or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pink Ribbons

post #1 of 34
Thread Starter 

Wow, the fact that someone who worked in the GW Bush admin. is at the head of an organization involved in a PR disaster of epic proportions....what a surprise.

AND...the woman who is more or less responsible for all this, Karen Handel, had the support of Palin...

Meet the Komen Exec Behind the Planned Parenthood Defunding

 

 

I mainly just wanted to post this creepy picture of Komen founder (and aforementioned Bush appointee) Nancy Brinker

 

komen-brinker-cropped-proto-custom_28.jpg

 

is anyone else getting a "V" vibe here? I keep expecting her lower jaw to unhinge....

 

790_v.jpg

 

 

 

I see now Komen has reversed their position of pulling PP funds....maybe this "organization" needs a good looking at before any future donations are made....?

 

post #2 of 34

I think SGK's reversal is fascinating.  Recent history is full of "conservative" groups pressuring organizations and government to do this or that (completely debasing and ruining NPR, for example), but this reversal is one of the only times I can think of that more liberal thinkers were able to flex any kind of public pressure muscle.  I really hope this is the spirit of things to come.

post #3 of 34

It is not fascinating. Their wallet started hurting and they took the measures necessary for it to stop doing so. 

post #4 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post

It is not fascinating. Their wallet started hurting and they took the measures necessary for it to stop doing so. 



Maybe not.

post #5 of 34

So I'm guessing a program called Accidental, Forced, or Unfortunate Parenthood would get more funding than Planned Parenthood?

post #6 of 34


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TzuDohNihm View Post



Maybe not.


In the long run, stars stopping to wear their ribbons on the red carpet would be immeasurably worse than a temporary, fundie motivated spike. 

 

 

post #7 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by TzuDohNihm View Post



Maybe not.



Geez, some of the comments on that article are downright painful.

post #8 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post


 


In the long run, stars stopping to wear their ribbons on the red carpet would be immeasurably worse than a temporary, fundie motivated spike. 

 

 


I see your point in a minor respect but the pink ribbon isn't a trademark of Komen, it's an international symbol.  Except in Canada, apparently.  Celebrities would still wear the ribbon.

 

*EDIT*  Re: spin control, Komen is claiming the pulled funding was internal policies about recipients under investigation.  Chewers own personal thoughts aside, I think they came up with some dynamite fucking spin by saying the policies need to be further clarified to specify "Criminal investigations and not political".  Thoughts?

post #9 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by TzuDohNihm View Post


I see your point in a minor respect but the pink ribbon isn't a trademark of Komen, it's an international symbol.  Except in Canada, apparently.  Celebrities would still wear the ribbon.

 


I stand corrected. But hey have been successfully suing the pants off of anyone veering a bit close to their "IP" and have monopolized the mindshare for the breast cancer cause.

 

Figuratively though, I think my point still stands. Organizations such as this one live and die by their public image and celebrity endorsements.

 

 

post #10 of 34

"We respect breasts, but utureses are up for grabs."

post #11 of 34

I've given money to SGK but always been a little ambivalent because of their ties to the pharmaceutical industry.  I'm now hearing the reversal isn't as meaningful as it seems to be.  Komen and I are done professionally. 

post #12 of 34

The reversal is basically, "Instead of cutting you off as soon as you're under investigation, we'll wait until the investigation is finished."  At which time I'm sure they'll find a way to spin the findings to suit their agenda.

post #13 of 34

Did anybody watch the youtube by a breast cancer survivor who had frank words for Komen?  It's brilliant.  She's amazing.  Recommend.  Link

post #14 of 34
post #15 of 34

When did conservative websites decide it was a good idea to take design cues from the Huffington Post?

post #16 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post

Did anybody watch the youtube by a breast cancer survivor who had frank words for Komen?  It's brilliant.  She's amazing.  Recommend.  Link



wow.  That broke me, when she talked about how she used to be a proud supported but can no longer.

 

Amazing.

post #17 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteboy Jones View Post

Man, fuck National Review.



Listen, I'm pro-choice but that article is spot on.  Komen is a private organization and they do have the right to with their money what they wish.  If that cripples the organization then so be it but they do have that right and whatever their reasons are their reasons.

post #18 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by TzuDohNihm View Post



Listen, I'm pro-choice but that article is spot on.  Komen is a private organization and they do have the right to with their money what they wish.  If that cripples the organization then so be it but they do have that right and whatever their reasons are their reasons.



Fine, but now people have a better idea where the money donated to them goes and a lot of people who support breast cancer research understand the incredible service Planned Parenthood provides to women who can't afford a regular doctor.  What Komen did is perfectly within its rights but doesn't align with how a lot of their potential supporters see women's health.  Ergo, it's their choice to make but it's a stupid choice.  Whatever I might have donated to them will now go directly to Planned Parenthood and other breast cancer research organizations instead.

 

ETA:  Komen gave like three different answers as to why it cut off Planned Parenthood, including the "under investigation" thing that evidently doesn't apply to the millions they gave Penn State.  This waffling is what destroyed its credibility.  There was no shakedown.  Komen went into manic damage control, blew it with appalling incompetence, then reversed itself in a desperate attempt to save face.  The principals should have just told the truth about their reasons, which they clearly didn't.  This whole shakedown thing is ridiculous -- just as Komen has a right to cut off grants to Planned Parenthood, so do people have a right to boycott Komen for that decision.


Edited by yt - 2/4/12 at 6:11pm
post #19 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post

 This whole shakedown thing is ridiculous -- just as Komen has a right to cut off grants to Planned Parenthood, so do people have a right to boycott Komen for that decision.


For some reason, especially in the US, there's this mindset that organizations, corporations etc have (correctly IMO) the right to do whatever they please with their money. While any attempt by people to boycott, complain or even actively campaign against them, for whatever reason is seen as petty, immature and sinister.

 

You can see it all the time. SGK have the right to do what they want with their money but people going after them for it is suddenly immature. Apple, Nike and whoever can benefit from, if not slave labor then indentured servitude, to keep their profit margins up but people campaigning for this to change are hippies and spoiled children. As if any sort of display of power by the people freaks them out. 

 

 

post #20 of 34

Planned Parenthood received, in 2008, $350 million dollars in taxpayer/government funding.  The closest numbers I can find for the grants coming in from Susan G Komen are approximately $700K.

 

Planned Parenthood has an overtly political existence(granted maybe not their fault) and some of its work is highly politically charged in this country.  Susan G Komen has an overtly non-political existence and the vast majority of its work has no political bent to it.

 

The media is the third player here wherein their bias is exposed.  I ask sincerely for you, yt, to illustrate how the media firestorm served a corporate media agenda and not a liberal bias agenda.

 

SGK decides to pull drop-in-the-bucket funding from PP for whatever the reason but let's be unfair and say it was 100% politically motivated.

 

Two scenarios can unfold from the jump-off point of SGK pulling funds from PP because of the fact that PP provides abortions and not mammograms, only pre-screening services.  SGK feels the grant money would better be awarded to actual mammography then pre-screening.

 

Non-shakedown media driven narrative:   PP- "Our services are essential and SGK is making a mistake and jeopardizing the lives of many women that we serve and politics have no place in the health of women."


Wailing and gnashing of teeth ensue, donations flow to both organizations, SGK doesn't reverse its decision.  The effectiveness of both organizations continues to be high.

 

Shakedown media driven narrative: PP- "SGK hates poor women!"

 

Wailing and gnashing of teeth ensue, donations flow to both organizations, SGK reverses their decision and most likely the most well known breast cancer awareness organization becomes a little less effective at its mission.

 

A private organization has been browbeaten by PP and a compliant media narrative into continuing drop-in-the-bucket funding for an organization that doesn't even provide the service that the private organization and many, many research studies have shown to be the best practice for fighting breast cancer. 

 

How is that not considered a shakedown?  How is that not PP showing its other donors a little muscle and making sure that other donors realize what can happen if PP has to come back and rough them up too?

 

And what Penn State investigation are you referring to, yt?  The Sandusky business?  Is Penn State itself under that investigation or is Sandusky the only one being charged?  I don't recall seeing anywhere that Penn State was a co-defendant in those allegations but I may be wrong.

post #21 of 34
Thread Starter 

If you don't think that the GOP's irrational hatred of Planned Parenthood wasn't a factor in Komen's decision, you're deluding yourself.

 

The powers that be at Komen (Handel, maybe Brinker, others?) were looking for a way to extricate themselves from the 'evil' PP organization and they used the partisan 'investigations' as an excuse to do so.

The hardcore conservatives dislike PP so much that they will look for any opening to denigrate their services.

Abortion foes’ dirty tactics

 

If Komen had just come out and said "we don't like that PP is doing and we aren't going to give them any more money", they wouldn't be in the clusterfuck they find themselves in.

They chose to play up the "we just being responsible with our money" shtick....then they go on to dig themselves a deeper hole while having those in the right wing media play the victim card for them.

The only way for Komen to save face here is for Brinker (and Handel) to resign.

 

Quote:

In wake of Komen-Planned Parenthood rift, eyes turn to Karen Handel

<excerpt>

Karen Handel, a former secretary of state in Georgia and a Republican activist, was hired in April as vice president of public policy at the Dallas-based Komen. Handel was coming off an unsuccessful run for governor of Georgia during which she frequently called for an end to abortion.

 

There's no proof that Handel had a role in the foundation's decision to end a relationship between two major women's health organizations that's paid for some 170,000 breast exams and 6,400 mammogram referrals since the groups began their partnership in 2005.

 

Handel could not be reached for comment Wednesday. Executives for the Komen foundation did not respond to requests for comment on the decision to end Planned Parenthood funding or regarding Handel's position on the issue.

 

Handel has made no bones about her anti-abortion -- and anti-Planned Parenthood -- position. In a July 2010 blog post, Handel explained, "since I am pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood ... In fact, state and federal law prohibits the use of taxpayer funds for abortions or abortion related services and I strongly support those laws. Since grants like these are from the state I’ll eliminate them as your next Governor."

 

 

also...FWIW - I stumbled across this site while doing research. It shows how much money Brinker has given to politicians/political organizations...no surprises as to who got the majority of her $$

http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/Nancy_Brinker.php

 

post #22 of 34

Ugh, pro-life. Any time I hear someone describe themselves that way makes me want to spit right in their mouth.

post #23 of 34
Thread Starter 

I guess Komen really didn't have a 'Handel' on the situation....heh? :)

 

seriously...

Quote:

Komen Foundation ousted their Democratic lobbyist just before hiring Karen Handel

 

It wasn’t until 2008 that the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, a 501(c)3, founded the Susan G. Komen For The Cure Advocacy Alliance, a 501(c)4 non-profit that, under IRS rules, can spend unlimited donor funds on lobbying. It’s that arm of the Komen Foundation that former Secretary of State and failed gubernatorial candidate Karen Handel (R-GA) was hired to run in April 2011, despite being once investigated for issuing voter ID regulations that the Department of Justice determined to be discriminatory against non-white voters. She’d been serving “as a consultant” to the organization since January 2011.

 

<cont.>

 

 

post #24 of 34
Thread Starter 

and more.....

 

Quote:

Karen Handel, Susan G. Komen's Anti-Abortion VP, Drove Decision To Defund Planned Parenthood

<excerpt>

WASHINGTON -- Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the nation's leading anti-breast-cancer charity, has insisted that its since-reversed decision to pull funding from Planned Parenthood arose from a routine change in criteria for grant eligibility that had nothing to do with abortion politics.

 

But a Komen insider told HuffPost on Sunday that Karen Handel, Komen's staunchly anti-abortion vice president for public policy, was the main force behind the decision to defund Planned Parenthood and the attempt to make that decision look nonpolitical.

 

"Karen Handel was the prime instigator of this effort, and she herself personally came up with investigation criteria," the source, who requested anonymity for professional reasons, told HuffPost. "She said, 'If we just say it's about investigations, we can defund Planned Parenthood and no one can blame us for being political.'"

 

Emails between Komen leadership on the day the Planned Parenthood decision was announced, which were reviewed by HuffPost under the condition they not be published, confirm the source's description of Handel's sole "authority" in crafting and implementing the Planned Parenthood policy.

 

post #25 of 34

Aside from the reversal, one of the good things that's come out of this is a new awareness -- I hope -- of the dark side of Komen, as well as the pink washing trend in general. I, for one, finally sat down and read reporter/socialist/American hero and badass Barbara Ehrenreich's "Welcome to Cancerland" and it's completely worth it:

 

http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/cancerland.htm

 

"In harshest judgement, the breast-cancer cult serves as an accomplice in global poisoning -- normalizing cancer, prettying it up, even, presenting it, perversely, as a positive and enviable experience."


Edited by Leonard - 2/5/12 at 2:50pm
post #26 of 34
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard View Post

Aside from the reversal, one of the good things that's come out of this is a new awareness -- I hope -- of the dark side of Komen, as well as the pink washing trend in general. I, for one, finally sat down and read reporter/socialist/American hero and badass Barbara Ehrenreich's "Welcome to Cancerland" and it's completely worth it:

 

http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/cancerland

 

"In harshest judgement, the breast-cancer cult serves as an accomplice in global poisoning -- normalizing cancer, prettying it up, even, presenting it, perversely, as a positive and enviable experience."

thanks but that link seems to be incorrect (missing the ".htm")

http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/cancerland.htm

 

this could segue into a discussion regarding the (immoral?) industries created around diseases and the attempt to cure them...cancer, AIDS, diabetes, et al   ??

 

post #27 of 34

That link didn't work for me, but from it I found this:

 

http://ehrenreich.blogs.com/barbaras_blog/2009/12/not-so-pretty-in-pink.html

 

which is well worth a read.


cheers.

post #28 of 34

Link should work now, y'all.

post #29 of 34

that was a great read, thanks for sharing.

post #30 of 34

Tzu, you want it both ways.  Komen cut off grants to Planned Parenthood then lied about why, period.  The reason it lied is because it knows that a lot of people falsely believed that Komen was purely invested in eradicating breast cancer.  The impetus to eradicate breast cancer lines up pretty directly with Planned Parenthood's practices.  By cutting off Planned Parenthood, Komen made a statement to the anti-abortion crowd then tried to lie about the statement they were plainly making to the potential supporters that don't belong to that anti-abortion group.  That's a plain case of lying.  Komen played its hand and now has to live with the consequences.

 

And in case you don't realize it, the media has one agenda:  making money, which generally has a conservative bent.  Planned Parenthood does not have many friends in the media, not even NPR, which seems to have forgotten about the Hyde Amendment.  The "shakedown narrative" is fiction.

 

Calling this a "shakedown" is absurd and proves that the idiotic corporate media has fully consummated its love affair with Fox's bubble of unreality. 

post #31 of 34
Thread Starter 

confirming what many already 'knew'

Quote:

Anti-Choice Komen VP Karen Handel Resigns, Admits Role In Planned Parenthood Decision

 

Today, Karen Handel, Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s controversial Senior Vice President of Public Policy, resigned in protest of the organization’s decision to consider reinstating funding for cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood health centers.

 

Handel has been at the center of the firestorm surrounding the organization’s unpopular decision to sever ties with Planned Parenthood — a decision that was reversed just a few days later following a massive backlash from supporters and its own employees.

 

In her resignation letter, Handel openly acknowledges her integral role in formulating the policy designed to cut off Planned Parenthood funding. Just a few days ago, Komen founder and president Nancy Brinker claimed, “Let me just tell you for the record that Karen did not have anything to do with this decision.”

<cont.>

 

post #32 of 34

Nooo. You don't say. This is a surprise. 

post #33 of 34

Thank you for that incredible link. What an inspiration!

post #34 of 34

Yes, they can do what they want with the money I gave them. When they made this decision, I can choose to give them no more of my money.  I think that is the point.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse