<p>
</p>
<p>The Obama administration has issued new guidelines, requiring employers who offer health insurance to their employees to cover contraception with no co-pay. Under the ACA, large employers (can’t remember how many employees, but over 50 or thereabouts I think) are required to provide health insurance. The contraception guidelines fall under preventative services, like vaccinations, well-baby checkups, mammograms for older women and so forth, which must be provided with no co-pay.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the twitter entry by Karen Handel right after the uproar broke through the blogshere and twitter world. Later she took it down, but it was captured and circulated widely.</p>
<p>I have worked at fortune 100 company HQ, and ALL executives had a clear warning: any public presence, even when not representing the company in an official manner, in matters related to the corporation has to be cleared by the PR department. Now, one can debate whether twitting constitutes a public presence. But, given the incredibly sensitive nature of the crisis, anyone with half a wit would stay quiet, rather than twit anything like this when everybody knows that she is at the heart of the controversy.</p>
<p>If SGK is looking for a way to unload Handel, this is a clear ground for dismissal in any self respecting and employment law abiding corporation. </p>
<p>Regardless of one’s political leanings, I just simply can’t believe the level of stupidity displayed by SGK’s board and executives in terms of the way they handled it. And particularly this woman who twitted this stuff.</p>
<p>If this was written up as a business case analysis exercise at an MBA program, nobody will take it seriously: the case lacks any credibility as a good platform for discussion since it is so UNLIKELY that anything this stupid will be done by any half way intelligent executives with some experience in managing external affairs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They already angered the pro-Handel faction when they restored PP’s funding, so now everyone is mad at them. It’s hard to see how they could have handled this any worse. But that’s the chance they took when they abandoned their mission of saving women’s lives in favor of a political agenda. </p>
<p>I wonder if the reason they’re so anxious to deny the obvious is that if they’re funding based on political considerations, they’d lose favored tax treatment? If so, then we can add “craven” to their list of sins.</p>
<p>Ironically, it would have gone much better for them this week if they’d just stated clearly that from now on, they were only going to support anti-choice organizations. It was the transparent lies and the hypocrisy that has now destroyed their brand.</p>
<p>I have not read the entire thread so if this was answered I am sorry but-</p>
<p>Why would one charity give money to another charity? Why don’t the use the funds they collect in an attempt to met their core mission?</p>
<p>tom, supposedly, their core mission is research, treatment, and screening (mammograms). The public thought of Komen as the central clearing house for all breast cancer issues. I’ve assumed that if I give to Komen, they are in a better position than I am to know where the money is most needed, and get it there.</p>
<p>So when they dropped PP did they increase their donations to another charity that performed free or low cost breast exams?</p>
<p>So when they dropped PP did they increase their donations to another charity that performed free or low cost breast exams?</p>
<p>You’d have to ask them. I can’t think of any locally myself.</p>
<p>tom, they said they were going to send the funds directly to the places that do the screening (PP doesn’t actually do the mammograms, they give their clients a referral). </p>
<p>This would have resulted in many fewer low-income women getting mammograms or any other care. That’s because this population of women knows that PP is one-stop shopping for their healthcare. When they walk into PP for a mammogram, in addition to the referral, they also get plugged into the whole range of services which PP provides. If women just go directly to the screening provider (if they even know how to find one), they won’t get a pelvic exam, a manual breast exam, a pap test, bloodwork, contraceptive care, and prenatal care – all of which is provided by PP but not by radiologists.</p>
<p>Handel apparently stayed in her GA cocoon too much and too long. She presumed that because our state is so conservative and her beliefs so supported here, that the rest of the country felt the same. I kind of wish Komen would keep her – then at least we know she isn’t here.</p>
<p>Agreed, lastminutemom. Don’t send her back, please.</p>
<p>How can women just go to a mammogram provider directly? I need to have a prescription from my doctor to even schedule a mammogram.</p>
<p>I have a lot of criticisms of Komen, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to be upset with them for giving money to other nonprofits who are actually doing the work. For example, Komen isn’t going to establish a lab to do scientific research; rather, they will give the money to some nonprofit organization such as a university or a hospital that studies cancer. Similarly, if they think it’s important that that low-income women get mammograms, they’re not going to set up their own clinics and hire radiologists. They’re in the business of collecting money and directing where it can be of most use, not running laboratories or medical offices.</p>
<p>You could say, but why not give money directly to the people doing the research and providing the care? And I did just give a big donation to Planned Parenthood. But most donors, certainly including me, don’t know which research group is doing promising work in cancer, so we reasonably give money to the American Cancer Society or some other aggregator who, we hope, makes worthwhile grants. Komen was in that group of charities that were thought to know how best to direct your money. Now, for many, they aren’t.</p>
<p>For me, Komen wasn’t about the money (primarily) but about uniting disparate parts of the community in a common cause. And I think they did that very well, all things considering.</p>
<p>That, I think, they’ve blown forever. I agree with LasMa - they would do better now if they billed themselves as the “anti-choice, cancer cure organization”. I’d be absolutely fine with that (even if I wouldn’t give them a dime.) </p>
<p>I haven’t given NARAL a dollar in years (and tend to avoid political causes). Now, maybe…</p>
<p>I don’t need a prescription for a mammogram. If I get them every year, all I have to do is call the radiology clinic.</p>
<p>Mini, I don’t think their corporate sponsors would want to be associated with an organization that’s anti choice.</p>
<p>Re: prescription for mammogram - maybe it’s only in New York then.</p>
<p>I suspect that most health-related non-for-profit agencies that raise money for specific medical issues, are nothing but clearing houses for donations.</p>
<p>I think if someone really wants to get the most bang for their buck, you’d have find out who is in on the cutting edge research for that particular illness, and give to them directly; chances are it’d be either a research hospital or university. And of course, there’s big pharma, but I doubt anyone is going to donate money to them!</p>
<p>Emilybee - </p>
<p>I agree, and I think someone alluded to this upthread… not only did SGK put themselves in a pickle, but all of their partners were put in a position as to whether or not they wanted to continue their association with them. It was a very selfish move that had a domino effect.</p>
<p>I wonder if the woman who resigned this week, Mollie Williams, will eventually speak out. So far she’s been pretty quiet. I’ll bet she’s waiting for the most appropriate venue, such as 60 Minutes.</p>
<p>“Mini, I don’t think their corporate sponsors would want to be associated with an organization that’s anti choice.”</p>
<p>The corporate sponsors liked the same thing about Komen that I did. Didn’t care that much about how they spent their bucks. Liked the involvement that spanned the community. They can’t get that any more. We’ll see this spring - the collapse of their events (and the local sponsorships for their events) will be devastating. They’re not going to add Cecile Richards to their Board, and at this point, it wouldn’t help.</p>
<p>Emilybee: You need a prescription (referral) for a mammogram in the state of South Carolina also.</p>
<p>This gritty video from Linda, a breast cancer survivor, shows how some women formerly associated with Komen now feel:</p>
<p>[What</a> Breast Cancer is, and is not! - YouTube](<a href=“What Breast Cancer is, and is not! - YouTube”>What Breast Cancer is, and is not! - YouTube)</p>
<p>I don’t know what this woman’s political views are, but she is angry that Komen is now associated with a political viewpoint. As mini observers, she can’t get an inclusive, non-political community at Komen anymore. It’s gone.</p>
<p>“It’s broken my heart. And I was so proud to be a member, but I can no longer support you.”</p>