<p>I’m saddened by the whole thing. Now, in context, I tend to be an anti-corporatist kind of guy, think that most people in North America make too much and spend too much (including overpaid cancer researchers), and often spend it on stuff that will kill us, either now or later. I think perhaps the majority of dollars in cancer research is poorly spent, with not nearly enough in prevention.</p>
<p>Having said that, with my wife having now recovered fully from a very aggressive form of breast cancer (thanks, in part, to our particular insurance choice which allowed for the use of a treatment modality common in Europe for 30 years but often not funded by insurance here), I LIKED the pink ribbons. My wife does not feel her illness was being exploited, and we both felt good about people having found a way to express empathy for those with a condition that doesn’t know political or religious boundaries (though recovery definitely does know economic ones). In my very liberal community (it’s all relative of course), we’ve gone and walked (briefly) each year at the annual walk, and loved seeing folks of many political and religious persuasions united, if but briefly, in the name of a cause that is shared. I’ve never bought a can of soup with a pink ribbon on it, but I certainly don’t mind it when there are people who do.</p>
<p>Now that won’t happen anymore. My wife is a nurse (and nurses play a big role in organizing the annual event), and meets with a support group of breast cancer survivors. NONE of them are planning to participate this year. I can’t see how they can recover.</p>
<p>But the good news is that Planned Parenthood here has probably picked up as much in the way of donations in two days than they usually do in half a year.</p>
I actually worked with Komen in a previous job, so I do know where the donations go. So let’s not condescend.</p>
<p>
I do know that often the money used for one thing frees up money to be used for other things that the organization may prioritize and which may not otherwise have been possible.</p>
<p>In a prior job, I did tax returns for some of the biggest non-profits in the country. I actually do know what I’m talking about. And you seem to be assuming that I support Komen and oppose PP. I don’t. I think they’re both equally awful for different reasons.</p>
<p>zoozer, you have been quite clear you don’t like either organization. </p>
<p>“I do know that often the money used for one thing frees up money to be used for other things that the organization may prioritize and which may not otherwise have been possible.”</p>
<p>IOW, the money PP received by Komen didn’t go to anything other than breast screenings and paying for women to get mammograms if found to be needed.</p>
as an observer, I’d say now that they’ve reversed positions, it’s about as bad as it gets! I wonder if the organization can survive this because now the left AND the right will have it in the crosshairs.</p>
No. Breast screenings are bundled along with the annual exam. That simply can’t be disentangled. And in some places, the referred mammograms are actually free or covered by Medicaid/Medicare.
It’s just absolutely not as simple as you would like to think.</p>
<p>It’s just so bizarre and seemingly incompetent. If nothing else, maybe we could all have a dialogue about cancer research funding, about how to fund it, whether (as Sunriseeast has pointed out) breast cancer research has crowded out other cancer research.</p>
<p>“No. Breast screenings are bundled along with the annual exam. That simply can’t be disentangled. And in some places, the referred mammograms are actually free or covered by Medicaid/Medicare.
It’s just absolutely not as simple as you would like to think.”</p>
<p>Oh, ok. So you are against PP using Komen funds to pay for a portion of a woman annual exams. Why? </p>
<p>Not everyone is covered by medicare or medicaid. There are 50 million people in the US with no health insurance and some of those 50 million are women.</p>
<p>The WSJ ran an editorial in today’s edition that attacked Komen - I think that was the main reason they changed course. I don’t know what Faux News has been reporting. </p>
<p>Interestingly, the WSJ recently ran an anti-Climate Change article signed by a bunch of Phd’s employed by OIL AND GAS and other industries, and refused to publish a rebuttal to the article - which has been rebutted in other media by many more legitimate scientists, extensively.</p>
<p>seems the response they received was not anticipated and surely did make them rethink their decision. so not so true that they were happy with satisfying the other side as has been noted here…</p>
<p>Founder and CEO Nancy G. Brinker explained the decision and the changes in a statement attributed to her and the group’s board. Here’s an excerpt:</p>
<p>"We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.</p>
<p>The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.</p>
<p>Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.</p>
<p>Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities."</p>
<p>^Z’mom, you said,“breast screenings are bundled with along with the annual exam and cannot be disentangled.” I don’t know any other way to take it other than you what I said. </p>
<p>Perhaps you meant to say that breast cancer screenings are bundled along with abortion services and can’t be disentangled?</p>