1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Loon takes over Komen Foundation, cuts off Planned Parenthood funding

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by TheSportsPredictor, Jan 31, 2012.

  1. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    I detest Komen, but it has nothing to do with this particular issue, it's just another log on the fire.
     
  2. imjustagirl

    imjustagirl Active Member

    Wow. That is honestly the first time I'd heard that. Dammit! Now I have no way to save the tatas!
     
  3. BitterYoungMatador2

    BitterYoungMatador2 Well-Known Member

    Nice that I think three of the top 20 are Veteran's organizations. Well done, folks. So not only does the government fail these people when they come back from combat, so too do the non-profits set up to assist them.
     
  4. deskslave

    deskslave Active Member

    To play complete devil's advocate here, the waters are starting to becoming muddied over just how effective/efficient routine cancer screenings -- and other sorts of screenings -- are in people who are generally at low risk. One of the arguments is that the benefits of what early detection does take place are outweighed by the negative effects of false positives. Seemingly true both for mammography and routine prostate cancer screenings.

    I've also heard the argument that the reason U.S. cancer survival rates are "higher" is because they're generally five-year survival rates. Because earlier detection does often occur in the U.S., someone may "survive" seven years with cancer, whereas had they been in, for example, the U.K., they might survive just four years -- but only because the cancer wasn't caught until three years later.
     
  5. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    Not bad points, deskslave. On a cost-efficiency basis alone you could argue for reduced screenings. However, none of what you're saying has anything to do with the reasons for this action. Komen just decided to start playing politics, is all.
     
  6. gravehunter

    gravehunter Member

    I think everyone who has tweeted, and hasn't tweeted, already donated to PP. The money just goes through the middleman known as the US Government.
     
  7. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Which they will immediately use to drive your sweet innocent daughters to the abortionists, and then force them to marry militant muslim lesbians on the way back.

    We want our countree back.
     
  8. Is there really a problem with this move if Komen spends the same money funding breast cancer examinations elsewhere?
     
  9. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    More of a problem for Komen's donations, I imagine. Will be very interesting to see what the enrollment/fund-raising is for their 3-Day walks this year. They're giving people lots of reasons to look elsewhere with their charity dollars. And that includes a lot of corporate money, which tends not to want to get too political with its do-gooding.
     
  10. imjustagirl

    imjustagirl Active Member

    Depends on if those same exams are available for free to underpriveleged women.
     
  11. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Well, I'm not concerned about the very poor.
     
  12. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    Komen's biggest hit will come from corporate partners who back away from the foundation because of the controversy. They partner with Komen so they can market to to women and seem like "good guys." I figure they will start looking for another outlet like Avon or the National Breast Cancer Coalition
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page