<p>I saw this in a comment section online and it struck me as rather funny:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
Exactly. And the investigations criteria, as well.</p>
<p>Something I thought was funny and sad</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Komen has never been one of the very few charities that I support with relatively large donations and have vetted thoroughly. But I have donated to them when asked to by friends, as I always donate relatively small amounts to organizations when friends ask, without investigating. I won’t be willing to do this in the future. Sunriseeast (#122) has nicely summarized all the things about Komen that I didn’t know and find disturbing.</p>
<p>Some breast cancer activists resent the pink ribbons and the relentless optimism that goes along with it, and the “prettification” of this ugly disease. One of them, Susan Niebur, began hospice treatment last week. She was diagnosed at age 34 with inflammatory breast cancer, an extremely aggressive form, when her second child was 6 months old. She has chronicled her experiences with four (!!) forms of cancer over the past 5 years in her very moving blog. She is a Ph.D. astrophysicist who has been very active in promoting women in science and encouraging children to be interested in science. She writes beautifully about her children and everything else, and I have been reading her blog for quite a while. It makes me sick that she is not yet 40, and she is about to leave two very young children behind. She is quoted in this article:</p>
<p><a href=“USA TODAY - Breaking News and Latest News Today”>USA TODAY - Breaking News and Latest News Today;
<p>Biels, I hadn’t known that Cecile Richards was Ann Richard’s daughter! I thought the world of Ann.</p>
<p>As for Ms. Brinker’s face, I wondered when I saw her disastrous interview whether she’d had too much plastic surgery. Some posters have said that it’s Botox. Whatever it is, I don’t know how she thinks she looks good this way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks Teriwtt. Now I get It. I have seen pink stuff everywhere; it actually looks pretty good on football uniforms. </p>
<p>It seems to me that cancer screenings means cancer gets dealt with sooner and lowers overall health costs.</p>
<p>I bet the corporate partners put the pressure on SKG for the reversal. SKG may never recover, but now New Balance, for example, doesn’t have to chose sides. I wonder what percentage of SKG funds come from corporations.</p>
<p>though it’s not 100% related, I think this is also a good time for us to pause and think whether one particular disease should suck all the oxygen out of the women’s health ecosystem. No, it’s not zero sum game, I know. However, it’s not completely win win for women with other deadly diseases (mine included) either. </p>
<p>From a corporate sponsors and donors’ perspective, it is easy to consider the scenario where a company (or a large donor) who/which for whatever reason decides to support the cause of “women’s health”, picks SGK since it’s so prominent and walks away with a good feeling that it/she/he did what it/she/he needs to do with no further consideration of other deadly killers without such a well coordinated and dominant marketing and brand presence. After all, there is only that much $$$ people will give out to a charity for a certain ilk (women’s health), and the fact that SGB is such a gorilla makes it more difficult (relatively speaking) for charities working on other angles and other devastatingly disease to get any traction. And there is also a deluge of pink stuff that crowds out messages regarding other kinds of killer cancers for women.</p>
<p>Trust me when I say, I don’t begrudge BC getting attention and funding. But, there should some better balance. The more I learned about SGK because of this uproar, the less I like what I am learning. So not only they sucked the air out of the women’s cancer ecosystem, they were actually doing it in a way that is objectionable to me (injecting politics of the right wing). So, no more purchase of the pink ribbon laden products. I would like to contribute, even if a small way, to a more even playing field.</p>
<p>PS: in their new press release they only said they will honor EXISTING contract. And PP is eligible fore reapplication when the time comes. Wanna bet whether PP will succeed in getting any more of their funding requests be “approved”? Unless I see resignations of multiple decision makers in SGK involved in pushing this initial fiasco, I think they will just clamp the media exposure with this reversal, and quietly go on with their original plan of defunding any organizations that do not fit their “anti choice, anti stem cell research” agenda.</p>
<p>Does anyone know if they are re-funding the stem cell research? After all, that involved 12 million dollars, considerably more than the $650,000 they had been giving to PP, and the money was going to major research universities.</p>
<p>And there were always 3 PP clinics they were not de-funding because they were the only breast cancer screening places in their community, or something to that effect.</p>
<p>Indiana 91 - excellent point!</p>
<p>I read Nancy Brinker’s bio a few months ago and wasn’t impressed. She doesn’t sound like the type of person I would like to talk to at a cocktail party. Guess I was naive to connect the dots with her Texas political connections to how the national organization would behave in women’s health matters. Now we know.</p>
<p>I looked on my local affiliate’s website for any indication of how much they send up to the national parent. Looks like it’s at least 20+% of expenses, plus another 20% for public policy issues. Whatever the latter means.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They just tried using a technicality to cut PP’s funding – they’d be beyond stupid to try it again. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the 4th time this year that a large national organization has had to back down on a move they thought no one would notice or care about (Netflix, BofA, Verizon). Methinks they need to start paying attention to the internet. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or hiring younger and more social media-savy PR people. Through following my daughter’s twitter and FB, she picked up on the magnitude of how the social media was going to run with this before I even started seeing it on all my friend’s FB walls. </p>
<p>Not to say Syracuse’s Newhouse School of Communication has the corner on all PR programs (although they are consistently ranked in the top three in the country), but it does make my checkbook feel good to know that all those checks we wrote to Syracuse for her education might have actually paid off! Some of these corporations need to learn that there’s much wisdom in the newly graduated PR professionals, especially when it comes to the role of new media outlets.</p>
<p>Now I want the cancer research monies put back in place!</p>
<p>Mini, Good question. We certainly would not exist as we do now and what a huge relief that would be. I could see a need remaining for easily accessable birth control but beyond that? I would think that most women would choose a more traditional care provider, be it a midwife or MD.</p>
<p>I can just hear Anne Richards being proud of the battle her DD has taken on! I loved her so and didn’t know the PP president is her DD. Clever CC posters at it again!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lasma, I hope you are right. But I am not so sanguine as you are. There are ways to slowly bleed someone to death, rather than a one giant fell swoop with incriminating evidence spattered all over the floor. This was a PR disaster for SGK because they came out with a POLICY statement that prevents funding PP on organizational rules and principles.</p>
<p>If they had said “Oh, PP was eligible but the PP proposal this year was not approved for XYZ reasons” (fill in the blank of innocuous sounding excuses). Or, if they had reduced the size of the funding over a few years to smithereens, none of this uproar would have happened. </p>
<p>Just one more reason why I am totally amazed how STUPIDLY they executed their plan. Not only they were misguided with their decision, they were TOTALLY incompetent the way they went about it, UNLESS it was their goal to send a strong message to the anti choice camp and it was a principled position - which does not seem to be given their quick reversal. </p>
<p>So, I agree that this will go down as a text book example of what to do to engender public ill will and to destroy a highly prized corporate/organizational brand equity.</p>
<p>Just adding my extreme disappointment at this very short-sighted corporate decision. Looks liek Planned Parenthood has fared quite well in the face of this snafoo.</p>
<p>If you still want to walk for breast cancer prevention, and like a deeper shade of pink…</p>
<p>[Avon</a> Walk for Breast Cancer: In It To End Breast Cancer](<a href=“http://www.avonwalk.org/]Avon”>http://www.avonwalk.org/)</p>
<p>Also, I heard on the radio today something like, “Komen… was dismayed at how their new grant evaluating standards were being so badly misinterpreted”.</p>
<p>Hah! They are still putting a spin on everything. Sounds double-plus-un-good to me!</p>
<p>My husband does breast cancer research. Koman has never given him a grant. The American Cancer Society has. That’s how I’m making my decision. :)</p>
<p>I’m heartened to see the silent majority isn’t silent any longer. I hope this is the start of making our voices heard more often.</p>