Matthew Dowd: Susan G. Komen-Planned Parenthood Debate Shows ‘Poisonous Part of Democracy’
Email
ABC
ABC News political analyst Matthew Dowd said that the debate this week over funding between the Susan G. Komen Foundation and Planned Parenthood shows the “corrupt nature that’s happened in politics” is now impacting private groups.
“This is a corrupt, poisonous part of democracy at work,” Dowd said on the “This Week” roundtable of the backlash this week when the Susan G. Komen Foundation announced it was removing funding for mammogram screenings from Planned Parenthood – before reversing course after a vocal outcry.
“A private foundation can give and dispense money any way it wants,” Dowd added. “I think foundations should be able to make a decision, and if Planned Parenthood wants to go out and raise the money” they lost from the Komen Foundation, they can do so.
AOL Huffington Post Media president Arianna Huffington said the debate showed “social media at work” as supporters of Planned Parenthood galvanized support online.
“This was about women’s health. This was an attempt to politicize it,” Huffington said. “So the attempt to politicize this issue backfired, and people said this is not a left-right issue.”
George Will disputed that idea, saying “This is not about women’s health. This is about providing 300,000 abortions a year. Planned Parenthood cleverly cast this to say we are in the mammogram business. They’re not in the mammogram business.”
“All these people describing themselves as pro-choice said it is illegitimate to choose not to be involved in abortion,” Will added.
Will said the Obama administration’s requirement for Catholic hospitals and other institutions to provide insurance policies that cover contraception services was a greater threat.
Catholic churches protested that requirement at Sunday services last week, reading letters written by church leaders saying the policy infringed on religious freedom.
“On the political side, in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, particularly, there are lots of blue-collar Catholics who hear this as more bullying,” Will said.
Dowd, who serves on the board of a Catholic hospital in Austin, Texas, agreed that it was an issue of government overreach.
“I think people that run these institutions and are in these services think…why is the federal government doing this, when we’re providing all this care,” Dowd said. “Why is big government getting involved in our business, which we know what to do?”
“It’s a stunning display of irony when you look at all of this,” added conservative radio host Dana Loesch. “For instance, Komen is excoriated over their choice – the private charity to do what they want with their money. And here you have the government now saying that you don’t have a choice to be able to practice your religious liberty and these institutions have to comply with this particular mandate that goes against their freedom and liberty.”
But Huffington said it was about making contraception available to those who work at Catholic institutions, including non-Catholics who do not oppose contraception.
“The churches are not going to be affected,” Huffington said. “We’re talking about Catholic hospitals that employ a lot of non-Catholics.”
Best Commencement Speeches of 2012 
Joe Biden Recalls Death of Wife, Daughter
Looking at an unmitigated PR disaster, how can any of the Korman board or executives not be, and should be, fired. These people have a serious judgement quotient.
Posted by: James Sheets | February 5, 2012, 5:17 pm 5:17 pm
When Komen chose to be political, it forfeited its status as a charity. Now everyone knows they kept 87% of all donations for themselves. Nobody will ever trust them again.
Posted by: thomas | February 5, 2012, 5:26 pm 5:26 pm
A private foundation indeed “can give and dispense money any way it wants”, but they have an obligation to be steadfast to their stated mission. When a private charity deviates from its mission to pursue a political agenda, they will in turn face the consequences from staff members, partner agencies, donors, volunteers and corporate sponsors. I can assure you that sponsors such as Estee Lauder, Whirlpool, Yoplait, KFC and all the rest were not happy about this and they probably had more to do with the apology and policy reversal than anything else.
Posted by: Leelee | February 5, 2012, 6:14 pm 6:14 pm
Thomas, where does it say they kept 87% for themselves? Susan B. Komen has breast cancer screening centers all over the US. But your post shows that you approve of bulllying private foundation into giving money to whatever you approve off, which apparently is abortions.
Posted by: Lizzie | February 6, 2012, 10:13 am 10:13 am
“A private foundation can give and dispense money any way it wants,” said Matthew Dowd on your show, and that is plainly an error. Foundations do not have that much freedom, unless they are totally funded by closely held funds (like a family foundation). Once a charity seeks donations form outside sources, it needs to be crystal clear about its intentions for using those funds. That’s what mission, goal and vision statements are for.
When when Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation stopped funding breast cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood health centers, the Komen Foundation changed the course of its core mission, contradicting much of its official statements, like in its 2010 Annual Report , when Komen assured funders, donors and volunteers that its programs were ” “ensuring quality care for all.”[p. 6].
Elsewhere, the Foundation often tells this tale “Nancy G. Brinker promised her dying sister, Susan G. Komen, that she would do everything in her power to end breast cancer forever. ” That’s also misleading, if Komen refuses to support breast cancer screenings at legitimate clinics where reproductive freedom is exercised.
If Komen wants to fund specific types of clinics, that change in policy needs to be preceded by a change in the mission, to be clear that Komen is not totally inclusive.
The remaining problem for Komen is just as simple. The cover-up of lies brings more trouble than the lie itself.
Posted by: Theresa M. Collins | February 6, 2012, 7:41 pm 7:41 pm
“When when Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation stopped funding breast cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood health centers, the Komen Foundation changed the course of its core mission, contradicting much of its official statements, like in its 2010 Annual Report , when Komen assured funders, donors and volunteers that its programs were ” “ensuring quality care for all.”[p. 6]“. By that logic. Komen was violating its cre mission by not treating men, or not screaming for cervical cancer. The argument can, and should, be made that Komen’s money might have been better spent in clinics that DO provide free mammograms, rather than in “pass-through” middlemen entities like PP that take a slice of. BTW, PP’s President earns more in a year than SGK donates. Think about that for a moment.
Posted by: Ginger | February 6, 2012, 11:36 pm 11:36 pm
Mathew Dowd, In 28 states the Catholic church has already complied with mandated health plans.
if the Catholic Church wishes not to follow the rule of law, They should STOP taking State and Federal Funds, , Employ only Catholics, and if they wish self insure Then it can be their decision who they wish to employ and who they want to treat. Win for them and Win for women who choose not to follow that particular religious doctrine. Contraceptives are not only used for birth control but also for other medical issues that Men know nothing about. I find this interesting that the catholic church has decided to have this public outcry at this time when it has already been complied in 28 other states. Its a SHAME that the Bishops didn’t show the same amount of indignation when they thought they were above the law when addressing Sexual preditors in their organization. I will agree to disagree. Have a Great Day
Susan Koeman Sues small organizations that say #______FOR THE CURE. I will no longer support them . They have made this purely POLITICAL. I will never run or support RACE FOR SUSAN KOEMAN FOR BOARD MEMBERS SALARIES AND LOBBYISTS.
Hey George do you have a Uterus??? then quit dictating to women how they shoiuld take care of it. This should be between a woman and her doctor.
Posted by: Gail | February 7, 2012, 7:40 am 7:40 am
I just have to say that George Will really ticked me off this week.
Mr. Will, you are a smart man and I have enjoyed listening to your commentary for years. Often I don’t agree with you, but this is the first time you truly angered me to the core. How dare you say the reason women reacted to withdrawal of support from Planned Parenthood did is because of abortion. Abortion never once entered my thoughts as I viscerally reacted to the de-funding news and started posting and following the commentaries. No one was talking about abortion, we were all talking about how Planned Parenthood took care of us back in the 60s and 70s when our college clinics wouldn’t. Untold number of us got our first exams there. and our first counseling on how to PLAN for parenthood. As a result of PP following their mission, I learned, and never had to make use of their other services. And the talk was about how we have the right to our own health care of choice. Mr. Will, it was and is NOT about the abortions. It IS about the abortions for you and yours. I encourage you to think outside the lines, sir.
Posted by: Cathy | February 7, 2012, 7:43 pm 7:43 pm