Karen Handel, Susan G. Komen's Anti-Abortion VP, Drove Decision To Defund Planned Parenthood

They DO NOT provide funding for abortions.

They provide funding for cancer screenings!!!

There's tone deaf, and then there's just deaf. The news has been absolutely clear in reporting that the grants from SGK were for BC screening, and that that is what PP used the money for. The small amount of money that PP spends on abortions is absolutely documented as being from donors like me that support freedom of choice. Not a penny of any donation anyone made to SGK has supported abortion. Now, if someone wants an excuse to stop supporting SGK, they can use whatever excuse they want. But the better excuses are that SGK went political, did not support their primary cause, and lied. Including lying about Handle having any role in the decision making. From disgusting to despicable to stupid.

Well Jim, it would seen that SGK now has a lot more to worry about than your alleged quarterly contribution.

They were founded to support CANCER research and cures NOT provide funding for abortions NOT supporting the anti-choice politics! Fixed that for you.

"Contributing to an organization who provides abortions" ≠ providing funding for abortions. None of the money went for abortions. But I wouldn't want facts to get in the way of your disingenuous anti-choice talking points.

These non profits are money laundering organizations. They pay huge salaries to insured clowns that spent there daze making themselves look useful. Non profits are country clubs for the useless...

Who's pro-abortion? I've never met anyone who's "pro-abortion" in my life.

Jake: Amazing... I founded a non profit for veterans, we took in all of a whopping $38k last year and every single penny went to help Veterans in need and can prove it...

I will agree some NPO's have outrageous salaries and perks, and some are outrigh thieves, but to classify all as the same...

All I can say I hope you never need one!

As for SGK, prove to me they do not support abortion!

As for my "alleged" donations, send me an address and I'll send you the last 7 years worth of canceled checks! I got nothing to hide!

I really don't care about your cancelled checks. I use the word alleged because anyone can say anything on an anonymous message board. One would be foolish to take any claim made at face value. I could say I donate half my paycheck to Planned Parenthood. And admit it, it was a very convenient thing to say: you happened to have donated to SGK until you (obviously having issues with choice) found out they "fund abortions". (Which they don't, but anyway.) So, OK fine, you used to give to SGK and don't any longer. As for SGK "funding abortions", Planned Parenthood performs clinical breast exams and refers patients for mammograms should anything abnormal be found. These are the services what little money SGK allocated Planned Parenthood went toward. But if one has such a problem with reproductive freedom, facts aren't going to matter to them. Perhaps you can make your quarterly contributions to Operation Rescue or some other nice frothing-at-the-mouth anti-choice group. Don't worry--I won't ask for your cancelled checks.

You are totally misinformed. SPK does not fund abortions.

Pastafarian

No one is pro-abortion? What about the doctors who perform them and rake in a ton of money for doing so. How about the people at PP who work in the abortion industry?

Pro-abortion is a sensationalistic, rhetorical term invented by the pro-life movement, similar to "partial birth abortion". No one likes abortion. Not the woman having the abortion, not the physician performing the abortion. Not I. No one says, "Hey, I'm pregnant! Yay, now I get to have an abortion!" No one tells a pregnant woman "It would be awesome if you terminated that pregnancy." We're pro-choice. That means we like a woman being the one who makes that decision. I shouldn't be able to tell a pregnant woman who feels she needs to terminate her pregnancy that she can't any more that I should be able to tell a woman who I feel isn't in a position to be a mother that she must abort. It's about choice, freedom and privacy. Again, no one is pro-abortion.

Nancy wants 12yr olds to have abortions

Nancy Pelosi wants 12 y/o to have abortions? Do you hear yourself? I would think Nancy Pelosi would want 12 y/o and anyone else to not need to have abortions. How about you? Are you for comprehensive sex ed? Cheap, easy access to birth control? Over-the-counter emergency contraception? If you abhor abortion as you say you do (as opposed to Nancy Pelosi and me who want to require all 12-year-olds to have an abortion before entering junior-high), seems you should be fighting a lot harder for access to birth control, etc. than Nancy and I.

By the way choice is code for abortion.

By the way, according to whom?

partial birth abortion

Regarding the made-up term "partial-birth abortion", see above.

I'll believe every word the Komen folks say about their decisions being non-political just as soon as they explain why their "non-political" decision did not also include stopping funds to Penn State which is under investigation for the Sandusky scandal.

Pasta

If 'partial birth abortion' is a made up term, so what? Words and terms are made up every day to describe something new.

What is not new is the use of weasel words to disguise one's meaning. The term 'pro-choice' is such a weasel word. The issue is not choice, the issue is abortion.

I am not 'anti-choice', I make choices all the time. Coffee, not tea. A blue shirt, not white. Republican, not idiot. See, I make choices.

What I am, is anti-abortion. I'm anti-abortion because abortion takes a human life. Most people--even those who advocate for abortion-- know that deep down inside, that's why they have to use a weasel word instead.

Once again, the issue is abortion, not 'choice'. I'm anti-abortion, and you my friend, whether you admit it or not, are pro-abortion.

Thank God Mr Bush and the congress restricted this procedure.

The partial-birth abortion bill was nothing but a publicity stunt for Republican lawmakers who think they are more capable of making decisions regarding the best medical procedure to be used in a given situation than the attending physician. It is a procedure usually used in an emergency situation when the mother's life is in extreme jeopardy. It's one more example of the willingness of abortion foes to sacrifice the lives of women to further their political agenda.

Valdez

When I said it was a made-up term I only meant it was to describe a new form of abortion, distinguishing it from other forms. You are right, it is a horrible procedure.

Redphish- you are simply in denial by describing PBA as a publicity stunt. It never fails to amaze how the pro-abortion industry tries to use rhetoric as a defense for killing the not-yet-born.

If there were no restrictions on this awful procedure women would be coming in to the clinic in the 9th month demanding an abortion.

Elective late-term abortions are illegal. They can only be performed if there is a danger to the health of the mother or in the case of severe fetal abnormalities. Banning one particular procedure changes nothing with regards to when late term abortions can be carried out.

As I said before, the whole issue of the law restricting so called partial birth abortions achieved nothing but to restrict the options of a physician in what procedures he can use in a given case. It was a publicity stunt.

What I am, is anti-abortion. I'm anti-abortion because abortion takes a human life.

In most cases, so does not having the abortion.

It all comes down to who do you want to kill, the mother or an un-viable fetus. That is the choice I, as a woman want. I want the choice to save my own life over that of an un-viable fetus. No woman wants to face that choice, but it must be there all the same.

You can not change that.

That's where the baby is partially born, at least the head is out. Then the abortionist uses his scissors. That's the standard procdure. It's not made up, it happens, ghastly procedure. Thank God Mr Bush and the congress restricted this procedure. You can get more detail if you google the term.

This procedure has been illegal for quite a bit of time. Late term abortions are NOT performed in this manner, even in cases of medical necessity. Instead, the fetus is given an injection to cause it's heart to stop, and then labor is induced or a c-section is performed (depending on what is safest). These are exceedingly rare - and women (and the fathers) who go through this are grieving. They didn't just decide they didn't want a baby; there was serious medical complications (either with the fetus and/or the mother).

There is no need to thank Bush for banning partial birth abortions - since they were exceedingly rare, and had been replaced by the method I described above long before Bush's law. When he signed that into law - it was simply posturing to make it appear that he did something about abortion - he didn't (not really).

When he signed that into law - it was simply posturing to make it appear that he did something about abortion

Which is why I long ago stopped calling George W. Bush "stupid". From abortion to gay marriage, he knew just exactly what his groupies wanted to hear and fed them a steady diet.

No different than any rock-star you've ever seen...they give their audiences what they want.

MJMullinll: Exactly right.

No one is pro-abortion? What about the doctors who perform them and rake in a ton of money for doing so. How about the people at PP who work in the abortion industry?

Your anti-choice leaders are lying to you. Abortion providers and support staff make a fraction of traditional medical staff. I worked for a world renown late term abortion provider and shocker I am not pro-abortion....I am definitely pro-choice.

That's where the baby is partially born, at least the head is out. Then the abortionist uses his scissors. That's the standard procdure. It's not made up, it happens, ghastly procedure. Thank God Mr Bush and the congress restricted this procedure. You can get more detail if you google the term.

Incorrect! This is not and I repeat NOT how an abortion is performed. This horribly graphic procedure was described many moons ago by someone that had no authority to do so and the anti-choice fanatics have run with the description because it fulfills their needs of horror! A late term procedure is performed over three days. On the first day an injection is delivered to the fetal heart. The second day an ultrasound is done to verify fetal death. Third day is the evacuation. This is not done with scissors but rather sterile surgical tools.

Valdeziscoming: Partial Birth Abortions (the scissors thing) have been illegal (in all of the US) for many years - even prior to them being illegal, they had been largely replaced by the method Vooda describes. Furthermore, ALL late term abortions are exceedingly rare. Saying that the partial birth abortion is how all late term abortions are performed is like saying that malaria is still used to treat syphilis. The fact is, it's an outdated method that hasn't been used for quite a long time - and to suggest otherwise is dishonest. Perhaps it is you that is misinformed.

No matter how the procedure is performed, you still haven't explained how banning this particular procedure prevents women from demanding and receiving already illegal 9th month elective abortions.

Elective abortions that late in a pregnancy were illegal long before Bush took office. The Obamas were opposed to the partial birth abortion ban for the same reason many were. It served no useful purpose and would restrict the options doctors had available to treat their patients.

In my opinion, the scissors should NEVER be an option.

Assuming that you aren't a doctor, your opinion is meaningless and should not be considered when deciding what medical procedures are or are not appropriate in any given case. I find it amusing that you avoided addressing my rebuttal of your claim that former President Bush was responsible for making elected late term abortion illegal when he so obviously did not.

Abortion rates also vary depending on the stage of pregnancy and the method practiced.

In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 26% of abortions in the United States were known to have been obtained at less than 6 weeks' gestation, 18% at 7 weeks, 15% at 8 weeks, 4.1% at 16 through 20 weeks and 1.4% at more than 21 weeks.

90.9% of these were classified as having been done by "curettage" (suction-aspiration, Dilation and curettage, Dilation and evacuation), 7.7% by "medical" means (mifepristone), 0.4% by "intrauterine instillation" (saline or prostaglandin), and 1.0% by "other" (including hysterotomy andhysterectomy).^[79]

According to the CDC, due to data collection difficulties the data must be viewed as tentative and some fetal deaths reported beyond 20 weeks may be natural deaths erroneously classified as abortions if the removal of the fetus is accomplished by the same procedure as an induced abortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion

Just some facts to discuss rather than anti-choice rhetoric.

valdez writes....In my opinion, the scissors should NEVER be an option. It is a barbaric procedure. Thank you Mr Bush.

Can you not comprehend? Or are you playing hard headed ignorance? If you read my earlier comment 2.28 you would understand you are using emotional verbiage spoon fed by the anti-choice crowd. You can continue to ignore the truth and look uninformed or continue to cover your eyes, plug your ears, and childishly say, "I can't hear you". The truth is scissors are NOT used. The procedure is performed in a very professional manner following strict guidelines. I would make this suggestion, refrain yourself from getting erroneous information from anti-choice sites.

I don't care if you believe in choice or not....doesn't matter to me....just stop putting your misinformed comments out there.

We don't make law and have no input, but we do have a right to express our meaningless opinions.

The problem comes when politicians created laws like the partial birth abortion laws specifically to pander to voters like you without regard to whether those laws have any medical justification.

You most certainly have a right to your opinion but at the end of the day, it's none of your business whether someone chooses to have an abortion and you have no moral right to demand politicians create laws to make them harder to get, to restrict doctors from performing certain procedures or to attempt to make them illegal altogether

Roe was a big mistake that divided the country and the issue ain't goin away.

Roe v Wade was not a mistake. People butting into other people's personal healthcare decisions on the other hand are BIG INTRUSIVE MISTAKES. You are correct (can't believe I am writing those words) when you say the issues are not going away, at least as long as buttinski right-wingers continue to try and invade personal freedoms.

I'm glad you understand that your opinion is meaningless valdez.

@2.24 Icegal

You make a claim that

In most cases, so does not having the abortion.

It all comes down to who do you want to kill, the mother or an un-viable fetus. That is the choice I, as a woman want. I want the choice to save my own life over that of an un-viable fetus. No woman wants to face that choice, but it must be there all the same.

I would really like to see the numbers that support this claim. If you can show me that even 50 percent of all abortions performed were done to save the woman's life, i will gladly donate $$$ to PP. Yes, I am not even asking for "most". Just half.

The sad fact is that "most" abortions are done as a way to get rid of an unwanted child. No more, no less. it isn't done for all of the reasons that are given here, such as to prevent "hell-on-earth for both woman and child, or to save a woman's life, or to prevent a 11 or 12 year old from going through child birth. it is done simply because the woman makes a "choice" to kill an unborn child. Are there cases as those described here? Certainly. But the percentage of abortions that are performed for those reasons given are a very small percentage. Most reasons are those that start with: "I don't want a child right now"

Why does any woman owe anyone explanations on her personal decisions on how she chooses to live her life?

This oppression might fly in countries like Saudi Arabia, but this is the United States which is supposed to be the "land of the free".

@Icegal,

Nevermind getting the numbers of abortions related to the health of the mother. Everyone who can use Google already knows the answer is less than 1 percent of all abortions are done to save the life of the mother. 98 percent of all abortions are done as "elective". That means that 98 percent of all abortions are done with the woman making the statement, "I don't want a baby right now". 98 percent. Nowhere near half. That is the sad truth about abortion. In 46 percent of abortions, no contraception was used to prevent the pregnancy. And yet there are those who are concerned about a woman's right to choose. I firmly agree that a woman should be able to choose whether to have a child or not. I just have a different time-line as to when the choice should be made. If a woman today in America is not educated enough to understand that un-protected sex can result in pregnancy, she has far more serious problems than being forced to have a child or not.

When are the "pro-murder" people going to admit the truth? Abortion is a stupid woman's form of birth control.

overview of effectiveness of various birth control methods ...

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/birthcontrolfailure.html

Even if used correctly birth control can fail. And due to side effects, some people's choices of birth control are limited.

We definitely need more education and open discussions on sex and birth control in the US instead of the backward "abstinence only" brainwashing that passes as sex education currently.

@2.39

You ask about whether a person has the capacity to understand. I must ask the same of you. Explain the professional procedure that doctors use to perform a PBA, please. Explain why 98 percent of all abortions performed are for purely selfish reasons, and not the rare excuses used here to defend poor decision making? Regardless of which instrument that is used, whether it is scissors or a "professionally designed instrument", there is a sharp tool that is driven into the back of the child's skull and twisted around. Then a vacuum is used to suck the mangled remains out. Call it what you want, but that is the harsh reality of PBA.

If the truth of why women are having abortions can't be discussed, then there is no reason to discuss it any further. I am in full agreement to give women the right to choose whether to have a child or not. I just think the choice should be made earlier in the process. 46 percent of all abortions performed were done on women who used no contraception. nealry half of all abortions. Just because they didn't make a "choice" to use protection. And yes, there are failure rates even if certain forms of contraception are used. But, they are no where near the failure rate of not using any. And remember, 46 percent of the women who have abortions didn't make the "choice" to try to prevent the pregnancy.

Explain why 98 percent of all abortions performed are for purely selfish reasons, and not the rare excuses used here to defend poor decision making?

First explain who put you in charge of women lives.

And remember, 46 percent of the women who have abortions didn't make the "choice" to try to prevent the pregnancy.

And remember, 46 percent of the women who have abortions had sex with MEN who did not make the choice to try to prevent the pregnancy.

Regardless of which instrument that is used, whether it is scissors or a "professionally designed instrument", there is a sharp tool that is driven into the back of the child's skull and twisted around. Then a vacuum is used to suck the mangled remains out.

That's not entirely true. As explained earlier, first an injection is given to cause the fetuses heart to stop, then after this is confirmed to be successful, the dead fetus is delivered - either via induced labor or c-section. The only time the skull is decompressed (which is what you are describing) anymore is when the head is too large to safely deliver either vaginally or via a c-section. This is exceedingly rare and is typically due to a late onset of a specific type of hydrocephalus that is incompatible with life (meaning the fetus is going to die whether aborted or not) and an abortion is necessary to save the mother's life (because she cannot safely deliver the fetus).

98 percent of all abortions are done as "elective". That means that 98 percent of all abortions are done with the woman making the statement, "I don't want a baby right now".

And that is our choice. Every woman has the right to say "I don't want a baby right now". People like you have demonized us for wanting sex, have reviled us for using contraception, and then have the nerve to call us murderers for not wanting to have a child.

Until you can shelter and grow a life within you, you do not have the right to tell women what kind of people we are for making the best choices we can for our life. Nor do you have the moral right to judge the impact having a child would make on women.

In short, it's not your decision. Ever.

Explain why 98 percent of all abortions performed are for purely selfish reasons, and not the rare excuses used here to defend poor decision making?

Purely selfish???? ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

As I stated above, until you can grow a life inside you, it is not your moral right to decide for someone else, the impact in their lives having a baby makes.

f the truth of why women are having abortions can't be discussed, then there is no reason to discuss it any further. I am in full agreement to give women the right to choose whether to have a child or not. I just think the choice should be made earlier in the process.

It can be discussed, and has. You are just so stuck on what you think is morally right, that you can't see the reality that women face.
The negative emotional impact that women face from friends, family and religious community for the use of contraceptives can be emotionally devastating. Get rid of the stigma of using contraceptives and more women would use them.

Icegal, you don't understand. I agree that a woman should have the right to say " I don't want a baby right now". I am all in favor of women exercising that right. I encourage it. I applaud any woman who makes that bold of a statement. What I have a problem with is WHEN she makes that choice. As the stats show, many times she makes that decision AFTER it is too late to pro-actively prevent the pregnancy. Too often, she is making that statement to the wrong person. Instead of making that statement to her partner, she is making it to a doctor who is about to perform legalized murder to accommodate the women's wishes. No one is trying to force women to be sex slaves or anything else. All I am asking is that they are bold enough to make the decision BEFORE they get pregnant, not after. Contraception is not an issue that is very difficult to understand. What is difficult for men and women to understand is that unwanted pregnancies CAN BE PREVENTED, with simple adjustments. The main problem is that of the 98 percent of women who have "elective" abortions, 46 percent of them feel as though they don't need to practice contraception, and will just kill the unborn child, oh well, case closed. Where is the tolerance, the compassion for the child? Where is the guardian for the one's who can't fight for themselves? Where is the maternal instincts that women are supposed to have inherently, that should prevent them from wanting to murder their offspring?

As far as the negative emotional impact from friends, family and religious communities over the use of contraception, my answer to that is to not display a 8 foot by 10 foot sign in your front yard that tells the world you are using contraception. Or maybe you should not post on your FB page how many condoms you went through in a month, or a night. Or don't take out ads in the local paper asking for bulk quotes on IUD devices. These simple steps will usually stop the family and friends from making those negative comments. The point being, that if you don't talk about using contraception, who will know? Other than the website you order them from, or the local PP office that dispenses them and is bound by HIPPA laws that prevent them from discussing that aspect of your life with anyone else. Bluntly, your argument about negative emotional impact on using contraception does not hold water.

newwtricks,

Do you hold men who do not use condoms equally accountable for causing unwanted pregnancies?

http://bonosrama.newsvine.com/_news/2012/02/07/10252153-dont-like-abortion-then-keep-your-dna-inside-your-own-body

What does holding a man accountable for a woman getting pregnant have to do with the choice to kill an unborn child? The man already IS equally accountable. It takes two to make a baby. It takes just one to decide to kill it. A man can't force a woman to kill an unborn child legally. A woman CAN choose to kill an unborn child legally. Combine those two statements and you now have the basis as to why men are not equally accountable for abortions performed. As for preventing unwanted pregnancies, yes, men are as accountable for making sure protections are used, correctly. But that has nothing to do with abortions.

If you are going to one up the anti-abortion crowd and claim that bodily fluids such as semen are not to be excreted anywhere except in a the womb of the wife, go for it. I have no problem with that. But, you do.

Icegal, you don't understand. I agree that a woman should have the right to say " I don't want a baby right now". I am all in favor of women exercising that right. I encourage it. I applaud any woman who makes that bold of a statement.

Then you and I can agree.

Something that we may not agree on is that abortion will always be a guaranteed right for women.

The reality is that women are demonized for using contraceptives, or for even wanting to enjoy the sexual freedom that men enjoy.

It makes sense to me that if more men admire a woman who says "I don't want a baby right now," they would also admire her for an open discussion of birth control and what to use.

Wouldn't you agree with that?

Here is a report from the cdc. Mabey this will help you and others with some perspective. No where inside this report is there speculation on the "selfishness" of women in obtaining these abortions.

IMHO, calling a woman "selfish" for making a hard decision, is a major put down.

IMHO, Killing an unborn child simply because you were too stupid to have your partner wear a condom is not a valid reason to have an abortion. And for 46 percent of abortions done, that was the case. And yes, it is a selfish act for a woman to kill a child, simply because she "claims" to not be able to handle the raising of the child. Too bad we don't have some form of way to allow her to have the child, and then allow another people. or persons adopt that child. You know, like an adoption. Yea, that would work. And then the mother would not have to live with the fact that she murdered someone, and the child will be raised by people who are ready for the challenge, and another life will be saved.

Every life, every unborn child, deserves a chance at life. Just like the chance you were given. To have a woman decide that she isn't ready, when she took no steps (in 46 percent of aborted cases) to prevent the pregnancy, is wrong at every level. Teach women that having unprotected sex may result in pregnancy. Then teach them that there are alternatives to murder, should they be one of the unlucky ones who could not understand the first part. Then persuade them to make the right choice and not kill the child. That is about as simple as it can get. Anything else is for the "selfish" woman.

Ah, here we get to the heart of the issue.

Killing an unborn child simply because you were too stupid to have your partner wear a condom is not a valid reason to have an abortion.

Putting the blame on the woman for the multiple reasons she chooses to not use conventional birth control, or for her not enforcing that decision in her partner, is just shortsighted, and tells me you are simplistic in your reasoning. Can you not comprehend the myriad reasons a woman may not want a child? Is it selfish for a woman to put her physical and mental health first? Don't you understand that adoption is not always a ready option?

Every life, every unborn child, deserves a chance at life. Just like the chance you were given.

If all life were precious then any female creature would not have the ability spontaneously abort, every pregnancy would produce young, and there would be an imbalance in the ecosystem. No individual life deserves a chance, just because it could live. The choice to abort is given to most female mammals, and is a harsh choice. Abortion is a part of birth control, and that is something you are going to have to come to terms with.

Teach women that having unprotected sex may result in pregnancy. Then teach them that there are alternatives to murder, should they be one of the unlucky ones who could not understand the first part. Then persuade them to make the right choice and not kill the child. That is about as simple as it can get. Anything else is for the "selfish" woman.

Abortion is not murder, so get over it.

That is about as simple as it can get.

Nothing about having a child, or not having a child is simple, and neither are the choices involved. It can not be simplified.

I'm not sure that this can all be laid at the feet of Handel, Brinker has right wing ties going back to Reagan.

It has also come to light that in a more egregious anti-women's health political move, last November SGK pulled twelve million dollars in research grants for universities that were using stem cells in their research and in some cases, apparently only using stem cells on other research, not breast cancer research. Totally bogus political moves.

I am also seeing disturbing reports on how much the top people are paid. The administrative costs appear to be out of line and the salaries are a big part of it.

I am a longtime supporter of SGK personally and professionally. As far as I'm concerned that support is done and will not be renewed until Brinker, Handel, and any board member who supported this move is gone.

I don't mind the $30K for the coordinators who work with all the different races/walks etc. They put in the hours and do a lot of work for that money. I do mind the half a million that Brinker gets paid and the $300,000 and up the other execs. get paid. I know it's not near what private corporations pay but it seems out of line.

Take a look at the financials that show that only 40% of what they bring in gets spent on research and care. The remainder goes to 'overhead'! I think SGK is going to be real sorry that they opened this can of worms.

A Fiscal Times review of Komen’s finances show that about 40 percent of the group’s $177 million annual budget goes toward grants to fund breast cancer research and care. The remaining 60 percent is divided between advertising and promotion and consulting contracts, each of which accounts for about $18.5 million. The budget also calls for $11.7 million for office expenses, $2 million for staging charity race events, and $14.4 million for salaries. Komen’s chief executive officer, Hala Moddelmog, made $456,437 in 2009, and other top executives earned in the $300,000 range.

I'm not sure that this can all be laid at the feet of Handel, Brinker has right wing ties going back to Reagan.

I agree. Hanel, Brinker and Abraham...and who knows how many others?

http://inthesetimes.com/duly-noted/entry/12660/pink_fibbin_susan_g._komens_lies_about_breast_cancer/

3. Elected Jane Abraham, the General Chairman of the anti-choice Susan B. Anthony List, to the SGK board despite the fact that SBA is notorious for spreading misinformation about federal funding for abortion to further its attempts to elect Republicans.

Abraham has close ties to the Nurturing Network, a network of "crisis pregnancy centers." CPCs are propaganda outlets that outwardly mimick women's health clinics, but actually exist purely to dissuade women from having abortions, by deception, if necessary.

A favorite CPC tactic is to tell women that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, a myth which has been rejected by the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organization and the Institutes of Medicine, amongst other authorities.

As for Brinker's history as a GOP supporter who is well supported by the GOP ....

http://southernstudies.org/2012/02/flashback-how-the-komen-foundation-fights-health-reform-and-fails-cancer-patients.html

FLASHBACK: How the Komen Foundation fights health reform and fails cancer patients

DarwinWasRight - "Then fire Handel. I would believe they were sincere in there position. Until then... pffffttt."

Agree 100%. And I know many others who also agree. Handel has to go before Koman can have any chance at all of regaining their credibility. Like the Republican party, Koman allowed themselves to be seduced by, and succumbed to, the rabid religious extremists and became a willing party to their hate, lies and war against American women, and any and all who try to help them, especially, the poor. IMHO, the only way that SGK has any hope at all of regaining any trust of the people, is to get rid of Handel.

However...that is not as easy as just firing her. Why? Simple. Because the CEO of Koman sat in front of millions of people in various interviews for two days and swore that the decision was not political, but, due to the change in policy. Even when announcing the reversal of their cut off to PP, Brinker continued to stress that it was not political, that Handel had nothing to do with the decision. The fact that all but the most ignorant and religiously blind can see and understand that her denials were nothing but lies to cover up the fact that the cut off to PP was due entirely to the political agenda driven by Handel, leaves Koman, and Brinker, with pig sty mud on their face. So to turn around and fire Handel, or to encourage her to leave, will simply publicly confirm the fact that the PP grant cut off was indeed political, and that Handel did in fact have a great deal to do with that decision. That then makes Brinker a bald face liar and the actions of her organization politically motivated, which, would undoubtedly affect their credibility even more so.

Yet...if they don't get rid of Handel, they will face sufferong a huge loss of funds, as many will make donations to PP direct.

Soo....the dilimma....how to get rid of Handel without admitting they lied big time, tried to cover it up to avoid being seen as a political and/or religious activist or hand puppet, which would not only affect their donations, but, could also affect their exemption status. And, that might not be the only repercussions they might wind up having to deal with.

It will be interesting to see how they handle Handel going forward. I doubt that she will agree to go quietly, her kind never do. They only care about themselves and what they think or feel, and it is evident from her own actions in this whole sorry story, that she does not feel even a modicum of fiduciary concern, commitment or responsibility to the company that is now paying her very handsome salary, only to her own personal ideology and political/religious agenda. That she will do all she can to make sure that her agenda is met at the expense of others should be reason enough for her termination.

But, here again...how to do that without the risk of losing even more, or maybe everything.

Tink, Brinker has to go too. When you go in front of the world and lie about the motivation behind defunding PP you are no better than the woman who drove the issue for political reasons. Brinker, Handel, and board members who supported the move against PP all have to go. It's the only way they get any credibility back.

. . . and when you bring in the new staff, make sure they are real women's health activists and start them off at half the money that the current top staff are currently making. And you restore all funding of the research that they dropped in November.

BTW - Those who really want to make SGK a viable women's health organization again need to keep their profile up. The media is already bored with the issue and moving on.

RC - I agree that the only real way that Koman will be able to recover even a portion of their credibility is for the existing executive staff and board to be replaced. However that is unlikely to happen, at least not soon. One good way would be to get rid of Handel and try to bring back the people who quit because of the decision to defund PP. They at least showed that they do care about women and the service PP provides that helps save lives. They obviously did not approve of brining politics into the matter and the cheap, cheezy way the whole thing was done. Since Brinker was a big part of it, and even went public and lied about it, she is no longer a viable representative for that organization, no matter if it was started by her for his sister. IMHO, she is no longer acceptable as its leader. And as long as she and the others who were in agreement with the dirty trick I will not consider donating to that organization.

Now people are asking that Brinker be removed from the very foundation she started. Who are you to tell Brinker what she can and what she can't do? It is HER foundation. Not yours. If you don't like the way she runs SGK, then go out and show her how it is done. And when you reach the amount of results that she has reached, in the same time frame as she took to reach it, then you can decide if someone else can ask for you to be removed from your own foundation. Where does this gall come from? What gives anyone the right to demand that Brinker step down from SGK?

it's taken her 30 years, so it will be a long wait.

Now it may be the foundation she created, in the name of her sister, the fact is that it isn't her money, it is the public's money, donated to the foundation by the public at large.

Now if the public decides that they no longer have confidence in the organization and want brinker to leave, then they can show their displeasure by finding other breast cancer related charities to donate to instead of Komen.

If this was a private charity with its own independent source of revenue, then nothing here would be of note, because the only people they need to satisfy is the trustee's of the funds.

I agree that if the public does not approve of SGK or Brinker, that they can just close up the pocketbooks. But that wasn't what was being asked here. Ron Christman wasn't saying that he would not donate money as long as Brinker was involved with SGK. He was making a statement that Brinker should be removed from SGK, as if she is just a hired hand. NEWSFLASH, SGK is Brinker and Brinker is SGK. She started it, and if all you have is one decision that was made as a reason to have her removed, then I suggest you also hold others to that same level. One bad decision by a leader should result in the leader's removal, is that what you are saying? If so, get ready for a revolving door at the White House. And for the record, i am not sure that the decision made by SGK was a bad decision. They can do whatever they want. They have done quite a bit of good with the foundation. To lynch them as the media and the left has been trying to do over this is just wrong.

If that is what it takes to help restore credibility of the organization, he is right. The problem is that from a viability standpoint, two groups of people need to be removed:

1) Those that were instrumental in the action that caused the loss of 'goodwill' in the first place. Whether this is fair or not, right now, that focus is on Karen Handel. If there are more, we haven't heard their names. It all seems to be focussed on her.

2) Those that facilitated it either through deflection or other methods. In the case of Mrs Brinkman, she lied (though not under oath) about the reasoning and decision making process to try and deflect the causes of the unfortunately decision making process that created the loss of 'goodwill' in the Komen organization. That showed a very poor sense of judgement in a person who created the foundation in the name of her sister and a sense of betrayal towards those that have donated so much to the organization over the years.

In the case of 2), because the organization IS in the name of her sister, it may actually not be feasible to remove her from the organization though. It may end up that the organization withers and dies because it may not be possible to separate the two.

It may really be a catch 22, that she needs to go to restore that credibility but that she can't go because she is so intertwined into the organization that she created.

Now people are asking that Brinker be removed from the very foundation she started. Who are you to tell Brinker what she can and what she can't do?

She compromised the very foundation that she started. She brought politics into the picture, tried to pull a fast one and was stopped. I am not trying to tell her what to do, but if the SGK foundation means that much to her, she should step down. If the race for the cure is so important to her, she needs to get out of the race.

@ itstoolate

Have you ever considered that if the race to the cure really is that important, that letting one decision made over a 30 year period is not enough to pull funding from an excellent organisation? You expect Brinker to kow down to the left, because of one decision made in 30 years? To walk away from a wonderful concept that she created, just because her one decision doesn't sit well with one political side?

I would rather ask those who scream the loudest about stopping the donations to have themselves step down from their high horses and continue to donate to SGK. Not because of one decision that Brinker has made, but because of 30 years of hard work that she has done. Once again, we have the left telling others what they ought to do, instead of doing it themselves. You guys were taught by the best at this tactic though, I will give you that.

Gore: Everyone needs to use less fossil fuels, now excuse me, I need to be driven in my big SUV to my personal plane to my home that uses enough electricity to power 10 homes.

Obama: We need to tighten our belts, now excuse me, I have to use to presidential jets to whisk me and my family, separately of course to our umpteenth vacation at the taxpayers' expense.

Brinker compromised nothing. She made a decision. Period. If she wasn't that bright, she would never have gotten to the point that SGK is at. Give her the credit she deserves. I have not seen one person here who is attacking Brinker, or SGK come out and say they will do it any better. Put up, or shut up.

If a choice needs to be made, whether to have Brinker at the helm and give money to SGK without SGK giving to PP, or to have Brinker step down, I am all in favor of having Brinker stay. She has a proven track record of 30 years. What do any of you have?

hmmm bush had far more vacations than Obama has had over the same period of time, yet you did't include him. I sense a bit of partisan bull@!$%# there.

Jonathan, did you read the whole comment? I ask, as I made mention of the left being taught to tell others what they should do while doing the exact opposite themselves. Last time I checked, Bush wasn't a liberal. So, if you sense a bit of bull@!$%#, I can make a suggestion as to where you can look to find the source of it.

I, on the other hand would proudly display the pink ribbon on any merchandise I bring to market. Why? Because it stands for freedom. Freedom to do as one sees fit to do, without being pressured by those who seem to have a difference of opinion. It matters not to me whether Brinker, Handel or anyone else at SGK is pro this or anti that. It matters that they have had a profound impact on the fight to cure breast cancer. Everyone who wants to see the demise of SGK is truly against women in the sickest of ways, that being it is all about the politics.

Freedom to do as one sees fit to do, without being pressured by those who seem to have a difference of opinion.

Unless they are pro-choice?

There are a lot of ways to get the money to the actual providers without going through SGK.

So what's the problem then? Why did it matter if they de funded it? Oh that's right, bigots who cant see beyond their own hatred

You know they reversed their decision right? Ghat means you are now taking money away from women needing breast cancer screenings.

Except that most of us who no longer donate to SGK are now giving that money directly to PP instead -- to fund such things as needed breast cancer screenings at PP.

Sorry, I shouldn't have said "breast cancer" -- I should have just said "cancer," as there are other types of cancers besides breast cancer.

Although I did find this:

Did you know that Planned Parenthood provides 830,000 breast exams every year? Well, more than 170,000 of those have just been taken away--the Susan G. Komen for the Cure just cut all its funding to Planned Parenthood.

Read More http://www.glamour.com/health-fitness/blogs/vitamin-g/2012/02/no-more-free-breast-cancer-scr.html#ixzz1lZ5zy4Tu

And this:

To many people, breast cancer screening means a mammogram. But for millions of poor, mostly young women who visit Planned Parenthood, it is usually just a physical exam by the only health professional they may ever see.

Those clinical breast exams are controversial — government advisers don't endorse them. Yet for some, this simple exam has helped spot breast cancer. And Susan G. Komen for the Cure isn't the only group paying Planned Parenthood to do them — the government does, too. Komen actually funds relatively few.

http://news.yahoo.com/surprises-planned-parenthood-cancer-testing-220350325.html

East Bound and Down - "Ghat means you are now taking money away from women needing breast cancer screenings."

Good try, but, no cigar.

PP took in over 3 million dollars in direct donations in just the 3 days from the moment Koman announced that they were cutting off their grants to PP. That is more than 3 times the amount of money they receive in the breast cancer screening grants from Koman. Why was that, do you think? It was to make sure that no poor American woman, or man, who get breast cancer too, would have no means to continue to have this free service from PP.

The act by Koman shows just which of the 'Charity' groups really cares about American women, especially, poor American women.

PP doesn't have machines to perform mamograms. So where do you think your donations are really going?

Their affiliates do the actual mammograms. They are ultimately paid for by PP through PP'S funding.

In the past five years, Planned Parenthood used Komen grants to provide about 170,000 breast exams and more than 6,400 mammogram referrals, according to the Planned Parenthood website.

http://blogs.inlandsocal.com/moms/2012/02/momarama-politics-pr-disasters.html

PP doesn't have machines to perform mamograms. So where do you think your donations are really going?

They are going to the facilities where PP clinics refer patients in need of a mammogram.

I see Valdez is spewing his lies in this column too.

As Pat stated, while PP may not do the Mammograms, they refer and FUND the mammogram at the closed applicable facility that is capable of performing the procedure. That is all through the screening program.

If you are worried about people not funding SGK's to fund PP and depriving the poor of breast cancer screening and mammograms, then donate to PP... and on the memo line put "For Breast Cancer Screening". They have to obey that. But you are right that the clinics don't have mammogram machinery, however they dicker for a reduced fee and pay for the mammogram at the closet facility that will take the vouchers. That is providing a mammogram. They provide the funds.

You know they reversed their decision right?

Well, actually, they didn't. they said that PP would remain eligible for future grants. Anybody willing to bet they'll actually award those future grants to PP?

The sad part is that those who donate directly to PP think that the money will ONLY be used for screenings. OOpps. Guess what, it will also be used so that a woman can kill an unborn child, and you helped. Sleep well with that thought...

newtricks,

if you don't check the box on the donation form that indicates that the money you donate can go towards abortions, then the money won't be used to fund abortions. Simple solution to your concern, don't check the box if you don't want your money going towards abortions.

@Severed Head in a Jar #7.12

I'll take that bet. Name your wager.

:)

It takes a special kind of myopic bigot to not only lose a governor's race but in a matter of 24 hours tank the respect, trust and image of a world renowned organization in the fight against breast cancer and piss off both sides of an issue completely clouding the organization's primary mission......

Women's health.

I am sure Georgia is breathing a sigh of relief and SGK wondering WTF were we thinking???

If the right/pro-life sect think they are an easy road ahead when it comes to women's issues, health and even repeal of Roe v. Wade

They just need to look at this past week for an idea of just how NOT easy it will be.

Then again it's assuming they're smart enough to head warnings and harbringers

Give to ACS (American Cancer Society) if you wish, directly to PP. Cut Komen off at the neck and watch them writhe. 58 percent of your donation went to overhead

true, but THEY ARE!

Exactly, Rodney. And let me thank you for the work you did on this.

SGK has made the typical republican non-apology apology - Exactly!

SGK has damaged their brand irretrievably.I will avoid products associated with the right wing Republican/Teaparty values, and let the sponsors know. I will be joining millions of other women and men who care about health care for everyone.

This is a test case for universal health care, which starts with providing services according to need not ability to pay.

Exactly, itstoolate! As soon as the Komen folks can explain that, I'll gladly believe that none of their decisions were politically motivated.

Not that I support Komen - but isn't it Penn State's FOOTBALL PROGRAM (sports programs in general?) that is under investigation? Equating breast cancer research funding with "football" is a massive "STRETCH"

Inform me if I'm incorrect...

stubby, the ENTIRE penn state (central campus I believe as there are many campus's) is under investigation, because the child abuse/molestation was a) allegedly committed by Penn State employee's through a charity coordinated by the Penn State administration, AND b) that the board of trustee's was advised of said abuse and did nothing about it.

It isn't the first part that is the legal issue in terms of the incidents (well it is a problem, but in terms of an organization being under investigation, it isn't), it is the SECOND part that is the problem, because the board of trustee's knew about the allegations and chose to ignore them.

If it was just the first part, and not the second, there probably wouldn't be a problem because as you state the two are not related, as the Penn State donation was also for breast examination purposes. The second part however puts the administration of the related charity that the komen foundation donates its money to into a position of 'material connection'.

blame us for being political.'"

Karen, we are not blindly placing blame, it is blatantly clear what your motivation was.

as a result of the cut-off or as a result of the reinstatement? The article is a bit VAGUE on both the NUMBER and the TIME LINE.

I would have expected it from by the right wing nuts who shoot at abortion clinics as a result of the re-reinstatement. Left wing "former supporters" would just raise a stink (as they did) and get the funding cut off (which they also did).

Since Komen became a politically motivated organization, they can deal with the bed they have made for themselves, BY THEMSELVES.

@ stubby-phillips

That is too funny. The article was very clear in what it was trying to do, and that is to place Handel as being the sole person responsible for the cuts to PP. And somehow, you are now confused about a by-line of the article that clearly meant to illustrate that SGK was getting threats made against them from those opposed to the cuts. Too funny indeed. I understand why you do this. It is what you were shown to do by those who are far more practiced at that dodge than you are. think about Obama claiming he didn't know how bad the economy was when he told everyone he had the answers before the election, and after the election claims to not having a clue.

I will pray for you that you will one day be able to read that article and know without a doubt exactly what that little paragragh meant. I am fairly certain that if the author had an inkling that the threats were made from the Right, it would have been made extremely clear as to the intent.

so do YOU have information that wasn't available from the article? Willing to share that info with EVERYONE or is it merely SPECULATION? You LIKE ambiguity? Gives you the ultimate "out" eh?

BTW - this isn't a thread about presidential politics - there are plenty of those elsewhere (for that you get an EPIC FAIL!!)

I'm not political about the topic (unlike your apparently slightly ...<insert adjective of choice> attempt)

Please try to remember that when the left try to paint with such broad strokes of those on the right, huh?

what violence? the article makes mention of threats but no time lime is provided. after announcement of the cut-off or after reinstatement? I'd tend to believe the right wing religious nuts would be more apt to threaten AFTER reinstatement. The left would just try to cut off funding (which they have done)

We know you tend to believe the right wing would be more apt to threaten. You made that clear. The article would not throw a one paragragh item about SGK getting threats of violence from the right, when the entire article is written to show that the left have made SGK succumb to the pressure that was placed on it from the left. Do you really not see that?

I suspect you are trying to make a case here in that "It might be the Right making the threats" when it is very clear from the article that the mention of threats made against SGK were made in the same context of pressure being applied from the left. But please, keep on thinking what you want. I will continue to pray that you are one day able to understand.

I will continue to hope that you attempt an anatomically impossible act of self pro-creation.

i have no recollection of hearing any threats made by "the left wing" against ANY abortion clinic...

I have not heard of the left wing actually murdering anyone because of their beliefs either, something that Dr Tiller would beg to differ on the assertion that the radical right wing hasn't done so.

(I hope that isn't too confusing lol)