WHOOMP! There it is (SGK backs down)

[drwex]

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/cancer-group-backs-down-on-cutting-off-planned-parenthood/

Komen backs down, more or less apologizes. Folks, when you have everyone from moms on Facebook to Mayor Bloomberg telling you that you fucked up, it's time to admit it.

Backing down on this one issue is good. Focus #1 is prevention, saving lives, improving healthcare for women. Getting grants back in place to make screening and treatment available to more women will help with that.

But I think we need not to lose sight of Focus #2, which is that the people and priorities that led to this decision are still in place. Komen will have to do some work to rebuild trust and show that its charitable agenda is not hewing to particular political lines. Maybe some cleaning house of personnel responsible for such a grossly erroneous move is also in order. Something more needs to happen, at least before I'm willing to give more of my dollars to Komen.

Comments

[mizarchivist]

Boo Yah.
One of the saddest things I saw as a result of this personally was one of the Catholic cousins (the one I'm convinced will take orders before she hits 25) posted a supportive blurb on the initial decision to take away PP money.

I can't say I'm surprised, but I am saddened and disappointed to see that kind of attitude.

[rmd.livejournal.com]

"funding existing grants" is three grants.

The Susan G. Komen Foundation has just released a new statement from CEO Nancy Brinker. The first line is a mea culpa: “We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.”

But what does this mea culpa mean? Brinker goes on to make clear that they will amend their guidelines so only “criminal and conclusive” investigations affect their funding decisions. They will ensure that “politics has no place in our grant process,” and they will “continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.”

So they are, perhaps, backing down. Or perhaps not. Yesterday, the Komen Foundation said the investigation was not the cause of their reduced support for Planned Parenthood, and that the real issue was that Planned Parenthood did not directly provide mammograms. This statement doesn’t address that concern at all. So it would appear to leave open the possibility that the foundation intends to reject Planned Parenthood’s future grant applications — albeit on less overtly political grounds.

I posed these questions to Leslie Aun, vice president for communications at the Komen Foundation. “I think our statement speaks for itself,” she replied. You can be the judge of that.

src: this ezra klein bit in wapo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/is-the-susan-g-komen-foundation-backing-down/2011/08/25/gIQAh6J2mQ_blog.html)

[chienne-folle.livejournal.com]

Good news; thanks for passing it along.

[unseelie.livejournal.com]

Lazy media reports Komen Foundation decision as 'reversal.' It isn't.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/03/1061450/-Lazy-media-reports-Komen-Foundation-decision-as-reversal-It-isnt?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos%29

Greg Sargent reports:

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.

[stevie-stever.livejournal.com]

Amen on point #2.