Reversal or no, I just keep getting more and more angry at the Susan G. Komen Foundation.
I’ve always been a little uncomfortable with Pink October. My sister was diagnosed in that month, and not an hour after receiving her phone call, while doing my grocery shopping and trying to pretend everything was going to be okay, I was confronted with a box of frozen waffles with a pink ribbon on it. It was all I could do not to throw the fucking thing at the first hapless passerby. The juxtaposition was just too ridiculous. It was insulting. And I knew, from what little I had read, how little money was actually generated by the pinking of my products. If these corporations really cared about breast cancer research, why not just make the donation and shut up about it?
But that’s not how corporations work. And apparently, that’s not how the SGK foundation works, either. They have long been criticized for how little of the money and publicity they generate actually improves the health of women.
When Komen announced earlier this week that it would no longer be funding grants to Planned Parenthood, they denied that the move was political. As everyone is well aware by now, they claimed that it was because they do not fund entities that are “under investigation.” And because a Republican Congressman had called for a financial audit of the organization, well, you know…they had no choice but to cease funding them.
Which is bullshit, of course.
The investigation was manufactured so Komen had an excuse to cut ties with Planned Parenthood. That much was clear from the get go. But even those who would deny that the investigation was spurious cannot possibly defend the unevenness with which Komen has followed their own rules. They fund plenty of institutions that are under investigation, and have no qualms taking money from some of the worst offenders. Jezebel did an excellent roundup of their worst offenses here. Holy jiggling breasts, indeed.
Predictably, Komen has now reversed their decision, restoring hearts and rainbows and pink ribbons to all, so phew. Catastrophe avoided, right? Wrong. They still have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do. Currently, the banner on their website (and the statement announcing their reversal) says:
We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what’s right and fair.
It’s a day late and a dollar or two short. It’s also completely disingenuous. Komen doesn’t seem to have any problem accepting money from institutions or corporations that have been criminally and conclusively investigated. That’s probably wise on their part, given the as-yet-immeasurable hit donations have taken and will continue to take as they try to clean up the mess they have made.
As for what’s right and fair? What’s right and fair would be for women in this country to have access to comprehensive health care. Komen has already made clear that it is an organization more inclined to swathe us in pink than fund these services. Their hiding behind a rule when it’s politically expedient -- and ignoring it entirely when it’s not -- is neither, no matter how sorry they say they are.
May Komen's loss be Planned Parenthood's considerable gain, so that the millions of women who rely on them for cancer screenings continue to receive them. And may corporations, private donors, and others bypass the corporate hype and give directly to the research institutions and foundations less interested in turning my freezer case pink, and more interested in, say, detecting and curing cancer.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
the_beheld
Greg Correll
Rochelle Skaar
Chauncey DeVega
divorcedpauline
Tom Cordle
Salon.com
Comments
Maybe we need to start a "sponsor a mammogram" program. Like with the work of freepap.org, it doesn't take a lot of money to get one, just needs to get done.
In fact, the only one that the reversal won't be enough for is Komen itself. They've lost in a big way. And just about everybody else wins.
Amen to that! Pink waffle packages are to be expected from that portion of our population far more interested in profiting from the appearance of caring than actually providing care. Nowhere is that more obvious than with the unrelentingly hypocritical religious right, which now semi-enthusiastically embraces serial adulterer and habitual philander, liar, lout and lothario Newt Gingrich.
The fact that you and others feel it should be free is the problem. To resolve that issue, you must consider as many ends as possible. First, the notion of 'Free' must relate to cost to discover the underlying issue of resistance. The cost must be borne by someone, and in this (your) analogy, it should be paid by the 'they' you call 'government', which is us. The claim that Planned Parenthood provides anything more than pamphlet and instruction to women for abortion is ludicrous. Komen is quite right to review, reduce and eliminate the practice of murdering the unborn as a matter of convenience to those who made a 'mistake'.
Planned Parenthood's business is the abortion business. The public money used to inflate the bank accounts of people in the business of doing nothing but killing people. The responsibility of parents and teachers is forsaken in favor of yet another public sink-hole, which must be stopped. There is an alternative argument over who it is 'owns' the fetus and placenta, which is sold at a profit to labs for study etc. Rather sickening to consider the monetary value some place upon the waste of others.
It is Komen's money to give, and they should not be impaired to give it or deny it to anyone. The Gates Foundation has a similar choice and, well it is their money.
Underlying all of this cost BS is the fact that nothing done in any arena has functionally addressed the horrendous charges for which some are quick to claim is a right, and I crave rather, the day to come when Health Care Administration is separated from Medical Expense. Currently, eighty cents of every public dollar for just about anything is wasted on the administration of a cause, and of the remaining twenty cents that is provided to the root cause, less than ten percent, or two cents, is realized by those in need.
That is why we have $2000 MRI bills. Unfortunately, when the insurance company pays it on our behalf, they only pay $900, the rest is quite lost. Going further, consider the great expense by bio-firms who 'donate' free junk all around the world and deduct it from the bottom line to avoid taxes. Somewhere in between those lines lies the marvelous profits; the difference between the actual cost and the value declared.
I have not witnessed women not having access, just an unwillingness to bear the cost in the event their insurance company will not pay. That is their choice and if it kills them, it is no less a shame for the ones who choose not to seek help for something so simple as a headache that is actually meningitis, which kills faster. The difference between the two is that women know the risk and demand somebody pick up the tab, when they get a headache, they can't be sure it isn't something deadly, then give it no thought.
I'm not sure which quote of yours would be my favorite BS. Hmm. perhaps this one?:
"The claim that Planned Parenthood provides anything more than pamphlet and instruction to women for abortion is ludicrous."
Yes. Ludicrous! Because you must have so much experience seeking women's healthcare needs at PP. Back in the day when my insurance was not approving my feminine healthcare needs (and, mind you, I up diagnosed with cancer at 29) and I could not pay for it out of pocket, I turned to PP for affordable care. And there was nothing about abortion talk anywhere. I mean, it would be silly if it did, since I was there for stuff like paps and mammos and contraception, but that seems to be what you people seem to think happens.
Or is it your quote: "I have not witnessed women not having access..."
Oh RIGHT. If you - random man on the internet - has not seen it, it must not exist!
...I think I'll stop there, as I'm sure none of this will dent your armour of self-certitude. *sigh*
I was once involved in putting on role playing game conventions, which have a lot of people willing to participate in charity functions. We were able to raise a few thousand dollars for the American Cancer Society. It took a lot of begging and pleading for them to take our money. We were "small potatoes" to them.
Who are the "big potatoes?" They have dress-up events for the well-off. Not the One Percent so much as the Ten Percent, the ones making $100K or more per year, the ones who have pretensions of being in "society." Their charitable events are formal parties or elaborate costume ball events, whose actual contributions to the charity are something like ten percent of the money raised. (Our little event contributed 100 percent of our money raised.)
These events aren't so much about the charity as people being seen contributing to a charity. It gives them the warm feeling of pretending to be charitable and helpful to their fellow man. But more important is to see and be seen with the elite.
It's a phony game, it goes on in every city with any size, and the charitable foundations that collect that money are part and parcel with it. Nobody watches how much money actually gets applied to the charitable cause, versus the costs of raising the money - the salaries paid to the charity executives, the cost of all those bacon-wrapped scallops served on silver trays, the cost of the hall, et cetera.
Imagine how much money would be raised for breast cancer, for instance, if all the movie theaters and the film companies would contribute the entire box office take for the first midnight showing of The Avengers or some other big film, nationwide. Nobody does that, and the charity wouldn't be a part of it, because actually raising money for a charity is a secondary or tertiary priority. Most important is making rich people feel good about being rich, and forgiving them for the nasty things they do to get rich.
In my piece last week here I mentioned this may be a pattern for SGK.
thanks! r.
I check my charities out carefully.
I cant understand why PP supporters are mad at a bad charity for defunding them. Apparently PP wants any and every money it can get. And this woman was hypocritical in her public reason given. But what if she had just said our money is ear marked period and we wont tolerate anything else and want record keeping. That would have been straight forward and totally legitimate. Yes she has an agenda. Do not all charities?
And I don't see how PP wins here. Liberals are pissed apparently because both it is a bad numbers charity and because of the decision. One would also have to conclude that conservatives will slow donations for her caving in. So it seems all in all she will take in less money now. I am unaware so I ask.
Has PP called out this woman before on the numbers and been active to shut her down and get the money directly from donors? Or is PP just now being pissed off?
Based on what I have heard over the last few days, regardless of what anyone thinks of PP, it sounds like Ms "pink" should be out of business just because of the numbers.
The OP writes an article expressing her opinion but I guess it just was not inflammatory enough for you.
I don not see a response from the OP thanking you for the additional input. In fact I don't not recall hardly any OP doing suc h in response to your over the top rhetoric.
I know full well what people think of me here because I disagree with most. I don't see much evidence that most agree with you. Of course you and them have general agreement. But it seems, you are the self appointed "inflammatory add on in general".
And yes, I already know I am a self appointed mal content.
But I don't have any notion that anyone here likes me.
I happen to agree.
And as I said I was ignorant to Komen until recently. I had assumed that the pink organization was a good cancer related charity. Apparently that is not the case. It is apparently a non profit designed to line Komen's pockets.
I have no love for such organizations.
I personally think regular employees of non profits should make commensurate salaries for their skills. But I think no one in a non profit should be wealthy. In fact I could see where a programmer would make more than the so called CEO of a non profit.
I am not friends with, but know off a non profit CEO that has a vintage guitar collection worth in excess of $2M. I find that to be BS. I think 100 - 150K would be enough for any non profit employee. The money is supposed to be going to charity.
Or maybe they just got sick of putting money into an organization that performs over 300,000 abortions (very few of them medically necessary or because a woman was raped or a victim of incest, etc.,). You don't like it, send money to PP. Sounds like a lot of people have been doing so.
Me, I'll be glad NOT to.
Organizations should fund what they believe in. Komen too is allowed, if they were the reasons, its moral choices and, yes, its politics.
I believe that each one of these victories, such as they are, need to be seen in the broader perspective as well for they indicate the majority view has shifted, and "choice" has taken precidence to "authority."
Those who took the time and made the effort to turn this around are the leaders, and the ramifications in other cases where our right to reserve our individual freedoms have been strengthened.
I have to believe that it is liberals that would not really like separation. Because the abortion part of the service would then become totally obvious statistically.
No confusion about how much money, what % of services etc and maybe the abortion part would actually get less of the money they so desperately want.
Society is fractured because they have opinions. You seem to suggest that the right politicians, the right media and the right level of consciousness would somehow make everyone more in line with one thinking. And of course that is your line of thinking.
As I already said, 10% of people serviced get an abortion.
Now tell us the number who walk in pregnant and we will know he real % of pregnant women get an abortion.
Somehow I cant find that info.
Has is crossed your mind to think and act conservatively to fix this fracture. Of course not.
SO I can blame you and you can blame me. There is no blame. There are differences that are not going to somehow line up in your favor.