EDITORIAL: A darker shade of pink
The developing controversy surrounding the Susan G. Komen Foundations' decision last December, revealed this week, to suspend funding of breast cancer screenings for low-income women at Planned Parenthood clinics once again reminds us of the seemingly irreconcilable differences between the so called "Pro Life" and "Pro Choice" movements.
The scandal shows the influence personal conviction regarding the issue, however well-intentioned, has on Americans, and it is an example of politics interfering with a universally recognized good cause.
The conflict boils down to a rule adopted by the foundation to suspend funding to any organization under formal investigation by a government body. Upon its investigation by Florida Congressman Cliff Stearns, a staunch anti-abortion advocate, the Komen Foundation immediately suspended funding of Planned Parenthood's breast cancer screening program for low-income women.
The move appears to be a calculated tactic by Komen's Senior Vice President for Public Policy Karen Handel, a former Georgia gubernatorial candidate and anti-abortion campaigner. The intention of the inquiry policy was transparent enough that upon its adoption, Mollie Williams, Komen's head public policy expert, resigned in protest when the decision was made last December.
The Komen Foundation has done an incredible job of increasing breast cancer awareness and advocating for research and care.
The color pink itself, from ribbons to yogurt lids to Major League Baseball bats, has become a recognized advocate for awareness and support.
Their accomplishments as a nonprofit deserve and regularly receive praise — all of which makes the Planned Parenthood controversy even more upsetting.
Though Planned Parenthood is indeed an organization that provides abortion services at some clinics, cutting off funding for purely breast cancer prevention-related services because of that fact paints an extremely radical picture of their work.
According to 2009 data obtained by The Washington Post, abortion services made up only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood's $11.4 million worth of provided services. Far ahead of abortion, cancer screening and prevention makes up 16 percent, statistics that clearly refute the notion that Planned Parenthood is an organization strictly focused on providing abortion services.
The organization pursued a policy of appeasing those on one side of a divide and potentially irreconcilable political issue rather than practice its stated goal of advocating for and treating breast cancer.
Breast cancer ultimately wounds and often destroys the lives and families of women on either side of the debate surrounding abortion.
The Komen Foundation has made breast cancer an issue well-known to every American household, and now is the time to fund action designed to prevent and treat the illness it has publicized so cleverly. Giving in to the political maneuvering of a Pro-Life politician may be causing preventable deaths, and that's simply unacceptable.
