About the Susan G. Komen "Cave" Words mean things...(Update Am Papist Jill Stanek & Capt Ed get it)

One of the things you learn when you start report­ing the news is the dif­fer­ence between head­lines and realities.

All over twit­ter and TV we are see­ing the line: Susan G. Komen backs down. Susan Komen caves etc etc etc.

My first instinct was of course to can­cel my dona­tion, I tweeted to that effect but then I decided to do some­thing that I thought might be intel­li­gent. I read the state­ment they released

State­ment from Susan G. Komen Board of Direc­tors and Founder and CEO Nancy G. Brinker Fri­day, Feb­ru­ary 03, 2012 9:40 AM
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 events of this week have been deeply unset­tling for our sup­port­ers, part­ners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. 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.
　
Our orig­i­nal desire was to ful­fill our fidu­ciary duty to our donors by not fund­ing grant appli­ca­tions made by orga­ni­za­tions under inves­ti­ga­tion. We will amend the cri­te­ria to make clear that dis­qual­i­fy­ing inves­ti­ga­tions must be crim­i­nal and con­clu­sive in nature and not polit­i­cal. That is what is right and fair.
　
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.　
　
It is our hope and we believe it is time for every­one involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effec­tively and directly be admin­is­tered with­out con­tro­ver­sies that hurt the cause of women. We urge every­one who has par­tic­i­pated in this con­ver­sa­tion across the coun­try over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mis­sion marred or affected by pol­i­tics – anyone’s pol­i­tics.
　
Start­ing this after­noon, we will have calls with our net­work and key sup­port­ers to refo­cus our atten­tion on our mis­sion and get back to doing our work. We ask for the public’s under­stand­ing and patience as we gather our Komen affil­i­ates from around the coun­try to deter­mine how to move for­ward in the best inter­ests of the women and peo­ple we serve.
We extend our deep­est thanks for the out­pour­ing of sup­port we have received from so many in the past few days and we sin­cerely hope that these changes will be wel­comed by those who have expressed their concern.

and noted in par­tic­u­lar three paragraphs:

Our orig­i­nal desire was to ful­fill our fidu­ciary duty to our donors by not fund­ing grant appli­ca­tions made by orga­ni­za­tions under inves­ti­ga­tion. We will amend the cri­te­ria to make clear that dis­qual­i­fy­ing inves­ti­ga­tions must be crim­i­nal and con­clu­sive in nature and not polit­i­cal. That is what is right and fair.

That is not an unfair state­ment after all if our friends on the left wanted to dis­qual­ify an orga­ni­za­tion they can just begin an “inves­ti­ga­tion in a state like Illi­nois that they con­trol and then “poof”. The state­ment con­tin­ues empha­sis mine

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.

Hmmm pre­serve their eli­gi­bil­ity to apply for grants. Any­one can apply for grants, cripes I can apply for a grant. It’s an open ques­tion if such a grant will be given.

It is our hope and we believe it is time for every­one involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effec­tively and directly be admin­is­tered with­out con­tro­ver­sies that hurt the cause of women. We urge every­one who has par­tic­i­pated in this con­ver­sa­tion across the coun­try over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mis­sion marred or affected by pol­i­tics — anyone’s politics.

What that week has demon­strated with­out a ques­tion is grants to Planned Par­ent­hood gen­er­ate con­tro­ver­sies. And this state­ment says explic­itly that they want to give grants admin­is­tered with­out controversies.

This is a very care­fully worded let­ter and I think the care in the word­ing says a lot. What is not explic­itly said is: “Planned Par­ent­hood will be get­ting new grants from Susan G. Komen in the future.” If Komen wanted to say that, they would have, but they didn’t.

Here is what I think: I think Komen rec­og­nized that to the left this is about the PR bat­tle, I think what Komen is say­ing is not sub­stan­tially dif­fer­ent that what they said yes­ter­day. I think that the left is turn­ing this into a PR win because in the end it is the only win they will get out of this, and the image of Komen “cav­ing” is all that mat­ters to them.

I have a funny feel­ing when a year passes and Planned Par­ent­hood applies for grants for Komen, Komen will hap­pily accept those appli­ca­tions and decide that other groups are more wor­thy of their money.

Now in giv­ing Planned Par­ent­hood and the left a PR vic­tory (which as I’ve already pointed out today is all they really care about) they will enrage a lot of peo­ple who frankly will not trust them in the future, and our friends on the left are cel­e­brat­ing right now, but I think they are min­ing fools gold.

Update: Appar­ently life news sees the same thing I do:

Austin Ruse, the pres­i­dent of the Catholic Fam­ily and Human Rights Insti­tute, who has been very closely fol­low­ing the Komen decision-​making process, told Life­News that the state­ment is not really a change in posi­tion but he says the sen­tence “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” is “trou­bling” for pro-​life advocates.

“This rep­re­sents noth­ing new. We have known and have reported that they are con­tin­u­ing five grants through 2012. This is a ref­er­ence to that. The sec­ond clause about eli­gi­bil­ity is cer­tainly true. Any group can apply for any­thing. It does not mean they are going to get any­thing,” Ruse told LifeNews.

“What this is is an effort to get the mafia off of their backs. As James Taranto said in the Wall Street Jour­nal yes­ter­day, this is a clas­sic shake­down oper­a­tion. Give us money or we will destroy you. This is Komen’s attempt to save their orga­ni­za­tion, which we should know is in peril. Our side should know that noth­ing has changed.”

It’s all about the PR and when it comes down to it, Komen the bad PR and mis­trust that Komen is going to get over this is their own fault.

Bot­tom line: Komen cut fund­ing for Planned Par­ent­hood, it is fac­ing mas­sive revolt from its chap­ters and temen­dous oppo­si­tion from Planned Par­ent­hood and the media, and it appears to be leav­ing the door open for poten­tial grants — not that they will nec­es­sar­ily hap­pen beyond the ones pre­vi­ously approved prior to the deci­sion — to please both sides.

In the end, Komen’s deci­sion to fund Planned Par­ent­hood orig­i­nally got itself in the mess it faces now.

Update 2: The Amer­i­can Papist no squish on life, gets it:

They released a very care­fully scripted state­ment today which echoes what their Pres­i­dent Nancy G. Brinker said yes­ter­day on MSNBC. They didn’t cave, they are say­ing the exact same thing they’ve always been say­ing, just in a new way, in an effort to beg for space and a break from the inces­sant threat by lib­eral elites and attacks by the main­stream and left-​wing media

Update 3: If you won’t believe me or the Amer­i­can Papist on Komen will you believe Jill Stank?

12:20p: The more I read Komen’s state­ment, the more bril­liant it becomes. Planned Par­ent­hood loses its PR edge if any of its affil­i­ates are con­victed on crim­i­nal grounds.

And with the inves­ti­ga­tions cur­rently under way those odds increase every day.

Update 4: The anchoress gets it on the polit­i­cal side but is giv­ing into despair:

He’s much more opti­mistic than I am, but then again, I’m watch­ing Moloch dance today. I know he loses in the end, but today, he feels tri­umphant. Komen won’t dare not to fund PP in the future, not after what they just tasted.

Unless, per­haps, the Chris­tians have mercy, as Thomas says.

Faith Eliz­a­beth, have FAITH!

Update 5: Cap­tain Ed gets it:

It sounds to me like this state­ment was care­fully crafted to under­score that pol­icy, not reverse it, as Sar­gent discovered.

The Anchoress insists she is not giv­ing into despair, I think the left is about to beclown them­selves on this.

Update 6: MSNBC and CNN cel­e­bra­tions not with­stand­ing a few on the left are start­ing to get it

Update last: AUL state­ment:

Amer­i­cans United for Life Pres­i­dent and CEO Dr. Char­maine Yoest said that it was “unfor­tu­nate that the Komen Foun­da­tion had come under vicious attack from Planned Par­ent­hood as part of a media-​savvy campaign.”

Dr. Yoest made the fol­low­ing statement:

“As a breast can­cer sur­vivor, I am trou­bled that the Komen Foun­da­tion has come under such heavy fire for their recent deci­sion to tighten and focus their fund­ing guide­lines. This week we have all been wit­ness to highly par­ti­san attacks from pro-​abortion advo­cates and an ugly and dis­grace­ful shake­down that high­lights Planned Parenthood’s will­ing­ness to pur­sue a scorched-​earth strat­egy to force com­pli­ance with their pro-​abortion agenda.

“The Amer­i­can pub­lic has learned this week that Planned Par­ent­hood does not actu­ally pro­vide front-​line breast health ser­vices: Planned Par­ent­hood does not pro­vide mam­mo­grams – a ser­vice that saved my life. Komen’s long-​standing part­ner­ship with the nation’s largest abor­tion provider has allowed Planned Par­ent­hood to white­wash the cen­tral fact that their core mis­sion involves pro­vid­ing abortion.

“The on-​going Con­gres­sional inves­ti­ga­tion of Planned Par­ent­hood – from the same Com­mit­tee inves­ti­gat­ing Solyn­dra – raises sub­stan­tive legal ques­tions and areas of eth­i­cal and moral con­cern. As AUL detailed in our ‘Case for Inves­ti­gat­ing Planned Par­ent­hood,’ atten­tion to the abor­tion giant’s busi­ness prac­tices is long overdue.

“The Com­mit­tee is con­cerned with wise stew­ard­ship of pub­lic tax­payer monies, just as the Komen Foun­da­tion must be con­cerned with their invest­ment of donor dol­lars. It is unfor­tu­nate that donors to the Susan G. Komen Foun­da­tion are now con­fused about their asso­ci­a­tion with the nation’s largest abor­tion provider.”