Update: Komen Amends Planned Parenthood Decision

The not-for-profit will "will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants."

Updated: On Friday, Feb. 3, the Susan G. Komen Foundation announced that it would amend its decision regarding Planned Parenthood funding. Komen founder Nancy Brinker released this statement this morning:

We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women's lives.

The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

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. That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women. We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics - anyone's politics.

Starting this afternoon, we will have calls with our network and key supporters to refocus our attention on our mission and get back to doing our work. We ask for the public's understanding and patience as we gather our Komen affiliates from around the country to determine how to move forward in the best interests of the women and people we serve.

We extend our deepest thanks for the outpouring of support we have received from so many in the past few days and we sincerely hope that these changes will be welcomed by those who have expressed their concern.

The big news for many women and survivors of breast cancer earlier this week was the decision by Susan G. Komen for the Cure to end its relationship with Planned Parenthood.

Representatives of Komen said the reason was because Planned Parenthood is under investigation in Congress — Komen is applying strict new criteria to such organizations. (Komen founder Nancy Brinker indicated a different reason during an interview yesterday.) Planned Parenthood advocates point out that the investigation is led by a conservative Republican backed by anti-abortion groups.

Planned Parenthood has more than 800 health centers across the nation and is the largest provider of abortions in the country. The organization provides affordable reproductive health care for women and men, as well as cancer screenings, including 4 million breast exams in the last 5 years.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure is the largest foundation dedicated to education and research about causes, treatment, and the search for a cure.

The two organizations had been working in partnership since 2005 to provide breast cancer screenings.

Locally, many have participated in the annual which now takes place in South Mountain Reservation. Many more women — and men — have benefitted from the organization's fundraisers and increased focus on cancer education and research.

Will Komen's decision to cut ties with Planned Parenthood affect your participation in Komen's fundraisers? Take our poll.

Occidentalist February 07, 2012 at 04:17 PM
For all who have followed this please think for yourself. Religion has fought tooth & nail to keep humanity in a perpetual state of infantile ignorance because it knows that as the world becomes smarter, their power over the ignorant would diminish. Priests would not be able to live off the money of their sheep if people began to realize what a scam religion was. All of our scientific advancements & knowledge was gained in spite of religion. Religion thought the Earth was flat, science proved it was spherical. Religion thought the Earth was the center of the universe, science proved that not only was the sun the center of our solar system but the universe was huge. Religion thought thunder & lightning were the work of gods, science proved the natural causes behind these. Religion claimed gods were the source of storms @ sea. Science revealed these to be hurricanes.The only people who still call hurricanes "acts of God" are those who write insurance forms. And priests. Don't just accept what the pastor says as factual. Unless he was there billions of years ago and can prove it all he has is speculation. The evidence for god is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that is getting smaller and smaller as time goes on. Believe in yourself. Don't attribute your good traits or success to some invisible being. You did it. Savor this life knowing this is all we have. Make this one count. There is no afterlife. This life is not some grimy Greyhound bus stop.
Monk February 07, 2012 at 05:03 PM
Patch should just start a perpetual column: "Ask Occidentalist: Answers and Insults for All Comers!" I'm just teasing you, Occi. You come across as a rather unfeeling computer. You wrote that "[you] only take people by their words". It sounds like you are a literalist and do not allow for symbolism. How can you appreciate art and literature which is highly symbolic, or don't you? You also wrote that "there is nothing transcendent in [your] life". So, how can two sacks of chemicals like us be exchanging ideas that open each others' minds? (I know, I'm being presumptuous.) I would plead with you not to bring the Freedom From Religion Foundation's legal team down on any school system. That would be very painful to a lot of ordinary people. I would think that if you truly have the courage of your convictions, that you would not demand certain ideas be banned.
Concerned February 07, 2012 at 05:44 PM
what we have here is an avowed athiest and a fundamentalist evangelical christian agruing with one another. Both see the world in terms of absolutes from opposite ends of the spectrum. This is the definition of insanity and will go on and on and on
Occidentalist February 07, 2012 at 05:58 PM
We need to stop a moment and separate this suggestion that the only way to enjoy life is through belief in the divine. There have been hundreds of brilliant atheists and most likely more, since for thousands of years anyone who admitted to apostasy was tortured and murdered by religion. Just a quick list of some affirmed atheist musicians: Bela Bartok, Verdi, Frank Zappa, Roger Waters & Dave Gilmour, Berlioz, Brian Eno, Ravel, Rimsky-Korsakov, Sir Michael Tippett. How about authors? Isaac Asimov, Primo Levi, HP Lovecraft, Ian McEwan, Arthur Miller, Orwell, Louis Stevenson, Thom Wolfe, Vonnegut and HG Wells. Are their compositions and novels any less interesting because of their refusal to believe in the supernatural? I think the suggestion is rather offensive to be honest. I take people on their word and on their deeds. Is there something else? As for FFRF, as long as the schools my children will be attending maintain that church/state separation, there will be no fallout. The minute some overzealous teacher or principal decides to hang some religious decree from a wall or attempts to lead the school in prayer, I will be there to ensure our great Constitution is adhered to. So give your heart to jesus. Here on Earth, everyones butt belongs to the laws of the land. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars I believe the proverb goes.
Ricky February 07, 2012 at 06:09 PM
"""being born different doesn't necessarily make the difference good or acceptable"""...maybe not good or acceptable to you yourself but it should have been acceptable to be different and be born black in the south in 1955 though there were many who found it not acceptable and not good. One day somewhere in the year 2042 someone will make the same statement about what happened to persons born gay back in 2012 and how many did not accept them as equals back then.
Susan1 February 07, 2012 at 06:20 PM
While I fall on the side of believing in science, the thought of how many billions of people on the planet subscribe to a religion makes me think that these discussions are necessary. How are we all going to get along if we don't talk? Agreement is not necessary, as long as we agree on the boundaries (public schools or government come to mind). I appreciate that people have been able to have a fairly civilized discussion here.
Monk February 07, 2012 at 06:38 PM
Occi, I never suggested that the only way to enjoy life is through belief in the divine. One hedonist proves that. And I wasn't using "transcendent" to mean supernatural, but I see you were. You really are narrow in your use of language, and jump to conclusions a lot. (I don't mean you literally jump. It's a figure of speech.) Now, I am amazed that you would present yourself as such a free thinker, and yet demand absolute allegiance to one controversial interpretation of a clause of the U.S. Constitution. You are full of contradictions!
Occidentalist February 07, 2012 at 07:02 PM
Like I said, T, I take people at their words. Has it ever occurred to you that if I'm not understanding your words the way you want me to that maybe you're not explaining your position clearly? As for the term transcendent, there are numerous definitions. This is just a simple matter of me using one definition while you are using another. This is why it's important to clarify your position so that nothing gets lost in translation. As for the First Amendment, I don't think there is anything controversial about it's interpretation. What it says is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Jefferson made an interpretation of the First Amendment to his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from our Founding Fathers.
Occidentalist February 07, 2012 at 07:02 PM
In addition, there contains a specific statement in the Treaty of Tripoli (a document dictating the behavior of the USA in international affairs as it related to Tripoli), "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." So yes, I demand absolute allegiance to the Constitution as the authors of our nation intended. I don't want to see this country turned into the Christian equivalent of a Muslim theocracy like in Iran or Saudi Arabia. Dress up, wear the silly hats, and send telepathic messages to the great invisible grand pooba in the sky in your tax exempt buildings that increase the tax pressure on the rest of us citizens. Just keep it out of the public sphere.
Al Scala February 07, 2012 at 07:29 PM
Occi...then why does the Pledge of Allegiance say "One nation under God" Another thought. Yesterday you said we are all born atheists.I understand your point, however you can't scientifically prove that. You and I don't know the thoughts of a newborn baby and its progression of thought prior to its parents leading their children into their beliefs and religeon.
Al Scala February 07, 2012 at 07:38 PM
HobokenOwl......I'm just fooling around here so don't take this the wrong way. How do we know children are not born with religeon? Is there any scientific proof? Get my point?
Occidentalist February 07, 2012 at 07:47 PM
Al - "One Nation Under God" was added to the pledge in 1954. What's also funny is that the pledge was written by a Christian Socialist and there was no mention of "God" in the original pledge. The pledge has been modified 4 times, the last being the addition of "God" in 1954. Originally, the line was "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." While we're on the topic, the words "In God We Trust" was not added to paper currency until 1957. It was officially adopted as the nation's motto in 1956 and the Founding Fathers have been rolling in their graves ever since. The original motto of the USA was "E Pluribus Unum" which means, "From may, one". As for the babies being born atheist, this is absolutely provable. If babies had thoughts regarding religion before their parents indoctrinated them, then we would see Christian babies being born in India, Muslim babies in America, Hindu babies being born in Norway. Instead, we see that in various countries and regions around the world, there is one predominant religion and all babies born are indoctrinated into that religion. A quick look at Sweden and Norway, two of the most non-religious countries on Earth where the majority of the population are atheists, and you see that babies born do not have religious thoughts. If babies could think of religion, surely Christian/Muslim/Jewish babies would be born to atheist Scandinavian parents.
Occidentalist February 07, 2012 at 07:58 PM
I'd also like to point out that Prop 8 (the California gay marriage ban) was just overturned and ruled unconstitutional. Next step: Supreme Court. Civil Rights will always win against religious bigotry and prejudice. Really, the issue is already settled any way. It's just a matter of time. By and large, nobody under the age of 35 is convinced that the evil homosexuals will subvert democracy and ruin marriage and cause a population plunge or whatever other idiotic reasoning homophobes use to justify their hate of anyone who doesn't strictly like the opposite sex. That said, it sure would be nice if we could avoid making the current generation suffer while we wait for the oldsters to die off and take their hate, prejudice, bigotry, and racism to the grave with them.
B@B February 07, 2012 at 08:32 PM
Maybe it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster! (Occi, you are my new favorite poster here...)
Monk February 07, 2012 at 08:35 PM
Occi, I guess I can't condemn homosexual activity if you're telling me there is nothing wrong with repurposing something. I mean, I've used a dime to pry open a battery compartment even though it wasn't designed for that purpose.
B@B February 07, 2012 at 08:38 PM
HobokenOwl: And hopefully you will apply that same wish to yourself when you are older.
Redrider765 February 07, 2012 at 08:54 PM
No need to wish for it when some of us are older b/c it will already be broke by then.
Monk February 07, 2012 at 09:07 PM
HobokenOwl, while the urge to sexual activity can be quite strong in some, it doesn't make every act appropriate or healthy.
Occidentalist February 07, 2012 at 09:19 PM
Well how about this line of logic Tom. Men's g-spots are located up our buttholes. Our prostates. This area is reachable only by inserting something into the anus. How's that for "purpose"? If a religious person believes man is created in god's image, then logic dictates that god's g-spot is up his butthole too. If you believe god created man, then do you think he put it there with the intent that it be reached through anal sex? That would seem to indicate that not only does god think male homosexual sex is okay, but by putting the g-spot up men's butts, and since he created man in his own image, your god likes to receive anal sex! I think maybe the saying "God is Great" was rephrased from it's original incarnation: "God is Gay!" Not to mention, Jesus had two dads!
Occidentalist February 07, 2012 at 09:21 PM
lol B@B! Have you been touched by his noodley appendage? :)
Concerned February 07, 2012 at 09:28 PM
Patch, time to shut this exchange down, it has lost all coherent thought
Occidentalist February 07, 2012 at 09:33 PM
I realized my rant was a bit muddled. Here's the clearer version. You spoke of repurposing a penis in relation to gaymale sex, Tom. However let's look at known facts and the biblical timeline. 1) We know the male g-spot is the prostate which is only reachable by inserting something into the anus. 2) God created man in his image. This would suggest that god also has a g-spot up his butt. 3) God creates Adam. At this point, no woman is present. Just Adam and the god who made him. Two dudes, alone, with g-spots up their butts, only reachable by inserting something into the anus. No vaginas exist at this point. That said, then it appears, without woman present, that the original purpose of the penis, aside from urination, was to put it in a place to reach something that was too far away for a finger. I'll leave it up to you to guess where. Then god decides to create Eve. Gives her a vagina. This timeline would suggest that the original purpose of the penis was for God and Adam to have a little fun in paradise. Once he created Eve, Adam's penis was then repurposed for reproduction. So how's that line of logic? ;)
Occidentalist February 07, 2012 at 09:36 PM
Get lost Concerned, we're having fun. If you don't like it, don't read it. Simple. Isn't that the American ethos? Personal Responsibility? Take it upon yourself to remove yourself from the situation. I for one thank Patch for allowing us to have a fun discussion without over moderating it. Despite some heated moments, I think we've gained a level of respect for each other and all future exchanges will be much more civil. In return, I hope Patch is enjoying the increased traffic. :)
Al Scala February 07, 2012 at 09:39 PM
Occi...you're forgetting Lilith, Adam's first wife!
Susan1 February 07, 2012 at 10:26 PM
Wow, in 300 comments we've moved from abortion to anal sex. I have learned a lot from this thread but now I can't stop laughing. I truly love all of your passion and energy, but now I have to shut my computer so I don't have to explain this to my kids! Cheers, fellow Patchies!
Pastor Greg Boyle February 07, 2012 at 10:28 PM
I'm not afraid of science I encourage it, in fact I need it. Over 25 years ago NASA launched Voyager2 into space. It's mission, find intelligent life. The result defening silence. Scientists used to think that the moon was a source of light (not a reflection) but the oldest book of the bible had already told us it was reflected light. "behold even the moon and it shineth not..." Job 25:5 For the record I don't accept a salary, I only pay out of pocket to feed the poor, cloth the needy, visit the sick and imprisoned.
resident February 07, 2012 at 11:25 PM
Occidentalist - it is also great for advertising. Keep the comments coming. Unfortunately some people do get really nasty. When that happens it is time to check out.
William Mays February 07, 2012 at 11:26 PM
Any moron can pull some number out of his ass and put it into a book, ever considered that?
William Mays February 07, 2012 at 11:33 PM
Pastor, you do realize that it's pretty easy to determine that the moon is a source of light? The Voyager mission just verified it.
Dazed not Confused February 08, 2012 at 01:58 AM
The debates between Occi vs. the Pastor and the other bible-thumpers serve as a testament to why intelligent people are trending away from organized religion, and in particular the Creation Theory, in droves. I was especially entertained by the Pastor's explanation of the sun using up its fuel. I'd also like to comment on recreational (not procreational) SEX. Recreational sex is yummy, good for one's mental and physical health, and above all is a basic human need which cannot be suppressed. The Catholic priesthood proved that one once again most recently. If the major religions were to recognize this, along with the fact that sexual preference is inscribed into one's DNA, we could teach our children properly about sex and how to mitigate the risks. This would lead to much-needed reductions in population, unwanted unloved children, disease, divorce, poverty, hunger, sex crimes, and to return to the topic....less demand for abortion (which by the way will happen whether it's legal or not)! Unfortunately when it comes to organized religion, an overhyped book written thousands of years ago by a person or people trumps logic every time.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »