advertisement

WHAT OTHERS SAY: Komen cutting Planned Parenthood funds was a mistake

Thursday, February 2, 2012 | 1:29 p.m. CST

The charity of pink ribbons has defunded Planned Parenthood, claiming it can’t support an organization that's under investigation.

Well, we in the old stomping grounds of former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline have news for the folks at Susan G. Komen for the Cure: Planned Parenthood is always under investigation. As long as there are politicians determined to pursue ideological agendas and score points with religious conservatives, it always will be.

Nevermind that Planned Parenthood has repeatedly been cleared of the charges thrown at it. The Komen charity appears to believe in guilt by innuendo. Either that, or the organization has succumbed to a political agenda; Karen Handel, a new senior vice president for Komen, pledged to defund Planned Parenthood during a failed run for governor of Georgia in 2010.

For five years, the Komen charity has funneled money to Planned Parenthood to screen low-income women for breast cancer. Last year it donated $680,000.

But Komen recently informed Planned Parenthood it is ending the partnership, citing new rules that prohibit the breast cancer charity from giving money to a group under local, federal or state investigation.

Republican congressman Cliff Stearns of Florida, who is convinced that Planned Parenthood uses public money for abortions, has demanded many years worth of audits and other documentation from every chapter in the nation. It's less an investigation than a fishing expedition, but apparently it's good enough for Komen.

On Wednesday, Planned Parenthood raised about half a million dollars from donors outraged by the Komen decision. Good for them. The money will enable Planned Parenthood to continue detecting cancer and saving lives.

In the end, it’s the Komen charity that will end up poorer for its decision. It is likely to see a dip in contributions, and it most certainly has forfeited a measure of respect.

Copyright Kansas City Star. Reprinted with permission.

 

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/02/01/3404580/the-stars-editorial-komens-cutting.html#storylink=cpy

 


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Jimmy Bearfield February 3, 2012 | 10:19 a.m.

"it’s the Komen charity that will end up poorer for its decision. It is likely to see a dip in contributions"

Not necessarily, if the past two days are any guide. Donations have increased 100%: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/02/after-...

(Report Comment)
Tim Dance February 4, 2012 | 2:02 a.m.

LOL 100% compared to what?? Donation went from what $1000 to $2000? that's 100%. Heck $1 to $2 dollars is 100%. Looks like the cons on the board are hoping that saying 100% makes it sound like a windfall and hoping people don't know basic math to call them on this fraud. There are other breast cancer charities that care about women's health, seems Komen has jumped the shark.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield February 4, 2012 | 10:48 a.m.

Tim, why would you assume that Komen's daily donations typically average only $1 to $1,000? After all, if Komen received only $1,000/day before this week, then it would have amassed only $365,000 in 2011. If that's correct, then how did Komen manage to provide Planned Parenthood with more than twice that amount ($731,303) in 2011?

(Report Comment)
Tim Dance February 4, 2012 | 2:38 p.m.

That wasn't the point of my comment. The point was instead of telling us the exact donation amount, they told us a percentage. 100% is a fancy way to say we doubled our donations in the last 2 days from the previous 2 days. Your using my examples as a strawman argument is very telling though.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield February 4, 2012 | 4:40 p.m.

No problem. We all realize that you stuck your foot in your mouth. It's impressive that you can do it again while backpedaling, though.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt February 4, 2012 | 6:19 p.m.

But he's right. Saying, "I had 1 quarter in my pocket, now I have 2" doesn't sound as impressive as "my pocket change increased by 100%."

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt February 4, 2012 | 6:31 p.m.

p.s. this is the same argument Republicans/conservatives use to dismiss climate-change alarmists:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

"Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm)." [in 2011 it was ~392]

AGW supporters: Whoa, that's a whopping 40% increase!! (using 392 ppm)
AGW deniers: Yeah, this means that CO2 is now 0.0392% of the atmosphere versus 0.0280%. Big whoop.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield February 4, 2012 | 9:44 p.m.

No, Jonathan, he looks foolish. His original point was "that saying 100% makes it sound like a windfall and hoping people don't know basic math to call them on this fraud." How is it fraud for Komen to say that its donations in increased 100%?

This isn't some piddly CoMo charity that would kill to average $1,000/day. It's a major, national organization. If it weren't, this fracas barely would have made the news. Just from this scale, we know that a 100% increase is a lot of money. We also have the scale of knowing that Komen gave PP $731K in 2011.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle February 4, 2012 | 10:10 p.m.

Here's Komen's tax return: http://ww5.komen.org/uploadedFiles/Conte...

Gross Revenue: $209M
Grants given: $74.5M
Efficiency of charity: 35.6%

I think Komen just destroyed the magic spell of the "Pinkwashing" campaign, and they'll NEVER get that back. Especially now that they've sort of (not really) backtracked, everyone is pissed at them. Moral of the story for organizations like Komen? Don't look into the light; you'll wind up getting zapped.

I stopped giving to Komen years ago when it was apparent it had turned into primarily just a marketing organization, and I certainly wouldn't give anything to them now.

So yeah, big mistake. They will likely collapse and become a shell of their former selves. This is an inherent risk in trying to control or punish others; the rebound probability is significant.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle February 4, 2012 | 10:48 p.m.

BTW, for 2010 Komen averaged about $500M in donations per day. Assuming the baseline 2 days were fairly average, a 100% increase means Komen took in about $1M per day for the 2 day spike.

I wonder what contributions for the 2 days after the quasi policy reversal are?

Correction to above post: The $74.5M grants given was for FY 2009; for 2010, total grants given were $76.2M for a 36.5% efficiency (not 35.6%).

(Report Comment)
Tim Dance February 5, 2012 | 11:52 a.m.

@Jimmy

Jonathan got my original point, you did not. You took the example and ran with it. Nice try though.

(Report Comment)
Tim Dance February 5, 2012 | 2:28 p.m.

@DF

You are assuming that donations come at a steady stream. Fund raising might come in spurts. Until they show me real numbers for those days, the 100% claim lacks any context.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield February 6, 2012 | 8:16 p.m.

Tim, give it a rest. The more you backpedal, the more foolish you look.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle February 6, 2012 | 9:23 p.m.

Tim is actually correct. The number lacks any context at all. OTOH, I doubt an organization that averages nearly $1M/day in donations commonly sees 50%-/100%+ fluctuations in daily donation amounts.

But that's mere conjecture on my part; I don't really know. Considering the fact that nobody else here has been able to put a $ amount on Komen's info, I don't think anyone else does either. I believe that's one of the points Tim was making.

What does everyone think about PP releasing the figure that they saw a one-day surge in donations to $650,000?

To me, this factoid is just as lacking in context as Komen's donation factoid. It's interesting that both organizations chose to release some nearly meaningless number that keeps us from being able to directly compare the two, or even compare to themselves internally over time. To me, that means *both* organizations are a bit dodgy.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield February 6, 2012 | 10:07 p.m.

"I doubt an organization that averages nearly $1M/day in donations commonly sees 50%-/100%+ fluctuations in daily donation amounts."

Exactly my point: A 100% increase for an organization this size is a windfall by any definition.

(Report Comment)
Tim Dance February 6, 2012 | 10:26 p.m.

@ Jimmy

Until real numbers are released, there is just opinion and assumption not fact. Nothing to see here....move along.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle February 6, 2012 | 10:34 p.m.

It still lacks any context to prove so. You obviously still don't have any real dollar figures, either. Until you do, the 100% figure tells us almost nothing.

It also makes me wonder what you think of an organization that that increases expenditures by 100% without any real corresponding increase in revenue.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements