The Accidental Rebranding of Komen for the Cure

by Kivi Leroux Miller on February 1, 2012

in Advocacy,Fundraising,Media Relations,Messages and Tag Lines,Nonprofit Communications,Nonprofit Marketing Strategy,Nonprofit Personality

(Updates to this post can be found at the bottom.)

Yesterday afternoon, and continuing into today, I believe we are witnessing the accidental rebranding of what is surely one of America’s biggest and most well-known, and even well-loved, nonprofit brands.

Komen for the Cure, it seems, is no longer a breast cancer charity, but a pro-life breast cancer charity.

Let me stop right here and say this post is not about abortion per se, one way or the other, other than the fact that it is the single most divisive issue in American politics today. My personal beliefs are very clear and public. But how you feel about abortion is really irrelevant to this communications debacle unfolding before us.

This post is about what happens when a leading nonprofit jumps into a highly controversial area of public debate without a communications strategy, stays silent, and therefore lets others take over the public dialogue, perhaps permanently redefining the organization and its brand. Watch and learn, so you don’t make the same mistake on whatever hot button issues your organization might be wading into.

Here’s what happened yesterday afternoon:

The AP reported that Komen for the Cure has decided to halt grants to Planned Parenthood that were used for breast cancer screening for low-income women. According to the reports, this decision was made in December and communicated to Planned Parenthood, which urged Komen to reconsider. Komen, citing a new policy that prevents grants to organizations under investigation, said because Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-FL, is investigating whether government money was improperly spent on abortions, the decision to pull the funding was final.

The AP story broke yesterday, and within hours, Planned Parenthood sent a fundraising email out to its network, asking supporters to replace the money that Komen had pulled for breast cancer screenings for low-income women.

Within minutes, both Facebook and Twitter were swamped with pro-Planned Parenthood, anti-Komen comments. At one point last night, I did a quick count and found the ratio of anti-Komen’s decision to pro-Komen’s decision to be about 80 to 1 on Twitter.

Some typical anti-Komen tweets:

Some typical pro-Komen tweets:

Adding another twist to the story, it seems that Karen Handel, Komen’s senior vice president for public policy, who was hired in April 2011, is a pro-life advocate who, when running for the Republican nomination for governor in Georgia, made her opposition to Planned Parenthood quite clear.

Now let’s look at Komen’s response . . . which is no response (until about 90 minutes ago). As one person on Twitter put it, just crickets.

Komen didn’t post on its Twitter or Facebook feeds last night, or first thing this morning. The only Komen action on their Facebook page had been to delete anti-Komen comments, so the ratio of negative to positive looks more like 10 – 1 instead of the 80 – 1 (and even higher this morning) on Twitter.

Komen’s most recent tweet was about prostate cancer in a mummy.

On Facebook, the most recent update was about a new sponsor, Energizer.

Take a quick look at the wall posts on Energizer’s page, and I suspect Komen has one unhappy sponsor right now (how unfortunate for Energizer to be the last update on the Komen page — it would have happened to any company in that position when the news broke):

Then around 10 am Eastern today, Komen finally updated its Facebook page. As of this moment (11:30 am ET), still no update on Twitter:

So What the Heck is Going on Here?

Let’s give Komen the benefit of the doubt and assume that they made this decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood very thoughtfully and deliberately. In that case, they would surely have realized that the likelihood of the story going public was high. They may not have counted on Planned Parenthood being so aggressive in turning the Komen decision into a fundraising campaign, but even without that, it’s still a big news story because of how high-profile Planned Parenthood funding of any kind is right now. And that’s all about abortion, which is about as divisive an issue as you can get in American politics right now.

The “Try to Rise Above It and Pretend This Decision Isn’t about the Most Divisive Social Issue in America” Strategy

Yet it appears that Komen wants to desperately pretend that this decision is being made in some completely different context. By not responding at all to the overwhelming negativity being thrown their way, and continuing to pretend that this has nothing to do with a red-hot social issue, they are alienating a big part of their constituency.

It seems like they are hoping this will just blow over. It won’t. This isn’t Komen’s first branding debacle: See the Kentucky Fried Chicken incident and suing smaller charities for using “for the cure” but I’d say it’s the biggest one yet.

What Should Komen Do Next?

Earlier this month, I urged nonprofits to decide how they are different, to embrace that, and forget the rest. Previously Komen stood out as a tremendous organizer and mobilizer of women across the political spectrum who would raise money like crazy for them. They kept it nice and simple, and non-controversial. Wear that pink ribbon and raise money to fight breast cancer. The abortion debate was nowhere in sight. It was all about the breasts, and not about the uterus. And I think that’s one thing that made them different — Komen was an organization that dealt with women’s health issues without getting caught up in the abortion debate, like most women’s organizations end up doing.

No more. They took a deep dive into the hot swirling waters head first (but apparently eyes shut). No matter what they do from here on out, they will be forced to pick sides, and that’s just awful for the Komen brand.

If they stick by their decision, they will endear themselves to pro-life women, and lose the pro-choice. If they give in to the pressure and petitions, they will win back the pro-choice women, but anger the pro-life. It’s a no-win situation that could have been avoided had they developed a communications strategy on this decision at the start. Sure, they would have still angered many of their supporters, but I believe they could have avoided this huge rift had they communicated upfront, and honestly, about the decision. They should have released it, instead of letting Planned Parenthood own the messaging.

The Branding Challenge, Part II

Now that they are full on into the abortion debate, Komen (I think) must now come out and say whether they think abortion causes breast cancer. If you look through the comment stream now, that particular question is what pro-life and pro-choice commenters are arguing with each other about. And as an organization with a mission to prevent breast cancer, I think it’s reasonable for supporters to expect Komen to make a statement about various theories on what causes it, including this one.

Let’s see how they handle that question, and whether they use it as a second chance to mend their brand, or if they fall deeper into the non-communicative abyss.

Can Komen Heal the Rift?

Regardless of how you feel about abortion, what do you think Komen could do to bring pro-choice and pro-life women back together to fight breast cancer hand in hand?

Or do you think this will all blow over with little long-term affect on Komen?

Share your ideas, and your thoughts on these communications questions in the comments.

UPDATE at 5:30 pm Eastern, 2/1/2012:

I’m quoted in this Politico story on the Komen mess. As the day went on, and Komen continued to say nothing, I got even more annoyed with how awful they are handling all this. They still haven’t tweeted anything (and that stupid mummy prostate tweet is what people see when they check their profile). So my criticism got a bit harsher . . . ~Kivi

UPDATE at 6:30 pm Eastern, 2/1/2012

Check out this analysis of the social media commentary by PoliPulse:

UPDATE at 9:00 am Eastern, 2/2/2012

Last night around 10 pm, after declining interviews with network news and major newspapers, Komen finally started tweeting and released this video response:

Contrast this response to what Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards did: interviews with all the major networks and this MSNBC interview:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This morning, Beth Kanter published a post including a description of my process for creating this post (if you are interested in how content gets developed and the concept of newsjacking).

UPDATE at 5:30 pm Eastern, 2/2/2012

Nancy Brinker, founder of Komen, is interviewed by Andrea Mitchell. Do you think it helped or hurt?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

UPDATE at 8:00 am Eastern, 2/3/12

Komen board member speaks to the New York Times in Outcry Grows Fiercer After Funding Cut by Cancer Group. He says this really was specifically about Planned Parenthood and not overall “grant excellence” as Brinker has claimed. The article states, “John D. Raffaelli said Komen had become increasingly worried that an investigation of Planned Parenthood by Representative Cliff Stearns, Republican of Florida, would damage Komen’s credibility with donors.”

UPDATE at 1:23 pm Eastern, 2/3/12

Komen releases an apology and states they have amended their policy that the investigation must be “criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.”

Planned Parenthood’s response to the policy reversal.

Do you think this changes anything or is the damage done to the Komen brand irreversible?

UPDATE at 9:15 pm Eastern, 2/6/2012

THANK YOU everyone for such a lively conversation in the comments! But since the majority of new comments on this post are about religious arguments instead of nonprofit communications and management, I am closing comments. I will blog more about the Komen communications issues later this week and invite you to comment on that post.

ADDITIONAL UPDATES . . .

February 7: Ex-VP Karen Handel shares her side of the story, calling Planned Parenthood a “bully” – also see her first interview on Fox News. But interviews with Komen insiders tell a different story about what went down.

February 23: Komen hires PR firm to assess the damage and releases a survey on what they should say next. Another bad move in my opinion.

Here are some articles I’ve written and interviews I’ve given on recovering from a crisis . . .

Recovering From a Public-Relations Scandal: Tips for Komen (Chronicle of Philanthropy)

What Komen Should Do Next to Rebuild Trust (my blog)

Komen Fund’s Attempt to Reassure Donors Stumbles, Experts Say (Chronicle of Philanthropy)

Nonprofit Crisis Communications 101: Shorten the News Cycle (article on Nonprofit Marketing Guide)

http://twitter.com/catfitz CatherineFitzpatrick

Oh, I definitely will follow up! my first attempts got nowhere, but they may have been very busy with all the press attention. I will persist! Back soon.
CJ

Janice … This may be a bit off-topic overall, but I had to comment. I understand what you are saying … but I must say that many of us feel the pink ribbon stands for women battling cancer “in the
breast”. Those in the hardest and
longest battle … those whose BC has spread elsewhere …many of those, myself included, believe that they are not represented by the pink ribbon. The pink logos and
slogans such as save the ta-ta’s, boobies, etc.
are irrelevant to us as are cries of “for the cure” (almost always referring to
preventive vaccines) and “early detection” (which means nothings because stage 0 patients continue to metastasize. These slogans define the world of
“pink”. Those of us with stage
IV breast cancer aren’t worried about losing a coconut or two … no one dies from losing a breast … we’re worried
about losing the tree because no one survives without the trunk. So I’ll agree with you on “pink”
for stages 0-3, but I ask that you understand it does not represent us all.
http://twitter.com/catfitz CatherineFitzpatrick

It’s Komen’s right to run WHATEVER agenda they wish, they are an independent foundation, just like PP gets to do whatever the hell the wish.

What’s outrageous is this BULLYING and PERSECUTION by the left of an organization that simply doesn’t share your views. SHAME ON YOU.
Anonymous

I don’t think the stink of pink is going away. SGK might as well just come out and declare themselves anti-choice and be done with it.
Pingback: Final Thoughts on Komen… For Now | Barefoot Media
KS

The government rightly mandates that the citizens MUST do many
things, such as pay taxes, obey traffic laws, respect others’ property, etc. No
one complains about the lack of choice on which side of the road to drive on;
lack of choice is not abhorrent. What is abhorrent is when the zeitgeist leads
women in crisis to believe that ending her unborn child’s life is not only an
acceptable choice, but commendable, as she is embracing her “right.” How does
an entire group of people (pro-choicers) cavalierly ignore the rights of the
millions of unborn children being killed and not see how unbelievably selfish
that is on behalf of a mother?
(And for the record, I gave birth to my unplanned baby, and she is the
most amazing source of joy I’ve ever been given, and I do counsel anyone
considering an abortion that life is a wonderful choice.)
KS

1. Planned Parenthood isn’t
doing breast cancer research. Planned Parenthood isn’t offering women
mammograms. The extent of their breast care services is a manual exam that you
could do in the shower. ??Komen’s funds should go towards healthcare clinics
that are equipped to perform mammograms for low-income women. Planned
Parenthood isn’t one of those.

2. Komen granted $629,159 to Planned
Parenthood last year. This equates to 0.0006% of PP’s overall billion-dollar
income. So if PP really cares about this issue, I’m pretty sure they could use
some of the annual over $100,000,000 they make off of abortions to fund it.

3. Planned Parenthood likes to brag that
“just 3%” of their services are abortions. Let’s break that down real
quick. From their most recent annual report: “Planned Parenthood health
centers cared for three million people.” 11,003,366 total services
provided; 329,445 were abortions (that’s the “3%”). Simple math: 329,445
of 3,000,000 PP patients aborted pregnancies in their clinics. This means
nearly 11% (over one in ten) of PP clients obtained abortions. The Alan
Guttmacher Institute estimates the average cost of an abortion to be $450.
Multiply that by 329,445 and Planned Parenthood is earning about $139,000,000
yearly from abortions- almost 14% of their overall billion-dollar income.
Braunk

If they can force you to have a child, they can also force you NOT to have a child.
Elena Perez

But interestingly, the government does *not* mandate organ or blood donation to save lives. In fact, a parent cannot be legally required to donate so much as a toenail to keep their already-born child alive.

Nor can anyone be forced to donate blood or bone marrow or an organ to save a life. So why should that suddenly change just because it’s an embryo instead of a person?
Ellen Dagenhart

Catherine, I don’t lie. Why would I? My friend went for a health problem, and she was helped, there was follow-up, and the cost to her was much, much less that I paid for comparable services, even with insurance, at my ob-gyn. I am simply telling you of her experience, and now, mine. PERIOD.

It’s very clear that your closed mind will allow for no information that runs counter to your pre-formed opinion. How sad that you cannot be honest about that.
Braunlk

Furthermore, Komen gave a $7.5 million grant to Penn State U. – has anybody noticed they’re under investigation?
Elena Perez

Untrue, given that they are continuing funding for other institutions under federal investigation, such as Penn State and Duke University.
http://www.warrensenders.com/journal/ Just another teacher

Brandywine,

In 1955, my mother had an abortion. She and my father had been trying to conceive for six years. They were overjoyed that she was pregnant… but the doctors discovered on the delivery table that the fetus was hydrocephalic and had a head the size of a canteloupe which was lodged in the birth canal. A “partial-birth abortion” saved her life. The fetus had NO BRAIN; it would never have survived outside the womb.

Three years later, I was born, and one year later my brother was born. He and his wife have two kids, my wife and I have one. That’s a total of six people (Mom, me, my bro, our kids) who owe our lives to that abortion.

So, you can take your “pro-life” position and shove it. This is personal.
Ellen Dagenhart

170,000 screenings for breast cancer is not trivial. That is what the “small donation” paid for. It was better money spent by Komen than buying pink feather boas.
Gorby

Handel is a political animal with a checkered past of marriages and an aborted child. Thank God she was never close to being elected Governor of Georgia. She is insecure, power hungry and can’t separate her own views from the secular public she serves.
Kevinpmorison

Wow, the “Ambassador” is all over the place. We’re not defunding Planned Parenthood. We pulled grants because of a new policy that we don’t fund groups “under investigation.” We pulled grants because Planned Parenthood doesn’t meet criteria for “outcomes” and “excellence.” Planned Parenthood not being singled out (but who else has been defunded?). This PR train wreck just flew the tracks, crashed into the station and burst into flames. Figure out your message, dear “Ambassador,” get on message and stay there. Better yet. Pack it in and start all over.
Pingback: Susan G. Komen Foundation roundup | Hotspyer – Breaking News from around the web
Ellen Dagenhart

People are making a “bunch of noise”, as you say, because they gave funds, walked or ran, and gave time, talent & treasure to Komen, and they feel betrayed by Komen’s decision to take away a significant part of the reason why they contributed. Simple as that. Anyone with a brain can understand that a very important way to fight cancer is to catch it early. Anyone with a heart believes it is important to help those who are less advantaged. Those donors with brains & hearts feel betrayed by Komen’s decision to turn off the tap to PP, and so they are voting with their feet & their checkbooks. Simple as that. They are exercising the right of every single donor to every single non-profit to walk away if they don’t like what they see. And non-profits ignore that fact at their peril. It’s NonProfit Marketing 101.
http://www.warrensenders.com/journal/ Just another teacher

What’s ridiculous is the notion that people registering their dissatisfaction with an organization’s policy by advocating boycotts and sending emails of protest somehow counts as “BULLYING and PERSECUTION” (gotta love the all-caps!).

Sure, Komen can do whatever they want. They just did. And all us ordinary people who think PP does good work can be upset about it, and register that in the way we’re doing.
Origami Isopod

Fetii aren’t babies any more than a blueprint is a building. The woman’s body manufactures the baby. It’s not a flowerpot for a man’s seed.
Ellen Dagenhart

The charitable organizations may have the right to donate/not donate to whomever they choose, but you fail to recognize that those who DONATED to the organizations have expectations as well. Us ILKS make/don’t make contributions based on what we perceive the mission of the organization to be. Bait & switch is no way to run a charity. There are plenty of other organizations that support breast cancer research & screenings, absent the decorative ribbons. Donors can and will choose to walk away, *especially* if they feel that research & treatment for cancer, which cares nothing for political persuasion, is being politicized needlessly, and for reckless purpose.
Jhow144

Yes, Komen has every right to disburse their funds as they see fit– no one is disputing that. HOWEVER, people who donate or raise money for Komen have every right to COMPLAIN AND/OR WITHDRAW THEIR SUPPORT if they disagree with the organization’s change of policy. Nobody is ‘forcing’ Komen to do anything. But why should pro-choice women (who I suspect make up the bulk of Komen’s donor base) continue to support them under these circumstances?

The fact is that Komen made a very foolish decision that will hurt their organization and its mission, all for the sake of making a political statement that helps no one and may actually harm some of the low-income women out there who are in need of Komen’s (and Planned Parenthood’s) help.
Jerold Kappel

I have
followed the comments because they started as a look at a nonprofit
communications/policy/strategy and fiasco/example/crisis management study that
holds lessons for all that work in the philanthropic sector. I have
commented and read other comments. But the discussion that has largely
evolved–pro-life versus pro-choice and everything in between–although it may
be valuable, has devolved into something that I do not believe is cogent to the
original questions posed by Ms. Miller. I have my personal views on the
subject (my daughter was a patient of Planned Parenthood in college and law
school for her total woman’s healthcare needs and I will be forever
grateful–and for those old enough to remember, when I was in college, before
Roe v. Wade, I inherited the serious responsibility as the keeper of the “black
book”), but I don’t believe that I need to follow the pros and cons of abortion
in this commentary. Not that I
disrespect any view expressed (well, maybe some of the snarky ones), but I do
not believe that this is the venue to air them.
I am no longer following the discussion.
Also, I give my full name with my comments. If anyone agrees or disagrees with my views,
it is easy enough to find me on the web and contact me directly. Thank you, Kivi, for an excellent analysis of
the issues dealing with the strategic communications of Komen’s decision to end
funding of Planned Parenthood. This will
be a situation studied in nonprofit management and governance for many years to
come. No one or no organization comes
out of this unscathed. Except, perhaps,
all those women that are uninsured, frightened, and poor that have become a
pawn in this battle.
Anj

Being called baby killers and murderers might have something to do with the shame some women who have had abortion carry. I was shocked when I lived in another country where a woman’s right to decide what was best for her was respected and the acknowledgment of loss that was possible and the lack of shame.

Abortion is not a black and white issue.
Pingback: Komen for the Cure Makes Its Own Communications Crisis | John Cheek
Anj

You might want to research how much of the money Komen rakes in that actually goes to cancer research or supporting those with breast cancer. If you are interested in good stewardship of your finances that is.
Anj

Thank you for your reply, this is really important for us to hear.
Amn

There is no such thing as “Pro-Abortion”.
Tburwinkle

You know, kudos to you for giving birth to an unplanned baby who has brought you so much joy. Really, that’s great. But you assume that other women with unplanned pregnancies would find joy in the birth and raising of a child, just like you have. You ignore the fact that many women who have unplanned pregnancies are not prepared emotionally, financially, or even mentally to care for a child. What happens to those children? Are those the ones who end up in foster care? Are those the ones whose names end up on the DSS rolls? Are those the ones whose fathers, or mothers are abusive, or drug addicts? Are those the ones who meet an even worse fate? Perhaps. You might consider that abortion is not, in fact selfish, but a decision carefully made for a myriad of reasons. It is not black and white. And many pro-choice advocates, including myself, are pro choice not to advance a political agenda, but because we recognize the many circumstances in life which face women in the world, and know that sometimes having a child is not the best choice for all women. Again, I’m glad you had a good outcome, but don’t assume it would be the same for all births due to unwanted pregnancies.
mamaphd

As to point #1, KS, if detecting breast cancer was as easy as a manual exam, there would be no need for PP, or any other service provider, to assist in the detection of breast cancer. The fact is, most women simply DO NOT KNOW how to do a proper manual exam. Several women (including two that I know who had breast cancer) who do regular manual exams missed lumps that their doctors ultimately found. Had they continued to do their own manual exams and not seen their doctors, they might very well be dead today. so you see, it isn’t that simple. Also, PP partners with several healthcare organizations to conduct mammograms on women whose breasts are found through the manual exams to have potentially cancerous lumps. Their referral network alone has meant that women can actually afford mammograms through the PP partnership organizations. So be sure to do your homework before you make statements like that.
Bob

Everything she’s saying now sounds like barn-door-closing, bye-bye horse. Completely unbelievable.
Pingback: AddictedToRadio.com – Susan G. Komen Foundation roundup
Pingback: AddictedToRadio.com – Susan G. Komen for the Cure: How to destroy your brand in 48 hours
Bloix

PP saw what happened to ACORN. And PP itself was attacked by O’Keefe and Breitbart. PP knows that they are the next target and that the hard right is out to isolate, demonize, and destroy them. They are fighting for their existence and they are not going to go quietly.
Friend of PP

I am very disappointed in Komen’s decision; I saw the interview with Andrea Mitchell and with Lisa Meyers. She had no reasonable answer for this decision. I think the decision is a result of the addition of the new VP who is pro-life. I will no longer support Komen – I have been buying products with the pink ribbon for years and I will no longer buy Energizer batteries if they continue their support of Komen. When I was a young married woman living in New York, I went to Planned Parenthood for some female medical issue. It’s a wonderful organization.
Karen

Seems to me everyone is missing the real reason the grant was pulled. Their policy is to not grant to organizations under investigation. Don’t you suppose the grant will be re-established once the investigation has found no wrong doing? I do, however, wonder at the lack of response.
GeminiHalf

The Andrea Mitchell interview was appalling. Brinker was shrill, incoherent and her messaging was all over. She thought she had a “friend” in Mitchell, since Andrea is a survivor and Brinker had been a guest in the past. But Mitchell did her job and Brinker wasn’t up to the task. As a PR professional–and survivor–I know many in the “bc” community are not happy with Komen and their funding choices. They are insular and come believe, ignore the plight of younger women w/the disease. Reports indicate this decision has been in the works for a while, as a former PR guy attested to today. It’s unfortunate that an org with such good intentions can get it so horribly wrong.
Bickbyro

Wow, yes! I was waiting for someone to say this. Really, it’s just as well Komen didn’t waste money on a”communications strategy” (esp. considering whose responsibility that would have been)… it really wouldn’t have made much difference.
http://www.brandingmasters.com/ Sstant

At the very least they should have been ready with a story, a story THEY owned. They have already been “tried” in the media, social and traditional. I am shocked at the ineptitude, and perhaps arrogance, to think that they could do this and nothing would happen. And, to think they could stay quiet for as long as they have and then not even have a plausible story to sell.

The first rule in PR: Own the story. Second rule: tell it all, and tell it early.

IMHO, this is what happens when an organization believes its own press. EVERYone can fail, even SGK.

As a long-time supporter (runner and donor for them), I am saddened by this turn of events. Two of my favorite tops, both from the last SGK Race for the Cure, will now be thrown away. I could never, in good conscience, wear them again. And, they will never receive another dime from this household.

Sad, just sad.
Pingback: Komen Debacle Excellent Study on How Social Media Can Destroy Your Brand in 12 Hours
KME.MD

I don’t understand . . . first SGK says it’s about PP being under investigation, then when Nancy Brinker finally comes out to do damage control, she says it’s about following metrics. Where’s the coherence?
http://www.brandingmasters.com/ Steph

You said: SGK has raised more funds for breast cancer research than any other organization and the fact that many of the supporters are “boycotting” is ridiculous. That is more harmful in the big picture than withdrawing the grant.
No, what is harmful is taking away funding from those who need it most. I will continue to support breast cancer research, but I will be giving my money to an organization that deserves it. I have always supported SGK, but no more. This is NOT two wrongs, this is righting a wrong.
http://www.brandingmasters.com/ Steph

Mine too. They were some of my favorite shirts and I was always proud to wear them. Not even going to donate them. In the trash they go.
Pingback: Susan G. Komen Foundation roundup | TeaBaggers Of America
http://www.elevatus.com elevatus

Thank you for sharing, I will gladly research the witch hunt. My point was that most people ranting do not know any or all of these details and are just jumping on the bandwagon…by taking a bunch of implications as facts.

I don’t know if I would say SGK broke trust with PP but they certainly disappointed them. I think it is important to remember that if your org decides to donate to my org, it doesn’t mean and shouldn’t ever turn into an obligation (for you). It seems like SGK or any foundation shouldn’t HAVE to give funds to anyone, they should get to choose who to give funds to based on their mission – ever-changing or solidified.
http://www.elevatus.com elevatus

I definitely understand where you are coming from and it seems like SGK would not be against early detection…but without talking to more people about I would have a hard time believing more than a small group of SGK donators even know SGK gave/gives funds to PP.

Something I have also learned is that SGK was very specific about how the funds would be used by PP – just for early scans…but people are not expressing outrage over this (loss), they are expressing outrage over the implied political objectives behind the decision – which seem to yet be proven. The issue needs more research though before everyone lambasts them, I just feel like they deserve more leeway until concrete evidence proves otherwise.
http://twitter.com/Astraea_Muse Astraea

Numerous folks at PP have noted though that this new rule was specifically created in order to sever ties with PP. And, of course, no other group they work has been impacted, even though at least one other appears to be under investigation (about paperwork related issues).
http://twitter.com/Astraea_Muse Astraea

Are you suggesting they also stop providing funds to hospitals which also provide abortion services? Hospitals that allow doctors to use operating rooms for abortion services? Laboratories which are used in fetal testing that leads to abortions? Researchers that use fetal tissue in their research? So many things to defund, so little time.

Komen previously did not evaluate the other activities of the recipients, merely whether they provided low cost breast cancer screening. Planned Parenthood qualified in this rubric, and thus got funds. That does not seem political from where I’m sitting.
Alice Venturi

KS, what on earth makes you think that Planned Parenthood doesn’t offer mammograms? While many, if not most, facilities don’t have the equipment on site – it’s very expensive – they have agreements with other facilities that do. When I got my screenings through PP, they sent me to a radiology lab in town, with whom they had made financial arrangements. But my exams were indeed done under the auspices of Planned Parenthood, and it was to Planned Parenthood I paid my very reduced bill.

And of course PP isn’t doing cancer research. Many of the grants SGK gives out are for prevention and treatment. Even after their “policy change” they are still giving out treatment and prevention grants.
Pingback: Komen’s Antisocial Media | csdm