Top Susan G. Komen official resigns in protest of Planned Parenthood funding cuts as Komen backs down

A top official at Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Mollie Williams, resigned in protest over its funding cuts for breast cancer --- not abortion --- procedures at Planned Parenthood, according to a source, but as criticism continued to grow, Komen on Friday reversed the cuts it had made just three days prior.

Update: A statement from CEO Nancy Brinker said the foundation had changed its mind, and read:

“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."

You can read more details on the backing down of Komen at our further coverage here.

Williams had been Susan G. Komen's director of community health programs. Her resignation comes as public and political criticism continues to escatlate after the news of the Komen funding cuts, earlier this week.

In an email, while not addressing directly her reasons for resigning, Williams made her views clearly known: "I have dedicated my career to fighting for the rights of the marginalized and underserved. And I believe it would be a mistake for any organization to bow to political pressure and compromise its mission."

Susan G Komen has said that the decision was non-political, but the furor around the change has arisen because many believe that the decision was indeed political in nature. Publicly, Komen has said that the decision stems from an "inquiry" by a Republican congressman. That congressman, Cliff Stearns, a Republican of Florida, however is said to be acting with prompting from anti-abortion activists. The inquiry has been called a "witch hunt" by Planned Parenthood supporters.

New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg made his feelings on the politics of the matter clear when he announced a private donation of $250,000 of his own funds to Planned Parenthood. He said, "Politics have no place in health care. Breast cancer screening saves lives and hundreds of thousands of women rely on Planned Parenthood for access to care. We should be helping women access that care, not placing barriers in their way."

In Washington, 26 U.S. senators, all Democrats except for independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont, signed a letter calling on Susan G. Komen to reconsider its decision. "It would be tragic if any woman -- let alone thousands of women -- lost access to these potentially lifesaving screenings because of a politically motivated attack."

California state Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima), who has volunteered for years as one of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure "Pink Tie Guys," who wear pink ties at public events to raise awareness about breast cancer, said those days are over. In a statement, he said, "Komen has placed its supporters in the untenable position of aligning themselves with acquiescence to the agenda of the religious right, or aligning themselves with healthcare and breast cancer organizations that will not bow to such pressures. The choice is clear to me. I choose the latter."

At the same time, while Susan G. Komen continues to say the decision was non-political, MSNBC reports that a source with "direct knowledge of decision-making" said that Komen's changed grant-making criteria were developed with deliberateness, designed to target Planned Parenthood. The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals, said --- confirming what many have already said --- that Karen Handel, who was hired by Komen last year as vice president for public policy was a big driver behind the changes.

Handel was hired after losing a campaign for governor in Georgia. A conservative, during her campaign she stressed her anti-abortion views and frequently denounced Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood, although part of its services include abortion (non-funded by federal dollars), performed 750,000 breast cancer screenings last year. Whether or not you agree with abortion, many are asking why you would deny screenings to those who could obtain life-saving treatment, many poor and minorities.

Others, believing the move to be based on conservative political views, have said that it points to the right-wing view of removing the social safety net of America. The argument has become an Occupy Wall Streeter's dream focal point --- the One Percent do not need Planned Parenthood for treatment, only the poor and disenfranchised.

Susan G. Komen is a national organization, but some of its affiliates have voiced disagreement with the decision. All seven Komen affiliates in California, in a joint letter to their congressional delegation, said they were "strongly opposed" to the change. The letter said, in part, "Our commitment to our mission is unwavering. This is a misstep in that journey and ... we will do whatever it takes to do what is right for the health of women and men in California."

While Williams has already resigned, in New York City, a member of that Komen affiliate's medical advisory board, Dr. Kathy Plesser, a radiologist, said she would resign if the decision wasn't reversed soon. "Komen is a wonderful organization and does tremendous things for women, but this is straying from their mission. It's sad."

Already, fallout against the Komen brand is occurring. Among them, the American Association of University Women said it was ending plans to offer a Komen Race for the Cure as one of the activities at its upcoming National Conference for College Women Student Leaders. It stated, clearly, that the decision it made was in protest over Komen's decision.

Lisa Maatz, the association's director of public policy, said, "AAUW is disappointed that some are playing politics with women's health and jeopardizing care for the most vulnerable among us."

There is also concern --- or rather opinion --- by some that Komen will be the one taking the hit from this decision.

Among them, Melissa Berman, chief executive of nonprofit Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisers, which counsels wealthy donors who give more $200 million a year said, "There's a long-term weakening of the Susan G. Komen brand from this decision. We would see donors reluctant to be involved with a charity whose decision-making gets influenced by short-term pressures and politics because you would always wonder who is really in charge."

Source
Source
Image Source: Wikimedia Commons

Comment and add to the story without registration, but keep the comments meaningful please. Links are not accepted.