Posts Tagged ‘breast cancer’

Susan G. Komen For The Kill Runs Crying Back To Her Abortion Mamma Planned Parenthood

February 5, 2012

When my mother developed breast cancer, I looked for organizations devoted to ending breast cancer to donate to.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure quickly got crossed off my list (my mother’s list too, fwiw) because of its rabid pro-abortion stance.

Breast cancer is neither right wing nor left wing.  Both conservative and liberal and Republican and Democrat women (and men) get it.  And the same is true for the spouses, family members and friends of breast cancervictims.

But the left has co-opted breast cancer and transformed a medical condition into a naked political opportunity.

Some studies have concluded that abortion can TRIPLE the risk of developing breast cancer.  And while other studies do not find that link, it nevertheless strikes me as pathetically ironic that an organization devoted to finding a cure for breast cancer may very well be advocating behaviors that cause breast cancer.  That said, this article is not on that research.

It is on the bi-polar reversal-then-reversal-of-their-reversal policy of Susan G. Komen.

The creating more breast cancer so we can fight more breast cancer thing is not the only bizarre and self-defeating element of Susan G. Komen.  The organization exists to fundraise; it raises money for breast cancer research.  And wouldn’t you think that a fundraising organization that raises funds would want to actually raise more funds???

From the Los Angeles Times:

The controversy has led to an outpouring of funds to both organizations.

Brinker said Komen’s donations had risen 100% since Tuesday, and Planned Parenthood announced that it had already received a large portion of the funds it needed to replace the loss of Komen grants. Among the Planned Parenthood donors was New York MayorMichael R. Bloomberg, who pledged to give $1 for every new $1 donation made to Planned Parenthood, up to $250,000.

There are people who like to give to provide more abortions and kill more beautiful little babies; there are people who like to give to help find a cure for breast cancer; and there is a much smaller subset of people who both love killing babies and finding a cure to breast cancer.

Susan G. Komen – it is now documented – could raise FAR more money (TWICE!!!) by abandoning its connection to abortion.  And you find out that Planned Parenthood wouldn’t even suffer.

So the only thing that Susan G. Komen is truly hurting by caving in to the pressure from the rabid left is BREAST CANCER RESEARCH.

And of course there’s still more bi-polar behavior from Susan G. Komen for the Kill:

Komen officials say it’s not about abortion
By Shari Roan, Los Angeles Times / For the Booster Shots blog
February 2, 2012, 2:32 p.m.

Officials for the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation defended its decision to eventually end grants to Planned Parenthood for breast-health activities and suggested that the Komen money might be better spent elsewhere.

That article appears in the LA Times ON THE VERY SAME DAY THEY REVERSED EVERYTHING THAT KOMEN SAID IN THAT ARTICLE.  It is simply beyond bizarre.

Planned Parenthood is not about mammograms; it is ALL about abortions.  It killed something like 340,000 babies last year, and is responsible for nearly 30 percent of all abortions in the U.S

Which is to say that Susan G. Komen for the “Cure” has been lured into providing the “cure” of ABORTION.

In the Los Angeles Times’ letters section, February 3, 2012 (page 114), a woman who says she had breast cancer writes:

The decision by Komen to discontinue funding for Planned Parenthood is shameful and a giant step backward for women’s healthcare.

As a breast cancer survivor and a donor to both Komen and Planned Parenthood, I am outraged that this seemingly politically motivated move made so casually by Komen will affect many women who will once again be disenfranchised in the world of cancer prevention.  I will stop contributing to Komen, stop wearing the pink ribbon and double my donations to Planned Parenthood.

I will also encourage my friends to do the same.

The letter is signed “Irene Briggs, Huntington Beach.”

It is a sick joke that abortion improves a women’s “healthcare.”  That claim is simply as sick as it is untrue.

It is equally sick to claim that if Susan G. Komen doesn’t give money to an abortion outfit, that women will somehow be barred from having breast cancer screening.

And while the move on the part from Susan G. Komen to stop funding abortionist Planned Parenthood was more to get AWAY from politics than giving in to political pressure, there is no question that their reversal had EVERYTHING to do with vicious political pressure from the left.  As an example, more than 20 Senators – ALL of them leftist Democrats or socialists – sent a “toughly-worded letter” to private organization Susan G. Komen to pressure the private organization into continuing financially supporting a leftwing outfit that gets 30% of its funding from the government.

The reason I cited the letter above was to point out that if a liberal feminist who had breast cancer can cease her donations and stop wearing a pink ribbon (which is a symbol for Breast Cancer Awareness, NOT Susan G. Komen, btw), then I can certainly stop donating to Komen because of its deliberate participation in the slaughter of abortion.

The real shame is that it now stands as a FACT that Susan G. Komen is undermining its own purpose by clinging to Planned Parenthood. Because an awful lot of people would give to them to provide life if they only would quit also helping to provide death at the same time. And now that it is a well-known fact that Susan G. Komen is tantamount to giving to Planned Parenthood, you can bet that they will see a fair amount of their donations dry up in the future.

All of this is part of the out-and-out war of the left against life and against Judeo-Christianity.

Breast Cancer Screening: Government Fires First Volley Of Rationing, Death By Medical Neglect

November 19, 2009

Let me begin by saying that the current versions of ObamaCare don’t have a single death panel.

It’s more like 111 separate death panels.

Some of the names  and acronyms of the dozens and dozens of bureaucracies are undoubtedly different under the new iteration of socialized medicine, but here’s a snapshot of your new health care system if Democrats get their way:

The Senate version is 2,075 pages of fun, I hear.  Nobody understands it.  And nobody is going to end up getting a chance to read it by the time it gets voted on.

If you thought that there was going to be any kind of transparency or accountability – or even honesty – from the Obama administration – you need to stop smoking your crack pipe.

This latest event in the march toward socialized medicine reminds me of the case of Barbara Wagner.  In Oregon, which has “universal coverage” through the state, she was abandoned to die by a system that would not pay for her cancer treatment, but offered to pay for her euthanasia.

Only this time, the government wants to deny treatment on the other side of the cancer diagnosis.

IBD Editorials

Rationing’s First Step

Health Care: A government task force has decided that women need fewer mammograms and later in life. Shouldn’t that be between patient and physician? We have seen the future of health care, and it doesn’t work.

We have warned repeatedly that the net results of health care bills before Congress will be higher demand, fewer doctors, more cost control, all leading to rationing.  New recommendations issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) regarding breast cancer and the necessity for early and frequent mammograms do not convince us otherwise.

Just six months ago, the panel, which works under the Health and Human Services Department as a “best practices” study group, was shouting its concern about a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study showing a 1% drop in the number of women regularly undergoing such screening and prevention.

The task force was saying that women older than 40 should get a mammogram every one to two years. It found that frequent screening lowered death rates from breast cancer mostly for women ages 50 to 69. But that was then, and this is now.

“We’re not saying women shouldn’t get screened. Screening does save lives,” Diana Petiti, task force vice chairman, said of the recommendations published Tuesday in Annals of Internal Medicine. “But we are recommending against routine screening.”

Now the panel recommends that women in their 40s stop having routine annual mammograms and that older women should cut back to every two years. The concern allegedly is that too frequent testing can result in increased anxiety, false positives, unneeded follow-up tests and possibly disfiguring biopsies.  Preventing breast cancer and saving lives almost get lost in the new analysis.

“I have a particular concern in this case about who was involved in this task force,” says Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., who was a heart surgeon in private life. “There are no surgeons or oncologists who deal directly with breast cancer or even radiologists. … I’ve seen far too many young women develop late-stage breast cancer because they didn’t have adequate screening.”

Little, if anything, has happened medically in the last six months to cause such a shift. A lot, however, has happened politically as a health care overhaul has limped forward on life support. The Congressional Budget Office has been busy pricing these various bills, a process that includes screening and prevention.

As we have warned, the growing emphasis seems to be on cost containment rather than quality of care. About 39 million women undergo mammograms each year in America, costing the health care system more than $5 billion.

“The American Cancer Society continues to recommend annual screening using mammography and clinical breast examination for all women beginning at age 40,” says Otis Brawley, its chief medical officer. “Our experts make this recommendation having reviewed virtually all the same data reviewed by the USPSTF, but also additional data that the USPSTF did not consider.”

Daniel Kopans, a radiology professor at Harvard Medical School, says: “Tens of thousands of lives are being saved by mammography screening, and those idiots want to do away with it. It’s crazy — unethical, really.”

This, sadly, appears to be the future of medicine under government-run health care. Aside from taxes on insurers, providers and device manufacturers, we’ll be up to our eyeballs in cost-effectiveness boards that will decide who gets what tests and treatments, when and if. These are only recommendations for now, but they are the shape of things to come.

An IBD/TIPP poll found that 45% of medical doctors would consider retiring if the Congressional health care “reform” passes.  Given the fact that an increasing shortage of doctors is already one of the chief burdens in providing health care, this exodus would amount to a catastrophe that our health system would never recover from.

In Canada, the chronic doctor shortage has been bad enough that patients literally have to sign up for a lottery in order to have a chance to “win” a primary care physician.  But now we are learning that overwhelmed Canadian doctors are using a lottery of their own to dump patients.

Why on earth would anyone want this for America?

The Obama administration is preparing the health delivery system to implement the philosophy of Obama advisers such as Robert Reich, Ezekiel Emanuel, and Cass Sunstein, which can be easily summarized with the quote:

It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”

Robert Reich’s words in context only make the hateful idea sound even more hateful:

And by the way, we’re going to have to, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”

Then there are the words of Obama’s Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, who wrote:

“I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”

And Rahm Emanuel’s brother Ezekiel, whom Obama appointed as his OMB health policy adviser in addition to selecting him to serve on the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research wrote:

“When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuatedThe Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.”

“Attenuated” means, “to make thin; to weaken or reduce in force, intensity, effect, quantity, or value.”  Attenuated care would be reduced or lessened care.  Dare I say it, in this context it clearly means, “rationed care.”

And Obama himself told a woman who wanted to keep her aging mother alive:

“At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.”

YOU take the painkiller rather than have that lifesaving surgery, Barry Hussein.  And why don’t you insist that Michelle and your two daughters take the pill rather than have that lifesaving surgery, too?  Just to be like all the “little people” out there.

But of course that’s not going to happen.  Rather, Democrats have now exempted themselves from 11 separate amendments that would have required them to have the same ObamaCare that they want to force everyone else to have.

You can understand why they would do so, given the promises that the system will be worse than terrible, and due to the fact that even a complete idiot who looks around and sees how horribly the administration has managed the H1N1 vaccine situation can recognize that taking on 1/6th of the economy would be beyond catastrophic.  I mean, heck, if I were a Democrat, I’d be sure to exempt myself from this monstrosity too, lest MY family members fall under the coming steamroller.

This “recommendation” of reducing mammographies isn’t mandatory now, but that’s because the government hasn’t usurped the health care system yet.  You just wait a decade from now, when the government runs everything, and soaring deficits force them to start cutting costs.