Susan G. Komen pisses off the Internet

Last week, executives at the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation learned that you don’t mess with the Internet.

But by the time they figured that out it, it was too little and definitely too late.

By now, the story is already legendary by social-media standards.

In December, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a charitable organization that solicits and collects donations for breast-cancer research and treatments, as well as preventative testing and care, ended its policy of funding of breast-cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood facilities nationwide.

News of the foundation’s decision, however, didn’t go public until January 31. And when it did, the Internet blew up.

Initially, the foundation, known globally for its pink-ribbon campaign (and the resulting consumer-centric “think pink” culture that envelops breast-cancer-campaign fundraising efforts) explained its decision as part of a new policy that barred it from bestowing grants to an organization under investigation. A policy, it explained, that now encompassed Planned Parenthood, recently the target of an inquiry by Republican Congressman Cliff Stearns. He is currently investigating the organization for allegedly using federal funds to provide abortions.

But there was also another possible reason for decision: Karen Handel, Susan G. Komen foundation’s senior vice president of public policy who was elected last April following an unsuccessful bid for the governor’s seat in Georgia. Her political platform? A strong anti-choice campaign during which she vowed to defund Planned Parenthood.

As news of the foundation’s decision raced around the Web, Planned Parenthood supporters took to Facebook and Twitter to denounce the organization. They didn’t just post angry status updates, however, they signed and shared online petitions urging the foundation to reverse its decision.

Handel, for her part, also took the social-media route, tweeting that Planned Parenthood supporters could “cry [me] a freaking river.”

Instead, they did her one better, digging deep into pockets to back Planned Parenthood. In just a 24-hour period, the organization received more than $650,000 in donations—almost enough to match the amount of money that Komen donated to Planned Parenthood in 2011.

By the end of three days, that number topped $3 million. It was a fascinating example of anger-fueled social media. It was also very, very effective.

On February 2, Nancy Brinker released a statement explaining that the organization’s decision wasn’t political, nor was it tied to pressure from anti-choice groups. Instead, she clarified the decision as an attempt to “streamline” the foundation’s mission by only providing grants to “direct” providers of mammograms. Planned Parenthood provides clinical breast exams and, typically, gives patients referrals for further testing.

But by February 3, Brinker and other executives seemingly had a complete change of heart: “We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants,” the company said in a statement posted on its website.

On February 6, Handel resigned from her position at the Komen foundation. Great news—and a great indication of the influence of negative viral publicity—but it’s not a complete reversal. Indeed, the Komen foundation’s wording still leaves a loophole—one potentially big enough for future, politically motivated withholding of funds.

Now it’s time to take this social-media revolution to the next stage. Research the organizations to which you give your money and time. Continue to support Planned Parenthood and other women’s health organizations through funding and social-networking communities.

Research and health care shouldn’t be a politically motivated game and all the cute, pink merchandise in the world won’t change the fact that the higher-ups at Susan G. Komen for the Cure shamefully put their politics before the health of millions of women.