Komen cleansing and more inside chatter
Huffington Post gleefully reported today that three Komen officials have now resigned and one more is threatening to, as the “backlash gains steam” over its decision to sever financial ties with Planned Parenthood.
The fools don’t realize what is happening. Every Komen exec who quits over the Planned Parenthood flak is good news for our side, one less pro-abort with clout in the United States’ most influential breast cancer foundation. Komen is undergoing a cleansing of its liberal bastion.
Perhaps now Komen will acknowledge the link between abortion and breast cancer, which, thanks to the Planned Parenthood flak, is getting renewed attention.
CEO Nancy Brinker’s (pictured left) eyes have certainly been opened these past couple days. I’m sure the former friend of Planned Parenthood is reevaluating a lot of things. She needs our prayers.
My source inside Komen tells me its email system crashed several times today due to the volume of emails. (Yes, my site has crashed several times today, too, due to a combination of invading bots and high traffic.)
At last count emails in support of Komen were at 20,000 and those in opposition straggled behind at 10,000. Keep the emails coming (although be warned the link may be down).
Meanwhile, Brinker said on a conference call today donations are up 100% since Komen announced it was severing its financial relationship with Planned Parenthood.
Since it is well known that conservatives are more generous givers than liberals (aside from grandstanders, something conservative givers are not), I’m betting all those pro-aborts huffing and puffing that they are going to stop giving to Komen never gave in the first place. Meanwhile, conservatives who have been withholding funds from Komen are loosening their purse strings.
There is also now an interesting battle of congressional letters emerging.
ABC has posted a letter signed by 26 senators asking Komen to restore funding to the United States’ largest abortion provider. No surprise, the signers are all Democrat pro-aborts, save one Independent/Socialist pro-abort.
But never fear, I’m told a pro-Komen letter is now circulating in Congress. The final count of legislators supporting Komen vs. opposing Komen should go our way, although I doubt the media will be interested in reporting that.
Brinker released a video last night, saying in it what she said to reporters today, that “the charity was trying to refocus grants on providers that are able to perform mammography services rather than just breast screenings,” just as my source indicated yesterday was Komen’s fallback plan for breaking up with Planned Parenthood.
Pro-lifers Bryan Kemper and Andy Moore have launched an “I Stand with Komen” petition drive.
They have made the icon, right, to post on your Facebook page as your profile photo.
One final note, our tolerant friends on the left hacked into Komen’s site last night.
[Photo of Brinker via the Associated Press; photo of the pink White House, from Breast Cancer Awareness Month, October 2011, via National Journal]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The fools don’t realize what is happening. Every Komen exec who quits over the Planned Parenthood flak is good news for our side, one less pro-abort with clout in the United States’ most influential breast cancer foundation. Komen is undergoing a cleansing of its liberal bastion.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Wow, just wow. You really do live in your own little world, don’t you?
Had you bothered to put down Huff Post long enough to read Los Angeles Times, San Jose Mercury News, New York Times and the Washington Post, among many others, you’d see that Komen is taking enormous heat for this.
But, no bother, they’re being “cleansed.”
Shall we go march off and burn a few thousand copies of “Polar Express” to celebrate?
Ummm… The LA Times, San Jose Mercury, NYT and WaPo aren’t exactly shining bastions of conservatism. They– especially the first three– have a decidedly liberal slant. Money speaks louder than anything else, so I guess we’ll just have to wait and see who comes out ahead there :P
According to Fox, the mayor of New York City, (I think his name is Birdbrain) is donating $250K to PP for breast cancer screening.
What kind of breast cancer screening does PP do? We know PP doesn’t do mammagrams and the only other commonly used screening technique is the clinical breast exam.
Do Planned Parenthood employees feel and probe women’s breasts looking for lumps?
I feel kind of odd asking but if Fox doesn’t perform this procedure, then why is Fox allowing themselves to be such a conduit of misinformation?
This is atrocious journalism.
Oops, missed the editing window to fix my typo.
“If PP doesn’t perform this procedure…”
BUT WHAT DOES THE MODESTO BEE HAVE TO SAY ABOUT ALL OF THIS?!
Planned Parenthood donations swell
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 (UPI) — Donations to Planned Parenthood have soared since the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation cut donations to the group, officials said.
Planned Parenthood executives said Wednesday donors reacting to the cutoff had contributed $650,000 in 24 hours, nearly replacing the $700,000 lost through the Komen cutoff, The Washington Post reported.
The number of donors online spiked, rising to 6,000 Wednesday compared with the 100 to 200 donors who normally contribute each day, the Post said.
Planned Parenthood also set up a Breast Health Emergency Fund for affiliates that lost their Komen grants. The Post said the fund received a $250,000 donation from the family foundation of Dallas philanthropist Lee Fikes and his wife, Amy.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Thursday he will donate $250,000 to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
“Politics have no place in healthcare,” Bloomberg said in a statement issued by his office. “Breast cancer screening saves lives, and hundreds of thousands of women rely on Planned Parenthood for access to care. We should be helping women access that care, not placing barriers in their way.”
Komen officials had said they were cutting funding for groups under investigation. A House committee has announced it is looking into whether Planned Parenthood is adhering to restrictions on federal funding for abortions.
Planned Parenthood officials said Komen had knuckled under to pressure from anti-abortion activists, the Post said.
But Nancy Brinker, Susan G. Komen for the Cure founder and chief executive officer, said there had been a “gross mischaracterization” about the decision to halt funding to Planned Parenthood, USA Today reported.
Brinker said three of the 19 Planned Parenthood clinics will still get Komen funding because they are the only services available to low-income women in their communities, the newspaper reported. The rest would be funded through the end of the year.
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/02/02/UPI-NewsTrack-TopNews/UPI-71011328238000/#ixzz1lHk7zrTa
Yeah, I’m gonna stick to my position that this is not going to hurt them. If you go to SGK’s facebook page you can watch the “likes” go up by the minute. PP may talk a good game, but we all know their supporters have no staying power. If this is still being covered by any mainstream media by next week, I will be absolutely shocked. In the final analysis, I am sure Komen will come out way ahead.
MP, you’re a hoot. “Well I read in this newspaper. Look a link! I win! I win! I win!” Whatever. As pointed out, you can just tell even from social networking sites like facebook that the support for Komen is swelling. But keep reading your unbiased journalism and huffing and puffing.
Loving the vitriol on social media from proabort feminists attacking Komen-even old Hanoi Jane is getting in on the act. Proaborts continue to prove they could care less about women’s health, only that their sacred cow of abortion has been attacked. Komen will be better funded without PP dragging them down-now they can concentrate on improving lives instead of funding deaths.
MP, you’re a hoot. “Well I read in this newspaper. Look a link! I win! I win! I win!” Whatever. As pointed out, you can just tell even from social networking sites like facebook that the support for Komen is swelling. But keep reading your unbiased journalism and huffing and puffing.
Most online comments about the Komen Foundation’s decision were downbeat, according to NetBase Solutions Inc., a Mountain View, California-based company whose software reads and interprets 50,000 sentences a minute from billions of social media sources.
Negative Comments
Two-thirds of more than 3,600 sentiments expressed online about the split were negative, with people calling it “outrageous,” and saying it did “irreparable harm” to the organization, NetBase said.
A posting on Facebook, a social media website, touting Yoplait’s connection with the Komen-sponsored Race for the Cure drew some angry responses from users upset with the decision. Greg Zimprich, a spokesman, said in an e-mailed response to questions that the company has “a long history of supporting women in the fight against breast cancer” and wasn’t involved in Komen’s decision on the grant.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-02/planned-parenthood-gains-online-push-for-komen-funds.html
Sydney, you were saying?
Most online comments about the Komen Foundation’s decision were downbeat, according to NetBase Solutions Inc., a Mountain View, California-based company whose software reads and interprets 50,000 sentences a minute from billions of social media sources.
Of course they were! People are much more likely to express displeasure at something than pleasure. Naturally the majority of the comments at the moment are negative. But the fact that there is a blow-up now (something SGK no doubt anticipated) does not mean it will last.
Yeah, I’m gonna stick to my position that this is not going to hurt them. If you go to SGK’s facebook page you can watch the “likes” go up by the minute. PP may talk a good game, but we all know their supporters have no staying power. If this is still being covered by any mainstream media by next week, I will be absolutely shocked. In the final analysis, I am sure Komen will come out way ahead.
This isn’t about “staying power,” it’s about money, and the money doesn’t come from “conservatives” or “liberals” passing the hat. It comes from corporations and philanthropies, and they don’t like what they’re seeing.
Screaming the loudest doesn’t mea
Pressed “Enter” too fast and it won’t let me edit my last post. So let me try this again: “Screaming the loudest does not mean more people support X than Y”.
“At last count emails in support of Komen were at 20,000 and those in opposition straggled behind at 10,000.”
Ummm, right. Everyone is entitled to a point of view, especially on such a sensitive topic. If your “source” has to make things up to support your point of view, that doesn’t reflect well on that point of view.
Hoopla over what? Oh, Komen granted $629,159 to Planned Parenthood last year. This equates to 0.0006% of their overall billion-dollar income. Right, Wrong, or indifferent publicity is always a good thing.I hope this swings the pendulum for more cancer research to be done, let’s find a cure!
Oh, P.S. you can fundamentally disagree with someone and still be respectful (more of you should try it)
There’s a big, BIG flaw in your logic. You call Komen ”the United States’ most influential breast cancer foundation.”
Maybe it once was.
But not any more. It’s going to lose corporate money and it’s lost public support.
Planned Parenthood’s donations went up so much more than the 100% Komen’s increased — that’s just doubling, you know.
This whole thing educated American women on the war against reproductive rights and will cause quite the backlash for the right and your candidates.
“Planned Parenthood executives said Wednesday donors reacting to the cutoff had contributed $650,000 in 24 hours, nearly replacing the $700,000 lost through the Komen cutoff, The Washington Post reported.” Let’s see, how badly does PP need SGK if they can raise the same amount in 24 hours?! Methinks they protesteth too much.
And I wonder (sigh) how many abortions will be done with that $650,000. You just know it won’t be earmarked for “breast screening”, whatever that is. A PP employee showing a woman how to self-examine?
“This whole thing educated American women on the war against reproductive rights and will cause quite the backlash for the right and your candidates.”
Aaaaaaaaand there it is. To the left, abortion is the holy sacrament and Planned Parenthood is God. Nothing else matters. At least the guise of “caring about women’s health” is gone now, since pro-choicers obviously wouldn’t care if Komen folded tomorrow and a million women were unable to get mammograms. Hell, judging by the online comments, they would probably dance gleefully in the streets. Oh well. Funny that.
And, fwiw, I’ve been donating to Komen for years (I love my “I <3 boobies” band) and will continue to do so in the future.
The claws are out, the fangs are bared and the fur is flying furiously. Mwrrrrrrrrr!
Hell has no fury like a ‘courtisan’ who has been spurned by her suitor.
Some bean counter at SGK makes a risk/benefit anlysis and concludes it will be a net gain to give the heave ho to America’s madam. Probably some enuch who seldom leaves the harem.
Now there are some angry women looking for implants to rip out with their bare hands.
It ain’t about the money. It’s about the naiveté that leads one to think you can dance with the devil in the evening and not have to pay her piper in the morning.
Missy Jeze-BEL is standing there hands on hip, foot tapping and giving the ‘look’ which strikes fear into the heart of every hen pecked rooster in the chicken coop.
Fear is stalking the halls of the SGK headquarters.
If momma ain’t happy, ain’t no one happy.
Well,well. Look what I just saw on twitter:
komenforthecure Susan G. Komen
Our funding to @PPact clinics continues this year at more than $250k; women served through PP grants will be served still.
Lrning, I think they announced that when all this came out – that the funding drop for PP would occur beginning in 2013, once the outstanding contracts with PP were completed.
Jill,
Thank you SO MUCH for linking to this Fox News report on the link between abortion and breast cancer:
Anti-abortion groups cite alleged cancer-abortion link to explain Komen’s split with Planned Parenthood.
Jill, is this the FIRST TIME IN MEMORY that Fox (or any other news agency for that matter) has reported that there just might be a link?
Now Fox has run a second story: Planned Parenthood’s funding cut: Does science support abortion-cancer link? which includes this:
“We suspect the real reasons is the growing evidence that abortion significantly increases the incidence of breast cancer,” Lolita Hanks, nurse practitioner and president of ARTL, said in a press release. “Now that the lead National Cancer Institute researcher on the abortion/cancer link has reversed herself and warned of abortion as a significant risk factor for breast cancer, the pro-life pressure on Planned Parenthood and Susan G. Komen is increasing.”
These two stories were generated by a press release put out by ARTL which is getting widely posted, including for example at Yahoo News:
American Right To Life Suspects the Breast Cancer Link Is Real Reason Komen Pulls Abortion Chain Funding
The release itself at ARTL also mentions a meeting I arranged between Colorado RTL and Komen Denver officials, and has a stunning Komen quote from that meeting!
Thanks again, as always, for getting the word out!
Leslieforlife
I think there is a plot being implemented by Karen Handel and her cabal to defenestrate SGK. It’ll be interesting to see what’s left in six or twelve months time.
When the Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure announced on Tuesday that it was revoking its grant to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings, officials cited a new internal policy that makes any organization under official investigation ineligible for grant money. But the foundation has not revoked its grant for cancer research at Penn State University, even though Penn State is under federal investigation, too.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/292206/20120202/planned-parenthood-susan-komen-penn-state.htm
A quotation from a New York Times editorial requires moderation?
1.) It’s probably because of the link.
2.) Do you post anything other than links to opinion pages/blogs/editorials? I mean, I’m not exactly sure what kind of point you’re trying to make by doing so.
3.) Since we’re in the mood for posting stuff:
“…The left is already having fun with that, wondering if Komen will also cut its millions of dollars in funding to Penn State because they’re the subject of a federal investigation related to Jerry Sandusky. I’m guessing no, as the House investigation of PP has to do specifically with the sort of systemic institutional financial impropriety (i.e. spending federal funds on abortion) that a grantor would/should be especially concerned about, but expect lots of complaining in the “why cut off PP if not XYZ?” variety going forward.”
Weeee!
Mammography is not a profit center for health care providers. This is the main reason that planned parenthood has to refer those patients elsewhere. What remains is the TSA method of breast exam. The Transportation Safety Agency method or the Touch and Squeeze Assessment.
Planned Parenthood does not offer free services. It sends the patients with zero money or coverage elsewhere, to the real charity clinics and facilities.
After this maltreatment, why should Komen offer any further funds to planned parenthood?
Joining forces with mutilators of mothers is not in the interest of an organization that champions women’s health. And it is really bad karma too.
MP: “Planned Parenthood donations swell”
You should see what donations to Komen have done in the last 48 hours.
[Hint: Not a decrease.]
2.) Do you post anything other than links to opinion pages/blogs/editorials? I mean, I’m not exactly sure what kind of point you’re trying to make by doing so.
Outside your front door is a great nation called America, inhabited by people called Americans.
They read things called newspapers, sometimes before they go to work, sometimes on the way to work, sometimes at work, sometimes when they return home from work.
They read them because they want to know things and, believe it or not, don’t particularly care whether it’s a “conservative” paper or a “liberal” paper because most of them know how to discriminate in what they’re reading. Many of them are called, and consider themselves, “undecided.”
Sometimes, they even act out based upon things they read, especially if they’re moved by something that violates their fundamental sense of what they think it means to be an American, like tolerance, fairness, and other stuff like that.
Get the picture?
lol, no. You keep quoting stuff from the New York Times, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times. The persons who respond on those these cites are not “undecided”. They’re almost always Democrats/liberals. You would get a completely different story if you were to go to websites which tend to attract Republicans/conservatives. If you were to read The Hill, The Wall Street Journal or even The Daily Caller, you would get a completely different outlook. But, of course, I’m sure you knew that, which is why you haven’t bothered going to any of those sources.
Oh, and while I tend not to go on about the “liberal media”, this whole SGK thing has proved there is some extreme kind of bias in reporting. WaPo has put out like twenty articles critical of SGK in the last two days; the NYT has to have put out at least fifteen; CNN has put out at least five; HuffPo has put out at least five; and numerous, lesser known websites and blogs have been running the same story.
It’s actually a bit sickening to see how quickly the left will turn on an organization for going against Planned Parenthood.
If you were to read The Hill, The Wall Street Journal or even The Daily Caller, you would get a completely different outlook. But, of course, I’m sure you knew that, which is why you haven’t bothered going to any of those sources.
I read three financial papers every day. Wall Street Journal, Financial Times and Handelsblatt.
I don’t know why you’re bothering to communicate with me. You might just as well stand in front of a mirror and talk to it or, better yet, stand in front of the television and talk back to Fox.
There’s a big world out there and you’re stuck in an echo chamber.
1.) I don’t watch Fox, though I will look at their website once in a while. I’m more inclined to read CNN’s website than anything else for my major news, though, even that’s not exactly unbiased either.
2.) I don’t know why I’m bothering to communicate with you either. Just pointing out to you that you’re picking and choosing your sources.
Oh, and since you were hanging your hat on the “negative” thing earlier, here’s something to chew on. Yesterday (February 1st), about 75% of the comments regarding Komen were negative. A day later and, as you pointed out, 2/3rds of the comments were negative. That’s about a nine point swing in a day. While I’m definitely no insider, what I think probably happened is that Planned Parenthood caught Komen with it’s proverbial pants down (hence why Komen had no response for a full 24-hours) and was able to get it’s based mobilized, thus giving the impression of broad based opposition. However, I’d bet a large sum of money that, if Komen doesn’t give in to pressure, in the coming days, you’ll see the percentage of negative comments directed at Komen drastically decrease as pro-lifers get more involved.
BTW> I went to Komen’s FB page and I’m pretty positive that people are creating fake profiles just to respond negatively, just as I’m sure that people are creating fake profiles just to “like” PP’s FB page. Of course, I can’t prove it so take all of that with a grain of salt.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72390.html
“We’ve always had the right to cancel contracts if a group was under investigation,” Brinker said on a conference call with reporters. “We simply extended that right to organizations who apply for funding. Three of the 19 Planned Parenthood affiliates will continue to receive funding, and there will be no gap in services for any woman who needs care.”
You’re standing with an organization that continues to fund Planned Parenthood affiliates and therefore is guilty of directly promoting the Culture of Death™?
Not to worry, after this abuse, Komen will probably flush planned unparenthood entirely.
I am amused that the leftist sense of entitlement is so extreme as to feel comfortable strong-arming “donors”. It looks like extortion to me.
Reality: defenestrate
Ha! Good word. :)
It is not surprising that there is a backlash from the media and millionaires and billionaires – these are the strongest supporters of abortion. However, the pro-abortion viewpoint has NO grass roots support. Many (if not most) of the few people who show up for events supporting abortion are people paid to attend or those who are employed by proponents of abortion.
There will not be negative consequences for SGK because most people support their decision. However, this will not be reported in the media.
Two “take-aways” from this:
1. Pro-aborts will see that they do not have popular support for their position.
2. Planned Parenthood does not need any public funding.
Samantha: Hoopla over what? Oh, Komen granted $629,159 to Planned Parenthood last year. This equates to 0.0006% of their overall billion-dollar income. Right, Wrong, or indifferent publicity is always a good thing.I hope this swings the pendulum for more cancer research to be done, let’s find a cure!
In the end, I don’t think this will be any huge deal, for Komen or PP. Komen is seen as playing political games, and there is an “Oops…” factor and 3 executives have resigned, right? Still, I bet the hoopla will die down pretty fast.
On breast cancer – why is there such a divergence in what people think about “abortion causing” it? If studies with obvious bias and too much possibility of recall bias are discarded, what I see is the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the US National Cancer Institute, etc., saying, “the scientific evidence does not support the notion that abortion of any kind raises the risk of breast cancer or any other type of cancer.”
Direct from the American Cancer Society:
The largest, and probably the most reliable, study on this topic was done during the 1990s in Denmark, a country with very detailed medical records on all its citizens. In this study, all Danish women born between 1935 and 1978 (a total of 1.5 million women) were linked with the National Registry of Induced Abortions and with the Danish Cancer Registry. All of the information about their abortions and their breast cancer came from registries – it was very complete and was not influenced by recall bias.
After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found that induced abortion(s) had no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer. The size of this study and the manner in which it was done provide good evidence that induced abortion does not affect a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer.
Another large, prospective study was reported on by Harvard researchers in 2007. This study included more than 100,000 women who were between the ages of 29 and 46 at the start of the study in 1993. These women were followed until 2003.
Again, because they were asked about childbirths and abortions at the start of the study, recall bias was unlikely to be a problem. After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found no link between either spontaneous or induced abortions and breast cancer.
The California Teachers Study also reported on more than 100,000 women in 2008. Researchers asked the women in 1995 about past induced and spontaneous abortions. While the women were being followed in the study, more than 3,300 developed invasive breast cancer. There was no difference in breast cancer risk between the group who had either spontaneous or induced abortions and those who had not had an abortion.
What do the experts say?
In February 2003, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) held a workshop of more than 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed human and animal studies that looked at the link between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. Some of their findings were:
Breast cancer risk is increased for a short time after a full-term pregnancy (that is, a pregnancy that results in the birth of a living child).
Induced abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.
Spontaneous abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.
The level of scientific evidence for these findings was considered to be “well established” (the highest level).
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Committee on Gynecologic Practice also reviewed the available evidence in 2003 and again in 2009. ACOG published its most recent findings in June 2009. At that time, the Committee said, “Early studies of the relationship between prior induced abortion and breast cancer risk were methodologically flawed. More rigorous recent studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk.”
In 2004, the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, based out of Oxford University in England, put together the results from 53 separate studies done in 16 different countries. These studies included about 83,000 women with breast cancer. After combining and reviewing the results from these studies, the researchers concluded that “the totality of worldwide epidemiological evidence indicates that pregnancies ending as either spontaneous or induced abortions do not have adverse effects on women’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.” These experts did not find that abortions (either induced or spontaneous) cause a higher breast cancer risk.
All news is good news, right? This is stirring up the pot, for sure. I know a lot of people who had no idea about the connections going on with the government, media, PP, Komen, breast cancer, abortion…all of it – have had their eyes open. Whether people listen or not and act, we can pray on. But we’ll continue to educate :)
Thanks for keeping us up to date, Jill!
Doug,
Possible flaw in those studies, I am not certain this happened in the studies mentioned above – however, a good friend of mine with a strong family history of breast cancer is taking part in a long-term study. In the space marked for abortion it stated – “check and write dates of either induced or spontaneous abortion.” It did not distinguish between them on the study.
My friend who has suffered numerous miscarriages asked the researcher about this and the researcher told her that it does not make any difference. In other words, the study does not reflect the difference between those groups – there is literally nowhere in the study to note if the woman has had a spontaneous or induced abortion. (BTW – there were also major problems with how they defined breastfeeding IMHO).
As I look at the wording above, I wonder if those studies, themselves, did not make the distinction so therefore they could not find a difference among the groups.
I hate that our science has become so politically motivated. I, as a dedicated pro-lifer, am not afraid of the truth and think people of all viewpoints are entitled to accurate data.
Going to work now – Have a good day all!
The best thing about this (other than the obvious) is that it draws media attention to the fact that (shriek!!!) PP is under investigation, something the average American who identifies as prochoice is probably blissfully unaware of. Hopefully, their awareness is now growing. That little fact could snowball in our favor in ways proaborts dread, if ya know what I mean ;). Here’s hoping a lot of other orgs would rather not be yoked to a money pit that’s under investigation. How many of the rats will desert when the ship starts sinking? Gonna be fun to watch. Pass the popcorn…
Studies never “prove” or “disprove” anything. I think someday it will just be common knowledge that abortion raises your risk of breast cancer. Any woman who has been pregnant can attest to how radically pregnancy changes your breasts. My pregnancies changed the size, shape and even color of my breasts. There are major amounts of hormones at work and the breast is undergoing major work while a woman is pregnant (especially the first pregnancy). Research already suggests that risk of breast cancer is lowered once a woman achieves her first full-term pregnancy.
So considering all the changes the breasts undergo during pregnancy, suggesting that artificially ending the pregnancy prematurely has absolutely no ill effect on the breasts is a “big bucket of duh’ imo.
I live in Columbus, Ohio and the local news just reported that the Cleveland City Council has denied Komen the permits to have their race this year. They played a clip from an interview from one of the council members stating why. I heard it on 610WTVN radio.
I was wrong. City Council hasn’t voted but it is one member that is outspoken. Read here http://www.610wtvn.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=268656&article=9707810
http://www.istandwithkomen.com/
Hey everyone, if you haven’t signed this yet, please do so. We need to fight back against the anti-SGK PP supporters, and this is one way to do that. Sign up to support SGK in their decision. Thanks. :)
If it’s all about CHOICE, then SGK has the right to CHOOSE where to put their money.
Perhaps Dr. Nadal could comment on the studies you have quoted Doug.
The Battle lines have been drawn…and people are taking sides.
Funny though, IMHO, a lot more people are choosing the side of life instead of death.
These are exciting times !!
These organizations conducting these reviews of the ABC connection have a “progressive” view, as most physicians do, on abortion. They have politics, and they see things thru their political view.
There was overwhelming support for HRT from the medical community, despite existing, ignored info that taking these hormones could very well contribute to cancers. The evidence for the ‘safety’ of HRT was all epidemiological evidence. Just like the ABC data. Various other lines of evidence should have at least caused concern.
When the ‘women’s health study,’ a controlled, randomized trial, tested the benefits of HRT, the biases that were in the epidemiological data were eliminated, and it became apparent that HRT might be causing breast cancer, along with possibly causing other problems. Breast CA was the big deal.
This story has been told in a lot of places. A doc practicing back then told me they had most every woman at or above a certain age getting on HRT – the majority did not have ‘hot flashes’ requiring intervention. Pushed on women pre-menopausal for supposedly preventing heart disease, but the real push was vanity – nicer complexion, fuller hair, and I will be discrete and just say natural lubrication. THese benefits were appreciated by a lot of women in their 40s, etc.
Possibly, women of that era can commnet on the zeitgeist of the time with how the drug companies pushed docs, who pushed nearly any woman with means to pay to be on these HRT.
We won’t get a controlled trial with abortion and breast cancer, like we did with HRT. The study will never be done because it is unethical. So, we have to be aware that epidemiological studies have to be read with an undertanding that several things are going on at once.
I have.
The hang-your-hat-on-these studies supposedly squashing the ABC theory are seriously compromised in various ways.
Here is just an example. one study failing to show ABC is ‘Melbye 1997.’ they used denmark socialized medicine complete health care data to look at breast cancer cases, and abortions – noted, including by wk of gestation. they conclude ‘induced abortion was found to have no overall effect upon the risk of breast cancer.’
Done. propaganda is supported. But wait: there are caeats and limits. the next sentence notes ABC for those abortions done in second trimester. Oops! A 40% increase in risk – in line with the other studies showing a relation.
This study was supposed to have complete info. So i hunted the web and found where statistics are out there for abortions by year for denmark.
if i add those, and consider that time is needed to allow for BC to develop, I can come up with a separate number of abortions provided in denmark in those years.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-denmark.html
the melbye study misses a great portion of abortions.
melbye received criticism at the time. A letter from brind and chinchilli in the same journal that same yr points out some quirks that would hypoethtically serve to drop the relation.
Also, in melbye, the abstract says ‘breast cancer,’ but the methods in the study say ‘invasive breast cancer.’
Bc ‘staging’ is complicated. but by limiting their analysis to ‘invasive, they cut out a great portion of breast cancer cases.
I googled ‘stage at detection breast cancer denmark’ and found an article without much difficulty:
Jensen 2008. It actually has stage at diagnosis for denmark in the same time frame, 1986, in its table 2. anyone can go look this up.
portion of breast cancers detected at stage 1, thus NOT in melbye? about 35%. depending on specifics, melbye may be missing a THIRD of all cases.
‘histology’ in jensen? ’invasive’ means there should be cancer beyond in situ or ‘ductal.’ jensen has 80 % of cases as ‘ductal.’ that is a differnt description strategy than ‘invasive/noninvasive, but it still indicates that a great deal of BC cases are detected at a point where melbye excluding those that are not ‘invasive’ would exclude a great portion. i am not an expert, but to me it looks like melbye ducks a third of the cases.
BTW – melbye article has NO explanaiton as to why, if the data exist, they EXCLUDE these non-invaisve.
So: melbye DOES find ABC, and FAILS to include all BC. This is not how the high-level review groups ‘see’ melbye.
denmark is liberal and has a bias. ACS is liberal and has a bias. ACOG is liberal and has a bias. I am liberal and have a bias. The diff is I keep trying to base my politics on REALITY, not the way I want the world to look. If welfare harms the ppl it is supposed to help, then I say let’s figure out a diff way to help ppl with little money, etc. if solyndra is not gonna actually add jobs, and is actually not a feasible company, let’s be honest. if wind power is just not reay for prime time, naybe govt support can push the tech along, but let’s be honest that it is not there yet.
i know there are ‘democrats’ and ’liberals’ out there who care to live inthe real world, versus accepting info form on-high as long as it fits a certain world view. you have to be brave, and be willing to hav eopinions difernt from your friends.
We democrats should be fighting for th e’little guy,’ the powerless. We should be suspicious of big business and moneyed interests when they reassure us there is no ABC. maybe maybe not. I do know you can lie with statistics. anyone can re-create the simple analysis i just laid out here.
is my answer definitive? no. but i sure don’t trust the money machines doing these high-levle reviews when they have the ability to profit from taking one way of slicing and dicing the data versus another.
where does that leave me? there will apparently be no pro-life candidate to vote for as prez. i may write in mickey mouse, if i can find his politics.
HA! A doctor on Fox defending PP just admitted that PP doesn’t do mammograms. The argument from the lady defending Komen is that they made a sound business decision cutting out the middle man since PP doesn’t actually do any mammograms. HA HA HA.
After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found that induced abortion(s) had no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer. The size of this study and the manner in which it was done provide good evidence that induced abortion does not affect a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer.
Gee, what are those “known risk factors”?
They are
1) age of mother at birth of first child
2) number of children the mother bears
Huh, but wait. Abortion contributes to both of those biggest known risk factors by increasing the age at first birth and reducing the number of children.
If you don’t adjust for these known risk factors, then you see that there is a big fat correlation to ever having an abortion and higher incidence of breast cancer. Women use abortion to have their first baby later and to have fewer children both of which increase the incidence of breast cancer.
Oh so you are saying this is all about politics. Cleanse Komen so it becomes a right wing organization, serving only the right wing. Gotcha, Komen is insisting the move is NOT political, but insist that it is and all liberals need to resign. Thanks for the insight. I will not be running this year and will give my donations to Planned Parenthood instead.
Whoa. Komen may have changed their minds and restored PP funding. Unfortunately the wording in the link is unclear.
“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.”
Which, okay, several of the investigations into PP are criminal but many people like to dismiss them as political so what side does that put SGK on?
“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.”
“Eligibility” does not mean “approval” but, on the other hand, were they not eligible before? Someone needs to get hold of Komen and make them state things clearly.
Planned Parenthood is a very unique organization. How many others have a monopoly on a service they don’t even provide?
Reality says: February 3, 2012 at 12:24 am
“I think there is a plot being implemented by Karen Handel and her cabal to defenestrate SGK. It’ll be interesting to see what’s left in six or twelve months time.”
===========================================================
I believe there is a great disturbance in the harem.
Self hating females [auto-misogynism] going beserk because a real woman finally told them ‘no mas’ and cut up their credit cards.
This happens every time a formerly misguided human hears the ‘pop’ and defects from the liberal humanist plantation.
In order to be an authentic negro, latino, homosexual, woman, etc. you have to be a liberal.
If the ‘dead babies r us’ folks at pp believe they are providing indispensable, irreplaceable and essential services then they should have no problem acquiring funding.
You flock of clucklng hens.
Show us you have some real cajones and refund the billions and billions [hear sound bite of Carl Sagan] of tax payer dollars you have received over the previous decades.
Helen Reddy announced in 1972:
I am woman watch me grow
See me standing toe to toe
As I spread my lovin’ arms across the land
But I’m still an embryo
With a long long way to go
Until I make my brother understand
Well gals it’s the 21st century and I believe it is well beyond the time we broke your collection plate.
Get out and demonstrate you can make it on your own.
Don’t let the door bust you in your booty on the way out.
ps: It seems it’s you who do NOT understand. Your younger sisters ain’t buin what your peddlin. You might want to reconsider your ideology. You may have made a miscalculation 40 years ago.
Real women don’t have to beg for bread. They bake their own.
Komen caved and reversed their decision.
And now the link I posted is dead. Wish I’d gotten a screenshot. What is Komen doing? Does anyone have any solid info?
Just heard the news that Nancy Brinker at Susan G Komen caved and reversed their decision to defund planned parenthood. This is sad news. The pro-murder lobby smear campain worked.
I’m sure you could find it online again, given there will be a bajillion sources covering it.
whoa! It just hit me.
This is the same mass hysteria that hit the baby killin nags a few years ago when the Tebows did the Super Bowl commercial and a national coaliton of liberal womens groups demanded CBS not air the commercial. These whining nags were threatening to boycott CBS, and their sponsors.
Horror of horrors. Not only did the gals show how unreasonable they are, but it looks like Tim Tebow will be a commodity for the next ten years.
It is not surprising that Komen caved. Nevertheless now the cat is out of the bag: Komen funds Planned Parenthood. Before the events of the last two or three days that fact was in question. This is a PR nightmare for Komen who to this point has so assiduously tried to obfuscate their linkage with PP.
Also worth noting is that consumers of main stream media who have caught a soundbite or two now at least have some knowledge of Planned Parenthood’s association with Komen. Now they will have second thoughts about contributing to anything Komen sponsors. The abortion empire is crumbling.
There you go, Alice -> Link
And this time, I took screenies, so they can’t weasel out again.
Does Jill still stand with Komen?
hippie – you are correct. ‘adjusting for” factors can make the ABC relation get watered down.
there are plenty of data on demographics of women getting an abortion. when you adjust for smoking, you are getting rid of some of the association.
this is a chicken-and-egg thing. if you don’t ‘control,’ for smoking then someone can say your ABC link is actually a smoking and cancer link. there is plenty of ABC evidence even when using these control variables and statistical adjustments.
“And this time, I took screenies, so they can’t weasel out again.”
I guess I should have taken a screenshot, because I think the link is dead now.
“Studies never “prove” or “disprove” anything. I think someday it will just be common knowledge that abortion raises your risk of breast cancer” – can I keep that ultra-scientific approach and use it when it suits me?
Well it looks like Komen came to their senses and left those with right wing politics out in the cold. Thank goodness women’s health comes in first and all those who want to make this about a right wing agenda have been shut out. Thank-you Susan Komen foundation for once again putting breast cancer first and that goofy agenda out. Now work on women’s health issues and FOX News and the Rick Santorum’s of the world be damned!
Susan James, you care about women’s health ? ~ please explain how you can ignore the health of those pre-born women dismembered and thrown in the trash by Planned Parenthood every day.
Maureen:
My friend who has suffered numerous miscarriages asked the researcher about this and the researcher told her that it does not make any difference. In other words, the study does not reflect the difference between those groups – there is literally nowhere in the study to note if the woman has had a spontaneous or induced abortion. (BTW – there were also major problems with how they defined breastfeeding IMHO).
As I look at the wording above, I wonder if those studies, themselves, did not make the distinction so therefore they could not find a difference among the groups.
I hate that our science has become so politically motivated. I, as a dedicated pro-lifer, am not afraid of the truth and think people of all viewpoints are entitled to accurate data.
Good points, Maureen. I don’t know – would there be any necessary difference in the effects of having an abortion and a miscarriage. I agree that “science” shouldn’t be motivated by politics. Good grief – as if it could be. :(
Auguste: I live in Columbus, Ohio and the local news just reported that the Cleveland City Council has denied Komen the permits to have their race this year. They played a clip from an interview from one of the council members stating why. I heard it on 610WTVN radio.
This is actually Tim Tebow’s fault.
TheLastDemocrat – good post (I think). There indeed may be flaws in the studies. Is it not possible for *somebody* to do unbiased research?
Hippie: Abortion contributes to both of those biggest known risk factors by increasing the age at first birth and reducing the number of children.
Hippie – okay, so – all other things being equal – having kids later in life, versus earlier, means a higher risk of breast cancer for women?
And – having more kids versus less or none at all – that too simply increases the risk?
Thank goodness women’s health comes in first
yeah…except that whole thing about claiming to want to cure cancer and then giving money to an organization that helps give it to women. Oh, and also kill females by the truckload every day by aborting them. OH, and also killing them when their “legal medical procedure” gets screwed-up and they bleed to death on a gurney that can’t make it down the hallway of the butcher shop.
Hippie: Abortion contributes to both of those biggest known risk factors by increasing the age at first birth and reducing the number of children.
Hippie – okay, so – all other things being equal – having kids later in life, versus earlier, means a higher risk of breast cancer for women?
And – having more kids versus less or none at all – that too simply decreases the risk?
Sigh… the “Edit” function seems to be going nuts again.
LOL, X-“no lights or sirens please”. Because we care.
Wow, wonderful weblog format! How lengthy have you ever been running a blog for? you make running a blog glance easy. The full look of your website is magnificent, as well as the content!