Susan G. Komen for the Cure has made headlines for the past several years for raising millions of dollars in support of research for a cure for breast cancer. One of the organizations it contributed greatly to was Planned Parenthood, to provide mammograms to low-income women to detect breast cancer in its early stages.

Considering that early detection is the key to successful cancer treatment, it was very surprising when the foundation announced it would cut off funding to Planned Parenthood. Public outrage ensued and in short order, Komen reversed its course.

Komen was widely accused of making a political statement, particularly by pro-choice groups such as EMILY’s List. A letter signed by 26 senators urged Komen to reverse its choice. When faced with public scrutiny, Komen justified the decision by referring to a new policy barring donating to organizations under investigation.

The investigation Komen was concerned with is one led by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla. It is surprising that Komen concerned itself with this investigation, as it is a political investigation, not a criminal one.

A criminal investigation of an organization means there may be a reason to believe that the business practices of that specific organization are outside the bounds of the law. This is distinctly different than a political investigation.

The political investigations such as the one of Planned Parenthood carry none of the same overtones. Congress investigates issues constantly, from the effects of fracking to steroid use in Major League Baseball.

The political investigation of Planned Parenthood was conducted by a single member of Congress, which is often done for political benefit, particularly when elections are nearing. If a representative fears a difficult re-election, he or she may use investigations as a ploy to appear stronger on crucial issues when on the campaign trail.

Thus, the investigation by Stearns, a Republican who can make a strong claim to be tough on abortion, can make a strong showing during the campaign season. Though Planned Parenthood does much more than abortions, it is by far the most well-known organization in the country that provides them.

That’s what triggered such a visceral reaction when Komen decided to cut funding to Planned Parenthood. Despite what the policy it referenced said, the action to remove funding was seen by many as placing the political question on abortion rights above the vital health needs of the poor.

That is the danger of being unaware of how our government operates. Whether Komen did make an ill-fated public statement on abortion or it was an honest mistake, the damage has been done. The effect on Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s long-term outlook may be fatal, all because of a misunderstanding of the difference between a congressional investigation and a criminal one.