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

[level-head.livejournal.com]

While the monetary amounts are small, the media treatment of this leverages a relatively small event to have much greater impact.

So it became something of a self-fulfilling prophecy: statements that this funding decision was meaningful were overstated, but the notoriety of these news statements themselves made it meaningful.

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

[minor-architect.livejournal.com]

More recent financial information on the PPFA can be found here: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/annual-report-4661.htm (Their latest Form 990 covers the period of July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010.)

I doubt these new numbers will change the core of your argument but I thought you'd like to see them. :)

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

On the radio they were making Komen out to be a bad charity because of huge salaries paid to executives and them suing other charities for trademark violations? I think that sentence took longer to write than the blurb I heard on the subject though.

[tuftears.livejournal.com]

Okay, so question here is, why is one big charity giving money to another big charity? Doesn't it make sense to give money directly to those in need, or providing help to the installations that need help, rather than incur a 'double administrative overhead'?

[alltoseek.livejournal.com]

I'm not completely up on my breast cancer stuff, but things I have seen lately include:
*The BC killer is the fast-growing kind, that usually isn't caught with either mammograms or self-exams in time.
*False positives on mammograms and self-exams cause a lot more headaches, tests, doctor visits, aggressive treatment of mild forms of slow-growing cancers, etc. than they prevent deaths via the aggressive cancer.
*Not everyone thinks annual mammograms are that great an idea, although I think the mainstream doctors' establishments still recommend it.

So in all I think I'd prefer if Komen directed their efforts towards curing/preventing/treating cancer, ameliorating its effects on patients and survivors, than to education.

If you are really looking to reduce cancer through education/prevention, you'll focus on stopping smoking and proper nutrition. Women in developed countries are more likely to get breast cancer in part to eating excessively, so it's also linked to the 'obesity epidemic'.

The aggressive breast cancer is genetic-linked, and also affects men.

[terrana.livejournal.com]

I think I missed whatever this is a response to. Am I correct to assume something loud and shouty has occurred between the two aforementioned charities?