The sudden reversal Friday of Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s decision to sever its relationship with Planned Parenthood has left a turbulent wake that might affect future funding for breast cancer.
“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,” Nancy Brinker, Komen’s chief executive, said in a statement. “We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants.”
Some Komen officials had said the decision to halt breast-exam financing was made because of an inquiry by a Republican congressman, Cliff Stearns of Florida, who is looking into whether Planned Parenthood has spent public money for abortions.
The three days between Komen’s initial announcement — which effectively disqualified Planned Parenthood from receiving Komen grants — and its change of heart involved a surge of Internet campaigning, congressional urging and dissension among some Komen affiliates.
The Denver and Aspen Komen affiliates released statements of disapproval and spearheaded a petition for reversal. Colorado’s U.S. senators, Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, wrote a letter applauding the local groups’ actions.
The California affiliates also dissented.
Many breast-cancer organizations are worried they’ll be negatively affected by the huge public blowback from this politicized event.
The Breast & Women’s Reproductive Cancers Fund, a subset of the Colorado Cancer Coalition, receives most of its funding through the state tax-checkoff process, which offers residents the option of checking ” yes” on their income-tax forms to make a donation.
“We’ve already gotten contact from people saying that the ‘breast-cancer arena’ is maybe something that they don’t want to give to because of this controversy,” said Erich Kirshner of the Colorado Cancer Coalition. “We’re concerned because we’re getting right into the heart of tax season.”
While the national Komen leadership insisted the decision was not politically motivated, many women’s health advocates, cancer organizations and anti-abortion groups alike were both enraged and elated by the sequence of events.
The initial decision angered Denver resident Traci Collins, as her sister and several of her friends have had breast cancer.
“I think that either they continue to deal with breast cancer and stop dealing with right-wing political agendas, or they don’t continue at all,” Collins said. “It’s great to hear that the e-mails we wrote made a difference. Consider myself appeased for now.”
Keith Mason, president of Personhood USA, is on the opposite side of the coin.
“What I’ve seen unfold in the past 48 hours is mob tactics, a major negative campaign against a nonprofit,” Mason said. “I think in the end, it will be good because it will raise awareness that Komen has been giving money to the largest abortion provider in the nation. I know many pro-life individuals who will not give money to Susan G. Komen because now they know.”
The fear is that this one event is producing a domino effect in the entire breast-cancer prevention cause.
“That’s sort of the irony with this,” Kirshner said.
“Folks could have a problem with Komen and indirectly impact all these other organizations that they would actually support. Whatever you feel about them, they’ve done a tremendous amount of good in this arena. This has been like a shockwave.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Kristen Leigh Painter: 303-954-1638 or kpainter@denverpost.com
