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)

JSF

With all do respect, until you’ve been raped & then conceived, can you say what you would do, with any credibility.. can you?.. It must feel great to decided that for everyone.. what power you have!

..I’ve been through 2 situations, as a teen, my girlfriend was raped by a stranger, at gun point & taken to a remote location, in which she was also impregnated.. so yes, obviously traumatized, she had an abortion.

My Girlfriend 20 yrs later also became pregnant, but this time from me. I assured her I would support her in either decision she made, because it was her body. She decided to abort & it was the most terrifying & we agreed was the most shameful experience[s] of my & our lives!.. I have never felt so irresponsible, in my entire 50 yrs. It’s not an act of sexual irresponsibility, I will ever do again.. BUT she had the LEGAL right to choose… & so did you. You made the correct choice for you & I salute you for that! You’ve made the best of YOUR situation. Please “KS”, don’t be seduced by the power you must feel, in dictating to others regarding something so personal.. their body.
http://twitter.com/Astraea_Muse Astraea

I disagree. They could have announced to all their recipients that they were planning on changing things to only donate to full service clinics that provide mammograms, screens, and everything else. Then, done the analysis, and released the press release about their change in policy. This would have effectively defunded Planned Parenthood (they refer out for the mammogram itself in almost all locations), without the backlash. By attempting to single out a provider because of political pressure, they dug a hole they are not likely to get out of.
http://twitter.com/Astraea_Muse Astraea

She makes $500K/year, something else that has come out in this PR meltdown. She can well afford all the surgery she wants.
http://twitter.com/Astraea_Muse Astraea

This is the first I’ve heard of the suggestion that Planned Parenthood misused the funds. Care to provide support for this allegation?
http://twitter.com/junebugjump Victoria Manassero

Sad that most of the commentary below is related to the abortion debate and not the charlie foxtrot that Komen brought down upon themselves.

Right now, choice is legal in this country, so that women rights are protected. I believe that the right to terminate a pregnancy is a highly private decision that should not be judged by others.
guest

This certainly is an interesting public relations case study-how SBK destroyed 30 accumulated goodwill in 24 hours. However, I don’t think SBK could have saved themselves handling their communications differently. This isn’t an image problem–this is a substance problem.

SBK marketed itself a total good guys, tugging on the emotions of the public wanting to support breast cancer patients. Its fundraising, with walks, sponsorships and events, deeply involved and stirred its participants. It provided a means for the public to express love and support to breath cancer patients. I’m unclear if SBK profiled its donor base, but from the responses, a large segment appears active, educated, progressive and pro-choice.

SBK’s argument regarding organizations “under investigation” appears quite the lie. They’re still funding Penn State and Dallas’ Parkland hospital and partnering with Bank of America.

Maybe SBK’s management feels sanctimonious planting their flag high on Right Wing Hill, but they failed to know or respect the population that has built them. As is, a vice president, in place less than a year, has driven a mammoth, formerly respected organization off a cliff.
Pingback: Susan G. Komen vs. Planned Parenthood – SAD! | SoulSpire
Sam Deeds

What a bunch of baloney — there are many more women who don’t regret their abortions — and besides, it patronizing for you or anyone else to suggest that women should have their self-determination taken away from them because some of them may feel conflicted later. If you really cared about protecting women’s feelings, you’d let them make up their own minds.

You know what else can’t be undone? The birth of an unwanted baby. How dare you suggest that women who make tough decisions should apologize for them. These women are worthy of our support, not your puritanical judgments based on a 2,000-year-old character who may not have even been a real, singular historical figure. A 2nd-trimester fetus has a less developed nervous system and is less capable of feeling pain and agony than a cow that you probably recently ate. And yet we’re supposed to judge and subjugate women because you believe in a magical ghostly spirit for which there is absolutely not a single shred of evidence? Grow up and get out of your goofy fantasyland — it’s just pathetic.
http://www.facebook.com/thekcar Thekcar DodgeAries

Planned Parenthood offers: cancer screening, birth control, hormone therapy, sex education, emergency contraception, human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, PAP smears, teen sex safety awareness, pregnancy tests, AIDS tests, mammograms, young abusive relationship help, men’s sexual health, sexually transmitted diseases screenings, rape and molestation legal and referred county psychological help.

Family planning is also offered for couples who need assistance in having a baby. Abortion is not promoted what so ever by any planned parenthood doctor. If a woman plans on having an abortion, there is psychological screening and many other hurdles to clime before it can performed.In February, the House of Representatives (now in Republican control) voted 240-185 to block federal funding against Planned Parenthood because they truly believe this program promotes abortion. Republicans strongly want to demolish Planned Parenthood, claiming it’s a “holocaust” abortion program in numerous interviews and articles.Planned Parenthood strongly promotes birth control specifically to prevent abortion. Abortion has never been supported publicly by any clinic. Planned Parenthood’s main mission is to provide birth control to PREVENT abortion. Every Planned Parenthood has a strong sex education program. Also, every time you show up for a birth control plan, you are required to sign paperwork stating you will use it properly and come back for a refill/insertion/depo renewal, etc.But, according to politricks, a woman can’t decide on the health and well-being of her uterus or vagina – just, for God’s Sake, save the boobs!This is how much the Komen Foundation values women. Pink ribbons and boobs.
Greg Goss

And the right-wingers descend into the lies. The grants were for mammograms, which indeed were done.

So Komen’s supporters need to lie to support their change? The whole thing becomes even more despicable.
http://www.facebook.com/thekcar Thekcar DodgeAries

Komen’s “Million Dollar Council Family”

Boycott time. Let your dollars do the talking. For the Komen Decision, let it be SILENCE for the following companies:

OUR MILLION DOLLAR COUNCIL ELITE PARTNERS:
AMERICAN AIRLINES®
• BANK OF AMERICA®
• BELK®
• FORD DIVISION
GENERAL MILLS • KFC CORPORATION • NEW BALANCE ATHLETIC SHOE, INC®
RALLY FOR THE CURE®
• TPR HOLDINGS, LLC • YOPLAIT®
OUR MILLION DOLLAR COUNCIL PARTNERS:
ACH FOOD COMPANIES, INC. • ASK.COM®
• BOWL FOR THE CURE®
• CARLISLE • DELL™
DELUXE®
• ENERGIZER®
• FRITO-LAY • FUZE®
• HALLMARK®
• HOLLAND AMERICAN LINE
HSN • KITCHEN AID®
• LOWE’S®
• MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL • MEREDITH CORPORATION
ON THE BORDER • ORACLE • ORECK • PANDORA • PAYLESS SHOESOURCE®
QUILTED NORTHERN • RE/MAX®
• REPUBLIC OF TEA • SIMON PROPERTY
THE MOHAWK GROUP • TITLEIST • VAL SKINNER • WACOAL®
• ZETA TAU ALPH

Planned Parenthood is a First Response for clinical care for many middle-to-lower class women in centers across the USA. The breast cancer diagnostic and research was funded in large part by the Susan Komen foundation. Lads and ladies – they pulled the plug. The message: save the breasts but forget the vaginas. My message: whole health is Whole Health of a woman. Period. Politricks need not apply.
Pingback: Susan G. Komen for the Cure: How to destroy your brand in 48 hours | FavStocks
Pingback: Susan G. Komen Foundation roundup | FavStocks
http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/3SRV33X22R3NB4MSIBFAJGQU4I Janie

First, thank you mdylanbell. I’m tired of the anti-choice community defining the language. EVERYONE is pro-life. Some people trust women to make decisions about their own bodies and some people don’t. Now as for the question posed in this awesome piece, no – I don’t believe their is anything that can be done to unite pro-choice and anti-choice women. Susan G. Komen was unique because they kept that argument out of the discussion of breast cancer. Now the genie is out of the bottle, never to return. As you stated, Komen is now an anti-choice breast cancer charity. All goodwill that they enjoyed from the pro-choice community is gone because they chose to define themselves politically first and women’s health second. It was a huge mistake on their part and one which I believe is insurmountable. On the upside, I love that people are supporting Planned Parenthood and pointing out that only 3 percent of what they do has anything to do with abortion.
Pingback: Does Komen Have a Communications or Integrity Problem? | Michael Rosen Says…
Pingback: Energizer Save The Music | Jamal Mclaughlin
AzSuzieQ

I have to comment on two things: Choice and the Pink Plague

Choice turns unplanned pregnancy’s into wanted children. Planned Parenthood facilitates an essential reasonable societal conversation of “choice” and through this educational conversation many unplanned pregnancy’s are avoided in the first place, yes some are terminated, but many result in the healthy birth of a child who stays with the birth mother or becomes adopted by a loving person or couple whose primal craving for their own child has been unfulfilled. It’s absurd we’re still having THIS extreme polarized debate in 2012 - Pro-life extremists = the right to kill or penalize the living to defend the rights of unborn livesPro-choice extremists = the right to get on with a life while terminating an unborn life Let’s face it, “planning” for parenthood fails for many reasons: 1) it’s why we’re not extinct 2) birth control product manufacturing errors 3) misuse of birth control 4) sadly and I do mean truly terribly sadly rape and incest 5) falling off the abstinence wagon 6) rarely but it’s happened that vasectomies or tubal ligation fail 7) someone lies about being on proper birth control or having had a vasectomy or tubal ligation because…refer to #1 and #7, and mother nature is out of rhythm with the rhythm method; or some people just can’t count.The Pink Plague: By my unofficial count, based on the volume of pink everything paraded at every event under the sun, by now breast cancer should be in the medical museum with the plague. Why isn’t it?
Fayepaul67

Komen show its true stripes when it refused to cancel its conf in Egypt after Egyptian authorities refused to allow Israeli researchers whom Koman invited to enter Egypt.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_46WJ3E6GVQFGWI53MJFILZDYMI Dems Support

Trading Breast Cancer for Heart Disease (the #1 killer of women in America?)

No, the KFC thing was unforgivable and laughable.
Strepsi

Can we also note the branding / PR disaster of who (if anyone) gave Susan Brinker fashion advice. She seems to have chosen a halloween costume labelled “Rich Bitch”, right down to the blood-red (not pink) Alexis Carrington lipstick. Off brand!

Now, under her YouTube video, now a substantial new thread of anti-Komen commentary has now arisen about Brinks’ $400,000 to half-a-million annual salary too!
Strepsi

P.S.> a fantastic, corroborated and reasoned article Kivi!
http://digitopus.com/ skatoolaki

Exactly, thank you.

I can’t push this idea enough. NO ONE wants abortion to happen and everyone, pro-choice people especially, want anything that can help eliminate the need for abortions to be put in place.

The very idea that someone who is pro-choice is all for “killing babies” is preposterous and a spin the anti-abortion folks weave to bash the side that disagrees with their values.

No one wants an abortion to happen, or to have to happen. But no one, either, should be able to take that very private and personal choice away from someone who chooses to go that route.
Pingback: 7 PR Lessons Komen for the Cure Didn't Know It Was Giving You
Pingback: Komen's Faulty Public Relations Strategy Draws Backlash | PRSAY – What Do You Have to Say?
Anonymous

The excuse seems to have changed numerous times, but be that as it may. If this is the reason then why wan’t Penn State also included. They are a grant recipient and under investigation for covering up child molestation.

And what everybody seems to have missed is the Komen also at the same time stopped funding embryonic stem cell research into a cancer cure.

They have decide to plant their flag with the religious right and the anti-choice crowd which is certainly their right. However they can no longer claim with a straight face they serve all women or that they seriously interested in a cure.

However more to the point they handled this change in mission poorly and have forever more damaged their brand. And frankly I am going to go out on a limb and say within 12-18 months they will be a mere shadow of what they are today.
http://profile.yahoo.com/OZ67N4KFJUFOSERJV7MN74AMX4 X

brilliant analysis and exceptionally well-written.
Joe

SGK didn’t entirely fail from a communications standpoint. Where they *did* fail though, was in underestimating the tactics which PP and its supporters would employ so as to shame or bully them into resuming the cash flow. It’s not that far off from when a toddler throws a temper tantrum in a public place to get his/her way. The main difference with the toddler scenarior though, is that the child doesn’t take into account the external social pressure that weighs in on their parent’s decision to comply. (Thoughts of, “I’m allowing everyone around be to be bothered…so many people are staring at me…they think I’m a bad mom/dad” and so on.) Grown people running PP, however, know this and are using it to their advantage in the media war.

What I’d like to know is, how does PP plan to make ammends should SGK decide that they (PP) are once again a viable partner in the fight against breast cancer and therefore worthy of their grants? PP is well on their way to burning any and all bridges with SGK.
Pingback: For Komen, an entirely self-inflicted existential crisis | blog.holmesreport.com
Pingback: WeMustChange » Blog Archive » 6 Things You Need To Know About the Komen Foundation/Planned Parenthood Controversy
Karen Bice

Komen has long been known for its bullying of other cancer npo’s who they sue for using “their” Race for the Cure motto and for their lack of response to others in the cancer community to issues that are troublesome. Their MO was to either ignore Facebook comments or to delete those comments or posts that questioned them or disagreed with them. And, as you can see, it’s still their MO, the head in the sand approach. As someone whose grandmother died from breast cancer and who has dealt with cancer myself, I have learned that cancer npo’s are not all in the fight for the cancer community. They’re in it for personal prestige. The cancer npo’s, in my opinion, have not faced the biggest issue that confronts many of us in the cancer community. When will the npo’s stop spending money on “awareness” and marketing, and start putting the big bucks towards those who are under and uninsured who can’t afford cancer screenings or treatment? In the end, this is what walking the walk and not talking the talk is about with cancer.
Pingback: Don’t take the NHS away | Edinburgh Eye
Pingback: Why Komen has left me outraged. | Accidentally Jewish
TheRodofGod

They can say whatever they want but they are still giving grant money to cancer research at Penn State which is currently under investigation. I guess we know what Komen is all about, they support the unborn but once they are in the world, “screw’em!”… in Penn State’s case, literally.
Anonymous

Until people stop referring to abortion as divisive it will remain divisive. Look at the data, most Americans do not want Roe overturned whether they themselves would choose to have an abortion. Let’s change the way we speak about abortion, we then might see a change in the way it is discussed in the media. Women have abortions, a lot of women, it is not some abstract concept that is divisive, it’s about women’s lives. Even those who support abortion rights make this a “controversial and divisive issue” let’s work to change way we speak of abortion instead of buying in to the media and anti-jargon.
Csmethie

Very well said!
Pingback: e.politics: online advocacy tools & tactics » As Komen Backs Down, Essential Reading on the Planned Parenthood Funding Debacle
Mike

This is a pointless statement to make. Should they start calling you pro-death? Arguing monikers is counter-productive and quite frankly, childish.
Selysse

Komen can’t do anything to bring pro-lifers and pro-choicers together. Once they entered the argument, there’s no turning back. They’re fu#ked from here on out, and I’ll enjoy watching the rest of their demise.
Skirschenbaum

This fiasco will live on for many years as a case study of poor communication and decision-making compounded by a non-existent crisis-management plan.
Guest

Do you have an example of how a non-profit should address an issue like the pro-life/choice debate?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Gary-Doyens/1520822456 Gary Doyens

The problem for Komen is multi-pronged. First, it was a dumb decision rooted in who knows what. Second, the communications strategy was absent. Third, it was absent because they have gotten so big and disconnected from the people they supposedly serve and who donate to them, they think they can get away with anything and finally, the Komen rationale was and is fundamentally dishonest and therefore unreliable. When you make what you know is a bad decision, and then have evolving explanations as you avoid the truth, no amount of communication strategy will save you because now, you are lying.
Jill

I’ll never donate to Komen again. That a non-profit breast cancer organization would throw underserved women under a bus to satisfy a religio-political agenda is reprehensible, repugnant, and completely unforgivable. Regardless of whether or not they cave to public pressure, they cannot be trusted again to serve the public interest.
http://www.elevatus.com elevatus

This is new evidence, as of yesterday, which is great. It helps us see that what SGK said was not quite the whole scoop.

My original intent in posting it was that we didn’t have this evidence, so it wasn’t fair to boycott them yet. Now we do have more info and it doesn’t make SGK look good.

The interesting thing about all of this is that SGK never “donated money for abortions”, they donated money for these early screens…but because PP is so tied to this within the public perception, it has really cost them “public points”.
http://www.elevatus.com elevatus

Bummer, it looks like it got pulled already. SGK attorneys probably on the hunt.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Soren-Kay/100001270456452 Soren Kay

“No more. They took a deep dive into the hot swirling waters head first (but apparently eyes shut).”

They took the dive a long time ago when they gave grants to PP. My mother walks in these races and she has to go all the way to St Louis now because the local ones have been canceled over their donations to PP. They’ve done a terrible job doing PR now but they should have never have giving to PP considering the type of outreach they do with their “races”.
Dejlah

It is not an unborn child. It is a fetus. If it cannot survive on its own, it is in no way a child.

Your experiences are not those of other women.
JHeffner

Komen has done nothing more with their statement today then muddy the waters further: They have not explained how funding for PP was pulled and not for Penn State, they have not disassociated from their other far right stand on stem cell research, they did not give back the money to PP, only changed the wording of their policy. In addition they are still using the excuse of granting money to direct providers, most doctors DO NOT have mammogram services in their offices, they refer patients, PP’s referrals often go with reduced or no cost mammograms.

Read the SGK facebook page, PP supporters are not happy and now the far right is attacking them as well. Major fail.
Mariana

You don’t have to have the same standards for those who give you money and for those you give money to. Separate relations, separate standards. Donors don’t care about who else gives you money but for sure care about where you put their money
JHeffner

First and foremost they should have cut off funding to Penn State, which is also under investigation and did not have their funding cut.

Truthfully, their organization is the problem, hiring Karen Handel is horrible PR for them, cutting off stem cell research funding, another swing to the right, both of which tie the organization into right wing politics, and that is their real problem now.

Their press release today did nothing to help, it has only made the hole they are in deeper.
KS

I don’t assume that other women are like myself. But thinking that you know best–that death would be better than a challenging or hard life–is playing god, not a role we are meant for. True humility is the posture that we don’t always know what is supposed to happen, but what we do know (I believe) is to follow God’s law, which says not to murder.