Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/susan-g-komen-stops-planned-parenthood-funding-who-does-the-decision-hurt-more/2012/02/01/gIQAEvdLiQ_story.html VERY pleased at this decision. Will be making a nice donation to the Foundation this year based upon the values this organization embraces. Edited February 2, 2012 by UVAObserver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Variable Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 No opinion on abortion, but planned parenthood has proven to be a disgusting and fraudulent waste on society in many ways. Their attitudes and their idea to rally against a private cancer charity show how morally bankrupt its vehement supporters are. Put your money in a charity like it is an investment in love. Send it to where it will do the most good. SKF obviously knew better than to continue funding PP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker 82 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 PP has focused prevention and Kommen focuses on researching a cure. IMO, PP has to many irons in the fire and gets stigmatized by the abortion part of what they do. I agree that the money you give to charity should follow your heart. I guess that is why my donations in recent years have either stayed local or gone to organizations that are giving people the chance to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBlueAlum 12 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/susan-g-komen-stops-planned-parenthood-funding-who-does-the-decision-hurt-more/2012/02/01/gIQAEvdLiQ_story.html VERY pleased at this decision. Will be making a nice donation to the Foundation this year based upon the values this organization embraces. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/komen-foundation-charities-cure_n_793176.html Because suing other charities for using "for the cure" is a great use of donors money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucfan64 309 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Planned Parenthood has a very interesting connection to the EUGENICS movement, just one of the many reasons I have never been a fan, all of that aside, I am happy to see the SGK group drop 'em! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker 82 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Planned Parenthood has a very interesting connection to the EUGENICS movement, just one of the many reasons I have never been a fan, all of that aside, I am happy to see the SGK group drop 'em! Since you bring it up, here is an article on the Eugenics movement in VA. It is important to me that we take object views of such topics. Here is information on Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger Please note that Sanger was not an advocate of abortion. That become part of PPs focus after her death. The Eugenics movement was a conglomeration of what we would now consider "strange bedfellows." You had social liberals like Sanger, southern religious conservatives, and even the KKK in favor of the movement. Lest we forget, the movement only lost steam after WWII and most of us know why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Variable Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Since you bring it up, here is an article on the Eugenics movement in VA. It is important to me that we take object views of such topics. Here is information on Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger Please note that Sanger was not an advocate of abortion. That become part of PPs focus after her death. The Eugenics movement was a conglomeration of what we would now consider "strange bedfellows." You had social liberals like Sanger, southern religious conservatives, and even the KKK in favor of the movement. Lest we forget, the movement only lost steam after WWII and most of us know why. Banner post. Puts it all into perspective nicely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/komen-foundation-charities-cure_n_793176.html Because suing other charities for using "for the cure" is a great use of donors money. Yes, shame on them for suing another group for infringing on their trademark. I mean, the "Race for the Cure" is only Komen's largest fundraiser, and there's absolutely no foreseeable way that any phrase that uses 75% of Komen's trademark would ever be mistaken for anything related to Komen. I bet that Komen never sent any of those groups "cease and desist" letters or anything. How dare they use federal laws to protect their interests, amirite? And huge raspberries for linking to that trash publication, Huffyington Post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Variable Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Yes, shame on them for suing another group for infringing on their trademark. I mean, the "Race for the Cure" is only Komen's largest fundraiser, and there's absolutely no foreseeable way that any phrase that uses 75% of Komen's trademark would ever be mistaken for anything related to Komen. I bet that Komen never sent any of those groups "cease and desist" letters or anything. How dare they use federal laws to protect their interests, amirite? I think its a bad policy to set. The foundation doesnt OWN breast cancer, they are trying to cure it. Any money raised for the cause should be welcomed. Nobody associates "for the cure" with Susan Komen, they associate Susan Komen with the foundation. They rake in enough money that they shouldnt be worried about being the biggest baddest charity bully on the block. This is one of those times where they certainly have the right, but its not the moral or ethical thing to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Here is information on Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger Please note that Sanger was not an advocate of abortion. That become part of PPs focus after her death. This is an interesting point. If Planned Parenthood had stuck closer to Sanger's original vision of open contraceptive distribution, then the organization would be seen in a much more positive light than it would've had it not embraced, and become the largest visible supporter of, abortion. In the interests of fairness, it should be noted that contraceptive distribution is still technically the majority of Planned Parenthood's services. That being said, abortion's a close 2nd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) I think its a bad policy to set. The foundation doesnt OWN breast cancer, they are trying to cure it. Any money raised for the cause should be welcomed. Nobody associates "for the cure" with Susan Komen, they associate Susan Komen with the foundation. They rake in enough money that they shouldnt be worried about being the biggest baddest charity bully on the block. This is one of those times where they certainly have the right, but its not the moral or ethical thing to do. When I hear "Race for the Cure", I think of the Susan G. Komen Foundation. It's like hearing "Super Bowl" and associating it with the NFL. Sure, SGKF does more than "Race for the Cure", but like the Super Bowl in the NFL, it's the most visible thing it does. If I heard "Golf for the Cure" or "Bike for the Cure", seriously, the first thought that crosses my mind is "wait, does SGKF sponsor that?" Trademark is set up to prevent exactly this. Hence, my little crack about "cease and desist" letters. It's a formal, legalized way of saying: "Look, Other Company, we're both engaged in the same business here. We staked claim to 'Race for the Cure', and we see that you're using something else awfully similar to that. We'd hate for this to get ugly, so please choose another name for your event. There's a billion different other ways to get your point across. KTHX, G'BYE." The other companies either never cracked the seal on the letter, or responded "STFU, we're doing it anyway". That's the side of the story that worthless publications like Huffyington never tell. If SGKF actually went ahead and blindsided these little companies, then yes, it's a horrible precedent and worthy of outrage. However, that's highly doubtful, and SGKF probably gave them multiple chances to stop it. I can't fault SGKF for that, and I'd encourage every company to be similarly protective of its interests. Edited February 3, 2012 by UVAObserver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBlueAlum 12 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) Yes, shame on them for suing another group for infringing on their trademark. I mean, the "Race for the Cure" is only Komen's largest fundraiser, and there's absolutely no foreseeable way that any phrase that uses 75% of Komen's trademark would ever be mistaken for anything related to Komen. I bet that Komen never sent any of those groups "cease and desist" letters or anything. How dare they use federal laws to protect their interests, amirite? And huge raspberries for linking to that trash publication, Huffyington Post. I knew you would have something to say about the Huffington Post article, that's why I chose it. IMO, if their goal is to find a cure for cancer then they should be more than willing to allow any other organization that has the same goal to use those three words. Not to mention the amount of donor's money that they are using on legal fees to fight the cases of trademark infringement. Money that could be going to help find a cure for cancer. But you're right, trademarks are more important. Edited February 3, 2012 by BigBlueAlum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Variable Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Not to mention the amount of donor's money that they are using on legal fees to fight the cases of trademark infringement. Money that could be going to help find a cure for cancer. But you're right, trademarks are more important. Well correct me if I am wrong, but those legal fees could be for attorneys on retainer, meaning they are getting paid whether they do something or not. Maybe even pro-bono work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker 82 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Well correct me if I am wrong, but those legal fees could be for attorneys on retainer, meaning they are getting paid whether they do something or not. Maybe even pro-bono work. Before UVAO hits this one, I will. All a retainer does is insure the attorney will be available and do a minimum amount of work. Any costs over the minimum are billed at an agreed hourly rate. Retainers are an old trick used to tie up the best attorneys and prevent them from representing someone against you. In the old days the railroads would keep the best local attorneys on retainer to make it harder for them to be sued. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBlueAlum 12 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 SGKF reverses its decision to de-fund grants given to Planned Parenthood. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/03/susan-g-komen-uturn-planned-parenthood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) SGKF reverses its decision to de-fund grants given to Planned Parenthood. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/03/susan-g-komen-uturn-planned-parenthood Everything positive I just said about SGKF is now completely erased. It would be different if the Foundation earmarked their $650K specifically toward breast exams given by Planned Parenthood, but that's now and has never been the case. Chalk it up to another organization buckling under the pressure of doing what it feels is right. Edited February 4, 2012 by UVAObserver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Variable Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Everything positive I just said about SGKF is now completely erased. It would be different if the Foundation earmarked their $650K specifically toward breast exams given by Planned Parenthood, but that's now and has never been the case. Chalk it up to another organization buckling under the pressure of doing what it feels is right. its a very womanly decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHS03 99 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Ok here is something that I've always pondered. Say you go to a convenient store and purchase something, when they ring you up they sometimes ask if you would like to donate to "Breast Cancer Awareness." Do I want to actually give my money to Awareness? If it was going to research for a cure then I would most certainly always donate. However, I don't want to spend money just so they can manufacture a pink ribbon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucfan64 309 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 Since you bring it up, here is an article on the Eugenics movement in VA. It is important to me that we take object views of such topics. Here is information on Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger Please note that Sanger was not an advocate of abortion. That become part of PPs focus after her death. The Eugenics movement was a conglomeration of what we would now consider "strange bedfellows." You had social liberals like Sanger, southern religious conservatives, and even the KKK in favor of the movement. Lest we forget, the movement only lost steam after WWII and most of us know why. Correct about Sanger, but the very idea behind the Eugenics movement is enough to disgust me with many of it's advocates. The arrogance that many conveyed and their reasoning for supporting it in most cases was downright rotten. A great book on the subject titled War Against The Weak by Edwin Black is very enlightening and informative. link for the book http://books.google.com/books/about/War_against_the_weak.html?id=qYHscsPFF-wC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.01bb665814ffc257795fe158cb2045c7.png.8a531ac878a82772b21014d7a6167582.png){kind=logo}
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.