find out how much that vile woman is paid
http://madmikesamerica.com/2012/02/how-the-color-salmon-became-hot-pink/
Reported as $500K+ per year. Part of the Wingnut Welfare System to pay out-of-work repuknican politicians.
Not to mention their partnership with Bank of America.
Excellent point about Penn State. It's really sad to see what started as a good thing self-destruct. It began with their lawsuits against anyone using the word "cure" but hit rock bottom this week. At one time I, too, was a strong Komen supporter. Never again, no matter what changes they make now. But, please let's not forget that there are still other organizations that are doing good work toward eradicating cancer of all kinds. The American Cancer Society for example funds research, services for patients and survivors as well as education and awareness programs. Numerous local groups do as well. I hope that people who previously supported Komen will help both Planned Parenthood and organizations dedicated to eradicating cancer of all kinds.
There is a darkness here,
Keep throwing light to make it clear.
Fear mongering, true class warfare against the poor,
loss of rights, attacks on the courts.
They claim to represent the people,
But shout their hypocrisy from the steeple.
Don't believe in congress, we've destroyed it,
Take over the Court, how we enjoy it.
We are destroying faith in government from within and without,
So that when the time comes you all will throw it out.
All hail the great leader, once we decide he must come,
Then America is dead, all hail our fiefdom.
Neoconservatism leads to neofeudalism, the person doesn't count,
All ran by corporations, serve them, obey them, or die on the mount.
What we are looking at is the social conservative agenda for every organization American women depend upon. Plant your agent in it like a virus and turn it to the dark side. Horrible. And the changing story less than 48 hours later is so typical of the right's tactics when their strategy is exposed and their evil plans melt down. So...watch who you hire!
DITTO Charley James! Now we need to get the nation as personally involved in what the politicians are doing to the nation! Hopefully this will open people's eyes to what is actually happening to the 98%.
Someone shared this on here yesterday, worth a read. Contains info on SGK salaries, fund distribution, and more.
http://butterbeliever.com/2011/10/22/i-will-not-be-pinkwashed-why-i-do-not-support-susan-g-komen-for-the-cure/
I think it will not take five years for the assn to crater. This October will look a lot less pink.
I have to point out that the author of that post believes in "alternative medicine." There are places to get the same info on Komen without the woo.
She also believes that abortions cause breast cancer - a scientifically rebutted idea that only undercuts her whole argument for "alternative medicine".
Not sure where you got the idea that she believes that, Infomom? I didn't read that anywhere.
Connecticut's Komen chapter has denounced the naitonal's position, and has reassured the Connecticut Planned Parenthood that the 38,000$ grant will not be pulled when it is up this summer.
There are numerous reasons that I am proud to live in CT. This adds one more!
As is mentioned in the article, the seven chapters in California have denounced the move made by the national organization. What was a pleasant surprise to me, however, is that the chapter that covers the OC has assured the local PP that it will continue to provide funding.
It's easy to denounce the move, if you haven't been funding them anyway. According to a spokesperson for the Sacramento chapter on the local news today, their chapter hasn't been funding PP for the last 2 years.
I don't want to see Komen reverse their decision. I want to see these types of "foundations" that are money makers for a few within, and money makers for the groups/clinics they like, be stopped and investigated. They give way too small amount of money to research and preventing the disease
Pink Ribbons, Inc. is a feature documentary that shows how the devastating reality of breast cancer, which marketing experts have labeled a "dream cause," has been hijacked by a shiny, pink story of success.
http://www.nfb.ca/film/pink_ribbons_inc_trailer
Every state has rules that define what is a charity and failure to meet the requirements means the charity can be banned from soliciting in the state as well as loss of tax exempt status. This fracas with SGK only draws more attention from the authorities. I doubt that this "charity" will survive. SGK may change its rules in response to public pressure, but I would still be wary about giving any money. They made a bad decision and most likely will continue along that path. Donations should cease and let Brinker and her VP fight over who is to blame as the charity devolves due to lack of funds.
The Republican Party has made a mockery of everything this country stands for and everything it ever claimed it stood for. "Christian Right?" There's nothing Christian about anything the Republican Party does, or attempts to do. "Family values?" The only thing the Republican Party values is the almighty dollar. They are more full of hate than any terrorist group; more racially prejudiced than the Ku Klux Klan ever thought of being; or more corrupt than any Middle Eastern dictator in history. They hate anyone who isn't white, male and rich. Their Tea Party paranoid "cult" is easily led by crackpots like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck & Michele Bachmann, individuals with borderline personality disorders who lack any type of conscience. Their evangelical fundamentalist sheep are easily deceived and manipulation, being coached in ever so slight increments, pulled in deeper and deeper into all types of conspiracy theories without knowing where they're going or what is at the other end of the tunnel. The Republican Party is on a downhill skid to destruction, and frankly, the sooner, the better. I just hope they don't take the United States with them.
To paraphrase from Gandi. "I love your Christian beliefs. I just wish that your Christians would practice them."
The Komen "organization" is nothing but a corporate sales force selling marketing. Do you really think that pink ribbon on the box of mashed potatoes means a lot ? Not really ! Only about 17% of what you pay into Komen actually goes into cancer research. It's a typical corporation, bloated at the top, with a board of directors. One of the board members is a VP of the Susan B. Anthony List who advocates that abortion leads directly to breast cancer !!!! It's time to put Komen in it's place and defund THEM.
"pink ribbon on the box of mashed potatoes". LOVE IT.
Komen's action may turn out to be a bonanza for PP. Sensible people are outraged at Komen's decision to withdraw some of its support for women's health. Donations to PP (including mine) are flying in. It's been a kind of awakening for me. I know I must be much more proactive in defending PP against extremists. Seems a lot of people are feeling the same.
This doesn't surprise me. When charities get into merchandising, when they become big business, less and less of the money goes to the cause.
I think we as women and any men that support us should all start wearing black ribbons letting everybody know we are not going to support the Koman foundation due to their pulling out of Planned Parenthood. I live in WV and if not for Planned Parenthood there would be a lot of women doing without these medical services that DO save lives. How many women are going to have to die when they find out they have stage 4 female cancers, because they didn't have the money or the health insurance to go to a doctor or hospital. How many children are going to grow up without a mother due to this decision? It's a shame the GOP has to get involved with every aspect of a womans personal dilemma. Who died an appointed them God, judge and jury? Let's have black ribbon week, starting today, and come November vote a straight Democratic ticket!
But Suan G Komen has ni problem giving $7.5M in funding to Penn State, a school I personal like, but which is in a heap of well deserved trouble and being investigated up the wazoo
Many years ago, I felt a lump and was panicked. I didn't have the money for a doctor and didn't want to use the ER for something like that. I went to Planned Parenthood and asked for help. They did a breast exam, felt the lump, and said I should have a mammogram. They referred me to a nearby clinic that could do one, and even helped me out by covering the costs. I was lucky, and it turned out not to be cancer. They'll get my money any day over Komen. If their real reason truly is the abortions performed, shame on Komen for getting involved in something that should be between the woman, her loved ones, and her doctor.
yes but let's put it in perspective. 3% of what PP does is abortion related services. 97% is women's health issues. Oh and ABORTION is legal in the United States no matter WHAT these wingnuts 'believe'.
This move is bringing a whole LOT of things to the light. First, I think the board had become so skewed toward rightwing wingnuts that it became like a sounding chamber. To that group, Planned Parenthood, no matter WHAT else they do, is just an 'abortion mill', and nobody in their circle would ever speak its name without spitting on the ground first. *rolls eyes* And I think they believe the rest of America (in other words, their donors and supporters) would be the same, and not raise any real fuss to find out they weren't going to be providing funding for them anymore. Guess this response means they really don't have their finger on the pulse of the country and they were WRONG. (PP raising almost a million in a day in direct response was a hint.)
But other issues that even if PP isn't your thing, are now becoming more public as a result, as the Komen Foundation loses a bit of its rosy pink glow, like its current habit of SUING other charities that use the word 'CURE' in their name. Seriously? I can understand Komen, I could understand 'race for the cure', but trying to be proprietary over a common dictionary word that ANY charity focused on any sort of medical disease or condition would use? Like the donors might get confused by 'cure for Alzheimers' or 'Cure for ALS' and think that 'the only thing that needs cured is breast cancer, this must be a Komen subsidiary'? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/komen-foundation-charities-cure_n_793176.html
And that is ridiculous.
So now Komen says they defunded PP because PP doesn't actually perform breast exams? BULLPUCKY. They're clearly surprised at how intense the criticism has been. How can they be so out of touch? This is about women's health! Until this week, I thought Komen was about that too.
I would like to see Rachel or another sharp journalist go back and decode the detailed political donation records of the Komen founder Nancy Brinker. I read, years and years ago, that she and Komen's upper management were staunch Republican supporters and donors. That is certainly their right, but it's also relevant to the discussion at hand.
I just took a look at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) records available online at http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/qind/ for Nancy Brinker. I believe that everything listed on this page refers to the same Nancy Brinker, but an astute journalist can fact check that, and look at the data in more detail. If all of the donations are, in fact, from that same Nancy Brinker they total around $125,000. I have not looked at the donation record for other Komen management, or close family to Brinker.
Some names appear on the recipient list who have become synonymous with restrictive and obstructionist government, such as Mel Martinez and Eric Cantor. I think it is naive to think that some of the money that people have been raising and donating has not gone to causes that would shock some of them. Years ago, knowing Brinker was a big Republican contributor, I decided to work with other groups (I did the Avon Walk for Breast Cancer), and have shunned Komen. But, Rachel, can you tell us more?
Meanwhile, I am working very hard to campaign for candidate David Hunsicker, who is running to unseat Eric Cantor, obstructionist in chief.
Good luck on your campaign to unseat Cantor, the man who said disaster funds cannot be approved unless paid for by taking money from somewhere else. I hope his constituents remember that on election day.
Typical wingnut maneuver - "We will defund any abortion related organization - even if it means revoking the opportunity to save lives through their services." What most people do not realize is that abortions do save lives as well.