Discussion: Planned Parenthood

[hippie_hunter]

If you oppose any and all subsidies...that's respectable and admirable man. You don't pick and choose.

That's the way it really should be.

 

[StorminNorman]

The real issue becomes the question of tax credits v. government subsidies.

Ron Paul, for example, argues in favor of tax credits, because he believes that it is morally right to allow individuals to keep as much of their money as possible.

Rand Paul, by contrast, argues against tax credits because he views them as distortions to the economy and pseudo-subsidy.

For me a great Friday night involves a few pitchers of beer and an epic debate over the subject with members of the Paul's staff.

 

[mclay18]

I've never argued against investing in and encouraging contraception. In fact, I think, and have said in this very thread, that I support it over abstinence only programs because I think they're unrealistic.

Yes. Teenagers are going to have sex either way, so why not help curb unwanted pregnancies and keep some people off welfare with children they can't properly care for. It's when I was in high school and seeing over a dozen classmates or other students talking about their pregnancies or seeing their pregnant bellies. I just felt angry at them for not practicing safe sex.

Even then I was thinking "this abstinence-only program isn't doing jack s**t." Making the pill more accessible to teenagers or as part of the health care plan will only benefit people. Social and religious conservatives can cry foul, but unwanted pregnancies are still a problem here. You can't just say "Wait until you get married", that ancient advice isn't good any more.

 

[Marx]

UPDATE: PLANNED PARENTHOOD BATTLES BACK IN COURT OVER STATE DEFUNDING
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/24/planned-parenthood-defunding_n_935134.html

 

[Matt]

Why exactly do states owe this private organization funding?

 

[SentinelMind]

They don't. But the career of abortion lobbyists are on the line.

 

[DBryan]

Down with women's health!!

 

[Marx]

According to the AP, a federal judge has ruled that the state of Kansas must resume funding to Planned Parenthood.

 

[Marx]

UPDATE: SUSAN G. KOMEN PULLS FUNDING FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/31/susan-g-komen-drops-funding-for-planned-parenthood/

...whether you agree with abortion or not, Planned Parenthood provides a wide range of services to a wide range of people.

 

[Marx]

UPDATE: SUSAN G. KOMEN FACING BACKLASH AFTER PLANNED PARENTHOOD DEFUNDING
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/susan-g-komen_n_1247262.html

 

[Matt]

Planned Parenthood isn't the state's problem nor is it the problem of a charity. The fact is, their primary purpose is providing abortion. I can understand why someone would oppose it and not want their resources to go to it. There are other means by which to provide breast cancer screenings.

 

[danoyse]

UPDATE: SUSAN G. KOMEN PULLS FUNDING FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/31/susan-g-komen-drops-funding-for-planned-parenthood/

...whether you agree with abortion or not, Planned Parenthood provides a wide range of services to a wide range of people.

This is absolutely disgraceful.

 

[Matt]

I disagree. It is only disgraceful if Komen were to fail to provide the screenings through other means, and being fairly familiar with charity, I tend to think that they will.

 

[danoyse]

No, it's disgraceful.

If Komen had smart PR people, they would have said exactly what they planned to do with the money they gave to Planned Parenthood to make up for the lost funding for breast cancer screenings when they made this announcement.

But they don't have smart PR people. All they did was announce that they were cutting off funding for breast cancer screenings, over what everyone knows is over an issue that has nothing to do with breast cancer.

And that's disgraceful.

 

[Trainwreck2100]

private organizations should do whatever they want to with their money so long as they are not breaking any laws with it. They're well within their rights to pull the funding

 

[Anita18]

And it's well within our rights to criticize them for it.

No woman I know is pleased with this. Many of them used Planned Parenthood when they were young and broke for their screenings and affordable birth control.

I have a friend struggling right now (to say the least!) with an unplanned pregnancy in an uncommunicative marriage. It's not a situation I would wish on anyone, nor on any unborn child.

 

[danoyse]

My sister used Planned Parenthood when she had a cancer scare and the job she was working at didn't provide health insurance. It was her only option. She didn't have cancer, but she did have an issue that needed to be treated and they took care of her.

One of my friends is a women's health advocate and she works with women who are poor and victims of domestic abuse and Planned Parenthood has been an invaluble resource for them as far as getting these women and teenagers access to health care. Health care, not abortions.

I have two friends who've been through the hell that is breast cancer and another friend whose mother died from it. To cut the funding that provides access to early screenings and referrals for mammograms for women who would not otherwise be able to afford it over an issue that has nothing to do with breast cancer (and that their funding never went to) is disgusting and shameful.

Planned Parenthood is not an abortion factory. They provide health care services and cancer screenings and contraception (which, you know, prevent abortions, yet they get all pissed that women have access to that too ). This is all just absurd.

Looks like someone within the Komen organization resigned over this:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...igned-over-planned-parenthood-cave-in/252405/

Top Susan G. Komen Official Resigned Over Planned Parenthood Cave-In

An entirely avoidable, and deeply regrettable, controversy has been raging this week over the decision by the (formerly highly-esteemed) Susan G. Komen For the Cure foundation, the world's leading breast-cancer research advocacy group, to cut its support for Planned Parenthood, which used Komen dollars (about $600,000 annually) to pay for breast-screening exams for poor people. (The Atlantic's Nicholas Jackson has an excellent summary of the controversy so far.)

Komen, the marketing juggernaut that brought the world the ubiquitous pink ribbon campaign, says it cut-off Planned Parenthood because of a newly-adopted foundation rule prohibiting it from funding any group that is under formal investigation by a government body. (Planned Parenthood is being investigated by Rep. Cliff Stearns, an anti-abortion Florida Republican, who says he is trying to learn if the group spent public money to provide abortions.)

But three sources with direct knowledge of the Komen decision-making process told me that the rule was adopted in order to create an excuse to cut-off Planned Parenthood. (Komen gives out grants to roughly 2,000 organizations, and the new "no-investigations" rule applies to only one so far.) The decision to create a rule that would cut funding to Planned Parenthood, according to these sources, was driven by the organization's new senior vice-president for public policy, Karen Handel, a former gubernatorial candidate from Georgia who is staunchly anti-abortion and who has said that since she is "pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood." (The Komen grants to Planned Parenthood did not pay for abortion or contraception services, only cancer detection, according to all parties involved.) I've tried to reach Handel for comment, and will update this post if I speak with her.
.
The decision, made in December, caused an uproar inside Komen. Three sources told me that the organization's top public health official, Mollie Williams, resigned in protest immediately following the Komen board's decision to cut off Planned Parenthood. Williams, who served as the managing director of community health programs, was responsible for directing the distribution of $93 million in annual grants. Williams declined to comment when I reached her yesterday on whether she had resigned her position in protest, and she declined to speak about any other aspects of the controversy.

Bu John Hammarley, who until recently served as Komen's senior communications adviser and who was charged with managing the public relations aspects of Komen's Planned Parenthood grant, said that Williams believed she could not honorably serve in her position once Komen had caved to pressure from the anti-abortion right. "Mollie is one of the most highly-respected and ethical people inside the organization, and she felt she couldn't continue under these conditions," Hammarley said. "The Komen board of directors are very politically savvy folks, and I think over time they thought if they gave in to the very aggressive propaganda machine of the anti-abortion groups, that the issue would go away. It seemed very short-sighted to me."

Hammarley explained that the Planned Parenthood issue had vexed Komen for some time. "About a year ago, a small group of people got together inside the organization to talk about what the options were, what would be the ramifications of staying the course, or of telling our affiliates they can't fund Planned Parenthood, or something in-between." He went on, "As we looked at the ramifications of ceasing all funding, we felt it would be worse from a practical standpoint, from a public relations standpoint and from a mission standpoint. The mission standpoint is, ' How could we abandon our commitment to the screening work done by Planned Parenthood?'" But the Komen board made the decision despite the recommendation of the organization's professional staff to keep funding Planned Parenthood.

Hammarley was laid off by Komen last year as part of a reorganization of the group's media division, but he says he has no bitter feelings toward the group: "This organization has saved lives and raised consciousness all over the world. It's an extraordinarily successful story, and I couldn't find a single bad word to say about its work. But it has had some growing pains in its politics and we see that with the Planned Parenthood story."

He called the controversy over Planned Parenthood funding "a burr in the saddle of Komen, but it withstood the issue for years and years." Hammarley said the issue became newly-urgent after Handel was brought on last year. "The internal debate on a senior level rose in the past eight months or so, coinciding with her hiring."

Another source directly involved with Komen's management activities told me that when the organization's leaders learned of the Stearns investigation, they saw an opportunity. "The cart came before the horse in this case," said the source, who spoke to me on condition of anonymity. "The rule was created to give the board of directors the excuse to stop the funding of Planned Parenthood. It was completely arbitrary. If they hadn't come up with this particular rule, they would have come up with something else in order to separate themselves from Planned Parenthood."

Komen officials have denied that the decision has had anything to do with external pressure. In an internal Komen memorandum I obtained entitled "Updated Granting Criteria/ Reactive Statement and Talking Points," distributed in December, Komen officials deny to their employees that politics had anything to do with the decision. The memo, written as a Q-andA, reads in part:

Q(uestion) 7: Is Komen giving into pressure from the Catholic Church/anti-abortion groups/the political right in making this change?
A(nswer) 7: Komen's decision to fund ANY grant is based on our mission priorities, a thorough community assessment, and strict eligibility and performance standards. Our granting criteria reflect our dedication to our mission and our consistent effort to invest our donors' dollars responsibly in support of our efforts to end breast cancer.

Q8: Planned Parenthood provides health services in many of the nation's poorest communities. How does your new policy align with your mission of serving women who lack resources to pay for important breast health services?
A8: Susan G. Komen is deeply committed to providing breast health services to women throughout the U.S. It is our belief that where a woman lives should not determine whether she lives. Komen provided funds for 700,000 breast screenings last year alone, and provided financial and social support to another 100,000 women, as part of our $93 million investment in education, public health outreach and service to vulnerable women last year alone. That work will continue. We believe these new standards will further enhance the integrity of our granting process and strengthen our overall community health program.

Another memo, this one from Elizabeth Thompson, the president of Komen, outlines to employees the new grant-making criteria:

In order to align the terms of the grant contract with our grant eligibility criteria and to ensure that our granting meets the highest standards, several important updates will become effective January 1, 2012. Specifically:
Currently, a Komen grant may be terminated if, among other things, the grantee loses or changes its tax exempt status, is barred from receiving federal or state funds, or if we learn of any financial and/or administrative improprieties. Going forward, these same standards will now also be used in determining eligibility for Komen grants.
Further, should Komen become aware that an applicant or its affiliates are under formal investigation for financial or administrative improprieties by local, state or federal authorities, the applicant will be ineligible to receive a grant. An organization may regain its eligibility once the investigation is concluded if the organization and its related affiliates are cleared of any wrongdoing.

This last condition, of course, is troubling on its face. Any legislator or prosecutor opposed to any aspect of a breast-cancer-care organization's work could affect its Komen funding merely by announcing the opening of an investigation. (Please read this Atlantic piece by Linda Hirshman for more on the dangerous politics of this decision.) The whole episode is troubling, and quite sad, because it will inevitably affect Komen's ability to do its work, which is of paramount importance to the cause of women's health.

Keep in mind, some of the same religious groups who pushed for this are now also trying to get Komen to stop giving grants to organizations who fund stem-cell research.

 

[Marx]

My sister used Planned Parenthood when she had a cancer scare and the job she was working at didn't provide health insurance. It was her only option. She didn't have cancer, but she did have an issue that needed to be treated and they took care of her.

One of my friends is a women's health advocate and she works with women who are poor and victims of domestic abuse and Planned Parenthood has been an invaluble resource for them as far as getting these women and teenagers access to health care. Health care, not abortions.

I have two friends who've been through the hell that is breast cancer and another friend whose mother died from it. To cut the funding that provides access to early screenings and referrals for mammograms for women who would not otherwise be able to afford it over an issue that has nothing to do with breast cancer (and that their funding never went to) is disgusting and shameful.

Planned Parenthood is not an abortion factory. They provide health care services and cancer screenings and contraception (which, you know, prevent abortions, yet they get all pissed that women have access to that too ). This is all just absurd.

Well said.

 

[Marx]

Planned Parenthood has reportedly raised $650,000 in 24 hours due to Susan G. Komen's stunt.

 

[danoyse]

$250,000 came from Mike Bloomberg:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/bloomberg-to-give-250000-to-planned-parenthood/

Mayor to Give $250,000 to Planned Parenthood

By MICHAEL PAULSON and KATE TAYLOR


Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, responding to the controversy over a breast cancer advocacy group that cut off most of its grants to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screening, said Thursday that he would make up a large part of the missing money.

Mr. Bloomberg, a billionaire with a long-term interest in public health, said he would give Planned Parenthood Federation of America a $250,000 matching gift — he will donate $1 for every new dollar Planned Parenthood raises up to $250,000.

“Politics have no place in health care,” he said in a statement. “Breast cancer screening saves lives and hundreds of thousands of women rely on Planned Parenthood for access to care. We should be helping women access that care, not placing barriers in their way.”

Mr. Bloomberg then highlighted his contribution on Twitter, posting a series of messages asking his followers to contribute to Planned Parenthood.

The controversy erupted this week when the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation said it would not renew most of the grants it had been making to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screening. The Komen foundation had been giving about $700,000 a year to Planned Parenthood.

A Komen board member said on Wednesday that the decision to cut off the contributions was made because of the fear that an investigation of Planned Parenthood by Representative Cliff Stearns, Republican of Florida, would damage Komen’s credibility with donors.

Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, issued a statement saying, “On behalf of hundreds of thousands of women nationwide who rely on Planned Parenthood for breast cancer education and screening, we are enormously grateful to Mayor Bloomberg. This contribution will help ensure that politics don’t interfere with women having access to health care. People all across the country have stepped forward in the last 48 hours to offer help and support, and the mayor’s donation will help ensure that no woman is denied breast cancer services because of right-wing political pressure campaigns.”

Mr. Bloomberg has been a longtime supporter of both the Komen foundation and Planned Parenthood. According to his office, he has given $555,000 to Planned Parenthood over the years. And he has given $200,000 to the Komen foundation, much of it in the form of matching grants to Bloomberg L.P. employees who have run in the foundation’s fund-raising road races.

 

[Marx]

I think Susan G. Komen has really screwed themselves over this...

 

[Trainwreck2100]

I think Susan G. Komen has really screwed themselves over this...

I don't, they're a nonprofit cancer charity, if they don't get money the cancer people are screwed.

 

[danoyse]

I think Susan G. Komen has really screwed themselves over this...

Soooo badly. Honestly, they are a private organization that are well within their rights to do this.

But...if their PR department had any sense, they would have done this while announcing immediately where those funds were going to be allocated instead. They should have had a replacement partnership already in place so that people were assured there was a place that this money was going.

Instead, with this announcement, they made themselves look like they slammed the door on women who needed the help. That was bad.

They didn't plan this well at all: their claim is that they did this because they won't give money to an organization that's under investigation. But are more than happy to take money from one that is: Bank of America is still a "proud corporate sponsor" of the Komen Foundation.

I can't believe how badly they screwed this up.

 

[SentinelMind]

If private entities want to fund Planned Parenthood, let them use their own money. Keep the government out of the abortion factory.

 

[danoyse]

I don't, they're a nonprofit cancer charity, if they don't get money the cancer people are screwed.

People are just donating to other cancer charities, or to Planned Parenthood directly.

It's what I'm planning to do.