by R. Asmerom

It has been a very rattling year for the Suan G. Komen Foundation – an agency that raises funds for cancer research and treatment. On the heels of its publcly criticized flip-flopping on the Planned Parenthood issue, the CEO of its New York affiliate Dr. Dara Richardson-Heron resigned today.

Earlier this year, Susan G. Komen for The Cure cut funding to Planned Parenthood in lieu of the fact that it was under congressional investigation for using federal funds to deliver abortion services.

Many in the public saw the Komen Foundation’s move as highly political and many protested its policy of cutting breast health programs. Amidst the backlach it received, The Foundation decided to re-fund Planned Parenthood.

The controversy however rattled the organization and strained its leadership.

Abigail Pesta of Newsweek and The Daily Beast reported on the recent resignation of Richardson-Heron who headed one of its most powerful affiliates in terms of fundraising. Although Richardson-Heron stated in a letter to constituents that she “made a personal decision to leave” and “to pursue new career opportunities,” it is believed that the recent controversy highly determined the turn of events:

Eve Ellis, a former board member of the Komen affiliate in New York City, said she believes Richardson-Heron’s resignation is tied to the Planned Parenthood controversy. “I can’t say exactly why she [resigned], but I can tell you that Dara was working behind the scenes before the decision to cut funds to Planned Parenthood, saying, ‘Please don’t do this.’ After the decision, she was working behind the scenes to reverse it,” Ellis told The Daily Beast. She added, “I have the utmost respect for Dara. I was on the selection committee when we selected her—she is an impressive force.”

 

The Foundation recently canceled two important fund-raising events in New York city due to “concerns about efforts to raise funds in the near term.” In recent weeks, two other high profile executives have also resigned and now there is pressure being put on Nancy Brinker, the founder of the organization, to step down in order to restore the reputation of the agency.  ”I really feel that she can salvage this situation by stepping aside,” Ellis told The Daily Beast about Brinker. “I don’t mind if she steps aside as a hero, saying, look what I’ve built, with the help of others. The mission is bigger than all of us. Go out a hero, a martyr. It’s in Nancy Brinker’s hands and in her board’s hands. They are not an independent board—her son is on it. They need to be an independent voice.”

Source: Margaret Doyle

The reproductive debate has been growing in intensity with each new bit of legislation introduced; from laws requiring transvaginal ultrasounds before women can have abortions to requirements over who should fund birth control, to personhood amendments that state rights start the minute sperm fertilizes an egg. For the most part, there have been two faces in this discussion: the white female protesters who will be damned if you take away the rights to procedures they supposedly only need in theory; and the black and Latina female victims who are said to stand to lose the most because they are the ones who need access to family planning services and procedures.

When you look at the facts thrown out about the womb being the most dangerous place for a black child, and then see white abortion rights advocates like Sandra Fluke taking a stand or Margaret Doyle shown here being removed from a General Assembly in Richmond, VA, because she’s so angry over the limiting of reproductive rights, you might ask, like Courtland Milloy did in a Washington Post article yesterday, “what does the white woman really have to be angry about?” As Milloy points out:

“She has the longest life expectancy in the country and, through sheer numbers, dominates the demographic landscape. Her power at the polls is immense. Her risk of falling victim to street crime is low compared with the risk faced by black women. She’s rarely exposed to the AIDS virus, and breast cancer is no longer the death sentence for her that it is for so many others.

“Relatively healthy, happy, safe and financially secure, she is the reigning queen of the ‘golden mean,’ the norm by which other women are measured.”

Yet, these are the women who, despite the fact that they supposedly don’t need the mammograms that Planned Parenthood will continue to fund through grants from Susan G. Komen, or abortions that will require prior ultrasounds in some states, or free contraception, are fighting tooth and nail to stop lawmakers from entering women’s wombs. Why are they so invested, because of an altruistic shared sisterhood or the idea that they want this right, even if everyone would have us believe they don’t need it? When Milloy asked the disgruntled activist what her motives were, she said this:

“To be honest with you, we are rattled because just a few years ago this nation was brought to the absolute brink and we nearly lost everything,” Margaret Doyle said. “If you were comfortable in your lifestyle, had your Colonial home with a picket fence and thought ‘this is my entitlement, I am supposed to have this,’ and then learn that it can all go away in a hot New York minute? And instead of creating jobs, helping us stay in our homes, improving roads and schools, these dangerous men are in the state legislature obsessing over our wombs.”

She certainly has a point about greater attention needing to be placed on far more pressing issues facing our country, but her use of the word entitlement causes Milloy pause in his summation on the differing visibility of white and black women in the debate. He writes, “For the white woman, perhaps, it is the fear of losing the rights that she’d come to take for granted that has led to the explosive displays of rage. For the black woman, thwarted in her drive to win some of those same rights, fear of not getting what she deserves is probably fueling a silent fury that will soon erupt as well.”

In other words, white women wouldn’t be taking a stand in this discussion now if they didn’t finally stand to lose something as well. Of course Milloy is using broad assumptions in making his points about the racial divide in the reproductive debate. There are likely as many white woman who need these services as there are black women who don’t, but the entire discussion reminds me of the black feminist movement and how an entirely new effort evolved among black women in the 1970s because they simply were not fighting for the same things as their white female counterparts. Is that what’s going on with the absence of women of color in this discussion today? Forty years ago black woman created their own movement because white feminists failed to acknowledge oppression based on race and class. Are white women now ignoring that the limiting of reproductive rights is as much, if not more so, about controlling poor women of color and their offspring, as it is women’s bodies in general?

Or maybe black women are largely silent on the national reproductive platform because as Milloy says, “the white woman decides who gets heard in such matters. By her own efforts, but also through her unique access to wealthy men, she builds institutions to support her causes.” When you think about it, would black and Latina women as the true face of this issue—whether that is legitimate or not—ever garner as much attention as it currently does? Or is it the power that the white woman holds and her ability to speak up in certain circles what commands attention from the government?

Thus far, Judy Eason McIntyre, the Oklahoma Senator who held up a sign during a protest at the state’s capitol that read, “If I Wanted the Government in my Womb, I’d F*** a Senator,” continues to be the sole black face in a sea of white ones taking a prominent stand on the reproductive debate. This begs the question of whether black women want to get in on the discussion or if they’ve been pushed out of it. It’s fine for white women to take a stand on this hot button issue but what shouldn’t happen is what Milloy suggests, “other women may sit at the table, but she alone speaks on their behalf.” If women of color stand to lose so much when it comes to reproductive rights, then we should have a voice in this as well.

Do you see the reproductive debate as an opportunity for all women to work together toward a common goal or are the agendas of white women and women of color too different to put up a united front?

Brande Victorian is a blogger and culture writer in New York City. Follower her on Twitter at @be_vic.

More on Madame Noire!

• How Tweet It Is: Folks Who Need A Twitter Take Down!
• No Ordinary Love: Weird Things That Are Good For Your Relationship
• Double Take! Celebs’ Who Look Just Like Their Parents
• Golden Girls! Gorgeous Gold Accessories – EDITOR PICKS
• Jojoba Oil: A Nourishing and Natural Friend For Your Hair
• Black Celebrity Twins Besides Tia & Tamera
• Puurrfectly Poised: Style Icon Eartha Kitt
• Sisters In Hiding: Not So Famous Sisters of Famous Celebs Part II

It only took breast cancer giant Susan G. Komen for the Cure, three days to have a change of heart—or get sick of the backlash—regarding it’s controversial decision to cut breast-screening grants to planned parenthood.

Komen CEO Nancy Brinker just released a statement outlining it’s reverse decision, saying in part:

“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…

“Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair…

“We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants,while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.”

Initially, it was assumed that the Komen Foundation withdrew its funding due to the fact that Planned Parenthood is under government investigation, but yesterday, the Komen Foundation said the real cause for their initial decision was that Planned Parenthood does not directly provide mammograms.  As the Washington Post points out, Nancy Brinker’s statement doesn’t address that concern at all, presumably leaving open the possibility that the foundation may reject Planned Parenthood’s future grant applications.

We’ll have to see if this latest decision sticks.

What’s your stance on the Komen Foundation? Were they wrong to withdraw funding in the first place? Do you think this reversal makes things right or are they still sketchy?

Brande Victorian is a blogger and culture writer in New York City. Follower her on Twitter at @be_vic.

More on Madame Noire!

• Stupid H*e Isn’t So Stupid: 7 Other Random Videos That Should’ve Been Banned
• Tracy Morgan and Why It’s Hard To Judge Family Relations
• Men of a Certain Age: The Pros and Cons of Dating Much Younger and Older Guys
• Undercover Brothers: Not-So-Famous Brothers of Famous Celebs
• Why Won’t My Hair Grow?!” 4 Reasons Why Your Hair is Stalling
• 7 Things That Could Change The Way He Feels About You
• I’m a Survivor: Maia Campbell Talks New Career and Sobriety