The battle for Planned Parenthood

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
Catchfire Catchfire's picture
The battle for Planned Parenthood

Some of you may be aware of the ongoing assault on Planned Parenthood in the United States, amidst increasingly heated anti-choice rhetoric (with a Democrat in the White House). PP has been under investigation in congress for a variety of spurious reasons (often supported with blatantly false statistics), but with very serious consequences.

The latest peak in this battle hit last week when the nation’s leading breast-cancer charity, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, announced it would halt its partnerships with Planned Parenthood affiliates. This action sparked widespread denunciation of the move, mostly visible on social media sites.

Well some good news: feministing reports that Komen has backtracked on its PP divorce, with an ambiguously worded retraction which still leaves permanent funding up in the air:

Quote:
The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

Still, the message is clearly not: exhale. But rather, batten down the hatches, Planned Parenthood. The bandits are still coming.

 

Issues Pages: 
Unionist

Thanks so much for this update, CF.

Planned Parenthood in Canada changed its name some years ago to the [url=http://www.cfsh.ca/]Canadian Federation for Sexual Health[/url]. Back in 2006, they were eloquent in their opposition to Harper's first Omnibus Crime Bill - in particular, to raising the age of consent from 14 to 16, which they pleaded would inhibit real victims from coming forward for fear of being criminalized, or criminalizing others and suffering retaliation. Their pleas went unheard (even by some babblers at the time), and to their lasting shame, every single MP of every party supported this draconian bill (which also discriminated against anal sex consent) with one exception - Bill Siksay - and he was disciplined for voting the right way.

Historians may wish to review some of the lively debate of the time:

http://archive.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=005998

http://archive.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=005787

http://archive.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=007095

http://archive.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=007085

Anyway, this is slight thread drift, but my point is this - organizations like Planned Parenthood, or the CFSH, which speak the truth based on daily experience of educating and assisting girls and women (and others) in need, are unmistakably in the gun sights of Harper. We should listen to them and mobilize in their defence.

 

Michelle

This is yet another good reason for me not to support illness charities.  (The main ones being that government should fund research into illness, illness charities don't look at bigger societal and systemic causes of illness and instead focus on campaigns that blame individuals for their behaviour so that they don't offend the corporate donors that keep them in jobs, etc. and so forth.)

Women's (and men's) donation dollars would be much better spent supporting Planned Parenthood directly, or organizations that fight the political reasons behind society's ills.  And yes, sometimes you don't get a tax receipt for doing so, if the organization is actually committed to publicizing root causes that might be political.  Oh well.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Right on, Michelle.

Komen's group also withdrew support for embryonic stem cell research being conducted by a number of US universities. It's a shame that so much research is dependent on direct corporate support or indirect support through heavily corporate sponsored charities. No wonder advancements that would eliminate disease rather than contain them as a chronic condition rarely happen.

 

NorthReport
Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Komen VP resigns over Planned Parenthood debacle

Quote:
A high-ranking official resigned Tuesday from the Susan G. Komen for the Cure breast-cancer charity after a dispute over whether the group should give funding to Planned Parenthood, according to a letter obtained by The Associated Press.

Karen Handel, the charity's vice president for public policy, told Komen officials that she supported the move to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood. She said the discussion started before she arrived at the organization and was approved at the highest levels of the charity.

"I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it," Handel said in her letter. "I openly acknowledge my role in the matter and continue to believe our decision was the best one for Komen's future and the women we serve."

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

So somewhat lost (at least on babble) in the guffawing over the whole Newt-Gingritch-calling-Sandra-Fluke-a-slut hubub, has been Fluke's measured, eloquent and potent defence for contraception funding for students and low-income women. To wit:

Quote:
Many women cannot medically use the least expensive types of contraception. As a result, many women, especially those 18 to 34 who have the most trouble affording contraception, simply go without. They face any number of medical risks as well as unintended pregnancy -- all of which damage their productivity and the health of their families.

Most recently, certain political commentators have started spreading misinformation about the underlying government regulation we are discussing. To be clear, through programs such as Medicaid, the government already does and should fund contraception coverage for the poorest women in our country.

But, despite the misinformation being spread, the regulation under discussion has absolutely nothing to do with government funding: It is all about the insurance policies provided by private employers and universities that are financed by individual workers, students and their families -- not taxpayers.

I am talking about women who, despite paying their own premiums, cannot obtain coverage of contraception on their private insurance, even when their employer or university contributes nothing to that insurance.

Restricting access to such a basic health care service, which 99% of sexually experienced American women have used and 62% of American women are using right now, is out of touch with public sentiment. In fact, more than 60% of Americans support this regulation and affordable access to contraception, according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.

Attacking me and women who use contraception by calling us prostitutes and worse cannot silence us.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Ha! Thanks CA. Wrong conservative blowhard. Rush Limbaugh indeed.

CanadaApple

Catchfire wrote:

So somewhat lost (at least on babble) in the guffawing over the whole Newt-Gingritch-calling-Sandra-Fluke-a-slut hubub, has been Fluke's measured, eloquent and potent defence for contraception funding for students and low-income women. To wit:

I thought that was Rush Limbaugh?

CanadaApple

Catchfire wrote:

Ha! Thanks CA. Wrong conservative blowhard. Rush Limbaugh indeed.

Well, in fairness, when I was younger I think I thought they were the same person. = P