BREAKING: Komen to defund Planned Parenthood
UPDATE, 5:10p: Quoting The Hill:
Planned Parenthood said it has established an emergency fund to offset the loss of the Komen funds.
… Hey Cecile, if you and your affiliate CEOs agree to take a 1% paycut, that should about cover the $680K loss in funding.
4:53p: Huge, great news from the Associated Press, within the hour:
NEW YORK — The nation’s leading breast-cancer charity, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, is halting its partnerships with Planned Parenthood affiliates — creating a bitter rift, linked to the abortion debate, between two iconic organizations that have assisted millions of women.
The change will mean a cutoff of hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants, mainly for breast exams.
Planned Parenthood says the move results from Komen bowing to pressure from anti-abortion activists. Komen says the key reason is that Planned Parenthood is under investigation in Congress — a probe launched by a conservative Republican who was urged to act by anti-abortion groups.
The rupture, which has not been publicly announced as it unfolded, is wrenching for some of those who’ve learned about it and admire both organizations….
Read the rest of the article at link.
[HT: Pro-Life Wisconsin on Twitter]
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.
Now I can support the Komen for the Cure for Breast Cancer organization! Thank you for your decision!
SQUEE!!! Whoo-hoo! Now I can stop scrupulously checking every single pink thing to make sure it isn’t a Komen thing instead of NBCF. Yay!
Wher’s CC/ Where’s Reality? Where’s my favorite troll, law??
BAM!!!!!
WOW!! I can hardly believe it!! High fives all around prolifers!!
Planned Parenthood has an emergency fund? Of course.
Considering that this kind of private funding is used to subsidize affordable healthcare services for low-income women (i.e. breast cancer screenings), they’re the real losers here. Not Planned Parenthood or its executives. Net result: a few more poor women might get breast cancer now! Great news! High five!
Hi Courtnay.
What joan said.
Nothing quite like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Well, maybe all these big-wig six figure income folk at PP can assist these low-income women get cancer-screens out of the kindness of their big fat pocketbooks.
That’s good news. Wish they would have done it for the right reasons and explained why. Please permit me to translate Komen’s message: “We lost more in donations from pro-lifers than we gained elsewhere by appeasing pro-aborts.”
So I guess 175,000 low income women getting screened for breast cancer and 6400 of them being referred for treatment of the breast cancer that Planned Parenthood found don’t mean anything when you have a bogus congressional investigation to pursue…
You are cheering about the further spread of breast cancer… good for you. Thanks for protecting women….
FYI it was a Planned Parenthood breast screening that found my mother lump early enough to avoid surgery. Mom didn’t have medical insurance after she was laid off. PP saved her breast and maybe her life but I guess that don’t mean much to you guys… Just keep cheering…
I will be changing my Komen donations that I make in my mother’s name to Planned Parenthood because they do not discriminate on the basis of income level. I guess cancer screenings should only be for women who can afford medical insurance…
Komen will now be losing a number of its contributors. A lot of Komen’s money comes from those who are pro-choice. There will be a backlash. Will the anti-choicers make up the difference? Will the Catholic bishops be contributing some of their generous salaries to Komen? The old adage, “be careful what you wish for” comes to mind.
Looks like I can support the Komen for the Cure for Breast Cancer organization, Thank you and God bless!
LOL mainly for breast exams….really, can you site that, AP????
LOL more like SGK might not be responsible for CAUSING breast cancer now through abortions (not to meantion DEATH) and will now go back to HELPING women – with a LOT more support from pro-lifers!
Wait…the article says PP used the Komen money to do 170,000 breast exams. First, that’s not very many. Second, I thought PP admitted they didn’t do breast exams.
If groping a woman’s breasts and sending her elsewhere for a mammogram is considered care, then boo hoo. But since Planned Parenthood doesn’t even OWN mammogram equipment, then I’d say the money is better spent on real breast cancer prevention and treatment.
Many women perform self-exams for FREE, people, and since that is all PP would do, then NOBODY is going to suffer from their defunding. Finally, Komen can use those same dollars to make a real difference in real women’s lives. But, what’s going to happen with the Komen family member who is on PP’s board of directors??
Reality, can you please explain how a link to pastor salaries is relevant to the discussion on Susan G. Komen? Or is it just an inflammatory religious jab that I need to remove? ;)
And seriously, abortion fans, if you’re going to knock our links and sources for being biased, then SPARE US the huffpo.
“There will be a backlash. ” You know, when we use war metaphors, the abortion advocates get their dander way up. So, tell us, is THIS a threat? Or are pro-choice women going to throw cancer patients under the bus? You already won’t stop people like Gosnell and you won’t protect baby girls from sex selective abortions. I can’t imagine what kind of “backlash” you will come up with next.
While this is good news it’s not nearly enough to make me buy/donate to Komen. Breast cancer awareness and seeking a cure is important, but it’s the wrong focus. Until their focus is PREVENTING the disease in the first place I will avoid them. The minute they come out and say ‘don’t put off childbearing, breastfeed as long as possible, do not induce abortions, do not use hormonal contraceptives, and then get tested and treatment if needed’ I’ll be thrilled to ‘walk for an end to breast cancer’. But they won’t. There is no money to be made in preventing a disease. Breast cancer is not 100% preventable, finding better treatments and perhaps someday a cure is a worthwhile goal, but it is *largely* preventable, and that Komen not only ignores that but actively dismisses it is unconscionable.
“Net result: a few more poor women might get breast cancer now”
Uh, no. Planned Parenthood cannot prevent cancer by screening women to see if they have cancer.
Hippie, that’s incorrect, PP can screen for cervical cancer and does so regularly; Pap tests are part of the healthcare that they provide to low income women.
@Stacy Trasancos: PP doesn’t do mammograms themselves. They’ll do what they call a “cancer screening” (i.e., somebody feeling you up to see if there are any bumps), but that’s it. According to them and Komen, PP would take SGK money and pay a third party to do the mammograms.
To be clear, I am not defending PP in the slightest and I am really glad Komen is getting out of bed with them. But hopefully this answers your question.
Unfortunately, Komen Race for Cure still believes that the Abortion-Breast Cancer Connection is a “debate in the past”, despite all the recent studies suggesting otherwise.
“Hippie, that’s incorrect, PP can screen for cervical cancer and does so regularly; Pap tests are part of the healthcare that they provide to low income women.”
No, it is not incorrect.
Screening means to check to see if you have it.
it doesn’t prevent it.
There are screenings for all kinds of things.
Checking to see if you already have something does not prevent you from getting it.
Think about it.
I am GRINNING like a Cheshire cat!
“No, it is not incorrect.
Screening means to check to see if you have it.
it doesn’t prevent it.”
NO that is not how cancer screening works!!!
In the case of cervical cancer, early detection of pre-cancerous cells can, indeed, prevent cancer. When cells on the cervix turn PREcancerous, they can be removed before the cells become malignant. Cervical dysplaysia (aka LSIL or ASCUS) is not cancer, but it can be treated if found early and removed via LEEP or cryotherapy. This is why women get pap tests. They PREVENT cancer.
This is also true of pre-cancerous lumps in the breast – DCIS, LCIS, and other “stage zero” cancers are screened for and removed before they prorgess to actual cancer.
Hi law,
If you could type out your comments minus the swearing that would be great.
“Swearing is cool,” unless it’s “not.”
Hi again law,
You do not get to tell me what does and does not “qualify” as swearing.
Brush up on the rules and try again.
Thanks.
“They’ll do what they call a “cancer screening” (i.e., somebody feeling you up to see if there are any bumps), but that’s it.”
It’s called a clinical breast exam, they’re recommended by the American Cancer Society, and most physicians in private practice will do them before ordering a mammogram. Screening also encompasses patient education and referrals to–yes–more sensitive tests, if need be. If you think you’ve been “felt up” needlessly, you might want to report it to the authorities.
“You do not get to tell me what does and does not “qualify” as swearing.”
Hi again Carla,
As you know, there are no links between abortion and breast cancer. Enough with the lying shenanigans already from those of you who wouldn’t know a study from a shovel and certainly never read one.
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/MoreInformation/is-abortion-linked-to-breast-cancer
:D
“In the case of cervical cancer, early detection of pre-cancerous cells can, indeed, prevent cancer. When cells on the cervix turn PREcancerous, they can be removed before the cells become malignant. Cervical dysplaysia (aka LSIL or ASCUS) is not cancer, but it can be treated if found early and removed via LEEP or cryotherapy. This is why women get pap tests. They PREVENT cancer. This is also true of pre-cancerous lumps in the breast – DCIS, LCIS, and other “stage zero” cancers are screened for and removed before they prorgess to actual cancer.”
Ugh, what a bunch of BS.
Pre-cancer. So, if it is in some initial stage then it isn’t really cancer? Who believes that.
Look, they find “pre-cancer” (lol) and then they cut it off. Why do they cut it off? Because it is cancer.
You/They want to call it “pre-cancer” for some stupid reason.
The fact remains they are looking for something that is already there.
Screenings are part of the search and destroy effort against cancer.
That is not prevention.
It is detection and treatment.
Detection and treatment is not prevention. Duh.
Hormonal contraception is a Group 1 “known” carcinogen, causing premature breast cancer in women under age 50.
Abortion before a first full-term pregnancy doubles the risk of breast cancer, and the risk of early onset of breast cancer.
$3.25 million for 170,000 exams means $19 per manual breast exam by PP, without a mammograph imager anywhere.
Even without the financial pressure from pro-lifers — and the illegal and unethical behavior of Planned Parenthood — this is still a prudent decision by SGK! They ought to stop funding the businesses that cause the disease that they fight!
Imagine the Lung Cancer Association giving money to Phillip Morris for their good work in educating youngsters against the dangers of cigarette smoking…..
“As you know, there are no links between abortion and breast cancer.”
Yes, there is. There is a statistical correlation.
Women who have ever had an abortion have a higher incidence of breast cancer.
The cause appears to be because on average women who have ever had an abortion have fewer children than women who never had an abortion.
Fewer full term pregnancies = More breast cancer
Early periods and late childbearing increase risk of breast cancer, study confirmsLynn Eaton
Women’s risk of getting breast cancer increases if they have few children, start to have children late, or if their periods start early, a large scale French study has confirmed.The study, published this week on the website of the British Journal of Cancer (http://www.bjcancer.comwww.bjcancer.com), followed nearly 100 000 French women over a 10 year period. They were aged 40-65 at the start of the study. All were with a national health insurance scheme and were mainly teachers. The women were sent follow up questionnaires every two years about their lifestyle, including reproductive factors, body build, smoking, medical history, and any family history of cancer.The study also distinguishes between the effect on premenopausal and postmenopausal women.Of the 91 000 women in the study, 1718 were diagnosed with breast cancer over the time period; at the end of the follow up 39 148 women were premenopausal and 50 996 were postmenopausal.The research showed that women who had had their first child in their 30s were 63% more likely to develop breast cancer before the menopause than those who had given birth before the age of 22.The risk difference was lower, however, for developing breast cancer after the menopause: women who had had their first child in their 30s were 35% more likely to develop breast cancer after the menopause than those who had given birth before the age of 22.It also showed that each full term pregnancy reduced the risk of breast cancer by 8%.Early onset of periods also increased a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer. Women who had started their periods at 15 were at only two thirds the risk of premenopausal breast cancer compared with women whose periods had started at 11. The risk decreased by 7% for every year that periods were delayed.Dr Françoise Clavel-Chapelon, who undertook the study, said the information would help them understand the mechanisms which allowed breast cancer to develop.“It’s especially interesting that the influences on a woman’s risk of breast cancer can be so different before and after she reaches menopause,” she said.The study also found that there was no evidence that a history of miscarriage put women at higher risk of developing breast cancer either premenopausally or postmenopausally.Professor Gordon McVie, joint director general of Cancer Research UK, welcomed this large scale research: “The link between reproductive factors, fluctuation in hormones, and women’s breast cancer risk is extremely complex, and previous small scale studies have often produced confusing and conflicting results,” he said.The study is ongoing and will be looking at the effect of diet and hormone replacement therapy in the future.Articles from BMJ : British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy ofBMJ Publishing Group
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1172033/
hippie, I don’t even know what to say about this level of ignorance. It’s painful to see.
Ugh, what a bunch of BS.
Pre-cancer. So, if it is in some initial stage then it isn’t really cancer? Who believes that.
That is a medical fact. Precancerous cells that are detected on a PAP are NOT cancer.
Look, they find “pre-cancer” (lol) and then they cut it off. Why do they cut it off? Because it is cancer.
Precancerous cells are not always removed. If you have an abnormal PAP, the doctor will do a biopsy of the cervix. LEEP, cryotherapy, or cone biopsy are only warranted if the stage of dysplaysia is advanced (CINII or CINIII). If the cells are in an early enough stage (ASCUS, CINI), it is up to the patient and the doctor to determine course of treatment. A pap every six months to monitor the condition is often warranted for women under 30 because the condition can clear itself.
You/They want to call it “pre-cancer” for some stupid reason.
Because they are not cancer. They may or may not become cancerous (or cancer causing).
http://www.cancer.med.umich.edu/cancertreat/obgyn/cervix-intraepithelial-neoplasia.shtml
The fact remains they are looking for something that is already there.
What is already there are cervical cells. The cells themselves can change. Many times the body itself will clear the dysplaysia. Sometimes it doesn’t. Which is why it needs to be monitored medically. Women who do not get their cancer screenings are asking to have advanced cervical cancer which can destroy their fertility and even kill them.
Detection and treatment is not prevention. Duh.
OMG. Yes it is. If detection determines a course of treatment that prevents a person from having full blown cancer and then dying from it, it is prevention. Please get an education. Even Wikipedia would be better than the nothing you know now.
Women on this board, regardless of what you believe, need to have yearly PAP exams. Regardless of age, regardless of marital status.
“Ugh, what a bunch of BS.” – no it’s not. I had a colonoscopy. They found pre-cancerous cells, which were removed. Colonoscopies will be more frequent until no more pre-cancerous cells are found to be emerging then revert to the normal timeframe. My doctors said it takes 3-7 years for pre-cancerous cells to develop into cancer. Your knowledge of cancer and it’s precursors appears to be even less than mine!
“There is a statistical correlation” – that’s not a ‘link’, at best its an association.
@hippie: I think the more salient point here is that Komen’s money to PP did not go to them for screenings for cervical cancer. So unless PP suddenly decides to restructure a bazillion things to pretend like loosing SGK’s money is a bigger problem for them than it is (and let’s face it, these people kill children, so they might decide to do exactly this), then their screenings for cervical cancer should not be affected one tiny little bit.
“Yes, there is. There is a statistical correlation.”
You are medically completely ignorant.
CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. The ACA has determined, through the most recent studies, that previous studies were flawed and that the more recent study designs show no connection. Your studies are old and have been discredited.
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.
From previous link. Now stop it.
Reality – ((hugs)) Hope you are doing ok.
“These experts did not find that abortions (either induced or spontaneous) cause a higher breast cancer risk.”
Only because they considered them independently. But abortions reduce the total number of children that women have.
The biggest risks for breast cancer are delaying childbearing and having fewer children. Abortion contributes to both of those factors. Women use abortion to both delay having children and to reduce the total number of children they have. Therefore, abortion is statistically linked to breast cancer. Get it?
Having babies sooner and having more babies = less breast cancer
law: Women on this board, regardless of what you believe, need to have yearly PAP exams. Regardless of age, regardless of marital status.
Yeah – agreed. Good grief, what rational argument can be advanced against this>?
“I think the more salient point here is that Komen’s money to PP did not go to them for screenings for cervical cancer. “
When women go into a gyno (or in the case of the poor Planned Parenhood), cervical cancer screenings and breast exams go together. This is called a well woman exam or your yearly checkup that you should be having. Private gynos do it the same way.
It seems a whole lot of you are ignorant as to women’s health protocol which only indicates that you are not getting your healthcare taken care of like you should.
“If detection determines a course of treatment that prevents a person from having full blown cancer and then dying from it, it is prevention.”
Well, then it prevents death, not cancer.
This is a goofy semantic game of calling the cells “pre-cancer” so that you can claim that cutting something off is somehow preventing it from growing in the first place.
If you find it and cut it off, it is treatment, not prevention.
“But abortions reduce the total number of children that women have.
The biggest risks for breast cancer are delaying childbearing and having fewer children. Abortion contributes to both of those factors. Women use abortion to both delay having children and to reduce the total number of children they have. Therefore, abortion is statistically linked to breast cancer. Get it?”
As always, the greatest risks in breast cancer are age, gender, and FAMILY HISTORY. Scaring women into reproducing, regardless of their life circumstances or regardless of whether they even want children at all because they might get breast cancer if they don’t is breathtakingly stupid. I mean, just staggeringly stupid. You might worship babies, but that just makes you a mentally-ill baby-drunk freak.
If there are reasons to have children “It might reduce my risk of cancer” is not one of them! D’OH!!
Women on this board, regardless of what you believe, need to have yearly PAP exams. Regardless of age, regardless of marital status.
Well, someone inform the ACOG. They don’t recommend that.
http://www.acog.org/~/media/for%20patients/faq085.ashx
“Scaring women into reproducing, regardless of their life circumstances or regardless of whether they even want children at all because they might get breast cancer if they don’t is breathtakingly stupid.”
Uh, huh, but it is super intelligent to scare women into aborting by insinuating that they will have horrible lives ruined by kids, won’t get an education, etc.
“Well, then it prevents death, not cancer.”
Removing precancerous cells, if necessary, prevents cancer.
This is a goofy semantic game of calling the cells “pre-cancer” so that you can claim that cutting something off is somehow preventing it from growing in the first place.
If it’s not cancer, it’s not cancer. Cells go through changes that indicate they can turn cancerous. Cancer cells are human cells that change, and the changes cause the cells to multiply out of control. Not all precancerous conditions need to be treated. But they DO need to be monitored to make sure the changes are not to the level where the cells are advancing towards becoming cancerous and thus need treatment.
If you find it and cut it off, it is treatment, not prevention.
That’s incorrect. Removing a condition is prevention if that condition could become something worse later. And not all precancerous cells are treated or removed. A number of factors go into determining treatment for cervical dysplaysia.
“Uh, huh, but it is super intelligent to scare women into aborting by insinuating that they will have horrible lives ruined by kids, won’t get an education, etc.”
The link between having children and poverty is a lot stronger than the link between abortion and breast cancer. And that is a fact. Regardless, poverty doesn’t seem to be scary enough to prevent women from giving birth, and I don’t think anyone should care what choices a woman makes as long as she is free to make them.
meh, it’s fairly common law, but thank you for your thoughts. My mother recovered from major bowel cancer surgery, her mother didn’t. It gets better with each generation thanks to medical advances.
“As always, the greatest risks in breast cancer are age, gender, and FAMILY HISTORY.”
Can a person control any of those?
No.
But women can control their behavior.
Maybe if some folks would just let teens know how much risk they can control, they could just make up their own minds. Instead there is nothing but the worship of birth control and some people’s ideal or having smaller families. Sex ed classes don’t tell girls that delaying childbearing is a huge health risk. Oh heck no, because the whole point of sex ed is to convince girls to have fewer kids and to use birth control and abortion to achieve that goal.
PP is under investigation in Congress for many things, helping child abusers abort the “evidence” of their crimes, helping pimps traffic minors for abortions, and also for LYING about providing mammograms at the majority of their clinics.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/planned-parenthood-challenged-on-purported-mammogram-claim/2011/03/30/AFjCFO3B_story.html
Abortion has also been linked to increased breast cancer rates in the UK and Canada. Ask yourself why it is not being researched here.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1288955/Abortion-triple-risk-breast-cancer.html
Women deserve the truth, not PC-rhetoric. No matter what you believe you should be on the side of finding out the truth no matter the cost in pride.
“The link between having children and poverty is a lot stronger than the link between abortion and breast cancer.”
What?
There is no link between having children and poverty.
How insane.
Sex ed classes don’t tell women that delaying childbearing is a huge health risk because it’s not. If it were, there would be a huge age and general health gap between childfree women and mothers. No such gap exists. There are plenty of health hazards that come with having children so you seriously need to adjust your perspective.
As for birth control, women who DO NOT use birth control are actually responsible for having more miscarriages, since they ovulate more. Women who are on hormonal birth control obviously ovulate less and thus will have far fewer miscarriages.
As for people being able to control their behavior in terms of what risks they want to take in life, it isn’t your place to say, although NOT encouraging teen girls to have babies is generally the accepted norm even for conservatives.
“Regardless, poverty doesn’t seem to be scary enough to prevent women from giving birth, and I don’t think anyone should care what choices a woman makes as long as she is free to make them.”
Well, how about an informed choice?
Don’t women have a right to know?
“What?
There is no link between having children and poverty.
How insane”
I’m guessing that you don’t understand economics any better than you do healthcare. Needless to say it costs about a quarter of a million dollars to raise ONE child from birth to age 18. A woman with no financial support from the baby’s father (and this is common) is more likely to fall into poverty.
Here is an article based on data from the US Census Bureau.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/10/women_poverty.html
For the past seven decades, high fertility and poverty have been strongly correlated, and the world’s poorest countries also have the highest fertility and population growth rates. To some extent, this is due to the fact that poverty and its determinants (subsistence agriculture, low levels of education, subordinate position of women) also tend to perpetuate high fertility.
http://www.unfpa.org/public/home/factsheets/pid/3856
Jamie – if there was a link between abortion and breast cancer, why aren’t women who have had abortions dying earlier? Abortion is just about as old as human history but women generally live to be older than men, and there has been no correlation between abortion and early death. From cancer or anything else.
Sex ed classes don’t tell women that delaying childbearing is a huge health risk because it’s not.
Yes, it is.
plug in the numbers.
Compare early and late childbearing breast cancer risks.
http://www.halls.md/breast/risk.htm
Oh, and from your OWN ARTICLE:
”
But Cancer Research UK questioned the accuracy of the figures and said women should not be unduly worried.
Dr Kat Arney, the charity’s science information manager, said: ‘This is a very small study of only 300 women, so there are likely to be statistical errors in a sample of this size.
‘Much larger studies involving tens of thousands of women have shown no significant links.’”
Just for the statistics illiterate on this board, a sample size of 300 is also known as junk science. And linking to the Daily Fail is, in fact, a fail.
“Jamie – if there was a link between abortion and breast cancer, why aren’t women who have had abortions dying earlier?”
They are. From cancer.
http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/JSS/JSS-19-0-000-09-Web/JSS-19-3-000-09-Abst-PDF/JSS-19-3-173-2009-850-Carroll-P/JSS-19-3-173-2009-850-Carroll-P-Tt.pdf
“Needless to say it costs about a quarter of a million dollars to raise ONE child from birth to age 18.”
Uh, is that in LA county? How do kids in other countries grow up when the per capita GDP is like $1000? Hmm. Those numbers don’t add up.
“For the past seven decades, high fertility and poverty have been strongly correlated,”
Correlation isn’t causation. Remember?
Those places would be just as poor if they had no kids. We all know that. Their kids aren’t making them poor. It is lack of development. When the United State had very high fertility, our economy was booming and so was technological progress and development. Now we have low fertility and high tech and development. Gee no correlation to fertility. Poverty is linked to development and technology, not fertility.
“plug in the numbers.
Compare early and late childbearing breast cancer risks.
http://www.halls.md/breast/risk.htm ”
Science FAIL for NOT including exercise, diet, economic factors, toxin exposure, smoking, tanning/sun habits, or geographic living area in the risk factor list. This is about as useful as measuring whether or not my boyfriend’s hand size correlates to the size of his pole.
Here’s the risk assessment tool from cancer.gov which won’t even calculate for you if you’re under 35. When I plug in the various factors and screw with it, the risk difference between mothers and non mothers is between 2 and 4%. There was no difference between “my” profile and an identical woman who had given birth after the age of 25.
http://www.cancer.gov/bcrisktool/
“Jamie – if there was a link between abortion and breast cancer, why aren’t women who have had abortions dying earlier?”
They are. From cancer.
Nice 404.
How many women who die from cancer who have had abortions? How many of those women who had abortions and died from cancer ALSO had children considering that most women who have abortions also have children,many of those early in life?
D’OH!!
Uh, is that in LA county?
No, that’s everywhere. http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/21/pf/cost_raising_child/index.htm
How do kids in other countries grow up when the per capita GDP is like $1000?
THEY DON’T. Many of them starve to death or die of preventable, treatable diseases and the life expectancy rate in countries where there is mass poverty is around half of ours.
Here’s an article that talks about the economic effect of the baby boom. Needless to say when that economy was good it was because there was a world war going on. Having children does not improve the economy, the improved economy causes people to want to breed more. A baby boom eventually causes more old people, who require a lot of resources. Not that I don’t love old people but they cost money. A lot of money. That an economy in a recession doesn’t have. Ergo the more old people there are, and the worse the economy, the more old people live in poverty.
http://www.ehow.com/info_8506698_baby-boom-its-effect-economy.html
Correlation isn’t causation. Remember?
Those places would be just as poor if they had no kids.
That’s not correct, but even if you were correct… there would be no children dying of diseases and starvation!
Everyone has their right to believe what they want to believe … but planned parenthood has provided valuable services to women throughout their reproductive lives. I learned about monthly breast exams as a young college student from a physician at Planned Parenthood, where I was offered low cost healthcare. I never had to make a decision to have an abortion, because Planned Parenthood helped me have ongoing access to reliable birth control. I was diagnosed with Ovarian Cancer, not by a planned parenthood physician, by private physician that my health insurance covered, but I went back to him repeatedly after he told me that nothing was wrong because my planned parenthood physician from college had taught me to know what was right for my body and not to hesitate to question when it didn’t feel right.
These cuts by SGK won’t stop those physicians from helping young women like me … but they will force them to cut back. The physician that doesn’t have the time to help a young women understand her body and her reproductive cycles will mean that we will have more women who are unprepared for what they will encounter and will likely experience less beneficial outcomes.
I am not a supporter of SGK … when I realized that they spend more money per year on fund raising than the entire Ovarian Cancer community can raise in a year, I focused my attention on the disease that mattered to me … not a vote against SGK, just a vote for something else. But I had supported friends who felt it important to walk “the walk”. Going forward, I will have to bow out from that.
Tonight, I made my first donation to planned parenthood. Given what I know they did for me as a young woman, I am ashamed that it took me so long to do. So I say thank you SGK for waking me up and helping me realize what is really important to me.
lol — all the pro-aborts who used to praise Komen for its wonderful work are now suddenly complaining that its executives are overpaid and that it only gives a small percentage of its funds for cancer research.
woooo hoooo! all of those calls id mane to komen paid off! i kept heat on them and refused to buy their products! and btw i was a planned parenthood customer for 14 yeaars and NEVER once got a mamogran! just a breast exam. heck its a step in the right direction. and maybe komen will lose support but they will also gain some!
I’m sorry, but if it cost a quarter million to raise a child to 18, that would work out to about 38 dollars a day per child. That would mean my husband and I would be spending 190 dollars every single day to raise our children. We don’t spend even close to that. No, we do not receive any government assistance, yes our kids eat very well, see the doctor and dentist (we pay for our own insurance also), and have decent clothes. They are actually pretty spoiled, and it still doesn’t work out to anywhere near 190 dollars a day. That would cost us 69,350 a year just on our kids alone! And since it’s only to age 18, I’m assuming that quarter million must not include college costs, so I have to wonder, what on earth people are feeding their kids or if they get new outfits daily to come up with that number?
“Just for the statistics illiterate on this board, a sample size of 300 is also known as junk science.”
This is patently false seeing as how Student’s t-test is taught in nearly every single elementary statistics course in colleges across the United States. The very purpose of teh t-test is to give sound statistical analysis to sample sizes of less than 30- no, not 300, 30. As long as the 300 are indeed a TRUE random sample of teh population (and that would have been a better angle to try and refute the study), a sample size of 100 can plenty. Obviously smaller sizes are less than ideal and in this particular case it may very well have been too small, but to make the blanket statement that a sample size of 300 amounts to “junk science” is to be ignorant of statistics.
When women go into a gyno (or in the case of the poor Planned Parenhood), cervical cancer screenings and breast exams go together.
Which is not what the Komen money was used for. PP used it to pay third parties to do mammograms since they don’t actually do them themselves. Oh, didn’t you know that? Yeah, they don’t perform mammograms at any PP facility anywhere in the United States. Don’t believe me? Call any one of their facilities up at random and ask. Their numbers are online and easy to Google. We’ll wait.
Komen is not stopping the funding of breast health services – so everyone that wants to say Komen has decided to ignore womens health is ignoring the facts – there are thousands of places besides PP that can provide the same services and more – and they do so for free or reduced costs if the women can not pay – look for federally funded health centers – they just don’t do abortions
All the pro-aborts know this is not about women’s health – it is about abortion – if you want to be outraged, fine – but be honest about it – you are mad because the largest abortion provider in the US has become a political hot potato, and it has once again cost them – if they and you really care so much about women’s health, then just stop doing abortions at PP, and everybody will get off their backs
I am glad Komen made this decision – but I am very skeptical – they keep saying it was because of the Congressional investigation – if the investigation gets dropped or does not result in charges, will Komen revers course again??
AMEN BRYAN!!!
And as for your concern – I’ve had a lot of people ask me that. Here are my thoughts: IT’S A START! And this is national news – more bad light for the abortion industry. The more support we show SGK for their decision, the better off. It’s a new opportunity to go to events and share the pro-life message. Pray for them!
Violet, it’s because they use some questionable math to find that figure. Like the ‘average’ birth costs something like $7,000, and the ‘average’ public school gets, say, $5,000 a year per kid (that number is several years old, I don’t know what it is now). So by ‘their’ calculations to take a kid from K-12 it’s $65,000 just for the education. Then there are things like the government assumes it costs $10 per day per person to eat (also a couple of years old, it might be slightly higher now).
When people throw around how much it ‘costs’ to raise a kid what they *mean* is ‘this is how much the government assumes it takes’ to raise a kid. Of course the numbers are mostly bogus. It doesn’t cost thousands of dollars to educate a kid, it takes thousands of dollars to turn the overladen gears of the public education system. One has about as much to do with the other as a New England Primer has to do with with a PP sex-ed guide, but for people who generally dislike children (and people in general, all that ‘population’ after all is just so gross!) it works well enough.
It’s not kids who cause poverty. Kids, in fact provide the best safety net for old age and are the best resource a country can have. You only have a problem with all those ‘icky’ old people if there aren’t enough KIDS to take care of their previous generation. What *does* have a huge impact on poverty, in fact the biggest indicator for poverty is single parenthood, which is an economic reason why people should wait til they are *married* to engage in child-creating activities.
“Yeah, they don’t perform mammograms at any PP facility anywhere in the United States.”
So? Neither does my physician’s office. I’d have to go to the teaching hospital a few towns over to get one. But you’re splitting hairs. Whether PP did them, a third party, whatever: the Komen funds allow PP to provide basic screening, education and referrals to patients. It’s about care coordination.
…Okay, one more time. Komen money did not pay for any services provided at PP. Thus, PP has no need–or excuse, though, as I’ve said, I wouldn’t put it past them–to cut any of their services due to the loss of it. Anyone squawking that they may do so, does not understand how they work. All this does is cut the middle-man out and make PP look bad.
If this is not clear enough for you, then you are an idiot.
Shame on them for removing their funding. The article explicitly states that the funding was used for breast exams. It is sad that women who benefit from the low cost services offered at planned parenthood will lose funding for services that are essential to promoting a healthy life. I think it is horrible that they would decide this just because people feel the need to dictate what others can and can’t do with their bodies.
No Alice, sorry, you’re the dense one here. It costs money to provide basic screenings and educational materials. It costs money to make a referral and then cover the cost of a screening test. An uninsured woman can’t walk into her local radiologist’s office and just demand a mammogram–that’s what PP is for, to coordinate care.
If proaborts are so concerned, they’re welcome to fund it themselves. They won’t. They’re readily available when it comes to flapping their pieholes and screeching, when it comes time to ante up, they’re visibly absent. If they were so concerned about the poor suffering from lack of Komen funding, they’d pass the plate amongst themselves. They’re all for shrieking about the ‘distribution’ of the earnings of others, except their own. Put up or shut up. Now’s your chance to prove how committed you are to ‘women’s health’ that isn’t abortion, prochoice. Go for it.
Ellie – I think you’ll find in this statement from Susan G. Komen that the funding is being better placed in clinics that can better help those in need – without the controversy of an investigation, abortion, etc. Women and men alike will be better off.
(From their official FB page:)
At Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the women we serve are our highest priority in everything we do. Last year, we invested $93 million in community health programs, which included 700,000 mammograms. Additionally, we began an initiative to further strengthen our grants program to be even more outcomes-driven and to allow for even greater investments in programs that directly serve women. We also …implemented more stringent eligibility and performance criteria to support these strategies. While it is regrettable when changes in priorities and policies affect any of our grantees, such as a longstanding partner like Planned Parenthood, we must continue to evolve to best meet the needs of the women we serve and most fully advance our mission.
It is critical to underscore that the women we serve in communities remain our priority. We are working directly with Komen Affiliates to ensure there is no interruption or gaps in services for women who need breast health screening and services.
Grant making decisions are not about politics–our priority is and always will be the women we serve. Making this issue political or leveraging it for fundraising purposes would be a disservice to women.
Megan et al – Komen dd not stop funding breast exams or related health services – they just stopped doing it through PP – once again, this is not about women’s health, it is about the more than 300,000 abortions they do each year – if you are mad that your favorite abortion provider lost some funding, you are welcome to be mad – but at least be honest at the same time – there will still be more than enough places that women can get the services they need whether they have insurance or not and whether they have money or not – and hey, if it costs money to make referrals, then this is all the better as the portion of the Komen grants that was being wasted on the PP “middle man” expenses will be saved – so yay for women’s health!
“Megan et al – Komen dd not stop funding breast exams or related health services – they just stopped doing it through PP”
I’ll explain it again, because it doesn’t seem to be getting across: there HAS to be a middleman. Our healthcare system is a gatekeeper system. I can’t simply walk into my local radiologist’s office and demand a mammogram; I need to see a provider first. For uninsured or underserved women, places like PP act as their gatekeeper to more rigorous screening and diagnostic tests.
Is that enough Kel?
Not quite. I’ll be removing your completely unrelated, inflammatory anti-religious comment.
(and most of those on the list I cited probably don’t impress you a whole lot more than they impress me) Most pastors who live high on the hog cease to impress me. But that’s another topic, not for this thread.
Obviously we need a tinfoil hat check at the door…
Megan, you said it yourself “places like PP”. These funds aren’t going to be floating ut into the stratosphere, they will go to other places not mired with ethical bagage that will be able to provide breast exams, cancer screenings, education, and referals/actual mamograms. The only thing injured here is PP’s bottom line. No actual women are being harmed in this decision. PP doesn’t fill a void it competes for clientel. It is merely *one of* the places women can go to be screened for breastcancer. Of course if women believe the cult of PP’s lies that PP is the *only* place that provides woman’s healthcare then some women may be injured because they won’t know that they have other options. That’s a marketing ploy to drum up business for PP and any blame lays on their shoulders, not Komen, who will still be giving the same amount for breast exams for low income women. This has not one iota to do with leaving poor women unable to find breast cancer screening/dedection/treatment and everything with PP losing money.
“Megan et al – Komen dd not stop funding breast exams or related health services – they just stopped doing it through PP – once again, this is not about women’s health, it is about the more than 300,000 abortions they do each year”
If abortion is as lucrative as it is claimed to be, Planned Parenthood doesn’t need external funding from SGK or any other source, public or private, to continue to perform 300,000 (or 500,000, or a million, or however many) abortions per year, because not only do they pay for themselves, they turn a comfortable profit on top of that. Therefore, for people who are morally opposed to abortion, but presumably okay with less-profitable services like breast cancer screenings, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever to celebrate here.
joan – well, then, maybe PP should give up all that public funding since they do not need it and count on what makes them money – abortion – then at least everyone will realize what exactly they are – and they could change their name to AbortionsRUs since they would no longer need to fool the public or the government about what really matters to them and their bottom line
Yes Jespren, but do you know how grants work? There’s an application process, typically a lengthy one. And since PP is a national organization, that money–if Komen decides to even allocate it in the same way, which you’re taking for granted–needs to be broken up into smaller bundles. All of this takes time. But it doesn’t matter for the women who rely on these services, who are CURRENTLY using PP as their go-to for reproductive and sexual healthcare. It doesn’t matter that women might have to go to one place for a pelvic exam, and to another to get a referral for a mammogram. You don’t actually have a Plan B, just a load of bogus ideology.
Since PP is so concerned about women, maybe they should just do the screenings for free – I am sure all the PP cheerleaders would be happy to donate to support that work
i think i will call susan komen ( near me ) and tell them what a great thing they have done! i mean abortion leads to breast cancer so one would wonder y komen would fund pp. it would be like an a doctor running a rehab for drugs and writing scripts for oxycontin xanax methatone etc.
Sadly that happens as well, Heather. A family friend went to a non-profit “Christian” rehab and ended up working as a drug dealer for the very “Christian” “doctors” who were supposed to be helping him. *sigh*
PRAISE GOD he has since found REAL help…which women will also have the chance to do now that SKG has directed funds elsewhere. :)
Law looks like a waffle.
Just noticed.
Free and low cost mammograms.
http://myhealthcafe.com/free-and-low-cost-mammograms-in-the-50-states-and-d-c-and-puerto-rico
Holy Macaroni, Batman! Joan just typed something I can quote and agree with!
“If abortion is as lucrative as it is claimed to be, Planned Parenthood doesn’t need external funding from SGK or any other source, public or private, to continue to perform 300,000 (or 500,000, or a million, or however many) abortions per year, because not only do they pay for themselves, they turn a comfortable profit on top of that.”
Well said. (I often correct people about PP’s non-profit status: it is merely a tax status and yes they do make a nice profit).
Let the defunding train roll on!!!
Pssst, Marie Stopes, you are sooo next!
Megan, Komen has already stated these funds will be allocated to other groups they work with. It’s on their website and at least one press release and that they are *already* working with local organizations to make sure there is a continuation of care. But no, I don’t care if women who want to go to PP for a pap smear may need to go elsewhere for a mamogram referal. That’s what you do. If I have a broken arm you go to the ER, if I have neurological symptoms I go to a neurologist, if I need some antibiotics I go to my GP. If I needed a low cost filling I go to the dental college. What I don’t do is expect the local Urgent Care clinic to do everything because I don’t want to leave the house a second time. ‘1 stop shopping’ is a convience, not a necessity. And the notion that a women *might* have to go to a different provider for this years breast exam than last years breast exam doesn’t strike me as worth mentioning. (Personally I’ve never had one two years running with the same doctor anyway). Providers change, services change. And when you’re dealing with a company that mires itself in unethical practices that will likely happen. Other more ethical options are the ‘plan A’, not some slopped together ‘plan b’. Again the only reason any real women will be harmed by moving funds from PP to other organizations is if they believe the PP cult lies about PP being the *only* service provider.
“This is patently false seeing as how Student’s t-test is taught in nearly every single elementary statistics course in colleges across the United States. …to make the blanket statement that a sample size of 300 amounts to “junk science” is to be ignorant of statistics.”
A sample size of 300 from a start population of 3.5 billion is not even a sample size, and no t-test will make a collection of 300 people from one country BE a significant sample especially in a study of epidemiology. Since there was no link to this study, there is no information as to how the women were selected and whether or not their self-reporting was accurate. If Sri Lanka does not have medical privacy laws (no I didn’t bother to look), then the researchers could cross reference medical files, but as you know, studies of MUCH, MUCH larger and more random samples show no link between abortion and breast cancer. So law was correct, this study is junk science of the worst kind, not just in light of common sense and logic, but in light of larger, better designed studies.
As for the cost of raising children:
“I’m sorry, but if it cost a quarter million to raise a child to 18, that would work out to about 38 dollars a day per child.”
For those living under the poverty line, $38/day is more money than they have. This is almost $14,000 a year. So while it’s nice that YOU have money to raise your children, many people living below the poverty line do not have that kind of money.
And while you can cut corners in many different ways by feeding your kids ramen every day and not sending them to a real school, and making sure they wear second-hand shoes and underwear, the cost to ACTUALLY raise a child, and not just keep one in your backyard shed like a hobby goat farm, is pretty staggering especially in an economy where many people are unemployed, employed only part time, cannot afford college educations for themselves to advance in their workplaces, are paying high prices for fuel and food, etc. Apparently this comes down to the fact that quality of life is in fact a quantifiable entity, and I am not sure the regulars here seem to care about it. Here is a recent article from the Guardian that breaks it down for you.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jan/26/cost-raising-children?newsfeed=true
“A sample size of 300 from a start population of 3.5 billion is not even a sample size, and no t-test will make a collection of 300 people from one country BE a significant sample especially in a study of epidemiology….So law was correct, this study is junk science of the worst kind, not just in light of common sense and logic, but in light of larger, better designed studies.”
No, I’m sorry, but Law did not claim that only THIS was junk science- he claimed that “a sample size of 300 is also known as junk science.” This was a sweeping blanket statement, what I might call to “junk debunk”; that is, not really knowing much about a particular study, but needing to find some way to quickly dismiss it because it makes a claim you do not agree with. Attacking teh sample size is popular, and so it the ever popular blow-off “correlation does not imply causation!” Now these can very well be true, but teh point is that they are often used just to critique a study with results that one does not like. Sure, maybe there are better studies in epidemiology and the way that this particular study was conducted may very well have been flawed. But again, this was not Law’s claim. The claim wa that a smaple size of 300 is a priori junk science, which is simply not the case. But yes, 300 would be enough to be within a reasonable confidence of even 3.5 billion IF… IF your methodology in selecting those 300 was truly a random sampling. But THAT is what should be critiqued here. Whether or not the sampling was good enough, not whether or not n=300 is a large enough sample size. The claim was a critique of the methods of statistics, which I am claiming and defending as being possible.
“Apparently this comes down to the fact that quality of life is in fact a quantifiable entity,”
Are you saying the cumulative amount spent on your upbringing is what defines your quality of life?
Did you even read your own link?
The figures assume a typical household where the child:
attends a private nursery from six months until they are five as both parents will return to work
attends state school, full time from age 5 to 18
takes an annual holiday from the age of one
attends university for three-years where tuition fees and living costs are paid in full by the parents
To cost these scenarios existing surveys were used, including:
Office for National Statistics Family Expenditure Survey for expenditure on toys, leisure, recreation, toiletries and household incomes
Mothercare prices on the costs of a baby plus estimates for disposable nappies and baby food
Child Poverty Action Group estimates for average spend on food and clothes for children
Daycare Trust estimates for the cost of nurseries, childminders, after school clubs, and summer playschemes
NannyTax Survey on the cost of nannies
National Union of Students estimates for university fees and living expenses
AA values for the average cost of driving lessons
If these are the type of things that are included in the cost of raising a child, clearly it is entirely possible to do it for much less than the amount stated.
For those living under the poverty line, $38/day is more money than they have. This is almost $14,000 a year. So while it’s nice that YOU have money to raise your children, many people living below the poverty line do not have that kind of money.
Those who claim it costs that much to raise children usually haven’t raised children.
“Don’t forget it: he has most who needs least. Don’t create needs for yourself.” St. Josemaria Escriva
“No, I’m sorry, but Law did not claim that only THIS was junk science”
Well, assuming that the topic was this particular BAD study, and not statistics in general, you’re being a douche. If a sample size is 300 and your population is 600, well then it’s a great study and I doubt law would disagree. You’re not exactly educating anyone here. Why nitpick? Because you think you caught her on something?
“not really knowing much about a particular study, but needing to find some way to quickly dismiss it because it makes a claim you do not agree with”
Law posted a link from cancer.org that talked about the most recent larger studies, so it’s not “needing to find a way.” If anything posting a link from The Daily Fail of all places that doesn’t even cite the study it talks about (and affirms exactly the same thing law said) is “needing to find a way” to dismiss the claim that abortion does not cause breast cancer. If abortion caused breast cancer, there would be MORE breast cancer deaths.
Here are the statistics showing how many women die of breast cancer per year, and it comes out to about 40,000 or so.
http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html
Whereas, since 1973 there have been approximately 50,000,000 abortions. In 2008, there were 1.21 million abortions performed.
Now, is 1.21 million anywhere close to 40,000? Statistics aside, can you do basic math? Do you know how to do minus?
If the claim “abortion CAUSES breast cancer” were anywhere close to being the truth, the number of abortions and the number of breast cancer deaths would be somewhere in the same ballpark.
So please stop peeing on my leg and telling me it’s raining.
“But yes, 300 would be enough to be within a reasonable confidence of even 3.5 billion IF… IF your methodology in selecting those 300 was truly a random sampling.”
Not in a study of epidemiology it’s not.
I have three kids, and we spend WAY WAY WAY less than that! That figure is laughable! I actually stayed home and raised mine for the 1st ten years plus I pack their lunches, they don’t go to expensive summer camps, I absolutely shop at Goodwill, and we drive an 11 year old car.
I’m pretty sure they’re happy and well-adjusted. Well, except for that crazy Christian church we make them go to every Sunday.
Lrning, awesome! LOL
I know many families who have decided that living on one income and having either a SAHD or SAHM to save cost on daycare/nannies, etc. is a much more effective way to allocate their resources. (P.S. – Did you know that making your own baby food is actually super easy and cheap? For a buck or less, I can buy a bag of frozen peas or carrots and cook and blend up my own baby food, freeze it in an ice cube tray, and instead of paying 80 cents for one jar of baby food that gets me maybe 2 feedings, I have spent approximately the same amount on something that will get me at least a dozen feedings.)
Driving lessons? A vacation every year from age ONE? ROFL Wow.
I’m amazed that any of us have survived to adulthood! :D
“Are you saying the cumulative amount spent on your upbringing is what defines your quality of life?
I think not dying at 45 of diseases brought on by poverty conditions would be a good start to defining a good quality of life when it is possible to live to be 80+. Being able to purchase quality food, healthcare, education, and clean living space are just the basic factors.
And yes, I did read my own link. I hardly think most working parents think that it’s not an option to utilise private childcare as opposed to leaving your child with the neighborhood child molestor to cut costs. Yes, they send their children to real school so they have a shot at a real education and thus a real life. Many families go on vacation and have toys.
Whereas those who think they are “affording” children by sitting in a hovel, grouping together to stay warm, educating their children out of the Wholly Babble and singing Grand Old Hymns for entertainment and feeding them Cream of Crap Casserole with tater tots on top for dinner are not truly parenting. They’re breeding. If you cannot afford to feed your child quality food, educate your child, or pay for quality healthcare for your child, you cannot afford a child and those are just the basics. A child is not a cat where you dump kibble in it’s bowl and call it a day.
Statistics aside, can you do basic math? Do you know how to do minus?
This is HILARIOUS when I consider who you’re talking to. :D Gave me a really good chuckle.
“I know many families who have decided that living on one income and having either a SAHD or SAHM to save cost on daycare/nannies, etc. is a much more effective way to allocate their resources.”
This is only applicable to two-parent families where one parent actually has a job that allows them to support a family of three or more.
Needless to say it does not apply to those making less than $14,000 a year or single parents. I think talking about one parent staying at home while the other one goes to his job as a stockbroker on Wall Street in a discussion about poverty is in poor taste and only shows your privelege.
“This is HILARIOUS when I consider who you’re talking to. Gave me a really good chuckle.”
I’m glad you think it’s funny? That said, you do know that paying for driving lessons not only saves lives but also on car insurance?
Just curious, apostate…you ever raised a child?
I LOVE the tater tots! Not gonna lie!
What is privileged about being a wall street stock broker? Why can’t that be a result of wise planning and choosing? I worked my BUTT off to get where I am, and so has my husband. Nothing was handed to us.
Oh, I get it….your’re one of those people who hates that there is no equal OUTCOME for people.
apostate says: Apparently this comes down to the fact that quality of life is in fact a quantifiable entity, and I am not sure the regulars here seem to care about it. Are you saying the cumulative amount spent on your upbringing is what defines your quality of life? I think not dying at 45 of diseases brought on by poverty conditions would be a good start to defining a good quality of life when it is possible to live to be 80+.
Wait a minute. You said “quality of life” is “quantifiable”. So are you now saying that quality of life is measured by the age at which you die? “I hardly think most working parents think that it’s not an option to utilise private childcare as opposed to leaving your child with the neighborhood child molestor to cut costs.” Obviously those are the only 2 choices. Can’t have Grandma babysitting the kiddos. Can’t share childcare with a friend that works a different schedule. Nope. “Yes, they send their children to real school so they have a shot at a real education and thus a real life” Ah. So parents that homeschool or don’t pay 100% of their children’s college aren’t giving their children a “real life”. Gotcha. “Many families go on vacation and have toys.” Of course they do. WHEN THEY CAN AFFORD IT! You DO recognize that toys and vacation are not necessities, yes? “Whereas those who think they are “affording” children by sitting in a hovel… are not truly parenting. They’re breeding.”
And here is where you exposed the fact that you have no idea what “truly parenting” is.
Here is the point I am attempting to make, apostate. 300 is definitely a large enough sample size if, say, you are figuring out a proportion of the population. If you take your point estimate p_0 and we have a simple random sample and a large enough sample size, we can obtain a, say, 95% confidence interval. In standard textbooks, large enough means np_0 > 5 and n(1-p_0)> 5 where n is your sample size. By the central limit theorem, n is then large enough so that we approximate the standard normal curve with a binomial distribution. There is NO mention of total size of teh population. In fact, the reason the central limit theorem works is because we assume that the population goes off to infinity since we are looking to approximate the normal curve with a binomial distribution. I’m not at all interested in the particular studies or statistics, abortion numbers, or any of that. I am concerned with the fact that a study was blown off because “the numbers are too small” which is junk debunking. For all I know you debunked teh study in your above post. I have no clue whatsoever if abortion and breast cancer is related. My concern is when people claim to be educating in statistics when in fact, they don’t know what they are talking about. You will find this business with the central limit theorem and computing confidence inetravls based on means, proportions, two proportions, two means, whatever, in any standard elementary statistics text. They assume a SRS and very minor conditions on mu or p or whatever.
“Oh, I get it….your’re one of those people who hates that there is no equal OUTCOME for people.”
And you seem like one of those people who doesn’t care that there isn’t, but that everyone should live like you anyway.
LOL a stockbroker on Wall Street? I have friends who work at as billers at doctors’ offices who support their families on a single income. You’re living in a dream world.
Look. I was raised in a single parent home by a mother without a college education who went out and got a job. So you can take your “privilege” and stick it where the sun don’t shine, because none of this $14000 a year required to raise a child is true.
Did you happen to see what Lrning posted? Or are you just too busy making assumptions about what you think my husband does for a living? My husband works for the agriculture industry. So, try again. LOL
(I have a friend who works in the ag factory who has no college education and he supports his family of 5 children and his wife, who is a SAHM, on his wages. Union workers are very, very well paid. What was that about Wall Street??)
“I’m not at all interested in the particular studies or statistics, abortion numbers, or any of that.”
Oh ok. Did you get lost on your way to class or something?
” I am concerned with the fact that a study was blown off because “the numbers are too small” which is junk debunking. ”
Well, let’s blow it off because it was cited in the Daily Fail and not even linked to, so no one even has access to it to talk about it. Does that work for you?
Yeah, “a child is not a cat where you can dump kibble in its bowl and call it a day.” But, sucking out a pre-born human by dilation and extraction or D&C, or shooting saline solution into his/her heart is really compassionate, huh?
Actually, the truth is I can’t do basic math. 7×8? I need my fingers!
apostate, you’re aware that driver’s ed is available through public school systems, yes? And in my area, there are no private driving lessons, because they are offered through the school district. Now who’s talking about “privilege?”
I hardly think most working parents think that it’s not an option to utilise private childcare as opposed to leaving your child with the neighborhood child molestor to cut costs.
LOL – you have a really sickening and sad view of the world.
Yes, they send their children to real school so they have a shot at a real education and thus a real life. Many families go on vacation and have toys.
Raised in a single parent home, I went to public school. Got a really great education. I had toys, but we didn’t go on vacation except to visit my grandparents for the summer (which made for some really great memories).
Whereas those who think they are “affording” children by sitting in a hovel, grouping together to stay warm, educating their children out of the Wholly Babble and singing Grand Old Hymns for entertainment and feeding them Cream of Crap Casserole with tater tots on top for dinner are not truly parenting. They’re breeding.
Oh, I see. So, if it’s not the kind of upbringing YOU think they should have, then it’s not really parenting. Gotcha.
Oh, lookie there! Your priviliege and anti-religious bias are showing! Tsk tsk.
If you cannot afford to feed your child quality food, educate your child, or pay for quality healthcare for your child, you cannot afford a child and those are just the basics. A child is not a cat where you dump kibble in it’s bowl and call it a day.
What is “quality food?” What constitutes “quality health care?” Tell me – do you believe some children are better off dead through abortion than being raised in a situation that isn’t up to your standards?
“So you can take your “privilege” and stick it where the sun don’t shine, because none of this $14000 a year required to raise a child is true.”
Assuming your single friends working as medical billers are utilising professional childcare (and I hope they are), they’ve already spent between $5K and $17K/yr depending on where you live. That’s just childcare for ONE child.
http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/child-care-costs-more-than-college/
Does not include healthcare, clothing, housing, food, etc. I mean, maybe having a kid doesn’t cost hardly anything if you feed it rice and let the dog babysit it while you’re at work, but for people below the poverty line, which NO ONE here wants to talk about, having children and raising them is not an affordable option. YOU know parents who raise their kids doing medical billing. I know parents who live in their car.
apostate, what a fool you make yourself out to be here. Assuming Bobby Bambino knows nothing about math is one very large mistake.
You know what they say about assuming…
“Well, let’s blow it off because it was cited in the Daily Fail and not even linked to, so no one even has access to it to talk about it. Does that work for you? ”
True, teh study probably should have been linked to. Without one being able to see teh study, I do agree that one is justified in not having to hold to its results.
I’d like to know why everyone who supports Planned Parenthood seems to think that Planned Parenthood is the only place in the U.S. where “poor” women can get “healthcare”. And why do they think that without Planned Parenthood poor women would all just get sick and die? There are plenty of other places women can go to get low-cost or free healthcare in the U.S.!! Anyone ever heard of federally qualified health centers?! Geez…just because Planned Parenthood is the most “popular” or the most widely advertised, doesn’t mean it’s the best and only place to go!
Amen Michelle!!
“Whereas those who think they are “affording” children by sitting in a hovel, grouping together to stay warm, educating their children out of the Wholly Babble and singing Grand Old Hymns for entertainment and feeding them Cream of Crap Casserole with tater tots on top for dinner are not truly parenting. They’re breeding. If you cannot afford to feed your child quality food, educate your child, or pay for quality healthcare for your child, you cannot afford a child and those are just the basics. A child is not a cat where you dump kibble in it’s bowl and call it a day.”
My kids are on state healthcare… should I consider myself a breeder instead of a father? I stay home with them and do play dates instead of paying for a private day care… should I give ’em up for adoption to someone more “worthy” (i.e. much wealthier than I am) of raising them?
I am assuming you don’t have children, and you were either raised rich or you were raised poor and bitter your parents couldn’t afford an X-box right when they came out. You don’t need a ton of money to give your children a good life. You do need the basics, a lot of love, energy, and time. I know plenty of street kids who came from wealthy families who were horrifically abused. That’s “quality of life”, sure. Because the only thing that matters is money, amirite?
Can’t stand elitists who sit around judging who is fit to raise children on crap like whether or not they can afford the “good schools”.
Not equal outcomes. Heck no! I want and have a society where hard work is rewarded, and the slackers don’t, where the ones who discipline themselves and study at college come up big versus the ones who play video games and beer pong. Equal opportunity, Ap. And the USA provides that like nowhere else in the world.
Everyone has, or had, choices. Sounds like you are bitterly disappointed with yours.
PS–never answered me. Have you actually raised a child?
Well, that depends on what you mean by “professional.” If you mean “grandparents” then nope.
There are families in my neighborhood whose children don’t have meals unless they come to the school everyday. Our church (GASP!!!!) packs backpacks full of nonperishable foods and gives them to the schools so they can give them to the neediest students every weekend so these kids have food until school again Monday.
I am telling you, as a person who was RAISED BY A SINGLE MOTHER, that it DOES NOT take $14000 per year to raise a child. It. Does. Not. Unless, of course, vacations to Disneyland are required, no child support is ever paid, and X-Boxes are requirements for daily life.
“Does not include healthcare, clothing, housing, food, etc. I mean, maybe having a kid doesn’t cost hardly anything if you feed it rice and let the dog babysit it while you’re at work, but for people below the poverty line, which NO ONE here wants to talk about, having children and raising them is not an affordable option. YOU know parents who raise their kids doing medical billing. I know parents who live in their car.”
Oh, and I have lived way, way below the poverty line my entire life. I was homeless too. Getting out of poverty to a more stable financial place? It’s doable. People need help but raising your children (you know, without having to kill them and give them up) and climbing out of poverty are not mutually exclusive.
Why are the parents in the car—for real??
Homeless parents (almost exclusively homeless single moms) are a real problem, Courtnay. I knew several. Of course, unlike our buddy here, I wouldn’t advocate killing their kids or taking them away. Whatever happened to giving people real help.
“Assuming Bobby Bambino knows nothing about math is one very large mistake.”
Well, I’m so scared I guess I’ll go out and buy a new set of boots so I can shake in them.
If Bobby Bambino is so good at math, then there really is no excuse for him if he touts the “abortion breast cancer” link. He should at that point know better.
“Assuming Bobby Bambino knows nothing about math is one very large mistake.”
Well, I’m so scared I guess I’ll go out and buy a new set of boots so I can shake in them.
No, but you should probably not automatically assume you are of superior intellect to others, when you don’t know anything about their backgrounds, degrees, education, or upbringing. It just makes you look stupid.
Make sure they’re the upscale kinds of boots, too, btw. Wouldn’t want to have you suffer by having to wear a sub-par pair of boots.
“I’d like to know why everyone who supports Planned Parenthood seems to think that Planned Parenthood is the only place in the U.S. where “poor” women can get “healthcare”. … Anyone ever heard of federally qualified health centers?! Geez…just because Planned Parenthood is the most “popular” or the most widely advertised, doesn’t mean it’s the best and only place to go!”
No one, not a single person, has made the claim that there are no alternatives whatsoever for poor women to receive inexpensive healthcare from. However, there are often steep opportunity costs for finding credible information about those alternatives that are beyond the means of many of the most disadvantaged people. Not everyone has access to the internet and an understanding of its function sufficient to manipulate a search engine into showing them local “federally qualified health centers” or, to use an earlier example, “free and low cost mammograms”. Planned Parenthood’s geographic, cultural, and social ubiquity has made it something that is instantly recognizable and accessible to most people, even if they haven’t, in fact, heard of federally qualified health centers. That is its great strength and the reason why the total value of its range of services is greater than the sum of its constituent parts.
“If Bobby Bambino is so good at math, then there really is no excuse for him if he touts the “abortion breast cancer” link.”
I have already mentioned that I have no idea about any link. I have never read a study on it, nor do I have the biological background to. I am an abortion-breast-cancer-link agnost, which is not a word.
“People need help but raising your children (you know, without having to kill them and give them up) and climbing out of poverty are not mutually exclusive.”
You know, for a board where breast cancer is caused by abortion, no one really seems all that concerned about povery causing more poverty. A large percentage of welfare families not only stay on welfare, but their children end up on welfare and those children end up on welfare, ad infinitum. It’s called the cycle of poverty. Children brought up in poverty are much more likely to stay there.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/nyregion/19neediestintro.html
“Poverty stymies performance in school and negatively affects mental and physical health, experts say. Poor children have higher rates of asthma, are more likely to suffer a higher rate of cognitive delays and developmental disorders.”
The answer? Unfettered reproduction, of course!
But then again, I guess poverty isn’t really that big of an issue. People can live there comfortably so why worry about them? As long as they have a school lunch and a second hand shirt, it’s all good!
“No, but you should probably not automatically assume you are of superior intellect to others”
Part of your problem might be that in insulting other people’s intelligence and appealing to your own authority only makes people try harder to show you for how wrong you are.
“I have already mentioned that I have no idea about any link. I have never read a study on it, nor do I have the biological background to. I am an abortion-breast-cancer-link agnost, which is not a word.”
LOL. An intelligent position.
“The answer? Unfettered reproduction, of course!
But then again, I guess poverty isn’t really that big of an issue. People can live there comfortably so why worry about them? As long as they have a school lunch and a second hand shirt, it’s all good!”
Copy paste where I said either that poverty is a good thing or “not an issue”, or that poor people should definitely run around popping out the max amount of babies. I look for solutions that don’t involve either terminating fetuses or continue the cycle of people stuck on welfare. Which birth control is a part of, sure. So is improving education, job-training, etc.
All I have said, is that raising children while attempting upward mobility is doable with help. Poor people with children don’t deserve to be degraded as breeders. I don’t think anyone who has fought their way out of poverty appreciates that classist attitude.
Apostate, my husband works and we live at a prohibitively expensive boarding school. These kids have never wanted for anything, including new clothes, vacations, personal chefs and Range Rovers. And they are some of the most spiritually bankrupt children that you will ever meet. They needed their hearts nourished, and that would have meant more to them than a week with pops and wife # 2 in St. Barts.
Then you have my husband who grew up on a dairy farm. His dad worked at the paper mill swing shift too. He had nothing extra. Put himself thru school and then grad school. I am sure I’ve had a casserole at his house with tater tots at some point. The most loving people in the world, and he is the hardest working man I know. All of his choices are not related to his family’s per capita, I promise you. It had to do with hard work, discipline, loving the Lord and being decent to one another. That definitely included not aborting innocent babies.
Again, how many kids have you borne and raised?
“LOL. An intelligent position. ”
Psh, heck no! The position of a moron.
Courtnay that is so sad but true…one of my closest friends is the adoptive daughter of a wealthy single mother who owns multiple private practice doctors offices…my friend and her twin sister both went to sepreate boarding schools of their choosing, go to expensive colleges, own brand new expensive cars, etc. etc. but they are MISERABLE.
We’ve heard it said/sung/turned into an adorable 80s teen flick: Money Can’t Buy Me Love!!!!
…but it can’t buy happiness, health (in many cases,) or parents who care about you, either.
Wow, not only do these naysayers know nothing about raising children, they know nothing about education or cooking either.
Homeschooling is actually more prevelent among the higher income brakets than the lower, and homeschooled children consistantly outscore in all areas of scholastic achievment their public school counterparts. A poor family with a stay at home mom (or dad) homeschooling is giving their kids a huge educational advantage over their public school peers. Many colleges today expressly recruit homeschoolers.
‘Poor’ cooking can be some of the best in the world! It’s not tater-tot casserole (although it certainly can be), it’s homemade meats, vegetables, and fruit. Because it’s way cheaper to make, for instance homemade chicken noodle soup (which I will be making tomorrow) with carrots, celery, mushrooms, onions, potatoes, brown rice and barely, unprocessed chicken, and homemade egg-flour noodles, and better for you per serving than the processed foods more common in double-income ‘well-off’ homes.
Money spent in no way equals happiness or quality of life, not when we are talking 1st world conditions like we have. I’ve spent most of my life, childhood and adulthood, more or less at the poverty line, I graduated (having been in public, private, and homeschool) with a 3.98 with a full ride to the college of my choice where I also maintained a 3.9. I have 2 wonderful children who do not take thousands of dollars to raise who have pretty much never tasted baby food (what a waste of money), never been in a daycare, and will never be in a public school. What they will be, just like I was/am, is bright, intelligent, happy, loved, and knowing money does not buy anything really important. My father, who has a genuis level IQ has worked as a machanic his whole life and provided a wonderful life for his family. I am absolutely ‘priviledged’, priviledged to know that all the MONEY MONEY MONEY! Or your life isn’t worth living is nothing more than a large pile of manure!
I know that breast cancer associations are frauds, but I didn’t think I’d see the day, when one of them so openly declares itself to be anti-women. Remarkable! They’re openly condoning mass rape!
”They’re openly condoning mass rape!”
Please explain this statement. What in the world are you talking about?
What the bleep is she talking about???
apostate –
“The answer? Unfettered reproduction, of course!”
No one here has said that the answer to poverty is unfettered reproduction. Is the answer to poverty abortion? Or is the answer to “unfettered reproduction” abortion?
I am not of the opinion that the US is “the best place in the world” for the hardest-working, smartest to succeed, and I find stories about pulling oneself up by one’s own bootstraps largely irrelevant if the teller graduated from high school anytime before 2000. Studies show that class mobility in the US is more restricted than in other western countries, etc; it’s a subject I’m quite passionate about. So it’s not like this entire place is THE BORG or something.
I was raised upper-middle class by parents who kept us in hand-me-downs, who sent us to public school, and who fed us mostly rice and beans in order to take us to classical music concerts, to ballets, and on educational vacations. We shared bedrooms, clothing, toys, and – later – cars. You can find a million different allegedly good or bad things about any childhood – some of them objectively bad (abuse), some of them just allegedly bad (hand-me-down clothing, uninteresting dinners), some of them allegedly good (private schools), some of them objectively good (love). You are throwing out all kinds of identity-politics crap (tater tots omg the horror) and in doing so you weaken the argument against poverty, because you link allegedly bad circumstances with objectively bad ones. Cut the identity politics and the cultural privilege.
Shoving an object in a woman’s vagina against her will. We define that as rape.
A forced birth shoves an infant into a woman’s vagina against her will and strips her of her identity for almost a year, reducing her to the status of the “holy-bebby-incubator”. With the added bonus of permanently wrecking her body, an option to further maim or kill her
But Susan G. Komen says that this is a fitting punishment for enjoying sex.
Really, Kathryn? Really?!? Tell me, when you go to the bathroom, do you also scream rape? Because that’s the end result of digestion. Giving birth is the end result of reproduction. This was all covered in 3rd grade when we learned about the circulatory system, the respiratory system, and so on. Maybe you were out with mono or something?
Your ignorance of the birth process is astounding, as well. You do realize that the contractions of the woman’s own uterus is what opens her cervix? Her own muscles propel her daughter or son out of her body? The image your words conjure up are laughable.
Now, if you want to talk about FORCE, acquaint yourself with the abortion process. The abortionist uses rods to force open the pregnant woman’s unripe cervix which is closed to protect the gestating human being. The next objects will vary depending on how long her child’s been allowed to live: a vacuum/suction machine, a sharp curette or forceps will dismember the living human being, extracting him or her in pieces through the mother’s vagina. Then there’s live-birth abortions where labor is induced with the expectation that the child will succumb due to immature lungs. Or sometimes the baby’s heart is injected with potassium chloride to induce cardiac arrest. Both ways, the baby still comes out.
Besides “permanently wrecking” her baby’s body, abortion can have severe consequences for the mother. An incompetent cervix in subsequent pregnancies, sterility, ectopic pregnancies, not to mention life-threatening lacerations of the bowel are just a few.
The baiting with “fitting punishment for enjoying sex” was a nice touch, as though opposing the violent destruction of human life somehow translates into anti-sex? Nope! Have at it, just don’t kill the people who result. Oh, and I DO so like yet another pro-abort reducing women by calling them “incubators”. Very empowering of you!
I guess Sydney and Jespren have lost their identities because of their pre-born children? How do they manage anything else other than growing people?
I am continually amazed at abortion-supporters total lack of regard for what women are able to be and do. Women are exceedingly capable, especially when motivated by love.
Klynn73, a yup! Just call me ‘incubator-girl’ able to grow small people with my amazing-but identity oblitorating- superpowers!
You seriously have to wonder if people actually think about what they are saying sometimes. And if they really have such a low expectation and bar for women’s abilities. Heck, during my 1st pregnancy, while I was also working full time, I wrote a 125,000+ word book. During my second pregnancy, while I was successfully caring for my first kid I particiated in sports, arts and craft competitions, and probably wrote another 100,000 words on my various stories. But, you know, those were *planned* pregnancies, with my current since I didn’t mean to get pregnant clearly all I will be capable of doing is staring into space…um, wait…I already entered 1 craft competition so far (maybe pro-choicers think I can blame my 2nd place finish on my pregnancy though, but somehow I think the 1st place contestant might object, after all, her work was marvelous) and am working on my entry into the next one…oh, and raising two kids and taking care of the house. I’d HATE to be this weak thing pro-choicers assume women are, I’m much happier being capable and ’empowered’ to live a full life *as a woman*.