Susan G. Koman will no longer provide funding for Planned Parenthood

[Jocelyn.]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...m_national_pop

Yes, let's decide to stop funding for and organization that plays a major role in the breast and reproductive health of women when our main goal is to raise awareness of breast cancer. Especially when said organization's main market is the poor and uninsured. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Planned Parenthood also provides abortions and abortion resources, right? Right?!

How convenient that suddenly they've changed their policies to not support any organization under investigation by the government so they have to sever ties with, what seems like, such an important ally.

[Revolution]

Disgraceful. Not even women's organizations can even support each other. Ugh. And there is no reason for Planned Parenthood to be under investigation of the government? Why? Abortions are not legal, and even if you think they are "bad," it is such a small part of what Planned Parenthood does, which is provide birth control, education, and resources for women. Absolutely disgraceful they are't getting the support they need from other organizations, especially women's health ones. Koman just lost a person for any awareness walks or donations.

[thebigmole]

Saw this all over Facebook today.

[Revolution]

[Jocelyn.]

I quite enjoyed this one...

[dr2005]

In the interests of balance, I feel I should point out the allegations that Planned Parenthood does not actually provide mammograms (source), plus an article in the Washington Times challenging the percentages alluded to above. On their own I don't consider them conclusive, but they are perhaps worth bearing in mind.

As for the OP...leaving aside the whole abortion yay-or-nay aspect, I am of the view that a privately-run charitable trust has the right to decide whether it supports other not-for-profit organisations or not, much as the public has the right to decide whether to donate to it or not. If Susan G. Komen believes the money is better used by other providers (which appears to be the implication) then that is their right. Does it mean we have to agree with it? No. But provided there is continuity of care and the end purpose of the charity continues, I feel the level of opprobrium and vitriol (and in one case, hacking) being meted out is bordering on the extravagant side. Planned Parenthood is not the sole provider of these healthcare services, after all.

[Rosana]

Originally Posted by dr2005

In the interests of balance, I feel I should point out the allegations that Planned Parenthood does not actually provide mammograms

Just so you know, Live Action is the same group that pretended to be pimps trying to get abortions for underage girls, and then accused PP of not calling the feds (which they did). They also put out this terrible video: We Are The Youth (in which one teens lover was apparently aborted). which was demolished by this much better one: Live Action on Abortion.

And boohoo, [quote] a Live Action actor calls 30 Planned Parenthood clinics in 27 different states.[/QUOTE There are over 800 locations in the states. Not every location has to have mammogram machine because there are about 15 clinics for each state. In the Live action "study" they called about 1 location for 27 states. Not a great sample.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Rosana

Just so you know, Live Action is the same group that pretended to be pimps trying to get abortions for underage girls, and then accused PP of not calling the feds (which they did). They also put out this terrible video: We Are The Youth (in which one teens lover was apparently aborted). which was demolished by this much better one: Live Action on Abortion.

And boohoo, a Live Action actor calls 30 Planned Parenthood clinics in 27 different states.[/QUOTE There are over 800 locations in the states. Not every location has to have mammogram machine because there are about 15 clinics for each state. In the Live action "study" they called about 1 location for 27 states. Not a great sample.

I do know that, and with respect that is a prime example of missing the point. Planned Parenthood has argued that its primary function is as a healthcare provider rather than as an abortion provider - all I was attempting to point out was that this has been challenged. Not "proven to be false", challenged. I actually made the point of saying "I don't consider them conclusive", ergo, do some wider reading. I chose those two sources because they best illustrated the point I was making. If you would prefer, this article (which otherwise criticises Live Action relentlessly) concedes that Planned Parenthood clinics themselves (in this instance, in Texas) do not provide the service directly but do so via "outside organisations". Translation: acting as referral centre, not healthcare provider. My concern was that up to that point in the thread, you'd come to the conclusion Planned Parenthood had never been criticised at all and acts as a bona fide healthcare provider comparable with hospitals, which is wide of the mark to put it mildly.

On the statistics point, the sample size works out at around 4% which is acceptable by most accounts (and certainly better than surveys such as the British Social Attitudes Survey which works out at 0.00005%) and provided it was done with random probability sampling that would suffice as statistically meaningful. That's not to say it was necessarily - I don't know enough to comment either way - but merely to point out that focusing on sample size alone can lead to erroneous conclusions.

[thebigmole]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...thood-funding/
I'm glad they reversed it but they certainly are fickle.

[Jocelyn.]

Nice. I honestly wasn't expecting that.

[Revolution]

I think they realized that most people that support women's health...support breast health. They were def going to lose me from any awareness walks, that's for sure.