Opinion

Planned Parenthood to start providing mammograms? I’ll believe it when I see it.

Due to the public backlash after Susan G Komen for the Cure dropped their donations to the abortion giant in January, Planned Parenthood is now claiming to correct its deficiencies in breast cancer screenings and truly help women by offering more extensive follow up care, such as mammograms.

Yeah right.

Cecile Richards recently announced on YouTube that “[e]arlier this year, an outpouring of public support brought in more than 3 million dollars in contributions to support Planned Parenthood’s breast health work, and we’ve invested these donations into an expanded Breast Health Initiative that will support more women in need.”

The Breast Health Initiative advertises an expansion of services and programs, including:

  • grants for specialized follow up services, like diagnostic mammograms, ultrasounds, or biopsies
  • digital breast health educational resources specifically designed for women aged 18-39
  • an expanded promotores educational and outreach program to reach Latinas
  • a unique training tool designed for Planned Parenthood doctors and nurses to assess breast cancer risk in patients — including those under age 40

Sarah Kliff of the Washington Post further quotes Richards, reporting: “Given the events of the last year, and the contributions that came in specifically around the conversation about breast health and our work with Komen, we felt it was important to use that money to expand access and education… We felt like we had a real opportunity here to do something new.”

But wait a minute…I thought Planned Parenthood already performed mammograms! If they have always done this, why is Richards now saying they are doing “something new“? After all, this is the very same Cecile Richards who appeared on the on the Joy Behar Show in 2011 and adamantly voiced her opposition to the bill threatening to defund Planned Parenthood, claiming that “[m]illions of women in this country are going to lose their health care access, not to abortion services – to basic family planning, m-m-you-know mammograms, cancer screenings, cervical cancer.”

Live Action investigated this claim and revealed that not a single Planned Parenthood in the entire United States of America provides mammograms for women. The only breast examinations Planned Parenthood performs are manual exams that any health care provider can teach you to do at home. If you were to need a mammogram, the only service Planned Parenthood could offer you is referrals for mammograms – not mammograms themselves. Even on Planned Parenthood’s own website, a YouTube video of Dr. Vanessa Cullins, vice president of external medical affairs for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, states: “We also help women get the care and treatment they need. Like most primary care physicians and OB/GYNs, Planned Parenthood refers patients to other facilities for mammograms.”

I don’t know what makes me cringe more – the fact that Cecile Richards has been caught red-handed by publicly lying about her corporation providing mammograms and people actually believing her, or the part when she says that Planned Parenthood is “an American value in this country.” Either way, this is not the first time lies have been spewed by the likes of Cecile Richards. The saying “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me” seems fitting. The deception of the nation’s largest abortion provider needs to end, and it needs to end today.

In Komen news, president Liz Thompson recently announced her resignation from the organization, making her the most recent one of at least six high-ranking executives nationwide to leave the charity. Beginning with the resignation of Komen’s policy chief Karen Handel just days after the decision was made to reinstate funding to Planned Parenthood in February, Katrina McGhee, executive vice president and chief marketing officer, quickly followed suit, as well as Nancy Macgregor, vice president of global networks and Joanna Newcomb, director of affiliate strategy and planning. Chairman of the foundation’s board of directors Dr. LaSalle D. Leffall, Jr. stepped down from his post as of March 31 but still remains on the board, and Dr. Dara Richardson-Heron, CEO of Komen’s New York City affiliate, announced her resignation in April.

Although no official statements have been released verifying the decision to reinstate funding to Planned Parenthood as the reason why these executives have resigned, the breadcrumbs easily followed. The negative effects on Komen’s overall legitimacy and reputation from flip-flopping on the issue are evident, and it is deplorable that Planned Parenthood’s bullying and scare-tactics have cost the charitable organization its top leaders, who truly want to help women and find a cure for cancer. Then again, it’s nothing unexpected from the largest abortion provider in our country. Instead of advocating donations of money for other (non-abortion-providing) Federally Qualified Heath Centers already equipped to provide breast exams and mammograms to low-income families, Planned Parenthood would rather hoard millions of dollars for itself that could have been used to provide for legitimate women’s health exams all along. And now they are claiming to do something about it? I’ve heard that before. Sounds to me like some people are afraid of being stripped from their funding after getting caught in a lie…again. Nice try, Planned Parenthood. Next?

In order to be truly pro-life, we need to support advancements in ethical medical technology to help save lives through both prevention and treatment alike. I would love to see a disease as devastating as breast cancer be obliterated from our reality. What I cannot support, however, is publicly funding an organization which makes close to 14% of its overall income from slaughtering unborn children. We need to support organizations that care for the life and well-being of both mother and child, as well as father, brother, sister, grandparent, etc. Planned Parenthood unfortunately is not one of these organizations. Do not be deceived by Planned Parenthood any longer.

Planned Parenthood = Abortion

Abortion ≠ Ethical, Life-Saving Health Care

Dear Planned Parenthood: the American people are not dumb. You have lied to us one too many times, and we are on to you. If you thought 2012 was bad for your public image and financial stability, get ready for 2013, because the pro-life generation of America is just getting warmed up.

Live Action on Facebook

  • Pingback: Komen controversy hurts local affiliate – San Francisco Chronicle | Best News Feed - Daily News Magazine

  • Pingback: Planned Parenthood to Start Providing Mammograms? I’ll Believe It When I See It. | Foundation Life

  • P.D.

    ”
    I would love to see a disease as devastating as breast cancer be obliterated from our reality.”
    but you wouldn’t love to see it enough to have another organization offering screening and raising awareness? you disagree with a part of the organizations stance, so therefore everything they try to do is completely wrong? even though you’re pro life and LIVES WILL BE SAVED through this program? sounds kind of hypocritical to me… hate the abortion aspect of planned parenthood if you want, but don’t chide them for supporting other aspects of women’s health.

    • Veronika Johannsen

      I think it is wonderful that an organization is expanding their services to detect and prevent a life-threatening disease. That is what being pro-life is all about. By writing this article I was in no means intending to chide them for supporting other aspects of women’s health. **IF** they actually do begin this, I think it’s great. However, previous experience with this organization tells us that they are not one to be trusted. My point was that PP has flat out LIED to the public about doing this before, when clearly they were for Cecile Richards to admit that they were doing “something new”. After Komen essentially called their bluff denied them further grants, PP realized they couldn’t get away with it anymore and needed to get their butts in gear and do something about it instead of taking money donated specifically for a certain purpose which they were not even doing. That is called stealing, and that is what I was calling them out on. And you’re correct, I think that money should be donated to organizations whose mission is to save lives, not destroy them, which is what makes up 14% of PP’s multi million dollar annual revenue. There are FQHC’s that care for the exact same low-income clientele as PP does that were already performing mammography and more extensive follow-up care that were NOT being funded by Susan G Komen. I think funds should be directed to organizations who have the history of and truly do want to save lives- and not profit from killing the unborn.

      • ProTruth2

        After Komen essentially called their bluff denied them further grants, PP realized they couldn’t get away with it anymore and needed to get their butts in gear and do something about it instead of taking money donated specifically for a certain purpose which they were not even doing. That is called stealing, and that is what I was calling them out on.

        Komen has never said that PP did not use its grant money for the purpose for which it was donated. You shouldn’t assume that your misunderstanding of cancer screening programs is shared by the people who made the grants.

        • Veronika Johannsen

          I never said that was the specific reason why Komen cut their funding. Their official statement was because they did not want to fund organizations who were under federal investigations, but obviously have since rescinded that statement.
          What I am saying, is that this admission by Cecile Richards essentially proves that she was lying to the public all along about PP providing mammograms, and the decision of Komen to cut funding revealed that to the public in a huge way. If you’ve seen the clip of her on the Joy Behar show, she adamantly asserts that women were going to lose access to mammograms if PP is defunded. Well, if PP is doing something “new” by starting this Breast Health Initiative program, they clearly weren’t doing this before, which is why she is a liar.
          I completely understand their cancer screening programs. Any person who goes on PP’s website can see their outline of “what happens during a breast exam” or their countless YouTube videos explaining their mission. And you know what? Not a single one of them has ever performed mammograms before. My only “assumption” is that funds should be directed to other organizations (like Federally Qualified Health Centers) who already have an established radiology clinic to offer mammograms to low income women, and coincidentally do not provide abortions either.
          Thanks for reading! :)

  • Rebecca Downs

    I do not think the American people are dumb, but I do think that there are so many rabid fans of Planned Parenthood who will defend this organization to the core, even if it means lying and saying that PP provides mammograms…

    If the organization does provide mammograms, at least that’s one good thing they’ll be doing. But there are other, better organizations which provide mammograms and don’t advocate for killing/actually kill unborn children.

    What’s really also sad is the fact that if/when PP does provide mammograms, people will act like they provided mammograms all along I feel like, and if you oppose PP, they’ll then say you oppose mammograms… Lastly, it’s kind of really sad that there needed to be a Komen for the Cure controversy in order for PP to actually get the ball rolling with doing mammograms!

    • Veronika Johannsen

      I wasn’t implying the American people are dumb haha. I said they’re not dumb! :) I’m not sure if this was in response to what I wrote or the comment below, but thought I would clarify just in case

  • ProTruth2

    If you were to need a mammogram, the only service Planned Parenthood could offer you is referrals for mammograms – not mammograms themselves.

    Why do you believe that people who need mammograms do not need referrals? Have you ever tried to get a mammogram without a referral?

    • Veronika Johannsen

      Based on your last few posts I’ve read, I get the feeling that you love to put words in people’s mouths. Note, I never said anything about thinking that people who need mammograms do not need referrals. But you definitely couldn’t get ANY mammogram at PP, which is what the public was completely lied to about by the president and CEO of PP. Again, why not funnel funding for women’s health to actual places that can actually perform a more extensive array of women’s health? Well, that’s what Komen could have done after removing their grants, but due to PP’s bullying and claiming Komen was anti-woman because they gave in to anti-women’s health activists and literally cried and stomped their feet over it, Komen succumbed and has tarnished their reputation by flip-flopping on the issue as well as lost their top executives because of it. The actions of PP are not pro-woman. And the are definitely NOT pro-life.

      • ProTruth2

        Note, I never said anything about thinking that people who need mammograms do not need referrals. But you definitely couldn’t get ANY mammogram at PP, which is what the public was completely lied to about by the president and CEO of PP.

        Richards said that PP provides women with access to health care services, including mammograms. To have access to a mammogram, many if not most women need a referral. It’s really not that complicated, though it probably is confusing to bloggers who don’t know what a referral is.

        Again, why not funnel funding for women’s health to actual places that can actually perform a more extensive array of women’s health?
        Grant money should go to wherever it is best able to meet a need. Not all FQHCs offer full medical services. Others serve only specific populations, such as migrants or the homeless. Ones that provide a full array of health services are often already overloaded. Sometimes there is a Planned Parenthood located in a community, but not an FQHC (or vice versa). Therefore, giving money to an FQHC simply because it is an FQHC will not necessarily ensure that the money will be used more efficiently.

        More importantly, Komen did not stop funding Planned Parenthood because they thought the money would be better used elsewhere–that is a story they put out after the uproar began. Their own internal documents and public statements state that the decision to stop grants to Planned Parenthood was based on a “new policy” of not granting money to an organization under investigation by local, state, or federal authorities. Since Komen did not cut ties with any of its other associates under investigation, that was clearly not the real issue.

        References:
        http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/02/an-inside-look-at-susan-g-komen-for-the-cures-spin-machine/252488/

        http://www.jillstanek.com/2012/02/inside-story-on-komen-split-from-planned-parenthood/#more-56021

        http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/us/uproar-as-komen-foundation-cuts-money-to-planned-parenthood.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

        http://nelsnewday.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/komens-dirty-little-secrets/

        • Veronika Johannsen

          Given that there are only 800 PPs in the US compared to the 8,000 FQHCs that provide a much broader array of heath services for not only women, but men and children as well, I would much rather fund an organization that is already equipped to give life-saving health care who sees millions of more patients per year than PP does or ever will be able to. And sure, not all FQHC’s will provide mammograms, but PP provides ZERO. How about we stick to logic and consistency without partiality to abortion? That would be appreciated- and truthful, “ProTruth2″.

          You want efficiency? How is giving money to PP as a middle man to then later give to a clinic that actually performs mammograms efficient? PP wouldn’t even be able to keep that money if they referred patients to a clinic with mammography (like an FQHC), so why not go straight to the source? Oh yeah.. because PP is not about helping women, it’s about money.

          • ProTruth2

            I know that most LiveAction bloggers are totally impervious to facts, but on the slim chance that you want to do more than parrot talking points…

            Given that there are only 800 PPs in the US compared to the 8,000 FQHCs
            that provide a much broader array of heath services for not only women,
            but men and children as well…

            If all 8000 FQHCs provided a broader array of health services than PP does, this comment would be relevant. But they don’t. For example, Indiana has been in the news for its efforts to end state funding to Planned Parenthood, and LiveAction did a “story” on the state with a series of factoids, including the fact that Indiana had (at the time) 78 FQHCs. The fact that LiveAction didn’t see fit to mention (either through deliberate deceit or just plain laziness) is that while some of the FQHCs are full-service health clinics, others are WIC offices, mental health centers, and homeless shelters. Do you think that WIC offices offer a broad array of health services to men, women, and children, Veronika? Or homeless shelters? If you think that homeless shelters offer the same services as Planned Parenthood, you need to do some research. If you understand that they don’t offer the same services, why do you think that it is either logical or consistent compare the two either quantitatively or qualitatively?

            PP wouldn’t even be able to keep that money if they referred patients to
            a clinic with mammography (like an FQHC), so why not go straight to the
            source?

            Why not, indeed? Let’s do a little research on that, Veronika. Try comparing Indiana’s list of FQHCs to the American Cancer Society’s list of mammography facilities in Indiana. What you’ll see is that they don’t overlap. In fact, if you were to read the FQHC fact sheet that you yourself linked, you will see that out of nearly seventy-four million patient visits, less than three hundred and fifty thousand were for mammograms. What does this mean, Veronika? It means that only a tiny percentage of FQHCs offer mammograms. And because diagnostic centers have different policies on whether they accept self-referrals and who is eligible to self-refer, giving the grants via a gateway health care provider may be more efficient than giving the grants straight to the source.

            I’m not partial to abortion, Veronika. I’m partial to rational analysis of relevant data. Would that I could say the same for LiveAction.

          • Veronika Johannsen

            I wish I had time to reply comment by comment to every single one of the professional trolls I come across online who like to use passive aggressive insults to belittle me and my writing, but I simply don’t. You’re right. It is of absolutely no surprise to me that a WIC office doesn’t offer mammograms. That’s not in it’s job description. Again, you have a serious obsession with putting words in peoples mouths and then attacking them for things that they never said. If you look at PP’s annual report, the number of breast exams/breast care they performed is just over 2% of their “cancer screening and prevention.” Your comment about FQHC’s mammography only being a “tiny percentage” is irrelevant, because not everyone going in there goes in with the intent to receive breast health care- not that they don’t offer them, unlike PP. And you know what? That “tiny percent” is a heck of a lot bigger than PP, which is a whopping ZERO for mammograms. If PP didn’t care about money, they wouldn’t have had a fit about losing funding from Komen.

          • ProTruth2

            not that they don’t offer them, unlike PP

            Yes, Veronika, it IS that they don’t offer them. If your local FHQC is a homeless shelter or a WIC office, it doesn’t really matter if an FHQC in county or another state offers mammograms, because you don’t have access to them. This is a simple matter of fact…but that’s only relevant to people who care about facts.

          • Veronika Johannsen

            Yet NO PPs offer any mammograms- and if an FQHC is a homeless shelter or WIC office, what’s the big deal? It’s not like there are zero places that offer mammography… unless you’re talking about PP. That’s the fact. I also never said that Komen should fund any and all FQHCs. But if they are wanting to protect women’s health, why not fund places that actually do perform a more extensive array of women’s health? Oh yeah… because that would mean taking PP off of their list, and we all know how well PP took that.

          • Detroiter327

            First, If all your points are based on the fact that PP offers zero mammograms your going to have to change your tune in the near future, as you were so kind to report PP will be invalidating a lot of the previous comments you made in a short matter of time.

            Secondly, the “big deal” if your local FQHC is a WIC office or shelter is that you cannot get a mammogram referral there! If you are under 35 or 40 (depending on the state) it is exponentially more difficult and more expensive to get a mammogram without a referral, many places will not even accept a self referral. As ProTruth2 has said to you ad nauseam the places you said the funding should go to do not (as a whole) provide an extensive array of womens health services. PP does offer an extensive array of womens health services, especially if we include pap smears which can catch life threatening stds or cancers. If we really want to “protect womens health” we need to keep funding the places that do offer the tools for women to catch cancer early… and two of these tools are mammogram referrals (and the subsequent mammogram) and pap smears.

            If your general point is that you dont want your money going to a place that preforms abortion, I suggest you ask for the government to pull all funding from hospitals as well. Everyone likes to forget that most hospitals preform them also.

          • ProTruth2

            First, If all your points are based on the fact that PP offers zero mammograms your going to have to change your tune in the near future, as you were so kind to report PP will be invalidating a lot of the previous comments you made in a short matter of time.

            Just as a point of information, I don’t think that they’re going to be doing mammograms in-house: that requires equipment and radiologists, and it’s best to have the tests done by someone who does them full-time. My understanding is that PP is going to do what they did with the Komen grants: fund mammograms for women whom they refer.

            But if they are wanting to protect women’s health, why not fund places that actually do perform a more extensive array of women’s health?

            Because grants for low-income people have to go to where the people are. Let’s say that someone gives you a million dollars to help poor women in Texas get mammograms. You could give it all of it to one FQHC in Houston, allowing them to hire three radiologists for a single year, and announce that women below the poverty line are welcome to come to Houston for a free mammogram. (You couldn’t really do this, because none of the FQHCs in Houston appear to offer mammograms, but we’ll pretend that one does.) Or you could pick 25 clinics throughout the state and send each of them 100 vouchers allowing clients to get a mammogram at the nearest diagnostic center. Which program do you think would result in more women getting tested?

          • ProTruth2

            But if they are wanting to protect women’s health, why not fund places that actually do perform a more extensive array of women’s health?

            Because grants for low-income people have to go to where the people are. Let’s say that someone gives you a million dollars to help poor women in Texas get mammograms. You could give it all of it to one FQHC in Houston, allowing them to hire three radiologists for a single year, and announce that women below the poverty line are welcome to come to Houston for a free mammogram. (You couldn’t really do this, because none of the FQHCs in Houston appear to offer mammograms, but we’ll pretend that one does.) Or you could pick 25 clinics throughout the state and send each of them 100 vouchers allowing clients to get a mammogram at the nearest diagnostic center. Which program do you think would result in more women getting tested?