Forgive me for paraphrasing the title of Christopher Hitchens' controversial book about religion, but the aborted (pun intended) attempt of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation to cut off funding for breast screening by Planned Parenthood is the latest and, perhaps, most shocking example of the ruinous effect bad politics can have on our society.
By now, the story is well-known to almost everyone who reads a newspaper, surfs the Internet, or watches television. However, for those who who may have missed it, or do not know much about the late Susan G. Komen, the Komen Foundation or Planned Parenthood, here is some background.
In the late 1970s, at the age of 33, Susan Goodman Komen was diagnosed with breast cancer. According to her sister, Nancy (Bricker), now the CEO of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation, Susan refused a mastectomy (the standard approach at that time), opting instead for a lesser approach combined with a breast implant. Despite reassurance that the surgery was successful and likely curative, her disease recurred and metastasized within a few months.
A fighter, she went through two years of radiation and chemotherapy at Rochester’s Mayo Clinic, and Houston’s M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. Yet, more than her grueling treatments, she was bothered by the bleak surroundings at each facility and the depressing effect that this had on her and the other patients.
"Nan, as soon as I get better, let's do something about this,” she said to her sister. “You can find a way to speed up the research. I know you can. And I want to fix up this waiting room and make it pretty for the women who have to be here. This isn't right."
Sadly, Susan died a short time later, three years after her diagnosis. Haunted by her words, in 1982, Nancy established the groundwork for the foundation that ultimately became known and trademarked as “Susan G. Komen for the Cure.”
As stated on its website, through activities such as the annual “Run for the Cure”, Komen has become “the largest source of nonprofit funds dedicated to the fight against breast cancer in the world,” to date having invested almost 2 billion dollars in breast cancer prevention (such as breast examinations and mammography) and in laboratory and clinical cancer research.
For some years, Komen has granted approximately $700,000 to Planned Parenthood to provide medical breast examinations for its clientele. As its name implies, Planned Parenthood is a pro-choice organization that provides contraceptive advice to women, many of whom are single and/or socially disadvantaged. In approximately 3% of cases, where there are no other options, the agency arranges therapeutic abortions, paying for them only through private donations and not government funds.
Not surprisingly, some donors and members of the Komen organization who have strong views against abortion, have been unhappy, or, at the very least, uneasy, about any association with Planned Parenthood.
Speaking directly to the matter last March, Komen’s chief scientific advisor, renowned Harvard breast oncologist, Dr. Eric Winer, stated, “While Komen affiliates provide funds to pay for screening, education and treatment programs in dozens of communities, in some areas, the only place that poor, uninsured or under-insured women can receive these services are through programs run by Planned Parenthood. …We monitor our grantees twice a year to be sure they are spending the money in line with our agreements, and we are assured that Planned Parenthood uses these funds only for breast-health education, screening and treatment programs. As long as there is a need for health care for these women, Komen affiliates will continue to fund the facilities that meet that need.”
Suddenly, (and almost certainly to Dr. Winer’s chagrin) all of that changed on January 30th with the announcement that Komen would no longer fund these activities at Planned Parenthood. Why?
It seems that, despite its scrupulous adherence to using only private donations to fund abortions, Planned Parenthood is currently under investigation by a pro-life Republican congressman from Florida, who chairs an oversight subcommittee, to determine if taxpayers’ dollars are ever used. And, in an amazing coincidence of timing, Komen’s board recently adopted a policy against giving any funds to “organizations currently under investigation by local, state or federal authorities”.
If that wasn’t fishy enough, attention immediately shifted to Karen Handel, Komen’s new senior vice president for public policy. Recently defeated in a governor’s race in Georgia, Handel had called for defunding Planned Parenthood during her failed campaign.
Yet, it seems unlikely that the views of a single Komen official could carry the day….until one considers that Handel’s boss, Nancy Brinker, has strong Republican ties, having donated generously to the GOP and accepting the offer of President George W. Bush to serve as ambassador to Hungary before she assumed the role of Komen CEO.
Within 48 hours of the announcement, public outrage boiled over. Facebook and Twitter were alight. On February 1st, stung by the backlash, Komen published a defense of its position on its website: “We are dismayed and extremely disappointed that actions we have taken to strengthen our granting process have been widely mischaracterized. It is necessary to set the record straight,” the statement began. They might as well have saved their breath. No one was listening.
Two days later, on February 3rd, it was time to eat humble pie: “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,” Nancy Brinker and her board stated. They went on to promise that Komen would “amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political….We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.”
It seems clear that, in making this statement, Komen has admitted the obvious: politics was behind their decision.
Perhaps Dan Dubno summed it up best in a piece he wrote in the Huffington Post at the start of the controversy: “This isn't about caring for women's health... or providing better care... or about following the stated mission of the Komen Foundation; it is about politics... conservative politics, to be clear.... and dirty politics putting women's lives at risk. The Komen Foundation puts women's health at risk by de-funding these critical programs. Instead of "Racing For a Cure" and helping women in need get adequate health care, women are being treated as political pawns in the business-as-usual election mud fight. Shame!”
My view? In giving in to the views of a minority of right-winged zealots, including (apparently) some of its own leadership, Susan G. Komen for the Cure shot itself in both feet, alienating large numbers of their supporters in the process. Will the organization recover? Probably, but with an everlasting ugly political stain on its reputation, enough to make poor Susan Komen turn over in her grave.