IMO, y'all have your minds made up based on accusations that may not stand up to scrutiny, haven't read the Komen statements, and won't.
This is an inaccurate assumption as I have read at least most of the documents you linked to, but I simply do not see any reason to believe that anything there actually proves that money PP gets doesn't affect how much money they then have available for abortions. It may not have any such effect, but I am not convinced simply because the numbers are small or the dollars are tracked. These issues ignore too many other implications and factors which may be at play.
Add to it that Komen is pretty sensitive about it or sensitive enough to know that it needs to stay on top of the situation with audits and public responses.
This is an interesting claim, especially when considered alongside another statement you have made that Komen's money only pays for supplemental staffing for breast exams. If this is so, and if Komen is so sensitive to the situation, then how do you explain the article on the page you linked to (a page which is ostensibly dedicated to answering questions from people about the money Komen gives to Planned Parenthood) headed "Is there an abortion/breast cancer connection? Modern studies say no." http://ww5.komen.org/uploadedFiles/Content_Binaries/2008AbortionBreastCancerBackgrounder.pdf
If none of this money ever enables the performance of abortions, and if this is so absolutely well documented, and if Komen is so sensitive about this issue, then why I ask do they publish a paper attempting to prove that abortions don't increase the risk of breast cancer? This is a silly argument to make if they are not funding them, or not even enabling the funding of them indirectly by giving money to this organization? It seems very strange to publish defenses of abortion funding on the page claiming no abortion funding is going on. You may think Komen is sensitive, but if so I would have to wonder exactly what they are really sensitive about.
Maybe you should ask them? Logic says that with attacks like the posted article that they know there are people who don't agree with their grants and so they publish an answer to them. Obviously most don't read them, preferring to knee jerk attack on straw men arguments.
If none of this money ever enables the performance of abortions, and if this is so absolutely well documented, and if Komen is so sensitive about this issue, then why I ask do they publish a paper attempting to prove that abortions don't increase the risk of breast cancer?
Last time I checked, the interpretations of the results of objective studies were mixed, people seeing what they want, especially pro lifers. It appeared that there wasn't statistically significance to establish any realistic link, and even if there was a strong positive correlation, correlation never even implies causation. Basic statistics there.
Do you honestly believe that Komen is spending a whopping $700k to fuel abortions with the secret hope of increasing cancer so that they can use those cases for fund raising purposes. That essentially is your argument and I don't think it makes any sense.