COMMENTARY | News of Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s decision to halt funding to Planned Parenthood broke on Jan. 31, causing an eruption of commentary on popular social media outlets, such as Twitter, according to the Associated Press. Opponents of the charity’s decision claim the organization fell to pro-life political pressure, while defenders of the decision maintain the nonprofit was not politically motivated.
That Susan G. Komen for the Cure recently appointed former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Karen Handel, a pro-life activist, as its Senior Vice President of Public Policy certainly suggests the charity’s actions were politically charged (Forbes). Planned Parenthood’s CEO, Patrick Hurd, whose wife, Betsi, has breast cancer, expressed his disappointment in the organization’s alleged political move, stating, “…[C]ancer doesn’t care if you’re pro-choice, anti-choice, progressive, conservative. Victims of cancer could care less about people’s politics.”
Susan G. Komen for the Cure President Liz Thompson, on the other hand, stated the heated reaction and charges of political provocation are a “crude and gross mischaracterization of the facts,” adding, “Grant making decisions are not about politics-our priority is and always will be the women we serve. Making this issue political or leveraging it for fundraising purposes would be a disservice to women.”
Regardless of the reasons behind Komen’s decision, the reality is that thousands of women rely on funding from the nonprofit for their breast health.
In a press release issued on Jan. 31, Planned Parenthood estimated that, together with Komen, they “have provided nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams…as well as more than 6,400 mammogram referrals….” The beneficiaries of these exams and referrals, many of whom are low-income, cannot afford alternative screening. By revoking its funding to Planned Parenthood, Susan G. Komen for the Cure is sending a message that the health of underserved women is not a priority.”
As a woman who recently suffered a breast cancer scare, this is distressing to me.
I am lucky enough to have health insurance that covers most of my medical costs, making the early detection, biopsy, and surgical removal of my breast masses possible and affordable. But what about women who are not — women who need the help of organizations like Planned Parenthood? Should their reliance on an establishment that performs abortions and is involved in political inquiry make them acceptable casualties?
In choosing to halt funding to Planned Parenthood, Susan G. Komen for the Cure is effectively choosing to sacrifice the lives of thousands of women, tarnishing my perception of their integrity in the process. And while I will always support organizations that work to improve women’s health regardless of their political affiliations, I must admit, Komen’s decision has prompted me to reevaluate the charities I support, for I want to be certain my donations benefit all, not just the privileged.
Sources:
David Crary, “Susan G. Komen charity ends funding for Planned Parenthood ,” Chicago Sun Times
“Susan G. Komen Pink Slips Planned Parenthood — Who, What and Why?” , Forbes
Planned Parenthood