It seems almost as if Komen and Planned Parenthood are surrogates for pro and anti choice factions.

[Stinky The Clown]

The outrage aimed at Komen, and the incredible outpouring of donations to PP, it seems to me, both tell a far larger truth than just this incident. Abortion is the lightening rod here, not breast cancer. Komen, seemingly now the zombie of a once pro-woman, once respected organization, has been invaded by right wing zealots funded by and loyal to "the usual suspects," It has started to play out in a very clumsy way the march to end a woman's ability to choose her own course.

Hearteningly, the reaction has been swift, organized, vocal, and, thus far, effective. Nearly half the US Senate has made it clear where they stand while the opposing half has simply stayed silent. Donations to PP have been very strong since the controversy started. New York's politically peripatetic mayor has given a considerable amount of his own money to make up for the PP shortfall resulting from Komen's actions.

Where this will all lead, and for how long the spotlight will stay lit, is anyone's guess, but it seems to me we are watching a much bigger issue play out than just the actions of a charity's new VP of Public Relations.

I must admit I am quite encouraged about the general attitude of our country toward the issue of women's rights with respect to their body and their health care choices. If this keeps up in the direction it is now headed, it speaks well of the wishes of our citizenry.

[justiceischeap]

1. I think why this is such a lightning rod issue is because

it feels like a huge betrayal to a lot of women. Every woman has the chance to get breast cancer, yet every woman may not get or even support abortion rights. This is an issue that should not ever be political. And the fact that one of the most beloved charities turned the issue political is why so many people are outraged--I think anyway.

Rachel touched on this on her show last night... PP has had continuous attacks since 2010 when repubs took over the House of Reps and there wasn't this outrage because it mostly centered on the abortion debate. Breasts are a whole different beast.

[JHB]

2. It's not necessarily been invaded...

...judging from Komen's founder, they may have been there all along, but just feel able to take off the itchy happy-face masks they've been wearing in public until now.

It also goes beyond breast cancer and abortion. Komen is supposed to be devoted to fighting breast cancer, but the action against PP showed that the Komen leadership was able and willing to use the money under their control as a weapon in service to an agenda that is not within the foundations stated purpose.

The same with their defunding of research using stem cells, even though that drew less public attention than the blatant lets-kill-PP-and-mount-its-head-on-a-pike power play.

Not only is there the direct outrage, but everyone who gets money from them (and other foundations just like them) has to ask themselves who is next. Even those who don't think outright attacks on them are likely have to wonder how free the foundation(s) will be now to "lean on them a little" for some outside purpose.

Komen's leadership showed they were gangsters. I'd quote Churchill on gangsters running things, but that would probably step over Godwin's Law.

[Tx4obama]

3. I think it is disgusting that Ms. Brinker is taking a $500,000 per year salary.

I wonder how many people that have donated to the Susan G. Komen Foundation realized that fact before all the recent news broke.

[obamanut2012]

8. PLus a bonus -- who knows how much that is

That could be another 500K, and she has a limo, and who knows what other perks. It's a private foundation, so they can do whatever they want to.

[EFerrari]

4. Women feel outrage, maybe, because Komen has enacted

classic woman-hating. When they looked at Planned Parenthood funding, instead of seeing health care for a lot of women, they reduce that care for a whole person to control of reproductive choice. You can't get more misogynistic than that.

[PA Democrat]

5. But in the case of PP, they have always publicly acknowleged that they are pro-choice.

Planned Parenthood by its very name implies that women should be empowered to choose when and if they bring children into the world. Their mission statement is very clear.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/vision-4837.htm

Komen on the other hand claims its mission statement is:

to save lives and end breast cancer forever by empowering people, ensuring quality of care for all and energizing science to find the cures.

http://www.volunteermatch.org/search/org86383.jsp

I'd say one organization has a hidden agenda and one does not.

[eShirl]

7. +1

[TBF]

6. The interesting thing is that I see this as an economic issue -

I wouldn't call myself all-out pro-choice. I believe abortions should be legal so they can be performed by a physician, but I would really like to see more education/birth control aimed at teenagers. And along with paying for them under insurance plans/medicare/medicaid I would likely limit them to first trimester or so. Like I said, I am not a fan of the procedure. But I don't believe it's my place to tell a woman and her doctor what they should do.

Komen's actions disgust me. Their actions clearly target poor women who have the fewest choices. So I see it more as another 1% vs. 99% issue. Well-off women will always be able to get abortions. If their daughters become pregnant they can fly to Canada or Europe and have it done easily if it's not legal here.