Komen Gone Wild – Charity goes Business goes Political

What do you get when you mix politics with religion? You get bad decisions. You get bad governmental decisions, bad business decisions, bad moral decisions, and bad social decisions. Surprisingly no one appears to learn from their mistakes in this arena. And our latest contender for ‘My Morals Are Better Than Your Morals’ imbecile is the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation leadership. Komen’s decision to stop funding the Planned Parenthood organization was not influenced by political pressure according to her eminence Nancy Brinker – CEO. Her political affiliation and that of one of her new board of directors a strident pro-lifer in no way had any influence on the foundations’ decision.

Now this assertion is so stupid on so many levels. Her core beliefs have no influence on how she conducts her life and her decisions. Sounds like a characteristic of you would attribute to someone you wouldn’t want to be associated with, depend upon, and certainly not look to as the administering head of an organization; particularly one seeking to operate a charitable public serving organization.  Ms. Brinker is so concerned about helping women and finding a cure for breast cancer that she is willing to stop funding an organization that helps women, particularly poorer women receive breast cancer exams. Makes you wonder which of her core beliefs she is applying here: aiding the sick, helping the poor and less fortunate, showing compassion for her fellow woman, treating others as you would have them treat you, judging not, or even how does this reflect on your sister’s memory.

But she is probably acting in the best interest of her business. The Komen foundation is after all a business. Under her leadership, she has determined that her business prosper more by aligning it with a Pro-life mode of operation than, well independently and based on principles of honor and integrity. Selling out is not an atypical business strategy. Her keen sense of the priority of tainted political divisive social philosophies over that of women’s health should resonate with the general public. By picking a side in a debate that is outside her business’ arena is one of the sure signs of a savvy businesswoman.

This decision will surely encourage more donations and support and thus the goals of the foundation will be furthered. This decision will not promote the development of a competing charitable foundation that promotes its apolitical nature and a commitment to support and advance women’s health related to breast cancer without judging the political, moral, religious or societal values of the women or the donors.

It certainly seems that the Komen foundation remains in good hands, being lead by people who are willing to help women if those women hold acceptable beliefs and opinions. With any hope, Ms. Brinker will not have to have such charity start at home; and I am sure that she will be more than adequately compensated by the Foundation for her outstanding leadership.