Beach Peanuts

Romney REALLY Doesn't Care About "Poor Women" Nor Their Social Safety Net

Romney: Fix Holes In The Social Safety Net? That Was Last Week!

Mitt Romney opened a lot of eyes last week with this statement:

I’m not concerned about the very poor — we have a safety net there,” he said. “If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.

He claimed he was taken out of context because the poor have that "social safety net" and that he would fix any holes in it. The fact that he thinks anyone would buy that out right is laughable. His party is more than on the record as saying they'll kill any social safety net that's left in any way they can, and are working to do so most of the time. In fact it's practically a full time job with them.

Well, so much for last week's comment, out of context or otherwise. The flip-flop king is at it again. He doesn't care about "poor people" nor their social safety net. Yesterday he said this:

When Minnesota radio host Scott Hennen asked Romney whether Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the leading U.S. anti-breast cancer charity, should continue to give Planned Parenthood grants for cancer screenings and mammogram referrals, Romney said, "I don't think so."

"I also feel that the government should cut off funding to Planned Parenthood," the former Massachusetts governor added. "Look, the idea that we're subsidizing an institution which is providing abortion, in my view, is wrong. Planned Parenthood ought to stand on their own feet, and should not get government subsidy."

So to put that into "context" as per Romney's high standards, he doesn't care about "poor people" but he REALLY doesn't care about "poor women" who need health care services or breast cancer screenings from Planned Parenthood.

Furthermore, those holes in the social safety net? Romney has no plans to fix this one. He would rather rip that hole wide open and let women fall through it and quite possibly die since, in his view the government should cut funding to Planned Parenthood altogether. (Never mind that he once supported Planned Parenthood.)

Of course, this is all beside the fact that he's signed onto the sinking ship that is Susan G. Komen For The Cure. As always, his timing is impeccable.

Mitt Romney and the GOP: Welcome to the real "Death Panel."

(Art: Planned Parenthood)

Karen Handel Resigns As Victim, Turns The Tables On Komen (Updated)

(Update below)

Karen Handel resigned from the Susan G. Komen foundation today while playing the victim and seemingly placing the blame on Nancy Brinker and the Komen board for the Planned Parenthood debacle. In her letter of resignation she made herself both the hero of the right wing agenda against Planned Parenthood and women's health issue and put the blame squarely on the foundation at the same time.

While Brinker and the rest at Komen may think this ends the ugly mess, I don't think so. I think this has only made it worse and Handel will probably reap the benefits as she takes them down even further. She all but shows Brinker to be a liar when she said last week in her interview with Andrea Mitchell that Handel had nothing to do with pulling the funding out from under Planned Parenthood.

You can read the entire resignation letter here, but these excerpts speak volumes:

At the November Board meeting, the Board received a detailed review of the new model and related criteria. As you will recall, the Board specifically discussed various issues, including the need to protect our mission by ensuring we were not distracted or negatively affected by any other organization’s real or perceived challenges.   No objections were made to moving forward.

I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it.  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.  However, the decision to update our granting model was made before I joined Komen, and the controversy related to Planned Parenthood has long been a concern to the organization.......

.......Just as Komen’s best interests and the fight against breast cancer have always been foremost in every aspect of my work, so too are these my priorities in coming to the decision to resign effective immediately.  While I appreciate your raising a possible severance package, I respectfully decline.  It is my most sincere hope that Komen is allowed to now refocus its attention and energies on its mission.

Had Handel accepted a severance package, it likely would have prohibited her from talking about the matter later. Is there anyone out there who reads this letter and comes away thinking she won't be telling her side of the story at some point? If anyone at Komen does, which I doubt, that kind of thinking would be delusional.

Handel may be gone, but I doubt seriously she's going quietly. In my opinion, it's not a question of "if" she'll talk, but how soon.

Nancy Brinker says Komen must learn from their mistakes and states they are taking full accountability for the situation in her own statement today. I don't agree. If she were taking full accountability, Handel's wouldn't be the only resignation we're talking about today.

Brinker may well believe she swept this little problem under the rug, but what she seems to fail to realize is that's nearly impossible to do if the rug is on fire.

(Update)

Literally within minutes of publishing this post, Karen Handel popped up on Fox-GOP-TV. There wasn't much in the interview that wasn't in her resignation letter. She continues to play the victim and claims she took no severance package because it was "the right thing to do" as Komen is a non-profit.

No comment.

Komen And Planned Parenthood By The Numbers

Back in the early 2000's I was a brief supporter, but I saw through the numbers and the "pink-washing" of the Susan G. Komen For The Cure Foundation years ago as did many others, yet the message of the foundation was bigger than the critics and they continued on with their "mission" for the most part unquestioned. Until now.

The Planned Parenthood fiasco has finally drawn national attention and headlines to the Komen "mission" and they have no one to blame but themselves. Perhaps the "mission" began with good intentions, but money and politics have a habit of clouding the message, but that's no excuse. Especially when women's lives and health are the sacrifice.

The Susan G. Komen For The Cure "mission" would seem to be the "cure" as they've always claimed and even added the word "cure" to their name a while back. But here's the question:

When less than a quarter of the money a foundation spends is on research, how can the "mission" be a "cure?"

Here's a chart from the 2010 Komen Annual Report  on their website. Notice that only 24 percent is spent on research:

From the Susan G. Komen For The Cure 2009-2010 Annual Report

If you look at a similar chart from their 2003-2004 annual report, the amount spent on research back then was 31 percent. In their 2008-2009 annual report the amount spent on research was 25 percent. Again, if your "mission" is a cure, so much so that you changed the name of your foundation to state as much, why has the amount you spend on research gone down?

Nancy Brinker would just love for people to ignore her recent non-reversal reversal to fund Planned Parenthood so she can get back to her "mission," whatever that is. (I would suggest taking the "Cure" out of the brand if her "mission" continues on the course it's on now though.)

Whatever Brinker does or doesn't do or say about Planned Parenthood, critics of PP have said in the past that it's all about abortion, and since this funding story blew up in their faces at Komen, the critics have really begun exaggerating the abortion numbers, one even said that's the biggest part of what they do.

No. That's hardly the case.

So here's another educational chart for the critics and those who take their word for it. This is what Planned Parenthood does by the numbers:

From the Planned Parenthood Federation Of America 2009-2010 Annual Report

That's three percent of medical services spent on abortion services.

When it comes to calling oneself "pro-life" the definition is quite selective.

So is the definition of a "cure," or so it seems in Nancy Brinker's view.

Komen: A "Stunning Reversal" On Planned Parenthood? Not So Much

On Friday the Susan G. Komen For The Cure foundation apologized and announced the reversal of it's recent decision to pull funding for cancer screenings from Planned Parenthood, and the media touted it as a "stunning reversal."

When I read the actual statement, it didn't quite sound like a reversal to me. It was a carefully worded statement but a bit unclear on the details of future grants. This is the part which gave me pause:

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.

I'm no expert, but that doesn't sound like they're promising anything, and I wasn't the only one. Greg Sargent from The Plum Line wrote this:

As some were quick to point out, the statement put out by Komen doesn’t really clarify whether Planned Parenthood will actually continue to get money from the group. The original rationale for barring Planned Parenthood was that it was under investigation (a witch-hunt probe undertaken by GOP Rep Cliff Stearns). Komen said today that the group would “amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.”

......Does that mean Planned Parenthood will get Komen grants in the future?

.......“It would be highly unfair to ask us to commit to any organization that doesn’t go through a grant process that shows that the money we raise is used to carry out our mission,” Raffaelli told me. “We’re a humanitarian organization. We have a mission. Tell me you can help carry out our mission and we will sit down at the table.”

So that sounds like no, Komen hasn't really "reversed" anything.  

I'll tell you what DOES come across loud and clear in that statement. Except for that short "explanation" on funding, what Nancy Brinker wants most of all is for you to know how "unsettling" this has been for supporters, partners, friends and the foundation, and how "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."

Of course what's really "unsettling" to Brinker is all those donations that are drying up and those partners who now find themselves facing all those angry supporters who are fighting back and taking names. That's bound to happen when you bow at the altar of the wing-nuts and throw sick and disadvantaged women with cancer under the bus (no doubt a pretty pink one) on your way to the bank.

Political? No, no! This isn't political at all!

Except when it is.

For instance, the excuses for dropping Planned Parenthood kept changing, like the reason for the decision: There was the so-called investigation by Cliff Stearns (R-FL) (more on that later) except that there were other investigations that would fall under the same criteria as a violation, yet oddly that didn't stop the flow of money, like the one at Penn State, or Bank of America, just to name a couple. Not political?

Then there was the denial that Planned Parenthood was targeted, that Komen didn't cave to pressure from pro-life anti-abortion groups fueled by the Stearn witch hunt. But then these "talking points" surfaced. Then the resignation under protest of Komen officials. Not political?

Oh, and let's don't forget the hiring of this gem: Karen Handel, former Secretary of State from Georgia, candidate for governor, endorsed by Sarah Palin, and very much pro-life, as the Komen senior vice president for public policy. She's the one who said "since I am pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood." But sure, no politics involved there! Handel also now famously popped up on Twitter in response to those breast cancer "whiners:"

What a charmer. Again, politics involved? No sir!

To top it all off, when all this turned into a PR disaster, who did the Komen foundation turn to for help in their "messaging?" None other than the former fact challenged press secretary to George W. Bush, Ari Fleischer. He was secretly hired for the job back in December, because even though this entire Planned Parenthood thing was TOTALLY NOT POLITICAL, for some reason they foresaw problems. Go figure.

It seems Nancy Brinker wont get her wish any time soon that we all "pause and reflect," and forget all of this so she can get back to her "mission" of capitalizing on others misery, trying to recoup some of those lost donations, and get on with the business of not funding breast cancer screenings for the poor.

Sorry Nancy, the shine has worn off of that nice rosy, pink ribbon image.

As your pro-life friend Karen Handel would say: "Cry me a freaking river."