Boycott the Susan G. Komen Foundation!

[KathleenElsie]

A study was done about 25 years ago that looked into the severity of birth defects. The conclusion said was that the with the advancement of medical care more severely impaired children were being born to those parents that had good health care. (upper and middle class mostly)

A second follow up study done a few years after that came to the same conclusion with this exception. Pre-natal screening for welfare and the poor working families that were eligible for free medical care did not receive better pre-natal care but had more abortions to eliminate the potential “defective” babies. (at the governments expense)

So the poster that said they don’t see many “downs” children is right in some socioeconomic strata.

 

[mesquite_magic]

A study was done about 25 years ago that looked into the severity of birth defects. The conclusion said was that the with the advancement of medical care more severely impaired children were being born to those parents that had good health care. (upper and middle class mostly)

A second follow up study done a few years after that came to the same conclusion with this exception. Pre-natal screening for welfare and the poor working families that were eligible for free medical care did not receive better pre-natal care but had more abortions to eliminate the potential “defective” babies. (at the governments expense)

So the poster that said they don’t see many “downs” children is right in some socioeconomic strata.

That poster has never been to a Special Olympics meet, then. I see athletes from every scocio/economic background when I take my son to his practices. Hmm… I think that’s for another thread.

Kim

 

[Jennifer123]

Well, their homepage says that breast cancer is increasing, the CDC says it’s decreasing…

“Over the last thirty years, while most major cancers have started to decline, breast cancer incidence in the US has increased by an alarming 40%…”

cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5622a1.htm

“Age-adjusted annual incidence rates for invasive breast cancer decreased each year from 1999 to 2003, with the greatest decrease in rates occurring from 2002 to 2003 (Table). The rate from 2002 to 2003 decreased 6.1%, with a significant decrease occurring for all women aged >50 years. The largest decrease (9.1%) occurred among women aged 60–69 years. For in situ cancers, rates increased each year from 1999 to 2002 and then decreased from 2002 to 2003, although the percentage decrease (2.7%) was smaller than that for invasive cancers (6.1%). Women aged 50–79 years experienced a significant decrease in incidence rates of in situ breast cancer from 2002 to 2003.”

This sort of thing makes me very skeptical of the spin they may choose to put on other information.

I have read the material from these groups and the biggest piece of information that I get from them is that early pregnancy is something greatly to be desired, as early as possible, preferably as a teenager, so that you reduce your risk of breast cancer. Given all the other issues involved with teen pregnancy, out of wedlock childbearing and the age at which most Americans marry (25 for women), I am not sure that is the best message to be putting out there and emphasizing.

Breast cancer rates may be declining because of the reduction in the use of hormone-replacement therapies (HRT) :
consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/04/hrt_breast_cancer.html

This correlates with the information you provided, seeing that the largest decline was in post-menopausal women and actually validates the research showing the link between ABC and breast cancer, since ABC’s are actually low to medium doses of synthetic estrogen and progesterone hormones, which is what the evidence shows is causing the breast cancer risk.

As for “young pregnancies”, actually the highest risks are for women and their first pregnancies.

 

[KarenNC]

Breast cancer rates may be declining because of the reduction in the use of hormone-replacement therapies (HRT) :
consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/04/hrt_breast_cancer.html

This correlates with the information you provided, seeing that the largest decline was in post-menopausal women and actually validates the research showing the link between ABC and breast cancer, since ABC’s are actually low to medium doses of synthetic estrogen and progesterone hormones, which is what the evidence shows is causing the breast cancer risk.

As for “young pregnancies”, actually the highest risks are for women and their first pregnancies.

Highest risks for what, exactly?

Yes, indeed, the decrease probably has a lot to do with the reduction of the use of HRT, and that’s a good thing. I have not disputed that hormonal forms of birth control (and those are not the only kinds of birth control available) may indeed have a correlation with an increased risk of estrogen-related breast cancers—how much such increases a particular woman’s risk and how that risk plays into a woman’s other risk factors, I leave to the experts. I gave up using the pill a number of years ago because of other known side effects that were more of a risk than I was willing or advised to take (circulatory, blood pressure)—my husband opted for a vasectomy instead. No medication is without side effects. Read the warnings associated with aspirin or other OTC meds sometime. The question is whether the potential benefit outweighs the risk of side effects.

My discussions have been about the linking of abortion and what is being presented as a very substantial increase in the risk of breast cancer. I don’t see that the majority of the research supports such. My issue is also with groups who use scare tactics and deliberately misleading spins on data to inflate the perceived danger of a situation. I don’t see it as any more ethical when done in the name of a good cause than I do in the name of an advertiser on an infomercial.

There are plenty of reasons and fronts on which to oppose abortion. To do so based on outdated or faulty data doesn’t help your position.

 

[Jennifer123]

Highest risks for what, exactly?

**Women who terminate their first pregnancy have a much higher risk for breast cancer:

“Recently, we found that a first-trimester abortion, whether spontaneous or induced, before the first full-term pregnancy is actually associated with an increase in the risk of breast cancer.” [Henderson, B.E., Ross R., Berstein, L.; “Estrogens as a cause of human cancer,” The Richard and Hinda Rosenthal Foundation Award Lecture, University of Southern California School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California: Cancer Res 48:246-253, 1988]

"Abortion is an “elective surgical procedure and a woman’s exposure to the hormones of early pregnancy – if it is interrupted – is so great, that just one interrupted pregnancy is enough to make a significant difference in her risk” [Professor Joel Brind, President, Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, Endeavour Forum Public Meeting, August 24, 1999, Malvern, Victoria, Australia].

Because American Women already face a high lifetime risk of developing breast cancer of about 12.5 percent, boosting that risk by even a small percentage through the procurement of a single induced abortion is comparable to the risk of lung cancer from long-term heavy smoking. Approximately 1 in 100 women procuring an abortion is expected to die as a result of abortion-induced breast cancer. "

No where in the supporting material I’ve referenced mention that teen pregnancy is a solution to avoiding breast cancer.**

Yes, indeed, the decrease probably has a lot to do with the reduction of the use of HRT, and that’s a good thing. I have not disputed that hormonal forms of birth control (and those are not the only kinds of birth control available) may indeed have a correlation with an increased risk of estrogen-related breast cancers—how much such increases a particular woman’s risk and how that risk plays into a woman’s other risk factors, I leave to the experts. I gave up using the pill a number of years ago because of other known side effects that were more of a risk than I was willing or advised to take (circulatory, blood pressure)—my husband opted for a vasectomy instead. No medication is without side effects. Read the warnings associated with aspirin or other OTC meds sometime. The question is whether the potential benefit outweighs the risk of side effects.

**What is a potential benefit of OC’s that outweighs the risk of dying and leaving a family behind? Isn’t that the point of the SGK group and others? Don’t you think if these same women were indeed aware of the true risks of ABC,not to mention the breast cancer risk, but other risks as well, they may have chosen NOT to take OC’s? Isn’t that what CHOICE is about? **

My discussions have been about the linking of abortion and what is being presented as a very substantial increase in the risk of breast cancer. I don’t see that the majority of the research supports such. My issue is also with groups who use scare tactics and deliberately misleading spins on data to inflate the perceived danger of a situation. I don’t see it as any more ethical when done in the name of a good cause than I do in the name of an advertiser on an infomercial.

You’ll have to cite where on the homepage it specifically says breast cancer is substantially increasing because I didn’t see it. While breast cancer may be decreasing as a whole, again it is most likely due to the decline in HRT in post-menopausal women. But there is evidence that it may be increasing in younger women:
nature.com/bjc/journal/v96/n11/full/6603783a.html
so to say that it isn’t is unsubstantiated.

Abortion does increase the breast cancer risk and again I’ll cite the evidence and biological explanation:
abortionbreastcancer.com/abc.html
“Most induced abortions occur in normal pregnancies. Studies have shown that the longer
a pregnancy exists before an
abortion, the higher the risk
of breast cancer. This is due to
the same mechanism that causes
increased breast cancer risk in
premature births. After an induced
abortion, the mother is left with
more Type 1 and 2 lobules where
cancers start than before she was
pregnant. This causes her to be
at increased risk for breast cancer.
This is the basis for the
independent risk of abortion
and breast cancer.”

There are plenty of reasons and fronts on which to oppose abortion. To do so based on outdated or faulty data doesn’t help your position.

You are right - there are many reasons to oppose abortion. My point is that SGK, as long as they choose not to recognize the breast cancer / ABC / abortion link, is part of the problem and I refuse to support them at all. I am not the one using faulty data. Like I explained before - this link is too political to acknowledge and in the meantime women die. I don’t ignore facts to support an agenda.

 

[urban-hermit]

Highest risks for what, exactly?

Yes, indeed, the decrease probably has a lot to do with the reduction of the use of HRT, and that’s a good thing. I have not disputed that hormonal forms of birth control (and those are not the only kinds of birth control available) may indeed have a correlation with an increased risk of estrogen-related breast cancers—how much such increases a particular woman’s risk and how that risk plays into a woman’s other risk factors, I leave to the experts.

This is an important point. While abortion may only increase the risk of breast cancer to a slight degree for some women, it may well be responsible for a very large increase in risk for other women who have a combination of risk factors, such as having a family history of breast cancer and going on hormonal b.c. pills at an early age. A study done in 1994 by a pro-abortion-choice researcher, Dr. Janet Daling, here in my town of Seattle found that of the women in the study with all of the risk factors under consideration, all of them eventually developed breast cancer.

Janet Daling was practically villified by pro-abortion-choice activists. Yet she stood firm, both in her pro-abortion-choice stance as well as the validity of her findings. There are links to Dr. Daling’s findings on abortionbreastcancer.com

This might sound like over-the-top exaggerations and lies to some who are consciously or unconsciously committed to an abortion-permissive mindset, but for somebody whose life is actually at risk, telling her about this risk when you have research that supports the warning (whether you are definitively convinced by it or not) makes the warning ethical - even mandatory.

I gave up using the pill a number of years ago because of other known side effects that were more of a risk than I was willing or advised to take (circulatory, blood pressure)—my husband opted for a vasectomy instead. No medication is without side effects. Read the warnings associated with aspirin or other OTC meds sometime. The question is whether the potential benefit outweighs the risk of side effects.

My discussions have been about the linking of abortion and what is being presented as a very substantial increase in the risk of breast cancer. I don’t see that the majority of the research supports such. My issue is also with groups who use scare tactics and deliberately misleading spins on data to inflate the perceived danger of a situation. I don’t see it as any more ethical when done in the name of a good cause than I do in the name of an advertiser on an infomercial.

Well, I do not know the process by which you personally judge things to be ethical (I know that you are not a Catholic). But let me re-phrase what I hear you saying:

You gave up using the pill because of the known side-effects, but you feel that notifying women that abortion might carry eventually life-threatening risks is an unwarranted “scare tactic” akin to an unethical infomercial.

Keep in mind that there is no warning label that a woman reads before she goes in for an abortion. Keep in mind also that most of the women who go in for abortions are younger and less informed than you may be. We need to protect the most vulnerable - the babies and their young mothers.

There are plenty of reasons and fronts on which to oppose abortion. To do so based on outdated or faulty data doesn’t help your position.

True, but obviously your position is completely dependent on the data actually being faulty or outdated, which it has not been proven to be. At best it has been said to be inconclusive. There’s a big difference between “inconclusive” and “outdated or faulty” - especially when we are talking about a death-dealing operation and its effects.

 

[urban-hermit]

I found another organization that is worthy of donated funds and does not support the culture of death:

The John Paul II Stem Cell Research Institute
jp2sri.org

Please consider spreading the word about the John Paul II Stem Cell Research Institute as an alternative charity to Susan G. Komen, along with these other links which I will now plug again:

Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
bcpinstitute.org

The Polycarp Research Institute
polycarp.org

The Coalition on Abortion / Breast Cancer
abortionbreastcancer.com

 

[KarenNC]

This is an important point. While abortion may only increase the risk of breast cancer to a slight degree for some women, it may well be responsible for a very large increase in risk for other women who have a combination of risk factors, such as having a family history of breast cancer and going on hormonal b.c. pills at an early age. A study done in 1994 by a pro-abortion-choice researcher, Dr. Janet Daling, here in my town of Seattle found that of the women in the study with all of the risk factors under consideration, all of them eventually developed breast cancer.

That “all” equals 12 women.

I reiterate----take a look at all these studies in an historical context
pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1251638

"In the autumn of 1994, Janet Daling and her colleagues reported the findings of their much anticipated study of breast cancer in the generation of women “born recently enough to have had some or most of their reproductive years after the legalization of induced abortion”.41 As was the case in most such studies, their methodology involved in-person interviews with cases and controls in order to collect detailed information on the women’s reproductive histories. After attempting to take other risk factors into account, they found that, among women who had been pregnant at least once, those who had had an induced (but not a spontaneous) abortion had a 50 per cent higher risk of developing breast cancer before the age of 45 (RR=1.5) than those who did not, and that the highest risk was associated with abortion in the last month of the first trimester (RR=1.9). Contrary to some previous studies, including that of Pike and his colleagues, they reported no difference in risk associated with the number of abortions or in women with completed pregnancies. Much would be made by Brind and others of the findings which concerned women who had aborted before the age of 18. For this group, the relative risk was 9.0 if the abortion took place between 9 and 24 weeks of pregnancy, and all twelve of the women with a family history of breast cancer who had aborted before the age of 18 had later been diagnosed with breast cancer. But these categories represented less than 3 per cent of the total of 845 cancer cases, and the interpretation of such figures would also be complicated by the fact that cancer patients who had never had a completed pregnancy were being compared with a control group of parous women.42 Daling herself warned against reaching “a firm conclusion at the time”.43 In fact, Daling and her team published a study two years later which found that abortion was associated with a relative risk of only 1.2, that “there was no excess risk of breast cancer associated with induced abortion among parous women”, and that there was no sub-group “in whom the relative risk associated with induced abortion is unusually high”.44 That report would go largely unnoticed.

Janet Daling was practically villified by pro-abortion-choice activists. Yet she stood firm, both in her pro-abortion-choice stance as well as the validity of her findings.

“While the study was still in progress, Daling was pursued for days by a Virginia lawyer employed by a right-to-life group trying to recruit her as a spokesperson, and she recounted how she finally told him, “I don’t think you care one bit about breast cancer and women’s health”.47 Once the report appeared, newspapers, magazines, and television news shows publicized the highlights, many cautiously, but some in a partisan fashion, either praising or criticizing the study. Daling herself repeatedly told the media that politics and personal views should not be allowed to cloud the issue, but it was inevitable that breast cancer would become a new weapon in the abortion wars.”

 

[KarenNC]

No where in the supporting material I’ve referenced mention that teen pregnancy is a solution to avoiding breast cancer.

bcpinstitute.org/reproductive.htm
The timing of pregnancy in the course of a woman’s reproductive life is crucial to breast cancer risk.
The longer a woman waits before having her first child, the higher her risk because she has a longer “susceptibility window.” For example, a woman who gives birth at 18 has a 50-75% lower risk of breast cancer than a woman who waits until she is 30.

Interestingly, the same brochure says:
Ectopic Pregnancy:
This is the result of an embryo which grows outside of the womb (uterus); e.g. in the mother’s Fallopian tube. Its effect on breast cancer risk would most likely be small or minimal as the pregnancy usually ruptures or causes a medical emergency very early on in the pregnancy. There is too little data to be certain of any small risk elevation.

mayoclinic.com/health/ectopic-pregnancy/DS00622/DSECTION=2
At first, an ectopic pregnancy may seem like a normal pregnancy. Early signs and symptoms are the same as those of any pregnancy — a missed period, breast tenderness, fatigue and nausea

birth.com.au/class.asp?class=6620&page=5#
For the remaining 50% of known ectopic pregnancies, the woman will often experience the normal signs of pregnancy, missing her period and having a positive pregnancy test, but then sometime between the 4th and 12th weeks of pregnancy (commonly around 5 to 8 weeks), she will start to feel pain in her lower abdomen, often on one side of her belly.

cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm

As in the past, approximately 88% of all abortions for which gestational age at the time of abortion was known and reported adequately (44 reporting areas) were obtained at <12 weeks’ gestation (Table 1). …**CDC surveillance data indicate that approximately 60% of all U.S. abortions are performed at <8 weeks’ gestation, **

Interestingly, although ectopic pregnancies cause all the breast symptoms and changes of a normal pregnancy, those who are pushing the link between early abortion and breast cancer haven’t claimed that such raises the risk of breast cancer because the pregnancy ending very early…about the same time 60% of women who choose an abortion have that abortion.

This would appear to be a problematic statement.

Overall, I dislike these sorts of tactics as they fail to include things like the variance of risk due to other issues, how those risk factors may interact, whether they are considered statistically significant, do the findings apply to all breast cancers or only a certain type, etc. The picture they paint appears to me to be distorted. Full information makes for a better choice.

 

[He_Man]

i phoned our local breast cancer foundation here, and apparently, none of the profits here bought by products in the stores are going to the susan g komen foundation. ours are strictly going to the canadian breast cancer foundation, not the susan g komen foundation. so that is a huge relief!

That’s really all that is needed. Nice to see, I doubt it took that much on your part, and what a wonderful relief for one’s conscience. Good job!

The ends do not justify the means. We don’t do something tacitly evil to bring good.

Some people are acting as though this is the only way to contribute to a cure for cancer. If that were the case, then there would be a discussion wortt having. As such, this isn’t.

If there are links to PP, simply place your money elsewhere, and fight the cause still. I too (as someone mentioned) used to give to the March of Dimes when I was in my late teens because I figured, " they help kids, right?" Obviously now I know better, and despite what good they may do, this doesn’t negate the evil they support.

My money goes elsewhere; it reallt isn’t that hard to do…

Anyone insistning on contributing to a group with KNOWN ties to evil still hasn’t given a good reason why it HAS to be THAT GROUP PER SE, when there are other good groups who can be just as effective.

 

[KarenNC]

That’s really all that is needed. Nice to see, I doubt it took that much on your part, and what a wonderful relief for one’s conscience. Good job!

The ends do not justify the means. We don’t do something tacitly evil to bring good.

Some people are acting as though this is the only way to contribute to a cure for cancer. If that were the case, then there would be a discussion wortt having. As such, this isn’t.

Agreed, it is not the only avenue…and some are proclaiming that they are somehow being forced to contribute to a particular group simply because there are products out there that provide funds to a certain group.

My position is that one should base one’s objections on accurate information rather than emotional responses, data that is no longer considered scientifically accurate or blindly following the person who yells the loudest. One should also strive to be consistent—if you are supporting a boycott of one group based on certain issues, it is a bit inconsistent to then advocate changing support to another group who has the same positions on those issues.

 

[He_Man]

Agreed, and too often, we read something on the internet and assume it to be true. I am sure we have all been guilty of this; I know I have.

We as Catholic are required to perform our due diligence on these matters when they are of serious consequence.

 

[Jennifer123]

bcpinstitute.org/reproductive.htm
The timing of pregnancy in the course of a woman’s reproductive life is crucial to breast cancer risk.
The longer a woman waits before having her first child, the higher her risk because she has a longer “susceptibility window.” For example, a woman who gives birth at 18 has a 50-75% lower risk of breast cancer than a woman who waits until she is 30.

Interestingly, the same brochure says:
Ectopic Pregnancy:
This is the result of an embryo which grows outside of the womb (uterus); e.g. in the mother’s Fallopian tube. Its effect on breast cancer risk would most likely be small or minimal as the pregnancy usually ruptures or causes a medical emergency very early on in the pregnancy. There is too little data to be certain of any small risk elevation.

mayoclinic.com/health/ectopic-pregnancy/DS00622/DSECTION=2
At first, an ectopic pregnancy may seem like a normal pregnancy. Early signs and symptoms are the same as those of any pregnancy — a missed period, breast tenderness, fatigue and nausea

birth.com.au/class.asp?class=6620&page=5#
For the remaining 50% of known ectopic pregnancies, the woman will often experience the normal signs of pregnancy, missing her period and having a positive pregnancy test, but then sometime between the 4th and 12th weeks of pregnancy (commonly around 5 to 8 weeks), she will start to feel pain in her lower abdomen, often on one side of her belly.

cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm

As in the past, approximately 88% of all abortions for which gestational age at the time of abortion was known and reported adequately (44 reporting areas) were obtained at <12 weeks’ gestation (Table 1). …**CDC surveillance data indicate that approximately 60% of all U.S. abortions are performed at <8 weeks’ gestation, **

Interestingly, although ectopic pregnancies cause all the breast symptoms and changes of a normal pregnancy, those who are pushing the link between early abortion and breast cancer haven’t claimed that such raises the risk of breast cancer because the pregnancy ending very early…about the same time 60% of women who choose an abortion have that abortion.

This would appear to be a problematic statement.

Overall, I dislike these sorts of tactics as they fail to include things like the variance of risk due to other issues, how those risk factors may interact, whether they are considered statistically significant, do the findings apply to all breast cancers or only a certain type, etc. The picture they paint appears to me to be distorted. Full information makes for a better choice.

The information I and others have given you explain how an abortion is different, and carries more risk, than an ectopic pregnancy or natural miscarriage.

 

[KarenNC]

The information I and others have given you explain how an abortion is different, and carries more risk, than an ectopic pregnancy or natural miscarriage.

And I do not see that that information holds up as accurate in light of other research.

 

[Jennifer123]

And I do not see that that information holds up as accurate in light of other research.

So, with all due respect, you know better than The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, which published a study entitled, “The Breast Cancer Epidemic.” It showed that, among seven risk factors, abortion is the “best predictor of breast cancer,”, that I posted earlier?

I find this interesting:
aapsonline.org/press/abortioncancer.htm

"The president of the American Society of Breast Surgeons said that she presented her concerns about getting information to the public about the abortion-breast cancer link, but the board felt it was “too political.” The director of the Miami Breast Cancer Conference explained that there was no presentation on the program because it was “too political.”

The author found that the web pages of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and leading American and Canadian cancer organizations contain false statements, misrepresentation, and omissions in their discussions. Yet when pressured by scientists to post studies that show a 2.4 fold increase in breast cancer risk, pro-choice activist cried foul, accusing them of using “pro-life scare tactics.” Equally astounding is the fact that most of the 15 American studies were funded at least in part by the NCI, and 13 of them found increased risk. "

Emphasis mine.

I’m sorry but I just find you to be naive at best to suggest that this is all just smoke and mirrors, scare tactics, by pro-lifers. Your lofty pronouncements really don’t mean much to me - you talk about full consent and knowledge but all these groups refuse to acknowledge what they’ve been told for decades about this risk, not to mention the lifestyles we live now where fertility is something that can be amended at will or is treated as a disease.

This will only stop when trial lawyers get involved rather than the medical establishment, in full cooperation with the COD, which chooses to lose women’s lives for the benefit of their agenda.

For what it’s worth for any other people interested in the abortion breast cancer link, here is a resource for additional information, studies, etc:
etters.net/cancerTP.htm

 

[KarenNC]

So, with all due respect, you know better than The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

Actually, I don’t think that I know better than “over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk” who concluded in 2003, after studying existing research (clinical, population-based and animal), including the ones cited by most of the folks listed here, that abortion and miscarriage do not raise a woman’s risk of breast cancer.

cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage

"The Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop convened February 24-26, 2003, and the outcomes of the meeting were reviewed and discussed at the joint meeting of the NCI Board of Scientific Advisors (BSA) and Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC) held March 3, 2003.

The Workshop was established to provide an integrated scientific assessment of the association between reproductive events and the risk of breast cancer. Participants represented a diversity of breast cancer expertise, including epidemiologists, clinicians, basic scientists and breast cancer advocates. The Workshop evaluated the current strength of evidence of the characteristics of pregnancy related to cancer (epidemiologic studies), the biologic changes resulting from pregnancy that may be involved in modifying breast cancer risk (clinical studies), and the biologic mechanisms identified (animal studies).

This report summarizes the epidemiologic, clinical and animal studies findings related to early reproductive events and breast cancer risk, and each finding is given a Strength of Evidence Rating*. Gaps in research knowledge for each scientific area are identified, and recommendations for future research directions are provided."
cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report

I reiterate that folks should take a look at
pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1251638
“Breast Cancer and the Politics of Abortion in the United States” from the journal “Medical History” done in 2005.

 

[Bella3502]

How do you know they were Catholic and how do you know they 'know about Komen supporting PP

We all attend the same Catholic church. Some women ran with sashes that identified the church. That’s how I know. They do not believe the hype.

 

[AlegreFe]

We all attend the same Catholic church. Some women ran with sashes that identified the church. That’s how I know. They do not believe the hype.

The “hype” about what? About Susan G. Komen supporting Planned Parenthood? Do you know for sure that ALL those women knew exactly that SGKF supports PP?

 

[AlegreFe]

If you support the Susan G. Komen Foundation just because of their finances going to breast cancer research but yet you know that they also support the culture of death, that is like drinking a glass of orange juice with poison in it.

You drink the OJ because of the vitamin C and yet you know the poison is in there and yet you still want to drink it. It will still kill you even though it has the vitamin C in it. The poison will kill you no matter how much vitamin C is in it. THINK THINK! Please do NOT support that “poisonous drink” called the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

There are plenty of other cancer foundations that you can support.

 

[AlegreFe]

They talked about this on the Drew Mariani show on Relevant Radio today (Friday 10/19). You can download the show from their website.