Posts Tagged ‘Susan G. Komen’

What’s wrong with being a woman?  A woman who is pro-woman no matter our differences?  A woman who doesn’t have to compete with or “one up” a man?  Who appreciates her noble and irreplaceable role?  Who understands that men need women to help them be better men?  Who knows how to build up rather than tear down?  Who does not feel demeaned by the titles of “Mrs., “Mother,” or “Grandmother?”

What’s wrong with being a woman who thinks conservatively?  Who isn’t impressed or foolishly flattered by utopian ideas?  Who keeps herself informed and engages in dialogue?  Who isn’t ashamed to live her life, face each circumstance, and treat other people in ways that flow from her Christian faith – the only worldview that gives her hope?

What’s wrong with being a woman who has never celebrated legalized abortion?  Who doesn’t believe that a woman’s rights are greater than a child’s?  Who recognizes that abortion has only devalued every other human life?  Who agrees with Mary Harnard, staff counsel at Americans United for Life, that abortion is “anti-woman?”  (You can read her article at http://www.aul.org/2012/03/the-anti-woman-world-of-roe/print/ )

What’s wrong with being a woman who doesn’t agree with the worldview, business, and strong-arming tactics of Planned Parenthood?  Who doesn’t want to fund with her tax-dollars an organization that sexualizes girls and then stands ready as the largest profiteering-provider of abortions in the nation?  Who doesn’t appreciate the fact that PP (who does not give mammograms but does mammography referrals) would assault Susan G. Komen when they determined that PP doesn’t really have anything to do with fighting breast cancer and so decided not to grant them 1% ($680,000) of their annual grants?  What’s wrong with being a woman who questions why the $1 billion-in-revenue-monolith PP, in collaboration with Moveon.org, would become so “vile and vicious” against Komen and its donors?  (“The Abortion Empire Strikes Back,” an interview with Komen’s former senior vice president Karen Handel, WORLD, March 24, 2012)

What’s wrong with being a woman who believes that human life is the greatest natural resource of any thriving nation?  Who believes every human life is created by God?  Who finds something perverse in a national health care plan that sees human life as a debit entry on a balance sheet?  Who wonders why Kathleen Sebelius would want to be the “secretary of human prevention” or insist that “poor” and “mostly black and brown” women receive free contraception and abortion-causing drugs?  (Do I hear the whisper of eugenics?)

What’s wrong with being a woman who dares to ask: Why are so many women “anti-woman?”  More girl babies than boy babies are aborted around the world.  Girls mentored to be sexually-free are seldom told their female anatomy is more susceptible to bacteria and infections.  Girls assured that abortion is a “right” are rarely asked if they’d like to listen to the heartbeat of their unborn child or watch that baby on the ultrasound screen.  Young women told that children inconvenience relationships, careers, and success too often become older women longing for the sounds of grandchildren.

Why are so many women “anti-woman?”  Why do they find little value in teaching their daughters the skills for making a home… a nest for husband and children?  Why do they give them license to unrestrained emotions?  Dress them to be temptresses?  Make them physically, psychologically, and spiritually more vulnerable?

Is the National Organization of Women (NOW) pro or anti-woman?  Are women’s studies classes on university campuses pro or anti-women?  Are Congresswomen and women justices on the Supreme Court pro or anti-women?  When Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Dana Perino, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman, S.E. Cupp, Laura Ingraham, Condoleezza Rice, Michelle Malkin, and other conservative-thinking women are called all manner of hateful names by Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz, Bill Maher and other crude un-gentlemen, do liberal-thinking women come to the defense of their sisters?

Why are so many women anti-woman?  What’s wrong with being a woman who is o.k. with being a woman?  Who doesn’t doubt her value?   Who can  re-adjust plans to welcome an “unexpected” child?   Who delights in making a home no matter the size of the house?  Who speaks well of good men?

Women who believe in the vitality and hopefulness of being a wife, mother, grandmother, and encourager of all that is female are just exactly what this country needs.

Read Full Post »

On October 7, 2010, I posted a blog entitled “Breast Cancer & Abortion.”  Here are a few more quotes to ponder:

“I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate.”  (Dr. Janet Daling, a cancer epidemiologist who supports legal abortion, quoted in Breakpoint, 10-28-10)

“In 2007, the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons found that women who have an abortion increase by 40 percent their risk of breast cancer.”  (Breakpoint, 10-28-10)

“Many Americans who buy those pink bracelets may not be aware of the strong links between Planned Parenthood and the Komen Foundation.  Komen founder Nancy Brinker once served on the advisory board of Planned Parenthood of Dallas.  One Komen Advisory Board member, Eve Sanchez Silver, resigned when she found out just how strong the link was between Komen and the nation’s number one abortion provider.  Shockingly, Silver says the Komen Foundation’s “Concern for the health of women is now parallel to Planned Parenthood’s concern for the health of the children they abort.”  Those are strong words.  The Komen Foundation also endorses embryonic stem cell research which kills human embryos.”  (Breakpoint, 10-28-10)

If you want to help decrease the breast cancer risk and support research, check out the Polycarp Research Institute or the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute.

Read Full Post »

October is breast cancer awareness month.  I’m all for fighting breast cancer.  My mother, aunt, and cousin all died from breast cancer.  I don’t want to.  This summer, my niece discovered she has breast cancer.  I want her to grow beautifully old with grandchildren.

For all these reasons, I’m grateful for cancer research and physicians with resolve to battle the disease.  But, I’m also confused.

Why would organizations known for fighting breast cancer team up with organizations that abort babies and put women at higher risk of breast cancer?

Susan G. Komen is a successful organization that raises awareness of breast cancer as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars for research and hope of finding a cure.  But, Susan G. Komen also gives hundreds of thousands of dollars to Planned Parenthood (PP).  PP is the world’s largest provider of abortions.

Dr. Joel Brind is a Professor of Human Biology and Endocrinology at Baruch College, the City University of New York and president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute in Poughkeepsie, NY.  He has been conducting research on diseases related to reproductive steroid hormones since 1972.    Dr. Brind links the long history of peer reviewed medical research establishing the breast cancer and abortion link.  Google or Bing Joel Brind.  Watch one of his YouTube videos.  Or, google or Bing David Reardon at the Elliot Institute.  You can order the brochure, “Breast Cancer: Risks and Choices” from Heritage House www.hh76.com

How does abortion ultimately cause breast cancer?  Almost all of the risk factors which are known to increase the risk of breast cancer are associated with some kind of excess exposure to the main female sex steroid hormone, estrogen.  The biggest surge of estrogen occurs in the first tirmester of pregnancy.  Estrogen goes sky high.  That’s okay because although it stimulates the growth of the breasts, toward the end of the pregnancy other hormones kick in that make the breast tissue mature, which also kill off cells that are not needed.  Once the mature cells are ready to produce milk, they aren’t in a growing mode.  They are less likely to be subject to the mutogenic or initiating effects of carcinogens (the substances that produce cancer).  The carcinogens will affect cells which basically can grow.

If a woman has an abortion during the first 32 weeks of pregnancy, she gets all of these growth-promoting effects on the tissues because of the big surge of estrogen.  Without the differentiating and maturing effects of the later hormones, the net result is the opposite of what we would find in a full-term pregancy.  It’s know that a full-term pregnancy early in a woman’s reproductive life is protective against breast cancer.  But an early abortion does not offer that protection and, instead, works the other way and increases the risk.  The extra estrogen ultimately causes abnormal cells to grow into full blown cancer.

A miscarriage, on the other hand, is a natural termination — much different from an induced abortion.  Most pregnancies that end in miscarriage don’t produce the same high levels of estrogen as are produced by a normal pregnancy.  (Read more in “Breast Cancer: Risks and Choices”)

RU 486, the chemical abortion, does nothing to neutralize the effects of pregnancy hormones up until the time of the abortion; therefore, it will have the same effect on future breast cancer risk as surgical abortion.

I hope that women who have had or are considering an abortion will do some research and discover very serious risks to their health.

In the meantime, I’m left wondering.  Why don’t the organizations that fight breast cancer speak up about the risks of abortion?  Why would an organization like Susan G. Komen want to donate large amounts of money to Planned Parenthood?  Why would an organization that wants to save the lives of women not be troubled about donating to a business that ends the lives of babies and puts the mothers of those babies at serious risk of breast cancer?

It doesn’t make any sense.  None at all.

(For a 30-minute video entitled “Komen’s Dark Side,” go to www.lifeissues.org/AbortionBreastCancer/komen/index.htm )

Read Full Post »