The foundation, which focuses on raising money for breast cancer research and prevention, said it was pulling about $700,000 in breast cancer screening and service grants from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America under a new policy that forbid support for organizations under investigation.

Planned Parenthood is the under investigation that was launched last fall by House Energy and Commerce Investigative Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns, R-Fla.

But Planned Parenthood’s supporters argued the investigation is politically motivated and based on allegations proved to be unsubstantiated.

Komen, they charged, was simply knuckling under to pressure from anti-abortion groups and using the new policy as cover.

Reaction was swift and fierce with abortion-rights supporters denouncing Komen from the floor of Congress to Facebook pages.

In a statement, released today the Komen board for directors said:

We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives. The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

In a statement released in response to the Komen decision Planned Parenthood said:

In recent weeks, the treasured relationship between the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation and Planned Parenthood has been challenged, and we are now heartened that we can continue to work in partnership toward our shared commitment to breast health for the most underserved women. We are enormously grateful that the Komen Foundation has clarified its grantmaking criteria, and we look forward to continuing our partnership with Komen partners, leaders and volunteers.

Full text of both statements are below:

Full text of today’s statement from Komen:

We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives. The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women. We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.

Starting this afternoon, we will have calls with our network and key supporters to refocus our attention on our mission and get back to doing our work. We ask for the public’s understanding and patience as we gather our Komen affiliates from around the country to determine how to move forward in the best interests of the women and people we serve.

We extend our deepest thanks for the outpouring of support we have received from so many in the past few days and we sincerely hope that these changes will be welcomed by those who have expressed their concern.

Statement released by Planned Parenthood:

“The outpouring of support for women in need of lifesaving breast cancer screening this week has been astonishing and is a testament to our nation’s compassion and sincerity.

“During the last week, millions spontaneously joined a national conversation about lifesaving breast cancer prevention care and reinforced shared values about access to health care for all. This compassionate outcry in support of those most in need rose above political, ideological, and cultural divides, and will surely be recognized as one of our nation’s better moments during a contentious political time. Planned Parenthood thanks each and every person who has contributed to elevating the importance of breast cancer prevention for so many women in need.

“In recent weeks, the treasured relationship between the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation and Planned Parenthood has been challenged, and we are now heartened that we can continue to work in partnership toward our shared commitment to breast health for the most underserved women. We are enormously grateful that the Komen Foundation has clarified its grantmaking criteria, and we look forward to continuing our partnership with Komen partners, leaders and volunteers. What these past few days have demonstrated is the deep resolve all Americans share in the fight against cancer, and we honor those who are at the helm of this battle.

“Planned Parenthood has been a trusted partner with the Komen Foundation in early cancer detection and prevention services. In particular, Planned Parenthood helps the Komen Foundation reach vulnerable populations — low-income women, African-American women, and Latinas — especially in rural areas and underserved communities where Planned Parenthood health centers are their only source of health care. With Komen Foundation grants, over the past five years, Planned Parenthood health centers provided nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams and more than 6,400 mammogram referrals. With the outpouring of support over the past week, even more women in need will receive lifesaving breast cancer care.”

By Julie Rovner, NPR NewsThis story comes from KHN partner ‘s Shots blog.

Two of the nation’s most iconic women’s health groups are engaged in a nasty fight that’s raising a lot of eyebrows.

The breast-cancer charity Susan G. Komen For the Cure is pulling about $700,000 in breast cancer screening and service grants from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

The money isn’t massive by either group’s bottom line: Komen raised more than $400 million in 2010; Planned Parenthood’s total revenue that year was over $1 billion.

But it apparently marks a new chapter in the ongoing abortion war, not to mention the battle to defund Planned Parenthood.

Komen’s reason, according to the AP (the organization didn’t return NPR’s calls or emails) was a new policy forbidding grants to organizations under official investigation. Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards confirmed that in an interview.

Planned Parenthood is the subject of an inquiry launched last fall by House Energy and Commerce Investigative Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns, R-Fla.

But members of Congress who back Planned Parenthood say that investigation is little more than the same allegations that have long been made — and not substantiated – against the group.

“This is a trumped up investigation by some Republicans in the Congress who have a vendetta against Planned Parenthood,” said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

Planned Parenthood’s Richards says she thinks the Komen Foundation has finally been pushed too far by pressure from anti-abortion groups. “I think what’s really disturbing about seeing these right-wing attacks on groups like the Komen Foundation is we can’t allow bullies to prevent women from getting the health care they need.”

But others say the pressure may have come from within the Komen organization itself. They point to the hiring last year of Karen Handel, a vice president who ran for governor in Georgia last year on a platform that included cutting state funds for Planned Parenthood.

Whatever the reason, it has outraged members of Congress like DeGette.

“I don’t see two groups at war with each other,” she said. “I see the Komen Foundation declaring war on women’s health.

Planned Parenthood has done everything they’ve been asked to do. And with their own private money, with 3 percent of their services or less, they do abortions, which the last I heard were still legal in this country.”

Anti-abortion groups, not surprisingly, are praising the Komen Foundation.

“The work of the Komen Foundation has life-saving potential and should not be intertwined with an industry dealing in death,” said Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life.

What’s your take? Is Komen right to pull funding for Planned Parenthood or is it knuckling under to political pressure?

Meanwhile, Steven Aden of the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal firm, said it “applauds Komen for seeing the contradiction between its life-saving work and its relationship with an abortionist that has ended millions of lives.”

But despite those plaudits, an even bigger question many are asking is which of these huge and recognizable groups is likely to win this fight?

Deana Rohlinger, an associate professor at Florida State University who studies women’s groups, thinks that while Planned Parenthood may lose this funding battle, it’s likely to win the war.

Planned Parenthood is “an organization that has been around for a long time, and this isn’t the first time it’s seen a hit to its bottom line,” she said. “It’s gone without before. And I don’t imagine that this is going to bring it down.”

Komen, on the other hand, she says, has been seen, until now, as more about pink ribbons and T-shirts than politics.

Yet “by taking such a strong move, what they’ve done is made it more about abortion, potentially, than about women’s health,” she says. “And that could be problematic in terms of people that support the Komen Foundation. You’re talking about a generally popular group, and some folks might reconsider participating.”

Local Resources:

• Puget Sound Susan G. Komen for the Cure (breast cancer advocacy group): www.pskomen.org
• Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest: www.plannedparenthood.org/ppgnw

This article was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

“Personhood” has dominated the abortion debate in recent months, highlighted by the failure of a high-profile constitutional amendment in Mississippi.

And while abortion rights advocates in several states continue to defend against  other bills that would define an embryo or fetus as a person, advocates in Washington state are taking the offensive.

Democratic members of the state legislature introduced a bill earlier this month that would maintain or expand abortion coverage. The “Reproductive Parity Act,” set for its first hearings on Thursday, would require private and public insurers that provide maternity coverage to cover abortion services as well.

If passed, the law would be the first of its kind in the nation.

“This is Washington’s way of saying [abortion services] are basic health care coverage,” said Sara Kiesler, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest, which is part of the coalition pushing the bill.

Melanie Smith, a lobbyist with NARAL Pro-Choice Washington, said advocates are concerned less about personhood initiatives than about abortion restrictions stemming from the 2010 federal health law.

In 2014, states will be required under that law to open insurance exchanges — online marketplaces for individuals and small businesses to compare and purchase plans.

These exchanges, however, have several restrictions, including a prohibition against using federal funds for abortions. Smith said those purchasing coverage will have to pay two separate premiums: one for abortion services — based on their actual cost, estimated by the insurer — and one for everything else under the plan. Federal subsidies can be applied only to the latter.

According to Smith, this presents a problem: Consumers might select against plans that offer abortion coverage, and if demand is low for the extra coverage, insurers could find it cost-prohibitive to continue offering coverage for abortion services.

All individual and small-group plans in the state currently cover abortion, said Stephanie Marquis, a spokeswoman for Washington’s insurance commissioner; information about larger, employer-based plans is unavailable.

Smith added that all insurance carriers in the state offer at least one plan with abortion coverage. The bill, then, “is about maintaining access the way we have it now.”

In contrast, many states have used the health law’s implementation to restrict abortion rights, said Elizabeth Nash, state issues manager with the Guttmacher Institute.

As of Jan. 1, 15 states had put in place restrictions on abortion coverage for plans that will be offered on exchanges; five of those states will allow coverage with a separate payment.

Advocates are “pretty confident” the Washington bill could become law and buck the trend, said Lisa Stone, executive director of Legal Voice, a nonprofit focused on women’s rights in the Northwest.

Washington state voters have voted for abortion rights several times, Stone added, and she expects the state legislature will follow voter sentiment.

Those who oppose abortion rights, however, will likely put up a fight. Dan Kennedy, CEO of Human Life of Washington – an affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee – told the Seattle Times, “To mandate that we violate our conscience is tyranny. There’s no subtle or soft way to put the truth.”

Whether other states take up similar legislation will depend largely on changes in legislative makeup during the upcoming election, said Tait Sye, a spokesperson for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The national organization will be watching the Washington bill closely.

In New York,  state Assemblymember Deborah Glick has introduced a bill several times that would require abortion coverage, but it has made it out of committee only once.

Glick reintroduced the bill this month, and while she was unaware of the effort in Washington, she said that the idea may now become more salient as states set up insurance exchanges.

This article was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The Washington Post Magazine: A Family Learns The True Meaning Of The Vow ‘In Sickness And In Health’

Seven years later Robert was still mentally impaired and his personality far different than before the accident, but he knew his family, knew he had had a brain injury that upended their lives, and asked lots of questions. He carried with him at all times a reporter’s notebook, in which he had written the information most important to him: his daughters’ ages — 9 and 11 — and that he has “known my honey” 18 years. … Robert had looked at Page with earnest eyes and the relaxed demeanor he used to have and asked if it was hard for her to pack up the house: “Does that cause you distress, darlin’? Make you sad?” Page took his hand, and her eyes filled with tears. “We had the best days of our lives and the worst days of our lives in that house,” she said quietly (Susan Baer, 1/5).

Photo courtesy of Photo by Marja Flick-Buijs

Columbia Journalism Review: The Bloodying Of PolitiFact: What Is Medicare, Anyway?

Now it’s my turn to weigh in on the “Lie of the Year,” the gimmick PolitiFact uses to highlight the most egregious misstatements of the past year. This time, though, the fact-checking service stumbled into a fusillade of criticism from such unlikely bedfellows as New York Times liberal columnist Paul Krugman and the conservative Wall Street Journal’s online opinion page. The lie, according to PolitiFact, was the Democrats’ assertion that Republicans voted to end Medicare when the House voted last spring to embrace a voucher plan pushed by Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan. The fact is Republicans by supporting Ryan’s voucher plan did essentially vote to end Medicare. … PolitiFact and others should have left it there and devoted space to the larger issue. Medicare may be wildly popular, but it is not well understood by most people — be they beneficiaries, politicians, or journalists. Deconstructing how this complicated and misunderstood program works and the historical context for proposed changes would go a long way to helping the public evaluate the arguments from both Democrats and Republicans (Trudy Lieberman, 1/6).

Slate: Make Me A Baby As Fast As You Can

The booming business in international surrogacy, whereby Westerners have begun hiring poor women in developing countries to carry their babies, has been the subject of plenty of media buzzing over the past few years. Much of the coverage regards the practice as a win-win for surrogates and those who hire them; couples receive the baby they have always wanted while surrogates from impoverished areas overseas earn more in one gestation than they would in many years of ordinary work. … But make no mistake: This is first and foremost a business. And the product this business sells — third-party pregnancy — is now being offered with all sorts of customizable options, guarantees, and legal protections for clients (aka would-be parents) (Douglas Pet, 1/9).

Reason: Medicare Whac-A-Mole

It is often said that you can’t put a price on health. But for decades that is exactly what the federal government has attempted. Since the birth of the entitlement, a parade of legislators and bureaucrats has been playing billion- and trillion-dollar games of Whac-A-Mole with Medicare, knocking down spending with an elaborately constructed set of technocratic payment schemes in one area only to see it rise back up in some other part of the system. Obama is merely proposing to try it one more time (Peter Suderman, January 2012).

American Medical News: 5 Simple Ways To Cut Medical Practice Costs

Photo of Vierdrie

Physicians are finding that a few simple steps can open the door to big savings in operating a medical practice. General operating costs for multispecialty practices have increased 52.6 percent since 2001, exceeding revenue gains in that period, according to the Medical Group Management Assn., which uses such groups as bellwethers for the overall practice economy.

But those expenses were cut 2.2 percent in 2010, according to MGMA. … Consultants and experts recommend looking for savings in five key areas: office supplies, office equipment, medical supplies, finance and consulting, and energy costs (Karen Caffarini, 1/9).

This article was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The New York Times Magazine: The Fat Trap

For years, the advice to the overweight and obese has been that we simply need to eat less and exercise more.

While there is truth to this guidance, it fails to take into account that the human body continues to fight against weight loss long after dieting has stopped. … it’s clear, from a public-health standpoint, that resources would best be focused on preventing weight gain.

The research underscores the urgency of national efforts to get children to exercise and eat healthful foods. But with a third of the U.S. adult population classified as obese, nobody is saying people who already are very overweight should give up on weight loss. … Studies suggest that even a 5 percent weight loss can lower a person’s risk for diabetes, heart disease and other health problems associated with obesity (Tara Parker-Pope, 12/28).

National Review: Santorum’s Pro-Life Credibility

Santorum truly is an excellent representative of his cause. Perhaps no politician in our national life has been so pointedly forced by circumstances to live up to his creed. If Santorum can seem too blithe and self-assured when he talks the talk, he has painfully walked the walk. The Santorums lost one child shortly after childbirth and have another who survived despite a grave, usually fatal, genetic disorder (Rich Lowry, 1/4).

Salon: Rick Santorum Is Coming For Your Birth Control

Here is an actual Rick Santorum quote: “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.”

And also, “Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

… while reproductive rights are always cast in terms of pro or against a woman’s right to an abortion and in what circumstances, even liberals are surprised to find out what social conservatives really want to do about contraception (Irin Carmon, 1/4).

American Medical News: Health Reform After 2014: Not-So-Universal Coverage

The national health system reform law is expected to reduce the nation’s uninsured population to what could be an all-time low. But even after the major reforms take effect starting in 2014, millions will remain without coverage, whether by choice or by circumstance. … each region of the U.S. is expected to see its uninsured population shrink by roughly half  …  he health reform law’s true impact on the final tally and demographics of the uninsured will be shaped by the decisions of consumers, employers, federal health officials and states (Doug Trapp, 1/2).

This article was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.