While a reversal of the decision is welcome, it also raises further questions. Komen denied yesterday that the de-funding had anything to do with investigations, even though their original memo said just that. Instead they claimed that the decision was based on “new metrics” and the desire to do “direct service” grants. Now, however, they are back to the “investigations” reason. And, Planned Parenthood can “apply” for future grants but who knows what that means now?
It seems that the Susan G. Komen Foundation did not think very carefully when making the decision to cut off breast cancer prevention grants to Planned Parenthood clinics. And Komen is becoming increasingly isolated as outrage grows.
Greg Sargeant of the Washington Post reports that the Komen controversy is “about to get significantly more intense [as] nearly two dozen Senators are set to enter the fray.” Twenty-two Democratic Senators have signed on to a strongly-worded letter urging Komen to reverse its decision.
Writing in The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg reports that sources with direct knowledge of the Komen decision-making process said recent policies were adopted specifically to cut funding to Planned Parenthood.
We must stand with Planned Parenthood. But let’s not do so in a way that denies the extreme importance of all the services they provide. As advocates for reproductive justice, the last thing we can afford to do is allow ourselves to become complicit in the stigmatization of abortion.
Can you trust a breast cancer organization whose staff and board lie about medical science, including breast cancer?
Now in its “spin-cycle,” Komen for the Cure is trying to justify its actions defunding critical breast cancer screening for the poor with a serious case of “pink-washing.” Their rationale? They care about women. So they lie to them and deny them services.
This week it became clear there are things more important to the Susan G. Komen Foundation–the fundraising giant that each year during breast cancer awareness month virtually swathes the United States in pink, a la Christo–than ensuring women are able to access exams for early detection of breast cancer. In a word: Politics.
How would you react if you learned that a prominent women’s health organization commissioned a perfume that contains chemicals with demonstrated negative health effects?
In a new–and much-anticipated–report, the Institute of Medicine recommends that health reform guidelines for preventive care to be developed by the HHS include no-copay for contraception and a wide range of preventive services.