Posted on 10/11/2011 4:24:56 PM PDT by wagglebee
With October as the month for breast cancer awareness and Komen for the Cure, which donates to the Planned Parenthood abortion business, holding events across the country, pro-life groups are taking a more active stance speaking out about the problems with the organization.
Texas Right to Life has launched a new effort, “Pink Ribbon Scandal, A warning to Pro-Lifers about Susan G. Komen’s ‘race against Life.”
“October is Breast Cancer Awareness month, and men and women clad in pink will gather to mourn, celebrate victories of healing, and express solidarity in their goal to eradicate breast cancer by participating in Susan G. Komen Foundation-sponsored races to fundraise for this worthy cause. Susan G. Komen, however, compromises its own mission to find a cure for breast cancer by associating with Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion provider,” the pro-life group says. “Texas Right to Life urges Susan G. Komen Foundation to stop sponsoring Planned Parenthood immediately and to start benefiting real health clinics for women. Furthermore, Texas Right to Life calls on Pro-Life individuals to boycott the Susan G. Komen Foundation and its ‘Race for the Cure’ until Komen severs all ties and affiliations with Planned Parenthood.”
The concerns over Komen are more than its donations to Planned Parenthood — which totaled $730K in 2009 and $569K in 2010.
“Many studies have linked an increased risk of developing breast cancer after an abortion, yet both Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood deny the risk abortion poses to breast health,” TRTL says.
Elizabeth Graham, the director of Texas Right to Life, says that Susan G. Komen’s partnership with Planned Parenthood is “deceiving and troubling.”
“While Komen has duped the public as a leader in breast cancer awareness and research funding, by linking arms with Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion provider, they defeat the purpose of fighting breast cancer,” Graham said.
According to the most recent data available from the Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood did over 25 percent of all abortions in the United States in 2008, a total of 324,008 abortions. In that same year, they performed zero mammograms.
Graham commented, “Komen is racing to find a cure while supporting an agency that increases the occurrence of breast cancer. An organization devoted to ending breast cancer and improving women’s health can hardly do so while supporting an abortion giant.”
“One example of this medical and ideological confusion can be found right here in Texas. Susan G. Komen of Dallas has awarded Planned Parenthood of North Texas $92,800 this year for breast health education materials and 650 mammograms for low-income and uninsured women,” Graham explained. “The website for Planned Parenthood of North Texas offers “free mammography services” to eligible women, yet investigative phone calls to each North Texas Clinic reveal that isn’t true. After a consultation at Planned Parenthood, mammogram clients are referred to real mammogram clinics. Planned Parenthood, with funds from the Komen grant, pays for the mammograms but does not actually perform them.”
“Texas Right to Life believes that women would be better served if the Susan G. Komen Foundation benefited legitimate health centers and research programs that actually perform mammography services. Funneling money through an abortion business in no way fights or decreases breast cancer, but rather undoes any progress that may have been accomplished by Komen,” she concluded.
Brian Harris, the president of Tennessee Right to Life, also recently outlined the problems his group has with Komen in a recent email.
“Some at the Komen Foundation have attempted to confuse pro-life supporters by claiming that Foundation funds distributed to Planned Parenthood are used only for mammograms. Sadly, Planned Parenthood doesn’t even perform mammograms,” he said.
“The Komen Foundation’s continued financial support for Planned Parenthood is at odds with its heroic goal of eradicating breast cancer,” Harris continued. “A growing number of studies indicate abortion as a “known risk factor” for breast cancer, including one from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center which reports a “20 to 50 percent increased chance for breast cancer among women who had had an abortion compared to women who carried their pregnancies to term.”
“Federal tax records document that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation gave more than half a million dollars to Planned Parenthood in 2010. Until such funding is halted, Tennessee Right to Life joins life-affirming individuals, organizations and churches in urging that such funds be directed away from Komen and given instead to research groups which do not promote or fund abortion facilities in any manner,” Harris said.
The Tennessee pro-life leader says his group recommends the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, Polycarp Research Institute and Coalition on Abortion / Breast Cancer as three organizations dedicated to stopping breast cancer as ones pro-life advocates can support.
Komen has kept this hidden very well from people. But the word is out. I want donations to go to cancer research not abortions.
Then avoid the American Cancer Society, which also supports/endorses research on human embryos.
********************************
Excellent!
what is their charity percentage?
I understand they are a marketing machine rather than a charity. Product sales, money from walks, it is something around 85% administrative fee out of every dollar.
In 2007, Komen spent 23.5% of total revenue on “Research for the cure”.
In 2008, Komen spent 26.7% of total revenue on “Research for the cure”.
In 2009, Komen spend 20.2% of total revenue on “Research for the cure”.
Program Expenses
80.5%
Administrative Expenses
11.8%
Fundraising Expenses
7.5%
Fundraising Efficiency
$0.09
Primary Revenue Growth
4.9%
Program Expenses Growth
8.4%
Working Capital Ratio (years)
0.52
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4509
see also:
Who knew Susan G. Komen was so litigious?
By J. DeVoy
Cynics skeptical of large “awareness-raising” organizations like Susan G. Komen for the Cure now have more to question. Breast cancer is a serious condition – one that co-blogger Tatiana Von Tauber has dedicated much effort to fighting through The Art Cure – that affected 207,090 women last year (prostate cancer affected 217,730 men). Some of these funds are being used to patrol smaller charities and ensure they don’t infringe on any of Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s 200 registered trademarks. (source.)
Komen’s strategy runs from demand letters to filing oppositions – “hundreds” of them – with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office when smaller charities try to register their trademarks. For owners of intellectual property, this is fairly routine. The long-term consequences of not patrolling and protecting a brand can lead to its devaluation into a generic or descriptive term incapable of protection. But Komen ostensibly is a charity, rather than a commercial enterprise like Coca-Cola, so people, and especially other fundraisers, expect a more sensitive approach to IP protection. Those people are wrong:
Mary Ann Tighe[] said the Komen foundation sent her a letter asking her to stop using the phrase “for a cure” in their title and to never use the color pink in conjunction with their fundraising. What bothered her most about the whole ordeal, she said, was that Komen forced her to spend money and time on legal fees and proceedings instead of raising funds for cancer. (source.) (emphasis added)
“For a cure” or “for the Cure,” doing anything “for” any “Cure” is begging for Komen’s attention. For non-lawyers who just want to help their communities, that can be a harrowing experience.
Sue Prom, who started a small dog sledding fundraiser for breast cancer called “Mush for the Cure” in Grand Marais, Minn., said she was shocked to hear from Komen’s lawyers this summer asking that she change the name of her event or face legal proceedings.
“I had to call the trademark helpline, because I had no idea what I was doing,” said Prom, who runs the annual sled race with her husband and friend. “We pay for the expenses out of our pockets, and we’ve never personally made a dime from it. We have t-shirts, sweatshirts, domain names, posters, stationery, all with ‘Mush for the Cure’ on it. What do we do with all the materials now? How are we gonna defend ourselves? We’re not like Komen.” (source.)
Look at this from the cynic’s perspective: Money going to these small charities is not money that’s going to Komen. That means less money for salaries, raises, marketing, and other administrative skimming before passing the rest on to breast cancer research. If Komen is using large urban law firms like the article suggests, it’s also paying approximately $300 per hour for a first-year associate to hunt down and stop this putative infringement.
But the goal of Susan G. Komen for the Cure isn’t to shut down other charities. In fact, they can be downright reasonable in granting limited releases of their precious intellectual property.
With the help of a team of pro bono lawyers, Kites for a Cure was able to reach a settlement with Komen: They agreed to only use the phrase “for a Cure” in conjunction with the words “lung cancer” to make the distinction clear. But Tighe said they reached a settlement only after many, many months of a free legal team working long hours each day. (source.)
Unfortunately, this conduct leaves people feeling jaded and bitter about an important issue. Not only does the expenditure of legal counsel reduce the amount of money being used for research, but the resulting negative public relations adversely affects charitable donations to these organizations and possibly in the aggregate.
Protecting brands and not being a jackass aren’t mutually exclusive goals. Maybe a financial hit will chasten Susan G. Komen for the Cure and teach them that lesson without other charities having to suffer.
http://randazza.wordpress.com/2011/01/05/who-knew-susan-g-komen-was-so-litigious/
the fact they claim ownership of “for the cure” is disgusting.
Just say no to this charity.
And the irony is that Planned Parenthood has NEVER PERFORMED A SINGLE MAMMOGRAM AND DOES NOT OWN A SINGLE MAMMOGRAM MACHINE.
What would people say if Komen was giving money to Girls Gone Wild? After all, GGW appears to be at least as interested in healthy breasts as PP is.
They also donate millions to embryonic stem cell research: http://www.lifenews.com/2011/07/19/komen-sends-millions-to-embryonic-stem-cell-research-centers/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.