LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

"Fuck you, Komen."

That is hysterical partisanship at its worst.

In 2000, we reported that there is no reliable evidence that screening for breast cancer reduces mortality. As we discuss here, a Cochrane review has now confirmed and strengthened our previous findings. The review also shows that breast-cancer mortality is a misleading outcome measure. Finally, we use data supplemental to those in the Cochrane review to show that screening leads to more aggressive treatment.
Click to expand...
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(01)06449-2/fulltext

Modern “liberalism” is strikingly illiberal; the high priests of “tolerance” are increasingly intolerant of even the mildest dissent; and those who profess to “celebrate diversity” coerce ever more ruthlessly a narrow homogeneity. Thus, the Obama administration’s insistence that Catholic institutions must be compelled to provide free contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients. This has less to do with any utilitarian benefit a condomless janitor at a Catholic school might derive from Obamacare, and more to do with the liberal muscle of Big Tolerance enforcing one-size-fits-all diversity.

The bigger the Big Government, the smaller everything else: In Sweden, expressing a moral objection to homosexuality is illegal, even on religious grounds, even in church, and a pastor minded to cite the more robust verses of Leviticus would risk four years in jail. In Canada, the courts rule that Catholic schools must allow gay students to take their same-sex dates to the prom. The secular state’s Bureau of Compliance is merciless to apostates to a degree even your fire-breathing imams might marvel at.

...

Until the other day, Komen were also generous patrons of Planned Parenthood, the “women’s health” organization. The foundation then decided it preferred to focus on organizations that are “providing the lifesaving mammogram.” Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms, despite its president, Cecile Richards, testifying to the contrary before Congress last year. Rather, Planned Parenthood provides abortions; it’s the biggest abortion provider in the United States. For the breast-cancer bigwigs to wish to target their grants more relevantly is surely understandable.

But not if you’re a liberal enforcer. Senator Barbara Boxer, with characteristic understatement, compared the Komen Foundation’s Nancy Brinker to Joe McCarthy: “I’m reminded of the McCarthy era, where somebody said: ‘Oh,’ a congressman stands up, a senator, ‘I’m investigating this organization and therefore people should stop funding them.’” But Komen is not a congressman or a senator or any other part of the government, only a private organization. And therefore it is free to give its money to whomever it wishes, isn’t it?

Dream on. Liberals take the same view as the proprietors of the Dar al-Islam: Once they hold this land, they hold it forever. Notwithstanding that those who give to the foundation are specifically giving to support breast-cancer research, Komen could not be permitted to get away with disrespecting Big Abortion. We don’t want to return to the bad old days of the back alley, when a poor vulnerable person who made the mistake of stepping out of line had to be forced into the shadows and have the realities explained to them with a tire iron. Now Big Liberalism’s enforcers do it on the front pages with the panjandrums of tolerance and diversity cheering them all the way. In the wake of Komen’s decision, the Yale School of Public Health told the Washington Post’s Sarah Kliff that its invitation to Nancy Brinker to be its commencement speaker was now “under careful review.” Because God forbid anybody doing a master’s program at an Ivy League institution should be exposed to anyone not in full 100 percent compliance with liberal orthodoxy. The American Association of University Women announced it would no longer sponsor teams for Komen’s “Race for the Cure.” Sure, Komen has raised $2 billion for the cure, but better we never cure breast cancer than let a single errant Injun wander off the abortion reservation. Terry O’Neill of the National Organization for Women said Komen “is no longer an organization whose mission is to advance women’s health.” You preach it, sister. I mean, doesn’t the very idea of an organization obsessively focused on breasts sound suspiciously patriarchal?

...

It’s not like she needs the money. Komen’s 2010 donation of $580,000 is less than Ms. Richards’s salary and benefits. Planned Parenthood commandos hacked into the Komen website and changed its slogan from “Help us get 26.2 or 13.1 miles closer to a world without breast cancer” to “Help us run over poor women on our way to the bank.” But, if you’re that eager to run over poor women on the way to the bank, I’d recommend a gig with Planned Parenthood: The average salary of the top eight executives is $270,000, which makes them officially part of what the Obama administration calls “the 1 percent.” In America today, few activities are as profitable as a “non-profit.” Planned Parenthood receives almost half a billion dollars — or about 50 percent of its revenues — in taxpayer funding.

A billion dollars seems a lot, even for 322,000 abortions a year. But it enables Planned Parenthood to function as a political heavyweight. Ms. Richards’s business is an upscale progressives’ ideological protection racket, for whom the “poor women”’s abortion mill is a mere pretext. The Komen Foundation will not be the last to learn that you can “race for the cure,” but you can’t hide. Celebrate conformity — or else.
Click to expand...
Mark Steyn, NRO
 
If you are confused about what is actually happening with the decision of the Susan G Komen Race for the Cure Foundation to change its grant criteria, you are not alone. The vicious fury of pro-abortion lobby is the real story of the decision of the Komen foundation to detach itself from grants to Planned Parenthood.

So iconic is the status of Planned Parenthood that, in the wake of this decision, numerous abortion supporters decided to punish Komen. Senator Barbara Boxer said that she was "reminded of the McCarthy era" and ludicrously complained "are they going to the attack the American Lung Association? The YMCA? The YWCA?" The American Association of University Women cancelled a yearly college student workshop with Komen. And the Yale School of Public Health is "reviewing" its decision to have Nancy Brinker, the Komen founder, speak at their Commencement. Abortion zealot New York Mayor Bloomberg offered $250,000 to Planned Parenthood to replace lost funding.

But Komen did not completely cut Planned Parenthood out of current funding or exclude Planned Parenthood from future funding. Nor did they reverse the original decision and decide to re-fund Planned Parenthood in the future. They merely reversed their decision in favor of considering Planned Parenthood's eligibility for future grants. The Komen foundation is rightfully concerned that Planned Parenthood is the focus of federal and state investigations for financial irregularities, fraud, sex trafficking, failure to comply with laws requiring reporting minor's sexual abuse and parental notification for abortion, as well as substandard medical care.

The extreme liberal backlash is out of proportion to Komen's largely symbolic $600,000 grant to Planned Parenthood. This is a relatively trivial amount when compared to Planned Parenthood's billion dollar budget. The Komen grant allows Planned Parenthood to pretend that it is an authentic women's health care provider and immunizes the organization from the reality that the organization is mainly about abortions. Planned Parenthood provided 332,278 abortions in 2009, about one-quarter of those performed in the USA. The organization claims that abortion comprises only 3% of their services, but this is statistical manipulation. If a woman shows up for abortion, she can receive a pap smear, STD test, hemoglobin and blood type, all related to the abortion. Planned Parenthood can claim that they have provided four services in addition to the abortion. Planned Parenthood is also a major purveyor of birth control pills, a risk factor for breast cancer acknowledged but underestimated on Komen's own web site.

It is logical that The Susan G Komen Foundation would want to partner with high risk groups for breast cancer, which is primarily a disease of older women, to improve the impact of its grants. Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms, although at one point it claimed to do so. Breast cancer is the most common cause of death of women in their 40's and the second most common death of women over 50. An especially vulnerable group is uninsured women from ages 50-65, before Medicare eligibility. The main demographic group Planned Parenthood serves is young reproductive age women. But women almost never get breast cancer under the age of thirty, and uncommonly from 30-40, although Susan G. Komen herself, the foundation's namesake and sister of the founder, was diagnosed and died in her thirties. The incidence of breast cancer in younger women has increased, mainly due to lifestyle changes such as later childbearing, hormonal contraception, and induced abortion, although breast cancer can certainly occur without any of these factors. A recent study on linking the deadliest type of premenopausal breast cancer to the pill is a case in point.

It has always seemed ironic that Komen would give grants to Planned Parenthood, whose medical practices and promotion of unhealthy life styles are instrumental in the increase in breast cancer that has been evident in past decades. There are other organizations that have for years told the whole truth about breast cancer risk from hormonal contraception and induced abortion, in addition to enumerating non-controversial risk factors such as family history, obesity, late menopause etc. The vitriol unleashed on the Komen foundation recalls the fury that descends on those who dare to acknowledge the link between abortion and breast cancer, and the strong incentives for scientists to ignore or cover up research supporting this relationship. The powerful "reproductive health" establishment and its political, medical and media allies were threatened by a relatively trivial act of the Susan G Komen Foundation to more effectively help women at risk for breast cancer and extract itself from its relationship with Planned Parenthood. Let us hope that truth emerges from this debacle.
Click to expand...
Dr. Davenport is president of the American Association of Pro-life OBGYNs. The views expressed here are her own.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012...ovement_unleashed_on_komen.html#ixzz1lPyYPLAp
 
It is the Race for the cure, after all, not the race for the free screening mammogram.

Save the tata's!
 
Big or small
We love them all!

(Just as we love life!)

This was more about the death panels than the cure...
 
It's a charity. Give them money or don't. Politics enters into everything. I mean, you have a choice, unlike, say, union dues.
 
Im not a conspiracy theorist....like Paul-bots.....But what a set up, or, what a bunch of cowards....
 
We recently learned of the significant ruling from the Obama administration that Catholic charities (including educational institutions and hospitals that serve the most needy) would be forced under threat of massive fines to offer health insurance benefits that deeply violate church teachings, including contraception, sterilization and abortifacients. The news was covered, a bit. But none of the networks covered the news when it broke, and, according to one media watchdog, still haven’t! In general, the coverage has been surprisingly restrained, even though 142 bishops (some 80% of dioceses) have vociferously condemned this action.

OK, let’s look at what happened when Susan G. Komen decided to stop giving the country’s largest provider of abortions, the $1 billion Planned Parenthood, less than $700,000 in grants. You can watch, for instance, this “interview” of the Komen founder Amb. Nancy Brinker by MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell where Andrea Mitchell just monologues about how devastated she is by the decision and barely lets the woman speak. (It’s embedded below, too) Every time Brinker tries to speak, she is interrupted by Mitchell. She tries to explain that the Planned Parenthood grants weren’t meeting criteria for effectiveness but Mitchell interrupts her. She explains that Planned Parenthood only offers pass-throughs — sending women to other places that can test them — and that they’d prefer to fund groups that directly provide services. She gets interrupted by a deeply hurt and personally offended Mitchell. At one point, Mitchell asks how, if the group is supposed to be bi-partisan, could they hire a pro-life individual who doesn’t love Planned Parenthood. (I’m not joking. Apparently bi-partisan means Democrats and Republicans who love Planned Parenthood.) If you doubt me about how biased this piece is, you can see how the blog Jezebel cheers Mitchell on as “completely schooling Brinker on where she and her foundation went wrong. Boom.”

Now the Mitchell piece is really bad journalism — it’s not journalism at all, actually — but it’s MSNBC and I’m not sure how much people expect from that outlet. Which is why this “reported” piece (and yes, I’m using the term loosely) from ABC World News with Diane Sawyer is so shocking. Actually, these are the only two broadcast pieces I’ve seen so maybe they’re all this bad? Perhaps you shouldn’t tell me if they are. I don’t think I could bear it. I literally screamed at the top of my lungs when I watched this. Twice. Outside of sports, I don’t yell at my television.

Remember how much the networks covered the Obama administration’s regulation requiring Catholic organizations (and others) to do things they can’t do in good conscience? Not at all, that is? Well:

@RickKlein:
Backlash at Susan G. Komen over Planned Parenthood move leads @ABCWorldNews & NBC; CBS starts with Afghanistan war

Two things. While Komen reports that their fundraising is “up 100%” since the news (I’m a new donor to them, for instance) and in the interview mentioned above Brinker mentions that the response she’s received has been quite favorable, that’s not the framing for these stories. Instead, the “backlash” is. But what is even more interesting is that this biased framing literally leads the nightly news! Leads it! So again, it’s not that the media are uninterested in covering abortion or related issues. They just prefer some stories over others. Rather dramatically so.

Diane Sawyer begins her ABC report by alluding to people taking one side. Then begins a relentless repetition of Planned Parenthood’s talking point that Komen is putting politics ahead of women’s health.

The first error is that Diane Sawyer exaggerates what Planned Parenthood does with regard to cancer treatment. As Brinker noted in the interview mentioned above, Planned Parenthood offers no direct services for cancer treatment and Komen would like to allocate its scarce resources to group that actually deal with cancer treatment. Sawyer describes Planned Parenthood as the place where “so many women get free tests for cancer treatment.” What tests? Certainly not mammograms, which are not offered by Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood acts as a pass-through agency, a place where women can be given prescriptions for tests. But “free tests for cancer treatment” sounds so much better than “place that doesn’t even offer mammograms,” I guess.

Claire Shipman reports with lots of war language about firestorms erupting and the like. She says:

That ubiquitous pink ribbon for decades uniting women in the greater good is sporting a black eye today. Thousands of women saying they will no longer support the Komen foundation or buy pink. Women like Monique Benoit who benefited from a Komen Planned Parenthood mammogram.

See that? Women such as myself who couldn’t in good conscience support Komen while it funneled money to Planned Parenthood are completely invisible to the mainstream media. We don’t exist. We don’t matter. We are never mentioned in this report. We are never pictured in this report. We are invisible to ABC News and others. That pink ribbon “united women” so long as it was associated with an organization that terminates 330,000 pregnancies a year. But now that it’s not, it’s not uniting women? In what world does that make sense?

And about this Komen Planned Parenthood mammogram … how is that possible when Planned Parenthood doesn’t offer mammograms? Great reporting, ABC! Of course, you’ll note that the woman who received this mammogram is stationed in front of Planned Parenthood signage offering the exact same talking point as everyone else who launched this public relations campaign against Komen. That line, again, is that a decision to cease funding the country’s largest abortion provider is “becoming” political. Funding that abortion provider? Just ask Andrea Mitchell, it’s as apolitical as the day is long! Can’t we all be bipartisan Planned Parenthood fans and champions?

The piece quotes Komen CEO Nancy Brinker who “spent the day in combat-style crisis management” (thanks to the mainstream media having the exact same line of attack as their Planned Parenthood cobelligerents). She denies it was political pressure and speaks against “scurrilous” allegations. What are those? Who knows? But ABC sums it up:

Brinker says there are simply better and more streamlined mammogram providers.

For instance, mammogram providers! MAMMOGRAM PROVIDERS WOULD BE BETTER AND MORE STREAMLINED MAMMOGRAM PROVIDERS THAN ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROVIDE NO MAMMOGRAMS! (And now you get a feel for my screaming at my computer screen when I first watched this.) Then we learn how great this has been for Planned Parenthood’s fundraising. Perhaps a journalist might look into, I don’t know, whether that was the plan all along for how Planned Parenthood leaked this news and took the ABC-approved spin that Komen’s decision was a disappointing politicization.

There’s a brief mention of conservative support. Very brief. Then Mitchell remembers an email she read earlier today where a woman said she couldn’t support Komen anymore. Why? Well because they’ve “politicized women’s health”! The PR team that developed that slogan and got the MSM to lede the evening news with it is worth every penny you paid them, Planned Parenthood. You usually can’t get this many repeat mentions in a 3-minute story without some heavy wrangling. ABC speaks to no one who supports the decision, no one who is pro-life.

Anyway, Shipman can’t explain Komen’s confusing decision. She says that when Komen was funneling money to Planned Parenthood, it “always prided itself on being apolitical.”

It’s like Planned Parenthood is a church and most of the media are communicant members ready to defend its teachings and faith at all costs. Check out how the one pro-lifer who Komen hired last year is given the scarlet letter in this caption “Anti-Abortion Stalwart.” Heretic! This ABC News headline gives two options for what’s going on with Komen’s decision to give money for breast cancer research and treatment to groups that do breast cancer research and treatment: “Witch Hunt or Policy Shift?” The story continues the backlash theme, completely oblivious to that portion of the country that doesn’t love Planned Parenthood. I’m not even going to watch the CBS report at this point but it’s headline? “Backlash grows over Susan G. Komen-Planned Parenthood flap”

Force Catholics to choose whether to violate their consciences or stop serving the poor? Ho hum! Who cares? Let’s put “religious liberty” in scare quotes and move on already, ok? Focus funding on groups that actually provide breast cancer treatment and resources instead of the Most Holy Planned Parenthood? We will lead the nightly news and if we have to misrepresent what’s going on, we’ll do that.
Click to expand...
http://www.getreligion.org/2012/02/media-genuflects-before-church-of-planned-parenthood/
 
4est_4est_Gump said:
OH! so you think you're better than Jessica???




More of a Giselle?

:) :devil:
Click to expand...

Oh, good Lord, I wish. I am a Giants fan, baby. And as I have said before, Pretty Boy Brady is going down...and not just on Giselle afterwards! ;)
 
Honey123 said:
Oh, good Lord, I wish. I am a Giants fan, baby. And as I have said before, Pretty Boy Brady is going down...and not just on Giselle afterwards! ;)
Click to expand...

I'm betting the spread, and I'm not talking points, unless it's the ones way up firm and high...



:) If Manning was so great, he'd have a super model too! a Simpson even! I hear Lisa might be available...
 
4est_4est_Gump said:
I'm betting the spread, and I'm not talking points, unless it's the ones way up firm and high...



:) If Manning was so great, he'd have a super model too! a Simpson even! I hear Lisa might be available...
Click to expand...


LOL... the only spread I am thinking about is what I can put on some crackers~!

Did you watch Moneyball?? One of the scouts says about a player they were looking at, "He's got bad eyesight".. and another goes, "How do you know?" .. he says, "He's got an ugly girlfriend".

:D
 
all things aside... donating money to a group or an organization is fully up to the person or group donating the money.

since when is it anyone's right to get a donation .

just because I once donated money to a group doesn't give them the right to it again, it is in fact my money.

I'm only talking about the money here. not the right of women to get easily available care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Do you or would you have an AI girlfriend/boyfriend/companion?
2
Replies
27
Views
618
pellso27
pellso27
B
What is up with these threads?
Replies
10
Views
255
BillyWalrus
B
M
MFM working away
Replies
1
Views
186
Shaglus_Ziegler
Shaglus_Ziegler
M
Working away from home.
Replies
0
Views
80
MarsterKevin
M
B
Walt Disney Studios Announces 2026 Blockbuster Film!!! Takeaway: Disney Is Back!!!
Replies
0
Views
313
BobYesTheBob
B
Back
Top