I Am Going to Regret This: on Komen and Planned Parenthood

[rowyn]

To start:

(A) I like Planned Parenthood. During my college-student years, I obtained birth control pills through them, and because they had a policy that required annual exams to get birth control pills, I actually had regular health screenings and tests for . It was pretty much the only medical care I received during my years uninsured. Their services were cheap and professional.

(B) I like Susan G. Komen for the Cure. I do not have fond personal memories of them as I do PP, and I think they spend too much money on "education" (as opposed to screening, treatment or research programs). But a large part of breast cancer prevention is convincing women to do self-exams and get mammograms, and breast cancer is a big killer of women that is mostly preventable if caught in a timely fashion. So I can't say the education is wasted.

Given that I like both charities and think they do good work, you'd think I might have mixed feelings about Komen's recent de-funding and re-funding of grants to Planned Parenthood.

As it happens, though, all I can think is that this is one darn silly inconsequential kerfluffle.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure has total assets of almost $500,000,000. Its total expenses, including grants, were over $400,000,000.

I can't readily find current financial information for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, but their 2008 balance sheet showed $1,078,000,000 in total assets.

Komen's last grant to PP was $680,000. That figure represents about:

• 0.14% of Komen's total assets 2011 *


• 0.06% of Planned Parenthoods total assets 2008

* Yes, I'd rather compare this to expenses and revenue for a more apples-and-apples effect, but I can't find expenses for PPFA at all, so assets it is.

The point is, the amount of money at stake here is tiny for either charity. PPFA is not going to shut down without money from Komen. Komen is not going to be providing Funds for Abortions if they grant money to PPFA for breast-care services**. Komen can still do plenty of good whether or not it grants less than half a percent of its revenues to PP. It is Just Not That Big a Deal. It is not proof that one side or the other is Losing the Abortion Debate. It is such a tiny amount that it doesn't even get a footnote on either's financial statement.

** Yes, PP provides breast exams and related services. Most of their services are health-care related, and not connected to either contraception (about a third of their services) or abortion (3%). For a lot of low-income, uninsured women -- just like me sixteen years ago -- PP is their main health care provider, sad as that is.

The only good thing that came out of any of this is that a bunch of people who are passionately for or against abortion gave a lot of money that they probably wouldn't've thought to donate otherwise to two perfectly good causes. -.-

Comments

[tuftears.livejournal.com]

*ponder*

I guess the real news is the gotcha of indirection. You imagine that you are supporting cause A, then you find out the charity is giving money to cause B. If you didn't like cause B, you might feel betrayed.

I can see the rationale behind big charity giving to smaller charity, or to charity that actually has clinics and support facility. That makes sense. And I personally agree that giving money to support women in need should include providing breast cancer exams and health screening. So it's not a big deal to me either. I just fuss about efficiency because, well, we like to know MOST of our money is going to a good cause.

[rowyn]

Honestly, I don't think Komen or other charities like this are being particularly deceptive by granting funds to other charities. United Way doesn't make any secret of being a broad-based clearinghouse funding all kinds of charitable organizations. Komen provides funding for breast cancer education, prevention, treatment, & research -- I think *they* are a little more deceptive because their name is "for the Cure", but a lot of their funds go to education, but that's not because they're granting money to other charities so the other charities can do breast cancer education, prevention, treatment, & research work.

I mean, it's kind of like saying Apple is being deceptive when they sell you an iPad because you think Apple is an American company but it turns out that the iPad is assembled in China, or has components from Japan. I can certainly see people being upset about Apple having Chinese factories (especially given Chinese labor laws or lack thereof), or about Komen giving money to Planned Parenthood. But I think that these are things that don't worry *most* people, and that means that the minority for whom it's a dealbreaker needs to do a little research. Charities can be transparent about what they do with the money -- Komen generally is -- and that's good. But there are too many things that someone, somewhere, might object to for some reason. When you're selling your charity on a 25-word pitch, you can't possibly mention them all.

[level-head.livejournal.com]

"Where you money is going" applies to purchases as well as charities. For a long time, you could by a Honda or Toyota (built in the US) or a Chevy (built in Canada) or a Pontiac (built in South Korea).

One's perception of nationality of vehicle can be very far from the reality. I bought a CTS in 2003 when they first came out, partly because it was the first Cadillac in years actually built in the United States. It came from their brand-new factory in Lansing.

So for people who want to know where their money is going, a little research is useful.

Moreover, private charities are, in general, tremendously more efficient than government in accomplishing the same mission (including in terms of dollars contributed that actually reach the intended beneficiary). But with government, we don't have a choice.

===|==============/ Level Head

[level-head.livejournal.com]

When you donate money, you can mark it "restricted funds" with requirements that it be spent only on "X" (whatever you decide). That restriction is usually not involved in small donations, but often figures into larger ones.

The restrictions must be taken seriously. The charity must track restricted funds separately, and for some charities the restricted funds make up the largest part of their assets.

===|==============/ Level Head