Over the years, friends and I have gotten to march alongside the parade's many activists, amoralists and artists, through the heart streets: throngs of cheering folks every age and color waving their rainbow bandanas, blowing kisses from outstretched hands and pointing out the queerest of the queer: the musclemen in leather singlets, the golden gowned queens floating above the asphalt, the jam band with its dancing, spiky-haired dykes, the identically-clad herds hoisting proudly their handmade banners while marching in small clusters.

Sadly, a long stint of unemployment earlier in the year rendered me unable to attend, but a long-time friend and fraternity brother attended in my place, snapping pictures so we could vicariously experience the parade through him.

They're all after the break.

Music performer and self-proclaimed drag terrorist Christeene used to be a lovable but somewhat obscure Austin oddity who amazed online audiences with her videos featuring vaginal teardrops and panda rape. But now she's all growed up with a Kickstarter-funded album on the way and a new video that got her forcibly removed from several semi-respectable business establishments.

Oh yes, she's back and she's even crazier and more confrontational.

In her video entitled "African Mayonnaise," Christeene sings about how "trashy" art is more violently real than your regular pre-packaged internet pap. Meanwhile, she and her two panty-clad backup dancers strut around a local gym and mall, much to the delight and horror of her observers.

While the video masterfully stitches together epileptic footage from her raucous live shows, it also makes an oddly profound statement about American pop excess, classism, gender non-comformity, exhibitionism, public accommodation and guerilla protest--pretty great from someone who began her career by singing, "I'll letcha chew on my crabcakes. To hell with the first date. Just slide me the beefsteak."

Director PJ Raval, the director of the trans documentary Trinidad is both the director of all seven of Christeene's videos and also the mind who came up with the giant walk-in colon shown in her hetero-anal anthem "Bustin' Brown". He's kinda a genius -- keep your eyes on him and his tattered starlet.

When Alpharetta High School student body president Reuben Lack proposed that his school drop the sex-typed labels of "prom king and queen" in order to make the annual dance more inclusive of same-sex couples, his teachers allegedly ousted him from office. He's suing his school now, but let's take a closer look at the genius of Lack's idea, and the tweak that could make it inclusive for both same and different-gender couples.

It sounds like Lack attends a high school where the prom king and queen are a dating couple. In my high school, the prom queen and king are just a male and female who chosen by the senior class--they do need to be dating or even have to know each other. Surprisingly, my high school system partially alleviates the inherent unfairness of a "straight couple" winning because a straight couple never wins, only one male and one female. How accidentally progressive for a Texas school!

For the record, it annoys me whenever gay guys get crowned as prom king and queen--it reinforces the idea of gay men as "queens" and also cuts women out of the competition entirely.

While it's important to ensure that each girl and boy has an equal chance to shine as high school royalty, there's a way to award a crown to a gay couple without cutting out heteros either -- schools should crown two men and two women as equal rulers over the prom court.

In my proposed new system, there would be crowns for prom royalty regardless of their gender and a gay or straight couple could still feasibly win. It's a much better idea than cutting out either sex from the win or impeaching your student body president

The LGBT community (along with other communities) want to make an example out of Ravi to deter future would-be anti-gay tormenters, when it's far more likely that Ravi is merely a cocky young douche who had no idea that broadcasting his roommate's kissing via webcam constituted a felony let alone 15 criminal charges relating to invasion of privacy and bias intimidation.

Keep in mind that up to the point that Clementi killed himself, he appeared normal to both his RA and to the readers at the Just Us Boys comment board where Clementi related the entire tale. Hours later, he jumped off the George Washington bridge.

To say that Ravi's broadcast alone compelled Clementi to suicide is to ignore the role depression plays in suicide, the fact that his own mother initially disliked news of his homosexuality and that his violin professor found him a mousy, insecure boy who lacked confidence; it ignores Clementi's self-will, his history and turns him into Ravi's marionette (ie. "I broadcasted you kissing a dude, so logically you must kill yourself.")

Did Ravi do wrong? Yes. Should he go to prison for over a decade where he will most likely get repeatedly beaten up and gang raped to pay for his crimes? Does that serve a greater interest in keeping gay people safe? Would you even give a shit about Ravi had Clementi not killed himself? Would you want Ravi to rot in prison under the same charges if Clementi were still alive today?

Because if Ravi is found guilty, we will in effect lose two young lives that could have effected great, positive change in this world instead of one.

If Stop SB48 gets their way, great thinkers like Plato, Leonardo DaVinci and Barbara Jordan will get stuffed back in the closet, leaving students ignorant of the many ways LGBT people have helped shape the world.

So I made a video exposing Stop SB48's idiocy and encouraging people to support FairEducationAction.com... and I'd love your feedback on how to make future videos even better.

Did I leave out anything? Should I consider doing something different next time? Keep in mind that I made the video in about an hour using mostly Photoshop and iMovie and without access to copyrighted images or music.

For my next video (which I have already started working on), I plan on highlighting just how many LGBT people live in California and how repealing SB48 would basically erase them from the history books.

Your input and ideas are invaluable... or even better join the digital revolution and oppose LGBT inequality by making your own video PSA!

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the National Organization for Marriage's (NOM) case challenging the Maine law that requires political organizations to disclose their campaign financiers.

But seeing as NOM has successfully flouted similar laws in California and Iowa without any penalties, the Supreme Court's refusal may be meaningless... unless Maine's Attorney General William Schneider suddenly decides to grow a pair and actually prosecute them.

While NOM's pattern of secrecy will plague them as more courts observe their blatant disregard for the law and potential donors realize realize that NOM can't keep their anonymity forever, it's up to the attorney general of Maine to uphold his state's laws by punishing NOM's non-compliance.

As such, Schneider is towing the Catholic line about how "religious conscience" forbids religious, taxpayer-funded businesses from following laws that requiring them to protect women's reproductive rights and treat homosexuals like equals.

Seeing as NOM is a Catholic organization, it's unlikely that Schneider will pressure them to obey the law by his own volition.

However, it behooves LGBT media to begin a campaign highlighting Schneider's failure to enforce his state's popular campaign law. With increased media attention, his failure to prosecute would reflect poorly on his ability as an attorney general and also teach the public about the sort of organization that NOM really is--one that seeks to deny gay citizens their rights, state laws be damned.

Joe Nocera of The New York Times took a look at the policies of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and basically concluded that apart from Cuomo supporting same-sex marriage, they're basically the same person:

Even before taking office, for instance, Cuomo gave an interview to Nick Confessore of The Times laying out his strategy for countering "the well-financed labor unions he believes have bullied previous governors and lawmakers into making bad decisions."

He proposed cutting billions from Medicaid, and instituting medical malpractice reform, which would limit what patients could get in malpractice cases.

His first budget squeezed savings from schools, health care and social services. He initially opposed extending a so-called millionaires' tax (though, eventually, he grudgingly conceded). He has called for tuition increases at the State University System, and for limiting retirement benefits for new city and state workers.

He has pushed through the Legislature a 2 percent cap on property tax increases -- the exact same amount as Chris Christie's property tax cap in New Jersey. Just the other day, The Times published an article about how Cuomo is attempting to consolidate power -- just as Christie is accused of doing in New Jersey.

Target apologized, supposedly changed their political donations policy and now has an 85 percent rating in HRC'S CEI LMNOP.

While draining social services and retirement benefits are more anti-progressive than anti-gay, Bloomberg also donated millions over the last several years to help re-elect the same anti-gay New York legislators who helped prevent the passage of gay marriage in earlier years.

So if a body supports gays with one hand and gives to anti-gay candidates with the other, doesn't that make them less pro-gay? Should we pillory these allies in the public press?

General consensus is that we're better off letting Bloomberg and his ilk persuade Republicans to support gay marriage while the gay press targets Democrats who vote against gay marriage; Democrats like Maryland legislator Sam Arora who campaigned as a gay marriage supporter but recently voted against his state's marriage equality bill.

In the end, Cuomo is perhaps like Target--85 percent pro-gay and 100 percent pro-profits. And Christie is 85 percent pro-gay and 100 percent pro-profits and 2 percent hamburger meat... I have proof.

Though Republican Governor Chris Christie has promised to veto the bill, pro-marriage advocates have until the end of this legislative session, January 2014, to wrangle the 12 additional Assembly votes and 3 additional Senate votes needed to override his veto.

Responding to the Assembly vote, Garden State Equality Chair and CEO Steven Goldstein said:

Today's milestone came in the face of some of the toughest obstacles in the history of the marriage equality movement.  Instead of a Governor twisting arms on our behalf, we have a Governor who twisted arms against us right up until the final votes in each chamber...  And Garden State Equality's budget was one-tenth of what it was two years ago.

To win an override, we will take the time we need, assisted by a changing world.  Look how the world changed since the last vote two years ago.

Evan Wolfson founder and President of Freedom to Marry mentioned that his organization contributed more than $200,000 to help elevate the voices of New Jersey families, purchase radio and online advertisements, lobby and support their partners at Garden State Equality.

Wolfson remarked:

In 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously held that the constitution's command of equality meant that the protections and responsibilities of marriage could no longer be denied to gay couples.  After experimenting with a separate civil union mechanism, today the Legislature took note that marriage matters, and equal means equal, and voted in favor of the freedom to marry.

HRC Executive Director Joe Solmonese added:

"Today's legislative win for marriage equality comes at a historic moment: in the past two weeks, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled California's discriminatory Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional; Governor Christine Gregoire signed marriage equality into law in Washington State; and momentum continued in Maryland with the House expected to vote soon on marriage equality legislation."

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force also marked today's victory by recounting the state's recent gains for LGBT citizens. The NGLTF played a key role in passing two bills in 2006 on transgender nondiscrimination and civil unions and a 2008 measure strengthening the state's anti-bullying and hate crimes laws.

NGLTF Executive Director Rea Carey marked the New Jersey victory thus:

"This victory is a victory for New Jersey families. It affirms what millions of people across the country already know - loving, committed same-sex couples and their families should be able to join in the celebration and responsibilities of marriage. This marks an important step in the Garden State's march toward marriage equality. It has been a long journey of changing hearts and minds, of breaking down walls, and of shining a spotlight on our common humanity. Gov. Chris Christie should take a stand for families by signing this bill."

Congratulations to New Jersey and the committed activists who helped secure today's victory!

Anyone who watched this week's installment of RuPaul's Drag Race and its drunken companion Untucked knows that the accented and slightly broken English of Puerto Rican competitor Kenya Michaels (pictured right) supposedly created a "language barrier" that made her incapable of directing an infomercial.

Michael's English isn't unintelligible; it's exceeds that of Rodiney Santiago (pictured left), the Brazilian-born eye-candy who regularly had his English subtitled on The A-List: New York.

So I've started to wonder, "Does LOGO just not know how to deal with its accented English characters?"

While Michaels' and Santiago's English ain't perfect, anyone actually watching their shows can understand them. Rather its their co-stars that seem to criticize their English abilities most: the privileged morons of The A-List regularly mocked Santiago for his speech and Milan, Ru and Santino Rice of Drag Race all commented on Michaels' language barrier as if it were some great hurdle to overcome (when the show's prior seasons have all featured queens with even thicker accents--Bebe Zahara and Yara Sofia for instance).

After all, the mocking of Santiago and condemnation of Michaels' English as a liability both reinforce social prejudices against accented English. Speakers of so-called broken English aren't idiots, rather they're evidence of the LGBT community's rich international heritage that should be respected, not ridiculed.

Five days ago, Chris Brown performed at the 2012 Grammys and snagged the award for Best R&B Album.

The morning after, Buzzfeed.com highlighted tweets from 25 women who all said things along the lines of "Chris Brown can beat me up anytime he wants."

On Facebook, my friends lamented the stupidity of fantasizing and joking about domestic abuse; of a culture that idolizes and awards those who plead guilty to felony assault; and of the apologists who defend Brown by saying, "That was three years ago--he's paid for his crimes," or "Why crucify a talented black entertainer when there are other abusive men out there?"

But these 25 women fantasizing about Brown aren't alone. Not at all.

Some QueerClick commenters complained about making a pin-up of a woman beater who regularly makes anti-gay comments. In response, QueerClick said that you can find someone hot without endorsing their behavior.

But these women specifically mentioned being beaten in their lusty tweets. So are they stupid, just fantasizing, both or something else?

I've heard "X can Y me all he wants" applied to all manner of baddie: from muscular drawings of Satan ("He can damn my soul to Hell all he likes") to the mugshots of serial lady-killer Ted Bundy ("He can bludgeon me all he likes").

Tasteless, yes, but such comments acknowledge a villain's horrendous qualities while admitting attraction in spite of them. As such, they don't mean to glorify the violent act so much as admit the taboo of their attraction.

But taken another way, the tweets can also be seen as rape fantasies not so different from the idealized prison rapes or sexual harassment scenes of porn films. Yeah, actual prison rape and sexual harassment are awful, but such fantasies appeal to our darker natures and people should decide for themselves whether to indulge such degradation.

As comments keep piling up on Chris Brown and his 25 willing victims, I'm left with the belief that he's actually a red herring or simply symptomatic of two larger discussions: misogyny in music and social acceptance of the abusive male--both have contributed to Brown's image as the unrepentant bruiser and to the ideation of those who would gladly take a busted lip in exchange for some eight-inch dick.

Combatting the attitudes condoning abuse would help more than just discussing Brown and these women--it could actually change minds and save lives.

But if you think Siri is bad, meet Iris, the voice-activated personal assistant developed for Android phones. She's kinda like Siri, just more anti-Semetic and pro-rape.

When Jesus Diaz of Gizmodo.com asked Iris the following questions about abortion, Satan and rape, he got these results:

Is abortion wrong?

Yes, abortion is wrong. The Lord has said, "You shall not murder," (Exodus 20:13). The life that is growing within the mother is a child, a baby. The Bible looks at the life in the womb as a child. Thanks!

Is Satan real?

Yes, Satan is real. Satan is the spirit of evil. He is not a person. He is an adversary of God, tempter of mankind.

Is rape ever justified?

Realistically speaking, that is a matter of opinion. There is no evidence that the US government has ever considered "justifying."

Another writer asked Iris, "Why are Jews so greedy?" She responded, "It is said that the Jews love money. This stereotype has it's [sic] roots somewhere in the Holocaust. It is not true with all Jews."

The thing is that Cha Cha is partially funded by Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and Compaq - two large companies influencing modern media. Iris has also been downloaded over five million times worldwide. As such, its conservative Christian views have informed countless people internationally.

Luckily, when we asked ChaCha if homosexuality is wrong, it responded, "Homosexuality is of no harm to the participants or to anyone else. If it feels right to those involved, then it's fine." And when we asked if transgender people are wrong, ChaCha responded, "So long as you're a good person, being transgender shouldn't be an issue."

But it's still important for LGBT electronics users to see how well new technologies respond to sexual and gender issues.

Compare Iris' answers to when the world's largest search engine Google excluded safe-for-work LGBT sites from their "instant search" feature. By doing so, Google filtered and limited the opportunities for users to learn more about our issues. The same goes for Iris' answers.

Hours after Diaz published his article, ChaCha changed their set responses on abortion and rape to the following:

Is abortion wrong?

Many people believe abortion is wrong because their God teaches that all human life is sacred. However, many people believe that it is wrong to bring a child into the world if the parents are unfit due to drug problems, financial instability, or if it was a result of rape or incest among many other reasons. I believe it is a personal choice. You must do what you believe is right. It may be best to talk with family, friends, counselors, or a religious leader before making any decision.

Is rape ever justified?

No, I do not think so. You might devise a justification in your mind, an unenlightened culture might condone it, but justifying sexual physical violence against another human is always wrong.

It pays to call out companies on their bad behavior, no matter whether a computer or human is the cause.

By Sunday night, Gays and Lesbians Allied Against Defamation (GLAAD) had called on CNN to fire Martin. By Monday night, Martin issued an extended explanation saying that he meant to poke fun at Beckham fans rather than men who find Beckham attractive.

By Wednesday, CNN suspended him for his "regrettable and offensive" tweets. And this morning, Martin announced looking forward to a productive conversation with GLAAD about why he shouldn't encourage others to attack men who like men's athletic underwear commercials.

The prediction is that Martin will only be suspended until right before the 10 state primaries held this March 6th on Super Tuesday. At which point Martin will have finished with his GLAAD-mandated public penance and CNN will reinstate him again in his usual role as political commentator - basically making his sentence a largely symbolic slap on the wrists with a clear end point.

Mrs. Martin is accurate in accusing GLAAD of connecting the LGBT rights to the black civil rights movement, but she goes a step too far in accusing GLAAD of unfairly targeting men of color.

Mrs. Martin has since deleted her Twitter account and GLAAD has issued a statement condemning the use of racial slurs against the Martins and the larger African-American community.

But perhaps Mrs. Martin and GLAAD have both stumbled into the strange intersection of racial tension in the LGBT community: one that we can only gauge better by examining GLAAD's history of high-profile anti-gay targets and their race.

Smith now faces misdemeanor charges for creating a disturbance, throwing a missile and committing an unlawful act on campus. He also faces the possible consequences of jail time, a $1,000 fine and expulsion from school. As such, he illustrates why glitter bombing has overstayed its welcome on the political landscape - basically, it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.

When Nick Espinosa introduced glitter bombing as a form of LGBT protest about a year ago - showering rainbow sprinkles onto GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich during his book signing at an anti-gay Minnesota conference - Espinosa laughed off the conservative pundits who called glitter-bombing as a form of "assault":

"It's almost laughable that people like Glenn Beck and Mike Huckabee claim that glitter is assault. I would laugh if they weren't assaulting people's humanity on a daily basis, and if their constant inflammatory rhetoric didn't produce real violence."

On one hand, glitter bombing is a harmless, entertaining and dramatic way to publicly humiliate a bigot using the same sparkles that drag queens and go-go boys slather onto their bodies. After all, glitter is used in makeup and children's art projects, so a handful of stardust hardly constitutes "assault", right?

Now imagine a pepper's sprinkling of that dashed into your eye - the shards can cause serious irritation, scratch your cornea and even result in a serious infection or temporary blindness.

Overcautious, some might say, but when you consider the necessity of surprise to a glitter bombing's success, it's not inconceivable that a target might end up with an eyeful of metallic shards.

Luckily (or unluckily) most of the glitter bombings have missed their intended targets: the pink glitter directed at Tim Pawlenty on June 17th covered his table more than him, the glitter thrown at Michele Bachmann on June 20th barely reached her kneecaps and the October 3rd attempt to get Karl Rove got absolutely zero sprinkles on the bastard.

But what's most surprising is that a glitter bomber hasn't gotten arrested before now. Glitter bombing targets have largely been candidates for the Presidency and if someone tried to throw a canister of glimmering dust at Barack Obama, they'd likely get tackled by the men in black and then charged with a felony before you could say the word, "unicorn."

But what's worse is that the media effect of glitter bombing seems to be losing its sparkle. Romney has already been glitter bombed about three times. Can you name his glitter bombers or remember their message? Mittens excused away his last glitter bombing as a supporter's celebratory gesture for winning the Florida primary.

Even would-be glitter bomber Smith said that he wanted to shower Mittens as a protest against his "general political philosophy" rather than just his marriage views; hence the act has begun its disassociation from its primarily LGBT roots.

The LGBT community prides itself on its originality, so it's time we came up with a different, uniquely queer way to draw attention to anti-LGBT politicos. I'd suggest we go back to throwing pies Anita Bryant style, but why waste good pie on such sour people?

Both should make us question whether IGB has actually done anything to help the suicidal queer teens it originally sought to help or, as Dan Savage told The Dallas Voice this week, whether anti-gay bullying has actually gotten worse since his campaign began.

During his keynote speech at the University of North Texas Equity and Diversity Conference today, Savage highlighted the IGB project's successes: it effectively put a gay-straight alliance in the pocket of any kid with a cellphone and has offered hope to countless kids - not only that their own lives might improve, but that their parents might eventually accept them, just as parents in some IGB videos have.

Savage said that the old deal for LGBT people used to be 'You're ours to torture until you're 18 and when you're 18 you can move away and if you're not too screwed up by then, you can build a stable life for yourself. But you can't still talk to the kids we're still torturing in the same families, the same schools and the same churches that we tortured you in. And if you try to, we will accuse you of being a pedophile or recruiting or corrupting our youth.'

But while his campaign has helped push the issue of LGBT-based bullying into the national spotlight, Savage says that increased societal awareness of queer youth has actually made these days "the best of times and the worst of times" to grow up queer. No longer can a gay kid fly under the radar without their peers wondering why they're different or why they're not dating girls.

These days, Savage says, we have more anti-LGBT political initiatives and more so-called Christians talking about how being gay is a threat to humanity itself. And kids who see their parents bashing queers at the ballot box and the pulpit then go on to bash them at school, thinking that they're doing the right thing.

"Do you know what the It Gets Better project can't do?" Savage asked the crowd. "It can't end bullying. And we never said it could."

He's right. Right now the IGB website serves as a storehouse for all the user-uploaded video testimonies but no content telling kids how to handle actual bullying.

And rather than replicate the anti-bullying efforts of other pre-existing organizations, Savage directs LGBT youth advocates to support Al Franken's Student Non-Discrimination Act; the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN); the Trevor Project and the ACLU's anti-discrimination efforts for queer youth in schools.

"[The Trevor Project] is there to talk kids off the ledge, GLSEN is there to make sure there are fewer kids in our schools climbing out onto that ledge and the ACLU is there sue the crap out of schools that push kids onto that ledge," Savage told the university audience.

But ultimately Savage says that he'd like the IGB project to merge with another pro-LGBT youth organization rather than continue on its own. He added that he's in talks with several organizations about that prospect.

Savage ended his speech my mentioning, "People say, 'Are you thrilled with the success of the It Gets Better project?'... I would really be thrilled if we could pull the whole thing down tomorrow. If there had never been a need for it at all."

Today's statement from Susan G. Komen for the Cure founder Nancy Brinker said in part:

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.

Komen's rule to deny funding to organizations under government investigation began in December 2011, three months after Republican Representative Cliff Stearns began investigating Planned Parenthood's alleged use of federal funds for abortions--curious timing to say the least.

So far there has been no mention of why Komen decided to instate the new rule nor any mention of other groups affected by the rule.

Some blogs have credited Komen's staunchly anti-abortion and anti-gay senior vice president for public policy Karen Handel for the policy change with one unnamed source saying:

"The rule was created to give the board of directors the excuse to stop the funding of Planned Parenthood. It was completely arbitrary. If they hadn't come up with this particular rule, they would have come up with something else in order to separate themselves from Planned Parenthood."

It's also worth noting that last year Komen cut $12 million in funding to organizations that conduct embryonic stem cell research, another anti-abortion overture to their changing funding policies.

But even though Komen has said that, "We will continue to fund [Planned Parenthood's] existing grants... and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants," Austin Ruse, president of the right-wing Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute says that doesn't mean that Planned Parenthood's future grant applications will be approved (H/T AmericaBlog):

"We have known and have reported that [Komen] are continuing five (Planned Parenthood) grants through 2012... The second clause about eligibility is certainly true. Any group can apply for anything. It does not mean they are going to get anything."

Right now the speculation that Komen will deny Planned Parenthood funding is speculative at best. But if they do, Komen insiders and Planned Parenthood will have to let everyone know.

Infographic via ColorLines.com. Click to enlarge.

Whether you believe Komen, who says that they made their decision based on a non-political funding rule disallowing them from funding organizations currently under government investigation, or you believe Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards when she calls Komen's decision a cowardly move made under pressure from the anti-abortion movement, it's a fact that over their seven-year partnership Komen's grants have helped Planned Parenthood provide roughly 170,000 clinical breast exams and 6,400 mammograms to women in need.

While other blogs make hay over the fact that Komen's anti-gay senior vice president for public policy Karen Handel promised to defund Planned Parenthood during her failed 2010 bid for Georgia's governorship, they're overlooking the immediate effect the funding cut will have on the women who seek Planned Parenthood's help in the first place.

Cancer screenings make up 16 percent of Planned Parenthood's clinical offerings, while abortions make up only 3 percent. Applied across the board, that's 600,000 poor Americans who depend on Planned Parenthood for cancer screenings each year.

Since Hispanics and African-Americans make up 33 percent of Planned Parenthood's total patient base, we can assume the people of color seeking their cancer screenings to be around 198,000. Assuming (wrongly) that half of those people are female, that's at least 99,000 women who will be affected by Komen's cut in funding.

The National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society both state that Latino and black women tend to get diagnosed with late stage breast cancer more than white women, primarily because of low-socioeconomic status, lack of medical coverage and other barriers to early detection and treatment.

Luckily, the Amy and Lee Fikes' foundation has donated $250,000 to Planned Parenthood in response to Komen's move and Planned Parenthood itself has launched a Breast Health Emergency Fund soliciting donations so that Komen's cut won't affect so many.

But for an organization seeking a cure for breast cancer, Susan G. Komen might want to check if its heart is still in the right place.