Fun With Semantics: Can We Call Komen’s Statement a “Reversal?”

If you look, just about everyone is calling the Komen decision this morning a reversal.  And maybe it is, sort of.

But if you look closer, with an eye for semantics, you can zero in one specific phrase, as many did after the news broke: ” … continue to fund existing grants.” The key word, of course, is existing. In the Dallas Morning News story, it says the statement goes on to say that Planned Parenthood would be eligible under the revised criteria to apply for future grants.

But holdonacottonpickinminute. Didn’t just today Komen officials say that Planned Parenthood wasn’t disqualified because of a congressional investigation after all, but because it didn’t offer mammograms in house?

Wouldn’t that mean that Planned Parenthood should still be DQ’d? Or at the very least be ineligible for future grants?

According to Kathleen Parker, who called Nancy Brinker today, Komen is holding fast to its new soon-to-be rule that they fund facilities that offer mammograms on site.  Says Parker:

“The news on Komen is that they are only tweaking their new rule about not funding organizations under investigation to mean ‘criminal’ investigation. Otherwise their position is the same. Yes, Planned Parenthood can now apply for funding, but this doesn’t mean they will get it. Those grants already in place will play out on schedule. I spoke to Nancy Brinker this afternoon and her goal remains as announced – to adjust her grant-funding system so that monies go directly to facilities that provide mammograms rather than through third parties, such as Planned Parenthood. Essentially nothing is changed, and certainly this does not constitute a reversal as so many media outlets have so hastily reported.”


Newsletter

Get a weekly recap in your inbox every Sunday of our best stories from the week plus a primer for the days ahead.

Find It

Search our directories for...

Dining

Dining

Bars

Bars

Events

Events

Attractions

Attractions

View All

View All

Comments