Since it is a fact abortions cause cancer but yet get a check up at a place that causes it hummmm!, maybe we should do breast cancer screenings at all Marlboro factories too! Makes perfect liberal sense.

@David M—You should read what Komen says about the alleged cancer risk. http://ww5.komen.org/BreastCancer/FactorsThatDoNotIncreaseRisk.html

A comment was removed because it violated Patch's Terms of Use.

A comment was removed because the bulk of it contained inflammatory references that violated our Terms of Use.

Holy smokes, remind me to turn off email updates... That was one string I could have done without.

@Justin E—I've tried to catch some of the more "colorful" comments shortly after they were put up.

The money that Koman raised for breast cancer went to breast cancer research and breast exams, which were provided by Planned Parenthood. None of the money paid for abortions. Pulling funding only put more women at risk by removing needed health care.

And, we will not miss you - not in the least.

Christine, please read the comments again, i did not make that statement.

@Paul Adams—I'd like to see the source of your figures. See here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/08/jon-kyl/jon-kyl-says-abortion-services-are-well-over-90-pe/ (this also was posted in another comment).

Nick, from the PolitiFact (cute name, that) story you cite:

Planned Parenthood performend 332,278 abortions last year.

Now, from PP's own website, a quote:

"Ask your health care provider, health department, or staff at your local Planned Parenthood health center about where you can get a mammogram in your area."

Note, PP does not claim to provide these services, but may act as a third party to help someone arrange for a screening for breast cancer. SGK is concerned with breast cancer awareness, early detection and support. Given PP's tangential relationship to the issue, it makes sense for them to reassess their support of PP. And besides, as Todd mentions below, this is not the direct reason for their discontinuation of funding.

@John Hankes—All opinions are welcome on my site. I try to do the best I can to offer evidence to contrary if someone posts a less-than-entirely true statement.

@Todd—I would suggest looking at what Politifact did on the "90 percent" claim you included in your comment. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/08/jon-kyl/jon-kyl-says-abortion-services-are-well-over-90-pe/ ... I believe other fact checks of Planned Parenthood found that the revenue figure is closer to 15 percent.

@Todd—Also, I believe the organization is under investigations because of allegations made. The statement you made in your comment has not been proven true.

Tood, as pointed out - your 90% claim is an outright false statement. Makes every other element of your statement suspect. The claim that abortions cause cancer is 100% false. There is no medical study that supports that claim. It is, however, a false claim repeated by the anti-abortion crowd, over-and-over. Particularly Catholic anti-abrotion blogs continue to push that Lie. I thought Christians weren't suppose to lie.

I believe Penn State University is under investigation...and still gets Susan B. Komen funding.

@Todd—To answer your questions specifically directed to me: I think it's safe to assume that PP would be seen as controversial even if the organization only performed a single procedure a year.

Paul - As a business owner it is vital to protect your organizations image. When other companies began coming a little too close to your trademark it can water down the value of your brand or it can tie you to issues occuring in the other organizations.

To be fair, several of the posts have been about the monetary value derived from abortion... which Nick responded to with numbers on volume of services (and not cost). I like Nick, he seems like a swell guy, but to be fair that was a bit of apples and oranges. A correct post would be "no, you're wrong, it's not 90% because here it says that the cost of those services is only 10%". That might be the case, but I believe the cost of abortion is likely substantially higher than an exam (whichever type it might be).

Back on task - Your taking SGK to task over trademark infringement is like scolding McDonalds for suing me over my new franchise "McDoogalds Burgers". In summary, that information is rather off topic and SGK was justified in protecting brand.

@Justin—You make a valid point. I should have articulated it better. The burden of proof is on the person who made the original point to demonstrate how ~10 percent of procedures account for 90 percent of revenue.

@Justin—More from Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/apr/21/ronald-renuart/florida-republican-says-abortions-make-37-percent-/

But you've made my point. They are a business. Big business at that. Water down what brand? The brand to help people or the brand that makes their execs huge money?
Plenty of people have looked into where the money goes. 10 cents of every dollar donated goes "for the cure". Why stop other people from helping to save lives by fighting a trademark on the color pink or the words "for the cure"? Because they aren't there to save lives. They are there to make money. Sign up for a Komen event and go around asking friends for their hard earned money to fight the cause of breast cancer and tell them how the money is divided up at the Komen Headquarters and see how many will donate. Or do like most and say that 100% of donations go to fight "for the cure".
http://butterbeliever.com/2011/10/22/i-will-not-be-pinkwashed-why-i-do-not-support-susan-g-komen-for-the-cure/
Sorry I am off topic for this article, but Komen has disappointed more than once...

I didn't make your point. If you want to state "I don't support non-profits that pay their execs a large amount" then that is a point we can discuss. But saying "SGK shouldn't inforce a brand image because they are a non-profit that helps people" doesn't seem to make sense. If companies didn't suffer a negative impact because of brand dilution or whatever else, they wouldn't work so hard to protect it. Should "Planned Parenthood" not be bothered by a business named "Planned Parenting" which does exactly what they do? No, when you do a google search for that it pulls up Planned Parenthood. Because image and brand identification does matter. Charity doesn't mean that you should run your business poorly.

Again, if you want to discuss salaries and the effectiveness of their sponsors donations, that's well and good and we can have that discussion. But, as you said, it's muddying the waters to bring it up in conjunction with the initial article you posted.

@Marsha—Ha! Right you are. :-)

rock on martha! abortions used to be illegal, yet they were being performed. If the radical anti-abortionist got there way...abortions would still continue - just illegally and in a manner that endangers the life of women. Next, they would have to arrest and jail women for having abortions. Of course, they will have the government intrude into the lives of women...and investigate every "miscarriage" for criminal activity. You bet the private jail corporations want more women prisoners to jail - all for the sake of a profit.

@Todd—Thank you for posting that.