Komen, Planned Parenthood, TOMS and “Bad Aid”

I’m always fascinated with how the Internet has changed the way many conversations (and disagreements) happen, specifically how the near-instant spread of information has made everyone a pundit, and has encouraged people with very little investment (or no investment at all) in an issue to quickly form an opinion and share it– vigorously– with everyone in their social network.

This uninvested (and often uninformed) rapid-fire opinion-making is evidenced in everything from the latest silly celebrity baby-name (Blue Ivy Carter), to political faux-pas (Romney’s out-of-context remarks on the very-poor) to charitable organizations and their allocation of monies.

Enter Komen for the Cure, and Planned Parenthood, two organizations with which I have loose ties (at best) and zero allegiance. Without the Internet, I wouldn’t be sitting here writing this. If this “story” were chosen to appear in the paper, I would have skipped it, because it does not interest me, and I certainly don’t think it would have appeared above the fold. But because of the Internet, I have a knee-jerk reaction to outline my opinion for all to hear (or not), and as much as I find this compulsion silly (and totally undisciplined), it is good for me to keep writing, if only to remain practiced.

Enough with meta “introspection as out-loud conversation.” Onto my hasty, hardly-informed, not-at-all-invested opinion regarding Komen For The Cure cutting, then reinstating their funding to Planned Parenthood.

Let’s imagine Susan G. Komen for the Cure as an individual, one to whom many people entrust their charitable dollars for use in breast cancer research. We’ll call her Susan. And Planned Parenthood as a person who supports treatment and education in all areas of womens’ health, reproductive and otherwise. We’ll call her Paula.

Anyone– rich, poor, young old, gay, straight, whatever– can go and see Paula and receive any number of treatments or services, including breast exams and mammograms, pap smears, birth control consultation and administration, STI testing, pregnancy testing, abortions, etc, and many of those clients wouldn’t have to pay a fee for many of the services. Paula doesn’t turn people away if there is a need (which is very kind and generous). But sometimes Paula’s services are performed in a way that is not compliant with the law; that is to say, sometimes Paula does something illegal. And while her services to those in need are valuable, her reputation has come under fire as someone with questionable standards, which makes many people uncomfortable.

And then there’s Susan. Susan raises money to support breast cancer research, and is best known for slapping her name and logo onto anything (ANYTHING), turning it pink, and having some of the proceeds from the sale of that product support her organization. You buy a pink Komen water bottle, $1.00 goes to cancer research. You get the idea. Well, Susan likes to give some of her money (a very small sum) to Paula, so Paula can continue offering breast exams and mammograms to women in need, which seems like a smart partnership, considering their mutual interests.

But remember what I said about Paula’s questionable reputation? After some consideration, Susan decides she is uncomfortable allocating any of her funds to support Paula’s practice, until Paula straightens everything out with the law. Susan is concerned with being accused of knowingly supporting someone who is engaging in illegal activities, and does not want her own reputation to be tarnished in the wake Paula’s legal scandals (which are popping up with more frequency these days). Susan decides to suspend funding to Paula, until she’s dealt with her legal issues.

Then everyone who has ever made a charitable contribution to Susan, or purchased something pink, or thought about making a charitable contribution but never quite got around to it, takes to the Internet and lashes out bitterly against what their perceive as a grave injustice against Paula, Paula’s services and Paula’s clients. And then the Internet gets all puffed up and sells this whole encounter as an actual story, and here we are.

Let’s get some things clear: while Susan G. Komen for the Cure did a great job at co-opting the color pink and raising awareness, it is not the most efficient of charitable organizations. You can take a look at their 2010-2011 audited financial statements and see for yourself. If you want to support breast cancer research, you can do better than entrusting your charitable dollars to Komen (give to the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, for example, or The National Breast Cancer Coalition Fund, both of which are scored higher than Komen by the American Institute of Philanthropy).

I don’t see a problem with Komen wanting to distance itself from an organization that is constantly under legal fire. Komen can choose to do with their dollars as they please, just like we can. So if you’re so upset that Komen cut its funding to Planned Parenthood, and you’re so supportive of Planned Parenthood (PP), why not give PP your dollars directly? I’d be willing to bet that most people, myself included, were not aware that Komen supported PP in the first place. Personally, if I give money to an organization, I don’t want them allocating any part of those funds to support organizations I do not agree with, (this is not my position with Komen and PP, for the record) and I don’t think that’s an unreasonable stance.

So if you don’t like it, don’t support Komen. Like I said, there are several other charitable organizations that will offer you more “bang for your buck.” And if you love PP so much, why not donate to them directly and cut out the middle man? Why turn this into a women-hating-on-women issue that so many people are making it out to be? The Internet can be SO. DRAMATIC.

But none of this really matters because Komen announced today that after being bullied by the Internet, it’s decided to continue funding PP. (Komen didn’t say they were being bullied, I’m just calling it as I see it.) Rather than directly donating to PP (and thereby giving PP the most money possible), the Internet would rather complain loudly (something the Internet is GREAT at) and continue having Komen do the money-parsing for them. (But don’t call us lazy!)

I’ve actually been meaning to write something about misguided charitable giving recently, but I’m afraid that anyone with a pair of TOMS will want to hunt me down and punch me in the face. Spoiler: TOMS is bad aid.

For perspective, you might also want to read TOMS Shoes: An Opportunity for “Bad Aid” to Generate “GREAT Aid.”

For even more perspective, check out the book “When Helping Hurts: Alleviating Poverty Without Hurting the Poor. . .and Yourself.”

Thoughts on Komen? Thoughts on PP? Thoughts on bad aid? Wanna throw a rock at me for hating on your TOMS (it’s cool. I own a pair.)? It’s all welcomed in the comments.

Previous Post
Leave a comment


  1. Harrison

     /  February 3, 2012

    MJ: I really enjoy your articles and follow your videos @ ifixit. However, I believe you miss the mark regarding the Komen V Planned Parenthood Public Relations Debacle and how it relates to the dialogue shift imposed by the speed of the interwebz. First off let me say I agree 100% with you about the speed at which information moves, the overwhelming entitlement to opinion that seems to embody that information spread, and the ease by which many people share the opinions – much as this one. This can lead to fundamental shifts in debates at the drop of the hat, and accuracy seems to becomes less important than timing.

    As for the Komen V Planned parent hood discussion – simply put, Komen decided to adhere to their in-house, developed, criteria for sub-awarding grants to organizations involved in practices not directly related to breast cancer research. Further, the previous amounts of money – roughly $700,000 per year is equal to about .07% of Planned Parenthood’s overall yearly budget of $1billion.

    So, basically I agree with the sentiment, but I believe it shows an even more dastardly social development – the de-emphasizing of accuracy and fact for the focus on mobility and speed to alter the course of debate that no one actually should care about anyways as the impact of said issues being debated are negligible.


    Agreed and think the debate shows the underlying problem of media circus, internet mobility, and a lack of things to really care about.


    • You’re absolutely right about my missing the mark: I was not aware that the decision was so innocuous. Komen adhering “to their in-house, developed, criteria for sub-awarding grants to organizations involved in practices not directly related to breast cancer research” sounds PERFECTLY fair to me. But of course, I have my own (obvs not-well-informed) opinion.

      Something else I should have mentioned was PP’s leaking the story to AP in an effort to demonize Komen and come out swinging. Classy. What a way to treat an organization that has donated millions of dollars to PP over the years. But like you said, even a million dollars is just a drop in the bucket for PP.

  2. Good points, especially about the relative efficiency of Komen vs. other cancer organizations.

    Komen totally underestimated how vicious PP can be. No one in the “won’t someone please think about the women!!” Komen-bashing camp have considered that the donations to Komen will drop many times over what they gave PP. Now that Komen caved to PP’s bullying they will not be getting much from pro-lifers (most people weren’t aware of the link until now, but I assure you their giving will change).

    Just a minor point to emphasize: PP doesn’t abortions for free. And despite what their CEO claimed, PP doesn’t do mammograms. They just do the same tests that people can do at home.

    • Regarding PP not performing mammograms: yikes! And I know, from personal experience, that regular breast exams are free. 🙂 So what’s that money actually getting used for?

      And you’re right: I wasn’t aware of the link between Komen and PP until this all came up, and though I never intended on giving directly to Komen in the first place, I certainly won’t now. Sad business all around.

  3. Everyone else left really intelligent comments and mine just isn’t gonna live up to that. I just wanted to say it was nice to see the whole situation explained. This was a good read!

  4. Brandon

     /  February 9, 2012

    I was going to comment, but then realized I would be violating the first paragraph of your post 😉

    PP leaves me with the impression that all non-abortion/contraceptive services are just provided as political cover. Maybe that is a mischaracterization, but it really feels that way.

  5. Lee

     /  March 27, 2012

    Actually, people did start donating directly to PP when this happened. PP reported $650,000 donated in the first 24 hours after this story broke.
    So, they weren’t just whining about Komen’s lack of funding–they started giving money directly to PP. Furthermore, your post shows an alarming lack of knowledge about the political and evangelical war waged against PP over the past few years, which would explain *why* this became such an Internet sensation.

    It is irresponsible to write about current events without doing your research.

    • melissajenna

       /  April 2, 2012

      Yes, I am aware that some people decided to give funding directly to PP after this happened. What I’m advocating is that ALL people who care about this issue give directly to PP. The best way to express one’s opinion in charitable matters (and many other matters) is to “vote” with one’s wallet; I’m simply encouraging more people to do so.

      Also, calling it a “war” is an irresponsible exaggeration, which I assume you don’t mine my saying, since you so easily call my comments irresponsible. What is happening is that people are standing up for what they believe in, and standing against what they do not believe in, which I have zero problems with (This is the United States of America, after all). Aren’t people entailed to band together to support/not support whichever organizations they choose?

      The fact of the matter is that Planned Parenthood is in more than just the preventative care and contraceptive business; the service most often provided by PP to pregnant women is abortion, and that is the core of PP’s problems politically, and with the faith-based community. All of the numbers can be found on their fact sheet: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/fact_ppservices_2010-09-03.pdf

      Sure, when all services provided are lumped together, it appears that abortion comprises only 3% of PP’s administered services, but that’s a dishonest way of looking at it. Women who are not pregnant have no reason to get an abortion, so including those women in the count only muddies up the numbers. In reality, pregnant women only get two services from PP: 1) abortion (324,008) and 2) adoption referrals to other agencies (2,405). When counting only the number of people who could get an abortion in the first place, the numbers speak for themselves.

      I have done my research, and I was shocked when I discovered just how dishonest PP is when they present their data. I see no reason why people who do not support abortion should support PP, and until PP can show some commitment to offering alternatives to abortion, I see no reason why federal dollars should support them either. But I DO see why people who want to support PP should step up and be more responsible in their giving, and just give to PP directly. Like I said in the beginning, the best way to “vote” in charitable matters, is with one’s money.

  1. Abortion and Single-Issue Politics « Right On Life

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: