MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin — Attacking Planned Parenthood was so 2011. This year, conservatives may have a new target: the American Cancer Society.

Fliers calling on “patriots” to “boycott the American Cancer Society” were in abundance at the Americans For Prosperity’s Defending the American Dream Summit in Milwaukee last weekend. It also urged churches and Christian schools to stop participating in the American Cancer Society’s annual Relay for Life fundraiser for cancer research.

Flyers at the Americans For Prosperity conference in Milwaukee last weekend telling people to boycott the American Cancer Society

According to the flier, people should boycott the American Cancer Society because the group supports “the Marxist Obamacare plan” and is insufficiently “pro-life.” The American Cancer Society spends approximately $130 million each year to fund cancer research, helping save countless lives in the process.

The woman providing the fliers, who did not wish to be named, also passed out anti-contraception information and other American Life League literature at her table. When asked why she supports boycotting a life-saving group for not being “pro-life” enough, she was dismissive. “That’s what they want the public to believe,” the woman told ThinkProgress. She said she “opposed social engineering by these ‘do-good’ social charities” like the American Cancer Society.

Americans For Prosperity is not behind the boycott, but the Koch-backed group provided space for boycott supporters to disseminate information about it to the 1,000 conservative activists in attendance. It’s unclear precisely who is behind the boycott; the fliers do not specify, nor would the woman divulge that information.

Across the nation, lawmakers are debating several different anti-abortion bills seeking to make it more difficult for women to have an abortion. One tactic is “informed consent” measures that require women to be given information before an abortion — even if they do not want that information or getting it would violate medical guidelines.

Now, the New Hampshire House has passed a bill that, along with mandating a 24-hour waiting period, requires doctors to give women “informational materials” before an abortion that aren’t even accurate, including that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer. Here’s the text of the bill:

It is scientifically undisputed that full-term pregnancy reduces a woman’s lifetime risk of breast cancer. It is also undisputed that the earlier a woman has a first full-term pregnancy, the lower her risk of breast cancer becomes, because following a full-term pregnancy the breast tissue exposed to estrogen through the menstrual cycle is more mature and cancer resistant.

In fact, for each year that a woman’s first full-term pregnancy is delayed, her risk of breast cancer rises 3.5 percent. The theory that there is a direct link between abortion and breast cancer builds upon this undisputed foundation.

The problem is that a direct link between abortion and breast cancer is not only disputed, it has also been rejected by multiple health organizations. The National Institutes of Health, American Cancer Society, and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are a few of the groups who say no such link has been scientifically proven. Even the Susan G. Komen Foundation denies there is a link.

That has not stopped Republicans, including presidential candidate Rick Santorum, from peddling this theory. Nor is New Hampshire the first state where such a bill has been proposed — Kansas and Oklahoma have both considered legislation with similar provisions. But it is hard to understand how a bill can protect women’s health when it gives them incorrect information.

-Zachary Bernstein

After cheering for letting a young man die during a GOP debate, and wanting to repeal the Affordable Care Act, perhaps this shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, but a new Daily Kos/PPP poll finds that a majority of conservatives have an “unfavorable” view of breast cancer screening services performed by Planned Parenthood. Just 25 percent have a positive view, compared to 51 percent with a negative one. The poll, of course, comes in the wake of the Susan G. Komen foundation’s decision to stop funding screening services at Planned Parenthood, but the results call in question what it means to be “pro-life,” as many conservatives identify themselves.

The poll also showed that Komen’s brand took a big hit in the controversy. A majority of all Americans, 53 percent, opposed Komen’s decision, while just 38 percent supported it. 49 percent said it made them less likely to support Komen financially in the future.

The Dallas Morning News reports that Susan G. Komen For the Cure is reversing its decision to stop funding cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood health centers.

Facing an avalanche of criticism for caving to pressure from anti-abortion activists, Komen founder Nancy Brinker issued the following statement:

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. [...]

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. [...]

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. 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.

Since announcing on Tuesday that they would end their relationship with Planned Parenthood, which provides cancer screenings and mammogram referrals for low-income women, Komen has faced a revolt from allies in the health community and its own employees.

Two top Komen officials resigned in protest following the announcement. Local chapters of Komen also rebelled, pledging to defy the order and continue funding Planned Parenthood.

Furthermore, Komen discovered that if they applied their new policy evenly to all organizations that receive their grants, they would be forced to stop funding institutions including Penn State University, not just Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, has been overwhelmed with an outpouring of support from across the country. They raised enough money in just a few days — $650,000 — to nearly make up for the funds they lost from the Komen grant. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg pledged to give $250,000 to Planned Parenthood.

After Susan G. Komen for the Cure announced it would stop providing grants for Planned Parenthood to fund thousands of breast exams for women, many were shocked by the foundation’s decision to cave to right-wing pressure. Credo launched a petition asking people to “[t]ell the board of Susan G. Komen: Don’t throw Planned Parenthood under the bus! Don’t cave to anti-woman extremists and cut off funding for breast cancer screenings at the largest provider of health care for women.” Planned Parenthood released a statement saying they were deeply saddened and disappointed by the decision. “We’re kind of reeling,” said Patrick Hurd, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Virginia, which received a 2010 grant from Komen. Hurd said his wife, Betsi, is a veteran of several Komen fundraising races and is currently battling breast cancer.

Anti-choice activists have targeted Komen’s parternership with Planned Parenthood since 2005. And the assault on Planned Parenthood intensified after Karen Handel, a vocal anti-abortion activist, joined Komen as a senior vice president in April.

Now, conservatives are celebrating the win. “Pro-Lifers win big against Planned Parenthood,” read one headline on the New York Post’s website. “VICTORY!” proclaimed a conservative blog. Here are some examples of the right-wing cheering:

– Planned Parenthood Exposed! Kathryn Jean Lopez writes at the National Review that the “icon” of Planned Parenthood is crumbling as groups break ties with it and it is “exposed” after undercover work. “To take issue with Planned Parenthood is not to be unkind to women. It’s to seek something better,” Lopez writes. “Komen is not the National Right to Life Committee, the Susan B. Anthony List, Feminists for Life, or your pro-life organization of choice (pun intended). And Planned Parenthood’s ‘war on women’ rhetoric is only looking shriller and emptier this evening.”

– Thank Komen For Cutting Funds To Cancer Research! Now that the Komen foundation has stopped contributing to Planned Parenthood, RedState’s Erick Erickson calls for conservatives to support Komen since it listened to them. “If you are not willing to support an organization that takes a stand you want when they come under attack, you cannot be surprised when less organizations listen to you,” he writes. “So say thank you.”

– Komen Is Saving Lives By Underfunding Research! Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life President, cheered Komen’s decision to break ties with Planned Parenthood because Planned Parenthood performs abortions. “As a breast cancer survivor, I applaud the decision made by the Komen Foundation to discontinue their partnership with the billion-dollar, abortion mega-provider, Planned Parenthood,” she said. “The work of the Komen Foundation has life-saving potential and should not be intertwined with an industry dealing in death.”

– No More Abortions!Family Resource Council President Tony Perkins said Komen’s decision would stop funding “the nation’s largest abortion provider.” “For too long many people of good will gave money to this foundation to help stop the scourge of breast cancer, not realizing that their money was going to help subsidize the nation’s largest abortion provider,” Perkins said in a statement. “Planned Parenthood has claimed they provide mammogram services for women but recently admitted they do not. Susan G. Komen is right to be concerned about the investigations of Planned Parenthood. The abortion organization has been exposed for covering up statutory rape cases and has a history of Medicaid over-billing and other financial misconduct.”

Susan G. Komen for the Cure is the country’s best-known and best-funded breast cancer organization. Known for it’s iconic pink ribbon and annual Race for the Cure event, the organization has invested nearly $2 billion in cancer education and research since its founding in 1982.

But today, bowing to political pressure, Komen for the Cure announced that it is severing its partnership with Planned Parenthood and will stop providing hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants that allow their centers to perform breast exams on women who could not otherwise get them.

Since anti-abortion activists and their Republican allies ratcheted up their crusade against Planned Parenthood last year, they’ve targeted any and all allies of the organization to try to make inroads, including the cancer charity. Planned Parenthood provides birth control, STD testing, and cancer screenings to low-income women.

In a press release Planned Parenthood said it was deeply saddened and disappointed by the decision:

Planned Parenthood Federation of America today expressed deep disappointment in response to the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation’s decision to stop funding breast cancer prevention, screenings and education at Planned Parenthood health centers. Anti-choice groups in America have repeatedly threatened the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation for partnering with Planned Parenthood to provide these lifesaving cancer screenings and news articles suggest that the Komen Foundation ultimately succumbed to these pressures.

“We are alarmed and saddened that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation appears to have succumbed to political pressure. Our greatest desire is for Komen to reconsider this policy and recommit to the partnership on which so many women count,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

In the last few weeks, the Komen Foundation has begun notifying local Planned Parenthood programs that their breast cancer initiatives will not be eligible for new grants (beyond existing agreements or plans).

Komen’s pretext for ending the alliance is the spurious congressional investigation into Planned Parenthood led by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL). Democrats say the far-reaching investigation is a political witch hunt and abuse of government resources.

Komen’s new Senior Vice President of Public Policy, Karen Handel, not only has a long anti-choice history, but pledged to eliminate grants for Planned Parenthood to provide breast and cervical cancer screenings when she ran for governor of Georgia in 2010.

According to Planned Parenthood, in the past five years support from Susan G. Komen allowed their health centers to provide nearly 170,000 breast exams and 6,400 mammogram referrals. The charity’s decision has succeeded only in depriving low-income women of cancer screenings that could save their lives — a move that flies in the face of Komen’s mission.

In their relentless ideological crusade against President Obama’s health care reform law, Florida’s GOP lawmakers have repeatedly proven willing to throw the state’s most vulnerable citizens under the bus to make a statement. Gov. Rick Scott (R) has rejected millions of federal dollars to provide health care for retirees, seniors, children, and people with disabilities. Florida Republicans have even turned down money to fight child abuse and neglect.

Now the Florida Independent reports that cancer patients are the latest group to suffer from Republicans’ political games and unwillingness to accept federal grants:

Among the long list of federal health grants the state has shunned in the past year was a small award that would have “reduced the burden of cancer.”

A spokesperson for the Florida Department of Health tells The Florida Independent that budget authority was denied for a competitive grant “awarded to Florida beginning October 2010 for $175,000 yearly.” [...]

The grant did not require any contributions from the state. [...]

According to a recent report by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Florida is among many states that have “missed opportunities to enact laws and policies that could not only save money and generate revenue, but also save lives.”

State advisory councils working on the Florida Cancer Plan noted that the rejected grant would have “accelerated prevention and risk reduction policies and efforts.” The grant money would have been used for several important plans, including creating a forum to improve continuing care for cancer patients, initiatives to reduce tobacco use, and programs to reduce obesity in school-aged children.

Local officials throughout the state have voiced their frustration at Scott for turning away money they desperately need simply to grandstand against health care reform.

Scott is a former private health industry executive who made his fortune downsizing hospitals for profit. His partisan demagoguery on health reform and other issues has helped make him the least popular governor in America.

Scott’s claim to be standing on principle by vetoing health care money is especially disingenuous given that this year he signed a budget that uses $370 million of federal stimulus money after he vowed to “fight all stimulus money.”