The whole Komen foundation thing was politics gone haywire. A continued attack on Women and Planned Parenthood.
Komen backlash: Public turns fury on vice president Karen Handel

The harsh social media spotlight cast on Susan G. Komen for the Cure is now shifting to Karen Handel, the organization's senior vice president for public policy and, some suspect, the architect behind the decision that has led to the worst public relations disaster in the organization's history.

Social media activists are calling out Handel by name and demanding that she be fired. "I won't trust anything SGK says until they fire Karen Handel," said one Facebook posting. The drumbeat on Twitter was growing as well, with versions of "Fire Karen Handel" making the rounds.

So who is Karen Handel?

Handel made history in 2006 when she became the first Republican and only the second woman to be elected as secretary of state in Georgia. She resigned that post in 2010 to launch a campaign to become her party's nominee for governor. Despite getting a high-profile endorsement from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Handel did not win the bid.

Such a life in the public eye makes for a public record, and critics are now using what they say are past public statements from Handel to bolster their suspicions that she was the driving force behind Komen's decision to slash funding to Planned Parenthood.

Internet archivists say they have unearthed archival pages of the blog that Handel reportedly wrote -- the blog has since been taken offline -- while she was running for governor. In one posting, she reportedly promises to "be a pro-life governor," adding that "since I am pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood."

And then there is this screen shot making the online rounds. It claims to show Karen Handel's Twitter account from earlier in the week, which suggests that she -- or perhaps someone with access to her Twitter account -- re-tweeted a comment slamming Planned Parenthood. That comment is no longer visible in Handel's Twitter feed.

The Komen foundation did not return a phone call or email asking to discuss Handel and what role, if any, she played in the controversial decision or the Tweet. And she has yet to comment publicly about the recent uproar.

Komen has long been under pressure by conservatives to cut ties with Planned Parenthood because it provides a variety of reproductive health care services, including abortions. Critics say Komen engineered the perfect out in 2011 when it revised its internal rules to bar the organization from funding another organization under an investigative cloud. The Atlantic notes that while Komen provides funding to hundreds of organizations, the new rule affected only one: Planned Parenthood.

(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.

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.

If they'd have stood their ground and divorced from PP, they would have earned my support.

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.

Another lie presented as fact from the right. 97% of what PP does is well women care. Birth control, mammograms, cervical cancer screening, STD care, blood tests, etc...This is their main purpose. For many women, it is their only source of healthcare.

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 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009 (FN, Planned Parenthood Federation of American, Annual Report, 2008-2009,”The Promise of Change,” p.29)

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 - 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.

Discontinuting funding to PP for breast screening due to the VP of Komen being an ardent anti-abortionist (who vowed 2 years ago to de-fund PP) is bowing to political pressure from the right (anti-abortionists). Funding for breast cancer screenings is not a "left" issue, it is a woman's health issue.

Additionally, due to their political agenda, Komen wrote new "by-laws", AFTER the "inquiry" by one republican congressman of PP, so as to use the phony excuse that they don't donate to organizations under investigation. First of all an inquiry is not an investigation and secondly, Komen does business with Bank of America and Penn State, both under investigation.

Many local chapters of Komen, who were not consulted about this de-funding, distanced themselves from the decision. A few resigned in protest.

Women spoke, and not just women on the left, and when they did things got done.

...
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

Income generated from a procedure and what percentage it relates to overall income does not translate into what percentage of overall procedures that particular one represents.


Only about 3% of what PP does is abortions. The other 97% is well woman care.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/...arenthood/

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

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??

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

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. Women seek them and PP provides them. And like any other medical procedure, it has a dollar cost to it.

So you agree that 37% of Planned Parenthood income comes from abortions

No, I don't. Upon researching that figure, I see that it's generated by right wing sources. It must be that new tea party math (the same one that says the $785 billion stimulus added $5 trillion to the debt). Politifact rates it false. (Renaurt refers to state rep. Ronald Renaurt who made the same claim)

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

http://www.politifact.com/flor...-percent-/

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??

Your opinions fall flat on its face. Komen has the right to give grants to whomever it wishes (or not) and those who donate to Komen or sponsor it or its races has the right to withhold donations to them. That's what happened. No one has said differently. People were outraged, rightfully so, that Komen would use the anti-abortion views of its VP to defund grants for breast screenings. None of the money invovled had anything to do with abortions.

Had Komen continued with its decision to defund breast screening grants for PP, then it would have had to be willing to suffer the repercussions of that decision, which would essentially mean a tremendous loss of donations and sponsors, not to mention the entire organization possibly becoming dissolved. Apparently they weren't willing to accept that. Both decisions were their choice. As was the choice of people who withdrew their donations to Komen and donated to PP.

And once more for the slow learners. Federal tax money is not used to fund abortion. And where is the government forcing religious institutions to provide abortions?

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.

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.

Who said that Komen didn't have the right to give or withdraw grants? That was never the argument, except for those who don't have the intelligence to understand this issue (obviously well represented on here). What opponents of their decision said was that if they did defund breast cancer screening funds to PP because of an anti-abortion agenda, then the consequences would be swift and severe, and they were.

The arrogance was on the part of Komen who thought their decision would go largely unnoticed and have no repercussions. Those who defend Komen's decision to defund PP, but not those who chose do "defund" (not donate to) Komen are hypocrites, but then what else is new from the right?

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.

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.

H.R. 217: Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act

112th Congress: 2011-2012

To amend title X of the Public Health Service Act to prohibit family planning grants from being awarded to any entity that performs abortions, and for other purposes.

It's just another right wing attempt to keep money for family planning (birth control) from anyone who provides abortion. Since federal money cannot be used to fund abortions, it is redundant and unnecessary.

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.

I call them birth control and responsible steps to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Would you then have an issue calling legal execution "retroactive birth control"?

How about barfing being called a dietary aid?

The application of 20-20 hindsight seems to be an acceptable answer to all your lib mistakes---too bad it does not apply to the cuurent White House.

"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.

...
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.

I'm not losing anything, much less my arguments. Once again, you have nothing to refute my factual posts, so you resort to the old stand-by - using inflammatory words like murder. You do realize that access to abortion is the law of the land and only considered murder by the anti-abortionists?

But feel free to continue with this line of argument. It is you who is "losing it".

And GB: Your entire post is just silly. Find new arguments because these are ridiculous.

I was glad to hear that Karen Handel, the anti-abortion VP of Komen who spearheaded the defunding of PP, has resigned. Hopefully, this will allow the Komen organization to move away from a political agenda and focus on its original mission of funding research of and tests for breast cancer.

This is a victory for current and future breast cancer victims. However, it may be too late for Komen to regain its reputation. Time will tell.