Media Gets It Wrong, Komen Didn’t Actually Reverse Decision About Planned Parenthood

Author: February 3, 2012 10:50 pm

The Komen Foundation got a huge assist today and it didn’t even have to pay some sleazy PR firm a yacht of cash to do it. Earlier today, the Dallas News reported that the  Komen Foundation had issued an apology for its decision to stop funding cancer screen and prevention at Planned Parenthood, a decision that has inflamed many. It turns out that the apology was nothing more than a shameless attempt to take control of all the damage wrought to Komen, but the traditional media didn’t even bother to see the bait that it was blindly slurping up and ran with it anyway. Worse yet, they reported it as a reversal of the Komen Foundation’s decision.

From the Daily Kos:

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

Apparently “reversal” is in the same lexicon as ‘refudiate’. Sargent’s article peels the onion back even further.

Pushed on whether this means the new announcement wasn’t really a reversal, [Komen board member John] Raffelli pushed back, arguing that Komen, in response to all the criticism, had removed politics from the grant-making process. “Is it really unclear that we’re changing the policy to address criticism?” he said.

Well, it looks like the Komen Foundation needs to disregard this incidental makeover and clearly state if it will continue its longstanding relationship with Planned Parenthood. If not, as the Daily Kos aptly put it, “this looks like nothing more than an attempt to try to change the narrative and the non-stop negative headlines about the foundation’s politicizing of breast cancer prevention.”

Maybe the former governor of Alaska was onto something with the whole “lamestream media” epithet. Thank you very much traditional media;  you actually made me compliment Sarah Palin.

 Michael is a comedian/VO artist/Columnist extraordinaire, who co-wrote an award-nominated comedy, produces a chapter of Laughing Liberally, wrote for NY Times Laugh Lines, guest-blogged for Joe Biden, and writes a column for affiliated Cagle Media. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook, and like NJ Laughing Liberally Lab. Seriously, follow him or he’ll send you a photo of Rush Limbaugh bending over in a thong.

Help us get the word out!
Share on Google+Share on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrEmail this to someone

facebook comments:


  • My motto is No pink, no how, no way!

  • I’ve never been a fan of SGK simply because of the mass promotion of all things “baby pink” and ribbon-like with ZERO disclosure on exactly how much of said proceeds got to fund breast cancer research, treatment and screenings. And the piggy-backing of other “baby-pink” items onto them meant to take advantage of the poor, the undereducated, and those victimized in one way or another by breast cancer.
    To paraphrase another comment, they’ve infantalized women and dumbed down any real awareness campaigns by their stupid and impossibly irritating “Race.”
    If you want to raise awareness, and help (ahem) “cure” breast cancer let’s get some get a slew of “Big Ole’ Baby Pink Mobile Mammogram Vans” out there clogging up our streets instead of a bunch of misguided and preyed upon women & children “Racing” for an erroneously named “cure.” There is no cure, as cancer IS by definition, a mutation. There is only screening, diagnosis and treatment which should be Komen’s ONLY focus.

  • I have the same skepticism you do regarding continued Komen funding for Planned Parenthood. But the fact is that nonprofits have to reapply every year to get the grant. Yes, it should be more of an “automatic” for those who get grants yearly, and Komen SHOULD approve next year’s application from PP. If they don’t and find another excuse, then the gig is up. But we’ll have to wait until then. In the meantime, if you’re thinking about donating for cancer research, donate directly.

  • Jerome Haltom

    I don’t get it. They’ve never had an open ended commitment. When the grant comes up for renewal, of course they’ll review it. So, it IS back to how it WAS, and that IS a reversal.

    They’ve also said they’ll change the rule that made them reject PP. You can’t predict what they’ll do in the future, but in this case, the decision was reversed back to it’s original circumstance. Black eye, sure, but lets not mislead people.

    • I totally agree and I think some of the confusion is because the media doesn’t understand how foundations give grants to non-profits. Foundations almost never commit to fund existing grants indefinitely in the future. Like you said, there is a renewal process, which is standard for non-profits seeking to continue to receive grants from foundations.

  • When corporations act badly; they need to be killed.

  • I’ve been posting to various blogs since this issue broke about this org.

    They’ve been permanently exposed now. The interview with Karen Handel has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that this org is a right wing Christian group and NOT MUCH MORE THAN THAT.

    Planned Parenthood would do best to disconnect from them and find an alternate SECULAR source of funding if they want to continue to be a healthcare resource for women.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.