- HOME
- HOLY SCRIPTURE
- BABIES IN THE WOMB
- A Mother's True Love For Her Baby
- THOUGHTS
- 'No More Baby' by Jay Nordlinger
- LINKS
- Mother Teresa
- Two speeches by President Ronald W. Reagan
- WITNESS by Paul Greenberg
- Abortion and Rape by Andrew Napolitano
- PLANNED UNPARENTHOOD
- Pro-life, except ...
- TIME
- LiveAction.org
- UNPLANNED - A Book By Abby Johnson
- LEGAL ISSUES
- COURT CASES
- POLITICS
- Komen for the Cure
- STEM CELLS
- ELECTIOM 2016
- MARCH FOR LIFE 2017
PAUL GREENBERG
[email protected]
A Moment of Clarity -- Thanks to the Race for the Cure Feb 08, 2012
Those who run the Komen foundation, and make a mighty good thing of it, too, sound confused in the worst way: morally confused.
Formally dedicated to finding a cure for breast cancer, Susan G. Komen for the Cure (R) has also been funding -- of all unrelated things -- the nation's largest provider, merchandiser and defender of abortions: Planned Parenthood.
The pink-ribbon people finally decided to cut off Planned Parenthood when that well-financed outfit came under congressional scrutiny for the way it handles its money.
The result was an outcry from Planned Parenthood and well-heeled company. A rhetorical donnybrook ensued. The social media went into a tizzy, as they regularly do. Pro-lifers upped their contributions to the Race for the Cure, while anti-lifers (excuse me, pro-choicers) threatened to stop theirs and finance Planned Parenthood instead. Money changed hands, or at least pledges to one nonprofit or the other did.
Then came the course correction. The Komen foundation announced it wouldn't be cutting off Planned Parenthood's water after all. Although just what it would be doing in the future wasn't entirely clear.
What a mess. And it's still unresolved. It's not easy trying to stay neutral between right and wrong. No wonder Dante gave those who manage to bring it off their own special circle in hell or vicinity thereof.
Come to think, the execs at the Komen foundation aren't confused at all. They know what they're after: the money. And whichever side of this raucous debate can provide more of it, or withhold more of it, can be assured of the Komen foundation's undying support. For the moment. Until a higher bid is made.
The succession of awkwardnesses in the Komen foundation's changing public stances and shifting explanations for them was only to be expected. It happens with organizations that have never really thought through first questions, like whether to cooperate with evil, to what extent, and at what cost, at least in dollars and cents. (The value of an organization's soul, if it has one, has yet to be calculated.)
The same phenomenon can be observed in the kind of people who wind up either ignoring moral questions or trying to minimize them. Hey, abortion is only a small percentage of Planned Parenthood's total activities, even if it represents a lot of the organization's income. And only a small percentage of the Komen foundation's funds goes to Planned Parenthood, even if it's a lot of money.
Nonprofits can be highly profitable in this country. Talk about doing well by doing good: Komen's CEO, Nancy Brinker, draws maybe half a million a year out of the charity's pot -- $459,406 in 2010, to be exact. Charity pays, at least for those who run one.
No question about it, Ms. Brinker directs a highly successful enterprise. And she may be worth every penny, even if she really screwed up this little matter and 24-hour sensation. But who cares about a moral scruple or two if the money keeps rolling in?
In a different era, when the infamous Supreme Court decision that divided the nation wasn't Roe v. Wade but Dred Scott, there were also those who thought the moral issue could be ignored, maybe indefinitely with any luck.
The Komen foundation's successive rationales bring to mind those genteel antebellum types who would say that of course they were opposed to human slavery but, then again, the Peculiar Institution was essential to the Southern economy and the nation's. And, really, it was all a peripheral issue that should not distract from the important things. Like keeping things as comfortable and accepted as they are. Why make trouble? Conscience is so inconvenient.
Now we're told that destroying the most innocent and vulnerable, the least of these, shouldn't be cause for such concern. How many babies in total does Planned Parenthood do away with every year anyway -- a few hundred thousand? Big deal.
It does so year in, year out, with the generous help of outfits like the Komen foundation and the federal government. Why make a fuss about it? Abortions are only a sideline at Planned Parenthood anyway, except maybe when it comes to its bottom line. Nine out of 10 pregnant women who enter a Planned Parenthood clinic get an abortion, according to its annual report for 2010. So what? Couldn't we all just look the other way?
This is the morally confused point any collective endeavor, public or private, may reach when, far from being concerned about doing the right thing, the overriding concern becomes how to keep the cash flowing in, the payroll met, the wheels grinding, the staff filled.
The best guide to what's going on here, confusing as it may seem to the poor observer who has to keep watching the Komen foundation change its mind, is the same principle that's so useful when it comes to figuring out politics: Follow the money.
The important consideration becomes not right and wrong, but ... Public Relations! And here we have a textbook example of Dale Carnegie in reverse: a lesson in how to lose friends and alienate people.
Right now, the Komen foundation and Planned Parenthood deserve the kind of PR problem both have so richly earned. For just a moment the frilly curtains have parted, the pretty pink ribbon untied, and we the people can see just where our money is going. It's not a pretty sight. Indeed, it's about as wholesome and uplifting as what goes on at your average abortion mill.
[email protected]
A Moment of Clarity -- Thanks to the Race for the Cure Feb 08, 2012
Those who run the Komen foundation, and make a mighty good thing of it, too, sound confused in the worst way: morally confused.
Formally dedicated to finding a cure for breast cancer, Susan G. Komen for the Cure (R) has also been funding -- of all unrelated things -- the nation's largest provider, merchandiser and defender of abortions: Planned Parenthood.
The pink-ribbon people finally decided to cut off Planned Parenthood when that well-financed outfit came under congressional scrutiny for the way it handles its money.
The result was an outcry from Planned Parenthood and well-heeled company. A rhetorical donnybrook ensued. The social media went into a tizzy, as they regularly do. Pro-lifers upped their contributions to the Race for the Cure, while anti-lifers (excuse me, pro-choicers) threatened to stop theirs and finance Planned Parenthood instead. Money changed hands, or at least pledges to one nonprofit or the other did.
Then came the course correction. The Komen foundation announced it wouldn't be cutting off Planned Parenthood's water after all. Although just what it would be doing in the future wasn't entirely clear.
What a mess. And it's still unresolved. It's not easy trying to stay neutral between right and wrong. No wonder Dante gave those who manage to bring it off their own special circle in hell or vicinity thereof.
Come to think, the execs at the Komen foundation aren't confused at all. They know what they're after: the money. And whichever side of this raucous debate can provide more of it, or withhold more of it, can be assured of the Komen foundation's undying support. For the moment. Until a higher bid is made.
The succession of awkwardnesses in the Komen foundation's changing public stances and shifting explanations for them was only to be expected. It happens with organizations that have never really thought through first questions, like whether to cooperate with evil, to what extent, and at what cost, at least in dollars and cents. (The value of an organization's soul, if it has one, has yet to be calculated.)
The same phenomenon can be observed in the kind of people who wind up either ignoring moral questions or trying to minimize them. Hey, abortion is only a small percentage of Planned Parenthood's total activities, even if it represents a lot of the organization's income. And only a small percentage of the Komen foundation's funds goes to Planned Parenthood, even if it's a lot of money.
Nonprofits can be highly profitable in this country. Talk about doing well by doing good: Komen's CEO, Nancy Brinker, draws maybe half a million a year out of the charity's pot -- $459,406 in 2010, to be exact. Charity pays, at least for those who run one.
No question about it, Ms. Brinker directs a highly successful enterprise. And she may be worth every penny, even if she really screwed up this little matter and 24-hour sensation. But who cares about a moral scruple or two if the money keeps rolling in?
In a different era, when the infamous Supreme Court decision that divided the nation wasn't Roe v. Wade but Dred Scott, there were also those who thought the moral issue could be ignored, maybe indefinitely with any luck.
The Komen foundation's successive rationales bring to mind those genteel antebellum types who would say that of course they were opposed to human slavery but, then again, the Peculiar Institution was essential to the Southern economy and the nation's. And, really, it was all a peripheral issue that should not distract from the important things. Like keeping things as comfortable and accepted as they are. Why make trouble? Conscience is so inconvenient.
Now we're told that destroying the most innocent and vulnerable, the least of these, shouldn't be cause for such concern. How many babies in total does Planned Parenthood do away with every year anyway -- a few hundred thousand? Big deal.
It does so year in, year out, with the generous help of outfits like the Komen foundation and the federal government. Why make a fuss about it? Abortions are only a sideline at Planned Parenthood anyway, except maybe when it comes to its bottom line. Nine out of 10 pregnant women who enter a Planned Parenthood clinic get an abortion, according to its annual report for 2010. So what? Couldn't we all just look the other way?
This is the morally confused point any collective endeavor, public or private, may reach when, far from being concerned about doing the right thing, the overriding concern becomes how to keep the cash flowing in, the payroll met, the wheels grinding, the staff filled.
The best guide to what's going on here, confusing as it may seem to the poor observer who has to keep watching the Komen foundation change its mind, is the same principle that's so useful when it comes to figuring out politics: Follow the money.
The important consideration becomes not right and wrong, but ... Public Relations! And here we have a textbook example of Dale Carnegie in reverse: a lesson in how to lose friends and alienate people.
Right now, the Komen foundation and Planned Parenthood deserve the kind of PR problem both have so richly earned. For just a moment the frilly curtains have parted, the pretty pink ribbon untied, and we the people can see just where our money is going. It's not a pretty sight. Indeed, it's about as wholesome and uplifting as what goes on at your average abortion mill.
Komen Sends Millions to Embryonic
Stem Cell Research Centers
by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor 7/19/11
The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation has long upset pro-life advocates for denying the abortion-breast cancer link and sending millions to the Planned Parenthood abortion business. New information shows Komen also supporting centers engaging in embryonic stem cell research.
As LifeNews.com reported last year, Komen spokesman John Hammarley confirmed 20 of Komen’s 122 affiliates have made donations to Planned Parenthood and, in 2009, those contributions totaled $731,303. The Komen spokesman also confirmed Komen affiliates contributed about $3.3 million to the abortion business from 2004-2009.
Now, Karen Malec of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer has spent time examining Komen’s 990 Forms for the IRS for 2010 and she found that Komen has active relationships with at least five research groups or educational facilities that engage in embryonic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of unborn children in their earliest days for stem cells that have yet to help any patients.
Komen is careful in its documents to state that none of the funds directly support embryonic stem cell research, saying in its Group Return for 2010 under a section entitled “Grant Statement” that “While Komen affiliates do not fund research grants directly, a portion of the funds raised by every Komen affiliate (approximately 25%) go to support the research and training grants program at Komen’s International Headquarters.”
The return shows donations from Komen totaling $3.75 million to Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, $4.5 million to the University of Kansas Medical Center, $1 million to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, $1 million to the Society for Women’s Health Research, and $600,000 to Yale University.
Looking at those institutions, Yale not only engages in embryonic stem cell research but, in 2006, came under federal investigation for apparently mismanaging federal stem cell research grants. Also, a Johns Hopkins researcher also came under fire in December 2008 for trashing peer-reviewed research showing abortion’s link to negative mental health issues and problems for women. And the National Cancer Institute has been repeatedly blasted by pro-life advocates for denying the abortion-breast cancer link exists.
“Komen’s Parent Return for 2010 shows that millions of dollars in grants were given to research facilities that have policies supporting experiments on human embryos,” Malec says, adding that the list of schools is only a partial list of the facilities engaging in embryonic research that received grants.
Recent statements from the Catholic Bishop of Toledo, the Most Reverend Leonard Blair, bring up both abortion and the potential of Komen indirectly supporting embryonic research as reasons for Catholics to have misgivings about the breast cancer group. Malec says the statements from Bishop Blair “suggest that local Komen officials may have misled him and his associates with respect to the organization’s practices involving experiments on human embryos.”
“They are open to embryonic stem cell research and may well fund such research in the future,” the bishop noted.
Combined with the millions in donations to the nation’s biggest abortion business, Komen says the new information about the Komen ties to embryonic stem cell research centers makes it so the breast cancer group is not worthy of support. She says Komen needs to be honest with women about the abortion-breast cancer connection.
“It’s more than ironic that Planned Parenthood receives contributions from an organization allegedly dedicated to the eradication of breast cancer,” Malec says. “Abortion and the birth control pill – which Planned Parenthood sells – are risk factors for the disease. It’s certainly bad for business to tell women the truth about the abortion-breast cancer link. Knowledge of that risk would cause some to turn their backs on induced abortion and cut into Planned Parenthood’s profits.”
“On the other hand, warning women about the breast cancer risk of abortion would mean fewer breast cancer patients and, therefore, a reduction in donations for Komen. Telling donors that their previous abortions may have been responsible for their breast cancers is simply not a good fundraising tactic,” she concludes.
Stem Cell Research Centers
by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor 7/19/11
The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation has long upset pro-life advocates for denying the abortion-breast cancer link and sending millions to the Planned Parenthood abortion business. New information shows Komen also supporting centers engaging in embryonic stem cell research.
As LifeNews.com reported last year, Komen spokesman John Hammarley confirmed 20 of Komen’s 122 affiliates have made donations to Planned Parenthood and, in 2009, those contributions totaled $731,303. The Komen spokesman also confirmed Komen affiliates contributed about $3.3 million to the abortion business from 2004-2009.
Now, Karen Malec of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer has spent time examining Komen’s 990 Forms for the IRS for 2010 and she found that Komen has active relationships with at least five research groups or educational facilities that engage in embryonic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of unborn children in their earliest days for stem cells that have yet to help any patients.
Komen is careful in its documents to state that none of the funds directly support embryonic stem cell research, saying in its Group Return for 2010 under a section entitled “Grant Statement” that “While Komen affiliates do not fund research grants directly, a portion of the funds raised by every Komen affiliate (approximately 25%) go to support the research and training grants program at Komen’s International Headquarters.”
The return shows donations from Komen totaling $3.75 million to Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, $4.5 million to the University of Kansas Medical Center, $1 million to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, $1 million to the Society for Women’s Health Research, and $600,000 to Yale University.
Looking at those institutions, Yale not only engages in embryonic stem cell research but, in 2006, came under federal investigation for apparently mismanaging federal stem cell research grants. Also, a Johns Hopkins researcher also came under fire in December 2008 for trashing peer-reviewed research showing abortion’s link to negative mental health issues and problems for women. And the National Cancer Institute has been repeatedly blasted by pro-life advocates for denying the abortion-breast cancer link exists.
“Komen’s Parent Return for 2010 shows that millions of dollars in grants were given to research facilities that have policies supporting experiments on human embryos,” Malec says, adding that the list of schools is only a partial list of the facilities engaging in embryonic research that received grants.
Recent statements from the Catholic Bishop of Toledo, the Most Reverend Leonard Blair, bring up both abortion and the potential of Komen indirectly supporting embryonic research as reasons for Catholics to have misgivings about the breast cancer group. Malec says the statements from Bishop Blair “suggest that local Komen officials may have misled him and his associates with respect to the organization’s practices involving experiments on human embryos.”
“They are open to embryonic stem cell research and may well fund such research in the future,” the bishop noted.
Combined with the millions in donations to the nation’s biggest abortion business, Komen says the new information about the Komen ties to embryonic stem cell research centers makes it so the breast cancer group is not worthy of support. She says Komen needs to be honest with women about the abortion-breast cancer connection.
“It’s more than ironic that Planned Parenthood receives contributions from an organization allegedly dedicated to the eradication of breast cancer,” Malec says. “Abortion and the birth control pill – which Planned Parenthood sells – are risk factors for the disease. It’s certainly bad for business to tell women the truth about the abortion-breast cancer link. Knowledge of that risk would cause some to turn their backs on induced abortion and cut into Planned Parenthood’s profits.”
“On the other hand, warning women about the breast cancer risk of abortion would mean fewer breast cancer patients and, therefore, a reduction in donations for Komen. Telling donors that their previous abortions may have been responsible for their breast cancers is simply not a good fundraising tactic,” she concludes.
Komen for the Cure Donated $7.5M to Planned Parenthood in 2009
by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor 10/12/10
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) --October is the month for breast cancer awareness, but it's difficult for pro-life advocates to lend their support to one of the primary organizations involved in the fight against breast cancer because it has provided contributions to the Planned parenthood abortion business.
The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation has long denied that abortion plays any role in elevating the risk for women of contracting the deadly disease.
That's despite a wealth of research over decades showing an average increased risk of about 40 percent for women having abortions compared to those who carry their pregnancy to term.
But the contributions Komen affiliates make to Planned Parenthood, which does more than 25 percent of all abortions in the United States and aggressively promotes abortion abroad, provide another sources of frustration for pro-life people who otherwise would support the group.
In a new interview with the Daily Caller, Komen spokesman John Hammarley provided the latest figures showing the link between the two groups.
He confirmed 20 of Komen’s 122 affiliates have made donations to Planned Parenthood and, last year, those contributions totaled $7.5 million -- much higher than the $731,000 Komen's figures on its web site showed earlier this year.
Hammarley sought to play down the funding by saying it's a small percentage of Komen's income or expenses.
“That $7.5 million is less than one percent of the entire amount of community grant funding that affiliates around the country contribute,” Hammarley said.
He also told the Daily Caller that the funding is closely monitored to ensure the money does not go to pay for abortions directly, but breast cancer screening projects Planned Parenthood sponsors. But, for pro-life advocates, how Planned Parenthood uses the money is less important than the fact that the abortion business receives the funds and doesn't have to use money it makes from abortions to pay for the screenings.
“No matter whether they are giving $500,000 a year to Planned Parenthood, or $5, people who respect the dignity of human life and are trying to save people with disease don't want any part of their money going to an organization that is subsidizing an abortion provider,” Bioethics Defense Fund attorney Dorinda Bordlee told the news web site.
Another problem for pro-life advocates is the fact that Planned Parenthood is reducing the number of breast cancer screenings while increasing its abortions.
According to the 2008 Annual Report from Planned Parenthood, breast cancer services decreased by 4% and abortion procedures increased by 6%.
The longtime ties between Komen and Planned Parenthood may have resulted in some backlash from the pro-life community. The Komen annual report reveals Komen brought in almost $22 million less, or 6% less, in 2009 than it made in 2008. That could be a result of the difficult economic times or may also come as a result of pro-life advocates increasingly boycotting Komen.
Meanwhile, the newest research on the link between abortion and breast cancer reveals abortion certainly plays a role in increasing the breast cancer risk.
A January 2010 study called abortion a "known risk factor" for breast cancer and cited a study conducted by the prestigious Janet Daling group of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
Daling and her colleagues showed between a 20 and 50 percent increased breast cancer risk for women having abortions compare to those who carried their pregnancies to term.
And microbiologist Dr. Gerard Nadal, who has a PhD in Molecular Microbiology from St John's University in New York, has spent 16 years teaching science, most recently at Manhattan College, has been profiling more than 100 studies on his blog showing abortion's link to breast cancer
by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor 10/12/10
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) --October is the month for breast cancer awareness, but it's difficult for pro-life advocates to lend their support to one of the primary organizations involved in the fight against breast cancer because it has provided contributions to the Planned parenthood abortion business.
The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation has long denied that abortion plays any role in elevating the risk for women of contracting the deadly disease.
That's despite a wealth of research over decades showing an average increased risk of about 40 percent for women having abortions compared to those who carry their pregnancy to term.
But the contributions Komen affiliates make to Planned Parenthood, which does more than 25 percent of all abortions in the United States and aggressively promotes abortion abroad, provide another sources of frustration for pro-life people who otherwise would support the group.
In a new interview with the Daily Caller, Komen spokesman John Hammarley provided the latest figures showing the link between the two groups.
He confirmed 20 of Komen’s 122 affiliates have made donations to Planned Parenthood and, last year, those contributions totaled $7.5 million -- much higher than the $731,000 Komen's figures on its web site showed earlier this year.
Hammarley sought to play down the funding by saying it's a small percentage of Komen's income or expenses.
“That $7.5 million is less than one percent of the entire amount of community grant funding that affiliates around the country contribute,” Hammarley said.
He also told the Daily Caller that the funding is closely monitored to ensure the money does not go to pay for abortions directly, but breast cancer screening projects Planned Parenthood sponsors. But, for pro-life advocates, how Planned Parenthood uses the money is less important than the fact that the abortion business receives the funds and doesn't have to use money it makes from abortions to pay for the screenings.
“No matter whether they are giving $500,000 a year to Planned Parenthood, or $5, people who respect the dignity of human life and are trying to save people with disease don't want any part of their money going to an organization that is subsidizing an abortion provider,” Bioethics Defense Fund attorney Dorinda Bordlee told the news web site.
Another problem for pro-life advocates is the fact that Planned Parenthood is reducing the number of breast cancer screenings while increasing its abortions.
According to the 2008 Annual Report from Planned Parenthood, breast cancer services decreased by 4% and abortion procedures increased by 6%.
The longtime ties between Komen and Planned Parenthood may have resulted in some backlash from the pro-life community. The Komen annual report reveals Komen brought in almost $22 million less, or 6% less, in 2009 than it made in 2008. That could be a result of the difficult economic times or may also come as a result of pro-life advocates increasingly boycotting Komen.
Meanwhile, the newest research on the link between abortion and breast cancer reveals abortion certainly plays a role in increasing the breast cancer risk.
A January 2010 study called abortion a "known risk factor" for breast cancer and cited a study conducted by the prestigious Janet Daling group of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
Daling and her colleagues showed between a 20 and 50 percent increased breast cancer risk for women having abortions compare to those who carried their pregnancies to term.
And microbiologist Dr. Gerard Nadal, who has a PhD in Molecular Microbiology from St John's University in New York, has spent 16 years teaching science, most recently at Manhattan College, has been profiling more than 100 studies on his blog showing abortion's link to breast cancer
