funding-for-breast-cancer « WordPress.com Tag Feed

Conclusion

alexlugovina — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:00:39 +0000

I felt encouraged and uplifted by the world’s social media response to this controversy. I fear the constant chipping away at women’s reproductive rights and health care by right wing politicians. The response to Planned Parenthood showed me that it isn’t just politicians who will decide on what services I, as a woman can receive, but that everyone can have a voice in the political process. This controversy generated steady communication with tweets averaging 3,000 an hour during the week and 15,000 messages posted after Komen reversed its decision. More than half of the conversation was driven by women (Belluck, 2.4)! Using social media empowers me and makes me feel like I have a voice. I tweeted, retweeted, started this blog, and signed petitions. This issue could not be hidden from the public and the public responded loudly. I believe that social media will help move political decisions on many levels from closed back rooms to the open public arena. To me, this really was democracy in action and everyone listened-people, organizations, and corporations. It also showed me that society does care about poor women, because the majority of women, who would have been affected by the cuts, were poor and unable to obtain these services on their own. I am really interested to see the long term impact on the Komen Foundation from this incident. Certainly in the short term, damage has been done to their brand. Despite the fact I do think they made a mistake, I hope that the work they have accomplished in the breast cancer field continues. Unfortunately, we are in a battle to retain our rights to reproductive health care, but we will be hard to beat with the knowledge that we can come together quickly and show our strength.

Citation:

Belluck, Pam. “Planned Parenthood receives Komen apology.” The New York Times. 4 February 2012.

The Impact on the Komen Foundation

alexlugovina — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:20:16 +0000

The controversy has not ended for Komen. There are some reports that Komen’s pink ribbon brand has been irreparably harmed. Jon Friedman in The Wall Street Journal states that “today, once a brand takes a hit, it’s exceptionally difficult for it to recover quickly — if at all. Information and opinion spread so quickly nowadays that image truly becomes reality” (Freidman 2.8). At the end of March, Komen cancelled their annual lobby day in Washington D.C. This was considered one of its most important events and was equally important to women as it drew other activists to push for government funding for a variety of programs for underserved women. (Pesta 3.28) Also at the end of March, Nancy Brinker apologized to Congress for the organization’s “mistakes” in dealing with Planned Parenthood. Brinker made the apology while asking Congress for funding for an early breast cancer detection program (Weigner 3.30).

On the other hand, the Huffington Post surveyed thirty-five corporate donors who said they would continue to support Komen even though many expressed concern that the charity had taken a political stand. To date, Komen continues to receive high ratings from independent research groups such as Charity Navigator. Komen continues to be the only organization that fights breast cancer through four avenues: research , globally, advocacy and in local communities (“Philanthropy”). Only time will tell what the true impact of the controversy will be on the Komen Foundation.

Next: But what does this all mean for women? Read my next blog-The Impact on Women

Citations:

Friedman, Jon. “Susan G. Komen: A beloved brand in ruins.” The Wall Street Journal. 8 February 2012. <http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-02-08/commentary/31040720_1_susan-g-komen-planned-parenthood-pink-ribbon>

Opinion Staff. “Komen controversy: The pink ribbon’s ugly new image.” Los Angeles Times. 2 February 2012. <http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2012/02/komen-controversy-pink-ribbon-ugly-new-image.html>

Pesta, Abigail. “Komen Kills Major Lobbying Day, Urges People Not to Abandon Women.” The Daily Beast. 28 March 2012. <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/28/komen-kills-major-lobbying-day-urges-people-not-to-turn-backs-on-women.html>

Weinger, Mackenzie. “Brinker apologizes to Congress. Politico. 30 March 2012. <http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=40139A93-5728-4C2B-A718-4D88383AEE88>

http://philanthropy.com/blogs/philanthropytoday/corporate-donors-continue-support-for-komen/44593

Komen's Response

alexlugovina — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 19:14:19 +0000

Meanwhile, Komen was quiet on the digital end. While Planned Parenthood had a statement out and tweet posted less than 30 minutes after AP broke the story, Komen was silent. Nothing on their website, no tweets, no comments. It wasn’t until Wednesday that Nancy Brinker, Komen’s founder and CEO posted a video statement on their website and tweeted a mere six times. The next day (2 February 2012), Brinker agreed to a live TV interview with Andrea Mitchell. The interview did not help as Brinker denied that Planned Parenthood had been cut as Komen would honor “current grants” which would expire before the end of the year. Brinker also denied that politics had any impact on their decision (“MSNBC“).

By Friday, February 3^rd, the Komen Foundation reversed its decision. Nancy Brinker posted a statement on Komen’s website that said, “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. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants” (Belluck, 2.4).

The controversy did not end there however. It continued into the next week with continuous accusations of the decision being politically motivated and with Komen’s vice president for public policy, Karen Handel, resigning.

Karen Handel had run unsuccessfully for governor of Georgia in 2010 and had made a point of saying that if she won, she would defund Planned Parenthood because of her antiabortion beliefs. Handel admitted supporting Komen’s policy decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood, but denied having any authority to make the policy (Sun and Kliff, 2.7).

By the end of March, five other Komen executives and its board chair, LaSalle D. Leffall Jr. resigned. Although some cited personal reasons for their resignations, unidentified sources said the resignations were due to Komen’s original decision to defund Planned Parenthood (Sun and Kliff, 3.22).

Next: Lessons Learned-Part I

Citations:

Belluck, Pam. “Planned Parenthood receives Komen apology.” The New York Times. 4 February 2012.

Mitchell, Andrea. Interview with Nancy Brinker. <http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/02/10303379-andrea-mitchell-interviews-susan-g-komens-nancy-brinker>

Sun, Lena H. and Kliff, Sarah. “Komen vice president resigns as details emerge on Planned Parenthood debate.” The Washington Post. 7 February 2012.

Sun, Lena H. and Kliff, Sarah. “Komen board chair steps down, citing Howard University duties.” The Washington Post. 22 March 2012

Planned Parenthood and the Komen Foundation-Part I

alexlugovina — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:49:39 +0000

Planned Parenthood embraced social media and continued to engage with its constituents through its website, Facebook, and Twitter. In early 2012, the work Planned Parenthood put into building social networks and social capital showed the world the power of social media. A controversy arose between the Komen Foundation and Planned Parenthood.

The Komen Foundation, officially entitled the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation, is “the world’s largest grassroots network of breast cancer survivors and activists fighting to save lives, empower people, ensure quality care for all and energize science to find the cures” for breast cancer. Since its founding in 1982, Komen has invested more than $1.9 billion for breast cancer research, education, advocacy, health services and social support programs in the United States and 50 countries worldwide (“Komen”).

Komen has become a fundraising juggernaut through cause marketing of its famous pink ribbon symbol and “Race for the Cure” events. The races are a series of 5K and fitness walks held throughout the world and with over 1.5 million participants each year. Komen reports that up to 75 percent of the net income from each race stays in the local community to fund breast health education and breast cancer screening and treatment programs. The remaining 25 percent goes toward breast cancer research (“I Am the Cure”).

In terms of cause marketing, Komen’s marketing savvy president, Nancy Brinker, has turned its pink ribbon into a multibillion dollar business. Brinker has tied linked Komen to a long list of brands and products including the entire National Football League, Yoplait yogurt, clothing, and makeup. In 2010, the foundation generated $420 million from this marketing. With this tremendous financial success, Komen became the largest advocate for breast cancer in the United States (Singer 10.15).

So what was the relationship between the Komen Foundation and Planned Parenthood?

Next: An Army of Advocates

Citations:

“Our Work.” Susan G. Komen for the Cure. <http://ww5.komen.org/AboutUs/OurWork.html>

Prately, Sara, Killough, Ashley and Merica, Dan. “Susan G. Komen drops funding for Planned Parenthood.” CNN Politics. 31 January 2012.

“Public Funding for Abortion.” American Civil Liberties Union. 21 July 2004. <http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/public-funding-abortion>.

Singer, Natasha. “Welcome, Fans, to the Pinking of America.” The New York Times. 15 October 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/business/in-the-breast-cancer-fight-the-pinking-of-america.html?pagewanted=all>

<http://www.iamthecure.org/home/html>

<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/31/susan-g-komen-drops-funding-for-planned-parenthood/>