Did Susan G. Komen Foundation make the right move in restoring Planned Parenthood funding? (poll)

Maria Amante | By Maria Amante | The Grand Rapids Press
Follow on Twitter
on February 05, 2012 at 11:40 AM, updated February 05, 2012 at 3:26 PM
Bridget White.jpgBridget White
After the Susan G. Komen Foundation reversed its decision to end funding of Planned Parenthood, readers had strong reactions in favor and opposition of the move.

The decision to withhold funding was met with much backlash locally and nationwide. The group was accused of playing politics, but members of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure West Michigan Affiliate's Facebook page came down on both sides of the issue.

The Komen foundation said its decision was based on a policy change that disallowed them to fund organizations, like Planned Parenthood.

The move resulted in a "joyous roar from all women across the country," said Bridget White, vice president of Medical Services for Planned Parenthood in West and Northern Michigan.

eazydoesit said Komen reversed course to serve a larger number of people.

Clearly, Komen can give to whomever they want. The reality is that the women who benefit from what they do made a lot of noise about this decision. So Komen had to decide whether to alienate the very people they serve, or make a political decision and bear the consequences. Welcome to the very free market that I imagine you would otherwise advocate for in most other situations.

JoeHolland said Komen was afraid of "catastrophic reactions" and as a result, restored Planned Parenthood funding. 

You are are right Watchcaltwp, SGK can give its money to whomever it wants to. But on the other hand, donors and fund raisers for the Komen Foundation can always stop supporting it too. SGK saw clearly that their running and walking events would suffer catastrophic reductions in participation and the financial support they earned from that. They also realized that the SGK "brand" would be irretrievably damaged if they didn't reverse that ill considered decision. I hope this teaches a lesson to all "true believers" that when they bring their ideological political views to their non profit work places, bad things can happen.

Hairyreasoner proposed that people who do not support Planned Parenthood but still want to donate to the Komen foundation should make that clear when making their donations. 

I don't know how Susan G Komen handles designated donations,
but many organisations simply use this as a shell game on paper to
appease donors. The money you designate is recorded as going to the
designated organisation, but that reduces the amount of non-designated
money received by that organisation. Therefore, more non-designated
money is available for the other entities including ones to whom you
don't want your money going. The bottom line is that all organisations
still get the same amount of money as if you hadn't designated, but the
paperwork shows your contribution went to your designee. Giving to an
organisation that designates using this shell game neither gives
additional help to your designee, nor keeps your donation from helping
organisations you don't want to help. It is important to find out how
this works before donating.

yoopersue said that the move was positive for Planned Parenthood because they received many donations when Komen announced its decision, and later noted that Planned Parenthood provides several services beyond family planning. 

Actually, it means a whole lot more money is going to Planned
Parenthood, as thousands of former SGK supporters are now donating
directly to PP's breast cancer program, which can now expand even more.
In three days this week, PP received more than $3 million for its
program. These people will now just bypass SGK, which ought to be
investigated for its excessive salaries and political status.

Later, yoopersue added:

Komen has every right to spend its money as it chooses, and Planned Parenthood supporters around the country are saying to the SGK Foundation, "No thanks. We have a very large support base who contributed $3 million in just three days to our breast cancer prevention program." You are very welcome to increase your contribution to the SGK Foundation, as I suspect they will be needing it to keep paying those exorbitant salaries ($500,000+ to the CEO) to their staff.

What do you think? Did the Komen make the right decision Friday, or was their initial instinct correct? Sound off in the comments and take our poll.
