The scandal of the month appears to be the short-lived "non-political" decision by the Susan Komen Foundation to cut it's ties to Planned Parenthood, which has used Komen Foundation money to provide breast cancer screening and support to thousands of women. The Foundation defended its decision because they have a "policy" that prohibits them from making grants to organizations "under investigation." What investigation was targeting Planned Parenthood (PP)? In case you hadn't heard, Republican Representative Cliff Stearns of Florida has launched a Congressional Investigation of PP. That's not even close to a criminal investigation, which most of us might consider possibly valid rationale for a charity to guard its grant money. Congressional investigations are a dime a dozen and signify nothing, beyond some political agenda.
In this case, Representative Stearns is an avowed opponent of PP and has vowed to find a way to cut off all federal funds the group receives. PP is already prohibited from using those funds to provide abortion services, but that is apparently not good enough for Mr. Stearns.
What's even worse than the Congressional witch-hunt, is the lame and unbelievable defense that the Komen CEO presented for the Foundation's action. When word spread that the Komen Foundation had succumbed to heavy pressure from abortion opponents to cut ties with PP, CEO Nancy Brinker maintained that the decision had nothing to do with her recent hiring of a former conservative Georgia gubernatorial candidate as Vice-President for Public Policy. Karen Handel lost her race for nomination in 2010 after campaigning on an anti-Planned Parenthood platform. Brinker announced that Handel "had nothing to do with" the Foundation decision to cut off PP funds, despite the fact that Brinker had already said the action was taken in conformance with a new Foundation "policy." Who could possibly believe that the person in charge of public policy wasn't involved? It's just plain ridiculous.
The good news is that Planned Parenthood raised nearly a million dollars in the few days after the Komen announcement, and the Internet was filled with angry people who vowed to never participate in another Komen "Race for the cure" fundraiser.
Don't forget, this is the same foundation that filed lawsuits a year or so ago against other charities who they alleged were infringing on Komen's "trademark" of the words "for the cure." Can you say charity acting like a corporation?
2 comments:
The outcry was in part because SGK was NOT stating that they would not fund PP in the future. They were cutting out CURRENT grants! And, as you point out "under investigation" by a Congressional Committee is a LOT different than under potential criminal investigation. This was a "new" policy of PP. Any guesses as to who might have proposed/advanced this "new" policy?
I already voted my guess!
BTW, I read a news report that said their 'retraction' today didn't mean they would fund PP in the future, only that they could be considered. The article said they never planned to cancel grants in process. So the entire debacle was handled very poorly by SGK and I believe it's going to take a very long time for them to repair the mess.
Post a Comment