Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Catholic diocese pulls support from Race for the Cure (Komen Foundation)
WIS TV ^ | 10.18.05 | Bryce Mursch

Posted on 10/18/2005 6:27:07 PM PDT by Coleus

(Charleston-AP) October 18, 2005 -

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Charleston and Bishop England High School have broken ties to Saturday's Race for the Cure.

They made the decision because the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Research Foundation gives money to Planned Parenthood in other cities.

The race is expected to attract about six thousand people in Charleston this year.

Race organizers say some students from the Bishop England High School will participate on their own, but will no longer receive community service credit for their efforts.

Proceeds from the race are required to go toward breast cancer screenings for poor women. But Komen affiliates in other parts of the country give money to Planned Parenthood chapters.

Planned Parenthood also provides abortion services.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: South Carolina
KEYWORDS: abortionlist; bishopbaker; bishoprobertjbaker; catholiclist; catholicschools; charleston; dioceseofcharleston; komen; komenfoundation; raceforthecure
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last
komen       komenfoundation
 
Breast Cancer Walkers Uninformed about Abortion Link, Komen Foundation gives to Planned Parenthood
 
Thank you Bishop Baker
http://www.catholic-doc.org/doc-offices-2002.html
 
The Most Rev. Robert J. Baker, S.T.D.
BISHOP OF CHARLESTON
 
BISHOP’S OFFICE: 

Kay Phillip, Executive Assistant 
 E-mail:  ackp@catholic-doc.org
 (843) 853-2130 ext. 203 

 (Chancery) 

Jeffrey Poulin, Receptionist/Secretary 
 E-mail:  JeffreyPoulin@catholic-doc.org
 (843) 853-2130 ext. 201 


1 posted on 10/18/2005 6:27:08 PM PDT by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Bump!


2 posted on 10/18/2005 6:29:23 PM PDT by hispanichoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...


3 posted on 10/18/2005 6:29:32 PM PDT by Coleus ("Woe unto him that call evil good and good evil"-- Isaiah 5:20-21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Please don't zot me if this seems a really stupid question, but why is one charity (The Susan G. Komen Foundation) giving any money raise for their own cause (breast cancer) to any other charitable fund? I don't quite understand.


4 posted on 10/18/2005 6:32:58 PM PDT by PennsylvaniaMom (Shiny things distract me :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Good for them! I wish more would follow their lead.


5 posted on 10/18/2005 6:33:17 PM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PennsylvaniaMom

Maybe, God forbid, it's a front...


6 posted on 10/18/2005 6:34:55 PM PDT by baltodog (R.I.P. Balto: 2001(?) - 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PennsylvaniaMom

Because they can.


7 posted on 10/18/2005 6:35:04 PM PDT by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PennsylvaniaMom

"Please don't zot me if this seems a really stupid question, but why is one charity (The Susan G. Komen Foundation) giving any money raise for their own cause (breast cancer) to any other charitable fund? I don't quite understand."

They give money to various clinics to support breast cancer screenings and other breast health services.

Using the Church's logic you could find links from just about any major charity to abortion and we should boycott all major charities.


8 posted on 10/18/2005 6:42:32 PM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PennsylvaniaMom
but why is one charity (The Susan G. Komen Foundation) giving any money raise for their own cause (breast cancer) to any other charitable fund? I don't quite understand.

They give money to PP for distributing materials and referrals to their programs. They also give money to faith-based organizations to do the same. I think the Church is fighting the wrong battle on this one.

9 posted on 10/18/2005 6:44:58 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Is it true that the Denver Affiliate is funding Planned Parenthood and the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community (GLBT) Center of Colorado?


We fund many breast health/breast cancer-related projects within numerous organizations. While we have funded projects with Planned Parenthood and the GLBT Center in the past, they are not receiving funding in this current grant cycle Organizations submit a new application each year and funding is awarded based on the merits of a specific project. Funding is not guaranteed from one year to the next.

Komen funding is restricted in that it may only be used to provide the vital breast health services indicated in an organization’s project proposal. Funds must be strictly tracked and may never be mixed with an organization’s general operating funds. Funding of a specific organization’s project in no way constitutes our endorsement of that organization, its’ overall mission or any of the other services it may provide. A complete list of the organizations receiving funding during the current fiscal year is available by calling the Affiliate Office at 303-744-2088 Ext. 300 or click on the “Grant Recipients” section on our web site. Thank you for being interested in where the money is going. It is extremely important that all donors/potential donors know where their money goes, and what we are doing to help in the fight against breast cancer.



http://tinyurl.com/c5hla



******


A foundation that uses events such as the "Race for the Cure" to raise money to fight breast cancer is jeopardizing women's health by using some of those funds to support local chapters of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, according to a former advisor to the foundation.

Planned Parenthood clinics provide breast cancer screening and education, but the organization is also the nation's top abortion provider.

"You can't affirm life with one hand and support an organization that kills people with the other," said Eve Sanchez Silver, a medical research analyst and two-time breast cancer survivor who severed her ties with the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation after learning that its chapters supplied $475,000 in grants to local Planned Parenthood affiliates in 2003. Silver and many others in the medical and scientific community believe that abortion makes a woman more vulnerable to developing breast cancer.

According to its website, the Komen Foundation works "through a network of U.S. and international affiliates and events like the Komen Race for the Cure ... to eradicate breast cancer as a life-threatening disease by funding research grants and supporting education, screening and treatment projects in communities around the world."

The foundation's most recent annual report indicates that, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003, Komen and its more than 100 affiliates received over $154 million through private donations, corporate contributions and a number of fund-raising events.

The most successful money-maker for the organization in that 12-month period was the Race for the Cure, the largest series of 5K runs/fitness walks in the world. The events drew more than one million participants who raised nearly $88 million from donors. The 2004 race in Washington, D.C., held in June, drew more than 52,000 runners/walkers. The Komen Foundation expects 1.4 million participants in its series of more than 100 races in 2005.

While holding administrative and fund-raising expenses to about 25 percent of its budget, the foundation spent about 75 percent of its funds in the 2003 fiscal year on mission-related activities, including grants and programs related to breast cancer research, education, screening and treatment.

That year, Komen affiliates awarded $38.4 million to support community outreach programs, including 21 grants to local Planned Parenthood chapters totaling more than $475,000.


http://tinyurl.com/8z2s9


10 posted on 10/18/2005 6:45:10 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

I'm so glad he had the courage to authorize the pull out. There are hopefully plenty of other cancer research groups to give to who are not in league with Planned Parenthood and their abortion agenda. Now if the main yogurt groups would do the same. They've ruined Dannon and Yoplait, tied tightly in to PP and Konen Foundation.


11 posted on 10/18/2005 6:45:42 PM PDT by fortunecookie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

WHy would a breast cancer foundation give money to planned nonparenthood anyway?


12 posted on 10/18/2005 6:46:09 PM PDT by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PennsylvaniaMom

Actually, what the Church is ticked off about is that they want to Foundation to change their brochures to read 'abortions are a cancer risk factor'.


13 posted on 10/18/2005 6:46:12 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fortunecookie

I hope the Church will re-imburse this organization for any lost donations...

Saint Vincent Catholic Medical Centers of NY, Staten Island Region

Provides culturally sensitive breast health education and outreach targeting Latina, African-American and other minority women on the North Shore of Staten Island.

Tomasine Fodera, MD
Surgical Breast Oncologist
718-815-8100
tfodera@yahoo.com


14 posted on 10/18/2005 6:48:39 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Texas_Jarhead

"WHy would a breast cancer foundation give money to planned nonparenthood anyway?"

To pay for breast cancer screenings for poor women. Planned Parenthood does over a million breast cancer screenings a year.


15 posted on 10/18/2005 6:50:33 PM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

Tuesday February 22, 2005

U.S. Breast Cancer Foundation Funding Abortion Provider Planned Parenthood

DALLAS, February 22, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – On of America’s largest breast cancer research foundations is funnelling money into the abortion industry via Planned Parenthood.

Although indisputable evidence links induced abortion with an increase in breast cancer risk, both the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and Planned Parenthood conveniently deny the link.

The Komen Foundation, famous for its annual “Race for the Cure” cancer research fundraising event – raised $154 million in funding for 2003, according to financial reports. The foundation gave $475 thousand to Planned Parenthood that same year. That move prompted medical research analyst and former employee of the foundation Eve Sanchez Silver to resign her position there.

Silver told the Cybercast News Service (CNSNews) Tuesday, “You can't affirm life with one hand and support an organization that kills people with the other.”

“As far as I'm concerned, anything they do in the way of drawing women in for any kind of service would simply be to acclimate them to their organization until they're ready to have an abortion,” she said.

Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, told LifeSiteNews.com, “Women have been told lies about the research and have been cruelly exploited by two industries - the breast cancer fundraising industry and the abortion industry. Women will not receive justice until they file civil lawsuits.”

A 15-year-old who procured an abortion from a Seattle abortuary won a settlement last month after suing the clinic for failing to warn her of the breast cancer link to abortion.

The teenaged plaintiff had a family history of breast cancer and indicated a history of cancer on the clinic intake forms. According to research in 1994 by Janet Daling and her colleagues at Seattle's Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, teenagers with a family history of the disease who procure abortions before age 18 have an incalculably high breast cancer risk.

Abortions that occur before the birth of a first child are the most carcinogenic, a finding supported by biological and epidemiological evidence.

According to a National Cancer Institute (NCI) commissioned study, teens who procure abortions before age 18, more than double their risk. Girls and women have a predominance of immature, cancer-vulnerable Types 1 & 2 breast lobules, which aren't matured into cancer-resistant Types 3 & 4 lobules until a term pregnancy takes place.

Since 1973’s Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, a woman’s chance of developing breast cancer has jumped 40 percent, from 1 in 12 to 1 in 7.5.


http://tinyurl.com/9sd4b


16 posted on 10/18/2005 6:51:24 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Breast cancer cases jump in China, hits younger women
 
The Science, Studies and Sociology of the Abortion Breast Cancer Link
 
ABORTION-BREAST CANCER NEWS HEADLINES, Letter to the National Catholic Register
 
How Abortion Hurts Women -- The Hard Proof
 
BREAST CANCER: NEWS TOO GOOD
 
Study Examines Relationship of Vitamin A Pathway to Breast Cancer Tumor Progression
 
Breast Cancer and the Abortion Link

17 posted on 10/18/2005 6:52:47 PM PDT by Coleus ("Woe unto him that call evil good and good evil"-- Isaiah 5:20-21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
Using the Church's logic you could find links from just about any major charity to abortion and we should boycott all major charities.

If the Charleston diocese borrows money from a Citibank affiliate, does the bishop realize that Citibank is a big supporter of the United Way? The United Way funds the March of Dimes, which shares some of its money with Planned Parenthood.

This is likely true for ANY large bank in Charleston.

I'm not sure I understand what the Church in Charleston is trying to accomplish here. Money is fungible, and there's all kinds of money from all kinds of companies and groups going to groups we might disagree with.

We couldn't do business with anybody using this criteria.

Does the bishop drive a GM car? Does he know that GM provides health care for homosexual partners?

18 posted on 10/18/2005 6:53:55 PM PDT by sinkspur (If you're not willing to give Harriett Miers a hearing, I don't give a damn what you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation is not the only charity that pays for abortions. The YWCA, the March of Dimes, the United Way, the Girl Scouts, and the American Red Cross also give cash and in-kind donations to Planned Parenthood. But Susan G. Komen’s growth and power, combined with its sinister connections, makes it worth watching and challenging.

From 1999 to 2003, the organization’s revenue increased from $42 million to $95.5 million. At the same time, the organization’s expenditures went from $50 million (an operating deficit of $5 million) to $86 million (an operating surplus of more than $9 million). At the end of 2003, the foundation showed a profit of $2.38 million dollars with net assets of $51 million. Not bad for a non-profit.

Looking at Charity Navigator’s list of charities,
Susan G. Komen’s overall rating is a disappointing 57.90


19 posted on 10/18/2005 6:55:08 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
raised $154 million in funding for 2003, according to financial reports. The foundation gave $475 thousand to Planned Parenthood that same year.

Let's see. That is 0.3%. And that was to do specific work for the foundation. It was not to support PP.

20 posted on 10/18/2005 6:56:09 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

I see. I did not know that.


21 posted on 10/18/2005 6:59:19 PM PDT by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

"We couldn't do business with anybody using this criteria.

Does the bishop drive a GM car? Does he know that GM provides health care for homosexual partners?"

Exactly. Some people in the pro-life movement want a cultural war dividing and weakening America into two hostile camps that don't do business with each other... it's very sad and counter-productive.

It would also mean boycotting all the largest American corporations... but they don't do that - they pick smaller more vulnerable targets. like breast cancer research and American Girl.


22 posted on 10/18/2005 7:01:03 PM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I'm not sure I understand what the Church in Charleston is trying to accomplish here. Money is fungible, and there's all kinds of money from all kinds of companies and groups going to groups we might disagree with.

Another poster had it right: Komen refuses to publicize studies that link abortion to higher incidence of breast cancer. The goal of the bishop may not necessarily be to reduce overall funding but to highlight this fact. I, personally, think it's a good tactic.
23 posted on 10/18/2005 7:01:14 PM PDT by hispanichoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and Planned Parenthood

Tuesday, May 18, 2004

So in all my Internet research around Gary Heavin and his "personal campaign" against Planned Parenthood, I came across a rumor that had to do with the Komen Foundation and its community grants. I asked the Komen Foundation to respond. Here's what they had to say:

"Thank you for your interest in the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and our mission to eradicate breast cancer as a life-threatening disease. The information you referenced in your email is inaccurate and misleading, and we appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight.

"Komen Foundation Affiliates are responsible for conducting community needs assessments to identify gaps in breast health and breast cancer services within their respective communities. Up to 75 percent of the money raised by Komen Affiliates stays in their communities to provide grants to local organizations or groups who can best address the gaps identified through the needs assessment. All Komen Affiliate grant applications are solicited through an open request for proposals and are reviewed by a Grants Committee comprised of local physicians, community health professionals, and breast health advocates. Any not-for-profit organization may apply for a grant from the Komen Foundation to provide services specific to our mission to eradicate breast cancer.



"After a thorough review of the proposals, the Grants Committee recommends to the Affiliate's board of directors those grant applications that should be approved for funding. In order to monitor the grantees' progress, they are required to provide detailed reports to the funding Komen Affiliate at least twice per year.



"Funding is not restricted to any specific provider, but all community grants are restricted to provide vital breast health education, screening and treatment services for underserved women. The services funded by Komen Affiliates include breast health education programs, screening mammograms, clinical breast examinations, diagnostic mammograms and ultrasound, program promotion, and salary support for outreach workers and registered nurses that provide breast health education and clinical breast examinations.



[emphasis below added by site author]



"The Komen Foundation is confident that none of its community Affiliates have stopped funding Planned Parenthood as a result of pressure from Curves, Operation Save America or any other organization. In fact, when faced with opposition from Curves or the threat that Curves franchises would no longer support the Foundation unless Planned Parenthood funding was eliminated, the Komen Foundation told Mr. Heavin (founder and CEO of Curves) that we would not, in any way, undermine the integrity of our grant-making process. In addition, the Foundation told Mr. Heavin that it would continue to allow Komen Affiliates to provide breast health education and screening grants to Planned Parenthood if the grant application was approved through the process outlined above. As a result, Curves chose to suspend its support of Komen Affiliate events, including sponsorship of the Komen Race for the Cure®. In 2003, Komen Affiliates awarded $38.4 million in grants to support community outreach programs, including 21 grants to their local Planned Parenthood chapters totaling more than $475,000.



"Recent scientific literature reveals that no conclusive evidence exists to suggest that abortion increases a woman's risk for developing breast cancer. For highlights and links to the findings associated with this topic, please visit the Komen Foundation's Web site, www.komen.org.



"If you have questions about the community grants funded by your local Komen Affiliate, please contact the Affiliate directly. For a listing of Komen Affiliates, please visit www.komen.org. Thank you, again, for your feedback. We look forward to your continued support of the fight against breast cancer.



"With warm regards and appreciation,

Kristin Kelly, Public Relations Manager

The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation"


24 posted on 10/18/2005 7:02:56 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: kcvl

"Looking at Charity Navigator’s list of charities,
Susan G. Komen’s overall rating is a disappointing 57.90 "

The Komen foundation has the highest rating of any major breast cancer foundation. The scale, by the way is 0 - 70. For comparison, the Red Cross is extremely well managed and scores a 60. The Boy Scouts of America score 47.


25 posted on 10/18/2005 7:04:55 PM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Komen Foundation fundraisers criticized

For nearly 20 years, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation has been raising money for breast cancer research. In fact, the group has become one of the nation’s leading non-profit organizations and has raised more than $250 million over the last two decades.

But a pro-life group says the Komen Foundation may actually be contributing to the problem of breast cancer by funding organizations that promote abortion.

In a statement released May 3, Karen Malec, a 15-year cancer survivor and president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, said that since abortion became legal in 1973, the rate of breast cancer has doubled. She said that if the Komen Foundation and its supporters were truly interested in reducing rates of breast cancer, they would not give money to Planned Parenthood and other organizations that promote abortion.

“Every year, sneakered women raise [money] for cancer businesses that are more interested in research than disease prevention,” said Malec. “Breast cancer rates haven’t declined. They’ve increased.”

She said that more than 211,000 cases of invasive breast cancer and 59,000 cases of in-situ breast cancer are expected this year. One in 7.5 American women develops the disease in her lifetime. In 1970, one in 12 women developed the disease.

Malec’s mention of “sneakered women” refers to the Komen Foundation’s most widely known and most successful fundraising method — a series of 5K races around the country called The Race for the Cure. Over a million people participate in races across the nation, with each participant raising money through sponsors. Proceeds from races go to research and education projects, and each local Komen chapter awards grants to local organizations that have breast cancer research or awareness programs.

The Komen Foundation gives millions of dollars each year to hundreds of non-profit organizations - including several Planned Parenthood chapters.

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer points to 28 out of 37 worldwide studies that have independently linked induced abortion with breast cancer. These studies suggest that induced abortions cause biological changes to occur in women’s breasts that make them more susceptible to cancer.

The Coalition has criticized the Komen Foundation for awarding grants to Planned Parenthood, an organization that provides abortions. Karen Malec, president of the Coalition said in a recent press release, “We find it appalling that an anti-breast cancer foundation would help fund Planned Parenthood whose sales of abortion ‘services’ contribute significantly to the breast cancer rates in this country.”

— E.P. News


26 posted on 10/18/2005 7:06:48 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: hispanichoosier
Komen refuses to publicize studies that link abortion to higher incidence of breast cancer.

The Komen Foundation is free to do whatever it wishes in the area of preventive care. The bishop is free to do whatever he wants in pulling support. However, he runs the risk of being highly selective in his outrage.

27 posted on 10/18/2005 7:09:32 PM PDT by sinkspur (If you're not willing to give Harriett Miers a hearing, I don't give a damn what you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Looking at Charity Navigator’s list of similar charities, though, we find more alarming news, especially to anyone concerned with actually finding a cure for breast cancer. It seems that the breast cancer industry is far more interested in lining its own pockets than in finding a cure or treating patients. While Susan G. Komen’s overall rating is a disappointing 57.90, look how she compares to others in the same arena:


PEER ANALYSIS

Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation 57.90
National Breast Cancer Coalition Fund 47.55
Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization 42.74
The Rose 61.13
American Breast Cancer Foundation 40.71


******


Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation
Eradicating breast cancer through research, education, screening and treatment Dallas, TX 75265
RATINGS
OVERALL RATING:

(57.62)

ORGANIZATIONAL EFFICIENCY
Program Expenses 76.2%
Administration Expenses 11.9%
Fundraising Expenses 11.9%
Fundraising Efficiency $0.13
EFFICIENCY RATING:
(32.62)
ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY
Primary Revenue Growth 16.9%
Program Expenses Growth 12.9%
Working Capital Ratio (years) 0.41
CAPACITY RATING:
(25.00)
PEER ANALYSIS
Charity Name Overall
Score Overall
Rating
Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation 57.62
National Breast Cancer Coalition Fund 47.55
Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization 42.74
The Rose 61.13
American Breast Cancer Foundation 40.71
INCOME STATEMENT: FYE 03/2004
Revenue
Primary Revenue $117,686,976
Other Revenue $14,278,435
Total Revenue: $131,965,411
Expenses
Program Expenses $98,674,726
Administration Expenses $15,452,558
Fundraising Expenses $15,432,736
Total Functional Expenses: $129,560,020

Payments to Affiliates $0
Excess (or Deficit) for the Year $2,405,391

Net Assets: $56,457,947
MISSION
The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation was established in 1982 by Nancy Brinker to honor the memory of her sister, Susan G. Komen, who died from breast cancer at the age of 36. Today, the Komen Foundation is an international organization with a network of more than 75,000 volunteers working through local affiliates and events like the Komen Race for the Cure to eradicate breast cancer as a life-threatening disease. A global leader in the fight against breast cancer, the Komen Foundation fulfills its mission through support of innovative breast cancer research grants, meritorious awards, educational and scientific conferences and community-based outreach programs around the world.


28 posted on 10/18/2005 7:11:43 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kcvl

"Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation 57.90
National Breast Cancer Coalition Fund 47.55
Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization 42.74
The Rose 61.13
American Breast Cancer Foundation 40.71 "

I'm pretty sure the Rose is local health clinic and doesn't really belong in that list.

The bottom line is that the rating can't be used to honestly Komen because they much higher ranked than all other similar national organizations.


29 posted on 10/18/2005 7:15:30 PM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
Looking at Charity Navigator’s list of charities, Susan G. Komen’s overall rating is a disappointing 57.90

#2 in their peer group.

Charity Name Overall Score Overall Rating

The Rose 61.13
Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation 57.62
National Breast Cancer Coalition Fund 47.55
Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization 42.74
American Breast Cancer Foundation 40.71

30 posted on 10/18/2005 7:17:48 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
To pay for breast cancer screenings for poor women. Planned Parenthood does over a million breast cancer screenings a year.

They are diversified -whoopee!!! It really does not matter... PP should be eradicated from society...

31 posted on 10/18/2005 7:22:47 PM PDT by DBeers ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
Saint Vincent Catholic Medical Centers of NY, Staten Island Region Provides culturally sensitive breast health education and outreach targeting Latina, African-American and other minority women on the North Shore of Staten Island.

I hope that they can maintain the donated support they need. Are they funded solely by Planned Parenthood? Does that comprise a large part of their 'donations' budget? I sincerely hope that they can continue to fund the exams. If nothing else, I'm still not convinced that certain abortion groups aren't trying to ride the tails of groups like the Foundation, to lump together healthcare and testing with abortion, as though both were the same kinds of care. And while certain abortions will always be medically necessary, many are merely contraceptive, different from the kind of 'care' screening facilities provide.

They give money to PP for distributing materials and referrals to their programs. They also give money to faith-based organizations to do the same. I think the Church is fighting the wrong battle on this one.

I think there is the perception, right or wrong, that the Foundation is somehow giving money to promote or provide abortions, that's what I thought, especially with the possible link to cancer. There's no doubt they do raise awareness and provide for testing, very important duties.

32 posted on 10/18/2005 7:26:52 PM PDT by fortunecookie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: kcvl

"
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer points to 28 out of 37 worldwide studies that have independently linked induced abortion with breast cancer. These studies suggest that induced abortions cause biological changes to occur in women’s breasts that make them more susceptible to cancer."


The American Cancer Society says that the trend is toward recognizing a link between early abortions and breast cancer.

But this is tiny compared to the risk of smoking and birth control pills.


33 posted on 10/18/2005 7:26:56 PM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
The Bishop sounds like he doesn't want the Diocese linked with a group that funds Planned Parenthood offices directly. Granted, those office may do breast cancer screenings, but the fact remains, with scientific backing, that abortion before first births are an enormous risk factor in which women will be afflicted with breast cancer.

I find it odd that a group dedicated to eradicating breast cancer funds another group that, regardless of its screening facilities, is contributing to the breast cancer epidemic among women in this country and around the world.

34 posted on 10/18/2005 7:56:46 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: hispanichoosier
On the Council on Abortion/Breast Cancer among the list of studies they post: OBJECTIVE: Previous studies of induced abortion and breast cancer may have been limited by differential reporting of abortion history. We conducted a population-based case-control study to evaluate abortion (both induced and spontaneous) and breast cancer risk. METHODS: All study subjects were aged 20-69 years and members of Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound (GHC). Incident invasive breast cancer cases (n = 138) were identified from the linkage between the GHC enrollment file and the Seattle-Puget Sound SEER Cancer Registry. Controls (n = 252) were randomly selected from GHC enrollment files and matched to cases on age and enrollment period. All subjects had to have been enrolled at GHC for the 2 years preceding diagnosis (cases) or reference (controls) date. The unified medical record of each case was abstracted for pregnancy history, including prior induced and spontaneous abortions, menopause status, height and weight, screening practices, and other risk factors. RESULTS: Compared to all women who had never had an induced abortion, the multivariate adjusted relative risk of breast cancer in women with an induced abortion was 0.9 (95% confidence interval 0.5-1.6). This risk was similar in parous women, and nulliparous women. There was no association between spontaneous abortion and breast cancer risk. CONCLUSIONS: These results do not support a relation between induced abortion and breast cancer incidence.
35 posted on 10/18/2005 8:08:43 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
I find it odd that a group dedicated to eradicating breast cancer funds another group that, regardless of its screening facilities, is contributing to the breast cancer epidemic among women in this country and around the world.

Perhaps they feel that they need to reach that population that are taking PP birth control for the screenings. That makes sense. If you want to find the cancers in women, you don't go to the YMCA!

36 posted on 10/18/2005 8:10:51 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
I find it odd that a group dedicated to eradicating breast cancer funds another group that, regardless of its screening facilities, is contributing to the breast cancer epidemic among women in this country and around the world.

Contributing by how much?

37 posted on 10/18/2005 8:12:41 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: baltodog
Maybe, God forbid, it's a front...

You are sick. They give 0.3% to PP. Get a life.

38 posted on 10/18/2005 8:14:33 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Good for them! I wish more would follow their lead.

Right! While we are at it, maybe we can make them list smoking as one of the risk factors, too!

39 posted on 10/18/2005 8:15:21 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
Thank you for the citation of your study. On the flip side, Dr. Brind's meta-analysis found that women who had an abortion before their first term child had a 50% increased of developing breast cancer while women who had an abortion after their first child sustained a 30% increased risk. Dr. Chris Kahlenborn has a great website dealing with this issue here. The prudent thing would be to publicize the fact that dueling experts have found different conclusions. Then, women could make their own decisions regarding the abortion/breast cancer link.
40 posted on 10/18/2005 8:23:45 PM PDT by hispanichoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: hispanichoosier

Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer

June 1, 1997

Position Statement

The Canadian Breast Cancer Network (CBCN) is the national network and voice of breast cancer survivors in Canada. Our goals, at the national level, are:

to communicate with, support and inform organizations and individuals who are concerned about breast cancer,
to promote education and awareness,
and to act as the voice of Canadians affected by breast cancer to ensure that their concerns influence decisions of research and health care policy.
This position statement is an attempt to inform our members and supporters of the facts and of the CBCN's position and recommendations.

Recently, the issue of a possible link between breast cancer and induced abortions has received attention. An estimated 80 studies investigating abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer have been completed since 1957, many of which have not been published. Some studies show a modest increase in breast cancer risk in women who have had abortions, while others show no relationship. Due to the many biological relationships involved in breast cancer, such contradictory research findings are not unusual. In this case, research bias and political motives may also have played a part in the findings.

In 1981, Pike (1) reported that, when a pregnancy ended in the first trimester and before a first full-term pregnancy, an induced abortion increased the risk of breast cancer 2.4 times. Another study, in 1994, by Daling (2)found an increased risk of 1.5 times from induced abortion (risk was greater for women who had an abortion before 18 or after 30). A widely-publicised 1996 study by Newcomb (3)found that induced abortion and miscarriage increased the risk of breast cancer very slightly, by 1.1 times (a relationship of 1.0 means no link was observed).

Other studies have found no statistically significant increases in risk. For example, in a large 1983 study, Brinton (4)found no increased risk (except where there were multiple miscarriages, in which case a slight increase was observed). In 1988, Rosenberg (5)compared 3200 women who had breast cancer to 4844 women with non-malignant conditions and found that neither spontaneous nor induced abortions were linked to breast cancer. Parazzini (6) in 1991 then compared 2394 women with breast cancer to 2218 controls and also found no difference in risk.

Recent opinion indicates that research over the past 40 years has not demonstrated a consistent link between breast cancer and abortion. The Canadian Cancer Society believes that "no credible information exists to demonstrate a link between abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer(7)." After reviewing the studies from 1980 through 1994, renowned University of Toronto Epidemiologist Dr. Anthony B. Miller concluded that "pending further research, we do not know whether induced abortions materially increase the risk of breast cancer(8)". In 1996, a panel, appointed by the U.S. National Cancer Institute, judged that the evidence does not allow for a conclusion. Meanwhile, Joel Brind, a professor of biology and endocrinology in the U.S., reviewed studies since 1957 and believes that an increased risk is indicated(9).

Such positive results, however, are almost certainly the result of recall bias(10). For example, most studies ask women to recall their medical history, including abortions. Those who have had breast cancer may be motivated by interest in vigilant research to be more accurate in this regard, while the control population may under-report, causing data to be skewed in favour of a link. Secondly, few studies control for confounding factors such as the protective effect of an early pregnancy or the increased risk associated with delayed pregnancy.

Finally, a very credible,definitive study of over 250,000 women in Denmark (11), free of the problem of recall bias, found no increase in the risk of breast cancer for women who had had an induced abortion compared with those who had not. A subsequent Editorial (12) notes that "[i]n short, a woman need not worry about the risk of breast cancer when facing the difficult decision of whether to terminate a pregnancy". This study presents substantial evidence that induced abortions do not affect a woman's risk of having breast cancer.

Women who have had an abortion should remember that breast cancer is a disease with no single predominating causal factor. Even if a link were demonstrated, most women who have had abortions do not develop breast cancer and many women who have not had abortions do develop breast cancer.


41 posted on 10/18/2005 8:45:42 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: hispanichoosier
Dr. Chris Kahlenborn has a great website dealing with this issue here.

Great? It is an advocacy site pushing the abortion/cancer link.

The prudent thing would be to publicize the fact that dueling experts have found different conclusions.

hmm. And the site you sent me too puts out both sides in an impartial way. hrrmmp.

42 posted on 10/18/2005 8:50:42 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: hispanichoosier

Please show me ONE reputable site that links breast cancer and abortions.


43 posted on 10/18/2005 8:51:41 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: hispanichoosier

http://health.bsd.uchicago.edu/people/pubs/Abortion_Breast_JECH.pdf.

Abortion and breast cancer: a case-control recordlinkage studyM J Goldacre, L M Kurina, V Seagroatt, D YeatesThere is controversy about whether interrup-tion of pregnancy, particularly if it is inducedrather than spontaneous, increases the risk ofbreast cancer. Individual studies, and reviewssummarising them, have given conflictingresults.1 2Recent guidelines from the UK RoyalCollege of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists(http://www.rcog.org.uk) state that the evi-dence is inconclusive but that, when only thosestudies least susceptible to bias are considered,induced abortion does not seem to increaserisk.

Most studies of this association have been case-control interview studies. An important and much discussed consideration is whether such studies are inherently subject to reporting bias—that women with breast cancer may bemore likely than control women to tell the interviewer if they have had an induced abortion when questioned about their repro-ductive history. If there are systematic reporting biases in interview studies, neither pooling of data across studies in meta-analysisnor further similar studies will eliminate theireVects. The overall odds ratio calculated inBrind’s meta-analysis relied exclusively on data from 21 case-control studies.


44 posted on 10/18/2005 8:57:44 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

This is really dumb. The are not even giving money to PP this cycle! The Church has really lost it.


45 posted on 10/18/2005 9:00:07 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
hmm. And the site you sent me too puts out both sides in an impartial way. hrrmmp.

Well, you seem to be citing studies supporting your view by the pound, so I felt no need to direct you to a site that is neutral.
46 posted on 10/18/2005 9:09:44 PM PDT by hispanichoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: hispanichoosier
Well, you seem to be citing studies supporting your view by the pound, so I felt no need to direct you to a site that is neutral.

The first study I cited was from a site pushing the abortion/cancer link!

But, the case is clear, you cannot find a single reputable link that shows there is a link. You only show your biased side. You hide the fact that the study you cited is flawed and bias to your point of view.

47 posted on 10/18/2005 9:12:02 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: hispanichoosier
On the flip side, Dr. Brind's meta-analysis found that women who had an abortion before their first term child had a 50% increased of developing breast cancer while women who had an abortion after their first child sustained a 30% increased risk.

Flawed analysis. No un-biased study has shown a link. PERIOD.

48 posted on 10/18/2005 9:13:05 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
But, the case is clear, you cannot find a single reputable link that shows there is a link. You only show your biased side. You hide the fact that the study you cited is flawed and bias to your point of view.

No, it is you who is busy cutting and pasting text from other sites without taking the time to look at them who shows the bias. BTW, you might want to check you cut-and-paste work for extraneous characters that sometimes get inserted.
49 posted on 10/18/2005 9:14:15 PM PDT by hispanichoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: hispanichoosier
Well, you seem to be citing studies supporting your view by the pound, so I felt no need to direct you to a site that is neutral.

The first link was to a site that was pro-abortion/cancer link. The second was a reputable site. Yours was from an extreme-advocacy site. Now for balance you need to cite at least one credible site.

50 posted on 10/18/2005 9:15:14 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson