Pro-life Republican Karen Handel resigns from her position at Komen, explaining:
Komen’s decision to change its granting strategy and exit the controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood and its grants was fully vetted by every appropriate level within the organization. At the November Board meeting, the Board received a detailed review of the new model and related criteria. As you will recall, the Board specifically discussed various issues, including the need to protect our mission by ensuring we were not distracted or negatively affected by any other organization’s real or perceived challenges. No objections were made to moving forward.
I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it. I openly acknowledge my role in the matter and continue to believe our decision was the best one for Komen’s future and the women we serve. However, the decision to update our granting model was made before I joined Komen, and the controversy related to Planned Parenthood has long been a concern to the organization. Neither the decision nor the changes themselves were based on anyone’s political beliefs or ideology. Rather, both were based on Komen’s mission and how to better serve women, as well as a realization of the need to distance Komen from controversy. I believe that Komen, like any other nonprofit organization, has the right and the responsibility to set criteria and highest standards for how and to whom it grants.
What was a thoughtful and thoroughly reviewed decision – one that would have indeed enabled Komen to deliver even greater community impact – has unfortunately been turned into something about politics. This is entirely untrue. This development should sadden us all greatly.
This letter confuses me, but I'm probably misreading it. She writes: "What was a thoughtful and thoroughly reviewed decision – one that would have indeed enabled Komen to deliver even greater community impact – has unfortunately been turned into something about politics. This is entirely untrue. "
She makes the point that Komen's actions were not political but she is resigning because they were perceived as political? Or is she resigning because Komen responded to political pressure from PP? But she doesn't say that. If that's the case, why not just say it outright? Or am I missing something? I am open to correction.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think she's saying that their initial decision was not political, but then it was politicized by outsiders -- PP and their water-carriers -- and falsely called political in motivation. THEN Komen responded politically after others politicized things, instead of sticking to their guns.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're missing the last paragraph of the letter, which you can read via the link.
The wording is not direct, but it's clear she is resigning because she has been made into a target by the "pro choice" crowd, and she opts not to be a distraction to Komen in its pursuit of its mission.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseToo bad Mitt Romney lacks her firm commitment to the lives of the unborn.
MittBots pretend there is never anything to be done in the pro-life fight except to capitulate as their Capitulator-in-Chief does.
Handel shows that for the weak and cowardly act it is.
No one is forced to sign their name to funding the fluorescent abattoirs which so characterize America in our day as shackles and whips defined America of our forefathers' day. At some point, each and every one of us decides where to draw the line--beyond which we cannot in good conscience take one more step. This may involve the loss of livelihood, or of friendships, or of money. In fact, it almost always does.
The difference between a Karen Handel and a Mitt Romney is the difference between someone with deeply-held convictions and someone who has no principle save ambition.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThankfully, someone in the Komen organization has integrity. Instead of relying solely on an "anonymous source" who claimed Handel was instrumental in the PP decision, the liberal media should have given equal time and attention to those who were courageous enough to identify themselves and denied that claim. Handel is a pro-life Republican who was viewed by PP advocates as a convenient target, but she isn't having any of it. It's not known who will have the last word in this controversy, but PP shouldn't be crowing too loudly just yet. There is a reason that organization made such a fuss over a relatively small amount of money and that reason has nothing to do with its concern for women's healthcare.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI believe she just drove a knife in the chest of the other members of the Komen board. She clearly states:
"However, the decision to update our granting model was made before I joined Komen, and the controversy related to Planned Parenthood has long been a concern to the organization."
She is upset because Komen didn't defend her and the allegations against her. This "updated granting model" might have been something used by Komen to recruit her (speculation on my part but very likely). She has also clearly shown that Komen has had a problem with Planned Parenthood for a while.
Here is an individual with character. How many of the Democrats in Congress that voted for Obamacare and believed Obama would leave the Church alone will be changing to the Republican Party?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's a time for choosing sides.
Refusing to choose places you squarely on the other side.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Neither the decision nor the changes themselves were based on anyone’s political beliefs or ideology."
Right. Please stopping insulting us all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnyone care to place a Romney-sized bet on how fast Handel winds up on Fox News, playing the martyred victim for Sean, Bill, et al? Can a run for elected office be far behind?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Handel is telling the truth (and I believe she is), then Komen lied at least twice about its reason for pulling the funding. The decision had nothing to do with investigations or mammograms, but was merely an attempt to distance itself from "controversy." How noble.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse