Tell the board of Susan G. Komen: Don't throw Planned Parenthood under the bus!

[bmccasland]

I wonder if the conservative right in DC are paying attention - IE what would be the political reprecussions if they push overturning Roe v Wade? I'm thinking that they didn't expect the uproar that SBK created with their decision and reversal (not that they're bowing to political pressure ).

[Reesha]

Someone with keen observation skills over at The Atlantic in the comments section noted that this statement released by Komen...

"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."

...implies that they reserve the right to not renew their current grant. The current grant isn't being canceled, but they are saying we don't have to renew those grants. It really doesn't say anything at all.

[smilingcat]

well my money is going directly to PP and other organizations. Komen foundation will never get another dime from me. Finding out that they are only giving 25% to actual breast cancer... What is up with that??

Nope!! NADA. Marketing people do say that it takes years to develop a GOOD brand recognition and only a second to destroy it. They certainly did.

[Gypsy]

For the first time EVER, I saw a Komen commercial on TV last night. I don't know if that was a local ad or a national one.

Seen on Facebook: "We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that resulted in completely unexpected scrutiny of our CEO's unconscionably high salary, obscenely high overhead to actual good ratio, longstanding links to Republican politicians, huge budget for taking oppressive legal actions against other charities that dare use the word 'cure,' vast marketing and lobbying budgets, and long-standing history of secretly lobbying against federal assistance to women with breast cancer.

Based upon the last ten years, we truly had no idea that we couldn't do whatever the hell we wanted with gullible contributors' money. We thought that the corpse of our CEO's sister was an impenetrable shield that protected all of our actions from scrutiny or accountability. We appreciate your support while we try to figure out WTF has changed.

However, although the sudden spike in scrutiny and precipitous drop in fundraising and sponsorships scared the crap out of us, we want to assure all of you that, even as we desperately attempt to salvage something out of the conflagration burning our brand to the ground, we will continue to flat-out lie to your face and generally assume you are all still such credulous imbeciles that we can shamelessly stick to obvious falsehoods or change our story from minute to minute as whim or panic dictate.
Now please stop looking into our finances, lobbying and legal activities and strong political connections with right wing politicians. Stop it right now or Susan will be angry, very angry with you. Thank you."

[indysteel]

Do you have a link to that passage from Facebook, Gypsy? I must pass that on.

[Wahine]

That is excellent and I would love the link too.

[Reesha]

LOL! It makes me laugh ruefully.

[Gypsy]

This has taken on meme-like proportions. Here is a wall that has the quote publicly: https://www.facebook.com/people/Phil...063903?sk=wall

You need to scroll down to find it.

[BodhiTree]

I only made a small donation ($100) to SGK last year. I won't make any donation next year at all because only $24 of this year's donation did any good. My small donation became a miniscule donation in regards to actual cancer work thanks to that 76% going to overhead.

[BikeDutchess]

I'm haven't been a fan of SBKF for a while, and this week's debacle certainly did nothing to change my mind. I'm just curious where the "76% overhead" number is coming from? When I look at their Audited Financial Statements (income statement on p.3), I see the following:

Public Support (i.e., donations) $420M
Other Income $19M
=Total Public Support & Revenue $439M

Program Services (research, education, screening/health services) $334M
Supporting Services (i.e., overhead) $75M
=Total Expenses $409M

=Net Increase in Assets (the non-profit version of earnings) $30M

Looks like overhead is just under 18% of donations and just over 18% of expenses. Page 11 confirms program services are 82% of expenses. So where are those extreme overhead numbers coming from?

[BodhiTree]

I got them from earlier in this thread.

-----------

"But I wonder if it is too late and too many skeletons in the closet have been exposed. I saw somewhere that only 24% of donations go to charities. 76% overhead? WTH? I'd research it but I've never been a big fan of theirs any way.

http://www.dallasnews.com/incoming/2...od-funding.ece "


-----------

I should have checked them for validity. I am sorry. I simply assumed SadieKate's source was correct.

[Melalvai]

According to Charity Navigator, programming expense is 80.5%.

[Owlie]

You know, when I read this thread, I have my screen resolution set so that on the main page, the thread title reads "Tell the board of Susan G. Komen..."

My brain inserts rude phrases at the end.

[Grits]

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/381282/april-11-2011/pap-smears-at-walgreens

This is hilarious, but sad, at the same time. That politicians can make such absurdly incorrect statements and then feel that they can use the excuse that they never meant it to be factual? WTH?

[Trek420]

Thanks for reminding me, I'm do for my annual Pap. Off to Walgreens.