End Times and Current Events

General Category => Massacre of Innocence – The Occult Roots of Abortion => Topic started by: Mark on February 03, 2012, 08:42:46 am

Title: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Mark on February 03, 2012, 08:42:46 am
Susan G. Komen Drops Funding for Planned Parenthood

The Story: The Associated Press reports that Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the nation's leading breast-cancer charity, will cut off its partnership through which it provided cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood clinics. According to Planned Parenthood, Komen grants totaled roughly $680,000 last year and $580,000 the year before, funding at least 19 Planned Parenthood affiliates. Komen told the AP that it ended its partnership with Planned Parenthood because of a congressional investigation into the organization.

The Background: The House Energy and Commerce Committee is investigating Planned Parenthood because of allegations of abuses ranging from financial disparities to its compliance with federal regulations on taxpayer funding to concerns that it is covering up cases of sex trafficking.

As Christianity Today notes, "activists on both sides of the abortion fight are speculating on the involvement of Karen Handel, Komen's senior vice president of public policy, in the decision." When Handel, the former secretary of state of Georgia, ran for governor in 2010, part of her platform was to eliminate state grants to Planned Parenthood.

What It Means: Planned Parenthood contends that the Komen foundation is yielding to longstanding pressure from anti-abortion groups, which Komen denies, says the New York Times.

As the NYT notes, "Anti-abortion advocates and Web sites have criticized the Komen foundation's financing of Planned Parenthood for years. And in December, LifeWay Christian Resources, which is owned by the Southern Baptist Convention, said it was recalling a pink Bible it was selling at Walmart and other stores because a dollar per copy was going to the Komen foundation and the foundation supported Planned Parenthood."


Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Drops Funding for Planned Parenthood
Post by: Mark on February 03, 2012, 09:15:44 am
26 Deomocrat Senators are pushing for Komen to reverse this descion and help fund abortion!!. Just sick is what it is.

Two dozen Senators call on Komen to reverse Planned Parenthood decision

The letter is signed by Senators Lautenberg, Murray, Mikulski, Boxer, Cantwell, Gillibrand, Menendez, Wyden, Blumenthal, Shaheen, Begich, merkley, Tester, Akaka, Sanders, (Sherrod) Brown, Leahy, Baucus, Cardin, Feinstein, Franken, and Kerry.

That relatively conservative senators like Begich and Tester signed the letter is testament to how broad the opposition to this decision has really become.

More soon...

UPDATE: The total number of signatories is now 26; the new additions include senators McCaskill, Stabenow, Coons, and Bingaman.


Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Drops Funding for Planned Parenthood
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 03, 2012, 09:21:22 am

That relatively conservative senators like Begich and Tester signed the letter is testament to how broad the opposition to this decision has really become.


They ain't conservative true born again bible believers, that's for sure!

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Drops Funding for Planned Parenthood
Post by: seekingtheanswers on February 03, 2012, 09:25:27 am
trafficking....such evil. funny how the komen foundation is greatly esteeemed by the world.

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Drops Funding for Planned Parenthood
Post by: Mark on February 03, 2012, 10:21:30 am
Komen officials quit as charity buried under tens of thousands of e-mails

Huffington Post gleefully reported today that three Komen officials have now resigned and one more is threatening to, as the “backlash gains steam” over its decision to sever financial ties with Planned Parenthood.

The fools don’t realize what is happening. Every Komen exec who quits over the Planned Parenthood flak is good news for our side, one less pro-abort with clout in the United States’ most influential breast cancer foundation. Komen is undergoing a cleansing of its liberal bastion.

Perhaps now Komen will acknowledge the link between abortion and breast cancer, which, thanks to the Planned Parenthood flak, is getting renewed attention.

CEO Nancy Brinker’s (pictured left) eyes have certainly been opened these past couple days. I’m sure the former friend of Planned Parenthood is reevaluating a lot of things. She needs our prayers.

My source inside Komen tells me its email system crashed several times today due to the volume of emails. (Yes, my site has crashed several times today, too, due to a combination of invading bots and high traffic.)

At last count emails in support of Komen were at 20,000 and those in opposition straggled behind at 10,000. Keep the emails coming (although be warned the link may be down).

Meanwhile, Brinker said on a conference call today donations are up 100% since Komen announced it was severing its financial relationship with Planned Parenthood.

Since it is well known that conservatives are more generous givers than liberals (aside from grandstanders, something conservative givers are not), I’m betting all those pro-aborts huffing and puffing that they are going to stop giving to Komen never gave in the first place. Meanwhile, conservatives who have been withholding funds from Komen are loosening their purse strings.

There is also now an interesting battle of congressional letters emerging.

ABC has posted a letter signed by 26 senators asking Komen to restore funding to the United States’ largest abortion provider. No surprise, the signers are all Democrat pro-aborts, save one Independent/Socialist pro-abort.

 But never fear, I’m told a pro-Komen letter is now circulating in Congress. The final count of legislators supporting Komen vs. opposing Komen should go our way, although I doubt the media will be interested in reporting that.

Brinker released a video last night, saying in it what she said to reporters today, that “the charity was trying to refocus grants on providers that are able to perform mammography services rather than just breast screenings,” just as my source indicated yesterday was Komen’s fallback plan for breaking up with Planned Parenthood.

Pro-lifers Bryan Kemper and Andy Moore have launched an “I Stand with Komen” petition drive.

They have made the icon, right, to post on your Facebook page as your profile photo.

One final note, our tolerant friends on the left hacked into Komen’s site last night.

full article: http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/komen-officials-quite-as-charity-buried-under-tens-of-thousands-of-e-mails?utm_source=feedburner&utm

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Drops Funding for Planned Parenthood
Post by: Mark on February 03, 2012, 10:33:25 am
After cutting ties with Planned Parenthood, Komen donations up 100 percent

In the wake of this week’s announcement that Susan G. Komen for the Cure will no longer be awarding grants to Planned Parenthood, the breast cancer organization’s donations have gone up 100 percent in the last two days.

On a Thursday conference call Nancy Brinker, the founder and CEO of the Komen Foundation, told reporters that the organization is “singularly focused” on combating breast cancer, and that the politics of the decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood has been distracting from their mission.

Nevertheless, since cutting ties, Brinker announced that Komen’s donations have gone up in the last two days — by 100 percent.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/02/after-cutting-ties-with-planned-parenthood-komen-donations-up-100-percent/#ixzz1lKyK3gJD

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Drops Funding for Planned Parenthood
Post by: Mark on February 03, 2012, 11:04:28 am
Komen drops plan to cut Planned Parenthood grants
By DAVID CRARY | Associated Press – 20 mins ago
NEW YORK (AP) — After three days of controversy, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure breast-cancer charity says it is reversing its decision to cut breast-screening grants to Planned Parenthood.

"We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women's lives," a Komen statement said.

As first reported by The Associated Press on Tuesday, Komen had adopted criteria excluding Planned Parenthood from grants because it was under government investigation, notably a probe launched in Congress at the urging of anti-abortion groups.

Komen said Friday it would change the criteria so it wouldn't apply to such investigations.

"We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants," the statement said.


Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Drops Funding for Planned Parenthood
Post by: Mark on February 03, 2012, 11:09:12 am
In 1986, government scientists wrote a letter to the British journal Lancet and acknowledged that abortion is a cause of breast cancer.  They wrote, "Induced abortion before first term pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer."  (Lancet, 2/22/86, p. 436)

As of 2006, eight medical organizations recognize that abortion raises a woman's risk for breast cancer, independently of the risk of delaying the birth of a first child (a secondary effect that all experts already acknowledge).  An additional medical organization, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, issued a statement in 2003 calling on doctors to inform patients about a "highly plausible" relationship between abortion and breast cancer.  General counsel for that medical group wrote an article for its journal warning doctors that three women (two Americans, one Australian) successfully sued their abortion providers for neglecting to disclose the risks of breast cancer and emotional harm, although none of the women had developed the disease.

Medical Groups Recognizing Link

 A list of medical organizations recognizing a link between abortion and
breast cancer is provided below. Telling women their abortions are related
to increased breast cancer risk is clearly not good for cancer fundraising
businesses, the abortion industry and the pharmaceutical industry. Medical
groups whose doctors do not perform abortions or refer women for abortions
will be among the first to recognize that abortion raises a woman's breast
cancer risk.

National Physicians Center for Family Resources
P.O. Box 59692
Birmingham, AL 35259

The National Physicians Center for Family Resources offers a CD intended for parents and health educators which cites "increased breast cancer risk" as a "long-term complication of abortion" and offers a biological explanation for the abortion-breast cancer link. The CD is entitled, "Prescriptions for Parents: A Physicians' Guide to Adolescence and Sex."

Catholic Medical Association
2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, #864
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: 1-877-CATHDOC (877-228-4362)

"Whereas epidemiological evidence of an association between abortion and
breast cancer has existed for almost a half century,

"Whereas 29 our ot 38 worldwide epidemiological studies show an increased
risk of breat cancer of approximately 30% among women who have had an

"Whereas all women undergoing abortion are entitled to full informed consent
as to all risks including long term risks,

"Therefore be it resolved that the Catholic Medical Association endorses the
passage of state legislation to require abortionists to inform all women of
their future increased vulnerability to breast cancer."

Resolution Approved 10/15/03

American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists
844 South Washington, Suite 1600
Holland, MI 49423

AAPLOG has posted a position statement about the ABC link on its website.

Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
9 Vassar St.
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601

The Polycarp Research Institute
2232 Second Avenue
Altoona, PA 16602

Ehtics and Medics
6399 Drexel Road
Philadelphia, PA 19151

MaterCare International
8 Riverview Avenue
St. John's, Newfoundland
Canada A1C 2S5
Phone: 709-579-6472
Fax: 709- 579-6501
E-Mail: info@matercare.org

Statement Concerning the Link between Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer, R. L. Walley. FRCSC., FRCOG., MPH Executive Director and Honourary Research Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

"MaterCare International an international group of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists was presented with the evidence of the link between abortion and breast cancer at its international conference in Rome in October 2004 by Dr Joel Brind's research group.  The medical explanation and the epidemiological evidence convinced our  group that there is a significant increase in breast cancer risk after induced abortion, especially before the first full term pregnancy.  This evidence has been denied by the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) and other researchers.  Recently ten studies have been published in an attempt to discredit Brind's conclusion.

"In turn Brind has examined these ten studies and in a peer reviewed paper published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Vol 10, No 4, Winter 2005, <http://www.jpands.org>) he  has shown that they have serious methodological weaknesses and flaws and therefore do not invalidate the conclusion that there is a increased risk of breast cancer.

"Women have a basic right to know of this increased risk of breast cancer and it is unacceptable that the information should be denied to them by the medical and cancer research  establishments. MaterCare International as an organisation of women's health specialists  recognies its responsibilities in this matter and will do all it can to publish this evidence."

Breast Care Center-EAMC
G/F OPD Bldg East Avenue Medical Center, East Avenue,
Quezon City, Philippines
Phone: (632)-928-0611 loc 578
E-mail: pfbci_bcc@yahoo.com

 Medical Groups Supporting Disclosure of Research

 Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
1601 N. Tucson Blvd., Suite 9
Tucson, AZ 85716-3450

"The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons believes that patients have the right to give or withhold fully informed consent before undergoing medical treatment. This includes notification of potential adverse effects. While there is a difference of medical opinion concerning the abortion breast cancer link, there is a considerable volume of evidence supporting this link, which is, moreover, highly plausible. We believe that a reasonable person would want to be informed of the existence of this evidence before making her decision."

Jane Orient, MD
Executive Director
October 27, 2003

Read Mrs. Malec's article, "The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: How Politics
Trumped Science and Informed Consent," in the Journal of American Physicians
and Surgeons: www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf

 Medical Groups in Need of Political Courage

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

American Medical Association
- A spokesman for the AMA told World Net Daily that its group "doesn't have a policy at all" on whether its doctors should inform women about the abortion-breast cancer research. [John Dougherty, "Can doctors be sued over abortion? Those who don't inform patients of breast cancer link could be targets,"
World Net Daily March 27, 2002.
Available at: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26970
Visited October 8, 2003.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

American Society of Breast Surgeons

Miami Breast Cancer Conference

All Cancer Groups

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Drops Funding for Planned Parenthood
Post by: Kilika on February 03, 2012, 02:19:07 pm
"A double minded man [is] unstable in all his ways." James 1:8 (KJB)

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Drops Funding for Planned Parenthood
Post by: Mark on February 06, 2012, 06:41:50 am
Top Pro-Lifers Following Komen Story: Stop Supporting Komen

....“Having grown up in the pro-life movement, I know better than to take ANYTHING the mainstream media says at face value, especially when it comes to abortion,” he said. “So when I saw this morning’s Associated Press headline declaring “Komen drops plan to cut Planned Parenthood grants,” I knew I had to see for myself what Komen was really saying. It turns out the reality is rather far from what that AP headline says. Here’s what I’ve learned, in a nutshell.”

“This morning Susan G. Komen for the Cure issued a statement “apologizing” for the their recent decision not to give any more grants to Planned Parenthood. BUT — and this is a big “but” — they didn’t actually say they will resume giving Planned Parenthood grants. What they DID say is that Planned Parenthood can apply for grants in the future.  But that’s no guarantee they’ll get them. And given the fact that Planned Parenthood doesn’t actually DO mammograms — which is what those grants are for — it seems unlikely they will. We’ll just have to wait and see.”

But the pro-life activists agrees with Ruse.

“So what does this mean for us pro-lifers?” he asked. “First, it means that we cannot support Komen with financial gifts — not before we see they’ve actually stopped giving to Planned Parenthood for good,” he said. “Second , it means that we all need to draw attention to the REAL foe in this story, Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood has basically executed a mafia-style shakedown on Susan G. Komen for the Cure.”

“They were willing to TOTALLY DESTROY the nation’s largest breast cancer research and education organization, rather than lose the $600,000 in grants — a pittance to them — they got from Komen.”

Human Life International president Fr. Shenan J. Boquet is on the same page.

“The evolving situation regarding the Susan G. Komen Foundation and Planned Parenthood is still very murky. The media have been actively spinning this story since it began, and many ambiguous statements have been released. We hope our supporters will calmly discern the facts of the situation before reacting,” he said. “At this moment it is unclear whether today’s statement issued by Susan G. Komen indicates that they will continue long-term funding of Planned Parenthood, or whether it indicates that they are trying to calm the waters so that they can move forward and make funding decisions in a less turbulent sea.”

“It is important to note, as many have, that both the original and the updated statement by Komen indicated that they will honor their five existing grants to Planned Parenthood. This is not “news,” as these grants were never going to be canceled. While we do not condone these grants, it does not change the story for pro-lifers. It is also true that Planned Parenthood may continue to apply for grants from Komen, regardless of the new policy. It is unclear, however, whether Planned Parenthood will qualify and ultimately receive grants under the new guidelines initiated by Susan G. Komen,” he continued.

Boquet called for stopping support of Komen.

“We encourage pro-lifers to refrain for the time being from giving financial support to Susan G. Komen. At the same time we ask that you not attack, as some have already begun to do, Susan G. Komen in the midst of this process. Such an attack is likely to push Komen back to funding Planned Parenthood,” he said. “We want to encourage our supporters to continue positive encouragement of Susan G. Komen to take a stand for women’s health by not supporting Planned Parenthood with future grants. Write letters and send emails. Ask them to take a truly life-affirming and pro-woman stand by no longer funding the nation’s largest provider of abortions. Our immediate goal is to encourage them to defund Planned Parenthood.”


Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Mark on February 07, 2012, 07:21:51 am
Media Rush to Defense of Planned Parenthood in Komen Debate, Says Watchdog

When the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation first announced that it would stop providing grants to Planned Parenthood, major news networks devoted much of their attention to supporters of the abortion provider.
According to Media Research Center, a media watchdog, 76 percent of the quotes in ABC, CBS and NBC reports came from Planned Parenthood advocates.

"ABC showed the strongest tilt towards Planned Parenthood, with 10 sound bites or statements in favor of the organization, versus only two supporting Komen, a five-to-one margin," the watchdog reported Friday.

The Media Research Center's report is based on coverage over the course of about 60 hours.

"All three networks turned to women who feared the worst would happen after Komen stopped its grants to Planned Parenthood, which amounted to $680,000 in 2011."

Widespread media coverage was given to last week's announcement by the Komen foundation that it has adopted new grant criteria barring funding to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities. Planned Parenthood is currently the focus of a congressional investigation for possible misuse of taxpayer funds.


The Media Research Center says the three major news networks "clearly showed that they were willing to rush to the defense of the abortion giant over a few hundred thousand dollars in grant money."

While the watchdog counted 35 quotes attributed to Planned Parenthood advocates, it only counted 11 quotes from Komen representatives or allies.

Ross Douthat, a columnist with The New York Times, wrote last week that the tone of the coverage from nightly news shows to print and online media "alternated between wonder and outrage – wonder that anyone could possibly find Planned Parenthood even remotely controversial and outrage that the Komen foundation had 'politicized' the cause of women's health."

He added, "In many newsrooms and television studios across the country, Planned Parenthood is regarded as the equivalent of, well, the Komen foundation: an apolitical, high-minded and humanitarian institution whose work no rational person – and certainly no self-respecting woman – could possibly question or oppose."

Planned Parenthood immediately rallied supporters and raised the equivalent to the Komen grants within a matter of days. By Friday, it raised $3 million.

Congressman Cliff Stearns, who is leading the investigation into Planned Parenthood, said the amount raised shows that the abortion provider "does not need the Komen funding," which only accounted for less than a tenth of a percent of Planned Parenthood's $1 billion budget.

"I believe that Planned Parenthood could be, and should be, totally self-sufficient, as with so many other non-profit organizations, and spare America's hard-pressed taxpayers the $487 million Planned Parenthood received in public funding," Stearns said Friday, adding that he would continue the investigation.

The Komen foundation was inundated by thousands of comments and complaints on its Facebook page and website as abortion supporters voiced their outrage.

On Friday, Komen founder and CEO Nancy G. Brinker issued an apology to the public and said it would amend grant criteria to disqualify groups that are under investigations that are "criminal and conclusive in nature."

full article: http://www.christianpost.com/news/media-rush-to-defense-of-planned-parenthood-in-komen-debate-says-watchdog-68810/

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Mark on February 07, 2012, 07:35:33 am
Komen's abortion ties now more clear than ever

...Any other group thinking about donating to Planned Parenthood ought to take note. If you ever decide to stop giving them money, Planned Parenthood may try to destroy you and your group's reputation -- just like they have done to Komen. Planned Parenthood has powerful allies in Congress, in the White House, and in the media. Don't think they won't use that influence against anyone who crosses them. As I have written before, abortion is their sacrament, and Planned Parenthood is their temple. They will not tolerate anyone treading upon their holy ground.

The Komen foundation has really botched the communication of its new policies. As a result, Komen is even more tied to Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby than its ever was before. For an organization that wants to stay out of the culture wars, Komen is worse off now than it was a month ago, when many Americans didn't even know about this controversy. Many pro-lifers also were unaware of Komen's connection to Planned Parenthood. But that is no longer the case. Going forward, Komen will be viewed by Americans as a lackey of Planned Parenthood. Komen looks more like a leftist political group than it ever did. The only way to change this impression is to make a decisive break with the abortion mills of Planned Parenthood.

full article: http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=37109

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Kilika on February 07, 2012, 02:35:41 pm
Komen looks more like a leftist political group than it ever did.

That's because that is exactly what they are, and have been from the start! Same with all the other scam "foundations" that financially support these various "causes" for "charity". These women have been duped by an organization with a hidden agenda, not realizing they have been herding people around as they choose with their causes all along.

I'm convinced till shown otherwise that these bigger companies don't become big in the world on their own products unless the world loves them and the world picks them to succeed, for a price. Just like that clown at Facebook. He's a thief (so is Bill Gates for that matter), college drop out, and he's a billionaire from invading people's privacy and then inturn selling that data to the highest bidders. THAT is how it works in the world. You have to sell out, totally, and be committed and bow down to Caesar or you don't stand a chance. The world loves evil and rewards it with all the cankered and corrupted treasures the world has to offer.

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Mark on February 08, 2012, 07:59:43 am
In the ongoing discussion about Komen funding for Planned Parenthood, it is essential that people understand the central issue, which is Komen funding an organization whose activities actually contribute to the incidence of breast cancer.

One commenter on yesterday’s post, Dave Bunnell, left a very succinct statement with a perfect analogy to capture the essence of this debate. I thought it deserved its own post. Thanks, Dave. You’ve nailed it!

Reblogged this on The Bunnell Blog and commented:
Planned Parenthood’s activities increase breast cancer rate more than anything else Komen Foundation does decreases it. For Komen to give into PP’s campaign of lies and pressure to give them money would be like Mothers Against Drunk Driving letting Budweiser shake them down for funds.

LifeNews Note: Related stories:

Microbiologist: Hundreds of Studies Confirm Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

Abortion Has Caused 300K Breast Cancer Deaths Since Roe

Surgeon Says Abortion Ups Breast Cancer Risk, Pregnancy Lowers

Abortion-Breast Cancer: 53 of 66 Studies in 54 Years Show Link

Abortion Boosts Breast Cancer Risk 193% Study Finds, Giving Birth Lowers It

National Cancer Institute Researcher Admits Abortion-Breast Cancer Link True

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 08, 2012, 08:42:33 am

There was a girl I attended classes with in college - no, I didn't know her well, but we talked maybe a few times, and she seemed like a nice girl.

It's been years since I've seen her, however, she was a straight A student(graduated Magna Cum Laude). It was shortly after I moved back to North Texas when I read a news article blurb on her in one of the Louisiana papers, how she got breast cancer and her struggles with it. Her picture was also on the billboards in the city to advertise "breast cancer awareness".

She also said her faith and prayer has gotten her through this, but there's a CATCH to this - she's CATHOLIC.

No, I'm not saying she's one of the NWO minions working with them, but TPTB are obviously using her, and as you can see, there's connections b/w Susan G. Komen, PP, and the RCC. And this girl happened to be a "top of her class" student. It seems like ever since I was a kid, TPTB would target the top students in schools by showering them with all these "awards" et al at years end.

Anyhow, just some more random observations here.

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Mark on February 09, 2012, 08:02:33 am
Former Komen VP Says Planned Parenthood Attack 'Premeditated'

The former vice president at the center of the controversy over Susan G. Komen foundation funding for Planned Parenthood is charging that Planned Parenthood orchestrated a "premeditated" liberal press and social media attack on Komen – describing "guerilla tactics" designed to pressure the foundation into funding the organization.
In an interview with Atlanta reporters, Karen Handel said Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), which has been aware of the decision for months, orchestrated a backlash upon announcement to boost donations and advocate pro-choice convictions that have little to do with fighting breast cancer, which is the mission of the Komen foundation.

"Everybody was taken aback by the fact that this (the PPFA backlash) was premeditated, orchestrated," she said. Planned Parenthood reportedly has a billion-dollar budget and could have easily weathered the $700,000 grant loss, Handel said.

According to Handel: "There were conversations between our organization and Planned Parenthood, letting them know about the change in the criteria and how it would affect Planned Parenthood."

REST: http://www.christianpost.com/news/former-komen-vp-says-planned-parenthood-attack-premeditated-69021/

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Mark on February 09, 2012, 11:31:32 am
Despite Media Hysterics, Komen Accounts For Only 0.055% Of Planned Parenthood's Billion Dollar Revenue

On learning that Susan G. Komen for the Cure was about to defund Planned Parenthood, both traditional media outlets and leftist media sites exploded with indignant rage. Hysterical bloggers on left-wing websites declared that Komen had joined the GOP “War on Women,” and claimed thousands of women would be harmed or even left to die if Komen stopped funding Planned Parenthood.

Leaving aside the question of the type of “care” Planned Parenthood provides its customers, the group’s own numbers tell a different story – that Planned Parenthood could easily have survived financially without receiving Komen grants.

Planned Parenthood’s most recent annual report, for the 2010 fiscal year, shows the “reproductive health group” took in $1.048 billion dollars in revenue. The same report shows that Planned Parenthood took in $18.5 million dollars in “excess of revenue over expenses” during the 2010 fiscal year. Planned Parenthood also reported that its net assets totaled $1.0096 billion at the end of the 2010 fiscal year. In other words, Planned Parenthood is a billion-dollar “non-profit” that makes millions in profits.

By contrast, the amount of funding Komen provided to Planned Parenthood was comparatively small. Komen provided $680,000 in grants to Planned Parenthood during the 2011 year. In 2010, they provided $580,000 in grants to Planned Parenthood.

Simple math shows that Komen accounted for less than 5 percent of Planned Parenthood’s “excess of revenue over expenses” in 2009-2010. Komen provided less than a tenth of 1 percent (specifically, 0.055%) of Planned Parenthood’s revenues during the year 2009-2010.

Planned Parenthood isn’t in dire financial straits. On January 24, 2012 – a week before the controversy broke – it was reported by The Real Deal that Planned Parenthood bought a new headquarters in New York City for $34.8 million.

At 2011 funding levels, Susan G. Komen would have needed to have given money to Planned Parenthood for more than 50 years to equal Planned Parenthood’s acquisition of its new headquarters in New York City.

Mark Steyn from National Review Online points out that Komen’s 2010 grant to Planned Parenthood would not even cover Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards’ salary and benefits.

But for all the attention the media gave to Komen’s decision to defund Planned Parenthood, the broadcast networks exhibited a singular lack of curiosity about Planned Parenthood’s own finances. In their coverage of the Komen controversy, none of the big three broadcast networks reported that Planned Parenthood was worth a billion dollars. Not once. Nor, for that matter, did The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Instead, traditional media outlets hyped – and in many cases actively assisted – Planned Parenthood’s efforts to force Komen to reverse its decision.

Left-wing funded media outlets were far too busy providing a forum for Planned Parenthood leaders and allies to raise serious questions about Planned Parenthood’s financial status. The Huffington Post published an article from Cecile Richards, the head of Planned Parenthood, with the title “On Planned Parenthood and Women: What You Can Do.” Alternet published multiple articles from Jodi Jacobson, editor-in-chief of the pro-abortion blog RH Reality Check, including one with the hyperbolic title “The Cancerous Politics and Ideology of the Susan G. Komen Foundation.”

Good journalists would have actually examined Planned Parenthood’s financial situation before claiming that women’s lives would be put in jeopardy. But it seems that traditional journalists have become more interested in “pro-choice” advocacy than actual reporting when it comes to the issue of abortion.


Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Mark on April 13, 2012, 11:35:01 am
Komen Affiliates Resume Funding Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz

Komen for the Cure has officially buckled to pressure from Planned Parenthood and 17 affiliates of the national breast cancer charity will provide grants for the abortion business this calendar year.

Komen had long been a subject of national controversy in which pro-life advocates initially boycotted Komen and then celebrated earlier this year as it appeared the breast cancer charity had made the decision to revoke funding for the abortion business. After massive public pressure, media attacks and lobbying from Planned Parenthood, Komen indicates the abortion business would be eligible for funding but did to say whether funding would be continued.

Leading pro-life groups had hoped Komen would keep their de-funding decision in place via a change in grant-making criteria making it so organizations like Planned Parenthood that do not do mammograms would no longer be eligible for so-called pass-through grants in which they merely provide referrals to legitimate medical centers and physicians who do.

However, according to a new Washington Post report, the Komen funding spigot for Planned Parenthood has been turned back on:

At least 17 Planned Parenthood affiliates will be funded this year, about the same number that received grants in 2011, according to a tally provided by Komen. The total amount of the grants, which are for breast-cancer screening and other breast-health services, is still being worked out. Most recipients this year also received funds last year.

A half-dozen applications were turned down, mostly because the local Komen affiliates lacked funds, executives said. It is not unusual for there to be more applicants than available funds, although in some locations the controversy has hurt donations.

Additional grants may continue to be awarded because not all of the 122 Komen affiliates base awards on the fiscal year that began April 1. Planned Parenthood has said its Komen grants totaled about $680,000 in 2011 and went to at least 19 of its 79 affiliates.

Figures from August 2011 directly from the Komen for the Cure foundation show 18 affiliates of the breast cancer charity gave a total of more than $569,000 to the Planned Parenthood abortion business in 2010. That was down from the $731,303 Komen officials publicly confirmed in October 2010, when they acknowledged that 20 of the 122 Komen affiliates gave to Planned Parenthood during the 2009 fiscal year.

Komen spokeswoman Leslie Aun appeared apologetic about the decision to revoke funding to Planned Parenthood, in her comments to the Post.

“We know that people have been upset and concerned about recent events,” she said. “We’ve acknowledged our missteps and apologized. People need to know that we have not and never will walk away from women in need. There is no one filling the gap in services the way that Komen is.”

Pat Heard, chief executive of the Planned Parenthood in Southeastern Virginia, which was denied a grant request for $36,350 because of a lack of funds, said she thinks Komen is back to giving Planned Parenthood the time of day.

“I really think, based on conversations we’ve had informally in our follow-up, that they gave us a fair shake,” she said. “We consider them sisters in the effort for women’s health. We have a great relationship with them.”

rest: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/04/13/komen-affiliates-resume-funding-planned-parenthood-abortion-biz/

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Mark on April 19, 2012, 07:06:11 am
Komen Announces Plans to Fund 17 Planned Parenthood Affiliates

Earlier this year the Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure announced they would no longer contribute to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, after it was revealed they were the subject of a government inquiry. But after caving to intense pressure, the group reversed their decision and now plans to financially support at least 17 PP affiliates in 2012.
Komen, which is based in Dallas, Texas, funded 18 affiliates in 2011 for a total of around $680,000. The grants were intended for breast cancer. However, Planned Parenthood does not provide the screenings and has to refer women to other health care providers.

Officials from Komen are disputing the fact that politics played a role in the foundation's decision to fund the group, saying instead the issue was women's health.

"We know that people have been upset and concerned about recent events," Komen spokeswoman Leslie Aun told The Washington Post. "We acknowledged our missteps and apologized. People need to know that we have not and never will walk away from women in need. There is no one filling the gap in services that way that Komen is."

Officials from Planned Parenthood could not be reached for comment.

Still, the controversy has damaged Komen's "Race for the Cure" fundraising efforts since the uproar began.

rest: http://www.christianpost.com/news/komen-announces-plans-to-fund-17-planned-parenthood-affiliates-73299/

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Mark on April 19, 2012, 07:08:39 am
In 1986, government scientists wrote a letter to the British journal Lancet and acknowledged that abortion is a cause of breast cancer.  They wrote, "Induced abortion before first term pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer."  (Lancet, 2/22/86, p. 436)


As of 2006, eight medical organizations recognize that abortion raises a woman's risk for breast cancer, independently of the risk of delaying the birth of a first child (a secondary effect that all experts already acknowledge).  An additional medical organization, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, issued a statement in 2003 calling on doctors to inform patients about a "highly plausible" relationship between abortion and breast cancer.  General counsel for that medical group wrote an article for its journal warning doctors that three women (two Americans, one Australian) successfully sued their abortion providers for neglecting to disclose the risks of breast cancer and emotional harm, although none of the women had developed the disease.  Click here for more.

[Click here to enter the site]

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Mark on June 19, 2012, 11:30:16 am
Komen Announces New Funding for Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz

Another Komen affiliate is sending thousands of dollars to the nation’s biggest abortion business following the national controversy over Komen’s initial decision, and subsequent reversal, to deny Planned Parenthood funding.

The North Jersey affiliate of Susan G. Komen for the Cure announced Friday that Planned Parenthood is among the recipients of more than $1.2 million in total grants to 18 local organizations. A news report reveals the Komen chapter had given a $20,000 grant to the local Planned Parenthood abortion business last year and chose to renew the grant this year.

Komen North Jersey spokeswoman Kathi Edelson Wolder said Friday the organization had an independent panel review all its grant applications.

“Planned Parenthood was found worthy in terms of its patient education and how they measure up to our priorities in meeting the needs of women and men in our community,” she said.

In a press release Friday, the organization added that this year’s grants are based on a “comprehensive, biannual community profile” conducted in 2011 to make sure the programs address unmet needs.

REST: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/06/18/komen-announces-new-funding-for-planned-parenthood-abortion-biz/

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Mark on September 08, 2012, 05:20:30 am
Obama Admin Concedes Planned Parenthood Doesn’t Do Mammograms

A deliberate effort is underway to rebrand Planned Parenthood as an integral provider of healthcare services, without which untold millions of women would lack basic medical care, or so the story goes. Thus, whenever any effort is made to cut off funding for the nation’s largest abortion provider and stalwart financier of leftist politicians, we’re told there is a “war on women.”

But it’s not a “war on women” when a state simply places a higher priority on funds for true health services that Planned Parenthood doesn’t perform Take, for example, mammograms.

Yes, mammograms. Perhaps there is no greater falsehood than the deceitful, and largely successful, attempt to persuade Americans that Planned Parenthood performs mammograms. It doesn’t.

When the Komen Foundation announced in February that it would no longer provide grants to Planned Parenthood—partly due to the fact that Planned Parenthood does not directly provide mammograms – its ideological and political supporters sprang into action. They decried Komen’s decision to eliminate funding for this imagined provider of mammograms. Planned Parenthood’s Executive Director, Cecile Richards, , made the claim. So did President Obama. And an unsuspecting public was led to believe that such bold claims, by people who should know, must be true.

No matter that phone calls to Planned Parenthood from Live Action demonstrated clearly that this was not the case: Obama had spoken. And the president’s campaign together with Planned Parenthood’s ads continue to beat this drum (almost as if they were coordinated), building off the earlier confusion to frighten voters about the prospect of a Romney administration cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood’s “cancer screenings.”

Anytime someone suggests to you that Planned Parenthood performs mammograms, I encourage you to share with them this letter http://www.adfmedia.org/files/DOC702.pdf from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services demonstrating that it’s untrue. No Planned Parenthood clinic in the country is authorized to perform mammograms. If they are nevertheless performing them, they are violating federal law.

Under the federal Mammogram Quality Standards Act, administered by HHS, “[n]o facility may conduct an examination or procedure…involving mammography” without a certification from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. While a 2004 amendment to this law permits some states to also authorize mammography facilities, these certificates are still issued under the authority of the FDA, and the FDA records all certificates and investigates facilities holding such certifications. In short, there is no uncertainty: if Planned Parenthood could perform mammograms, the FDA (and HHS) would know it.

When President Obama and other Planned Parenthood partisans were making their mammogram claims, Alliance Defending Freedom filed a Freedom of Information Act request to seek any certificates held by any Planned Parenthood clinic or affiliate in the country. The response from President Obama’s own HHS is that no such certificates exist. No Planned Parenthood affiliate in the nation possesses the necessary certification to perform mammograms under federal law. Subsequent e-mails to the department further confirmed this fact.

Federal law provides that anyone operating a mammography device without such a certificate is subject to substantial fines of up to $10,000. So when Cecile Richards, Kathleen Sebelius, or President Obama tell you that Planned Parenthood performs mammograms, they’re telling you that Planned Parenthood is subject to serious fines for violations of the Mammogram Quality Standards Act.

Some Planned Parenthood clinics may provide much less effective manual breast exams. And some encourage women to perform self-exams, which breast cancer organizations like the Komen Foundation actually discourageas counterproductive to women’s health. And, in some cases, Planned Parenthood employees may tell a woman she should go get a mammogram from one of the public facilities that could have provided one to her in the first place. But in order to get a mammogram, a woman needs to go to someplace other than Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood and the politicians it supports must persuade Americans that Planned Parenthood is a full-service women’s health provider—a critical part of our health infrastructure—in order to keep the spigot of taxpayer dollars open. And so continues the deliberate campaign to deceive the public into believing the falsehood that Planned Parenthood performs mammograms for women who otherwise wouldn’t have them.

Planned Parenthood doesn’t perform mammograms. And President Obama’s own administration agrees. Perhaps with this lie exposed, we can now have a serious discussion about the hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies for Planned Parenthood and its political allies.


Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Mark on September 29, 2012, 07:17:21 am
Komen and Planned Parenthood: Betrayed From Within, Part 1

For 29 years Nancy Brinker and Susan G. Komen for the Cure enjoyed the adoration of the masses. There is no better story than launching an organization to stop breast cancer at the request of one’s dying sister.

Brinker also enjoyed bipartisan political favor as a wealthy Republican who had received appointments from every GOP president since Ronald Reagan and also as a pro-abortion liberal who sat on the board of her local Planned Parenthood, was friends with CEO Cecile Richards, and had received the Medal of Freedom from President Obama.

So it may be no wonder Brinker’s leadership team was totally unprepared for the Left’s assault when they tried to defund Planned Parenthood. They likely had grown to believe their own hype.

The other problem was so many on Brinker’s leadership team were Planned Parenthood sympathizers whose loyalty rested with it rather than beating breast cancer when put to the test.

How naive were Brinker and Komen? They hired public relations consultants that were Democrat and Planned Parenthood operatives. Here’s a pretty unbelievable list of all the players, according to former Komen exec Karen Handel in her new book, Planned Bullyhood, who I also interviewed for this story:

Komen team

Leslie Aun, Komen’s VP of Communications, who resigned following the debacle: Handel described Aun to me as an “in-your-face liberal.” In her book, Handel wrote of Komen’s very first conference call regarding PP, regarding Richards’ mammogram claim on Joy Behar’s talk show, during which Aun said Komen couldn’t walk away from PP because it would “deal PP a body blow,” an exact quote according to Handel’s notes from the call.

Liz Thompson, Komen’s President, who has now also resigned: Described in Handel’s book as “friends” with Richards. “They frequently crossed paths and had sat on numerous panels together.”

Affiliates: Handel told me in our interview the Komen affiliates most against the PP decision were those in New York, Philadelphia, New Jersey, and California. Others joined with them, but these were the instigators. Staff at several of these affiliates are previous PP employees, volunteers, and/or board members. Thompson had an initial conference call with affiliates in early December. A detailed Q&A was subsequently distributed, “a big mistake,” according to Handel, because it contained too many details. People within Komen handed it over to to PP, giving PP its ammunition.

During a follow-up affiliates meeting Handel wrote in her book that several executive directors actually said “the right to choose” trumped Komen’s mission, and if Komen suffered, so be it.

Public Relations team

Ogilvy Public Relations/Brendan Daly: Ogilvy was and still may be Komen’s primary PR consultant. Brendan Daly was the account rep. Daly is a longtime Democrat who previously worked for Nancy Pelosi as Communications Director, where he and Richards also worked together.

SKDKnickerbocker/Hilary Rosen: Yes, that Hilary Rosen (pictured below right). Komen hired SKD to manage the Left on a variety of issues, including PP and this environmental study it thought would attract liberal ire. According to Handel, the connections between Rosen, the White House, Democrats, and PP run deep:

Anita Dunn is a managing partner in SKD, formerly the White House Communications Director under Obama.
At the same time SKD was handling PR for Komen, it was doing PR work for PP. According to Handel in our interview, “Rosen told me directly that it was nothing to worry about it because SKD kept a ‘firewall between clients.’”

Rosen was Komen’s go-between with Planned Parenthood, tasked, for instance, with arranging the call between Thompson and Richards.

Rosen was involved in Komen’s communications strategy discussions from the beginning. Rosen actually crafted the initial language that was so focused on investigations against PP – a focus Handel felt was not at all appropriate for external audiences and the press.

Rosen/SKD did consulting work for the DNC and specifically worked to help media train Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Rosen and PP VP of Policy Dawn Laguens know one another well. Their children are in the very same class at a small private school in D.C.

Rosen is a former editor for Huffington Post - the outlet of choice for all Komen leaks.

SKDKnickerbocker/Emily Lenzner, partner: Lenzner was introduced to Komen by Rosen in the very first email to senior staff about the hire of SKD as the “PP expert.”

Lenzner’s husband is Peter Cherukuri, the managing partner of the Washington office for HuffPo, again,the go-to media outfit for all leaks from within Komen. Not in the book: Lenzner’s parents started a charitable trust that contributes to PP.

Komen and Planned Parenthood: Betrayed From Within, Part 2

Previously I described all the players who doomed Susan G. Komen for the Cure from within to lose against Planned Parenthood’s assault when it tried to defund the abortion giant.

Today I will list “coincidences” from Karen Handel’s book, Planned Bullyhood, and also from my interview with her, that give evidence of the Trojan Horse.

December 8, 2011: Komen places a conference call about its decision to defund Planned Parenthood with its public relations representative from SKDKnickerbocker, Hilary Rosen.

December 16, 2011: Komen president Liz Thompson speaks to Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards by phone, but Richards already knows everything.

First week of January 2012: A brief snippet about Komen ending PP grants appears on a radio show out of Ohio. Komen has no idea where it came from. (JLS note: I kind of know where it came from. There was a pro-lifer on the Komen board who tipped Life Decisions International off, and LDI went public before getting a fierce call from the source telling LDI to unplug the news, that the situation was very dicey. Read more here and here.) Handel speaks by phone with Rosen, asking for an update. Rosen says it appears PP is going to just let things go because the organization has other issues. This turns out to either be a lie or an epic fail on Rosen’s part to properly perform her job as liaison between Komen and PP.

January 23, 2012: Komen receives a call that Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, saying she needs to speak with Nancy Brinker “urgently – that day if possible.” She then fails to follow-up and strangely reschedules the “urgent” call for one week later – January 30.

January 30, 2012: Komen gets a bombshell. An Associated Press reporter contacts Komen and says he is writing a story on Komen and Planned Parenthood. Meanwhile, Rosen and other reps from SKD have coincidentally come to the office without Handel’s knowledge. Handel asks Rosen if she thinks PP is going to “DEFCON 4.” “Oh no,” is Rosen’s response, “I don’t think this is any big deal.” Meanwhile, the Wasserman Schultz call happens, and she knows about everything “in great detail… somehow… privy to what had been going on within our organization,” writes Handel. Brinker says the call got “extremely ugly” with Wasserman Schultz telling her Komen would “regret the decision.”

January 31, 2012: The infamous Associated Press story comes out. As I described in this post, Planned Parenthood had tweets and Facebook updates ready to launch. Also, within 48 hours PP lobbyists had gathered signatures of 26 senators on a letter to Komen.

Rosen is absolutely nowhere to be found after January 30. According to Handel she didn’t even attend the murder board session to prep Brinker for her disastrous interview with Andrea Mitchell.

According to Handel in our interview, “This is unconfirmed but I heard from several sources that at some point on February 2, I believe after the Mitchell interview, Rosen called and said she was resigning the account because she just couldn’t take it anymore. That would explain how she felt she could send that congratulatory tweet the following day,” which was positively scandalous in light of her role at Komen…


Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 21, 2012, 07:47:39 pm

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Ann Romney will take part in the American Cancer Society's Making Strides Against Breast Cancer 5K.

The walk begins Saturday morning in Orlando.

Romney, the wife of Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, is a breast cancer survivor.

A Florida spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee told the Orlando Sentinel ( http://thesent.nl/S03oFF) that Ann Romney chose to walk in Orlando because fighting the illness is important to her and Florida is an important swing state for her husband.

The fundraising walk will take place at Orlando's Lake Eola Park.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/10/19/3057159/ann-romney-to-walk-in-orlandos.html#storylink=cpy

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on December 03, 2012, 11:19:08 pm
I was at someone's house today, and was reading some monthly pamphlets from a First Baptist Church in the city...in one of those months, they were reporting TAKING PART in Breast Cancer Awareness and Susan G. Komen activities. NO JOKE! Yeah, I know there's just no truth in Churchianity today(as we're seeing the falling away in 2nd The 2 coming to pass), but an SBC FBC taking part in THESE activities?! No, not saying the SBC was ever good, but still...with the outward appearance of them being socially-conservative...

Yeah, pretty soon every aspect of Churchianity and the secular world will be openly locking arms with one another, as this OWR will soon come to pass.

Also, when they were advertising their LIFE groups, they advertised a QRCode along with it. I mean it wasn't like they were selling something, they were just saying "please join at your own free will". ??? Which was why this QRCode just looked rather awkward.

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Boldhunter on December 04, 2012, 06:33:28 pm
That has been seen in all the Purpose Driven take-overs of churches in CA too. The embracing of every . worldly tool and "works" minded agendas. There is hardly any edifying. As brothers and sisters we MUST pray for each other on this. The enemy tactic is clearly to starve believers of encouragement, edification, and HEALING by PRAYING for the sick.

Luke 9:2, 6 KJV
And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick. And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where.

Luke 10:8-9 KJV
And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:  And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

Colossians 3:2, 12-13, 16 KJV
Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Boldhunter on December 04, 2012, 06:51:33 pm
We must also reach out to the deceived followers at these churches. Many of them have been slowly blinded to have their love and compassion for others made powerless and used for evil agendas like SBK(!)  There are many true followers who just don't know how deceptive these "charities" are.

Their LEADERS at CHRISTIAN churches, OTOH are accountable across the board.

Ezekiel 34:3-5 KJV

Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock. The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them. And they were scattered, because there is no shepherd: and they became meat to all the beasts of the field, when they were scattered.

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on December 06, 2012, 10:49:15 am

Shock study: Mammograms a medical hoax, over one million American women maimed by unnecessary 'treatment' for cancer they never had

(NaturalNews) Mammography is a cruel medical hoax. As I have described here on Natural News many times, the primary purpose of mammography is not to "save" women from cancer, but to recruit women into false positives that scare them into expensive, toxic treatments like chemotherapy, radiation and surgery.

The "dirty little secret" of the cancer industry is that the very same oncologists who scare women into falsely believing they have breast cancer are also the ones pocketing huge profits from selling those women chemotherapy drugs. The conflicts of interest and abandonment of ethics across the cancer industry is breathtaking.

Now, a new scientific study has confirmed exactly what I've been warning readers about for years: most women "diagnosed" with breast cancer via mammography never had a cancer problem to begin with!

93% of "early detection" has no benefit to the patient
That's the conclusion of a groundbreaking new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

"We found that the introduction of screening has been associated with about 1.5 million additional women receiving a diagnosis of early stage breast cancer," writes study co-author Dr. Gilbert Welch.

Now, at first, you might think that's a good thing. You might think, "Well, early detection saves lives, just like we've been told by Komen and the cancer non-profits."

But you'd be wrong. As Dr. Welch's team discovered, there was virtually no reduction in late-stage breast cancer from all this "early" diagnosis, meaning that most women who were told they had breast cancer after a mammogram were being lied to.

As he explains:

We found that there were only around 0.1 million fewer women with a diagnosis of late-stage breast cancer. This discrepancy means there was a lot of overdiagnosis: more than a million women who were told they had early stage cancer -- most of whom underwent surgery, chemotherapy or radiation -- for a "cancer" that was never going to make them sick. Although it's impossible to know which women these are, that's some pretty serious harm.

Yep, it is. In fact, if you do the math and calculate 0.1 million fewer women with advanced-stage cancer out of 1.5 million who were diagnosed, 93% of the "early detection" cancer cases studied were false positives, meaning that they would never have gone on to cause advanced-stage cancer anyway

Chemo, radiation, cancer surgery largely a hoax
According to these scientists, "Breast cancer was overdiagnosed (i.e., tumors were detected on screening that would never have led to clinical symptoms) in 1.3 million U.S. women in the past 30 years."

That's 1.3 million women who were told by their lying oncologists: "If you don't agree to treatment, you'll be dead in six months" (or two years, or whatever fraudulent scare schedule they use).

Under the threat of this fear, most women cave in and agree to start "treatment" -- often on the very same day they are falsely diagnosed. This so-called "treatment" consists of a highly toxic injection of deadly chemicals that the oncologist makes a small fortune selling to the very same patients he falsely diagnosed. Yep, that's right: Cancer clinics and oncology treatment centers make huge profits on the chemotherapy drugs they sell to patients -- the very same patients they scared into treatment through a false positive mammogram.

Despite the near-total failure of mammography from a scientific point of view, the propaganda push for mammography is downright deafening. As Dr. Welch explains in his New York Times article:

...No other medical test has been as aggressively promoted as mammograms -- efforts that have gone beyond persuasion to guilt and even coercion ("I can't be your doctor if you don't get one"). And proponents have used the most misleading screening statistic there is: survival rates. A recent Komen foundation campaign typifies the approach: In short, tell everyone they have cancer, and survival will [statistically] skyrocket.

Komen for the Cure, of course, has been caught blatantly lying about the supposed "benefits" of mammography. Their statistical deception fools most women, sadly, convincing them to undergo toxic chemotherapy for a "breast cancer" they never really had.

The quackery of modern oncology
Once women begin the chemotherapy for a cancer they don't even have, they begin to experience what the quack oncologist calls "symptoms of cancer." Their hair falls out. They lose their appetite. Their muscles atrophy. They become weak, mentally confused and chronically fatigued. The cancer doctor then tells the woman, "You must be strong to pull through this while the medicine is working."

Pure quackery! You could do much better invoking voodoo or even just wishing to be cured. Because everything about the cancer experience in modern medicine -- the diagnosis, the "treatment," the medical authority -- is utterly and maliciously fabricated for the purpose of generating cancer industry profits.

"Better" technology leads to more false positives
There is no more apparent example of modern-day medical quackery than the cancer industry. Armed with ever-more-precise mammography machines, the rate of false positive diagnoses has shot through the roof.

As Dr. Welch writes in the New York Times:

Six years ago, a long-term follow-up of a randomized trial showed that about one-quarter of cancers detected by screening were overdiagnosed. And this study reflected mammograms as used in the 1980s. Newer digital mammograms detect a lot more abnormalities, and the estimates of overdiagnosis have risen commensurately: now somewhere between a third and half of screen-detected cancers.

Got that? Many cancer diagnoses from mammography are utterly false. But they are a great scare tactic for recruiting women into what can only be called a "cult of cancer" in which they are manipulated into poisoning themselves with chemicals. They are later called "cancer survivors" if the poison doesn't manage to kill them.

These cancer survivors are, of course, victims of a malicious medical cult that I call "the Cult of Komen." In nearly all cases, it wasn't the cancer that nearly killed them... it was the treatment!

The cult of Komen
Modern day people sneer and snort at the Jim Jones mass suicide cult of 1978, thinking, "How could those cult members be so stupid to poison themselves to death?"

Look around, folks, because the cancer industry has taken the Jim Jones formula and multiplied it by a factor of a million. The "Cult of Komen" is the modern-day Jim Jones "suicide cult." It's a cult where people "believe" in the promise of salvation through chemical indoctrination, but what's actually delivered to them is rotting death, pain, suffering and humiliation. (Many cancer surgeons operating today literally slice off women's breasts following a false positive cancer diagnosis, maiming her for life.)

One of the earmarks of this cult is the worship of self-mutilation. It's not just the women who are manipulated into having their breasts sliced off by surgeons; it's also the women who are manipulated into being injected with deadly poisons that destroy their kidneys, livers and brains. The No. 1 side effect of chemotherapy, by the way, is cancer.

Like any cult, the cancer industry cult pushes its delusions with emotionally-charged propaganda and powerful symbols (pink ribbons). Millions of women get innocently swept up into the "run for the cure," apparently clueless to the fact that most of that "cure" money goes to pay for more mammograms that result in more false diagnoses which ensnare yet more women into the same victimization racket.

Thus, the very women who participate in raising money for these pink ribbon cult worship-fests are actually paying for the mammogram machines that will recruit more women into the same cult via a quack diagnosis followed by a "campaign of fear and terror" carried out by oncologists against women. What the cancer industry is doing today is, by any measure, a crime against women. It's also a form of cultural mutilation of women, much like we've seen in Aztec, Mayan and various African cultures throughout history.

Is the Cult of Komen a criminal operation? Almost certainly. Is it scientific? Not a chance. There is nothing "scientific" about the modern-day cancer industry other than the scientific manipulation of women's fears and emotions. What Komen and the cancer industry lacks in ethics, science or facts, it more than makes up for in tactics of linguistic influence, arm-twisting and flat-out lying to the public about the over-hyped benefits of mammography.

The cancer industry isn't in the business of curing cancer, after all. But it is in the business of catapulting the propaganda of the delusional cancer cult. As Dr. Welch explains:

Screening proponents have also encouraged the public to believe two things that are patently untrue. First, that every woman who has a cancer diagnosed by mammography has had her life saved (consider those "Mammograms save lives. I'm the proof" T-shirts for breast cancer survivors). The truth is, those survivors are much more likely to have been victims of overdiagnosis.

Thus, all those women marching around with pink T-shirts that say, "Mammograms save lives" are actually declaring themselves to be the unwitting victims of a scientific campaign of targeting women, scaring women into treatment they don't need, then maiming women with toxic chemicals or surgeons' knives.

If those pink T-shirts actually told the truth, they should say, "I survived the cancer industry."

The big question in all this, of course, is: For how long will western civilization continue to live under the spell of the Cult of Komen? How many million women have yet to be sacrificed to the false quackery of mammography and the scam of modern oncology?

And more importantly, why do families allows their own mothers, daughters, aunts and grandmothers to be poisoned and maimed right in front of their own eyes, while they all sit back and submit to the false authority of profit-seeking doctors who practice nothing more than pure quackery?

Modern oncology represents the Dark Ages of western medicine
There will come a day, I have repeatedly predicted, when the modern practice of chemotherapy will be relegated to the history books of bad medicine, alongside sniffing mercury vapors and surgically removing body organs to treat mental disorders.

Until that day comes, countless numbers of innocent women will be tricked into being mutilated, chemically poisoned, and blasted with ionizing radiation by cruel doctors who frankly don't care one bit how many women they maim or murder as long as they get reimbursed by Medicare for the procedures.

That's the truth about the cancer industry you won't hear from Komen (nor from any of its pink ribbon cult followers).

The conclusion from the study authors
Despite substantial increases in the number of cases of early-stage breast cancer detected, screening mammography has only marginally reduced the rate at which women present with advanced cancer. Although it is not certain which women have been affected, the imbalance suggests that there is substantial overdiagnosis, accounting for nearly a third of all newly diagnosed breast cancers, and that screening is having, at best, only a small effect on the rate of death from breast cancer.

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Kilika on December 06, 2012, 02:07:02 pm
So where in that article do they point to test results of cancer tumors that were removed? Any mass that is removed as cancerous or non-cancerous, is tested to verify the type of cancer, but they don't explain in the article how all those women could be "treated" for cancer they don't have if actual tests are done on the tumors removed.

If tested, all those women they claim didn't have cancer would know they didn't have cancer, and thus not be treated for something they don't have. See my point? This article is more propaganda than facts. I understand opposing a group and such, but it's the bad guys that put out hit pieces and propaganda. If their facts are true, there is no need to sensationalize an article.

Beware Natural News articles. It's a humanist website.

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Boldhunter on December 06, 2012, 05:38:13 pm
When my baby was just a few months old, we were told by the doctor that it "appeared" cancer had returned and he needed to do radical surgery and radiation . We demanded that we have 7 days to fast and pray-- He told us that we might as well go buy a casket.
7 days later when we returned "whatever" he thought he saw had now suddenly disappeared. His error? A miracle? All that counts is we TRUSTED GOD'S WORD and put our FAITH in His power to heal and His WISDOM! My child would have been blind and facially deformed from the radiation had I just listened to that doctor  and not sought the Lord's help. That's all I can say - besides PRAISE JESUS she is cancer-free YEARS later to date!

Hebrews 13:8 KJV

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Hebrews 4:15-16 KJV

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: tennis shoe on December 06, 2012, 10:49:50 pm
^^^ +1 on the testimony.

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on December 07, 2012, 09:08:27 am
Heb 8:10  For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11  And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12  For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 31, 2013, 02:21:55 pm
Millions Wrongly Treated For ‘Cancer,’ National Cancer Institute Panel Confirms

A devastating new report commissioned by the National Cancer Institute reveals that our 40-year long ‘War on Cancer’ has been waged against a vastly misunderstood ‘enemy,’ that in many cases represented no threat to human health whatsoever.

If you have been following our advocacy work on cancer, particularly in connection with the dark side of breast cancer awareness month, you know that we have been calling for the complete reclassification of some types of ‘breast cancer’ as benign lesions, e.g. ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), as well as pointing out repeatedly that x-ray based breast screenings are not only highly carcinogenic but are also causing an epidemic of “overdiagnosis” and “overtreatment” in US women, with an estimated 1.3 million cases in the past 30 years alone.

This week, a National Cancer Institute commissioned panel’s report published in JAMA online confirmed that we all – public and professionals alike – should stop calling low-risk lesions like DCIS and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) ‘cancer.’

There are wide-reaching implications to this recommendation, including:
•Millions of women in this country have been diagnosed with DCIS, and millions of men with HGPIN, and subsequently [mis]treated. Are they now to be retroactively reclassified as ‘victims’ of iatrogenesis, with legal recourse to seek compensation?

Anyone engaged in a cancer screening will now need to reconsider and weigh both the risks and benefits of such a ‘preventive’ strategy, considering that the likelihood of being diagnosed with a false positive over 10 years is already over 50% for women undergoing annual breast screening.

•The burgeoning pink ribbon-bedecked ‘breast cancer awareness’ industry will be forced to reformulate its message, as it is theoretically culpable for the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of millions of US women by propagating an entirely false concept of ‘cancer.’

As reported by Medscape:

The practice of oncology in the United States is in need of a host of reforms and initiatives to mitigate the problem of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of cancer, according to a working group sanctioned by the National Cancer Institute.

Perhaps most dramatically, the group says that a number of premalignant conditions, including ductal carcinoma in situ and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, should no longer be called “cancer.”

Instead, the conditions should be labeled something more appropriate, such as indolent lesions of epithelial origin (IDLE), the working group suggests. The Viewpoint report was published online July 29 in JAMA.

Fundamentally, overdiagnosis results from the fact that screen-detected ‘cancers’ are disproportionately slower growing ones, present with few to no symptoms, and would never progress to cause harm if left undiagnosed and untreated.

As you can see by the graph above, it is the fast-growing tumors which will be more difficult to ‘detect early,’ and will progress rapidly enough to cause symptoms and perhaps even death unless treated aggressively. But even in the case of finding the tumor early enough to contain it through surgery, chemotherapy and/or radiation, it is well-known that the minority subpopulation of cancer stem cells within these tumors will be enriched and therefore made more malignant through conventional treatment. For instance, radiotherapy radiation wavelengths were only recently found by UCLA Jonnsson Comprehensive Cancer Center researchers to transform breast cancer cells into highly malignant cancer stem-cell like cells, with 30 times higher malignancy post-treatment.

What this means is that not only are millions of screen-detected abnormalities not ‘cancer’ in the first place but even those which can be considered fast-growing are often being driven into greater malignancy by the conventional chemotherapy, radiation and surgery-based standard of cancer care itself.

Our entire world view of cancer needs to shift from an enemy that “attacks” us and that we must wage war against, to something our body does, presumably to survive an increasingly inhospitable, nutrient-deprived, carcinogen- and radiation-saturated environment, i.e. Cancer As An Ancient Survival Mechanism Unmasked.

When we look at cancer through the optic of fear and see it as an essentially chaos-driven infinitely expanding mass of cells, we are apt to make irrational choices. The physiological state of fear itself has been found to activate multidrug resistance proteins within cancer cells, explaining how our very perception of cancer can influence and/or determine its physiological status and/or trajectory within our body.

The NCI panel report opined:

The word “cancer” often invokes the specter of an inexorably lethal process; however, cancers are heterogeneous and can follow multiple paths, not all of which progress to metastases and death, and include indolent disease that causes no harm during the patient’s lifetime.

For more details on what GreenMedInfo.com’s founder Sayer Ji calls the “Cancer Malignancy Meme,” see his video presentation at the Mind Body Week DC conference, wherein he discuss the ‘Rise of Biomedicine’ within the context of the mind-body connection, and breast cancer overdiagnosis in particular.

We must keep in mind that this proposed redefinition of cancer is no small academic matter, but will affect the lives of millions of women. Consider that every year, approximately 60,000 women in this country are diagnosed with DCIS, a diagnosis so traumatic that it results in significant psychiatric depression 3 years after even a ‘false positive’ diagnosis. For those less fortunate women, numbering in the millions over the past 30 years, who were told they had ‘cancer’ and needed to undergo lumpectomy, radiation, chemotherapy and/or mastectomy, the NCI panel’s recommendation is a hard pill swallow after the damage has already been irrevocably done.

So, what’s the solution? There is a growing movement towards the use of thermography as a primary diagnostic tool, as it uses no ionizing radiation, and can detect the underlying physiological processes that may indicate inflammation, angiogenesis, cancer-specific metabolic changes, etc., many years before a calcified lesion would appear within an x-ray mammogram. Also, the mainstay of any truly preventive strategy against cancer is diet, nutrition, exercise and avoiding chemical and radiation exposures – the things that we can do  in our daily lives to take back control of and responsibility for our health.

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 16, 2013, 11:12:29 pm
Of course it isn't, b/c all of it is a scam!(like every other secular "fundraiser")


Pink NFL merchandise isn’t raising that much money for cancer research

Posted by Sid.Saraf on October 16th, 2013 at 1:03 pm

October is the pink month for the NFL. Players, coaches, cheerleaders and even stadiums are adorned with the color to promote Breast Cancer Awareness Month. The league also sells pink merchandise (hats, jerseys, etc.) and donates a portion of the proceeds to the American Cancer Society.

How much of the proceeds? Well, not a whole lot. ESPN’s Darren Rovell is reporting (via Business Insider) that the league takes a “25 percent royalty from the wholesale price (1/2 retail), donates 90 percent of royalty to American Cancer Society.”

So, how much money is that exactly? Here’s the breakdown: If you drop $100 on a pink Seahawks jersey, $12.50 is going to the NFL. Then $76.25 is divided by the company that makes the merchandise and the company that sells it, which is often the league and its individual teams.

So, what’s left for the American Cancer Society? Try $11.25.
By the way, the ACS has operating costs of its own, which means that 71.2 percent of the money it receives actually funds cancer research.

In the end, 8.01 percent of pink NFL merchandise sold actually goes to cancer research.

Before people jump all over the NFL for this, the money it is raising is better than donating nothing. The league is also doing a service by promoting breast cancer awareness, which it should be commended for.

However, before you drop some cash on that pink merchandise, you might stop and think. Would you be better served by donating money directly to the American Cancer Society?


But if you’re just looking to add a cute pink top to your gameday ensemble, then rock on. You’ll be doing at least something to help cancer research in the process.

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Kilika on October 17, 2013, 04:00:03 am
but even those which can be considered fast-growing are often being driven into greater malignancy by the conventional chemotherapy, radiation and surgery-based standard of cancer care itself.

That has been suspected for years. People are told they have cancer and need radiation treatment and next thing you know, they are dead.

I also agree that there are some conditions that are not technically "cancer" that the medical/pharmacy community claims are cancer, and some conditions they just outright lie and call it cancer to get people scared into treatment, like for the HPV virus they claim causes cancer in teen girls (and now they claim boys too!), which turns out by the government's own research, over 90 percent of HPV cases resolve on their own without treatment. And even so, the treatment covers only 4 of the 12 or so virus strains they claim causes the cancer. To me, that means only 20 percent of those virus strains are a potential problem. And they want to vaccinate every teen girl and boy for a condition that affects an extremely small percentage of the population? Uh, no!

Cancer treatment and research is one of the biggest scams in medical history. That is a fact.

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 12, 2013, 02:21:35 pm
MORE Propaganda...

GMA's Amy Robach Diagnosed with Cancer After on-Air Exam

Good Morning America anchor Amy Robach underwent a routine mammogram live on the air last month as part of a segment on women's health. And the procedure may end up saving her life.

On Monday, Robach revealed that when she went to get the results of the screening, she was diagnosed with breast cancer and now plans to have a double mastectomy.

Robach said she was initially reluctant to have the mammogram when producers approached her about it. But she eventually agreed, and had the exam on the air on Oct. 1.

"That day, when I was asked to do something I really didn't want to do, something I had put off for more than a year, I had no way of knowing that I was in a life-or-death situation," she wrote in a blog post Monday. "Sitting in that kitchen with Marie Monville, I had cancer and didn't know it. In fact, I would have considered it virtually impossible that I would have cancer. I work out, I eat right, I take care of myself and I have very little family history; in fact, all of my grandparents are still alive."

Robach says she plans to have the mastectomy on Nov. 14. "Only then will I know more about what that fight will fully entail, but I am mentally and physically as prepared as anyone can be in this situation," she writes. "And while everyone who gets cancer is clearly unlucky, I got lucky by catching it early, and there are so many people to thank for making sure I did. Every producer, every person who urged me to do this, changed my trajectory."

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Kilika on November 12, 2013, 03:10:17 pm
No more Susan G. Komen charity walk in 7 cities, due to a drop in participation!

http://www.kpho.com/story/22504600/komen-drops-3-day-walk-in-az-starting-in-2014 (http://www.kpho.com/story/22504600/komen-drops-3-day-walk-in-az-starting-in-2014)

Final Susan G. Komen 3-Day walk in Phoenix

Posted: Jun 04, 2013 9:16 PM Updated: Nov 08, 2013 8:22 AM
By Phil Benson - email


It's the start of the final Susan G. Komen 3-day walk in Phoenix to raise money for breast cancer research.
'3-Day For The Cure' walk raises $3.9M in AZ

After a 60-mile journey, they crossed the finish line Sunday.

Participants in The Susan G. Komen 3-Day for the Cure finished the long walk at Scottsdale Stadium.
Continue reading >>

The event won't be back next year because of a steady drop in participants.

In June, the Susan G. Komen Foundation announced it is no longer going to hold the national 3-Day walk in seven markets, including Phoenix.

Officials blamed "declining participation in the last five years."

"While the 3-Day has brought great awareness to the breast cancer cause, participation levels over the last four years have made it difficult to sustain an event of this magnitude in 14 cities," the foundation said.

"Like you, we are saddened to see the national 3-Day series leave our community, but based on the information shared with us, we support the decision as being in the best interest of resources and our promise to end breast cancer forever," Phoenix foundation officials said.

The 2014 Susan G. Komen 3-Day will return to Atlanta, Dallas/Fort Worth, Michigan, Philadelphia, San Diego, Seattle and the Twin Cities.

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Mark on December 02, 2013, 08:53:56 am
Bombshell Study Finds 44% Increased Breast Cancer Risk for Women Having Abortions

A new systematic review and meta-analysis of abortion and breast cancer (ABC link) in China was just published four days ago in the prestigious, peer-reviewed international cancer journal, Cancer Causes and Control.

In this meta-analysis (a study of studies, in which results from many studies are pooled), Dr. Yubei Huang et al. reported that, combining all 36 studies on the ABC link in China that have been published through 2012, the overall risk of developing breast cancer among women who had at least one induced abortion was significantly increased by 44%.

These results, said the authors, “were consistent with a previously published systematic review”. That review was the one I published in the British Medical Association’s epidemiology journal with colleagues from Penn State Medical Center in 1996, which study reported an overall significant 30% increased risk of breast cancer in worldwide studies.
Since the our study came out in 1996, the “mainstream” abortion advocates entrenched in universities, medical societies, breast cancer charities, journals, and especially, government agencies like the National Cancer Institute (In reality, the NCI is just another corrupt federal agency like the IRS and the NSA) have relentlessly targeted the ABC link with fraudulent studies and other attacks, culminating in a 2003 international phony “workshop” by the NCI, which officially declared the ABC link non-existent.
Since 2003, armed with this new official “truth”, NARAL and their ilk have viciously been attacking pro-life pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) for “lying” to women by telling them about the ABC link as a reality. In places like Maryland and New York City, they even went so far as to enact laws to muzzle the PRCs. Thankfully, the courts have struck down such laws as violations of free speech rights–so far.
But the new Chinese meta-analysis is a real game changer. Not only does it validate the earlier findings from 1996, but its findings are even stronger, for several reasons:
1. The link is a slightly stronger one, i.e., 44% v. 30% risk increase with abortion;
2. It shows what is called a “dose effect”, i.e., two abortions increase the risk more than one abortion (76% risk increase with two or more abortions), and three abortions increase the risk even more (89% risk increase with three or more abortions). Risk factors that show such a dose effect have more credibility in terms of actually causing the disease.
3. Huang et al. state: “The lack of a social stigma associated with induced abortion in China may limit the amount of underreporting”. Putative underreporting of abortions by healthy women has been routinely invoked to discredit the ABC link–the lack of credible evidence notwithstanding. This line of attack—variously called the “response bias” or “recall bias” or “reporting bias” argument, has now been neutralized.
4. Huang et al. explain why two earlier high-profile studies in Shanghai did not find the link, essentially by citing and extending arguments I had articulated in the British Journal of Cancer in 2004. In that published letter, I explained that the Shanghai population was unsuitable for studying the ABC link in the usual manner, because the prevalence of induced abortion was so high (greater than 50%) in the general population. Huang et al. provided strong evidence for that explanation, by performing what is called a meta-regression analysis of all the Chinese studies, which meta-regression showed that the more prevalent abortion was in the study population, the lower risk increase associated with abortion.
5. The Huang study follows right on the heels of two new studies this year from India and Bangladesh, studies which reported breast cancer risk increases of unprecedented magnitude: over 600% and over 2,000%, respectively, among women who had any induced abortions.

Finally, the new Chinese meta-analysis follows on the heels of the recent decisions of the US 10th Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld the religious freedom rights of companies wanting to opt out of Obamacare, since Obamacare insurance funds contraceptive steroids and abortions. The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer and the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute filed amicus curiae briefs for these cases, briefs which were specifically cited in the 10th Circuit’s decision with respect to the cancer-causing effects of these steroid drugs (innocuously referred to as “the pill”, in common parlance). At least two of these cases have just been accepted by the US Supreme Court for review in their next session.


Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on December 02, 2013, 04:49:30 pm
I read about this a couple of years ago. This is no coincidence.

1Cor 6:13  Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
1Co 6:14  And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
1Co 6:15  Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
1Co 6:16  What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
1Co 6:17  But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
1Co 6:18  Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Mark on January 04, 2014, 07:00:09 am
Women who had an abortion are 626% more likely to have breast cancer: Indian study

January 3, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Women who have had an abortion are 6.26 times more likely to develop breast cancer than women who have no such history, a new study in India has found.
A report published in the current issue of the Indian Journal of Cancer suggests that abortion makes the breast's muscle tissue (epithelium) more likely to act as a cancer-producing agent. “It has been suggested that abortions leave the breast epithelium in a proliferative state with an increased susceptibility to carcinogenesis,” it says.
Perhaps more unnerving, that was not the greatest cancer risk facing women.
Women who consume oral contraceptive pills have a 9.5 times higher rate of breast cancer than women who do not use the drugs, researchers said.
"We found long-term use of oral contraceptive pills (OCP) higher among those suffering from breast cancer compared to healthy individuals," said lead researcher Dr. Umesh Kapil of the department of gastroenterology and human nutrition at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in New Delhi.
In the report, Dr. Kapil explained that cancer is a hormonally mediated disease and that breast cancer is caused by repeated exposure of breast cells to circulating ovarian hormones.
He said long-term use of OCPs, which contain estrogen and progesterone, may be increasing the risk of breast cancer by causing a hormonal imbalance. His research suggests a strong relationship between use of oral contraceptive pills and the disease.
The study also looked into the association of other reproductive factors that affect the prevalence of breast cancer, and found that early onset of menstruation, higher age at marriage, higher age at first and last child birth, lower duration of breastfeeding, higher number of abortions, history of oral contraceptive pill use, and a family history of breast cancer are all associated with a significant increase in breast cancer occurrence.
The researchers found that mean age at first menstruation in cancer patients was about 13 years, as compared to about 14.5 years in the healthy controls. They observed that this difference was statistically significant.
The report noted that first pregnancy "induces irreversible changes that either render the breast tissue itself less susceptible to induction of cancer or reduced the carcinogenic stimulus to the breast."
The researchers found that women who had an age of marriage more than 20 years old had an almost three times higher risk of breast cancer, while the age at first childbirth was found to be associated with a twofold higher risk in women who had their first child after the age of 21.
Age at last childbirth of more than 27 years resulted in a 329 percent higher incidence of breast cancer.
"Lactation also has a direct physical effect on the breast, such as changes in breast ductal epithelial cells leading to mechanical 'flushing-out' of carcinogens," the researchers said.

The study found that the risk of breast cancer increased 14.9 times in women having mean duration of breastfeeding of less than 13 months. The average duration of breastfeeding in cancer cases was about 11 months, while in controls it was about 21 months.
The study was a hospital-based survey conducted in the tertiary care hospital in New Delhi. Three hundred and twenty newly diagnosed breast cancer cases in the AIIMS departments of Surgery/Surgical Oncology were matched with an equal number of healthy individuals, which constituted the control group.
The average age of the women was 45.5 years. A majority of the participants lived in urban areas. All the women were married, and the majority of both groups were housewives. About 46 percent of the cases and 36 percent of the controls belonged to lower-middle socioeconomic status.
The AIIMS research team concluded that, "the results of the present study reveal a strong association of reproductive factors with breast cancer in the Indian population."
The full text of the AIIMS study titled "Reproductive factors and breast cancer: A case-control study in tertiary care hospital of North India" is available here.


Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Mark on January 04, 2014, 02:00:09 pm
Susan G. Komen for the Cure Contributions Plummet After Planned Parenthood Controversy

Susan G. Komen for the Cure saw a 22 percent drop in contributions in the year following the controversy over its decision, quickly reversed, to stop giving grants to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings.
Citing audited financial statements posted on its website this week, a spokeswoman for the Dallas-based breast cancer charity said contributions — including donations and corporate sponsorships — dropped from about $164 million from the fiscal year ending in March 2012 to $128 million in the year ending March 2013.
After news of the plan to quit offering grants to Planned Parenthood broke in January 2012, several executives left the organization and fewer people took part in its fundraising Races for the Cure across the country. The organization announced last summer that it would cancel half of its three-day charity walks for this year because of a drop in participation.

The statements also showed that revenue from Race for the Cure and three-day events had a 19 percent drop for the same fiscal period, falling from about $258 million to $208 million. Total revenue, which included the race fees, contributions, other fundraising and interest, dropped 18 percent in that time period, from $399 million to $325 million.
Komen spokeswoman Andrea Rader attributed the drops to the Planned Parenthood controversy, in addition to economic uncertainty and other events vying for charity dollars.
But she also said the organization now is seeing its numbers stabilize and noted Komen currently has 150 corporate sponsors. She said even people angered by the Planned Parenthood issue are coming around because they know what Komen does for their community. “They tend to say, ‘OK, we were mad about that but we’re not mad anymore,’” she said.
“We just hope that people will continue to understand that our work is very important,” Rader said.

Komen founder Nancy Brinker, whose promise to her dying sister begat the fundraising powerhouse that has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in cancer research, announced in the summer of 2012 she would step down as CEO when a replacement was found. It was announced in the summer of 2013 that Dr. Judith A. Salerno would replace her as CEO. Salerno was formerly executive director and chief operating officer of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences.
The organization also this week disclosed 2013 salary information, saying that Brinker has taken a $158,700 pay cut with her move from CEO to global strategy chair. Brinker’s annual salary for her new role is $390,000, down from $548,700 in 2012. Salerno, named president and CEO in June, has a salary of $475,000.


Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Kilika on January 05, 2014, 02:24:28 am
“They tend to say, ‘OK, we were mad about that but we’re not mad anymore,’” she said.

Really? That's wishful thinking. Many people are still really mad, because of the obvious deception you people used.

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 05, 2014, 04:00:03 pm
I understand what that article said linking abortion to breast cancer, however, this one bewildered me...

The researchers found that women who had an age of marriage more than 20 years old had an almost three times higher risk of breast cancer, while the age at first childbirth was found to be associated with a twofold higher risk in women who had their first child after the age of 21.
Age at last childbirth of more than 27 years resulted in a 329 percent higher incidence of breast cancer.


So is Lifesite news saying it's unhealthy to have children(inside of marriage, that is) after the age of 21? Are they saying after the age of 27 is bad too? What has this got to do with the abortion agenda? Or is Lifesite news advocating teen pregnancies?

Again, this Catholic news web site really lost me here.

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 12, 2014, 12:13:54 pm
Annual mammograms don't reduce breast cancer deaths, study contends

But some outside experts cite flaws in the 25-year review of screening's effects on women.

(HealthDay News) -- The value of yearly mammograms is under fire once again, with a long-running Canadian study contending that annual screening in women aged 40 to 59 does not lower breast cancer death rates.

For 25 years, the researchers followed nearly 90,000 women who were randomly assigned either to get screening mammograms or not.

"Mammography detected many more invasive breast cancers," said lead researcher Dr. Cornelia Baines, professor emeriti at the University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of Public Health. "Survival time was longer in women getting mammography."

"[However], the number of deaths from breast cancer was the same in both groups at 25 years," she said.

"It is increasingly being recognized that there are significant harms from screening, and that screening can do much less now than 40 years ago because of improved therapy," Baines added. "Twenty-two percent of the mammography group with screen-detected invasive beast cancer were over-diagnosed and unnecessarily inflicted with therapy."

Over-diagnosis is defined as the detection of harmless cancers that will not cause symptoms or problems during a patient's lifetime.

The study, which began in 1980 in 15 screening centers in six Canadian provinces, was published Feb. 11 in the online edition of the journal BMJ.

Women in the mammography group had a total of five mammograms -- one a year for five years. Those aged 40 to 49 in the mammography group and all women aged 50 to 59 in both groups also had an annual physical exam. Women aged 40 to 49 in the no-mammography group had a single physical exam followed by typical care.

During the next 25 years, 3,250 women who got screening mammographies were diagnosed with breast cancer, compared with 3,133 in the no-mammography group, according to the study. While 500 women in the mammography group died during the follow up, 505 in the no-mammography group did.

In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force updated its recommendations on screening mammograms, suggesting them for women aged 50 to 74 every two years. Among women aged 40 to 49, the task force recommended only a discussion with a woman's doctor on the pros and cons of screening.

But other U.S.-based organizations, including the American Cancer Society, continue to recommend annual screening mammograms for women beginning at age 40.

The American College of Radiology, which also supports annual screening mammograms for women aged 40 and older, reacted strongly to the Canadian findings. In a statement issued Feb. 11, the college called the report "an incredibly misleading analysis based on the deeply flawed and widely discredited Canadian National Breast Screening Study."

Among those flaws, according to the college: the quality of mammograms done in the study was poor and the skills of the imaging technologists were not adequate

The new report isn't a surprise, said Dr. Carol Lee, chairwoman of the college's breast imaging communications committee. "When it was first reported 20 years ago, it didn't show a benefit," she said.

The findings are at odds with many other reports that show a benefit for routine screening, Lee added.

"Screening mammography has been shown over and over again to decrease mortality from breast cancer," she said.

Lee said she is "concerned [the new study] is going to discourage women from having mammograms

In an editorial accompanying the study, experts from the University of Oslo, the Harvard School of Public Health and other institutions agreed with the Canadian researchers that the rationale for screening needs to be reassessed by policy makers.

Baines said her research points to the value of offering screening mammograms only to those at higher risk of breast cancer.

"In time, the hope is to offer screening to a subset of the population [that has] been identified, probably by genetic markers, to be very likely to benefit from screening," she said.

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 29, 2014, 11:26:52 am
Former Georgia technician falsified nearly 1,300 mammogram reports

PERRY, Ga. –  Sharon Holmes found a lump in her left breast quite by accident. At work one day as a high school custodian, her hand brushed up against her chest and she felt a knot sticking out. She was perplexed. After all, just three months earlier, she had been given an all-clear sign from her doctor after a mammogram.

A new mammogram in February 2010 showed she in fact had an aggressive stage 2 breast cancer. The horror of the discovery was compounded by the reason: The earlier test results she had gotten weren't just read incorrectly. They were falsified.

She wasn't alone in facing this news. The lead radiological technologist at Perry Hospital in Perry, a small community about 100 miles south of Atlanta, had for about 18 months been signing off on mammograms and spitting out reports showing nearly 1,300 women were clear of any signs of breast cancer or abnormalities.

Except that she was wrong. Holmes and nine other women were later shown to have lumps or cancerous tumors growing inside them.

Holmes said the discovery was horrific enough. With a son in his 20s and another in high school at the time, she trembled at the thought of leaving them without a mother. "To me, that meant a death sentence," she said. She underwent successful surgery the month after the cancer was discovered to remove the lump from her breast and followed that with chemotherapy and radiation treatments.

Her breast has been cancer-free for four years and subsequent cancers found elsewhere, in her lymph nodes and thyroid, have been successfully treated. Now she just prays it doesn't come back.

But to find out later that she had been deceived made it even worse. "I'm thinking I'm doing what I'm supposed to do, getting my tests done, and then I find out someone else isn't doing their job," Holmes told The Associated Press.

The tech, Rachael Rapraeger, pleaded guilty earlier this month to 10 misdemeanor charges of reckless conduct and one felony charge of computer forgery. She was sentenced to serve up to six months in a detention center, to serve 10 years on probation during which she can't work in the health care field and to pay a $12,500 fine.

The reasons she gave were vague. She told police she had personal issues that caused her to stop caring about her job, that she had fallen behind processing the piles of mammogram films that stacked up. So she went into the hospital's computer system, assumed the identities of physicians, and gave each patient a clear reading, an investigative report says. That allowed her to avoid the time-consuming paperwork required before the films are brought to a reading room for radiologists to examine, her lawyer Floyd Buford told the AP.

Her actions were uncovered in April 2010 after a patient who'd received a negative report had another mammogram three months later at another hospital that revealed she had breast cancer. As hospital staff began to investigate, it was determined that the doctor whose name was on the faulty report had not been at the hospital the day the report was filed. Rapraeger quickly confessed to her supervisor that she was responsible and was fired from her job about a week later, according to an investigator's report.

Rapraeger told police she knew what she was doing wasn't right, but that she didn't consider the consequences until she realized a patient with cancer had been told her scan was clear.

She didn't return a phone call from The Associated Press seeking comment. Her attorney said she feels great remorse about any pain that she caused.

Cary Martin, CEO of Houston Healthcare, which operates Perry Hospital, released a statement saying he is "pleased this component of Ms. Rapraeger's unfortunate action is concluded" and declined to comment further.

Sara Bailey also received a false-negative report. By the time it was discovered, her breast cancer progressed to the point that doctors had to remove her entire breast rather than just going in and removing a lump, she said.

The surgery was successful and the cancer hasn't returned, but Bailey carries a bitterness inside her that surfaces when she talks about her experience.

"I'm not hurting and I don't think I have cancer, but I'm not a woman anymore," the 80-year-old said, her eyes welling with tears and her voice catching as she talked about the loss of her breast.

The emotional wound was opened again this month when Rapraeger received a sentence that Bailey saw as a slap on the wrist.

"I feel like we were thrown under the bus, and there will be an election day," Bailey said, explaining that she plans to organize an effort to get Houston Judicial Circuit District Attorney George Hartwig voted out of office.

Hartwig said he understands how Bailey feels and knows some people think Rapraeger got off easy, but he said his office weighed the evidence in the case very carefully and concluded the plea was a fair outcome. Even though Rapraeger did make statements and admissions to police, they were too general to prove specific instances of wrongdoing, he said.

"Given the entirety of the case and the issues that were there, I really feel like we did the best we could do to get a measure of justice for these women," he said, adding that it would have been even more disappointing if the case had gone to trial and she'd been found not guilty and walked out of there with no penalty.

For her part, Holmes, 49, has tried to move on, and testifying at Rapraeger's sentencing helped with that.

"I wanted her to know I'm a person, not just a name on a paper," she said.

But she's still angry because lingering effects from her chemotherapy and radiation -- treatments she said her doctors told her might not have been necessary if the cancer had been caught by the original mammogram -- have kept her from returning to work as a high school janitor.

Like Bailey, she thought Rapraeger's sentence was too light, and she was disappointed that Rapraeger didn't speak in court, instead letting her attorney read a statement for her.

"If she had gotten up and at least said, `I'm sorry for what I did. I'm sorry these women had to go through this,' that, to me, would have meant that she was truly sorry for what we went through," Holmes said.

Mary Brown had a mammogram in August 2009. She was contacted by the hospital in May 2010 and told to come back for another. That one came back positive, and she had a mastectomy to remove her right breast. She considers herself lucky that she apparently had a slow-growing cancer and didn't need to have chemotherapy or radiation.

Brown, a 78-year-old Jehovah's Witness, credits her strong faith in God with helping her get through the ordeal and with helping her forgive Rapraeger.

"I don't have any hard feelings about her. Whatever she did, she brought it on herself," Brown said, though she conceded her relative good fortune might also be coloring her reaction. "Maybe if I had been dying sick from it I would feel different."

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 02, 2014, 05:38:32 pm
A Dentist Exposes The Root Canal Coverup
Tuesday, May 20, 2014 14:49

One of the  most feared dental procedures is the root canal.  It can also be one of the most painful.  For the thousands of people who have them, most  are unaware of the danger that it may pose to their health.  More than 25 million root canals are performed each year in the United States.

What is a root canal?

A root canal is a procedure where the dentist drills out decay, removes the infected pulp and then places a file down the canal to remove the remaining pulp.  The canals are then filled with a plastic material (gutta percha).  The tooth is now basically dead and remaining in your mouth.

What are the issues with root canals?

The issue lies with anaerobic bacteria that remains in the tooth canal which can be released into the blood stream causing mild to serious health conditions such as MS, ALS and even cancer.  Dr Hal Huggins’ website shares the specific issues with having something that is “dead” in your mouth and which toxic bacteria have been found when tested.


Recently, Dr Robert Jones, a researcher, discovered a very high correlation between root canals and breast cancer. He performed a five year study of 300 breast cancer patients which showed that 93% of the women with breast cancer had root canals.

Dr George Meinig, DDS wrote a book called “The Root Canal Cover-up” which addresses the issues of root canals .  In this book he discusses an extensive research study in which 5,000 animals were involved.  The research revealed that bacteria and toxins were able to escape into the blood circulation around the bony socket of the tooth.  They were also able to show how these organisms were responsible for a high percentage of the chronic and degenerative disease conditions which are epidemic in America.

    Approximately 25% of the population have strong immune systems and are able to live symptom and issue free after a root canal.  This causes dentists and endodontists to believe, falsely, that root canals are perfectly safe.   However, there are approximately 75%  who’s immune systems have been compromised through poor nutrition, accidents, illnesses, stress, etc.  These are the individuals who develop symptoms that cause them to go from doctor to doctor in attempts to find answers to their maladies.  A high percentage of these cases are due to the bacteria coming from their root canal filled teeth, or from tooth extractions, or other foci of infection.

Recently, Dr Robert Jones, a researcher, discovered a very high correlation between root canals and breast cancer.  He performed a five year study of 300 breast cancer patients which showed that 93% of the women with breast cancer had root canals.  Seven percent had other dental issues.   An interesting note was that tumors, in most cases, manifested on the same side of the body as the root canal(s) or where dental restoration we performed.  Dr Jones determined that toxins from the bacteria in the infected tooth and jawbone may inhibit the body’s natural ability to suppress tumor development.

    My personal story is similar.  I was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in 2000.  The cancerous nodule was located on the right side of my thyroid gland.  I had one root canal tooth in my mouth which was located on the right side of my body in a lower molar.  When fighting cancer naturally I had 11 amalgam fillings removed along with pulling the root canal tooth.  When extracted my dentist noted that there was black sludge under the tooth along with necrosis of the jaw bone.  It was after I cleaned up my mouth that I began to experience a more rapid healing from cancer.

Dental health is important to your full body health.  One of the things that I use are Young Living dental products that contain Thieves Oil.  Clove is a key ingredient in this blend and it has been shown to help heal teeth and combat dental bacteria that contributes to gingivitis.

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Mark on October 02, 2015, 11:27:46 am
Planned Parenthood President Admits to Congress: ‘We Do Not Have Mammogram Machines’

During her testimony on Tuesday before a Congressional panel investigating Planned Parenthood’s alleged harvesting and sale of aborted babies, the president of the organization admitted that the abortion giant does not provide mammograms despite beliefs otherwise.

“Planned Parenthood’s annual report says that you are providing over 489,000 breast cancer screenings, and you’ve stated that none of your clinics actually have the mammogram machines. How many of your affiliates have those mammogram machines?” asked Rep. Mia Love, R-Utah.

“Well our health centers are part of our affiliates. We have more than 650 health centers. So an affiliate is simply the corporate structure for those health centers,” Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards responded.

“How many of them have mammogram machines?” Love repeated.

“I think I spoke earlier, we do not have mammogram machines at our health centers,” Richards replied. “And we’ve never stated that we did.”

She then explained that the organization only offers referrals for mammograms.

“As I think was mentioned earlier, for women who go for a breast exam—just as I got for my annual—you get a breast exam, and if you need a mammogram, you’re referred to a radiological clinic, and that’s what we do at Planned Parenthood,” Richards outlined

Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wy., also brought up the matter during her testimony.

“None [of your facilities] to your knowledge have a mammogram machine?” Lummis asked.

“Right, we have different kinds of arrangements depending on the state to refer women for mammograms,” Richards replied.

When Lummis asked what kind of surgical procedures Planned Parenthood offers for women, Richards said that there were just two: abortion and colposcopy, the latter of which involves examining one’s reproductive organs for disease.

“We provide surgical abortions and we provide colposcopy. We do a variety of services,” she explained. “We have core services across the country, but some … provide broader services [such as primary care].”

As previously reported, during the 2012 presidential debate, Barack Obama expressed support for Planned Parenthood, citing mammograms among the services that he believed the organization offers to women.

“[T]here are millions of women all across the country who rely on Planned Parenthood for—not just contraceptive care—they rely on it for mammograms [and] for cervical cancer screenings,” he said.

Earlier that year, Casey Mattox with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) wrote to Obama’s Health and Human Services Department to request copies of all mammogram permits for Planned Parenthood facilities across the country, and was told that none exist.

“In response to your information request, we have performed a thorough and diligent investigation of our records,” the response letter stated. “Unfortunately, our search did not uncover any documents pertinent to your request.”

Following the release of a series of undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood officials detailing the organization’s harvesting and sale of aborted babies, Congress is seeking to reallocate the group’s $235 million a year in federal funding to women’s health organizations that do not perform abortions.


Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Mark on October 14, 2015, 05:42:19 am
Debunking the Planned Parenthood Mammogram Myth

 Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms despite continued claims from high-profile supporters that it does, according to a Fact Checker report released by The Washington Post in late September.
In a Sept. 29 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., claimed that Planned Parenthood provided mammograms.
“All the signatories [of a letter supporting defunding Planned Parenthood] are men, none of whom will get pregnant, or need a cervical screening for cancer, or a mammogram, or a pap smear, or other life-saving services that are provided by Planned Parenthood,” Maloney said.
But the claim that Planned Parenthood “provides” mammograms is false, according to report author Michelle Ye Hee Lee. And the claim earned three-out-of-four Pinocchios from Fact Checker, meaning it contained “significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.”
An Oct. 1 video release by Live Action highlighted those contradictions by juxtaposing statements indicating the abortion giant provides mammograms with Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards’ admission before Congress that “we do not have mammogram machines at our health centers. And we’ve never stated that we did.” The video has drawn more than 2,650,000 views on Facebook since its release.
The video includes statements from Richards, President Barack Obama during his 2012 campaign, Whoopi Goldberg in her Sept. 30 appearance on The View, and Hannah Robison, Miss Tennessee in the 2015 Miss America Pageant. All four appear to promote the idea that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms.
Ye Hee Lee explained the discrepancy by emphasizing the ambiguity of the word Planned Parenthood uses to explain the services it offers women. Planned Parenthood says it provides “access” to mammograms. Access can be interpreted to mean “provides,” or it can mean what Planned Parenthood actually does by referring women to facilities that offer mammograms if a breast exam at a facility uncovers something abnormal.
“When Democratic lawmakers or other supporters assert that Planned Parenthood ‘provides’ mammograms, this is highly misleading language because it could be interpreted to mean that the group directly administers the X-rays,” Lee said. “It is slightly more accurate to say that women have ‘access’ to mammograms via Planned Parenthood, though it’s still slippery language.”
The language is especially slippery when less than 3 percent of breast exams at Planned Parenthood facilities result in referrals for mammograms, according to the report. Women older than 40 typically receive mammogram referrals, but women in that age bracket represented only about 7 percent of Planned Parenthood’s clients in 2013. Of the 487,029 breast exams that year, only about 14,000 led to mammogram referrals—a much smaller number than the 327,653 abortions performed the same year at Planned Parenthood.
Live Action started a petition supporting defunding Planned Parenthood and has received more than 298,000 signatures toward its 300,000 goal. But so far, two attempts to defund Planned Parenthood on the federal level have failed.

 “President Obama and some in Congress have opted to keep taxpayer funds flowing to Planned Parenthood, even though the nation’s largest abortion chain is under four congressional investigations​ and several state investigations,​ looking into at least three criminal acts it has committed,” Live Action president Lila Rose said.
But some Republicans are mounting another defunding attempt. A coalition of 38 pro-life leaders has voiced support for defunding Planned Parenthood through reconciliation, a legislative process that limits debate on budgetary bills to 20 hours. The coalition aims to prevent filibuster in the Senate.
“Over 1 million abortions are performed annually in the United States, with nearly 330,000 occurring in Planned Parenthood facilities,” the coalition said in a letter to the chairmen of the House and Senate Budget committees. “Tax dollars would be put to better use at local community health centers, which provide all the same health services Planned Parenthood does (and usually more), but do not abort the lives of unborn children and callously harvest their body parts for profit.”

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Mark on January 18, 2016, 09:40:33 pm

Title: Re: Susan G. Komen Deception
Post by: Boldhunter on January 26, 2016, 09:22:26 pm
Great expose! So tired of these thieves preying on people who've lost a loved one