There was quite a bit of hullabaloo this week about the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation’s decision not to renew their donation to Planned Parenthood, bowing to pressure from far-right groups and anti-abortion activists.

The level of shouting from both sides was inversely proportional to the amount of money that at first glance may seem substantial, but also accounts for less than one percent of Planned Parenthood’s annual funding. It was the principle of the thing, though, that got people so riled up that they unfortunately overlooked and/or exaggerated the actual impact the move had on both organizations’ financial disbursement. But even discounting the impact  overlooks the statement that was made with the move.

Today, Komen announced it has reversed its stance in response to public outcry and top officials resigning in protest, adding that in the future it will “amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.” The reversal also conflicts with the video the organization posted just days ago of founder and CEO Nancy Brinker, who promised “straight talk” in the video and then went on to spit out bureaucratic jargon that sounded like she was reading an e-mail out of her spam folder.

The whole situation is sad, and not just because Komen refused to provide funding, no matter how small, to an organization that provides breast cancer screenings to the poor at a reduced rate and sometimes for free. It’s also because too many organizations answering to fringe groups. Had they simply renewed their funding, what would have happened? Would they have lost many donors? Not likely. Instead, they unnecessarily put themselves in a bad position, didn’t stick to their guns, evaded questions as to why, then did a complete 180. No good came of it or could have come from it, and it’s a shame that an organization that portends to do good would be so cowardly as to bend to the whims of sycophants.

Then again, this is the same group that sues other charities for using the word “cure,” so I’m not terribly surprised their moral ground is a little shaky.

Also, can we talk about the use of the word “cure” in the first place as it relates to cancer research, since nobody who knows enough about it would ever insist a cure is possible or that cancer is this simple singular disease without variations, and that saying “cure” is a bit dishonest and manipulative but it has to be used because people don’t want to hear otherwise?

No? Okay. Another time then.