Brother Joe Kamis, the superintendent for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cincinnati, reversed himself and is allowing Catholic Schools in the diocese to donate to the Susan G. Komen Foundation:
Kamis stated that "The archdiocese reversed itself after foundation officials agreed in writing to use the money only for breast cancer research"
While this might sound ok on the surface, it simply frees up more of Komen's funding, which possibly means more, or at least sustained, funding for Planned Parenthood.
Interestingly enough, according to a statement released today by the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, a study released yesterday in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons suggests that abortion is the "best predictor of breast cancer".
What are the implications? Well, one implication is that keeping the lights on at the nation's biggest abortion provider's clinics isn't going to help reduce breast cancer.
Adding to this problem is that breast cancer has been tied to use of the pill. (On that note, studies vary on the length of OC usage and the risk of breast cancer).
Planned Parenthood is the nation's largest provider of oral contraceptives and abortion, and while abortions have been declining, the number of abortions performed by PP has increased.
Now, while Planned Parenthood uses the Komen funds "only" for mammograms, the money PP receives from Komen helps keep the lights on, and that only helps keep the money pouring in and bodies pouring out.
And the more fungible money PP has, the more resources it has to open new abortion clinics in areas like Aurora, Illinois and Denver, Colorado.
As Brother Kamis stated, things may not be "black and white" - but just look at the shades of grey here. Shoring up Komen's research funds frees funds for turning over to PP, which in turn shores up PP's funds for establishing more clinics, which only helps increase the amount of abortions they perform.
To me, this isn't about shades of grey, it's about shades of red - blood red. Brother Kamis, please reverse your well intended but faulty decision.
When Colorado Right to Life met with Komen officials
in Denver last year, we asked why they don't want
women to be informed about the abc link (www.abortionbreastcancer.com.) We were told they
weren't about prevention but all about the cure.
Tell that to the tobacco industry!
Leslie,
Since your side relies on lies (ABC) maybe they were just ignoring you.
What is it about pro-choice folks here on this blog, almost always being insulters and name-callers? That, and the fact that you're unaware of the following, doesn't represent "your side" all that well, really:
You must call Eve Sanchez Silver a liar too, as she quit KOMEN itself because Komen was in bed with PP which also denies the ABC link. Read the press release yourself:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/9/prwebxml161187.php
She was a member of The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation's National Hispanic/Latina Advisory Council (SGK) and she is Director of Cinta Latina Research. Silver survived BC twice, and resigned from Komen after learning that Komen's affiliates help fund Planned Parenthood.
Silver said when she resigned,
"I can not reconcile The Foundation's decision to affirm life with one hand and support its destruction with the other. It makes me wonder what other abortion related agendas SGK may be supporting, like the black-out on the 16 statistically significant epidemiological studies linking abortion to breast cancer. Is one hand washing the other?"
http://afterabortion.blogspot.com/2004/09/susan-g.html
I don't know what it is "about pro-choice folks here on this blog, almost always being insulters and name-callers?"
I said ABC is a lie.
So did the National Cancer Institute:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-02-26-cancer-usat_x.htm
If you think pointing out that your side disinforms women to scare them is name-calling, then you have very thin skin.
"Then you have very thin skin."
Ahh, the favorite "name-call du jour" of the prochoice crowd lately coming here to belittle those of us here who've looked closely at both sides of the research literature on this.
You proved my point, again.
Saying that ABC is a lie, is calling those of us who have seen and believed the many researchers who say it ISN'T a lie, liars.
The NCI originally published the study of one of its own researcher which found that there was such a link. Then NCI turned around and changed their stance, ignoring the research that found and still finds the link to be plausible, including that researcher who happens to be prochoice, Dr. Janet Daling, who in a 1994 NCI Journal wrote: "If politics gets involved in science, it will really hold back the progress we make. I have three sisters with breast cancer, and I resent people messing with the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It's not a matter of believing. It's a matter of what is."
If you think MY pointing out that your side disinforms women to wrongly lull them into a completely false safety is lying, then you have your head in the sand.
Maybe you'd be interested in the 2000 China Abortion/Breast Cancer study that
National Cancer Institute funded but
doesn't want anyone to know about.
Why don't they? ...because it means that then people will know that as many as 4,262,500 U.S. women (who had 3 or more abortions between 1983 and 2002) likely have increased our risk of postmenopausal breast cancer by about 60 to 70%...
...and of the 6,500,000 U.S. women who've had only two abortions in that same twenty year period , we have either a 60% increased breast cancer risk (if we had our second induced abortion [IA] under the age of 45), or a 70% increased BC risk (if we had the first of two IAs at or above age 35).
...and among the 13,850,000 U.S. women who've had only one abortion, of those having that abortion prior to our (last) live birth (FTP), we may have increased our BC risk by 40%. Including me personally.
That's what the results of that NCI-funded study translate to, in real, hard statistics.
At the NCI, it appears that if it doesn't completely exonerate abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer, even its own funded study gets the deep six.
I did the research on this and posted the article over two years ago.
http://afterabortion.blogspot.com/2005/07/deep-sixed-2000-china-abortionbreast.html
Of course, you won't or can't follow through on reading it.
Here's the pre-study proposal in its planning stage. http://www.cancercontrol.cancer.gov/grants/abstract.asp?applid=6376290
This isn't the first time that cancer agencies or other serious medical group have tried to silence the truth:
A comment at the time of that post, over at Amy Welborn's Open Book, is worth repeating here, http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2005/07/deepsixed.html:
"I've seen this pattern of suppression first hand. In 1995, researchers at a large, Midwestern university found a positive association between abortion and breast cancer. They actively sought suggestions from my research group about how to "hide" these findings.
In the 1980s, researchers at CDC studying cancer and steroid hormones (e.g., birth control pills) found an association among breast cancer and the Pill among young women. The researchers changed the age groups in the published study to hide the effect. (This is likely the same study marym refers to above.)
Sadly, perhaps ironically, one of the persons responsible for legalized abortion in the U.S. might herself have been a victim of the abortion-breast cancer link. Dr. Sarah Weddington, "Roe"'s attorney, had an abortion before she was 26 (when she brought Roe's case). She was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2001.
Posted by: Cranky Lawyer at July 24, 2005 10:13 AM"
It cracks me up that the NCI and all those of your ilk are still dragging out the much- and long-discredited Melbye/Danish study! As per your own USAToday link, which reads,
"Scientists view a study of 1.5 million Danish women, published in 1997, as the last word on the subject because of its size and design. That study found no association. Mads Melbye, lead author of the Danish study, presented unpublished follow-up data at a workshop session that was closed to the press."
Gee. I wonder why. Why it was unpublished and why it was closed to the press. Has it been published since that conference over 4 whole years ago? I don't know of it. BTW, that conference was the one that the NCI refused entrance to Dr. Janet Daling, whom I mentioned to you in comments above. This constitutes blacklisting her.
Let me give you some of the real truth on that study:
The 1997 Melbye study (also known as the Danish study) has been severely criticized, in particular in the New England Journal of Medicine, for its errors of misclassification and data adjustment:
1) Its researchers started counting the incidence of the disease -- recorded during a 5 year period -- before counting abortions, the cause of increased risk factor for the disease. You can't do that and expect to have valid, comparable facts!
2) Melbye misclassified 60,000 women who'd had abortions as not having had abortions!
3) Even Melbye reported that for each week of gestation, a 3 % increased risk was found, so that after the 18th week there was a statistically significant 89% increased risk for women choosing an abortion.
The American Cancer Society also continues to rely on Melbye.
Now you know why we have reason to be entirely skeptical, nay, cynical, about what the NCI and the ACS have to say about this topic.
And it is far too interesting that, even if that NCI China study cover-up didn't start on his watch (National Cancer Institute Director Andrew C. von Eschenbach, M.D. became Director in January 2002), it continued after he joined and he still was "president-elect of the American Cancer Society at the time of his appointment to the NCI."
What a coincidence that the NCI then became so much "in agreement" with the ACS in their mutual fight to protect abortion and the $1.3 billion abortion industry in this country.