Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood: The Bigger Story

Planned Parenthood and the Susan G. Komen Foundation: The Bigger Story?

While giant breast cancer organization Susan G. Komen Foundation’s decision to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood – and its reversal in the face of a backlash – is certainly newsworthy, there may be a much bigger story.

As the Daily Beast notes, this is more about business than charity:

The competition for big bucks is fierce, and she has inevitably left a number of disgruntled charities in her wake, among them small-town philanthropies who use “for the cure” as part of their message. These include “Kites for the Cure,” “Cupcakes for a Cure,” and “Mush for the Cure,” which involves sled-dog racing.

Some of these have complained that they have faced legal threats from Komen, have little money to fight back, and feel squelched by the powerful group.

“Komen plays hardball and is determined to stay on top,” says a member of another cancer organization, who declined to be identified. “Let’s be honest about all this: people think of breast cancer as a charity, but it’s really a major business.

And if even half of what these doctors claim is true, then the entire “cancer business” is riddled with fraud and corruption. If true, then – without doubt – that’s the bigger story.

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • gamma ray

    Thanks for the prior link to the documentary on Dr. Burzynski. Cut, Burn, and Poison is another must see documentary. IMO, these two movies are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to exposing the cancer industry. Around 15 years ago, I spent a fair amount of time emerged in advanced oncology coursework and, thankfully, one professor went outside of the molecular genetics of cancer curriculum to educate us on the huge potential of cancer prevention. Sadly, hers was a voice in the wilderness as grant funding sources and the cowboy culture of medicine continued to steer treatment, research, and education towards chemotherapy and radiation and away from prevention and alternative treatments.

    Another physician who thinks outside the box is Dr. Joseph Mercola. On his website, he has written about Burzynski; had an amazing interview the with father of the young boy afflicted with cancer in Cut, Poison, Burn; and featured interviews with physicians pioneering dietary treatments for cancer patients.

  • Oddly enough, the whole sordid mess is about terrorism we can believe in doncha know?

  • I don’t really see how a cure for cancer would work very well for the SGK Foundation business model.

  • lars

    Charities as Cash-Cows for the Super-Rich

    Social convention would be much too embarrassed to question the accounts and books of a charity, and demand an audit. As charities do social good works, how could we demand an audit, it would be like looking the proverbial gift horse in the mouth. Any recipient of a free handout would be loath or crazy to question the financial books of the donating organization, and this is exactly what the SuperRich are counting on.

    In 2005 American Charities received $62.5 Billion Dollars, up 16% from 2004, CNN reported in October 2006. $52.5 Billion would be the 2004 haul for Charities. My question is: How in the world can they spend $115 Billion in two years, and where ? That seems like enough to solve both world hunger and the AIDS crisis; yet all the world’s problems continue to roll on unabated and undiminished. (Not to mention the many tens of Billion’$ they received in the decades previous, and since.)

    Does anyone ‘follow the money’ in the case of Big Charities ? Where does it all go ? And yet Charities have their ad agencies extend the proverbial ‘hat in hand’ for donations every time there is any kind of disaster. How much was donated to their cause for 9/11 ? , and how much did they actually give to the families afflicted ? (answer: a lot, and very little/none; respectively.)

    In light of Enron and other big business scandals involving cooking the books and fraud, how hard would it be for the SuperRich to ‘cook the books’ of a charity and get away with it for decades ? Answer: It would be all too easy. Tens of millions if not hundreds of millions could be siphoned off every year in various ways, directly and indirectly, right into the pockets of the SuperRich as disguised by ‘pet projects’ or ‘infrastructure building’ for pet projects, because after all they are the ‘big-wheels’ running all medium to major size charities.

    In their advertising and donation solicitations, Big Charities nurture the connotation that they are honest and do ‘God’s Work’, to the extent that it is possible for human institutions to do that; and as such they are above reproach and suspicion, they are needed by society, for they are the goose that lays the golden eggs, they require the public’s trust, and have earned it in deeds past. This is all the perfect set-up so that the SuperRich can, with perfect impunity and protection, siphon off vast amounts of tax-free dollars for their own uses. As Big Business and the SuperRich have enormous influence over Big Government, no major charity has ever been audited or gotten in trouble, or even been looked at once, let alone twice, for any impropriety regarding the spending of donated funds. Big charities are a ‘hands off’ area for Government’s prying eyes and noses.

    Big Charities are accountable to no one, they have a ‘blue ribbon’ standing in society; they do not seek a profit, they do not pay taxes, they carry no debt, they are a private business not a public corporation; they are similar to a religion in many ways, and there is no one with any interest nor position of authority to audit them; so where their money goes and how they run their business is entirely up to senior management, who are most definitely under the thumb of the SuperRich who are ultimately in charge of almost all charities. Big salaries for upper management keeps things quiet and sequestered on all fronts.

    All this being said, there are a few small charities which are shown to be fraudulent from time to time (Bob Jones et al), so there is some sort of ostensible government oversight of ‘not for profit’ institutions, but these rotten apples are weeded out and hushed up as quickly and as quietly as possible to keep from blemishing the major charities’ image in the public mind. The public must never start to doubt the true role of charities, for if it became public knowledge how much money is siphoned off yearly from charities it would signal a social disruption on an unprecedented scale, as the public would be outraged at how they had been conned and lied to by the SuperRich for so many decades, and how their good trust was so abused by those who pretended to care about the poor, but who had actually been ripping them off for decades, and getting away with it, all the while continuing to plead for ever more contributions, which were in reality mostly being used for the aggrandizement of the SuperRich and their private agendas, and at the expense of those who the charities are supposedly helping.

    One indicator that an Empire has passed its peak and is descending into the decadence and degradation of scandalous behavior is when corruption becomes evident in those at the top, because it is they who actually know the precarious position the Empire is truly in, and many of them lose their faith in the Empire, they become selfish and spendthrift in their own behaviors and don’t care about the future like they used to do. They will begin to use charity monies to fund their own political and social visions, and not do what their charity’s ‘statement of purpose’ describes. (for example David Rockefeller and his world population reduction agenda.)

    It is beyond this investigative reporters resources at present to connect all the names and dots in the Big Charity arena, so this paper is more of a conceptual theory hypothesis of probability and potentiality thru easily observed behaviors, and the results of Big Charities actions and accounts as reported in the public domain.

  • hylen

    its vs. it’s. The little things count too. Let’s get it right, people.

  • no one in particular
  • K Mann

    as for me and my house, there will never be another item with a pink ribbon on it put into our shopping cart. putting aside the notion that the SGK foundation is a big business, when i bought something pink it was my understanding that the donation went to do breast cancer research. but now i find out that the SGKF gives money to baby killers? no sir! not one more dime of my hard earned pro-life wallet to baby killers or those who support them.