Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood: Pro-Life People Should be Warned

Life News ^ | 5/24/10 | Hannah Carter

[wagglebee]

LifeNews.com Note: Hannah Carter is the director of education for Georgia Right to Life, a statewide pro-life group. This opinion column originally appeared on the GRTL blog web site.

Like many families, my grandmother and great-grandmother both had breast cancer. The issue of wanting to fight what harms your family or friends is noble. So when I tell people that I do not support Susan G. Komen an organization that exists to “fight breast cancer”, I normally get the look of one: why would you abandon your family or two: oh there goes one of those extremist.

However, my reasons are not that extreme, but rather principled.

I'm sure many of you reading this article have also been confronted with the issue of if I ‘m pro-life then how can I support an organization that supports the nation’s leading abortion provider. Hopefully, the following principles can shed some light on how to respond sympathetically, yet firm with why you cannot wear pink, or join the race, or all the various ways that Susan G. Komen is supported.

Principle # 1 Don't give to organizations that promote the shedding of innocent blood.

If this were a list of commandments, we could start with Thou Shall Not Kill. However, Proverbs 6:17 states that one of the seven things God hates are hands that shed innocent blood.

Unfortunately, Susan G. Komen has given over $3 million dollars between 2003 and 2008 to Planned Parenthood which is the nation’s leading abortion provider.

While Susan G. Komen makes claims that these grants go for breast exams, once the funds go to Planned Parenthood they are fungible. For example, you can throw two twenty dollar bills into a purse one from a friend and one from your own account, but when you go to pay the light bill you use both.

The same is true with Planned Parenthood’s money it receives from Komen. Whenever someone applies for a grant they can say that while this $5,000 is going to breast cancer research, 20 percent of that money is going to pay for administrative costs like keeping the lights on and paying rent. So in essence, the money that people are raising to fight breast cancer is also going to keep the lights on at Planned Parenthood.

According to the 2008 Annual Report from Planned Parenthood, breast cancer services decreased by 4% and abortion procedures increased by 6%. In 2008, Susan G. Komen gave $731,000 to Planned Parenthood.

Principle # 2 Know and Recognize the Risk Factors for the Disease You are Trying to Prevent.

There are certain risks that can increase an individual’s chance of getting breast cancer. While Susan G. Komen says that they believe in knowing your risk factors, they have repeatedly denied the link between breast cancer and one of the greatest avoidable risk factors, abortion.

According to Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, “29 out of 38 worldwide epidemiological studies show an increased risk of breast cancer of approximately 30% among women who have had an abortion.”

When a woman has an abortion she interrupts the natural process of estrogen production and breast development. When a woman first becomes pregnant her body produces a Type 1 carcinogen, cancer causing agent, estrogen in order to nourish and provide for the baby. If the mother has her child, her body stops producing as much estrogen and her breasts mature. However, if that process is interrupted, the estrogen production continues and her breasts stay in an immature state, making them more susceptible to breast cancer.

Groups like Susan G. Komen acknowledge that the level of exposure to estrogen throughout a woman’s lifetime is one of the greatest predictors for breast cancer. Sadly, they do not acknowledge that the increased exposure to estrogen after an abortion could increase risks of breast cancer as well. For an organization whose primary goal is “to have a world without breast cancer”, you would think they would try to let women know of all the risk factors for breast cancer, especially those that are preventable like abortion.

Recently, in an article by Jill Stanek, pro-life author and blogger, asked a very thought-provoking question, “Is it really “morally permissible” to cause breast cancer in one room if screening for it in the next?”

Stanek also noted in her article that recently that the ties between Planned Parenthood and Susan G. Komen are running deeper and deeper. See an excerpt below from Stanek’s article:

Three days ago a diligent pro-lifer in Washington state discovered on Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest’s IRS 990 forms that it has held a 12.5 percent share in Metro Centre, a mall in Peoria, Ill., since 2006. PPGNW is Washington’s largest abortion provider. (It is also currently under investigation for Medicaid fraud.) Metro Centre is owned by Eric Brinker. Eric Brinker is the son of Nancy Goodman Brinker, the founder of SGK.

Eric also sits on SGK’s board. Eric was a stand-up guy and responded to most of my initial questions. He explained in an e-mail, “This share represents a minority, non-operating interest in the business which they inherited from one of the original shareholders, a resident of Peoria. I, Eric Brinker, have controlling interest in Metro Centre.” But when I pursued follow-up questions, Eric wrote he was no longer available. So there is much still unanswered. Why didn't PPGNW cash in its inheritance? Why didn't Eric buy? If the share was willed, it was worth something. The real-estate market was thriving in 2006. It appears both partners are OK with this now four-year-old business partnership.

In essence, Planned Parenthood and Susan G. Komen’s nephew own a mall together.

The bottom line is that Susan G. Komen is not accomplishing its mission every time it gives to Planned Parenthood.

Every time a woman has an abortion and part of the money to fund that center staying open came from Komen, they are putting women at a greater risk for breast cancer.

Every organization no matter how noble the cause they claim to represent seems to be needs to be held accountable.

The question is will you?

To continue your search for the ties between Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood, please visit:

Susan G. Komen for the Cure Awards 72 Grants to Planned Parenthood

Komen Giving to Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz Down as Donations Drop

Planned Parenthood Deepens Link to Breast Cancer Group

Susan G. Komen’s List of Grants to Planned Parenthood

Studies about the Link between Abortion and Breast Cancer

Report: Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood: A Visible Link

[Eagle Eye]

Question for eveyone:

Is the National Cancer Institute a credible source for information?

If so, it says that, “Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.”

http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report

Not being an expert on this topic I just go by what supposed experts say.

So far the experts dispute the popular and unsubstantiated claim on this thread that abortions are positively linked to breast cancer.

And so far on this thread there is no evidence that outwieghs Komen’s outight denials of funding abortions.

Lots of claims that y’all are making but you’re not backing them up with evidence. I’m really astonished at how little weight the facts carry with y’all.

How do you expect true Liberals or marginal liberals to revise their opinions based on the facts you present to them if you won’t do the same yourself?

MESSAGE POINTS KOMEN/PLANNED PARENTHOOD

• At Susan G. Komen for the Cure®, our promise is to save lives and end breast cancer
forever.

• Scientific evidence in the U.S. and around the world does not support the conclusion that
induced abortion or miscarriage raises the risk of breast cancer. The latest and most
authoritative study was conducted by the National Cancer Institute in 2003. The conclusion
that abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk was considered to be “well
established” (the highest level of certainty) by more than 100 of the world’s experts in
pregnancy and breast cancer brought together by the NCI.*

• Komen Affiliates conduct community needs assessments to identify gaps in breast health
services in their area.

• Approximately 20 out of 125 Komen Affiliates provide restricted grants to Planned
Parenthood clinics for vital breast health services that could otherwise be unavailable to
some women. When a Komen Affiliate provides a grant to Planned Parenthood, in many
cases it is the only source of free or low-cost women’s health screening services in the area.

• For our fiscal year ’08, Komen Affiliates contributed nearly $805,000 to Planned Parenthood
programs. This represents less than 1 (one) percent of the total granted by affiliates that year
(nearly $81 million).

• For the past five years, again, a very, very small percentage (less than 1 percent) – in dollars
$3 million – went to Planned Parenthood programs from Komen Affiliates. Overall community
grants during that 5-year period increased from about $40 million to about $80 million.

• All Komen Affiliate grant applications are solicited by an open request for proposals and are
reviewed by an independent review panel that makes recommendations to the Affiliate’s
board of directors. Grant recipients must provide detailed reports to the Komen Affiliate at
least bi-annually.

• Komen and its Affiliates do not provide any funding for abortions or for any activities outside
the scope of our promise to end breast cancer.

• Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s headquarters has never awarded grants to Planned
Parenthood.

Source: National Cancer Institute. Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer
Workshop. Available at: www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report.

[wagglebee]

Is the National Cancer Institute a credible source for information?

If so, it says that, “Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.”

And then you go on to link a study from 2003 while you IGNORE the threads I linked in post 110, all of which are MUCH NEWER.

There is an agenda in this country to push abortion, you can ignore it, you can deny it, you can even support it, but it exists.

Lots of claims that y’all are making but you’re not backing them up with evidence. I’m really astonished at how little weight the facts carry with y’all.

No, you just ignore the evidence and assume that the abortion industry MUST be telling the truth.

You've been asked multiple times on this thread, but I will ask again, which part of this is personal to YOU? Is it breast cancer or just the need to push abortion?

You seem to have adopted the attitude that we are all somehow opposed to curing breast cancer, and that couldn't be farther from the truth.

NOBODY, not you, not Komen and not Planned Parenthood have yet to demonstrate how breast cancer screening that is designed for women OVER 40 is being best utilized in clinics that are geared to women UNDER 30.

When a Komen Affiliate provides a grant to Planned Parenthood, in many cases it is the only source of free or low-cost women’s health screening services in the area.

Can you name a SINGLE area where this is the case? Just ONE.

[trisham]

Excellent post, wagglebee.

[wagglebee]

If you look at the first link in post #210, you will see that the head of the 2003 study now admits that the study was WRONG:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2423346/posts

[trisham]

An April 2009 study by Jessica Dolle et al. of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center examining the relationship between oral contraceptives (OCs) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), an aggressive form of breast cancer associated with high mortality, in women under age 45, contained an admission from Dr. Brinton and her colleagues that abortion raises breast cancer risk by 40%.

The study found that "a statistically significant 40% increased risk for women who have abortions" exists, and that a " 270% increased risk of triple negative breast cancer (an aggressive form of breast cancer associated with high mortality) among those who used oral contraceptives while under age 18 and a 320% increased risk of triple negative breast cancer among recent users (within 1-5 years) of oral contraceptives," also exists.

This means that women who start using OCs before age 18 multiply their risk of TNBC by 3.7 times and recent users of OCs within the last one to five years multiply their risk by 4.2 times.

***************************

So she does, and with more than adequate reason.

[Eagle Eye]

It wasn’t my intention to even discuss the links between breast cancer and abortion since I assumed it was factual.

The link today was something I stumbled on while looking for something else and surprised me.

I’m just constantly surprised at the amount of information you post that is either totally or mostly incorrect.

Those bullet points that you want me to verify are off of Komen’s literature. You are the one saying that that Komen is lying so it is upon you to provide documentation to support your claim. I have no obligation to step in on Komen’s behalf to support their claims.

The truth is that your battle isn’t with me it is with Komen. The problem you have is that Komen denies your claims.

You are challenging their claims but you are only doing it based on theory, not any evidence that proves anything.

Based on their figures, on average they grant about $3300 per clinic of breast health screening and education. That looks like about what one would expect to pay for a part time nurse and clinic space and equipment.

So you don’t agree with what they do? You still haven’t proven your claims.

[wagglebee]

It wasn’t my intention to even discuss the links between breast cancer and abortion since I assumed it was factual.

It is factual.

The link today was something I stumbled on while looking for something else and surprised me.

Yes, it's seven years old and one of the main researchers has since disputed it.

Those bullet points that you want me to verify are off of Komen’s literature. You are the one saying that that Komen is lying so it is upon you to provide documentation to support your claim. I have no obligation to step in on Komen’s behalf to support their claims.

You've been supporting Komen throughout this thread.

You have NEVER addressed the reality that the typical woman going to Planned Parenthood is at least a decade away from needing a mammogram.

The truth is that your battle isn’t with me it is with Komen. The problem you have is that Komen denies your claims.

Yes, that's why I posted this thread in the first place. NOBODY pinged you to come to their defense.

You are challenging their claims but you are only doing it based on theory, not any evidence that proves anything.

Actually, that's not true. YOU seem to want to ignore the facts that have been posted. Here is the evidence that I already posted:

 

National Cancer Institute Researcher Admits Abortion Breast Cancer Link

Research: Women in China See 17% Higher Breast Cancer Risk From Abortion

Abortion, birth control pill linked to breast cancer, surgeon says

Group Wants Probe of National Cancer Institute Abortion-Breast Cancer Coverup

Jill Stanek: Top scientist finally admits abortion-breast cancer link

Komen for the Cure Races as Research Shows Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

Surgeon Says Abortion Ups Breast Cancer Risk, Full-Term Pregnancy Helps Lower It

New research backs abortion-breast cancer link

New Study Finds 66 Percent Increased Breast Cancer Risk After Abortion

When Abortion Kills Twice: The Abortion/ Breast Cancer Link

Breast Cancer Doc: Fed Govt Ignores Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

British MPs to Propose Bill Investigating Abortion Breast Cancer Link

Abortion Predicts Breast Cancer Better Than Other Factors, Study Shows

Abortion Definitely Increases Breast Cancer Risk, Researcher Tells NRLC Convention

First ever Abortion-Breast Cancer Settlement [ABORTION causes BREAST CANCER]

Based on their figures, on average they grant about $3300 per clinic of breast health screening and education. That looks like about what one would expect to pay for a part time nurse and clinic space and equipment.

So, this is just a guess on your part?

So you don’t agree with what they do? You still haven’t proven your claims.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

The link between abortion and breast cancer is established.

The link between PP and abortion is established

The link between Komen and PP is established.

[trisham]

Another excellent post, wagglebee.

[metmom]

Hmmm, I wonder why the Komen Foundation isn’t supporting work like THIS........

Hopes for breast cancer vaccine (Monumental if it works on humans the way it works on mice)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2525728/posts

If they were really interested in defeating breast cancer, they’d put their money where it would actually do some good instead of stealth supporting PP and the abortion industry, thereby funding the deliberate increase in breast cancer.

[wagglebee]

You’ve got to be kidding, EVERYONE with a bit of sense should realize by now that the ONLY WAY to cure breast cancer is to get everyone to wear pink ribbons.

[metmom]

Or use pink batteries, or buy pink stamps (for an extra fee of course), or endorse this, that, or the other pink color coded thing.....

[wagglebee]

Or use pink batteries, or buy pink stamps (for an extra fee of course), or endorse this, that, or the other pink color coded thing.....

Yep, the left believes "awareness" is an accomplishment.

Here are the FACTS:

1. Smoking can increase the risk for breast cancer. Everyone was "aware" of this long before they heard of the Komens.

2. Family history of breast cancer can indicate an increased risk for breast cancer. Just about everyone in this group was "aware" of this long before they heard of the Komens.

3. Both abortion and birth control pills can increase risk for breast cancer. Very few people are aware of this because groups like Planned Parenthood are keeping a lid on the information and the Komens ARE HELPING THEM DO IT.

[magritte]

Hey Wags...I’m really surprised at your statement about women over 40 not going to PP...they offer a huge range of services including flu vaccinations, cholesterol screenings, thyroid checks and all kinds of other stuff...PP is not just an abortion mill, it’s a one-stop for a bunch of services unrelated to abortion or “Reproductive services”...magritte

[wagglebee]

Hey Wags...I’m really surprised at your statement about women over 40 not going to PP

I didn't say that women over 40 don't go to Big Murder, I'm saying that Big Murder's typical patient is a woman who in her teens, twenties or maybe early thirties.

PP is not just an abortion mill, it’s a one-stop for a bunch of services unrelated to abortion or “Reproductive services”

Yep, like many businesses, Big Murder has figured out that "diversification" is an easy way to keep down the cost of their "core" business (and by core business I mean the MURDER of thousands of innocent Americans EACH DAY and oftentimes the murder is carried out to help a rapist conceal his crime).

[Eagle Eye]

I looked at several articles including some of the abstracts.

I seriously doubt you or most of your ping list bothers to read your articles or supporting documents, seemingly just rely on sensational headlines and opening paragraphs. The articles you post certainly don't give strong arguments to your case, and you've been told this before!

One of your main cases shows a 17% increase in a certain subtype of breast cancer...triple negative whatever that is, and there are greater risk factors across the board than induced abortions, or say the studies. The articles and studies are not saying that induced abortion is linked to all forms of breast cancer or that it is even the greatest risk factor.

Mild associations between abortion and breast cancer are thus easy to find, but no unbiased, empirically valid study has ever found a causative relationship, or even more than a very mild associative relationship.
government shrinker

One of the greatest fallacies in reading these articles is the notion that a positive correlation aka "link" even implies causation. Correlation never even implies causation. Never. Not in breast cancer, not in brain cancer, not in strep throat. A link to a risk factor does not indicate in anyway causation.

Now if you stay true to form, you'll accuse me of something, like being pro abortion because I don't see the studies as saying what you claim...You'll be like the MADD mother who triumphantly proclaiming that something like 32% of traffic fatalities were alcohol related, then I responded that sober drivers seem to be a greater threat than do those with alcohol!

Does that observation make me pro-drunk driving? Of course not. And my statement that your links to studies don't really say what you want them to say (they are mostly propaganda searching for something that may be marginally present) will undoubtedly be misinterpreted as well.

But that seems to be the nature of your posts, propaganda and misinterpretation.

[magritte]

Just curious on all of this...I eat at Sonic, wear Nike shoes and stayed at a Courtyard Marriot this year. Does that make me pro-abortion? Where is the line?

[Maverick68]

I guess “the line” is defending someone who is “actively” involved in the destructive behaviour....

[wagglebee]

I seriously doubt you or most of your ping list bothers to read your articles or supporting documents, seemingly just rely on sensational headlines and opening paragraphs. The articles you post certainly don't give strong arguments to your case, and you've been told this before!

No, the articles support the headlines.

One of your main cases shows a 17% increase in a certain subtype of breast cancer...triple negative whatever that is, and there are greater risk factors across the board than induced abortions, or say the studies. The articles and studies are not saying that induced abortion is linked to all forms of breast cancer or that it is even the greatest risk factor.

Did you read on to where it points out that this type of breast cancer is the one most likely to KILL PEOPLE?

One of the greatest fallacies in reading these articles is the notion that a positive correlation aka "link" even implies causation. Correlation never even implies causation. Never. Not in breast cancer, not in brain cancer, not in strep throat. A link to a risk factor does not indicate in anyway causation.

Then why is Big Murder going out of its way to say that there is no corrolation between abortion and the Pill and breast cancer?

And my statement that your links to studies don't really say what you want them to say (they are mostly propaganda searching for something that may be marginally present) will undoubtedly be misinterpreted as well.

I'll ask again the question you REFUSE to answer:

Are you on this thread to defend Komen or to defend abortion?

[wagglebee]

Did I say that?

Komen is raising MILLIONS of dollars to “fight” breast cancer, why are they giving that to a group that promotes activities that CAUSE breast cancer?

[Eagle Eye]

Hmmm, I wonder why the Komen Foundation isn’t supporting work like THIS........

Have you bothered to ask them?

IMO you and your cohorts have an attraction to gossip and innuendo.

The Komen site is easily accessible. Not saying they will answer but if you don't post the question they never will.

However, IMO you don't really want them to answer, you'd prefer to smear them by implication.

Well if Palin really cared about women/children with disabilities/the environment/single mothers/families/cutting government....then she'd do such-and-such

It is an old and time tested technique that has worked for the dishonest Liberals for years.