I suspect that most bloggers, and many of those who read blogs, start their morning off with a quick scan of Memeorandum.com. If only to see what everyone else is talking about. I don’t use much of their information during the political season, because so very much of it is transient noise and lightless heat.
But over the last couple of days, I’ve been a bit bewildered about the attention being paid to the Susan G. Komen organization, of which I had not heard. They’re the folks who are involved in all of those pink ribbon campaigns, and their sole focus is on breast cancer, screenings and cures. Which I think I’m not alone in saying, bravo, well done, push on.
But then they decided, for reasons of their own – reasons admittedly opaque – to stop funding Planned Parenthood, which in a slightly less Orwellian world would be more accurately labeled, “Unplanned Abortion” since that appears to be what they’re mostly on about. You can be pro-choice or pro-life, but when a private charity gets a harrowing for deciding who will get their hard won money, and decides to exclude from further consideration an organization whose efforts are at best tangential to the donor’s goals, you’ve got to wonder what all of the angst is about. I mean, no one has a right to charity. That’s why they call it “charity” vice welfare, or what have you.
James Taranto agrees with me, as he so often does:
Komen was under no obligation to fund Planned Parenthood. Its decision not to do so was not punitive and did not even appear to be. The episode is reminiscent of George Orwell far more than Joe McCarthy. Komen’s actual aim was to extricate itself from the divisive national battle over abortion by severing its connection with a leading combatant.
The conservative Media Research Center notes that CNN “aired a pretty one-sided piece including statements from Planned Parenthood’s president Cecile Richards, evidence supporting her claims of right-wing ‘bullying,’ and even vitriolic Facebook posts decrying the de-funding.” No supporter of Komen’s position or critic of Planned Parenthood was included. Even more appalling than that lack of balance, though, was CNN’s echoing the charge of “right-wing ‘bullying,’ ” while the network was participating in Planned Parenthood’s effort to bully Komen.
Datechguy thinks this is part of a broader trend, wherein the political left in this country will do whatever it takes to smear or attack even those on the side of angels, so long as it protects the circular flows of money to and from favored causes and politicians.
It’s all just a little screechy, and I do so loathe a screecher.
Mark Steyn has a great post about this in the 3 Feb Orange Counter Register “Komen has its awareness raised”@ http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/komen-338772-planned-parenthood.html
A more factual detailed of all the players, etc., is given by Mary Davenport, MD in her article in the American Thinker@
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/the_wrath_of_the_abortion_movement_unleashed_on_komen.html
Not only are charities free to chose how to distribute their money, their donors are too.
People donate specifically to those charities that are in line with their wishes of where the money is to go. Thus when a large charity foolishly and abruptly pulls a significant part of their program for political reasons, individual donors are right to be upset. That also naturally makes headlines.
Interestingly, since Komen announced they were pulling the plug on Planned Parenthood, suddenly 6,000 people have donated $400,000 directly to Planned Parenthood in response. Screechy freedom, that.
It doesn’t seem unreasonable that someone who supports finding a cure for breast cancer may or may not support Planned Parenthood. It doesn’t bother me a bit if someone donates their money to an organization I personally don’t support. I do have a problem with one charitable organization extorting another for grants, which is what this smells like to me. Komen, unlike PP has largely managed to stay apolitical, for which I applaud them.
As far as screechy freedom goes, I personally “defunded” PBS years ago when it became apparent they were involved in supporting and promoting the democratic party. That crossed the line for me and I went from a regular donor to someone who will never give PBS another dime. Yeah, I hold a grudge.
I would think Komen would not want to be associated with PP anyway, as PP’s prime mission in life is abortion, regardless of their protests. Abortion is a risk factor for Breast cancer a fact that has been know for quite some time.
If PP were sincere on their “health care” claim, they’d get out of the abortion business entirely. Abortion is not health care.
So, Flit thinks it foolish for SGK to pull its support for PP “for political reasons.” Yeah, because it is crassly political to oppose killing babies; can’t possibly be any other reason. I presume Flit thinks it’s fine for SGK to restore funding to PP “for political reasons.”
Stand in Jefferson’s Memorial and look up.
Me, I paraphrased. ” I have sworn upon the alter of God Almighty to never have an abortion.” Easy for a guy like me.
There is absolutely no viable way for any to claim that the government has a right to flow tax $ into killing the unborn and innocent. The fact that people like you do flit, that is a crime.
Flit, the “screechy” thing relates back to the progressives’ bad habit of getting bent out of shape when they can’t control everything.
As you cogently pointed out, people are quite free to donate where they will, and apparently a fair number of people jumped in to take up the slack.
Fair enough.
But what many of us object to is the way the usual suspects when librarian-poo over the fact that SG Koman de-funded Planned Parenthood. It’s not enough for these people to follow their progressive philosophy, they are impelled to force everyone else to cooperate. Komen strayed outside the fold, and -worse yet- violated dogma!! BURN the unbeliever!!!
And they say conservatives are the intolerant ones…
Nice plyy, right from the “Playbook of the Greedy Liberal:” What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine…let’s call it a “collective!” What if, let’s pretend, a country had an economy about to fall off a cliff, the real unemployment rate (not adjusted for foolish political reasons) is over 10% and has been there for almost three years of this President’s watch, and, let’s stretch it here: Donations to any and every charity are down and getting to be less per donation (this may even be reported regularly in the news of my fantasy world). Crazy, I am, I know….but hang in with me, please, I beg you, you Presidential shill, and a charity, which is private and not one fed from the government trough over the objections of others who do pay taxes, find they must focus on their core mission, and the limited funds are best used in house….so they “foolishly” stop sending money to another charity, which gets large sums of taxpayer money, so they can keep doing what they do best: Work to cure breast cancer. How about that scenario, not your partisan, childish, filtered through everyone is out to kill women lenses. Nonsense, pure nonsense, I know to consider the tough economic times may have anything to do with financial decision, but I’m just a stupid guy who wasn’t smart enough to get a “real” job…..
Honestly, I think the SGK staff is now going to be cut on both edges of the sword: People who thought they were giving to prevent/cure breast cancer, now knowing their donations were “laundered” will cease to give to SGK, which is tragic. And…since they have been required now, in the kangaroo court of the abortion clinics and “MSM” (what a joke they have become, even worse now), to have to continue to give to PP, they will, and this is the part I doubt I’ll see the feminists stand up and say “HOLD ON!” to is: Less resources will be available for the prevention, treatment and cure of the disease the charity was founded to work on. Big losers: Women and men who must suffer that form of cancer…but I’m sure they will sleep soundly, after chemo, knowing someone who didn’t want a child has full access to a “clinic.” Fratricide, it is…killing the unborn, and letting older ones die too soon…great plan….no death panels and all that rot.
Doesn’t surprise me. The whole “nonprofit” industry is just that – an industry. With big salaries and plenty of perks for those at the top.
MM – Charity executive compensation depends mostly on the size of the charity. Nevertheless with a few notable exceptions, charities tend to pay less than private sector firms for similar competencies.
Indeed, the medium total compensation for a charity CEO is only $150,000. Compare that to median S&P 500 companies of $1million, excluding bonus and stock options that drive up the median annual compensation to $6.6 Million.
While there may be exceptions, no one heads up a charitable organization for the “big salaries and perks.” They do so because they believe in that charity.
Whenever I give, I am guided by and recommend: http://www.charitynavigator.org/
Flit,
Stopped giving to the Red Cross when I found the San Diego CEO of the Red Cross found that paying himself in excess of $800,000 per year was a just use of “charity.”
You should just read about the March Of Dimes. I wouldn’t give them a penny.
I think I need to change that to United Way. Red Cross was equally bad but when I bailed on anymore donations, it was on account of both United Way and Red Cross. In the military we had an annual campaign to donate and in 1995 I stopped. Local only.
I’m with you on the United Way. When I learned how much the people who ran the United Way took home for themselves, I figured they didn’t need anymore of money.
The core to modern liberalism is the same as a magic act. Rapid hand waving and fast-talking to keep the audience distracted. In the case of liberalism they need to keep people from recognizing the inherent moral and intellectual bankruptcy of their philosophy. That’s the reason for the vitriol, anyone who breaks ranks must be destroyed, lest the encourage the rest to actually think.
Komen and Ohio(?) get accused of playing politics with women’s care, yet Planned Parenthood, which could end the debate by erecting financial firewalls around their abortion business, is as pure as the driven snow.
I was curious about why the Komen folks, who worry about breast cancer, had any money left over to finance a group that worries about reproductive health and advice. I was told by Komen-supporting friends that Planned Parenthood offers breast cancer screenings, thus the donation. I have no way of checking it, but Planned Parenthood’s website claims 90 percent of its clinics’ activities involve preventive care. It seems they get a lot of flack for the other 10 percent. I’m pro-choice, so that 10 percent doesn’t bother me a bit.
Planned Parenthood in some locations offers referrals to facilities that provide mammograms and other cancer-screening procedures. No P.P. location that i have heard of offers mammograms – they are a pass through organization. As I understand, Komen is cutting funding for all pass-through groups, not just Planned Parenthood.
And I’m sure that’s the story, not that just poor little old PP is being thrown under the bus…
Oh sure. Kill and kill again all in the name of what? You go girl.
flit/
You miss the ominous part of all of this: namely the intrusion of political actors such as the 26 democrats in the Senate who, via an anti-komen resolution, used the power of the political process and the imprimatur of the Senate to strong-arm a private organization into doing its political bidding–a form of fascist strong-arm tactics any way one looks at it.
VX – Ominous? Yes.
But then again, I’m not sure that it wasn’t political pressure from the other side that initiated all this from the start.
Flit,
But then again, deny everything and make unfounded counter-accusations.
Next you will tell me that the news media, Hollywood, and higher education are unbiased.
“deny everything and make unfounded counter-accusations.”
Yup,
Straight out of liberal tactics 101!
I’m with fliterman. Organization A decided not to give to organization B (possibly due to some political pressure). Supporters of said first organization got angry, donated money directly to organization B, and basically made a big fuss. Voila! Organization A changes its position (possibly due to some political pressure).
Sounds like business as usual to me. Donors are free to choose who they give their money to and in this case they chose (and spoke) loudly. I’m angry about the outcome but it is the way things are supposed to work.
I’m late to this party. I didnt know they gave money before. I dont care if anyone is pro choice or against nor will I argue it. But since I am here now, it seems to me the act of giving $ to the pink ribbon campaign to save lives is not in line with funding an abortion provider under any condition, cause I personally dont view it as attempting to save anything. In Jewish terms, Komen giving money to PP is “Life chasing death”. Not for my family any more and I wont do it through my Corp either. There are many other charities that are a bit more straight forward $s for benefit. Wonder how the NFL will see it today. If I were a player, those redic. pink shoes, chin straps and gloves would go. Fine me.
You can be pro-choice or pro-life, but when a private charity gets a harrowing for deciding who will get their hard won money, and decides to exclude from further consideration an organization whose efforts are at best tangential to the donor’s goals, you’ve got to wonder what all of the angst is about.
Hey, Lex. Long time, no talk. I thought I’d help you out (or try to, anyway) with your confusion on “what all of the angst is about.” As you said, you can be pro-choice or pro-life, but Komen did not simply “decide who will get their” money — they pulled all of their funding from Planned Parenthood, which they had funded for years, and barred PP from further consideration for funding, for reasons that were not just opaque but blatantly political. I’ve seen a lot of complaining about how political the outcry from PP’s supporters was, and the “thuggish” pressure tactics on Komen, etc., but somehow these same people do not think that the years of unremitting pressure placed on Komen by organizations and individuals who oppose legal abortion to defund PP was thuggish, or that PP’s decision to bow to that pressure was also political. I find that inconsistency puzzling.
As for the angst itself — i.e., why PP supporters would be so upset when a breast cancer funding organization decides not to fund an organization that is in the “business” of providing abortions — the reason for the angst is that providing abortions is not all that PP does, and in fact, is not most of what PP does. It’s dishonest and disingenuous for people to call themselves pro-life, and condemn PP for being in the “abortion business,” when abortion is only about 3% of what PP does, and the other 97% is other vital women’s health services. And most to the point, when breast cancer prevention and screening services are more than a third of what PP does. So that your statement that abortion is what PP is “mostly on about” is simply untrue.
THAT is why people like me were so upset and outraged when Komen caved to anti-choice pressure and pulled all its funding from PP — because PP provides really important low- or no-cost women’s health services to women who would otherwise not be able to get those services, either because of not being able to afford them, or because of a dearth of other health care clinics anywhere near where they live, or both. For many women, PP is the ONLY source of health care in their area that they can afford. Many women would go without lifesaving breast cancer screening if not for the existence of PP.
That is a fact, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life.
The reson PP can say that 97% of their services are not abrtions is that everytime one of their staff answers the phone, or gives out a brochure, or answers a question, it is called a service and advances the services counter. The overwhelming majority of PP money is spent on killing bables.
And it is remarkable how people can feel comfortable saying that they are “Pro-Choice”, instead of a more accurate “Killing babies that have not been born yet”.
Guess it makes them feel better -but sometimes words matter.
Yes sir, what he said.
Kathy, thanks for dropping by. I hope you’ve been well.
Your argument seems to be that when an explicitly apolitical actor finds itself in uncomfortable association with an explicitly political actor – no rational person can deny that abortion remains a politically divisive topic in this country – and seeks to break those bonds, that is in itself a political decision. I guess I sort of understand that when I put my upside-down hat on, but it doesn’t leave SGK with much in the way of “freedom of choice” once they form ill-considered associations. Saying that SGK only did so because of right wing pressure is to engage in a Type M argument that is no doubt satisfying but doesn’t really touch on the substance of the issue.
Others have made the argument that the non-abortion services provided by PP are trivial in comparison with the scope of abortion services they provide. It may be quantitatively accurate to say that 1000 pennies are “more” than ten dollars, but the gravamen of the argument remains that PP is pretty much what I labeled it as.
Others have also noted that the non-abortion services that PP provides, breast screening in particular, are essentially off-sited to PP partners, with part of that money being taxed by PP in passing. If my charity was focused solely on breast cancer screening, I think I’d resent having my money spent so inefficiently.
So Kathy, the ‘caving’ part is OK as long as it your opinion that carries? How utterly weak of an argument. Might as simply state “Depend on whose Ox is gored” More intelectually honest.
Komen is dropping ties with many organizations that were under govt. investigation. “Your” side screached with the likes of Flit, have you complained to Komen to re-establish funding to the other organizations Komen dropped?
3% abortion suport is enough taint for me to not support the other 97% of a particular organization. Why? Because many other organizations support womens health 100%.
Cheers
SD
I think what is most surprising to me is how shocked and caught off guard SGK was in this. Just as SGK doesn’t have an obligation to give to anyone they don’t want to, their donors who raise money aren’t obligated to help them. They can go wherever they want. So they really didn’t see that there was a % of people that were going to take their running shoes and checkbooks and go home? I would have thought that would have been factored into the equation. “We’re going to quit giving to PP. Our collateral damage will more than likely be $xxx for xxx amount of time.” It’s like nobody did a cost effectivity analysis on it. It’s a BUSINESS. Now EVERYONE is pissed off and I don’t think they can recover from it. I don’t.
And I’m completely stunned that they were shocked. They would have been better off sticking to their guns if they truly felt that way. Now they’re REALLY in a no win situation. All they had to do was wait until the next debate between Gingrich and Romney and all the focus would have been off this topic.
I did tell my husband though, “Obama is going to find a way to use this against Romney in the election…”
BTW, I quit giving to SGK about eight years ago. I pulled back the curtain, met the wizard, and he was kind of nasty and full of self entitlement. A long story, but there are other organizations that help women. It’s just a matter of doing research. I wouldn’t wear pink or do anything for SGK if they begged me. And I’m high risk for bc.
According to Wikipedia PP does 300k abortions among 3 million people. To me that’s 10%.
I also hear that many of the PP centers that got SGK money don’t have the facilities to do breast cancer screenings. Something doesn’t seem right to me there.
I have several friends who do the SGK Walk every year and I’ve donated to them but that was before. I didn’t know they were giving that money to PP so no more SGK donations for me.
I have several friends who do the SGK Walk every year and I’ve donated to them but that was before. I didn’t know they were giving that money to PP so no more SGK donations for me.
Something about Barn doors and bolting horses comes to mind.
Just sayin’
You are right, of course, but I previously acted in ignorance. What’s done is done but fortunately we are allowed to change course. That’s what the future is for.
Now that I’ve learned this about SGK the DAV and Wounded Warrior Project will get more from me.
If you look at PP revenue you’ll see that it is the 800lb gorilla in the $1B abortion industry. # of transactions and interactions may show 10% abortion but it’s the reciprocal if you look at the revenue. In any case, it there’s been a lot indications PP isn’t maintaining a firewall between the two sides of the operation as required for getting .gov funding for the non-abortion services.
Let’s get some facts and figures here to reduce the noise level.
Planned Parenthood is indeed the big gorilla in women’s “health” issues funding. Its annual donations are twice the amount of that given to the SGK fund.
SGK’s donations to Planned Parenthood were less than 1% of SGK’s total expenditures. So taking the relative sizes of the two organizations into account SGK’s donations to Planned Parenthood represented about 1/2 of 1% of Planned Parenthood’s total revenue stream.
SGK decided to no longer fund any organization that was subject to government investigation. There was a half assed sort of Congressional investigation of Planned Parenthood called for by a couple of “pro life” right wing religous zealots (as the New York Times would call them) or Republican congressmen as a more rational person might style them.
Now Flit and other “left wing zealots” might say that “subject to goverment investigation” is really a “dog whistle” “code word” (the latest smear de jour from the Left) for “hate filled bigotry against pro choice folks”.
But that said, Planned Parenthood, along with some of its stooges in Congress (and calling Senator Patty Murray of Washington–or Barbara Boxer of California a “stooge” is really a mortal insult to Larry Moe & Curley, each of whom could spot each of these bimbos 50 I.Q. points and still whip em at a simple mental task) reacted with the sort of howl normally associated with a bratty two year old who has had an all day sucker forcibly removed from its mouth.
I frankly don’t know what breast cancer has to do with abortions. They may each be “women’s health issues” but beyond that a donor to a women’s health issues charity might want to pick and choose which particular issue gets their money. Not everybody who wants to support research on women’s breast cancer also wants to support abortion–and it is the donor’s right to do so.
But on the left–when one of their favorite causes is threatened in anyway, they bring out the “bigot bashing blitkrieg” style campaign of smear and besmirching.
I’ll tell you this; when the United Way in Los Angeles circa 1995 was revealed to have executives who were living way high off the hog (and at the same time the national United Way executives were doing the same thing) donation levels here in Los Angeles fell like a rock dropped off a cliff.
SGK has a right to decide to stick to its knitting–which is breast cancer. If one wants to talk political pressure, they’ve just been pounded by the self righteous left.
There was a half assed sort of Congressional investigation of Planned Parenthood called for by a couple of “pro life” right wing religous zealots
It is 100% correct to refer to the people pushing this investigation are exactly as is listed above.
Amanda Marcotte says it best here:
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/this-was-about-values-not-money
I especially like this paragraph:
The debate over healthcare is basically about this ultimate fight over whether or not women are people. Conservatives see women as objects. Sex and reproduction the way the objects are used, and like with any other property, how and who uses it is the whole point. That’s why abstinence-only classes compare sexually active women to lollipops that have been opened and licked, or toothbrushes that someone else has used….
[This] fight was over who basically owns the mainstream: anti-feminists or feminists, people who think of women as expensive sex toys/gestation machines or people who think of women as people? That’s why everyone was so upset. And that’s why the feminist win was so meaningful.
Kathy – your post was most informative and factually correct. It is very sad to see such crap as abortions cause breast canncer still out there. If more people actually studied the science and left the metaphysical out of it perhaps more common ground could be found. But I am not hoepful it ever will.
Oh. My. Lord. You just quoted Marcotte here, and expect people to take that argument seriously?
One bit from your quote:”Conservatives see women as objects.” If you’re clueless enough to take that kind of bilge seriously, there’s not hope for you, much less anyone like Marcotte, with her moronic symbolisms with respect to women as lollipops or toothbrushes. Only a seriously demented twit (or Marcotte; same thing) could look through a lens such as that, and consider said view the real world.
Marcotte would have been better served to qualify the statement to say some conservatives see women as objects. So no, not clueless, as unfortunately I have had run ins with conservatives who believe thusly, and it is to the detriment of the conservative movement in general that these people are not fully disavowed.
So yeah, I do take it seriously. Cause I’ve seen it.
“Conservatives treat women as objects” is presented as an argument as if it is an all encompassing fact. Then you add to make it ironclad. “cause I’ve seen it”. Not much of an argument. Then when you casually dismiss hard data that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer with a toss of the wrist because you dislike the world view of those who emphasize the data does absolutely nothing for your argument or your credibility. So called pro-choice is nothing more than a lie that allows some declare that others are less than human, therefore, can be treated as “objects” less than human. If you have a problem with that statement I’ll refer you to the Nazi’s “Final Solution” and in this country until 1865, slavery.
Then there is this inconvenient report:
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/09/01/abortion-increases-risk-of-womens-mental-health-problems-81/
That’s why abstinence-only classes compare sexually active women to lollipops that have been opened and licked, or toothbrushes that someone else has used….
The health book used in my local middle school pushes abstinence very hard but makes no such analogies. My guess would be that Ms. Marcotte is cherry-picking one or two books out of thousands to generate that quote.
A group of people who absolutely treat fetuses as objects to the point of killing them have little moral basis for claiming that those opposing such actions are treating women as objects.
On point only to note that SGKF’s organizational by-laws state that they shall not contribute to organizations “under investigation.” That’s the clause the Board of Directors hung their collective hats on when they made their decision. Of course, being under Congressional investigation (in PP’s case) presents a bit of a stretch of what I can only guess was the original intent of the drafter’s meaning of the words “under investigation.”
As to their purpose, the data doesn’t lie: The number 1 killer of women in this country is heart disease, way, way ahead of breast cancer. Yet the breast cancer industry has very skillfully cornered the market of public (mis)perception.
After reading KK’s combox comment the thought came to mind that if PP is a source of health of health care then so was Dr. Mengele in Auchwitz-birkenau.
Dust, have you ever heard of Godwin’s Law?
And your point is? My point is that both Mengele and his ilk and PP are death merchants. If you cannot agree that as fact then any response to you is a waste of time. I find nothing humorous about abortion or the death of 6 million 6o odd years ago.
Yeah kinda hard to find common ground with a person who labels people who have a different POV as Nazis and Death Merchants.
So be it.
I am conservative and do not view women as objects. Also, Tailhook has a scholarship fund that accepts donations.
Keep in mind that when PP cites stats they are very misleading. When a woman enters a PP location for a pregnancy test, get some contaceptives, get tested for an STD, have an abortion, that counts for four services. And in doing so they can easily inflate many other “services” other than abortion, but the fact is their primary business focus is that of abortions.
[...] Neptunus Lex has an interesting take on the Komen-Planned Parenthood issue [...]
I have donated to the Komen Foundatiomn in the past and was totally oblivious to their support of PP. When they announced they were terminating that support, I thought “good on them to focus in on their core mission.” When they bowed to political pressure to reinstate, they ensured they will get no future support from me, and I suspect thousands of other like minded donors.
I have not donated, but I was actually on my Credit Union’s page to start a small monthly donation, when I heard of their reversal…
Thanks for the Cancel Button.
PP VP 1969 Memo:
http://cdn.abbyjohnson.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/jaffememo.pdf
Try not to be disctracted by their individual ‘Proposed Measures’ as horrible as some of them are, but consider them, and then think about what kind of society we would have if we lived under this mentality.
One of our Senators makes things a little clearer:
“The issue of life is not a political issue, nor is it a policy issue, it is a definitional issue.”
“…Because without it, none of the other rights matter. There can be no Liberty without Life. There can be no Constitution without Life. There can be no nation without Life. And there can’t be other lives without Life.” ———— His complete speech at this link:
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/03/marco-rubio-gives-amazingly-powerful-pro-life-speech/
[This] fight was over who basically owns the mainstream: anti-feminists or feminists, people who think of women as expensive sex toys/gestation machines or people who think of women as people?
Is that really what the argument is about? Or, is that vitriol (like the lollipops and toothbrushes) used to shut up the true feminists that want women to take control of their bodies and their minds to make informed decisions BEFORE they need to walk into an abortion mill?
As a female, I find this entire line of thought to be insulting. I find this line of reasoning to be insane. Think of yourself as a “person” and others will too. I know I do and I have never thought of myself as a toothbrush or a lollipop.
It is interesting how these discussions just spin out of control. As M. Myers said above along with Conjam, funding was pulled on the basis that PP was under investigation on several counts which proved contrary to the SGKF’s By-Laws for potential funding recipients.
But no… This cannot be!
And, I am not surprised by this one bit. If one major donor pulls funding for any reason the whole house of cards for public funding erodes. So, in comes the liberal spin factory, throwing s**t all over the place. The whole abortion debate heats up again.
BTW, good for any private person that wants to continue to fund PP. I’m OK with that. Although I will tell you that back in the day when my children were very small I made a $30 contribution to PP. I asked that my donation fund one year worth of birth control pills for a woman. Instead, I received well over $30 worth of continuing solicitations; glossy letters urging me to donate more. My donation was wasted and I never donated to them again.
“Instead, I received well over $30 worth of continuing solicitations; glossy letters urging me to donate more.”
… As does most everyone who contributes to anything.
Apparently you do not contribute often, either to charities or political entities. It is a given fact that once you contribute to anything, you are on a mailing list and later will be besieged with requests.
Because I contribute often to a wide variety of interests, my mailbox is always full. It is annoying, but it is OK. It is the nature of the beast. I still remain selective albeit generous, yet I ignore and shred most solicitations, even from the best while I still occasionally donate to them.
“Apparently you do not contribute often, either to charities or political entities”
And there Flit, you would be wrong..
Babs – OK. I’m wrong (in your mind).
But then why do you complain about your unsurprising and inevitable PP solicitations, since you must know from your implied “other charitable experiences” that this is de rigueur for all charities and political entities? Even ones you may like? Care to explain?
I am somewhat saddened in that this topic has led as close to incivility as I have yet seen on this site.
I know and understand that this topic (abortion) generates strong feelings in a great many people, but the ability of those who gather here to disagree without recourse to outright hostility has been one of the pleasures of visiting here. I hope that everyone can step back, take a deep breath and continue to express their views without rancor.
With best wishes to all,
Paul
Flit,
It is not “de regueir” for other charities…
Which lets me blow my personal horn, “Operation Gratitude” and “Pizza IDF”.
opgrat.com
pizzaidf.com
Check it out. Every dime goes to helping people, not glossy solicitations or overblown salaries.
I am sure there are many others. These are just the two that I track closely.
I agree with Babs. I have donated extensively in the past to various charities and not been bombarded with marketing material – these include Heart and Cancer Associations, Diabetes Foundation and others; I may receive one or 2 mailings per year from them and that has been the extent of the material.
Project VALOUR-IT never sends out materials; just sayin’.
However in the past 2 years we’ve consolidated most of our charitable giving to local charities thru our Church. And I just got the annual statement of church expenditures and I know where my money went – because I specified certain organizations and I know the money went there.
While there are some exceptions, frequent mail solicitations, especially after an initial donation, are a very common problem for most who donate….
No matter how this plays out, whether Komen has caved or not, I have not and will not support that organization, and Planned Parenthood is, literally, satanic.
But back to Komen, Komen still embraces contraception including abortifacients and has for years demonized those trying to publicize the possible link between abortion and breast cancer. Komen is still far too focused on branding, being uber-hip, and “awareness,” and not enough on actual hard research. There are far better organizations to support if you want to fund cancer research. Komen takes a very healthy cut off the top as part of all this “awareness,” and has partnered with some pretty checkered products. The entire concept of a charity focused on “awareness” is problematical to me.
I’ll never support Komen, and I will remain Planned Barrenhood’s implacable foe until I die.
SGK did us all a favor. Now I will ignore pleas to fund their activities. Would do more for women’s health to fund heart disease research. And I wouldn’t have to deal with pink ribbons.
My only contribution to charity is to a local children’s hospital’s free care fund. I gave up on the United Way when they threw the Boy Scouts under the bus. I may consider the Red Cross again when they account for the $200 million + the Federal Govern re-imbursed then after Katrina.