The RAC blog featuring the letter was viewed by over 9,000 unique viewers in less than 48 hours! Today, in response to the Komen Foundation’s decision to revise its funding standards, Rabbis Saperstein and Feldman thanked Ambassador Brinker and the Komen Foundation and urged her to use her personal influence to prevent politicization of the new standards in a manner detrimental to women’s health. The full text of their letter follows:

Dear Ambassador Brinker,

On behalf of the Union for Reform Judaism, whose 900 congregations across North America encompass 1.5 million Reform Jews, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, with membership of more than 1800 Reform rabbis, and the Women of Reform Judaism, which represents more than 65,000 women in nearly 500 women’s groups in North America and around the world, we thank you and the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure Foundation for reevaluating and revising your new funding standards and
continuing to make women’s health a top national priority. We are confident that your personal leadership played a vital role in establishing standards more reflective of the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s values.  Moving forward, we urge you to ensure that new standards will not be politicized in a manner detrimental to women’s health nor manipulated by those with a political agenda and goals beyond those of the Komen Foundation.

The fact that these new standards will allow Planned Parenthood Federation of America to continue to place its good work before you for continued funding is encouraging to all who care about women’s health. The new standard you have announced today will also diminish the likelihood that Komen’s funding decisions will be politicized by partisan investigations launched by members of Congress or other elected officials.  Such a standard, similar to that which we encouraged you to consider in our letter of February 1^st, means that the mission to find a cure for a disease that has caused physical and emotional harm to millions can transcend politics.

We thank you for your leadership in reaching today’s decision and for the Komen Foundation’s tireless work to prevent and end breast cancer.

Sincerely,

Rabbi David Saperstein        Rabbi Marla Feldman

You, too, can make your voice heard on this issue! The Reform Movement is also launching a campaign to generate thousands of thank you letters to the Komen Foundation, supporting their renewed commitment to working with Planned Parenthood and others on behalf of women’s health. Make your voice heard and thank the Komen Foundation for funding PPFA and the work that it does by sending a letter to the Komen Foundation today!

This past December I had the opportunity to spend a few minutes with Ambassador Nancy Brinker, sister of Susan Komen and founder of the organization.  I was one of her “handlers” behind the scenes at the URJ Biennial where Ambassador Brinker was presented with its highest honor, the Maurice N. Eisendrath Bearer of Light Award for Service to the World Community.   By the time I got to meet her, I felt I already knew her.  I had read her bio, watched her tribute video, and of course, over the years, I had supported the Susan G. Komen Foundation:  I ran a 5K Race For the Cure in Central Park as part of the URJ team and I contributed when friends walked or ran for one of the Susan G. Komen events.

Backstage, as we made sure Amb. Brinker was comfortable, she and I started chatting.  We talked about the upcoming Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure in Israel.  We talked about the numerous, nearly insurmountable challenges of running such an event in Israel.  On the day of last year’s event, women from both sides of the Green Line walked side by side. Israelis, Arabs, Jews – from the most secular to the most observant – Christians and Muslims all showed up.  Why?  Because breast cancer doesn’t discriminate.  I put the date for the 2012 Jerusalem event on my calendar.  We took a picture together.

And then I mentioned that my own mother passed away because of breast cancer just the year before.  And I did something I almost never do – I cried.  You have to understand, I’m not one who wears my sadness on my sleeve.  From the last weeks of my mother’s life, to her funeral and throughout the seven days of shiva, not a tear was shed.  Not when I sang to my mother her last Shma, nor when I recited Vidui over her. Not when my shirt was rendered at the cemetery, and not when I had to comfort my mother’s countless friends who all felt that they had lost their very best friend.   And yet at that very moment, the tears came.  Uncontrollably.

Ambassador Brinker quickly grabbed a box of tissues and offered me words of comfort.  She said to me, “You must miss your mother terribly.  I still miss my sister very much.”  Everyone who has lost someone to breast cancer shares in this tragic bond; it’s a sisterhood no one wants to be a part of.

Since Biennial I read Ambassador Brinker’s book Promise Me. There were moments when I couldn’t put it down because I loved reading about the relationship between these two sisters, Nanny and Suzy.  And then there were moments when I had to put it down because I knew how Suzy’s story ended and I didn’t want to rush it. In lieu of a bookmark, I used a tissue as a placeholder because I knew I’d need one when I picked up the book again.  On page 147, Brinker describes a conversation during her last visit with Suzy.  “We have to do something… to help… those women at the hospital.  Make it better… for them… for their families…. Promise me it’ll be better… It has to be talked about. Breast cancer – we have to talk about it.  It has to change… so women know… so they don’t die.  Promise me, Nanny.  Promise… you’ll make it change.”  And Brinker’s response?  “I promise, Suzy, I swear.  Even if it takes the rest of my life…”

We know Brinker took the promise seriously.  We know it because we are awash in pink.  We know it because everyone knows Susan G. Komen for the Cure and because you’ve either run in a Race for the Cure or you know (and sponsored) someone else who has.  And we know it because the Susan G. Komen has made millions upon millions of dollars in grants.

So this situation about Planned Parenthood, an organization that provides health screening services to women who don’t have coverage and who can’t afford it is heartbreaking.  It’s heartbreaking to me.  It’s heartbreaking to the hundreds of thousands of supporters of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure, because it distracts from the core cause.

But what of Susan G. Komen?  “Promise me it’ll be better,” she begged.  After reading the book, there is no doubt in my mind that she would want the funds to go where they are most needed, to the populations where screening and women’s health awareness are not a priority – but where they benefit most.    Surely Suzy’s pleas and intention can’t be pushed aside or forgotten.  What would Susan G. Komen think about this controversy surrounding the funding of Planned Parenthood?  Would she find it acceptable, or like so many of us, would she too feel heartbroken?

But enough with the heartbreak.  It’s time for healing.  Echoing Amb. Brinker’s remarks from earlier today, it’s time to “refocus our attention on our mission and get back to doing our work.”

Image courtesy of hollywoodreporter.com

Herman Nackaerts, IAEA’s deputy director general, told reporters at the culmination of talks on Monday: “We are committed to resolve all the outstanding issues and the Iranians said they are committed to…But of course there is still a lot of work to be done and so we have planned another trip in the very near future.” Experts have agreed that the fact that another trip is planned is encouraging and it suggests that President Ahmandinejad and Saeed Jalili (Iran’s nuclear negotiator) are willing to discuss substantive issues regarding nuclear weapons manufacturing and the security of nuclear materials.

However, at the same time that the IAEA has been remarking encouragingly about Iran’s actions regarding its nuclear ambitions, Israeli leaders have kept their messaging about the Islamic Republic consistent.  On Tuesday, President Shimon Peres called Iranian leaders “evil,” insisting that they not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. He referred to Iran’s nuclear ambitions
as the world’s single most important issue.

Additionally, in this Sunday’s New York Times Magazine article titled “Will Israel Attack Iran?” Israeli officials outlined the three components that would need to be present to validate a pre-emptive attack on the Iranian nuclear program: if Israel had the ability to cause severe damage to Iran’s nuclear process, thereby bringing about a major delay to the realization of a nuclear weapon; if Israel had either overt or tacit support from America and other allies; and if all other possibilities have been exhausted, leaving this as the last opportunity to attack. Ehud Barak, Israeli Defense Minister and the senior Israeli representative in the dialogue with the US on Iranian nuclear programs, has marked his place as a moderate voice in this debate: “I accept that Iran has other reasons for developing nuclear bombs, apart from its desire to destroy Israel, but we cannot ignore the risk…An Iranian bomb would ensure the survival of the current regime, which otherwise would not make it to its 40^th anniversary in light of the admiration that the young generation in Iran has displayed for the West. With a bomb, it would be very hard to budge the [Iranian] administration.”

While we at the RAC are encouraged by the IAEA nuclear talks, President Ahmadinejad has often used diplomatic overtures as a “stalling tactic” while continuing to work on his nuclear program. Check back as the IAEA talks progress and Israel continues to consider a military option in the face of a nuclear Ian.

Photo courtesy of AFP

In response to the influx of overwhelmingly corporate-funded and unlimited political spending, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD; pictured above) says that he will introduce an updated version of the DISCLOSE Act, legislation that seeks to bring transparency to election spending. When it was considered in the last Congress, the bill passed the House of Representatives but failed to pass the Senate by a single vote, deeply disappointing campaign finance reform advocates. Officials working on the new bill say that much of the same language will likely remain, including an exemption provision stating that organizations that meet certain requirements in terms of membership and size of operations would not be required to disclose their sources of funding. The National Rifle Association and similarly well-financed groups primarily supported this provision. However, one provision that sources say will likely not be in the DISCLOSE Act 2.0 is the one that restricted government contractors and domestic subsidiaries of foreign companies from supporting Super PACs.

The 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission struck down a decades-long ban on corporate and labor unions using unlimited amounts of their general funds to advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate. The DISCLOSE Act, which stands for Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections, is not a legal challenge to Citizens United, as it does not seek to directly curb political spending; rather, it would require Super PACs to be more open and transparent about their funding, and it would mandate that corporations disclose their campaign expenditures to their investors. This bill would help inform voters make informed decisions about the political positions that may or may not be supporting by investing in a company or buying its products.

Although this Congress is more gridlocked than the previous one, it is becoming increasingly difficult to deny the distorting and nasty influence of money in politics and how challenging it has become difficult  to obtain information about those who spend large sums in elections. But does the DISCLOSE Act 2.0 go far enough, or do the exemptions leave it toothless? Stay tuned for more coverage of the DISCLOSE Act after it is introduced, as well as other campaign finance reform efforts.

Image courtesy of Politico.

Rhode Island also has a significant history in the separation of church and state. Roger Williams, a Baptist minister, came to found Rhode Island after being banished from the colony of Massachusetts and experiencing firsthand the persecution that can exist in a land without religious freedom. While the influence of Roger Williams has carried Rhode Island far in preserving religious liberty, citizens living under this grand tradition have faltered as of late.

Over the last few years, there has been a significant conflict surrounding a prayer banner at one of the local high schools. Cranston, R.I., which is home to my synagogue, Temple Sinai, has two public high schools. When Cranston West opened in the 1960s, it adopted an official school prayer, which hangs on the auditorium wall. The impulse in adopting this prayer, which was composed by a student at the school, was admirable. It is, however, explicitly still a prayer. It begins “Heavenly Father,” and it concludes with “Amen” – and it is titled “School Prayer.”

In recent years, objections to the banner were raised, spearheaded by a brave and thoughtful student at the school, Jessica Ahlquist. Jessica, who is an atheist, objected to the presence of an official school prayer in the auditorium. She brought her objections to the administration, to the school committee, and ultimately to the general public through a lawsuit filed with the assistance of the ACLU. At every turn, requests to take down the banner, convert it into a historic museum-style display, or edit the wording were rejected.

Earlier this month, the court case was decided – U.S. District Judge Ronald Lagueux ruled that the banner needed to come down. In the last several weeks, unfortunately, this situation has transformed from a simple dispute over school prayer and the appropriate separation of church and state. Jessica has been subjected to insults and threats, the rhetoric on talk radio and other media outlets has been vicious, and Jessica and her supporters have been vilified. The police have been escorting Jessica to school, local businesses have refused to provide for Jessica and her family, and even a member of the State Assembly was on the air calling Jessica terrible names. It has been a very sad time in our city and state.

I have joined together with other religious leaders in the state to offer support for Jessica, and also to advocate that it is appropriate for the banner to come down. Naturally, there has been a lot of support coming from atheist groups and other non-religious people and organizations. It was important to me, as a rabbi and a person of faith, to voice my support. We must take action to defend the separation of church and state. Especially given our Jewish history of religious persecution, that separation is part of what makes me feel safe and secure in this country. We must also take action to demonstrate that Reform Judaism is tolerant, accepting, and able to embrace a wide variety of perspectives.

Last week, a group of nearly 20 leaders from different faith traditions, including three rabbis, an imam, and a number of Protestant clergy came together to speak for tolerance and civility in this debate. In my remarks, I said, “This is not about agreement or disagreement on the issue. It’s about how we treat one another. The diversity of our community is an incredible strength. We must act to elevate and protect the freedom of expression that is so central to our community.” I offered the rabbinic teachings about Hillel and Shammai, which show us that we don’t need to shy away from conflict, but we need to conduct disputes in a positive and constructive manner. When we disagree, we must still find ways to respect our opponent and to build up the community.

I pray for peace in my state and throughout our country. I celebrate the bravery of this high school student, who raised her voice and took action when she saw something wrong in her school. As a parent and as a rabbi, I hope that all of our young people will live in this way: developing a moral compass and working for the sake of justice, equality, and peace. And when our young people or any person is motivated to take action, may they be supported and respected. Let us cultivate an environment where opinions are expressed freely but respectfully, where those with different viewpoints are respected, and where we celebrate the diversity that makes our community so strong.

Rabbi Peter W. Stein is the rabbi at Temple Sinai in Cranston, R.I. Photo courtesy of Temple Sinai.

Alex and Sam worked together to write a speech urging their members of Congress to extend federal unemployment insurance, which is set to expire later this month. After delivering the speech together in their senators’ offices on Monday, they split up to visit their respective representatives in the House. Temple B’nai Shalom Assistant Educator and Youth Director Josh Fixler accompanied Alex to visit the office of Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), where they met with the Congressman’s legislative director, Tim Aiken. The speech was so impressive that the next day, Rep. Moran entered the speech, in its entirety, into the Congressional Record, the official record of the U.S. Congress.

Before entering the speech, Rep. Moran said the following:

Mr. Speaker, I have the good fortune of representing many bright and promising young people. When they speak selflessly about the need to help those less fortunate and recognize that the federal government has a responsibility to address this need, it renews my hope for a better future. Yesterday was one such occasion. A young man, Alex Lesser, accompanied by Josh Fixler, Assistant Educator and Youth Director of the Temple B’Nai Shalom Congregation, came to my office on behalf of the Religious Action Center and the Union for Reform Judaism. Alex presented my office with a paper he and his friend, Sam Dixon, wrote jointly on the topic of economic justice and the importance of extending unemployment benefits. Alex’s and Sam’s eloquent words of reason deserve to be heard by my colleagues.

The full speech as entered in the Congressional Record is available here. Personally, I find this paragraph of the speech to be the most incisive and the one that best illustrates the students’ selflessness and promise of which Rep. Moran speaks:

We are here today because Judaism teaches us that this is a vitally important issue. God commands us in the book of Deuteronomy that ‘‘if there is a needy person among you . . . do not harden your heart and shut your hand against your kin. Rather, you must open your hand and lend whatever is sufficient’’ (Deuteronomy 15:7–11). It teaches us that providing for the needy is not just a matter of charity, but an obligation. Judaism also teaches that the highest form of tzedakah, the Jewish value of charity, is to help a person achieve self-sufficiency.

Unemployment insurance is that exact type of support that the homeless need to help them get back on their feet. I think that we can all agree that poverty is one of the worst fates imaginable. It is one of the most terrible sufferings. The Union for Reform Judaism has consistently fought against attempts to weaken the social safety net. This is clearly a moral choice as well as a political one.

Yes, by the end of the weekend we’re all exhausted and can’t imagine starting over again just a few days later with a whole new group of students. But then we work with students like Alex and Sam – we see the impact this experience has on them and the impact they have on their members of Congress – and we become re-inspired to continue training the next generation of Reform Jewish social justice advocates.

L’dor v’dor, from generation to generation, and may you go from strength to strength – or, as we say at the RAC, from L’Taken to L’taken.

While the leading researcher, Stephen J. Schwartz, professor of ophthalmology at UCLA’s Jules Stein Eye Institute, stresses that the findings are preliminary, he is still energized about the prospects of further research. “I can’t tell you how excited I am about this,” Schwartz said.

Embryonic stem cell research involves the extraction of a stem cell from an embryo at such an early stage of development that the cell has the potential to become any type of cell. The use of stem cells could potentially treat many serious diseases such as diabetes, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and spinal cord injuries.

However, political controversies over embryonic stem cell research have prevented consistent federal funding of this promising research. Ever since embryonic stem cells were discovered in 1998, federal funding of the research has been set through executive order, not law, which means that the policy has changed under each new administration. Currently, President Obama’s executive order allows for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, but only a law passed by Congress can ensure that the research can continue over the long term and as presidents change.

In the last two months, nearly 200 Reform Jewish teens have explored the issue of embryonic stem cell research at the RAC’s L’Taken Social Justice Seminars, and many have chosen to lobby their members of Congress to support the Stem Cell Research Advancement Act (HR 2376). It is our hope that persistent and passionate advocacy from our L’Taken participants and others will result in the passage of the Stem Cell Research Advancement Act so that news like the recently reported results in the human blindness study can become more common.

For more information about embryonic stem cell research, please visit the RAC’s resource page or contact me.

Photo courtesy of npr.org

Let’s take a look at some examples of what our rabbis have had to say about marriage equality (after the jump):

Rabbi Jonathan Singer of Temple Beth Am of Seattle, Washington, argued that marriage equality is not just important to the thousands of same-sex households waiting for recognition and the protection of the law, but also as a matter of religious liberty (emphasis mine):

“In the Jewish tradition we call marriage kiddushin, an act of holiness. Fifteen years ago I decided I wanted to officiate at marriages for same-sex couples. My synagogue, which is one of the largest synagogues in the state, agreed to do so. But we know that this is still a second-class status, so I am here to bear witness to the fact that I along with many other religious representatives believe that the state is discriminating not only against same-sex couples, but against the freedom of our religious expression.

“We along with the Seattle Jewish Federation, which represents a wide spectrum of Jews in the state of Washington, and the National Reform Movement — the largest expression of American Judaism — embrace the passing of this bill. None of us want to impose our perspective on others, but let this be a year that we soften our hearts to families and religious leaders who are searching for freedom, wishing to be treated equally by the state. Let others make their decisions in the marketplace of religious ideas and freedom. Let us pass marriage equality for all.”

In New Jersey, Reconstructionist, Reform, and Conservative rabbis all testified on behalf of marriage equality. There were too many Reform rabbis testifying on behalf of religious liberty and equality to include all of their testimony (which you can find on video here), but here are some highlights (emphasis mine throughout):

Rabbi Mark Kaiserman of Temple Emanu-El of Livingston NJ:

“It was said several times today that people of faith oppose this bill. I just want to remind our committee that I’m a person of faith and all of these very many clergy from across denominations are all deeply-held people of faith, and every one of us is completely in favor of this bill. We have recognized in so many couples that there is holiness and beauty in them – in heterosexual couples and in same-sex couples – and we recognize the capacity to give and love in so many parents – same-sex parents, opposite-sex parents, single parents – and despite biased studies that are touted out to protect religious bigotry we want you to remember as you make these decisions, people of faith are in favor of this bill. Don’t let other faiths dominate and stop us from practicing our beliefs. Same-sex couples can create a relationship of holiness. We hope that you’ll allow that to happen in the state of New Jersey.”

Rabbi Joel Abraham of Temple Sholom of Scotch Plains, NJ, and co-chair of Reform Jewish Voice (RJV) of NJ:

“I will still perform kiddushim, what we as Jews call marriage, the sanctification of the union between two people who have committed to love each other in perpetuity. It is what I do as a rabbi.  And the state in no way tells me who I can and cannot do that ceremony for. But I do act in partnership with the state when I celebrate a marriage — when I sign a certificate of marriage. And I have signed certificates of civil unions, and it’s really not the same act. I hope that this time, the Senate and Assembly of the state of New Jersey will find the way to allow me to perform this act in partnership with the state of New Jersey, to celebrate the holiness that I know I have seen in these unions between people who do love each other.”

Testimony from Maryland rabbis took place only a few days ago. At the Maryland state house, Rabbi Elissa Sachs-Kohen of Baltimore Hebrew Congregation observed that marriage equality would not violate the religious liberty of any religious groups. Moreover, she testified to the similarities between her own wedding ceremony and those of heterosexual couples (emphasis mine):

As a member of the clergy, I would never support a law which abrogated my right to stay true to the teachings of my religious tradition. The fact that the legislation we are discussing today upholds the right of all clergy and all religious institutions to refuse to sanctify unions they deem religiously inappropriate is essential.

At the same time, I urge you to support this legislation because while people of good faith may disagree over the holiness of gay and lesbian unions that disagreement belongs in the churches, mosques and synagogues, not the State House. Our country, founded on democratic principles of human rights and human dignity, must not continue to deny some of its citizens the rights it approves for others.

More than a decade ago, my partner and I were united in a Jewish ceremony. We were blessed to have three different rabbis, a cantor; all of our parents and siblings participate in that ceremony with us and sanctify our love. In our wedding ceremony we affirmed the Jewish values of commitment and dedication that are at the core of every stable, loving family, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, atheist, Hindu, straight or gay.  After the ceremony we danced, we laughed and we ate, just like every wedding I have since conducted as a Rabbi.

Image courtesy of YouTube.com/BlueJersey.com

Early this week the Indiana State Senate passed S.B.89, which was introduced and sponsored by Indiana State Sen. Dennis Kruse, by a 28-22 margin.  This bill, which would take effect on July 1, 2012, if approved by the State House of Representatives and signed into law by Gov. Mitch Daniels, seeks to allow public schools to teach creationism in science classrooms.  Sen. Kruse has introduced legislation to teach creationism before, but this time he has something else besides passion in his favor: He is the chair of the Senate Education Committee, the committee that had to approve this legislation before it came up for a vote.

Before the vote in the Senate was taken, State Sen. Vi Simpson proposed an amendment aimed at solving the bill’s nagging constitutionality problem.  The amendment, which was successfully included in the passage of this bill in the Senate, allows the teaching of creationism so long as the teachings of multiple religions, including but not limited to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Scientology, are presented.  This amendment hardly fixes the blatant constitutionality problems S.B.89 faces.  In fact, it only exacerbates the unconstitutionality. Religion should never be taught in science classrooms, and requiring multiple religious stances on creation to be taught in those classrooms doesn’t make it any better. Such moves are clear violations of the Establishment Clause, just as they were in Edwards and subsequent cases.

Should this legislation, or any of the other proposed creationism measures for that matter, become law, a court challenge is all but guaranteed.  Check back with RACBlog as we continue to monitor misguided and unconstitutional attempts by state legislators to mandate the teaching of religious doctrine in public school science classrooms.

Dear Ambassador Brinker,

On behalf of the Union for Reform Judaism whose 900 congregations across North America encompass 1.5 million Reform Jews, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, with membership of more than 1800 Reform rabbis, and the Women of Reform Judaism, which represents more than 65,000 women in nearly 500 women’s groups in North America and around the world, we write to express our disappointment in Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s decision to halt its longstanding partnership with Planned Parenthood Federation of America, thereby withholding funds to fight breast cancer where they are most needed.

Komen for the Cure has helped hundreds of thousands of women in the fight against breast cancer, and has educated millions, bringing the once taboo and closeted subject of breast cancer into the public domain. Indeed, the global impact that you and Komen for the Cure have had was precisely why we were so pleased to bestow upon you the Eisendrath Bearer of Light Award at our recent Biennial convention. And this is why we are so deeply disappointed by Komen’s decision to cease funding mammograms provided by PPFA in the face of a politically-motivated investigation unrelated to PPFA’s breast cancer screenings for vulnerable women.

At the same December Biennial, the Women of Reform Judaism honored PPFA President Cecile Richards and applauded PPFA’s work to advance women’s health. It is painful for us now to see politics and partisanship interfere with and undermine efforts to support women who lack the resources they need for preventive medical services like mammograms. Each year Planned Parenthood’s network of more than 800 clinics nationwide provides nearly 830,000 breast exams. PPFA has stated that, over the past five years, 170,000 of the centers’ 4 million breast exams conducted were a direct result of Komen grants. Halting Komen grant money to PPFA is contrary to your organization’s mission and interests, directly and unfairly threatening the health and safety of women.

Upon accepting the Eisendrath Bearer of Light Award, you told the story of two women, one Palestinian and one Israeli, marching together to combat breast cancer in the first Race for the Cure in Israel. You explained with admiration that, in the course of the walk, they were able to forget the political climate that divided them and they bonded instead over the common cause of women’s health. We now urge Komen to follow their example by rejecting efforts to sow division among women’s health advocates and providers and refusing to sacrifice the lives of women on the altar of political ideology.

We understand that this funding decision comes from a new standard employed by Komen for the Cure that defunds organizations under government investigation. While we understand the desire to have an objective policy in place, this particular standard is misguided, threatening more than just grants to PPFA. We believe there are less partisan ways to accomplish your goals. For example, a standard that is linked to investigations carried out by law enforcement is more likely to be free of partisanship. The standard that Komen has established allows Komen’s funding decisions to be dictated by the political whims, partisanship and pet issues of individual members of Congress, who persuade their committees to launch an investigation.  This new standard may appear to extricate Komen from politicization, yet in reality it leaves the group open to even greater politicization.

We urge you to use your leadership in Komen for the Cure to reinstate funding to PPFA for breast cancer screening, to reconsider the standard by which the organization makes funding decisions, and to continue to fight for the health and lives of women everywhere.

We look forward to your prompt reply.
Sincerely,

Rabbi David Saperstein, Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism

Rabbi Marla Feldman, Executive Director of the Women of Reform Judaism