|
The editors who craft the Post-Gazette’s daily stands on the issues affecting the region, the state and the nation hold an on-line conversation with readers about key topics in the news. The PG editorial writers are: Tom Waseleski, Reg Henry, Susan Mannella, Tony Norman and Dan Simpson. Guide to commenting | Terms of Service |
|
Welcome to A Fine Point, a blog where you can comment on the issues of the day expressed in the Post-Gazette’s editorials. Do you have something to say about a national topic, don’t like something that’s happening in Pennsylvania or want to speak your mind about a Pittsburgh subject? Your chance to make a fine point not only to your neighbors but also to those who write the Post-Gazette’s official editorial viewpoints -- Tom Waseleski, Reg Henry, Susan Mannella, Tony Norman and Dan Simpson -- is here. Jump in early and often. The conversation is fine. |
That's how we feel about the short-lived breakup between the Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the world's largest network of breast cancer survivors and activists, and Planned Parenthood. The organizations have been natural allies for generations, with the Komen foundation's focus on trying to eradicate breast cancer and Planned Parenthood's mission of providing and advocating for women's sexual and reproductive health.
But then the Komen foundation's head got turned by a third party, the politics of abortion.
The organization had decided to cut off future financial support to the nation's largest abortion provider, even though that's just a fraction of Planned Parenthood's work and Komen's dollars were used to underwrite 170,000 breast cancer screenings for low-income women. (In Pittsburgh, the impact is not direct because the local Komen affiliate did not fund Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania.)
For some time, Komen has been under criticism from anti-abortion forces, but Nancy G. Brinker -- Komen CEO, founder and sister of its namesake -- insisted the change was not made for political reasons or to specifically target Planned Parenthood. Unfortunately, her comments were refuted by earlier statements from Komen and one of its board members, both of which said the decision was precipitated by an investigation of Planned Parenthood by Rep. Cliff Stearns, a Florida Republican. Komen board member John D. Raffaelli told The New York Times that the organization feared that continuing to support Planned Parenthood would take an unacceptable toll on donations.
As a strategy, that backfired, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations for Planned Parenthood poured in to compensate for the $700,000 from Komen, including a $250,000 matching grant from New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.
Regardless, Komen announced Friday that it was revising its intentions going forward. It said rather than disqualify any grant applicants that were under investigation by any local, state or federal authorities, it would limit the prohibition to those that are "criminal and conclusive in nature and not political."
We hope this reconciliation is permanent and that Komen's change of heart isn't motivated by how much this divorce was going to cost.
These two longtime partners have been united to ensure that all women, regardless of their financial circumstances, have access to lifesaving breast cancer screenings. Going forward, it is the Komen foundation that must prove its continued faithfulness to that goal.

written by Strohs58, February 05, 2012 - 11:03 AM
This is the very reason I choose not to contribute to Susan G Komen. The fact they give money to Planned Parenthood, who's main purpose is killing babies.
written by a guest, February 06, 2012 - 08:31 AM
This certainly has become a political issue, but not in the way presented in this editorial. Everyone is looking at this issue as Komen is bowing to political pressure from the right if they stop funding but in reality, they are simply bowing to political pressure from the left by continuing funding. In other words, it's good for politics to dictate the issue so long as liberal politics wins.
...
written by a guest, February 06, 2012 - 07:40 AM
332,278 abortions performed at Planned Parenthood in 2009 are counted as these first trimester surgical abortions, then the revenue generated by abortion would be $149.9 million. This would represent a full 37% of the $404.9 million in “health center income” Planned Parenthood reported
written by TS, February 06, 2012 - 11:40 AM
That's right Sally, any percentage you use 332,278 abortions in 2009 translates to 332,278 deaths. Oh, it's a womens choice so that makes it alright.
So you agree that 37% of Planned Parenthood income comes from abortions or 3% of its services. Gee, no incentive to push abortions
So you agree that 37% of Planned Parenthood income comes from abortions
So Renuart's right?
Not really.
What blogs like Live Action specify, and Renuart doesn't, is that they are talking only about health center revenue. That makes up only about 36 percent of all revenue for Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood had $1.04 billion in total revenues in 2007-08, according to the group's annual report. Other revenue came from government grants ($350 million), private contributions ($250 million) and other sources ($69 million).
So abortion procedures could generate 37 percent of Planned Parenthood's health center revenue -- but mind you, that's an estimate created by pro-life groups because the organization doesn't release that figure. If true, that's still only 13 percent of the total revenue generated by Planned Parenthood.
Renuart didn't make that distinction in his comments during the House committee meeting. He presented his figures and claimed that "almost 37 percent of the total income from Planned Parenthood is from abortions."
Renuart should have been more cautious with his words. We rate this statement False
written by GBRetired, February 06, 2012 - 12:38 PM
The Komen Foundation is a private philanthropic organization. It has every right to fund or not fund charities or causes of its choice. That certain individuals and causes are 'outraged' over Komen's announcement is, in itself, outrageous. Planned Parenthood is regularly lobbying for even more federal subsidies. So not only do they now want to take more of your money via taxes -- but they also want to be able to tell private foundations whom they should give to! ... At the core of this matter, though, is a fundamental difference of opinion. Should private organizations have the right to operate under the rule of law? Should they be permitted to distribute their own funds to whom they see fit? Or should they be subjected to the rule and pressure of a mob mentality that is no respecter of independent rights, one who demands the donor's money?
If PP is indeed deserving of additional abortion funding--simply ask the Fed...they are willing to force religious institutions to fund their prenatal murder. Why blackmail privately funded organizations for even more??
The Komen Foundation is a private philanthropic organization. It has every right to fund or not fund charities or causes of its choice. That certain individuals and causes are 'outraged' over Komen's announcement is, in itself, outrageous.
written by PghGirl412, February 06, 2012 - 01:54 PM
The Komen Foundation is a private philanthropic organization. It has every right to fund or not fund charities or causes of its choice. That certain individuals and causes are 'outraged' over Komen's announcement is, in itself, outrageous.
GBR sums up the situation perfectly. That anyone deigns to tell a charitable who to help, how to help them, etc. is beyond arrogant, beyond greedy, beyond condescending. The bottom line is that it's a charity & 100% of what they do is voluntary, self-less & for the betterment of others.
All critics are showing themselves to be complete fools & there's no defense, it's arrogance & idiocy, plain & simple.
And once more for the slow learners. Federal tax money is not used to fund abortion.
Once again--for the uninformed, read Title X. If the Fed. spends absolutely NO funds for abortions, then why has H.R. 217 been introduced? If indeed the Fed. has not been funding prenatal murder clinics like Planned Parenthood, then why introduce a bill to defund such outfits when they supply abortions??
As for requiring religious organizations to pay--what do you call requiring payment for Ella, Next Choice, Levonergestril or Plan B One Step? You can call them what you want--they amount to chemical abortion.
As for requiring religious organizations to pay--what do you call requiring payment for Ella, Next Choice, Levonergestril or Plan B One Step? You can call them what you want--they amount to chemical abortion.
I call them birth control and responsible steps to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

"Just your typical right wing inflammatory rhetoric which is necessary, I guess, since you have nothing to refute the facts I posted. PP does not "push" abortions"
...
written by TS, February 06, 2012 - 08:10 PM
"Just your typical right wing inflammatory rhetoric which is necessary, I guess, since you have nothing to refute the facts I posted. PP does not "push" abortions"
Hey Sally, Seems from the tone of your responses you are ready to lose it.
Here is one figure that you didn't reply to from my email.
It is 332,278 abortions...murdered lives in 2009. Lets focus on that fact.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Komen backlash: Public turns fury on vice president Karen Handel
(SNIP)
http://latimesblogs.latimes.co...s-she.html
It should be noted that Ms Karen Handel, while sectary of state for GA was investigated by the Justice Department for issuing voter fraud programs that disenfranchised minority voters. She resigned that office.