Boycott the Susan G. Komen Foundation!

[PLAL]

What is the best alternative then to support breast cancer research?

You can still support breast cancer research but don’t give any money to the Susan G. Komen Foundation because they give some of it to Planned Parenthood.

There is a direct link between Abortion/Contraception and Breast Cancer and to learn more about the link listen to Karen Malec on the Audio Archives on this link…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=78841

---

If you want to support breast cancer research without having funds funneled to Planned Parenthood then you can give funds to one of the following…

1. Polycarp Research Institute (www.polycarp.org)
2. Breast Cancer Prevention Institute (www.bcpinstitute.org).
3. AbortionBreastCancer.com www.AbortionBreastCancer.com or by mailing us at P.O. Box 152, Palos Heights, IL 60463

 

[PLAL]

Karen Malec was on “Catholic Answers Live” on 1-20-06 explaining the connection between Abortion/Contraception & Breast Cancer. You can listen to the show on the Audio Archives…

Go to www2.catholic.com/radio/calen…h=01&year=2006

Then go to 1-20-06 and click on “The Abortion/Breast Cancer” Show.

When the window opens up, click on the link next to “Listen (Real)”.

---

It’s a 55 minute talk. So if you don’t have the time to listen to all of it, I will let you know the important parts to listen. Here they are…

IMPORTANT SEGMENTS

10:00 (minutes into the program) Biology Explaining the Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer.

45:50 (minutes into the program) Please Explain the Biology on How Contraception Contributes to Breast Cancer?

---

OTHER SEGMENTS

2:30 (minutes into the program) Studies Showing A Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer.

22:45 (minutes into the program) Information on the Relationship Between Oral Contraceptives & Breast Cancer.

27:30 (minutes into the program) Why Does the Susan G Komen Foundation Never Tell Women About the Link Between Abortion/Contraceptives & Breast Cancer?

36:30 (minutes into the program) Studies about Breast Cancer Risk/Who Should You Believe About Whether or Not There’s A Link Between Abortion & Breast Cancer?

PLAL

 

[urban-hermit]

"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”.

Yes. Dr. Daling is pro-abortion-choice, so this statement is not surprising. I suspect many abortion apologists feel that same way about anybody who is pro-Life.

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.

Again, not surprising. If study results were to come out linking abortion to any negative physical effect on the women who undergo abortions, pro-abortion-choice groups and perhaps even some news outlets such as the New York Times might be quick to find an angle which would tend to minimize or cast doubt upon those results. A lot depends on your mindset going in.

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.

Again, these are basic basics. When reporting upon an issue which some people see as the unjust killing of a human child and the violation of his mother, and which other people see as a simple medical procedure which is their constitutional right, it is best to stick to the facts. That being said, it is probably unrealistic to expect abortion to be discussed dispassionately, since the only people who generally pay attention have a more or less strong opinion one way or the other.

…to be continued…

 

[urban-hermit]

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).

Ok, so if RR=1.5 translates to a 50 per cent higher risk of developing breast cancer before the age of 45, I’m assuming that RR=1.9 means you would have a 90% higher risk of developing breast cancer before age 45 if you had your abortion(s) in the last month of the first trimester. Correct me if I’m wrong. (when are you going to start arguing your side? … )

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.

Wow! So, if I’m understanding this right (you let me know), that means their data indicated that this particular group of women - women under 18 who had abortions between 9 and 24 weeks of pregnancy - had a 900% higher risk for breast cancer. I’m not trying to twist the facts or “spin” anything here - that’s what this says, right?

…to be continued…

 

[urban-hermit]

But these categories represented less than 3 per cent of the total of 845 cancer cases…

Ok - gotta jump in here. Even if only 3% of young women who get abortions are at the risk referred to in the previous section - which was a 900% increased risk of breast cancer - those women, those with that fatal combination of risk factors, should def-in-ite-ly be apprised of that situation. Are you with me on that, KarenNC?

…, 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. Daling herself warned against reaching “a firm conclusion at the time”.

Granted. So if I am a woman who had an abortion after 9 weeks before I was 18yo, I shouldn’t panic or give up hope because that was just one study…

Of course it would be natural to be a little put out, though, that I never even heard about this study before I had the abortion. …But I guess that couldn’t be helped. (or could it have?)

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.

Ok, when you say, in the above quote, a relative risk of “only” 1.2, that means the risk of breast cancer is elevated by 20%, do I have that right?

…and when you say, no excess risk of breast cancer associated with abortion among parous women (parous women = women who have given birth before once or more times), those three qualifying words are kind of important, aren’t they?

 

[KarenNC]

Well worth reading…How to evaluate health risks:
stats.org/in_depth/evaluate_healthrisks/How_eval_health_risks.htm

"Only “experimental” or “controlled” studies can prove whether a particular drug or activity is the cause or the cure of a particular illness. “Observational” or “epidemiological” studies may find an association or a correlation between taking a drug and an outcome, but they cannot say with absolute certainty that one is the cause of the other. "

In particular this section which discusses evaluating relative risk vs. absolute risk
stats.org/in_depth/evaluate_healthrisks/health_risks_page5.htm

"In the absence of checking that the results are “statistically significant”, a risk factor of less than two is more like to be due to chance than a study finding a risk factor of three or four.

Even when the results are statistically significant, risk increases of less than 200 percent (a factor of two) are more likely to have an unanticipated bias that could falsely imply an actual risk. This is especially the case in observational studies, where many factors can inadvertently skew the results. If an observational study links something to a 30 percent increased risk of cancer, even if it is a statistically significant association, it may not be reliable. While these small increased risks may sound alarming, most scientists do not consider the risk significant enough to prompt a major change in behavior without additional evidence."

and the FAQ on relative risk vs. absolute risk
stats.org/in_depth/faq/absolute_v_relative.htm

“An important feature of relative risk is that it tells you nothing about the actual risk. This can be very important for evaluating how significant a relative increase might be. A small increase in risk in a large population can result in many deaths. For example, brain tumors are diagnosed in about 6 per 100,000 persons per year, whereas malignant breast cancer is diagnosed in about 134 per 100,000 people. A 10 percentincrease (relative risk of 1.1) in brain tumors means .10 x 6 = .6 new cases per 100,000 people. On the other hand, a 10 percent increase in breast cancer affects 134 per 100,000 people. If the population of the United States is 300 million (which is 3,000 times 100,000), the small increase in brain tumors would result in .6 x 3,000 = 1,800 new cases. In contrast, the same increase of rate in breast cancer would result in 134 x 3,000 = 402,000 new cases, more than 200 times as many.”

 

[Bella3502]

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?

Yes I do, so what is your point?

 

[urban-hermit]

and the FAQ on relative risk vs. absolute risk
stats.org/in_depth/faq/absolute_v_relative.htm

"An important feature of relative risk is that it tells you nothing about the actual risk. This can be very important for evaluating how significant a relative increase might be. A small increase in risk in a large population can result in many deaths. …

Thank you for pointing this out. Abortion is, unfortunately, so common that any increase it causes in breast cancer translates to many more lives lost.

Research will continue and in time perhaps more data will actually be published to convince more doctors that abortion is physically harmful for women. Some doctors are already convinced; others, not so much.

Be that as it may, having a baby at an earlier age decreases a woman’s risk of breast cancer. That is more or less accepted as a fact by the experts. Combining that fact with whatever studies have moved some doctors to suggest there could be other links between abortion and breast cancer, we can agree I think that it is well within the bounds of ethical behavior to tell young women who are faced with the choice of having a baby or having an abortion that their breast cancer risk will statistically be lower if they have the baby, and higher if they have an abortion.

Of course, this does not mean that we tell teenage girls to go out and deliberately get pregnant to lower their risk of breast cancer. It simply means if a young girl is already pregnant, and from the point of view of statistical breast cancer risk, it is better for her to have the baby than to have an abortion.

As Karen alluded to in an earlier post, this is not the BEST reason not to have an abortion, it is just ANOTHER reason not to have an abortion.

Neither the SGK Foundation nor Planned Parenthood recognize this link. Neither do they effectively point out that using hormonal birth control also statistically increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer. It seems they are ideologically constrained from doing so.

This is why these organizations, who claim as their guiding principle a concern for women and prevention of disease, are not good candidates to receive our donations.

BETTER ALTERNATIVES:

The John Paul II Stem Cell Research Institute
jp2sri.org

Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
bcpinstitute.org

The Polycarp Research Institute
polycarp.org

The Coalition on Abortion / Breast Cancer
abortionbreastcancer.com

 

[Philothea53]

Now that is just absurd. Yes, I have seen folks with Down Syndrome. Lots of them, of all ages.

ndss.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=31&id=105&Itemid=194

I see people with lots of other disabilities as well.

Do some women have an abortion because there is a diagnosed birth defect? Yes, some do but far from all.

In Britain, more babies with Down syndrome are aborted than are allowed to be born. In America, more than 80 percent of the babies diagnosed prenatally with Down syndrome are aborted.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51671-2005Apr13.html

Medical researchers estimate that 80 percent or more of babies now prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted. (They estimate that since 1989, 70 percent of Down syndrome fetuses have been aborted.)
seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/232776_focus17.html

Until this year, only pregnant women 35 and older were routinely tested to see if their fetuses had the extra chromosome that causes Down syndrome. As a result many couples were given the diagnosis only at birth. But under a new recommendation from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, doctors have begun to offer a new, safer screening procedure to all pregnant women, regardless of age.

About 90 percent of pregnant women who are given a Down syndrome diagnosis have chosen to have an abortion.
nytimes.com/2007/05/09/us/09down.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

 

[Mary_Harmon]

What if we let all of the companies that donate a portion of their product sales know that we won’t buy their product as long as they contribute to Susan G. Komen? I just let Progresso soup know that I won’t be buying their soup anymore. I will do the same with any other product that supports this foundation.

 

[AlegreFe]

What if we let all of the companies that donate a portion of their product sales know that we won’t buy their product as long as they contribute to Susan G. Komen? I just let Progresso soup know that I won’t be buying their soup anymore. I will do the same with any other product that supports this foundation.

We used to buy Progresso products but stopped about a year ago.

Good idea on letting them know. But it is also a good idea to let them know why you do not want to support the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Perhaps they do not know that they support Planned Parenthood. And perhaps they are also fooled by Planned Parenthood & the media as to what PP really does. That name “planned parenthood” sounds harmless. But many people are deceived as to what they really do and what it really means. Let them know and perhaps they will stop donating to the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Let them know that there are other charities where they can send their donations. Please see urban-hermit’s post for those alternative charities. Perhaps a letter would be better so that they can have a record of the facts of Susan G. Komen and of Planned Parenthood. You can also add those alternative charities in the letter.

 

[kita04]

:clapping: This truly is great information ! I don’t want to but, the only thing that I buy with the little pink ribbon on it is the Egglands Best Eggs. Man I’m gonna miss those eggs. Our RTL group has acquired another memer (yay) and she works for a large company who was going to push the Susan G Koman charity - however - she wrote to her HR rep. and because of the controversy, has asked who else to give to for Breast Cancer Research and I really like the idea of giving straight to the American Cancer Society. Thank you so much ! You guys just diverted a great deal of money away from Susan G Koman.

:choocho: One Does What One Can ! It’s the Devil who wants to convince you that this task is too great !

 

[suzbat]

I love the Church and I love my long history of it. This kind of thing, however, I find displays a lack of true research and compassion. I have a child with cancer, therefore any organization, especially Susan G. Komen’s, that provides research to cures is angelic in any sense. When I thought I was pregnant with my first child (married a few months and new to my area, so no doctors had been sought out yet), I needed to know right then and there. We were so excited with the possibility of this new life blessing us so soon. It was, of course, a holiday weekend. Guess who confirmed and CELEBRATED this pregnancy with me? The fine folks at Planned Parenthood! The doctor I saw had 5 of her own children, gave me the name of her own OB-GYN (at that time closed to new patients, but she got me in!) and every nurse in there hugged me!

Since I went back in there, with flowers for the doctor, I (being a Catholic and a curious one) looked over the “options” for someone finding themselves with child at an inopportune time. It’s not a facdtory to kill babies - in fact they are so many steps to go through (counseling, videos, presentations on the life stage your fetus is currently at, etc) and you cannot go in without having gone through all of the steps and it takes several days of said counseling and meetings and processing to get a girl to a point of making her own best decision. They also present equal amounts of info on adoption, WIC, childcare help to keep girls in school, etc.

The truth is that the abortions performed there make up such a very small percentage of what they do. They detect cancer in mostly underprivileged women and get them the care they need to beat their disease, live to be the mothers they want to be and support them kindly through the process.

The image you present is, not suprisingly, the one I grew up with. It just, sadly, is very inaccurate.

Because of this topic, a friend of mine who runs an organization to help children affected with cancer (patients, siblings, children of patients, friends, etc) was turned down by our local Catholic High School to simply partner with them to provide service opportunities to students. Susan G. Komen is a link on her website (obviously to provide help to those who absolutely need it). This woman is trying to help children LIVE and not suffer every single moment of their treatment time, but that wasn’t pro-life enough. That, my fellow Catholics, is embarrassingly sad.

I will continue to go to mass. I will continue to be pro-life (for myself - others can and do make their own decisions as they are they ones who need to live with them), but I will also continue to support Susan G. Komen and to spread the word of my experience with Planned Parenthood.

 

[st_lucy]

I love the Church and I love my long history of it. This kind of thing, however, I find displays a lack of true research and compassion. I have a child with cancer, therefore any organization, especially Susan G. Komen’s, that provides research to cures is angelic in any sense. When I thought I was pregnant with my first child (married a few months and new to my area, so no doctors had been sought out yet), I needed to know right then and there. We were so excited with the possibility of this new life blessing us so soon. It was, of course, a holiday weekend. Guess who confirmed and CELEBRATED this pregnancy with me? The fine folks at Planned Parenthood! The doctor I saw had 5 of her own children, gave me the name of her own OB-GYN (at that time closed to new patients, but she got me in!) and every nurse in there hugged me!

Since I went back in there, with flowers for the doctor, I (being a Catholic and a curious one) looked over the “options” for someone finding themselves with child at an inopportune time. It’s not a facdtory to kill babies - in fact they are so many steps to go through (counseling, videos, presentations on the life stage your fetus is currently at, etc) and you cannot go in without having gone through all of the steps and it takes several days of said counseling and meetings and processing to get a girl to a point of making her own best decision. They also present equal amounts of info on adoption, WIC, childcare help to keep girls in school, etc.

The truth is that the abortions performed there make up such a very small percentage of what they do. They detect cancer in mostly underprivileged women and get them the care they need to beat their disease, live to be the mothers they want to be and support them kindly through the process.

The image you present is, not suprisingly, the one I grew up with. It just, sadly, is very inaccurate.

Because of this topic, a friend of mine who runs an organization to help children affected with cancer (patients, siblings, children of patients, friends, etc) was turned down by our local Catholic High School to simply partner with them to provide service opportunities to students. Susan G. Komen is a link on her website (obviously to provide help to those who absolutely need it). This woman is trying to help children LIVE and not suffer every single moment of their treatment time, but that wasn’t pro-life enough. That, my fellow Catholics, is embarrassingly sad.

I will continue to go to mass. I will continue to be pro-life (for myself - others can and do make their own decisions as they are they ones who need to live with them), but I will also continue to support Susan G. Komen and to spread the word of my experience with Planned Parenthood.

You do know that PP does not provide mammograms.

And even One abortion is too much don’t you think? And you are way off on the stats on abortion being a small percent. I will get the stats to you by the end of the day to enlighten you.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

Like MOST people? I hardly think so. Especially not Catholics who believe in the sanctity of life. Every penny that Komen gives to Planned Parenthood for mammograms frees up other PP money for abortions and abortofacient contraceptives. Komen knows this yet persists. There are other alternatives to Susan Komen. The best way to ‘boycott’ Komen is to support the others, particularly the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer.

I read a bit in the Boston Herald the other day which pretty much said that the Susan G, Komen Foundation is in hot water with other breast cancer research organizations, since they’d been a bit more than questionable in how they distributed their donations. One group, might have been the American Cancer Institute, started a “Think Before You Pink” program, to educate people on how to donate prudently to breast cancer research. God could be working in a mysterious way through them…

Personally, I find Komen anNOYing with the way they have to saturate everything with PINK. As a breast cancer survivor friend of mine once said, 'It’s as if they think, ‘Oh, we’ve got our magical PINK SPARKLY RIBBONS! We’re invincible!’." Which gave me the hilarious mental image of some middle-aged women in Sailor Moon-type outfits, brandishing lengths of shiny pink satin ribbon.

 

[jediliz]

one good experience does NOT override that they push graphic sex ed that ENCOURAGES promiscuity and encourages inappropriate touching (I don’t have to say the word…for Catholics this is a major bad sin). They also lie to women about fetal development… They also were founded by a RACIST EUGENICIST!

And how do you know that 100% of the $ you give to Susan G Komen is going to research? That organization also supports the destruction of HUMAN EMBRYOS…tiny human beings!

I’d rather support an organization that I know does NOT give money donated to FIND A CURE, to an organization that does over 300K abortions a year!

Sorry, but both Planned Parenthood AND Susan G Komen are BAD NEWS.

 

[Castello]

I love the Church and I love my long history of it. This kind of thing, however, I find displays a lack of true research and compassion. I have a child with cancer, therefore any organization, especially Susan G. Komen’s, that provides research to cures is angelic in any sense. When I thought I was pregnant with my first child (married a few months and new to my area, so no doctors had been sought out yet), I needed to know right then and there. We were so excited with the possibility of this new life blessing us so soon. It was, of course, a holiday weekend. Guess who confirmed and CELEBRATED this pregnancy with me? The fine folks at Planned Parenthood! The doctor I saw had 5 of her own children, gave me the name of her own OB-GYN (at that time closed to new patients, but she got me in!) and every nurse in there hugged me!

Since I went back in there, with flowers for the doctor, I (being a Catholic and a curious one) looked over the “options” for someone finding themselves with child at an inopportune time. It’s not a facdtory to kill babies - in fact they are so many steps to go through (counseling, videos, presentations on the life stage your fetus is currently at, etc) and you cannot go in without having gone through all of the steps and it takes several days of said counseling and meetings and processing to get a girl to a point of making her own best decision. They also present equal amounts of info on adoption, WIC, childcare help to keep girls in school, etc.

The truth is that the abortions performed there make up such a very small percentage of what they do. They detect cancer in mostly underprivileged women and get them the care they need to beat their disease, live to be the mothers they want to be and support them kindly through the process.

The image you present is, not suprisingly, the one I grew up with. It just, sadly, is very inaccurate.

Because of this topic, a friend of mine who runs an organization to help children affected with cancer (patients, siblings, children of patients, friends, etc) was turned down by our local Catholic High School to simply partner with them to provide service opportunities to students. Susan G. Komen is a link on her website (obviously to provide help to those who absolutely need it). This woman is trying to help children LIVE and not suffer every single moment of their treatment time, but that wasn’t pro-life enough. That, my fellow Catholics, is embarrassingly sad.

I will continue to go to mass. I will continue to be pro-life (for myself - others can and do make their own decisions as they are they ones who need to live with them), but I will also continue to support Susan G. Komen and to spread the word of my experience with Planned Parenthood.

And Hitler made sure the trains ran on time.

How many babies to they have to kill before you stop celebrating them?

 

[kita04]

wow, niice ! Point given very well.

 

[Jonatello]

Every dollar we give to something good will eventually see a fraction circulate to something bad.

When it comes to abortion (something I’m passionately, passionately against), we miss the boat for the buoys.

Wherever there’s a will, there’s a way. So long as there is wide-scale demand there will be wide-scale acceptance, and nobody will ever end abortion though lawbooks or boycotts. The only thing focusing on such practically-symbolic battles will do is cause more collateral damage, like potential setbacks for women with breast cancer.

If you want to save real babies in real wombs, stop bickering and threatening, and start working harder to make sure struggling, scared mothers and children (and fathers) aren’t abandoned by society. Focus more energy and funding power on the actual lives of the life issue.

Focusing on the availability/legality is very small gains at potentially grave costs.
Focus on the motives: fear, scorn, desperation, economics.

An abortion isn’t a political issue, its a real occurrence. Work on the reality.

 

[st_lucy]

Every dollar we give to something good will eventually see a fraction circulate to something bad.

When it comes to abortion (something I’m passionately, passionately against), we miss the boat for the buoys.

Wherever there’s a will, there’s a way. So long as there is wide-scale demand there will be wide-scale acceptance, and nobody will ever end abortion though lawbooks or boycotts. The only thing focusing on such practically-symbolic battles will do is cause more collateral damage, like potential setbacks for women with breast cancer.

If you want to save real babies in real wombs, stop bickering and threatening, and start working harder to make sure struggling, scared mothers and children (and fathers) aren’t abandoned by society. Focus more energy and funding power on the actual lives of the life issue.

Focusing on the availability/legality is very small gains at potentially grave costs.
Focus on the motives: fear, scorn, desperation, economics.

An abortion isn’t a political issue, its a real occurrence. Work on the reality.

It seems that you might missing the point of fighting against abortion. Our voice do have point. Giving to people like Susan G. Komen Foundation, we are saying we are okay with our money going to butcher babies.

There are many many org. that go out of their way to make sure that our money is not going to PP. Those are the groups that we need to support. The Komen Foundation has been not been shy to reconize the fact the more than half of their money is going to PP, even though they are aware of the breast cancer, BC and abortion links. So it seems to me acinine to even give our money to group who is not really out to help “find the cure”

Also on a side note. There are many many clinics that are set up to help women. These clinincs offer real sollutions in their clinics. Like paps, mamms, and counseling. All these are done with out fed. money and only on donations. The PP org is constantly trying to shut our clinics down. We compete with them. And when someone says I am “something I’m passionately, passionately against” abortion but I think we need to support PP it is really not helping the cause.