Sometimes I get my coffee at Wawa. This time of year they have Komen Race for the Cure cup cozies.

Needless to say, I double-cup my coffee.

The first time I saw that "sandwich" in a commercial, it nearly made me queasy. Ugh.

Does anyone realize that even superseding not having an abortion, breastfeeding your baby is the way to breast health, including reducing your chance of cancer by 28% for a yr of breastfeeding? I wonder if KFC is installing places for women to breastfeed in their restaurants with all the money they'll be raking in for breast cancer awareness.

I have been watching the commercials for this and I'm so glad that I don't eat KFC!! I will be giving them a phone call to let them know that I will never eat there again [eh, I've stopped for a sandwhich now and again] b/c Komen gives money to support abortion which causes breast cancer!! I'll honestly never eat there again!! I also dumped Nationwide car insurance after finding out that they give money to PP.

That's because Komen gives grants to Planned Parenthood, which as we all know, causes breast cancer by aborting mothers and dispensing hormonal contraceptives.

Completely incorrect. This argument alone should discredit this site as a source of any accurate information whatsoever.

The 'colonel' and I parted company years ago.

I 'eat mor chikin' at Chick Fil A.

I love the 'cows' promoting a beef free diet.

I believe that PETA picketed KFC years ago. Apparently they were upset about the cruel way that chickens were killed. ....Save the animals, kill the children!! ...Society is so sick and twisted!

Posted by: Dhalgren at April 29, 2010 5:40 PM

"Completely incorrect."

---------------------------------------------------

Gangrene,

What is completely incorrect?

That Komen gives grants to PP

or

That there is link between elective abortions/increased hormone levels and breast cancer?

The first should be easily refuted if it's not true or easliy corroborated if if is true.

The second is bit more difficult as there are studies that show elective abortion of first pregancies do put women at a greater risk for developing breast cancerand there are studies that are inconclusive.

What is not in doubt is that increased hormone levels increase growth of cancerous cells.

Studies have shown that pre-menopausal women who elect to have surgery to remove canerous growths have a better chance of non-recurrenc/survival when the surgery is done at the time of their monthly cycle when their hormone levels are lowest. (It's been a while and I do not recall the increased level of which specific hormone is attributed with the increased cancer risk.

OK, somebody put up or shut up.

Provide the proof that Komen contributes to PP.

Gangrene, you provide Komen's financial disclosure that proves Komen does not contribute to PP.

yor broken

A bit off-topic, but I found this absolutely hilarious and I think y'all might appreciate it.

You know the Oklahoma law that makes it illegal to collect damages in a "wrongful life" suit? The one that the governor vetoed and then the House voted in anyway? Guess how the other side is spinning it?

"Oklahoma state will protect doctors from lawsuits who outright lie to women about any of their unborn children's birth defects, if only on a hunch that they'd consider aborting."

I kid you not, I have copy-pasted those words exactly from another website I frequent that is, unfortunately, chock-full of pro-aborts (although that's finally breaking up a little).

Since this claim was so outrageously unbelievable, I actually looked up the text of the bill in question () and read through the bill. It's fairly short. My guess is these claims come from Section 1C, which states "In a wrongful life action or a wrongful birth action, no damages may be recovered for any condition that existed at the time of a child’s birth if the claim is that the defendant’s act or omission contributed to the mother’s not having obtained an abortion."

Which would seem like it could be construed as carte blanche to lie if you want, but for the next paragraph which states that doctor's can be sued for acts or omissions that could be prevented, cured, or ameliorated prior to birth.

When I read this spin, I laughed and laughed and laughed. How much of an idiot do you have to be to believe this stuff?

Well. That post didn't come out right at all.

The last sentence of the next-to-last paragraph should read "acts or omissions that keep him/her from acting on a condition that could be prevented, cured, or ameliorated prior to birth."

Blargh. Going to go practice my HTML skills now.

Here are a few articles relating to Komen + PP

http://www.frcblog.com/2008/05/susan-g-komen-foundation-has-ties-to-countrys-largest-abortion-provider-planned-parenthood/

http://www.lifeissues.org/AbortionBreastcancer/komen/fact_sheet.pdf

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08041002.html

First rule of statistics - correlation is not causation.

my parents got KFC last weekend, despite this. My dad had NO choice but to get a PINK bucket (it was the ONLY THING THEY HAD!). I had wanted POPEYES, but my brother's kids (the older two anyway) don't like Popeyes. :( I wish we had gotten Popeyes instead. In fact, it was for this very reason (the bucket) that I had NOT wanted KFC.

My sister's family has had KFC ALL the time for birthday gatherings, but I called her and my mom had emailed her regarding this pink bucket thing. They will hopefully get the chicken elsewhere.

I will never eat KFC again if they make this a yearly thing, even though I like their potatoes and gravy (actually I really prefer Popeyes Cajun Gravy)

Yeah, as soon as I saw the commercial last week I emailed KFC and told them I was boycotting them till they stopped supporting SGK. No response. pooh.

For those in the Northeast, you will be familiar with WAWA. Best hoagies (they are NOT grinders and NOT subs)and coffee ever. A couple years ago they decided to donate to Planned Parenthood ever. That was painful for me to boycott them, but boycott I did and contacted their headquarters. Well, the pro-life boycott was so swift and so severe in less than a month they announced they would NOT be funding planned parenthood.

All that to say, we pro-lifers have just as many dollars as the pro-aborts. Its time to use that leverage. No more KFC till they do whats right and stop funding SGK. Which is a shame, I wish I could support SGK, I really do. But some people just can't seem to stop funding baby killing.

Here is the link to KFC. Call them or email and let them know the don't have your business. Who wants to buy a bucket of chicken and know that money will eventually funnel into Planned Parenthood's coffers?

http://www.kfc.com/contact/

I did my PALS recert this week (Pediatric Advanced Life Support). The instructor for the class is an RN I worked with for a long time at the County hospital. She is brilliant, truly one of the most intelligent people I know. She has never said anything about abortion in my presence one way or another. In fact, thinking back, she has never discussed politics one way or the other, either. I have NO idea how she feels about either issue. I do know she's an incredibly good nurse, however.

One of the issues she discussed was that we are now seeing much higher numbers of teenage girls with pulmonary embolisms due to increased use of birth control in that population. (I know, we're discussing cancer, but I thought that was a really interesting statement for her to make.)

Back to cancer. Is the National Cancer Institute a good enough source? They state: "In a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-sponsored study published in 2003, researchers examined risk factors for breast cancer among women ages 20 to 34 compared with women ages 35 to 54. Women diagnosed with breast cancer were asked whether they had used OCs for more than 6 months before diagnosis and, if so, whether the most recent use had been within 5 years, 5 to 10 years, or more than 10 years. The results indicated that the risk was highest for women who used OCs within 5 years prior to diagnosis, particularly in the younger group."

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives

American Cancer Society? "Researchers have confirmed earlier studies that women who use birth control pills have a higher risk of developing breast cancer. New study findings were reported in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention (Vol.11: 1375-1381)."

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Study_Birth_Control_Pills_Increase_Breast_Cancer_Risk.asp

WebMD? "Scandinavian researchers have noted an increase in breast cancer in a group of women that were currently taking or had recently taken birth control pills. Longer use of the pill seemed to increase the risk." and "A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that women with a strong family history of breast cancer may have up to an 11 times higher risk of breast cancer if they have ever taken the pill."

http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/guide/pill-breast-cancer-risk

Actually, I was a bit annoyed when I read the fine print about this particular promotion, which says that despite the fact that every ad I've seen so far gives the very clear impression that your purchase of a pink bucket equals KFC increasing their donation, it actually doesn't. The money-per-bucket calculation is actually that KFC is donating a certain amount of money for every bucket that THEY buy (i.e. when they buy the supplies for their restaurants) -- and that the donation will be "at least" $1,000,000. And that your purchase does absolutely nothing to change the amount of their donation.

I don't share the opinion that you all have about the Susan G. Komen foundation, aside from a small amount of personal bitterness that comes from my experience as a cancer patient who found that there were all kinds of support groups and services set up to help women with breast cancer, but when a company gives a donation and then uses it to drum up more business by making people think their purchase actually makes a different, it bothers me. If you really want to support a cause, donate directly, don't buy something you wouldn't usually buy because the package says "if you buy me we'll donate money".

Which would seem like it could be construed as carte blanche to lie if you want, but for the next paragraph which states that doctor's can be sued for acts or omissions that could be prevented, cured, or ameliorated prior to birth.

Oh, okay. They can lie, but only when there's nothing that can be done before the baby is born to help them.

And it's not just whether or not something could be done to help them -- that "help" has to be something that "preserve[s] the health and life of the affected individual."

So when the doctor sees that your child is going to be born with a horrific birth defect that causes them to live a unspeakably painful and awful few days or weeks hooked up to life support before they finally and exhaustedly die, and doesn't say word one about it to the parents, who are robbed of the chance to decide if they would rather terminate the pregnancy and spare their child an experience I don't think any of us can accurately imagine -- well, in those cases, the doctors are protected. As long as there's nothing that can be medically done that "preserves the life and health of the affected individual," and what possible action could preserve the life of a baby with a condition or birth defect that will kill him/her within a few days or weeks?

So yeah, you're correct, there are some exceptions to the bill, which will be a great comfort to parents as they spend sleepless nights watching their newborn suffer and die a slow, painful death that they had absolutely no chance to prepare for or make decisions about, knowing that when the huge hospital bills came that their insurance didn't cover -- if they have insurance at all -- they can't even sue the doctor who lied to them (and to conceal a major birth defect or problem right up until the birth of the child, the doctor would have to lie repeatedly).

Those silly liberals. Making a huge fuss over nothing.

Ack, editing FAIL. I left out a couple words in my comment about KFC -- which should read: "...aside from a small amount of personal bitterness that comes from my experience as a cancer patient who found that there were all kinds of support groups and services set up to help women with breast cancer and then a couple of things that the rest of us who had less popular cancers could participate in."

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at April 29, 2010 6:46 PM

"First rule of statistics - correlation is not causation."

------------------------------------------------------

RINO

First rule of statistics, if there is NO correlation, there is no causation.

Second rule of statistics, if there is 'correlation', dig a little deeper, there may or may not be causation.

Found under rules for RINO's.

Just because you are paranoid does NOT mean they are not out to get you.

yor bro ken

Excellent blog post!
http://voicesforlife.blogspot.com/2010/02/exposing-susan-g-komen-foundation.html?spref=fb

"who are robbed of the chance to decide if they would rather terminate the pregnancy and spare their child an experience I don't think any of us can accurately imagine."

Inducing labor early won't save the child any pain. He will still die a painful death, but probably because of suffocation rather than the underlying disorder.

Not exactly merciful.

Inducing labor early won't save the child any pain. He will still die a painful death, but probably because of suffocation rather than the underlying disorder.

Not all fatal birth defects and conditions can only be diagnosed in late pregnancy (where inducing labor early would be the method of termination). But even in those cases, a short but painful death (a matter of minutes) seems merciful compared to a long drawn out painful death that takes days or weeks.

I live with constant pain at a level that most people, thankfully, will never experience and can't imagine, which is difficult to live with even though I fully understand where it comes from and why I am in pain. An infant experiencing this level of pain would have no way to understand why he was in pain or the reason for the medical interventions that were done, not even to understand that the pain from procedures was part of trying to help. I doubt that any of us can fully imagine or understand what that would be like.

And all of that aside, I can't see any possible reason that justifies making a law allowing doctors to lie to parents that gives those parents absolutely no recourse, especially when the only exceptions are so vaguely worded and ill-defined. What constitutes treatments that "prevent, cure, or ameliorate" the "handicap, disease, or disability" of the child? If a child has a 100% chance of dying not long after birth, does ANY treatment meet that standard?

I was looking back over the law and another passage stuck out: "It being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval."

Apparently, doctors telling parents the truth about fetal defects or conditions is a threat to the preservation of public peace, health, and safety. Everything else about this bill aside, I have a very hard time seeing how this last bit is justified. It seems like in order to pass a law that has immediate effect, an emergency has to be declared, which makes sense if you're talking about, say, an actual emergency that requires a new law. Freeing doctors from the obligation to be truthful with their patients? Wow. If that's an emergency, I'm really gonna have to revise my definition of the word.

Hi Violet,
I left you some comments on the Weekend Question What would you say to Sarah thread.

It looks like there should be a grassroots "sub" group to educate our American women on the truth of breat cancer and prevention. I would think...no matter what a woman's economic status is that she would rather not get it at all, then catch it early. From what I keep reading (between the lines too) Komen is about finding a cure, and early detection, not prevention. The "PC" needs to stop - not enough exercise, being overweight (fat), not breastfeeding, not having your children, not having children early enough in your life, etc. - these are all things that the mainstream feminists, liberals (Komen included) do not want to address...why? Well, I think all of us here know.

"But even in those cases, a short but painful death (a matter of minutes) seems merciful compared to a long drawn out painful death that takes days or weeks. "

Did you not read the post from two days ago about a baby born via induced abortion at 22 weeks who lived 2 days? I believe that the baby Jill witnessed die lived for almost a day.

They can help ease the pain of children who are born too soon or born with birth defects. The children left to die after abortion receive none of this care, unless you consider being wrapped in a sheet and placed in a soild utility room to be pain relief.

Did you not read the post from two days ago about a baby born via induced abortion at 22 weeks who lived 2 days?

I read the news stories about it before it was posted here. It's a horrific story, and you won't find anyone on the pro-choice side who thinks that these rare occurrences are acceptable.

That a few unscrupulous doctors and medical personnel think it's acceptable to leave premature infants to die doesn't change the fact that it's the exception, and not the rule.

Violet, it's not that the doctors are unscrupulous. They promised a dead baby, and by God, the woman is going to get a dead baby. That was Obama's argument when he fought against giving these children legal protection, anyways.

The problem is that there is absolutely no way to know if a child will survive induced labor. Some kids are fighters, and giving them care "burdens the mother's original decision to abort."-Obama

It is an accepted part of the pro-abortion world. I'm glad to hear that you personally oppose this, but a quick google search will show you that there were many on the pro-choice side fighting aginst any laws to protect these children.