Susan G. Komen for the Cure v. Planned Parenthood, Breast Cancer v. Abortion

Yesterday, the news broke that Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a major funder of breast cancer prevention in the United States, will be withdrawing their support to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings. Komen has been making grants to Planned Parenthood since 2005, usually around half a million dollars per year. The stated reason for withdrawing the support is a new internal Komen policy to refuse funding to any organization under state for federal investigation. Planned Parenthood is the subject of a Congressional probe, initiated by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., seeking to determine whether federally granted money was improperly spent on abortions.

And the internet exploded.

The presumption is that Komen bowed to pressure from the anti-choice forces that have been hounding them for years and cut off funding to Planned Parenthood on political grounds. News reports that revealed the political, anti-choice background of Karen Handel, Komen’s Senior VP for advocacy, speculate that her background as a Georgia gubernatorial candidate who campaigned on a platform that included de-funding Planned Parenthood may have had a role in Komen’s decision.

These factors may have played a role. We will probably never know for sure. I do know that this situation is incredibly complicated.

I spent over six years working in the cancer advocacy community and had the opportunity to work with the staff at Komen, among other major cancer non-profits. I can say without hesitation that I have enormous respect for everyone I had contact with at Komen. That organization and its staff, like all the cancer groups I worked with, is a worthwhile organization pursuing important work including cancer research, cancer prevention, and programs to help people undergoing treatment. They are truly noble of purpose. And so far, nothing has happened to change my opinion of Susan G. Komen for the Cure.

What I know for sure is that all cancer groups face heat from the anti-choice factions. All of them. Whether there are questions about funding stem cell research, the (unproven) link between abortion and breast cancer, or funding to women’s health providers who may also provide abortion services,  all cancer non-profits take heat on these issues and all of them have to walk a delicate line in dealing with them. Because the heat is not from external forces: the heat is from the people who non-profits like Komen rely on for volunteering and fundraising. There are millions of people who participate in Komen’s Race for the Cure every year and many of them have anti-choice views to some degree or another. Komen needs those people in order to operate so their views on Komen’s operating procedures matters to them. No non-profit can ignore the voices of their grassroots constituents or their major donors. They must respond to and address their concerns in a way that best benefits the mission of the organization.

I do not know what sort of constituent pressure Komen was hearing about their grants to Planned Parenthood. I don’t know how many volunteers or donors threatened to sever ties to the organization over this issue. I do not know if the Congressional probe was being used as a leverage device by an organized faction of donors to convince Komen to change their policy. I don’t know if other recipients of Komen grants have been under investigation for misuse of funds and led to review of funding policies. I just don’t know.

While it’s easy to assume that it was the anti-choice VP who drove the internal policy change with the single-minded intent of cutting off Planned Parenthood, we can’t say for sure that it’s the truth. In fact, on it’s face, the policy to withhold funds from any group under investigation is a smart choice for a non-profit. The timing of this policy, the personnel involved, and the hot button nature of Planned Panrenthood makes the whole situation suspicious. But we really don’t know.

What I hope will happen is that this is a temporary situation. I hope that Komen will distribute the funds that would otherwise have gone to Planned Parenthood to other breast cancer screening providers. And I hope that when the Congressional probe against Planned Parenthood ends, they will be permitted to reapply for grants and they will receive them on merit. If that happens, Komen will be absolved.

Meanwhile, Komen is under a cloud of suspicion of anti-choice loyalty, which is a shame. They are a good organization and, until yesterday, enjoyed deserved support from the feminist community for their commitment to women’s health. I don’t believe that essential commitment has changed. They made an internal decision that may or may not be valid but it does not take away from their mission. If indeed it was abortion-related political considerations that led to this decision, then I will question their commitment to mission. Political myopia has no place in the fight against cancer.

Will I be making a contribution to Komen this year? Probably not but they’ve never been high on my list of charities to support. I prefer direct service providers and Komen is not one; they regrant funds to providers. I was always more likely to contribute to Planned Parenthood than to Komen and I’ll be doing so. I will be keeping my eye on Komen in the near future to try to ascertain if they’re letting politics cloud mission. If they really are, well, then they lose my respect.

  • Dana Keller

    I think this is a very sound, reasonable response to the situation, rather than the knee-jerk over-the-top reaction had by most. I share in much of your view. Thanks for posting.

  • http://www.thebeanblog.com Christine

    My issue is that for many women, especially low-income women, Planned Parenthood is their only source of healthcare information and services. Not abortions (which are a miniscule portion of the services that Planned Parenthood provides), but things like pap smears, birth control, and mammograms. I think we can all agree that early detection is essential in the fight against breast cancer (or any other disease for that matter) and by pulling funding to Planned Parenthood, the Komen charity may be denying poor women the screenings they need to stay healthy and alive. This seems ludicrous since Komen preaches early detection, but is now pulling money that could literally save women’s lives. The congressional probe is backed by an anti-choice politician with an anti-choice agenda. I’d have more respect for the Komen organization if they continued to support women until Planned Parenthood was actually found to have done something wrong rather than claiming they are pulling funding because there is an investigation. Especially since it’s an investigation that has nothing to do with the cancer screening services Planned Parenthood provides.

    • BenAround

      You raise a good point. And it raises an important question. If it is really true that Planned Parenthood spends 97.5% of their funding on women’s health and only 2.5% on abortions, then why don’t they just spin off their “tiny” abortion side business and let the pro-choice people (who are claimed to be in the majority) fund it separately? If they did that, the issue would go away and Komen would come back to Planned Parenthood–along with a lot of pro-life donors.

  • Joan Kimmel

    Susan Komen would be standing at the barricades against this abhorrent action by the organization that carries her name. This will cause the death of hundreds, if not thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of women who ONLY have access to breast exams through Planned Parenthood.

    For right wing evangelical (not any kind I know) Christians to get their hurtful, punishing fingers into breast cancer funding adds horrors to the frights they’ve already spread across parts of the country. Wake up, America! Fund Planned Parenthood!

    • BenAround

      If you read what you wrote, you are actually complaining because people who are generous donate to causes they believe in. This article makes it clear that the decision is simply because the people who believe that human life starts before birth are the ones who primarily fund breast cancer research. They are simply making a choice between having more funds for prolonging life than they would have if they supported its premature end. I know the loss of control over other people’s money makes pro-abortion folks scream but they are free to fund their beliefs, too, if they wish.

  • BenAround

    Reading between the lines here, the sad truth is that the people who actually dig into their own pockets to fund the fight against breast cancer are primarily those who value life–at all stages of maturity. So, the acrimony against those with moral reservations about abortion is only a result of the fact that pro-abortion activists are not willing to match the volume of their voices with a proportional volume of funds.

Hillary Clinton, Shake It Off, Taylor Swift, Hillary Clinton Campaign song
Six Reasons “Shake It Off” Should Be Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Theme Song
Nancy Reagan dies, Just Say No, Ronald Reagan
A Not-So-Positive Ode to Nancy Reagan’s Frothy “Just Say No” Campaign
800px-Girls_At_Highland_Avenue_Train_Stop
Maybe It Wasn’t Rape: Emerging Matriarchy and the Altering of Women’s Past Sexual Narratives
Black Lives Matter Oscars Social Justice
Social Justice Warrior Battle Fatigue: When Blacksplaining is Too Much
Hillary_Clinton_AIPAC_2016_Speaking
Hillary Clinton’s So-Called Likability Problem Is Our Issue, Not Hers
Hope Terrorism Fear 9/11
Hope in the Age of Fear
150422-veep-1280x467
Hillary Clinton Must Channel Her Inner Selina Meyer
24269574620_9c30dcd1e5_o
Donald Trump Can’t Be My President
Hillary_Clinton_AIPAC_2016_Speaking
Hillary Clinton’s So-Called Likability Problem Is Our Issue, Not Hers
Bernie supporters
The Bernie Love and Hillary Hate on the Left
Hope Terrorism Fear 9/11
Hope in the Age of Fear
SectedWmConf_600jpg_600_1
Will We Ever Be Able to Trust “Ambitious” Women?
writing-1170146_640
A Heartfelt Note from a Gen X Mom to Millennial Women
800px-USMC-090905-M-8097K-006
How to Get 18- to 24-Year-Olds to Vote? The November Fourth Concerts!
Hillary Clinton, Shake It Off, Taylor Swift, Hillary Clinton Campaign song
Six Reasons “Shake It Off” Should Be Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Theme Song
women over 50, lean in, lean out
Learning to Do Less
Israel Palestine BDS AIPAC Clinton
HRC, AIPAC, BDS and UC
800px-Girls_At_Highland_Avenue_Train_Stop
Maybe It Wasn’t Rape: Emerging Matriarchy and the Altering of Women’s Past Sexual Narratives
Paris attacks, Paris terrorism
Is Paris Burning?
Chinese government and women's reproductive rights, adopting Chinese girls, international adoption
Dear Xi Jinping, I Am Writing to You as an American Mom of a 19-Year-Old Chinese Daughter
800px-Girls_At_Highland_Avenue_Train_Stop
Maybe It Wasn’t Rape: Emerging Matriarchy and the Altering of Women’s Past Sexual Narratives
369.the-eyes-have-it1
The Eyes Have It!
Ashley Madison, Jared Fogle, sex, rape, sexual affairs
Ashley Madison vs. Jared Fogle: Rape, Sex and Hacking in America
women's viagra, Viagra, Flibanserin, sexual arousal, women's desire, sex after menopause
That “Little Pink Pill” Isn’t All It’s Cracked Up to Be

Get our new weekly email
Broadly Speaking

featuring our best words for the week + an exclusive longread