By Dave Andrusko
After a flurry of stories extending over the weekend into today, is there anything new about the tremendous onslaught against the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure foundation for its funding decision? Yes, some of it very helpful, much of it, however, the same synthetic hysteria against Komen and its CEO and founder Susan Brinker. In Part One, we bring you up to date with a brief chronology what took place, beginning last Tuesday.
If somehow you missed the storm, a story was leaked to the Associated Press that Komen had adopted a policy that after 2012, breast health grants would not go to organizations that are under investigation by local, state, or federal authorities. Planned Parenthood cried “politics,” undertook a super-aggressive media strategy, and painted Komen as kowtowing to (or in cahoots with) “anti-choicers.”
In responding to a social media outcry, Brinker denied in interviews and in a You Tube video “the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.” At the same time Komen’s other emphasis was on how the change would increase efficiency and eliminate duplication of services, a stance it has not stepped back from.
As the orchestrated attacks increased in volume and intensity, Komen issued a very carefully worded statement that PPFA and many media outlets interpreted as a “retreat.” Brinker said, “Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.”
But Brinker did not take back the medical justifications for its decision. (Remember, Planned Parenthood does not perform mammograms; they do breast screenings and referrals.)
As the Washington Post quoted Brinker, “We were giving [Planned Parenthood] money, they were sending women out for mammograms. What we would like to have are clinics where we can directly fund mammograms.” Brinker told any reporter who would listen that Komen had “decided not to fund, wherever possible, pass-through grants.”
Since then, the story has been about how well Komen can “recover” from the attack and on a much smaller scale to what extent most of the media showed zero balance in covering the controversy. (From pro-abortion sites, there have been other stories purporting to show that Komen was influenced by “anti-choice zealots.”)
That is the focus of Part Two.
Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha
