Planned Parenthood receives Komen apology

“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,’’ Nancy G. Brinker, Komen’s chief executive, said in a statement on the group’s website. The statement added, “We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants.’’

The reversal comes after an enormous furor about the decision and widespread complaints that the Komen foundation was tying breast cancer to the abortion issue. Comments on social networks such as Twitter raged about the move, and donations, including a $250,000 matching grant from Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City, poured into Planned Parenthood, allowing it to compensate for the $700,000 in Komen funds that would have been cut.

Some Komen officials had said that the decision to halt financing, which came in December and became public Tuesday, was made because of an inquiry by a Republican congressman, Cliff Stearns of Florida, who is investigating whether Planned Parenthood has spent public money for abortions.

A rule was created by the foundation to bar grants to organizations under federal, state, or local investigation, but a Komen board member said the only current grantee the rule would apply to was Planned Parenthood. Critics also objected that the foundation seemed to be giving an inquiry by a Republican congressman, which appeared to be prompted in part by opponents of abortion rights, as much credibility as a criminal or civil investigation by a government agency.

Cecile Richards, the head of Planned Parenthood, who had led a high-profile response to the Komen decision this week, responded immediately to the reversal.

“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,’’ Richards said in a statement. “We are enormously grateful that the Komen foundation has clarified its grant-making criteria, and we look forward to continuing our partnership with Komen partners, leaders, and volunteers.’’

John D. Raffaelli, a Komen board member, suggested in an interview yesterday that foundation officials had been unprepared for the firestorm caused by their decision to halt grants to Planned Parenthood. He said that Komen’s supporters fall into broad groups, including those firmly committed to the antiabortion movement and those committed to abortion rights.

“But we think there’s a third group that’s far bigger than the other two, and that’s people who are really committed to ending breast cancer,’’ Raffaelli said. “And it’s those people we were thinking of when we came up with this stupid idea. We let those people down, and that’s something we should never do.’’

He also said Komen now faces a seemingly intractable dilemma.

“Is it possible for a women’s health organization to stay out of the abortion issue and help all women?’’ he asked. “I don’t know the answer to that yet. What we were doing before was angering the right-to-life crowd. Then, with our decision in December, we upset the pro-choice crowd. And now we’re going to make the right-to-life crowd mad all over again. How do we stop doing that?’’

The Komen issue on Twitter generated a steady drumbeat of chatter, with mentions of the issue averaging 3,000 an hour, with a huge spike of more than 15,000 messages posted after news of the reversal broke. More than half the conversation was driven by women, with the loudest share coming from California and New York, which accounted for 25 percent of all chatter, followed by Texas at 9 percent. Twitter users in Washington, D.C., and Florida each contributed 5 percent of the conversation.

“Real-time social networks enable the nation’s collective dissent to be felt immediately,’’ said Mark Ghuneim, chief executive of Trendrr, a social media analysis firm. “This type of swarm behavior is a new phenomenon that is increasingly important. It’s a good example of how social networks such as Twitter enable democratic movements to be felt, not just by government but by corporations and organizations.’’