PUBLIC OPINION > Komen's Planned Parenthood Cuts Are Understandable

News 2012/02/02 14:00:00
Recent policy changes at Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a large organization working to fight breast cancer, prompted them to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, a controversial reproductive health service provider. The cuts were made to address a policy stating that Komen cannot contribute to any organization that is under investigation, and because Planned Parenthood is under investigation for its involvement with abortions, PP lost its funding. However, the cut is been criticized because the majority of the donated money was being used for breast cancer exams and mammogram referrals. We know it's a touchy subject, but we asked SodaHeads what they thought.

Planned Parenthood Loses Breast Exam Funding: Understandable or Awful?

54% Think It's Understandable

This was a close call, almost enough to be considered a split decision, but "Understanding" won by 8%. Of course, these kinds of questions are always weighed down by the usual points of contention, but there were plenty of fresh, reasonable arguments on both sides of the issue.

Those who supported Komen's funding cut pointed out that they were essentially shifting donated money to another non-profit; shouldn't that money stay with the intended organization? Opponents of the funding cut suggested that what Komen did for breast cancer through Planned Parenthood outweighs the risk of misallocated funds. But one commenter simplified the issue beautifully: "They don't want to be connected to a questionable organization; that just seems like good business sense to me."

Women Want the Funding

Female voters were 14% more likely to criticize Komen's funding cut than men were. This could be because women are more likely to use Planned Parenthood, or because they're more likely to get breast cancer. It's not a big enough difference to draw enormous conclusions from, but it's an expected result.

Parents Aren't Big on Planned Parenthood

Though Planned Parenthood offers many services, it's controversial mainly for its stance on and involvement in abortion. Naturally, we had to take a look at how parents voted -- a little more understanding of the cuts than most. But voters who said "No thank you" to children were largely against the cuts.

Planned Politics

All other demographics aside, ultimately, this poll did come down to politics and religion. Liberals and atheists were strongly opposed to the cuts (21% and 8% support respectively); conservatives and Christians were extremely supportive (90% and 73%). So, abortion continues to be one of the great divides.

If you'd like to vote on this question, dig deeper into the demographics, or engage in existing discussion about the topic, visit our original poll about Komen and Planned Parenthood. We'd love to hear from you!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • melly~thwarting Satan since... 2012/02/03 17:17:47 (edited)
    melly~thwarting Satan since 1971
    Well now they have REVERSED their decision.

    I would like to thank SGK for inadvertently helping Planned Parenthood to raise over 3 million dollars.

    Damage done. They still won't be getting another dime from me.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest

  • Ben 2012/02/14 00:10:31
    They cut Planned Parenthood's funding... That is all. And it is understandable.
  • News Junkie 2012/02/05 18:06:52
    News Junkie
    Stupid people leave other Folks alone.
    There are a lot of people that don't like what you do either.
    We don't go around snuffing your "lifestyles" OUT.....(should we?)
  • seattleman 2012/02/05 02:09:48
    I'm glad that they have reversed their decision. I applaud the efforts of my Senator (Patty Murry) to bring pressure on the Komen Foundation to do this. I applaud everyone who protested this horrible decision from the Komen Foundation. I never answered the poll, but I sure didn't see the cuts as understandable. Not at all.
  • scum1 2012/02/05 01:13:39
    You know for once I would like to see an abortion opponent offer a solution. Where will all the unwanted babies go? Will you take in a few crack babies and raise them your self. I mean offer a real world solution. Not force those crack addicts to be responsible or start orphanages(really you volunteering to pay more taxes to cover this?)
  • jeanne Blue 2012/02/04 19:50:22
    jeanne Blue
    Woman power scares the crap out of some folks.
  • El Prez 2012/02/04 07:55:22
    El Prez
    Maybe others should threaten to withdraw funding and Planned Parenthood would get another batch of contributions. Like Rush crowing about the ACLU, which brought in 10 million in contributions. keep up the good work, right wing zealots, you are really helping the cause of freedom.
  • jubil8 BN-0 PON 2012/02/04 07:12:01
    jubil8 BN-0 PON
    Looks like SH isn't mainstream on this one.

    Women all over America got the job done. Bravo!
  • ehrhornp 2012/02/03 21:19:24
    Well the good side won as Komen has back tracked. I wrote them a note telling them that I am making a contribution to Planned Parenthood in their name. Far right organizations need to have their tax exempt status revoked.
  • Unusual... ehrhornp 2012/02/03 21:46:07
    " '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 Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation said in a statement.' "

    Yes, it was the American public who brought this about. Just like the Americans who fought against the higher fees of Bank of America, Netflix, and others.

    This is all it takes, people...speaking up for what's right!

    It can be done, and this is part of the evidence!
  • Freedom4 ehrhornp 2012/02/04 04:30:01
    Unions need their tax exempt status revokes and union dues need to be taken away as a tax deduction.
  • ehrhornp Freedom4 2012/02/04 18:35:06
    Just as soon as corporations are not considered people and are disallowed from buying elections. You might be happier if you moved to Oceania.
  • Freedom4 ehrhornp 2012/02/04 21:42:24
    What idiots like yourself fail to realize is that is a result of bigger government. Under socialism, there is only corporate cronyism. As you democrats sit with your heads on your rears, Obama is more corrupt than MOST presidents ever. The bigger government gets, the more the politicians are bought an sold. The only answer is the shrink the size of government and returning to the principals of our founding fathers of treating every citizen equally under the law. If you hate capitalism so much then you are free to go live in Cuba or in the wilderness.
  • ehrhornp Freedom4 2012/02/04 21:55:28
    I am not the one pushing a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich or in other words, socialism for the rich. If you vote republican you are voting for socialism for the rich.

    As for corruption, no one can compete with your hero G W Bush. Tons of money just disappear in Iraq with no questions asked nor anyone being held accountable. A president who or didn't bother to read his daily briefing memos.

    You republicans took this government from one with a balanced federal budget and replaced it with deficit spending. Then you have done everything in your power to prevent tax increases on the rich as that interferes with your plan for socialism for the rich. You are such hypocrites. And government has expanded under republicans probably more than under democrats. At least with democrats we get a few good things. With republicans we just get pot holes around the world and homeland security. What a joke you republicans are.

    And you are free to go live in Oceania. lol
  • authorgirl ehrhornp 2012/09/30 18:34:12
  • ehrhornp authorgirl 2012/09/30 19:41:44
    Well phony conservative. Seems like there are few true conservatives around today except in the democratic party. Hypocrites should not get the same rights.
  • authorgirl ehrhornp 2012/10/05 15:05:41
    What the hell does that have to do with my question?
  • ehrhornp authorgirl 2012/10/05 15:08:58
    Your question assumes some people are conservative. lol, My position is that there are few true conservatives and they are more likely found in the democratic party.
  • authorgirl ehrhornp 2012/10/16 11:38:14
    Yeah, there are conservatives, true conservatives. Calling me a fake was pointless, because you are so wrong.
  • ehrhornp authorgirl 2012/10/16 16:17:41
    So you will be voting for Obama? Or do you really believe that revenue can be reduced 20% and military spending increase could possibly bring down the deficit. If so how the hell is this going to work? This is nothing but Voodoo economics which just like in the past has expanded the deficit big time.
  • authorgirl ehrhornp 2012/10/19 19:23:46
    Are you stupid? A true conservative wouldn't vote for Obama. That's called a liberal.
  • ehrhornp authorgirl 2012/10/19 19:34:29
    A true conservative would not vote for a republican today. Obama by the way is not really a liberal. He is a moderate. He is only a liberal when compared to the phony conservatives the republicans put up today. Shame you phony conservatives have disregarded your past leaders. Hell even tricky Dick is a saint compared to the bozos you have running today.
  • authorgirl ehrhornp 2012/10/20 22:09:55
  • ehrhornp authorgirl 2012/10/20 23:30:45
    Sorry but true conservatives do not support Voodoo economics. Moderate positions of Obama have been supported by conservatives. Obama is closer to a sixty republican than he is to whatever phony conservatives are calling him today. Truth hurts I know but Obama is more conservative than Mitt who is nothing more than a socialist for the rich. He actively seeks to transfer wealth from the middle class to the rich.
  • authorgirl ehrhornp 2012/10/24 20:38:29
    I'm done with you. Your brainwashed reply doesn't even make sense. Besides, you never crisply answered my original question, and I'm tired of you bitching at me about being a "phony" conservative. Don't even bother replying, unless you are actually going to answer the original question. Instead of avoiding it, for a change.
  • ehrhornp authorgirl 2012/10/25 05:57:56
    I think this is done. bye. Enjoy voting for Big Brother.
  • turtledove123 2012/02/03 21:18:43
    Well, now it is a moot point. SGK has decided to continue their relationship with PP. I did not agree with their decision to withdraw funding in the first place. I am glad that they changed their minds. I was pleased to see how many donations PP got because of that.
  • Cat 1017 2012/02/03 21:04:11
    Cat 1017
  • Cat 1017 2012/02/03 21:03:40
    Cat 1017
    It would be IF it weren't a political choice, NO not even then...The money that was contributed to combat cancer should be used soley for that purpose...and since the funds granted to PP from Komen was then the contributors have a right to be outraged...If they feel the way they claim why didn't they defund the university in Pa that is under investigation?...
  • TruBluTopaz 2012/02/03 20:52:18
    1. Planned parenthood has few sites that offer mammograms on site. Instead they refer patients to other facilities that may or may not represent the best of price control for procedures.
    2. Planned parenthood is under investigation for the way they handling their funding. Komen, as the gold standard for fundraisers for causes, naturally wants all the money given in grants to be used to support their cause-breast cancer. PP couldn't demonstrate that they used funds just for those purposes.
    3. The Left, as usual, took things out of context. Komen has been a leader in supporting the causes of women's health. Planned Parenthood has demonstrated it will do or say anything to keep Komen grants captive.
    4. I have to think of all the men and women who have donated time and effort and money and good will to support the runs, the Three Days and the various other events designed to keep support for survivors and patients alive. What a cynical move it is by PP leadership to siphon money from breast cancer screening for their own economic welfare.
  • melly~t... TruBluT... 2012/02/03 23:27:15
    melly~thwarting Satan since 1971
    Komen spends about 20% of it's donations on research, actually. It spends a ton of money on frivolous lawsuits (over the color pink) and on salaries.

    It's not a great charity.
  • TruBluT... melly~t... 2012/02/04 04:11:08
    I don't know where you are getting your information. BTW, the decision not to issue grants to PP was a business decision, but the decision to cave in to pressure was a political decision. Know the differences.
  • melly~t... TruBluT... 2012/02/04 13:02:01
    melly~thwarting Satan since 1971
    No, it wasn't. It was purely political. Handel joined the team in December. She ran on a platform of defunding PP and has an agenda. She implemented her plan immediately. Everything they have said about it was a lie. And they paid--and will continue to pay--the price. Handel wants to moralize women's health.
  • Cat 1017 melly~t... 2012/02/04 17:30:52 (edited)
    Cat 1017
    Handel is a disgrace...to politicize womens health issues is disgraceful, especially she being a woman...I live in Georgia and she did run on that platform..Brinker pretty much admitted it was an unwise political move..Womens health shouldn't be a prisoner to political wims...But from this point on I dont trust Komen, the issue will arise again...especially with Handel as VP..
  • TruBluT... melly~t... 2012/02/04 20:04:21
    You obviously are here just to grind axes, but the truth is less women will be served using Komen's funding courtesy of a Planned Parenthood management that wants access to all monies. That's not very altruistic of them.
  • melly~t... TruBluT... 2012/02/04 21:34:33
    melly~thwarting Satan since 1971
    That's not true at all. PP has been helping poor women long before SGK and will continue to long after. Especially considring the outpouring of support it received in the wake of these lies by SGK.

    And no, I don't. I have done the walk. I have donated to SGK for years. When one brand has a pink ribbon on it, I have always chosen that brand. They chose to politicize womens' health. They are a disgrace. What I'm happy about is that in the wake of this, I took a much closer look at a charity that I have always supported and found that it isn't pretty. Only 20% of funds received go to actual research. The rest go to fund frivolous lawsuits (like over the color pink) and to pay very hefty salaries. The CEO makes $500k plus a bonus alone. Now--couldn't that money be going to help women? "That's not not very altruistic of them".
  • TruBluT... melly~t... 2012/02/04 21:59:19
    PP has its point that is true. But they have also indulged in some pretty fuzzy economics. They have accepted grants intended for very specific programs and sometimes fudged those funds over to other activities including paying lobbyists and into campaign funds. Sorry, but that's not what a charity, any charity, should be doing. As for Komen, they have had their detractors as well. But, in terms of getting women's health to the forefront, Komen has been much more successful than PP. And despite what you contend, few PP centers have mammography units or radiologists on staff. They charge a fee against the grant to refer a patient to a facility that may or may not be the most cost efficient use of funds. THAT is why Komen was pulling the plug. You may not like it, but it was a rational business decision based on the inability of PP to demonstrate good faith in the way grants were spent.
  • melly~t... TruBluT... 2012/02/04 22:38:21 (edited)
    melly~thwarting Satan since 1971
    PP is not a charity. They just help a lot of uninsured and under-insured women.

    I never contended anything about mammography units or radiologists. Please show me where I did. They performed close to 200,000 breast screenings last year and recommended and referred 15000 mammograms. They do not charge a fee to everyone...that's just wrong. As I am 41, this is the first year I will get a mammogram, yet I have had many breast screenings. That's the case with most women.

    Here's proof:
    fee wrong 41 year mammogram breast screenings case women proof
  • TruBluT... melly~t... 2012/02/05 01:19:48
    char·i·ty   /ˈtʃærɪti/ Show Spelled[char-i-tee] Show IPA
    noun, plural -ties.
    1. generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless: to devote one's life to charity.
    2. something given to a person or persons in need; alms: She asked for work, not charity.
    3. a charitable act or work.
    4. a charitable fund, foundation, or institution: He left his estate to a charity.
  • melly~t... TruBluT... 2012/02/05 02:32:05
    melly~thwarting Satan since 1971
    I see the adult conversation is over.

    PP is a non-profit organization. I wouldn't define them as a charity, nor would they. SGK does define themselves as such.

    But I love how you glossed over everything of substance, to center on semantics...including accusing me of things I never "contended" and misrepresenting how PP helps the fight against breast cancer.
  • TruBluT... melly~t... 2012/02/05 14:33:21
    Non profits that rely on funding from sources other than their own production are by definition charities and rely on that to avoid having to pay taxes. If they make a profit, they are not non-profit and therefore not a charity. Sorry if that name offends you, but that is the umbrella under which they operate if they rely on grants and donations to survive. This is why many of us oppose having federal funds support them since it forces those of us who do not support them to contribute involuntarily. Would you want to be forced to contribute to the NRA? Just because you support them doesn't mean everyone does. And everyone should not be forced to contribute.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 20 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2016/02/06 00:23:57

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals