(Brandi Korte: Flickr)

While the widely regarded Cancer Letter is usually available only by subscription at a hefty $405 a year, the current issue is available for free. It looks at the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood. But the Cancer Letter is not concerned with the politics behind the story.

Instead, the Cancer Letter takes an extensive look at Planned Parenthood itself and why the organization is worried about screening mammography for the women it serves.

Remember, women who benefit most from mammography are post-menopausal, usually over age 50. Mammograms have been fiercely debated most for women in their 40′s. But no credible organization recommends screening mammograms for women younger than 40.

And how old is the population served by Planned Parenthood? Nearly 90 percent are 35 and younger, according to a Planned Parenthood spokesperson quoted in the article.

The Cancer Letter consulted with four experts in evidence-based medicine, people who have been trying to get the public to understand that all screening exams bring risks, chief among them the possibility of overtreatment. Mammography’s rate of false positives means many women end up worrying needlessly until they have a biopsy. One of the experts consulted also mentioned the possibility of a woman being treated for a cancer that never would have caused a serious problem.

Here’s Donald Berry, a biostatisician at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, as quoted in the Cancer Letter:

“It is far from clear that screening for breast cancer in the context of Planned Parenthood is an appropriate use of Komen’s money or Planned Parenthood’s time,” Berry wrote. “Had Komen chosen to cut funding on this basis and not on the basis of a political agenda, then this would have been a powerful and important statement.”

Specifically, the Cancer Letter asked its panel to review information about breast cancer screening on the Planned Parenthood website. All four were concerned about what they found.

As Lisa Schwartz and Steven Woloshin of Dartmouth Medical School said:

“The website presents screening the way a screening advocacy group might—persuading women to be screened rather than helping them understand the benefits and harms—an approach at odds with Planned Parenthood’s philosophy of ‘respect for each individual’s right to make informed, independent decisions about health, sex, and family planning.’”

It’s worth reading the entire report.

(Brandi Korte: Flickr)

It was only Tuesday when news broke that Susan G. Komen would cease its funding of Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screening and other programs.

In the days since, reaction has been swift and heated. Komen said it had new funding guidelines that prohibit the foundation from funding groups under investigation. While a Republican member of Congress has announced an intention to hold hearings of Planned Parenthood, critics say the intent is political. Hearings have yet to be held.

Today, Nancy Brinker, Founder and CEO of the Foundation announced what at first appeared to be a reversal and explained in a statement published on their website:

“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.”

But many observers have picked up on nuance that comes later in the statement:

“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.”

The Daily Kos isn’t so sure this is a true reversal in Komen’s stance. As their reporter states:

“I just got off the phone with a Komen board member, and he confirmed that the announcement does not mean that Planned Parenthood is guaranteed future grants — a demand he said would be “unfair” to impose on Komen.”

This statement in combination with the Board member’s quote certainly seems as if Komen views Planned Parenthood as a grantee. But in its statement, Planned Parenthood speaks of a “partnership” with Komen:

“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.”

The Atlantic has a been closely following the politics of the back and forth. In a post today, a senior editor sees more controversy to come. “I doubt that this is over — pro-lifers are now going to have their own round of outraged protest.”