Susan G. Komen vs. Planned Parenthood: Who Should I Support?

A public fight has broken out over the last week between Susan G. Komen, a charity dedicated to preventing and curing breast cancer, and Planned Parenthood, a nationwide family planning organization. The throwdown between two popular charities has left many supporters conflicted over which organization they should support. Today, I will help provide some guidance through the complex ins and outs of the feud so you can better decide for yourself.

First, men are lucky that they do not need to have an opinion on the subject. Since Susan G. Komen is dedicated to curing breast cancer and Planned Parenthood gives abortions, men can simply shrug and say that they do not care whenever the topic is brought up. In all likelihood, women will indignantly insist that these issues affect men, too, and that such indifference is insulting and sexist. Obviously, they are wrong and are probably either on their period or suffering from a bout of hysteria. Men: you can stop reading right now, unless you ever want to get laid again.

[RIGHT: What I imagine a fight between employees at Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood may well look like.]

For those of you who want to get to know the issues, it is important to understand why Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood are fighting. The story starts with a few rich donors to Susan G. Komen who paid a Congressman to open an investigation into whether Planned Parenthood failed to report cases of possible sexual abuse against minors for whom its doctors were caring. If you are thinking that it sounds illegal to pay a Congressman to open a Congressional investigation for self-serving purposes, then apparently you have never heard of a little Supreme Court case called Citizens United that makes it illegal to tell rich people not to do things. Anyway, when Planned Parenthood objected to the investigation as unwarranted and discriminatory, Susan G. Komen’s rich pro-life backers pressured the organization to stop giving grants to Planned Parenthood.

At least that’s the public story. Don’t rule out the possibility that this controversy was manufactured to get more sympathetic press for Planned Parenthood. They have certainly received much more money in private donations in the last week than they lost in the withheld grant from Susan G. Komen. If the pro-life donors really wanted to defund Planned Parenthood, it probably would have been wiser to do so in a way that did not massively increase donations to the organization.

If the public façade of the conflict is to be believed, then it might be constructive to consider what both of these organizations do for society. Susan G. Komen raises millions of dollars every year to cure breast cancer. To achieve that goal, the organization has also trademarked the color pink and the “Race for the Cure” name, and has paid high-level executives exorbitant salaries. While these aggressive business practices may sound de rigueur for a successful business, Susan G. Komen is not actually successful. Contrary to popular belief, they have NOT cured cancer and have in fact succeeded only in making themselves rich. Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, has cured all sorts of varied diseases, from gonorrhea to chlamydia to syphilis. They have even had some success preventing down syndrome through early detection and aggressive treatment protocols.

Some of Susan G. Komen’s most ardent supporters have pointed out that the organization remains committed to helping the American economy stay vibrant. While they say that Planned Parenthood stifles the growth of the American workforce, Susan G. Komen provides financial support for job creators, particularly those in the straightened-out wire hanger manufacturing industry.

The most important difference between the two organizations may not be operational, but relational. It has become increasingly clear over the last week that Susan G. Komen, for all of the unblinking goodwill it has accumulated over decades, is a slow moving behemoth, a relic institution of a bygone age. In other words, the organization is less viable because it does not have the ability to manipulate social media to support its actions. Clearly, the greatest sin had nothing to do with reallocating grant money, and everything to do with hiring a PR firm that could not convey dogmatic bits of social control in 140 characters.

In conclusion, the safest way to go is to post a link to an article condemning Susan G. Komen on Facebook with a snarky comment about how they bend to the whims of rich donors. Anything less risks social ostracization, so steer clear.