Breaking: Komen announces that Planned Parenthood eligibility for funding will continue; Update: Future funding not guaranteed, says Komen

posted at 11:29 am on February 3, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Remember when the Susan G. Komen Foundation cut off grants to Planned Parenthood for being under Congressional investigation — er, sorr, for not actually providing outcomes?  Good times, good times:

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.

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.

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.

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.

It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women. We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.

On a certain level, I get exactly what they mean.  I think it is a fair point that suspending grants because of investigations should come from criminal probes — although there have been a few of those as well involving Planned Parenthood affiliates — even if granting agencies have the ability to decide on that criteria for themselves.  Otherwise, any investigation in Congress for any particular purpose would get used to block legitimate charities from getting grants no matter what the motives behind the probe might be.

Still, Komen would be better off sticking with outcome-based criteria for grants.  If Planned Parenthood performs the mammograms needed for screening, then certainly it’s a legitimate action to offer a grant funding that activity.  If all they’re doing is providing referrals, though, why not just fund the organizations actually performing the mammograms that catch cancer early enough for treatment, as well as the organizations actually providing that treatment?  The objection has been that the grants look much more like a method to fund abortions while asserting that Komen is only working on breast cancer, which is why so many people objected to the arrangement in the first place — and why critics applauded the move announced earlie this week.

The statement doesn’t actually commit to doing anything differently, if it is carefully read.  All Komen is saying is that Planned Parenthood is still eligible for grants, having rescinded their suspension that was based on the Congressional probe, and that grants already approved would continue.  Komen notes that they will still develop the guidelines that will help their funding directly impact their mission, and I’d bet that means that Planned Parenthood will still get a lot less money from Komen in the future, as most of their clinics don’t provide mammograms or treatments.  This is just a more intelligent approach to the issue, and one that would not have created the political firestorm that arose this week had Komen taken it from the beginning.

Update: Greg Sargent read the statement the same way I did and contacted a Komen board member, who confirms that Komen isn’t going to guarantee Planned Parenthood any future funding:

I just got off the phone with a Komen board member, and he confirmed that the announcement does not mean that Planned Parenthood is guaranteed future grants — a demand he said would be “unfair” to impose on Komen. He also said the job of the group’s controversial director, Nancy Brinker, is safe, as far as the board is concerned.

As some were quick to point out, the statement put out by Komen doesn’t really clarify whether Planned Parenthood will actually continue to get money from the group. The original rationale for barring Planned Parenthood was that it was under investigation (a witch-hunt probe undertaken by GOP Rep Cliff Stearns). Komen said today that the group would “amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.”

Does that mean Planned Parenthood will get Komen grants in the future?

I asked Komen board member John Raffaelli to respond to those who are now saying that the announcement doesn’t necessarily constitute a reversal until Planned Parenthood actually sees more funding. He insisted it would be unfair to expect the group to commit to future grants.

“It would be highly unfair to ask us to commit to any organization that doesn’t go through a grant process that shows that the money we raise is used to carry out our mission,” Raffaelli told me. “We’re a humaniatrian organization. We have a mission. Tell me you can help carry out our mission and we will sit down at the table.”

In other words, grants will likely be outcome-based, and that would keep Planned Parenthood on the outside in most cases.  Sargent also reports that the board strongly supports Brinker through this episode and her job is not in danger, which would also tend to support that conclusion.

Update II: Jen Rubin provides another data point that makes this policy clear:

The Post interviewed Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure CEO Nancy Brinker and President Elizabeth Thompson on Thursday. At that time, they confirmed that their group wants to stick to its core mission and not simply funnel funds through another entity that doesn’t itself provide breast cancer screening. (“We have decided not to fund, wherever possible, pass-through grants. We were giving them money, they were sending women out for mammograms. What we would like to have are clinics where we can directly fund mammograms.”) We don’t knowwhether that rationale is now null and void.

Pardon me, but this is nuts. Planned Parenthood can raise its own money (which it did in spades in the wake of the flap). Those who want to give to a breast cancer charity can donate with the peace of mind that their money will be used to fight breast cancer. (Donors did so generously as a result of the controversy.) Now Planned Parenthood’s bosses have every right under current law to do what they do and raise money to fund their organization. But shame on them for intimidating other groups that might contemplate the same move as the Susan G. Komen Foundation made.

It sounds to me like this statement was carefully crafted to underscore that policy, not reverse it, as Sargent discovered.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8

What you call self-righteous I call reality. The women made a bad choice.

I did not say they would “get no help at all.” You put words into my mouth. I said help is readily available for them.

so, you would allow them to have a medical assisted abortion? or you mean, other help?

If they make the decision to do something to harm themselves, that is stupid and irrational, and they reap the consequences. If they end up in a hospital or doctor’s office, perhaps in jeopardy of their life or their future ability to bear children, it was because they did it to themselves. I had nothing to do with it.

if you knew someone that was about to do such thing, and despite your best attempts, she would not change her mind, would you allow her to have medical help to perform the abortion if it was in your power to grant such help.

I am not a player in this situation. I didn’t force the woman to “self-abort.” She made her own decision. It has nothing to with my ethics trumping hers. You are the one who is self-righteous, in claiming that your ethics are better than mine.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 10:14 PM

you did not forced her to self abort, but you support the prohibition that denies her medical help. you would be partially responsible. dont wash your hands so quickly.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 10:28 PM

What about responsibility for your actions? You obviously don’t believe in it. Because you believe that this “embryonic human,” that has done absolutely nothing wrong, is of lesser worth than the woman who wants to destroy it, before it has a chance to be fully formed?

You are worthy of nothing but contempt.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 10:22 PM

sure, this “innocent embryonic human,” is not human yet, and as such, the fully human host will takes precedence. i know , for you, “I am worthy of nothing but contempt.”, but is my view nonetheless.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 10:34 PM

you did not forced her to self abort, but you support the prohibition that denies her medical help. you would be partially responsible. dont wash your hands so quickly.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 10:28 PM

No. She has alternatives. She is not forced to break the law. SHE MAKES HER CHOICE. I would not be responsible for her breaking the law.

I would not be in any way responsible for HER actions. Nice try though.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 11:00 PM

sure, this “innocent embryonic human,” is not human yet, and as such, the fully human host will takes precedence. i know , for you, “I am worthy of nothing but contempt.”, but is my view nonetheless.

nathor

It’s not human yet? Or it’s not a “person” yet. It is most certainly fully human, and if not subject to destruction, will become “fully human.”

I don’t even think you understand your own view. When is it okay to tell the “human host” that she no longer takes precedence, and she must continue her pregnancy? If we can’t make the decision for her in the first trimester, then why doesn’t it follow that she can abort up until she goes into labor? Or even destroy the fetus post-partum?

You are not thinking these things through.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 11:05 PM

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Your 45-year-old study has a margin of error of 87 f**king percent.

Guess what margin of error there is for my figure of 1.2 million legal abortion?

NONE.

Your statistic not only has a margin of error, but is based on 1960s America, which is an entirely different country than it is now. Your numbers are pitiful.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 11:15 PM

What about responsibility for your actions? You obviously don’t believe in it. Because you believe that this “embryonic human,” that has done absolutely nothing wrong, is of lesser worth than the woman who wants to destroy it, before it has a chance to be fully formed?

You are worthy of nothing but contempt.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Well, golly gee bob. I have only contempt for your views, which are evil and stupid. I guess we are even. There is nothing morally wrong with the killing of human fetuses. If you had bothered to read Joshua, you’ll see that God has his ideas about murder, and they certainly are not DNA fundamentalism.

thuja on February 3, 2012 at 11:21 PM

Well, golly gee bob. I have only contempt for your views, which are evil and stupid. I guess we are even. There is nothing morally wrong with the killing of human fetuses. If you had bothered to read Joshua, you’ll see that God has his ideas about murder, and they certainly are not DNA fundamentalism.

thuja on February 3, 2012 at 11:21 PM

Well, I would quote scripture that contradicts these blatant lies, but I’m sure you’re not going to accept it, so I’ll just let the other commenters decide who is contemptible.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 11:31 PM

@nathor. I see that your pro-abortion friends want to take away the alternatives of women who have unexpected pregnancies. It’s all about the money coming in, for abortions provided. They don’t give a damn about women. All they care about is $$

Pro-abortion legislators, backed by Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America, are trying to force prolife pregnancy centers to shut their doors and end their life saving work.

Planned Parenthood wants to eliminate its competition by passing local laws in cities across the country that violate free speech and silence prolife advocates. The ACLJ is defending a majority of the prolife pregnancy centers in New York City in federal court, fighting to allow these prolife centers to continue their lifesaving work. Please stand for life and sign our petition today.

link here

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 11:35 PM

thuja on February 3, 2012 at 11:21 PM

What is a person? Have you met a human who wasn’t a person?

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 11:50 PM

Have you met a human who wasn’t a person?

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 11:50 PM

No. But just to be clear, I have never met a human fetus, nor has any other human being.

thuja on February 3, 2012 at 11:55 PM

thuja on February 3, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Right. So if a fetus is not a person, then abortion is not the deliberate killing of an innocent human life. But what if a fetus is a human being? Is a human being a person?

quiz1 on February 4, 2012 at 12:02 AM

I guess those ultrasound images of fetuses are all fakes, then?

JannyMae on February 4, 2012 at 12:04 AM

And I suppose that the kicking the woman feels in the womb is just indigestion? It’s not really a baby, after all, but only a “fetus.”

JannyMae on February 4, 2012 at 12:08 AM

And I suppose that the kicking the woman feels in the womb is just indigestion? It’s not really a baby, after all, but only a “fetus.”

JannyMae on February 4, 2012 at 12:08 AM

Insects kick. Kicking is no big deal. It’s really ok to kill things that kick. My first cousin hunts deer. Deers just don’t kick. They are pretty clever.

thuja on February 4, 2012 at 12:12 AM

thuja on February 4, 2012 at 12:12 AM

Uh huh.

Thanks for the non-response. Bye!

JannyMae on February 4, 2012 at 12:29 AM

thuja on February 4, 2012 at 12:12 AM

Yep. So you have no real answer then? Okay. I’m afraid I’m going to get a reputation around here as a thread-killer, I can only post in the am or late pm so I’m never in the middle of the action. Sorry Hot Air. Quiz1 – resident thread-killer. Have a good night peeps. You know who you are. :-)

quiz1 on February 4, 2012 at 12:31 AM

thuja = nathor = libfreeordie

This sad, pathetic loser has been squatting in this thread since it was first posted. AbortaBots are the new Jesus freaks.

MisterPundit on February 4, 2012 at 12:44 AM

I know its completely irrelevant, but that woman reminds me of Cloris Leachman’s Frau Blucher in Young Frankenstein.

TonyR on February 4, 2012 at 9:09 AM

And far Left ideologues win?

Charlemagne on February 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM

No….

far Left ideologueiots win again

cableguy615 on February 5, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Found this on Sarah Palin’s Facebook and she nails it, in my opinion.

Lessons to Learn from Komen and Planned Parenthoodby Sarah Palin on Saturday, February 4, 2012 at 6:32pm
The conflict between Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure and Planned Parenthood once again raises the issue of Planned Parenthood’s funding. As has been pointed out many times, Planned Parenthood doesn’t provide mammograms. So, why should a breast cancer charity feel enormous pressure to donate to an abortion provider? It’s frustrating to see Komen feel it had to reverse its decision based on political pressure. Here’s an interesting and very good take away from all of this:

As controversial as this entire situation has become, there is definitely a lesson to be learned here, and I want to highlight it. Planned Parenthood reportedly was the recipient of an outpouring of public support after Susan G. Komen for the Cure first announced its decision not to fund it. It didn’t take long at all for Planned Parenthood supporters to respond, as they made the decision to give from their own personal finances. This is precisely how these things ought to work. Private charities and willing individuals have every right to give to organizations such as Planned Parenthood. The allocation of federal funds, however, is a different matter entirely.

For years, many Americans have voiced disapproval of their dollars going to Planned Parenthood via the federal government. This is particularly a bone of contention now when America is broke and needs to rein in spending. Every federal dollar counts, and Planned Parenthood has just shown us that it has the means to raise its own money from individuals who choose to give to them, rather than receiving most of its multimillion dollar funding from the U.S. government. Even New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has gotten involved in the situation, pledging to donate and accusing Komen of basing the decision—the decision of how to spend its money—on politics. This is further evidence that there’s no lack of willing financial support. So then why should those whose consciences rail against giving to an organization dogged with too many questions—and too many abortions—be forced to give to Planned Parenthood through their tax dollars?

Please click here to read the rest.

- Sarah Palin

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150536427753435

Well done Sarah, well done!!

bluefox on February 5, 2012 at 9:11 PM

There is nothing morally wrong with the killing of human fetuses.

thuja on February 3, 2012 at 11:21 PM

Wow, if that is not a creepy, scary statement, I have no idea what is. Not even embryo, but fetus. How can anyone human think like that?

inmypajamas on February 5, 2012 at 10:26 PM

I worked in Labor and Delivery for several years and have held tiny 20-24 weeks fetuses born after spontaneous Abs (miscarriages). It is gut wrenching to feel their hearts beat and see them try to breathe. Younger fetuses are just tiny little versions of us. I am appalled and sick that someone feels nothing when talking about deliberately killing these human lives.

inmypajamas on February 5, 2012 at 10:37 PM

The only thing I’d like to ask Komen’s officers is this: in the language of the street, how’s it feel to have Planned Parenthood treat you like their bitch?

The coverage was stunning at NPR. They only interviewed people who spoke as if Planned Parenthood owns Komen’s kash. The entire narrative was that Komen was being political. No one even raise the question of whether PP was being political in their reaction, because this wasn’t honest reporting.

PP needs to be taken down, taken out, and wiped out as an organization. They’re the Ticketmaster of putative women’s health organizations. If that analogy doesn’t suggest pure evil, nothing will. ;-)

rasqual on February 5, 2012 at 11:19 PM

I’m glad that all of this has come out. I never realized that an organization that is supposed to help with breast cancer causes was ever involved in PP. So as a former supporter of Komen I will go elsewhere with my charitable donations. Thanks Komen for helping me to make sure I’m sending my hard earned money to organizations I can believe in. I will be looking very hard at any charity from now on. This has taught me a lesson about not taking any charity at face value.

neyney on February 6, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Koman used to be slam dunk in my book. No longer. I think some is the organization want to show some guts, but in the end, it is all hardcore femminism where the girls are in love with their fronts to fill out swim suits (I guess). Protectng the health of the silicone sisters. If SBK does not support the direct connection between women’s breasts and babies, I cannot contribute. PP does not perform breast screening, the kill millions of unborn babies. If SBK gives one penny to PP, we must oppose SBK with greter energy nd enthusiasm tht we supported them. I see now, as do many Americaqns, the pink that has distinguished SBK in their walks is now an extension of Code Pink, hardcore, femminist baby killers. Is that what you want SBK, beause that is what you got. Done with you until/unless you come out clear nd strong for life. Abortion stills a beating heart.

StevC on February 6, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8