"We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women's lives," the statement said. "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."
So they've basically said "We're going to give them the money we promised we would, and then they're welcome to apply for future grants."
Apparently Komen has changed their stance from "We're not going to give you another grant after this one runs out" to "We reserver the right to not give you another grant and give you no explination why."
0
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited February 2012
You Should Find the Anti-Komen Backlash Disgusting, Even If You’re Pro-Choice
Apparently Komen has changed their stance from "We're not going to give you another grant after this one runs out" to "We reserver the right to not give you another grant and give you no explination why."
That's a sign they can learn. So, make sure they do all of their homework and eat all the crow before you let up.
Absalon on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
As the husband of a woman who has colon cancer (and before that as well), SGK has pissed me off for quite awhile now. I'm sure that 30 years ago there was actual benefit to "raising awareness" in the United States, but if you can find a woman who doesn't know about breast cancer now it's because she's being willfully ignorant.
I know it's probably too idealistic, but inefficient charities are one of my pet peeves. I live in Tucson and they run their once a year across from my house. Putting aside how wasteful it is to spend so much money on an event to raise money, they also have a permanent office here. Why? How much does that cost? How much research could a half million dollar CEO salary buy?
Anther smaller (but legitimate and with a much greater percentage of funds going to the actual cause) charity raising money to find a "cure"? Fuck them, that's our word. How else would we get donations (licensing) off of energy drinks with a pink ribbon on them?
My wife sees their cute ads and it makes her sad. Kind of like "Everyone loves boobs!!! (Sorry if you don't have the sexy cancer) Tatas!"
CNN has breaking news that Komen is going to restore funding to PP.
That didn't take long.
I'm pretty sure they didn't say that at all.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the details don't match the headline. All I got was the Breaking News headline at the bottom of the screen (no audio here at work).
Apparently Komen has changed their stance from "We're not going to give you another grant after this one runs out" to "We reserver the right to not give you another grant and give you no explination why."
That's a sign they can learn. So, make sure they do all of their homework and eat all the crow before you let up.
Honestly, if Komen wants to not give PP another grant after the current one runs out, I'm totally ok with that. It is their money, they can disburse it how they see fit.
However, have the (proverbial) nards to come out and say "We don't agree with your actions." or "We feel you aren't spending our money as we'd like."
When it comes to SGK suing other charities for using The Cure in their advertising, its not as clear cut as it seems. The name The Cure is so generic(cure for what? The band?), that unless they defend it agressivly they risk not being able to go after real frauds.
Maybe the answer is not to trademark incredibly generic phrases.
I was about to say exactly this. They have a perfectly serviceable trademark - "The Susan G. Komen Foundation." They shouldn't have a trademark on "the cure" or "for the cure" or any other common English phrase that generically refers to cancer.
Wikipedia puts administration at like 10%, which is reasonable. Advertising at another 10%, but it works.
The real scam is the pinkwashing, where companies kick back laughably small portions of the money they make pimping pink shit for SGK. How much of that I put on SGK depends how pissed I am at the moment. Right now the answer is "quite a bit. "
Yeah, charitynavigator also shows that the majority of their funds go to program services. They still have a decent (if not stellar) administrative spending:program spending ratio.
But yes it often feels like their priority is pimping their own brand. It's a nice little branding boost for a product to throw a pink ribbon on it, even if you're only giving a ha'penny per item sold to SGK.
Also, keep in mind a couple of things. First off, the whole ribbon idea was started by AIDS activists (specifically, a collective of artists) and the red ribbon was explicitly declared to be copyright free. SGK took that idea, created a pink ribbon, and copyrighted and trademarked it. It's pretty scummy, IMO, to emulate a public domain image created for a specific purpose, and then slap your own copyright on the copy and defend it aggressively.
Also, SGK was not started by Susan Komen herself. She'd been dead for two years before the Foundation was started... by Nancy Brinker, who'd already had a career in politics. By itself, this isn't damning - it's perfectly reasonable for somebody with fundraising and political experience to put their experience to good cause, especially after the death of a family member.
But the combination of Brinker's salary, their aggressive legal defense of their trademark, the way they copied their trademark from an artist's collective, and Brinker's self-promotion seems... less than honorable.
I think the problem with it is that, for example, lung cancer is viewed as a "well, did you smoke? Yes? It's your own damn fault." thing. I don't know what, if any, external carcinogens lead to breast cancer.
One of the common criticisms against SGK is that they're the race for the cure, not the race for finding the cause. There's evidence that there are chemicals in processed foods and the environment that have links to breast cancer, but SGK not only promotes products that contain some of those chemicals, they resist research into those possible causes.
When I asked her why, she explained that Komen felt that treatment for uninsured breast cancer patients should be funded through private donations, like the pink ribbon race.
Very little of SGK's money goes into directly treating women with breast cancer, and in order to qualify for what little funding they have for breast cancer sufferers, you have to be in the last stages, and you have to be on chemo and/or hormonal therapy. They do not pay for surgery or radiation therapy.
What makes this particularly interesting is that SGK has investments in pharmaceutical companies that manufacture name-brand anticancer drugs, they have supported laws (like the Medicare Part D act in 2003) that increase pharma profits.
Again, by itself this isn't problematic - a healthcare charity can support healthcare reform and work directly with companies in the healthcare sector. But SGK seems to be focused almost entirely on detection and pharmaceuticals, which are profitable areas for big corporations, and not on prevention or nonpharma treatment, which aren't as profitable for big corporations. And they have financial ties to pharma corporations. It doesn't prove anything, but it smells awfully bad.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Discount Gun Sales is proud to team up with the Susan B. Koman Foundation to offer the Walther P-22 Hope Edition in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness Month. A portion of each P-22 Hope Edition will be donated to the Seattle Branch of the Susan G. Komen Foundation.
The P-22 Hope Edition has an exclusive DuraCoat Pink slide in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness month. Utilizing the same reliable controls and firing mechanism that has made the Walther P-22 America’s top selling handgun, the Hope Edition will be a limited production pistol offered exclusively through Discount Gun Sales.
In the NROHQ kitchen just now, Charlie Cooke wondered aloud, and here I paraphrase: “Does anyone on the Left even ask the basic question of whether a private charitable organization has the right to dispose of its money as it sees fit?”
Yeah, those lefties who never ever donate to these private charities. Shut up, lefties!
Elki on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
In the NROHQ kitchen just now, Charlie Cooke wondered aloud, and here I paraphrase: “Does anyone on the Left even ask the basic question of whether a private charitable organization has the right to dispose of its money as it sees fit?”
Yeah, those lefties who never ever donate to these private charities. Shut up, lefties!
Man, this logic makes me stabby.
Ron Paul and Paultards: "We don't need welfare. Private charities can help the poor."
Charlie Cooke and NR: "But if a charity doesn't actually help the poor, you have no right to criticize them!"
Fuck these guys. Fuck the whole fucking lot of them.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
How much research could a half million dollar CEO salary buy?
Just an fyi.
Very very little.
Relatively. But this argument would also justify not giving any of your money for research ever. How much can the money I can give over my lifetime impact research? Very, very, very, very, very, very little.
I see this a lot. Advertising says "every dollar counts". Budget says "there was a rounding error in our construction budget for the new headquarters. Everyone gets an Aeron chair!"
Even if you don't think $500,000 would be useful to put towards research, it could certainly be used to help individuals.
I just got a 3DS XL. Add me! 2879-0925-7162
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Discount Gun Sales is proud to team up with the Susan B. Koman Foundation to offer the Walther P-22 Hope Edition in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness Month. A portion of each P-22 Hope Edition will be donated to the Seattle Branch of the Susan G. Komen Foundation.
The P-22 Hope Edition has an exclusive DuraCoat Pink slide in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness month. Utilizing the same reliable controls and firing mechanism that has made the Walther P-22 America’s top selling handgun, the Hope Edition will be a limited production pistol offered exclusively through Discount Gun Sales.
Eh. I'm not offended by the pink gun. Breast cancer doesn't know hobby, political leaning, etc.
Lots of deep south women and gun enthusiast women get breast cancer too. If money from the sales of this gun actually go to research, then eh. It's not like the people buying this WOULDN'T buy a gun, but at least something good comes out of some of that money.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
In the NROHQ kitchen just now, Charlie Cooke wondered aloud, and here I paraphrase: “Does anyone on the Left even ask the basic question of whether a private charitable organization has the right to dispose of its money as it sees fit?”
Yeah, those lefties who never ever donate to these private charities. Shut up, lefties!
If Komen can get whiny that their donated cash isn't being spent how they want, then surely Komen's donators have the same right.
Discount Gun Sales is proud to team up with the Susan B. Koman Foundation to offer the Walther P-22 Hope Edition in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness Month. A portion of each P-22 Hope Edition will be donated to the Seattle Branch of the Susan G. Komen Foundation.
The P-22 Hope Edition has an exclusive DuraCoat Pink slide in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness month. Utilizing the same reliable controls and firing mechanism that has made the Walther P-22 America’s top selling handgun, the Hope Edition will be a limited production pistol offered exclusively through Discount Gun Sales.
Eh. I'm not offended by the pink gun. Breast cancer doesn't know hobby, political leaning, etc.
Lots of deep south women and gun enthusiast women get breast cancer too. If money from the sales of this gun actually go to research, then eh. It's not like the people buying this WOULDN'T buy a gun, but at least something good comes out of some of that money.
The problem (or MY problem, anyway) is it's stunningly tone deaf. "Hey guys we're pro-life now so fuck Planned Parenthood, here buy this gun instead"
In the NROHQ kitchen just now, Charlie Cooke wondered aloud, and here I paraphrase: “Does anyone on the Left even ask the basic question of whether a private charitable organization has the right to dispose of its money as it sees fit?”
Yeah, those lefties who never ever donate to these private charities. Shut up, lefties!
If Komen can get whiny that their donated cash isn't being spent how they want, then surely Komen's donators have the same right.
I think we all know by now that the First Amendment only goes as far as agreeing with right wing ideology. Any criticism of that ideology is attacking their _______.
How much research could a half million dollar CEO salary buy?
Just an fyi.
Very very little.
Your fyi based on what, exactly? Citation needed, etc.
Based on my job as a cell and molecular biologist at a small biotech company doing mostly cancer research that burns through more than $8mil per year, and that's not counting money for clinical trials. Clinical trials are expensive.
Discount Gun Sales is proud to team up with the Susan B. Koman Foundation to offer the Walther P-22 Hope Edition in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness Month. A portion of each P-22 Hope Edition will be donated to the Seattle Branch of the Susan G. Komen Foundation.
The P-22 Hope Edition has an exclusive DuraCoat Pink slide in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness month. Utilizing the same reliable controls and firing mechanism that has made the Walther P-22 America’s top selling handgun, the Hope Edition will be a limited production pistol offered exclusively through Discount Gun Sales.
Eh. I'm not offended by the pink gun. Breast cancer doesn't know hobby, political leaning, etc.
Lots of deep south women and gun enthusiast women get breast cancer too. If money from the sales of this gun actually go to research, then eh. It's not like the people buying this WOULDN'T buy a gun, but at least something good comes out of some of that money.
The problem (or MY problem, anyway) is it's stunningly tone deaf. "Hey guys we're pro-life now so fuck Planned Parenthood, here buy this gun instead"
The more I look at it, the more fake the gun looks to me because of the pink slide.
I am beginning to get incensed at the fact that this gun is more likely to cause a child to play with it and get accidentally hurt. Hence, the hypocrisy.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited February 2012
I think the greater issue being pointed out is that a charity for women's health has both cut funding to women's health groups who provide abortions and has decided to raise funds by selling dangerous handguns.
"Pro-life until birth" should be their motto.
Atomika on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I think the greater issue being pointed out is that a charity for women's health has both cut funding to women's health groups who provide abortions and has decided to raise funds by selling dangerous handguns.
I think the greater issue being pointed out is that a charity for women's health has both cut funding to women's health groups who provide abortions and has decided to raise funds by selling dangerous handguns.
"Pro-life until birth" should be their motto.
That's the GOP in a nutshell.
Also, as for the breast/lung cancer thing. It's not like the money that goes towards breast cancer charities would automatically go to some other charity.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
This is a win for the forces for life, and a major blow to Planned Parenthood. Komen, the architect of the pink-ribbon campaign, is a prominent face of women’s health in America, and as mainstream a charitable organization as there is. That it should feel the need to decouple itself from Planned Parenthood is a sign that the pro-life fight is shifting to more favorable ground.
Renowned breast-cancer charity Susan G. Komen for the Cure faced an escalating backlash Thursday over its decision to cut breast-screening grants to Planned Parenthood. Some of Komen's local affiliates, including one in Seattle, are openly upset, and at least one top official has quit, reportedly in protest.
The Puget Sound Komen affiliate in Seattle, expressing its "extreme disappointment and frustration," on Thursday beseeched the national Komen office to rescind or revise its "misguided" policy.
What makes this particularly interesting is that SGK has investments in pharmaceutical companies that manufacture name-brand anticancer drugs, they have supported laws (like the Medicare Part D act in 2003) that increase pharma profits.
Again, by itself this isn't problematic - a healthcare charity can support healthcare reform and work directly with companies in the healthcare sector. But SGK seems to be focused almost entirely on detection and pharmaceuticals, which are profitable areas for big corporations, and not on prevention or nonpharma treatment, which aren't as profitable for big corporations. And they have financial ties to pharma corporations. It doesn't prove anything, but it smells awfully bad.
Wait, how the fuck can a non-profit own part of a for-profit entity?!? That's entirely fucked up and should be illegal - or at least mean your charitable status is yanked.
I just got off the phone with a Komen board member, and he confirmed that the announcement does not mean that Planned Parenthood is guaranteed future grants — a demand he said would be “unfair” to impose on Komen. He also said the job of the group’s controversial director, Nancy Brinker, is safe, as far as the board is concerned.
Renowned breast-cancer charity Susan G. Komen for the Cure faced an escalating backlash Thursday over its decision to cut breast-screening grants to Planned Parenthood. Some of Komen's local affiliates, including one in Seattle, are openly upset, and at least one top official has quit, reportedly in protest.
The Puget Sound Komen affiliate in Seattle, expressing its "extreme disappointment and frustration," on Thursday beseeched the national Komen office to rescind or revise its "misguided" policy.
Connecticut's did as well.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Renowned breast-cancer charity Susan G. Komen for the Cure faced an escalating backlash Thursday over its decision to cut breast-screening grants to Planned Parenthood. Some of Komen's local affiliates, including one in Seattle, are openly upset, and at least one top official has quit, reportedly in protest.
The Puget Sound Komen affiliate in Seattle, expressing its "extreme disappointment and frustration," on Thursday beseeched the national Komen office to rescind or revise its "misguided" policy.
Komen was giving Planned Parenthood a grant to help fund breast cancer evaluations for low income women. Anti-choice activists on the warpath against PP managed to get Komen to drop the grant, on the spurious addition of a "no investigations" policy by newly appointed anti-choice personnel.
Renowned breast-cancer charity Susan G. Komen for the Cure faced an escalating backlash Thursday over its decision to cut breast-screening grants to Planned Parenthood. Some of Komen's local affiliates, including one in Seattle, are openly upset, and at least one top official has quit, reportedly in protest.
The Puget Sound Komen affiliate in Seattle, expressing its "extreme disappointment and frustration," on Thursday beseeched the national Komen office to rescind or revise its "misguided" policy.
Connecticut's did as well.
As did California. Connecticut's is a little different in that they said they aren't going to stop funding for PP of Southern New England.
Yeah, I don't mean to be a downer, but that statement sounds an awful lot like "we apologize for attempting to murder PP in the open, next time we will do it in the dark, behind closed doors"
In the NROHQ kitchen just now, Charlie Cooke wondered aloud, and here I paraphrase: “Does anyone on the Left even ask the basic question of whether a private charitable organization has the right to dispose of its money as it sees fit?”
Yeah, those lefties who never ever donate to these private charities. Shut up, lefties!
It's like saying something racist on TV and then whining about the First Amendment when everyone calls you a racist.
Obviously private charities can do whatever the fuck they want. And then, once people get wind of it, they have the right to be fucking pissed off about it. That's how the system is supposed to work, you goddamn fucking baby.
SGK spends 40% of their budget on "education." Can anyone please explain to me what "education" in this context entails?
Raising cancer awareness.
(Yes, that's as bullshit-tastic as it sounds.)
spending the money to get the word out about self examination, and getting checked yourself if any relative has BrCa is not a bad use of their funds at all,.
Just because they do one or two really bad thins doesn't mean we have to hate everything they do.
As someone who worked at an Oncology clinic with a specialty in Breast Cancer, I saw a lot of good come from Komen's stuff; they are just fucking up pretty bad here.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Wait, how the fuck can a non-profit own part of a for-profit entity?!? That's entirely fucked up and should be illegal - or at least mean your charitable status is yanked.
People give shares in for-profit companies to charities all the time. The charities then often will keep the shares and collect dividends. I don't see why anyone would object to a charity making money off of a for-profite venture.
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
From their statement:
"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."
...
""We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.""
Dear SGKftC (Hey, if you're going to sue people over it, it should be in your acronym at least!): Statement one does not seem to agree with statement two. I mean, thanks for restoring funding and clearing up the rules to mean "not investigated, FOUND GUILTY of criminal actions", but it's pretty clear that the rule was made and selectively enforced on what any rational person would consider to be a group not under any investigation more legitimate than a blogger doing some digging.
Moreover, you do not seem to be punishing anyone involved in this process even to the point of just making them apologize for the fuckup. Instead, you let all of your sane dedicated employees to resign. You done fucked up, and need to do far more than "oops! Please donate again!"
Posts
"We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women's lives," the statement said. "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."
So they've basically said "We're going to give them the money we promised we would, and then they're welcome to apply for future grants."
Apparently Komen has changed their stance from "We're not going to give you another grant after this one runs out" to "We reserver the right to not give you another grant and give you no explination why."
says Daniel Foster of the National Review.
Haw, naw.
That's a sign they can learn. So, make sure they do all of their homework and eat all the crow before you let up.
Reminds me of this http://nonadventures.com/2010/01/09/the-breast-intentions/
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the details don't match the headline. All I got was the Breaking News headline at the bottom of the screen (no audio here at work).
Honestly, if Komen wants to not give PP another grant after the current one runs out, I'm totally ok with that. It is their money, they can disburse it how they see fit.
However, have the (proverbial) nards to come out and say "We don't agree with your actions." or "We feel you aren't spending our money as we'd like."
Just an fyi.
Very very little.
Too late, they can eat shit.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I was about to say exactly this. They have a perfectly serviceable trademark - "The Susan G. Komen Foundation." They shouldn't have a trademark on "the cure" or "for the cure" or any other common English phrase that generically refers to cancer.
Yeah, charitynavigator also shows that the majority of their funds go to program services. They still have a decent (if not stellar) administrative spending:program spending ratio.
But yes it often feels like their priority is pimping their own brand. It's a nice little branding boost for a product to throw a pink ribbon on it, even if you're only giving a ha'penny per item sold to SGK.
Also, keep in mind a couple of things. First off, the whole ribbon idea was started by AIDS activists (specifically, a collective of artists) and the red ribbon was explicitly declared to be copyright free. SGK took that idea, created a pink ribbon, and copyrighted and trademarked it. It's pretty scummy, IMO, to emulate a public domain image created for a specific purpose, and then slap your own copyright on the copy and defend it aggressively.
Also, SGK was not started by Susan Komen herself. She'd been dead for two years before the Foundation was started... by Nancy Brinker, who'd already had a career in politics. By itself, this isn't damning - it's perfectly reasonable for somebody with fundraising and political experience to put their experience to good cause, especially after the death of a family member.
But the combination of Brinker's salary, their aggressive legal defense of their trademark, the way they copied their trademark from an artist's collective, and Brinker's self-promotion seems... less than honorable.
One of the common criticisms against SGK is that they're the race for the cure, not the race for finding the cause. There's evidence that there are chemicals in processed foods and the environment that have links to breast cancer, but SGK not only promotes products that contain some of those chemicals, they resist research into those possible causes.
Very little of SGK's money goes into directly treating women with breast cancer, and in order to qualify for what little funding they have for breast cancer sufferers, you have to be in the last stages, and you have to be on chemo and/or hormonal therapy. They do not pay for surgery or radiation therapy.
What makes this particularly interesting is that SGK has investments in pharmaceutical companies that manufacture name-brand anticancer drugs, they have supported laws (like the Medicare Part D act in 2003) that increase pharma profits.
Again, by itself this isn't problematic - a healthcare charity can support healthcare reform and work directly with companies in the healthcare sector. But SGK seems to be focused almost entirely on detection and pharmaceuticals, which are profitable areas for big corporations, and not on prevention or nonpharma treatment, which aren't as profitable for big corporations. And they have financial ties to pharma corporations. It doesn't prove anything, but it smells awfully bad.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Yeah, those lefties who never ever donate to these private charities. Shut up, lefties!
Your fyi based on what, exactly? Citation needed, etc.
Man, this logic makes me stabby.
Ron Paul and Paultards: "We don't need welfare. Private charities can help the poor."
Charlie Cooke and NR: "But if a charity doesn't actually help the poor, you have no right to criticize them!"
Fuck these guys. Fuck the whole fucking lot of them.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Relatively. But this argument would also justify not giving any of your money for research ever. How much can the money I can give over my lifetime impact research? Very, very, very, very, very, very little.
I see this a lot. Advertising says "every dollar counts". Budget says "there was a rounding error in our construction budget for the new headquarters. Everyone gets an Aeron chair!"
Even if you don't think $500,000 would be useful to put towards research, it could certainly be used to help individuals.
Eh. I'm not offended by the pink gun. Breast cancer doesn't know hobby, political leaning, etc.
Lots of deep south women and gun enthusiast women get breast cancer too. If money from the sales of this gun actually go to research, then eh. It's not like the people buying this WOULDN'T buy a gun, but at least something good comes out of some of that money.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
If Komen can get whiny that their donated cash isn't being spent how they want, then surely Komen's donators have the same right.
The problem (or MY problem, anyway) is it's stunningly tone deaf. "Hey guys we're pro-life now so fuck Planned Parenthood, here buy this gun instead"
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I think we all know by now that the First Amendment only goes as far as agreeing with right wing ideology. Any criticism of that ideology is attacking their _______.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Based on my job as a cell and molecular biologist at a small biotech company doing mostly cancer research that burns through more than $8mil per year, and that's not counting money for clinical trials. Clinical trials are expensive.
Here is as close as I can get to a cite
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/feb/01/lawrences-deciphera-pharmaceuticals-gets-7-million/
This won't last us past july.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The more I look at it, the more fake the gun looks to me because of the pink slide.
I am beginning to get incensed at the fact that this gun is more likely to cause a child to play with it and get accidentally hurt. Hence, the hypocrisy.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
"Pro-life until birth" should be their motto.
Timing on my dad's article couldn't be better.
http://www.artonissues.com/2012/01/gunfire-deaths-in-children-vs-pro-life-a-political-double-standard/
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
That's the GOP in a nutshell.
Also, as for the breast/lung cancer thing. It's not like the money that goes towards breast cancer charities would automatically go to some other charity.
So delicious.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Connecticut's did as well.
Liberals just don't understand.
Komen was giving Planned Parenthood a grant to help fund breast cancer evaluations for low income women. Anti-choice activists on the warpath against PP managed to get Komen to drop the grant, on the spurious addition of a "no investigations" policy by newly appointed anti-choice personnel.
Which promptly blew up in Komen's face.
As did California. Connecticut's is a little different in that they said they aren't going to stop funding for PP of Southern New England.
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/03/komen-board-member-havent-caved-on-planned-parenthood-funding/
It's like saying something racist on TV and then whining about the First Amendment when everyone calls you a racist.
Obviously private charities can do whatever the fuck they want. And then, once people get wind of it, they have the right to be fucking pissed off about it. That's how the system is supposed to work, you goddamn fucking baby.
Raising cancer awareness.
(Yes, that's as bullshit-tastic as it sounds.)
Just because they do one or two really bad thins doesn't mean we have to hate everything they do.
As someone who worked at an Oncology clinic with a specialty in Breast Cancer, I saw a lot of good come from Komen's stuff; they are just fucking up pretty bad here.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Rigorous Scholarship
"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."
...
""We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.""
Dear SGKftC (Hey, if you're going to sue people over it, it should be in your acronym at least!): Statement one does not seem to agree with statement two. I mean, thanks for restoring funding and clearing up the rules to mean "not investigated, FOUND GUILTY of criminal actions", but it's pretty clear that the rule was made and selectively enforced on what any rational person would consider to be a group not under any investigation more legitimate than a blogger doing some digging.
Moreover, you do not seem to be punishing anyone involved in this process even to the point of just making them apologize for the fuckup. Instead, you let all of your sane dedicated employees to resign. You done fucked up, and need to do far more than "oops! Please donate again!"