Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation connections to Planned Parenthood

[KarenNC]

Doesn’t really matter where it’s restricted or unrestricted and I say this as a CPA who is the accountant for many nonprofits. Money is fungible. When people restrict their funds for a certain use that means that unrestricted funds don’t have to be used for this purpose and can be used for other things, in the end the nonprofit ends up spending the same amount of money on each function regardless.

What you are saying is that if I give you $5 to go buy Halloween candy for a class party, then you can turn around and use the $5 you intended and already had slated to buy Halloween candy for that party to buy beer.

That is very different than saying that I gave you $5 to go buy beer or that I gave you $5 to go buy anything you want.

In my experience in non-profits (perhaps other nonprofits are different–my experience was in services to people with developmental disabilities), grant money is used to fund programs that would not otherwise be possible (ie new programs) for the most part, programs that would not exist without that grant money or for which other funding has been cut. It is more a situation of “we don’t have any money to buy Halloween candy for the party and unless we get the $5 there will be no Halloween candy.”

You would not know by looking at a 990 whether certain donors fund contributions were restricted or not.

Then I am at a loss to understand how goodknight proposes that the 990s prove that the contributions that Komen Foundation grants provide to Planned Parenthood constitute “unrestricted funds”.

I assume if the Susan G. Koman breast cancer foundation had restricted their funds they would tell us so. A press release saying they are giving them to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screening is not a legal restriction of the funds. I think the fact that Planned Parenthood took their money and cut back on breast cancer screening is very telling.

I would rather say that one should look at the grant documents themselves for the restriction. Here is a link to one affiliate’s request for proposals for grants
komennctriangle.org/files/2008%20Grants%20RFP_v2.doc
(these are community grants, like the ones made to Planned Parenthood, as research grants are done through the National office).

I am curious as to the basis for your claim that Planned Parenthood “took their money and cut back on breast cancer screening”.

The only numbers that would be telling in this case are the ones associated with the specific Planned Parenthood branches that received Komen grants. It raises a few questions:

Which specific PP branches have received grants from the Komen Foundation and when?

Is there a documented decline in breast cancer screenings in the specific PP branch that received the grant?

Is the decline (if any) observable in the specific PP branch before or after the receipt of the grant? If before, could it be that that branch sought a grant to provide services because other funding sources had been affected or that they needed to better advertise their services? Was the number a result of women being turned away from requests for screenings?

 

[goodknight439]

:banghead:

Follow the money and heed what estesbob wrote. It appears from your last post that you are starting to get it but then you lose it. Look at this scenario: “We bought all the cookies we needed for the class party, and the kids had fun. We bought beer and cigars with what was left and gave it to older kids who were stressed out and needed to relax. They really appreciated it so it was money well spent and we accounted for all of it legally. Can we have more money to buy cookies for another class party?” And the answer is “OK”

Thanks so much for taking my true to life example provided as an illustration of how things are hidden in 990’s and twisting it with the clergy a sex abuse analogy. That type of “argument” is a form of non-sequitur also known as affirming the consequent; which is a formal fallacy. Either you did that intentionally to be difficult or you really believed it was a valid retort.

Okay so did the SGK foundation say “Here is some money for abortions” no, that would have been stupid on their part. What do you think is included in “Health treatment programs and grants” and the programs that “provide resources for the medically underserved, women of color, other special populations, breast cancer paitients and health professionals” Hello! those dollars are “funged” into abortion operations, birth control programs etc. :doh2: read: “not restricted.”

Restricted funds/gift and donor accountability: I am donating halloween candy to your party. I go out and buy the candy and give it to you or we buy it together, then you send me pictures of kids eating the candy. You don’t have any money to buy beer and smokes for the older kids who are streesed out but “need it” That is a simplified example, not a logical fallacy.

FYI I was referring to statement 19 on the 2005 990 filed in 2006 Also look at more than one year’s worth of 990’s and the 990’s from the affiliates from different years. Not all affiliates allow their 990’s on G U I D E S T A R either. Also, not everyone gets grants every year.

and:

I DIDNT SAY PP WAS AN AFFILIATE of SGKF! I SAID PP GETS MONEY FROM THE LOCAL AFFILIATES BECAUSE THE PARENT FOUNDATION ALLOWS THEM THEIR DISCRETTION TO DO SO! WHERE THE HECK DID THAT COME FROM??? :banghead:

NEWS FLASH :newidea: they aren’t going to ADVERTISE IT! Like it or not it is what it is. :crying: :tissues:

Peace:

 

[estesbob]

:banghead:

Follow the money and heed what estesbob wrote. It appears from your last post that you are starting to get it but then you lose it. Look at this scenario: “We bought all the cookies we needed for the class party, and the kids had fun. We bought beer and cigars with what was left and gave it to older kids who were stressed out and needed to relax. They really appreciated it so it was money well spent and we accounted for all of it legally. Can we have more money to buy cookies for another class party?” And the answer is “OK”

Of course another point that continues be made is with no proof that their donations were restricted in the first place.

Planned Parenthood is one of the most evil organizations in the world. No decent person would provide them funds regardless of whether they used a Band-Aid of restricting them or not.

 

[Rosalinda]

Karen NC
[sign]There is a great deal of leaping going on from looking at treatments used for existing cancer to saying that the cancer is caused by an induced abortion.
[/sign]

I don’t claim cancer is “caused” by an induced abortion. A woman who is already pregnant and has never experienced the protective benefits of a FFTP (first full term pregnancy) and breastfeeding her infant is probably going to be at an increased risk for cancer latter on. Scientists can dismiss this risk as not statistically significant but it is a cavalier abuse of women and young girls to keep them in the dark because it conflicts with one’s ideology. Some women may decide to go ahead with the abortion anyway. Many do, according to the experience of breast cancer surgeon Dr. Angela Lanfranchi.

Nor is it a leap in logic to suggest if an early FFTP matures the breast and reduces almost all its’ potentially cancerous cells that suddenly “interrupting” that first pregnancy will leave a woman’s breasts with a dramatically increased number of undifferentiated “immature” cells. These lobules which have proliferated with the hormonal surge at fertilization will remain vulnerable until at least 32 weeks of pregnancy is experienced and the vulnerable stage 2 lobules are changed into the more cancer resistant type 3 lobules. Type 4 lobules with breastfeeding will afford her even more cancer protection. Until then she becomes a ticking time-bomb with even more risk than she had in a virginal state. An abortion can’t turn back the clock. The change to the breasts with pregnancy are permanent.

This information is too important for breast cancer prevention and I reiterate the NIC called a “kangaroo court”. What was published, after a mere three days, in their workshop was nothing more than a political manifesto to maintain the status quo.

Q–20: What should women be told in general about having an abortion at a young age and the risk of breast cancer?

Women who have an elective abortion before their firstborn baby suffer at least a 50% increased risk of developing breast cancer according to the best meta–analysis done to date. The risks are almost certainly higher for women who have had an abortion before the age of 18, or those who have additional risk factors, such as a positive family history or use of oral contraceptives before a FFTP.

lifeissues.net/writers/kah/kah_07chap2overview1.html

 

[KarenNC]

Look at this scenario: “We bought all the cookies we needed for the class party, and the kids had fun. We bought beer and cigars with what was left and gave it to older kids who were stressed out and needed to relax. They really appreciated it so it was money well spent and we accounted for all of it legally. Can we have more money to buy cookies for another class party?” And the answer is “OK”

Fine, if you can show some evidence that this actually happened rather than you think it might have happened because you happened to see some beer bottles in the trash outside the school. I am curious as to how you think one “accounts legally” for receipts showing “beer and cigars” rather than “cookies”.

Every grant I have ever seen has strict reporting and accountability standards. I have seen no evidence that the Komen Foundation is any different.

According to the rules at the agencies where I worked (and the churches to which I have belonged), donor restricted money had to be used for the use designated by the donor. It didn’t matter if the lights were getting ready to be turned off. If the donor gave that money to buy candy for parties, that is what it had to be used for, unless one went back to the original donor and requested a change. It is a contractual relationship between two organizations, not simply a suggested use.

Now the board could internally restrict other money and then change that designation internally, but that was a very different situation than donor restrictions.

Komen does indeed expect that grant funds will be used for the purposes intended, and any balance left will be remitted

komengrantsaccess.org/PoliciesProcedures.pdf
see specifically p. 7 and p. 19
“Komen for the Cure has the right to terminate a grant immediately at any time during the project period and receive reimbursement of all funds awarded in the event it has a reasonable good faith basis to believe there has been scientific misconduct, financial or administrative impropriety, or fraud committed by PI or Institution.”

Or look at the Boise, ID affiliate grant requirements, since I list them below as giving a grant to a Planned Parenthood office:
komenboise.org/downloads/RFP2007.doc
See p. 2 for restrictions.

Okay so did the SGK foundation say “Here is some money for abortions” no, that would have been stupid on their part.

We are beginning to get somewhere. This is exactly what you and others are implying when you say that the Komen Foundation funds Planned Parenthood and one should not support Komen Foundation efforts because Planned Parenthood does abortions.

No one is obligated to support any group, but the opposition ought to be based on actual documentable issues, not implication.

What do you think is included in “Health treatment programs and grants” and the programs that “provide resources for the medically underserved, women of color, other special populations, breast cancer paitients and health professionals” Hello! those dollars are “funged” into abortion operations, birth control programs etc. read: “not restricted.”

Then show the documentable evidence of such misuse of funds.

I think that those funds are going for exactly what the grants are given for, for instance:
cms.komen.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/komen_document/011336.pdf
2003
Breast Cancer Outreach and Screening
Planned Parenthood of Idaho Boise, ID
Project Director: Alycann Whalen and Ellie Merrick
This project will address the need for breast cancer education and screening among low-income women and Latinas in Southwest Idaho. Planned Parenthood of Idaho clients having breast abnormalities will have referrals and financial assistance for
follow-up services with breast cancer specialists in Boise and Twin Falls. Planned Parenthood of Idaho will expand outreach efforts in the Latina population at selected locations in targeted communities.

(cont)

 

[KarenNC]

Restricted funds/gift and donor accountability: I am donating halloween candy to your party. I go out and buy the candy and give it to you or we buy it together, then you send me pictures of kids eating the candy. You don’t have any money to buy beer and smokes for the older kids who are streesed out but “need it” That is a simplified example, not a logical fallacy.

I am donating the money for the candy, you go out, buy the candy, show me the receipts for the candy, as well as showing me pictures of the kids eating the candy. In fact, you have an independent auditor who shows me that when your books are audited the money is listed as received and spent for the candy, not for beer and smokes.

FYI I was referring to statement 19 on the 2005 990 filed in 2006

I looked at the 2005 990 filed in 2006. The page labeled Statement 19 is the 51st out of 134 pages of the pdf. I found it at this link. Is there more than one section labeled statement 19?
komen.org/intradoc-cgi/idc_cgi_isapi.dll?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=494

Also look at more than one year’s worth of 990’s and the 990’s from the affiliates from different years. Not all affiliates allow their 990’s on G U I D E S T A R either. Also, not everyone gets grants every year.

Only one example really should be sufficient.

I DIDNT SAY PP WAS AN AFFILIATE of SGKF! I SAID PP GETS MONEY FROM THE LOCAL AFFILIATES BECAUSE THE PARENT FOUNDATION ALLOWS THEM THEIR DISCRETTION TO DO SO! WHERE THE HECK DID THAT COME FROM???

And I said that showing that the parent foundation allows local affiliates unrestricted discretion is not the equivalent to saying that the Komen Foundation gives Planned Parenthood unrestricted funds.

NEWS FLASH they aren’t going to ADVERTISE IT! Like it or not it is what it is.

If that “is what it is” then you should be able to show the specific evidence that leads you to that conclusion. If you indeed have concrete evidence that Planned Parenthood is taking grant money given to them to prevent breast cancer and instead using it for abortions, then you need to provide the documentation for that misuse of funds to both the Komen Foundation and the IRS.

 

[goodknight439]

KarenNC believe whatever you want, it is a free country.
You have officially been added to my ignore list. Congratulations! in my 2+ years on this forum (also as goodknight1443) you are the first.

 

[Rosalinda]

I have read contradicting statements from both sides of the issue. Fortunately, one can go back to read the original studies for oneself and determine who is telling the truth “in season and out of season” and who is putting a “spin” on it. Just one example is the work of Jose and Irma Russo which has been referenced frequently. This article entitled “Molecular & cellular basis of the mammary gland susceptibility to carcinogenesis” does indeed accurately reflect the authors I have read who think the evidence supports the abortion breast cancer link.

This indicates that **it **is not the hormonal status of pregnancy and lactation that protect the gland, but the permanent changes induced in the gland structure and in the biological properties of the gland epithelium which are independent of the hormonal status of the host. **In order ****to **be protective pregnancy must be completed. Pregnancy interruption slightly increases the incidence of carcinomas, and this is related to an incomplete differentiation of the gland.

pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1569117&blobtype=pdf

 

[KarenNC]

pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1569117&blobtype=pdf

Just for a more complete picture, this was a study done on rats and the findings published in 1983 by Russo, et al.

“Preliminary results in our laboratory suggest that a correlation between human breast tissue and rat mammary gland findings is possible. (155, 156).”

Possible. Not definite. There has been over two decades of additional research since that study that must be considered as well. Scientific knowledge is not static.

Personally, I am not a medical researcher in this field. I am a pretty fairly well informed layperson with a background in science, however. Based on the information I have seen, I see no reason to believe that there is a giant conspiracy going on over this at NCI.

Overall, my position is this:
Yes, some affiliates of the Susan G. Komen Foundation have given grants to specific Planned Parenthood clinics to promote breast cancer awareness and to aid in the detection and treatment of breast cancer in groups of women who have are at high risk but have low availability of services.

I see no evidence that would lead me to believe that the Komen Foundation is paying for abortions, is giving “unrestricted funds” to Planned Parenthood so that they can pay for abortions or doing anything other than exactly what they state they are doing—working to help women with and at risk for breast cancer.

I see no evidence that would lead me to believe that there is a conspiracy at the National Cancer Insititute or any of the other cancer-fighting agencies worldwide to cover up any known link between induced abortion and breast cancer.

If folks choose not to support the Komen Foundation or any other specific organization working for any specific cause, that is entirely their business. Neither the Komen Foundation or Planned Parenthood are particular charities of mine (I am more along the lines of Heifer Project and the Nature Conservancy, myself). However, I dislike seeing calls for boycotts, etc that are based on less than total information, emotion rather than information or outright unsupportable misinformation (as shown by folks being unable to actually produce the evidence to back up some of their statements when challenged).

What I ask folks to do is to look at every call for such action with a skeptical eye and do the research yourself to see if you believe that the things being claimed are reasonable, plausible and accurate. If you then decide that the boycott or supporting a different group working toward the same cause is in line with your position, go right ahead. None of these groups is the only one in the field. Just don’t choose to perpetuate what amounts to slander of an organization simply on someone else’s say-so unless you have seen credible evidence yourself.

 

[estesbob]

What I ask folks to do is to look at every call for such action with a skeptical eye and do the research yourself to see if you believe that the things being claimed are reasonable, plausible and accurate. If you then decide that the boycott or supporting a different group working toward the same cause is in line with your position, go right ahead. None of these groups is the only one in the field. Just don’t choose to perpetuate what amounts to slander of an organization simply on someone else’s say-so unless you have seen credible evidence yourself.

Its not slander-its a stament of fact. They give money to an evil despicable organization. As the saying goes when you sleep with dogs you catch fleas.

 

[estesbob]

There is no doubt that that the Komen foundation gives money to an evil organization that decent people would not consider giving a penny to. The Komen foundation should not get one penny from those concerned about the slaughter of the innocents. As the saying goes if you sleep with dogs dnt be suprised if you catch fleas.

 

[goodknight439]

There is no doubt that that the Komen foundation gives money to an evil organization that decent people would not consider giving a penny to. The Komen foundation should not get one penny from those concerned about the slaughter of the innocents. As the saying goes if you sleep with dogs dnt be suprised if you catch fleas.

Once again- well stated estesbob.

 

[Rosalinda]

I totally agree with KarenNC. To spread spread “misinformation” is to “slander”. Nonetheless, abundant evidence has been provided on this thread and numerous others on this subject. I am confident a “statistically significant” number of discerning readers, after following the evidence and connecting the dots, will have no qualms about raising false alarms. To the contrary, it would be a dereliction of duty not to share the truth they have learned as quickly as possible with as many people as possible. In point of fact, it would be a sin of omission to remain silent.

[sign]
**2485 ****By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a **profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.
[/sign]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Note: Hiding the risk of breast cancer amounts to “deadly consequences for those who are led astray”.

 

[estesbob]

I totally agree with KarenNC. To spread spread “misinformation” is to “slander”.[/sign]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Note: Hiding the risk of breast cancer amounts to “deadly consequences for those who are led astray”.

Could you enlighten us as to what misinformation has been spread?

 

[PLAL]

"In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer. A summary of their findings, titled Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop, can be found at cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report . "

How National Cancer Institute Scientists Betrayed Women, Abortion and Breast Cancer: The Scientific Debate That Never Happened

Scientists attending the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI’s) workshop in February 2003 titled, “Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop,” had an important responsibility. They were charged with comprehensively reviewing research that has associated induced abortion with increased risk of breast cancer, and debating its merits. Although some of the research of those in attendance had found significantly increased risk, these scientists disavowed the research. With a sweep of their hands, they announced that an “induced abortion is not associated with increased breast cancer risk.”

However, they made that announcement without challenging the biological rationale for the abortion-breast cancer link. Scientists recognize that overexposure to estrogen is related to most of the known risk factors for breast cancer. They know that women are dramatically overexposed to estrogen starting early in pregnancy, that estrogen is a tumor promoter, and that it stimulates breast cells to multiply. They hypothesize that only a third-trimester process provides protection from estrogen overexposure by transforming breast cells into cancer-resistant cells. Scientists cannot legitimately refute this hypothesis. It makes too much sense.

What transpired at the NCI is not at all surprising. Well-documented scientific misconduct and deception have plagued research into the abortion-breast cancer link (ABC link) since the publication of the first study in 1957.1 The agency receives its funding from Congress. It is not immune to political pressures. Further, the NCI has been accused of publishing blatant lies about the ABC link on its Web site.2,3,4,5

Nevertheless, the research is a medical and political time bomb, which will inevitably detonate sometime within the next decade as the Roe v. Wade generation ages and the cases of invasive breast cancer continue to surge. Sooner or later, women will hold the NCI’s feet to the fire and demand answers to their questions about the nation’s out-of-control breast cancer rates.

MORE…

cwfa.org/articles/3661/CWA/life/

 

[Rosalinda]

KarenNC originally stated:

Just for a more complete picture, this was a study done on rats and the findings published in 1983 by Russo, et al.

“Preliminary results in our laboratory suggest that a correlation between human breast tissue and rat mammary gland findings is possible. (155, 156).”

Possible. Not definite. There has been over two decades of additional research since that study that must be considered as well. Scientific knowledge is not static.

Since 1983 Irma and Jose Russo have continued their research. As a matter of fact, they have contributed a chapter to a book entitled: “Innovative Endocrinology of Cancer” which is available today. It states:[sign]Breast cancer originates in undifferentiated terminal structures of the mammary gland. The terminal ducts of the Lob 1 of the human female breast, which are the sites of origin of ductal carcinomas, are at their peak of cell replication during early adulthood, a period during which the breast is more susceptible to carcinogenesis. The susceptibility of Lob 1 to undergo neoplastic transformation has been confirmed by in vitro studies, which have shown that this structure has the highest proliferative activity, estrogen receptor content and rate of carcinogen binding to the DNA. The higher incidence of breast cancer observed in nulliparous women supports this concept, whereas the protection afforded by early full-term pregnancy in women could be explained by the higher degree of differentiation of the mammary gland at the time in which an etiologic agent or agents act.[/sign]
eurekah.com/chapter/3357

 

[goodknight439]

Hey gang this thread is way off topic. It is now an abortion breast cancer link debate.

1. The thread was started because there is documented evidence that the Komen Foundation gives money to Planned Parenthood.

2)Then the moral relativists kicked in and justified it because they were convinced that PP didn’t use the Komen dollars for abortions and related practices not approved by the Catholic Church. So therefore its “justifed” because PP allegedy only uses Komen money for breast cancer screening, and other “women’s health issues for the medically underserved.”

Yeah okay, right, whatever. :doh2:

1. Now there is debate about the studies regarding increased risk of breast cancer in women who have had abortions. :dts:
2. Is somebody in here running for political office? Because this thread has been hijacked to evade the real issue. Hillary are you here??? :juggle:
3. Estesbob keeps pointing out the real issue clearly and certain people just flat out ignore him. WHY??? :banghead:
4. Let’s simplify it even further

Planned Parehood: Advocates of abortion, they perform abortions.

Komen Foundation: Rasies money for Cancer Research and they give some of that money to PP.

Issue: It is legal for Komen foundation to do what they are doing. If you don’t like it, do not give them money. Many of us don’t and won’t. SGKF is not the only game in town for cancer reserach.

1. The Komen Foundation is a tremendously large cash cow. They have become the “United Way” of Cancer research. It truly is a marketing marvel. When people see the pink ribbon, they go ape and buy everything in sight from pins to bumper stickers to t-shirts and food. And it makes them feel good. :grouphug:

During a recent trip to the supermarket I saw at least a dozen products in the store from cereal to biscuts to canned goods that had the ribbon on its package with pink lettering to the effect: “BUY THIS AND GIVE TO THE RACE FOR THE CURE!!” So I put it down and bought the brand next to it.

1. Give to causes with heart, your head and a well formed conscience.

keep the faith


.

 

[Rosalinda]

I understand your frustration GoodKnight. Perhaps if you reread the link to the LifeSiteNews article in the original post you will understand the pertinence of the ABC link on this thread.

The foundation of Karen’s argument rests on an unequivocal denial of a huge body of studies, over the last fifty years, which have shown a statistically significant increase in breast cancer risk after induced abortion, especially before the first full-term pregnancy FFTP. She has concluded the pro-lifers have undermined their credibility by maintaining there most certainly is a link. For the sake of families who are willing to examine the issue and dig underneath all the layers of misleading statements we need to keep presenting the facts. So be it. While some will never acknowledge what they are not prepared to believe, many more in the medical and scientific community know abortion increases the risk of breast cancer; they have their own reasons for remaining silent or worse yet for misleading the public and downplaying the association.

It boils down to this. If first FTP protects women’s health, than an abortion, especially before a FFTP, cancels that protective benefit and increases her long-term cancer risk. In other words, “If one plus one equals two than two minus one must equal one.”

 

[Jea9]

Hi guys, I’m not a frequent poster, and I am certainly not as informed as most of you posting here. I can, however, tell you what I have found from direct contact with the Susan G. Komen institute. Based on another thread on here I decided to ask the foundation if they give grants to Planned Parenthood. This is the letter that I was sent:

Dear Jea9
 
Thank you for reaching out to Susan G. Komen for the Cure to get the facts about grants made to Planned Parenthood for breast health services.  I am writing on behalf of Dr. Cheryl Perkins, our Senior Clinical Advisor.  I hope the following information will be helpful in understanding this issue.
 
Our promise: to save lives and end breast cancer forever by empowering people, ensuring quality care for all and energizing science to find the cures. We appreciate your interest in this important mission.
 
The common thread to the individuals we serve is that they are at risk for breast cancer.  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 forever.  And we do not discriminate on age, gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability or decisions people have made in their lives.
 
Seventy-five percent of the money raised by Komen Affiliates stays in their communities to provide grants to local organizations or groups who can best address the gaps identified through the needs assessment.  A minimum of 25 percent of the net proceeds from any Komen Affiliate event directly supports Komen and Research Grant Program, which is the nation’s largest private funding source for breast cancer research.  Please check with your local Komen Affiliate to see how funds are dispersed in your community. 
 
The grants funded by Komen and its Affiliates are specific to Komen’s promise to end breast cancer forever.  Komen Affiliates are responsible for conducting community needs assessments to identify gaps in breast health and breast cancer services within their respective communities.  All Komen Affiliate grant applications are solicited through an open request for proposals and are reviewed by a Grants Committee comprised of local physicians, community health professionals, and breast health advocates.  Any not-for-profit organization may apply for a grant from Komen to provide services specific to our mission to end breast cancer forever.  The Grants Committee recommends to the Affiliate’s board of directors those grant applications that should be approved for funding, and grant recipients are required to provide detailed reports to the funding Affiliate at least bi-annually.  
 
All community grants are restricted to provide vital breast health education, screening and treatment services for underserved women.  The services funded by Komen Affiliates include breast health education programs, screening mammograms, clinical breast examinations, diagnostic mammograms and ultrasounds, program promotion, and salary support for outreach workers and registered nurses that provide breast health education and clinical breast examinations.  
 
In many urban and rural areas, Planned Parenthood may be the only source of free or low-cost women’s health screening services (e.g., pap smears, mammograms, clinical breast exams, etc.).  Unfortunately, many underserved women find breast cancer at a later and more aggressive stage and have a higher mortality rate from this disease.  Some Komen Affiliates provide restricted grants to local Planned Parenthood clinics that offer vital breast health services for underserved women in their communities.  These services often help to provide otherwise unavailable breast screening for women ages 40 to 50, which may not be covered by the Centers for Disease Control’s Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. 
 
Thank you for your support and for your commitment to our promise: to save lives and end breast cancer forever by empowering people, ensuring quality care for all and energizing science to find the cures.
 
Sylvia Bodell on behalf of 
Cheryl L. Perkins, M.D., RPh
Senior Clinical Advisor
Susan G. Komen for the Cure

So, since I received this letter, I decided not to support Susan G. Komen. I understand that I can’t stop all money going to immoral purposes, and I understand that it’s unrealistic to think we can really know where the money is going. However, when I’ve been told specifically that money goes to an organization that performs abortions, I feel like I have a responsibility to not give them my money. I suppose if you want to be specific in your area, you can contact your local Susan G. Komen institute and you can find out where their money goes. My personal decision is that I would not support any Susan G. Komen affiliate, and I’m thankful that I read something about this on these forums

Just my :twocents:

Thanks,
Jea9

 

[goodknight439]

I understand your frustration GoodKnight. Perhaps if you reread the link to the LifeSiteNews article in the original post you will understand the pertinence of the ABC link on this thread.

The foundation of Karen’s argument rests on an unequivocal denial of a huge body of studies, over the last fifty years, which have shown a statistically significant increase in breast cancer risk after induced abortion, especially before the first full-term pregnancy FFTP. She has concluded the pro-lifers have undermined their credibility by maintaining there most certainly is a link. For the sake of families who are willing to examine the issue and dig underneath all the layers of misleading statements we need to keep presenting the facts. So be it. While some will never acknowledge what they are not prepared to believe, many more in the medical and scientific community know abortion increases the risk of breast cancer; they have their own reasons for remaining silent or worse yet for misleading the public and downplaying the association.

It boils down to this. If first FTP protects women’s health, than an abortion, especially before a FFTP, cancels that protective benefit and increases her long-term cancer risk. In other words, “If one plus one equals two than two minus one must equal one.”

You do not need to convince me Rosalinda. I agree with you. I was objecting to flogging of the dead horse with those like KarenNC. Although, I can’t read what karenNC posts as I have placed her on my ignore list. You showed her the smoking gun and she Iam sure she refuted it. I am glad to see efforts like yours helped Jea9.

Peace.