Komen vs. Planned Parenthood

This really does amuse me:

America\’s largest breast cancer advocacy group has been forced to make a self-abasing retraction of its plan to cut funding for Planned Parenthood following a huge outcry against the decision.

Yes, yes, I know the politics. If you\’re against breast cancer then you\’re in favour of all sorts of wimmins\’ stuff like abortion and freebie contraceptives.

The thing is though, if you were really against breast cancer then you\’d be in favour of all women bringing one pregnancy to term and then breast feeding. For that\’s actually one of the (if not the) greatest risk factor for breast cancer: not having brought to term and breast fed.

So the slogan shouldn\’t be about female choice or anything like that: should instead be you can only kill one if you\’re already got one.

Something of a difficult sell I agree but logic over politics can lead you into some very strange places.

12 thoughts on “Komen vs. Planned Parenthood”

  1. So the slogan shouldn’t be about female choice or anything like that: should instead be you can only kill one if you’re already got one.

    Why not go the whole hog and enforce “Buy one, get one free”?

  2. So Much For Subtlety

    They could run the slogan “Feminism Kills”. But that isn’t going to fly.

    Feminism has been hijacked by political extremists so much so that even breast cancer needs to be on the Team. And if a charity is not on the Team, they need to be bullied until they are.

  3. I’m puzzled by this.

    If people give money to a breast cancer charity, wouldn’t they expect that money to be used to help deal with breast cancer?

    And isn’t it a breach of trust (not to mention charity law) to dish the cash out to a completely different cause (even if that other cause were good)?

    Or is there some link between the two (other than Tim’s negative one) that I don’t know of?

  4. Komen was giving money to Planned Parenthood to pay for breast examinations. The it decided not to because it objects to PP’s involvement in terminations (it gave a slightly different reason, but on one believes it). Then there was a hoo-hah and it changed its mind again.

  5. “Planned Parenthood” had loads of clinics and provided Komen-funding-assisted breast cancer screening services in some (19?) of them.

    The “Christian Right” myth is that, iirc, 90% of what PP do is abortion. I believe it is much closer to 5%.

  6. actually it appears what PP were doing was purchasing mammograms from a 3rd party. Komen wanted to cut out the middle man. Not unreasonably, setting aside the abortion debate for one moment.

    Feeling quite pleased about the bring-to-term and breastfeeding business though as I was actually breastfeeding my son as I read this.

  7. Feminism has been hijacked by political extremists

    No no no. That’s like saying Communism was hijacked, or Nazism was hijacked. The extremism is the core, not a perversion of something noble.

  8. Komen wanted to cut out the middle man. Not unreasonably, setting aside the abortion debate for one moment.

    Now, if that is true (which it may be) why didn’t they say so. Because that might have avoided quite a lot of strife.

    Having appointed a senior and (as most of them are) violently anti-abortion Republican as senior VP for PR, their motives are legitimately called in to question.

  9. You are confused: if something is called a “risk factor” it typically means that they have no evidence that reducing it will reduce the incidence of the illness – all they have is a correlation.

  10. what IanB said.

    and, from the telegraph:

    “Logistically, Komen is no great loss to Planned Parenthood. They donated $700,000 last year, a grand total of 0.058 percent of Planned Parenthood’s annual revenue. This is nothing compared to the $360 million that the US government gives the organisation every year (33 percent of their total budget).”

    soooo …. why the fuck do these people need over $1billlion a year?????

  11. why the fuck do these people need over $1billlion a year?

    Because health-care in the USA is big, big business. They run some 800 health care centres – so that’s roughly $1million a pop, or £600k making some wild assumptions about central / pan-organisation costs.

    If you compare that to UK GMS contracts (and, yes, I appreciate they are providing a more specialist service), that’s the equivalent (very roughly) of a 3 GP non-dispensing practice.

    Or, looking at it another way, it runs on about 5 times the annual income of Marie Stopes. Despite us having both the NHS and a less religiously-enforced attitude to sexual health issues.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *