Pro-Life Notebook

Thursday, February 9, 2012

There is a most terrible irony about the pink ribbons everyone sees, football players who wear pink, “pink days” and other “pink” related products that “draw attention” to the cause of eradicating breast cancer. The irony is that there is a direct link between a woman having an abortion and the fact she’ll have a 40% increased chance of having breast cancer.
This is regardless of whether or not the woman has subsequent live births/children which was once thought to be something that could reduce the risk. This isn’t just one study. There are so many that support the direct link between abortions and a greatly increased risk of breast cancer that a microbiologist is going to post each study, one a day, until he has exhausted every single study out there. He estimates he won’t be finished doing this until January 2011.
So why the irony? The Komen Foundation, one of the largest if not the largest fundraiser for breast cancer "research", gives money to Planned Parenthood.
[See links listed at the end of this Hub]
There is absolutely no doubt--if a woman has an abortion it greatly increases her risk for breast cancer. There is incontrovertible evidence that there is a suspected link between breast cancer and abortion.
The Koman foundation admits to funding Planned Parenthood and defends the reasons why.
On the surface, their arguments are sound. They give money to Planned Parenthood to pay “only” for screening for the poor to help prevent breast cancer.
Yet there are two glaring problems with this letter. 1) Planned Parenthood’s greatest money-maker is in providing abortions. What assurance (not provided in this letter) do we have that the money is being used for the things they list and not going towards abortions? They offer nothing. Their promise, that the funds they use is …only for breast health education, screening and treatment programs is insupportable.
2) Unfortunately they actually perpetuate a lie in this same letter. I quote from this lie:
Another piece of misinformation being spread by many who criticize Komen for the Cure for its Planned Parenthood grants is that abortion causes breast cancer. Well conducted research consistently fails to support this claim. We agree with the bulk of scientific evidence – from the National Cancer Institute, Harvard, a rigorous study in Denmark and from Oxford University – that there is no conclusive link between breast cancer and induced abortion or miscarriage.

This is simply not true. There most definitely is very credible evidence and the fact that they deny this is astounding.
Why would it matter anyway - why do they defend abortion if the money they give to Planned Parenthood goes to “only” the limited services Planned Parenthood offers and not abortion? Why bother even addressing this issue in the first place if this money is directed specifically and only for the services they claim are being funded?
If the pro-aborts are all about “choice” then why doesn’t The Komen Foundation give women the choice to know this very important information so that she can make an informed choice? Why does Planned Parenthood deny the increased risk of many more things than breast cancer risk directly related to abortion?
According to the Planned Parenthood website:
Abortion is “safe and effective”. This is from the "teen" Planned Parenthood linked page.
I just had my flu shot at Walgreens. There were signs and notices prominently displayed about the “possible risk” for having one of these shots. Before I was able to receive my shot I had to fill out a sheet of paper and sign that I had been informed about the risks. I can’t have a flu shot without being told repeatedly of the possible risks (far less risky than having an abortion I can guarantee no less the risk of long-term after-affects) yet why is there no such claims on the web site of Planned Parenthood?
How can a procedure where they rip out a live baby from the womb of a woman in pieces -- be boldly called “safe and effective”? How can this be put on the Planned Parenthood website without any disclaimers whatsoever? It's outrageous! Well regardless, your tax dollars pay for it!
One of the more egregious outrages is the fact that not only have so many of us been duped into buying “pink” products, but we have also been giving our tax dollars to fund abortions through Planned Parenthood, and other programs throughout the world. In fact one of the first things President Obama did as President was to repeal the so-called Mexico City rule, which prohibits U.S. aid from being used to fund abortion or abortion-promotion in foreign countries
Now your tax dollars fund Mexican abortions as well as untold secret programs the Obama administration has developed to give your tax dollars for world-wide abortions.
President Obama has the distinction of being the most pro-active, pro-abort President ever to hold the office. This includes his Obama healthcare bill that will - despite his promises and promises by Pelosi, Ried et al - fund abortions using tax payer dollars.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/09/11/obamacare-federal-money-would-fund-abortion/
See also the links provided below.
This is one of the worst insidious evils in our society and it needs to be eradicated. Shine the light of truth on this evil and it will not be able to stand! Think about doing your part, today.
Let’s be a voice to save lives, let’s get the word out. Stop buying anything that is pink and related to these pink breast cancer “awareness” movements. Pass this Hub on, not because I want any personal recognition, but because I want to try and make a difference God willing. My mother is a breast cancer survivor. My treasured sister-in-law lost her mother to breast cancer. Her sister has breast cancer and she has had numerous brushes with this horrible disease. I'm praying for someone in my church who right now has breast cancer, a young, vibrant, absolutely beautiful woman.
Breast cancer is personal to me.
These women didn't have abortions, but what about those who have one without being informed they have a 40% chance of later having breast cancer as a result?
I am passionately pro-life, however, I do not wish to criminalize abortions. I would never condemn anyone for having one. I care about these women. I care enough to want them to be fully informed about the procedure so that they truly have a choice about what they do.
Please think about doing your part today - pass this on.

Other helpful and informational links:

Think before you buy pink: http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/?page_id=13
Tax Dollars used for abortions:
Michelle Malkin » Call your reps: No on Obamacare funds for abortion
Obamacare in fact funds abortions [Fr. Z] - Catholic Answers Forums
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2054293/does_obamacare_fund_abortions_americas.html?cat=75
Susan G. Komen gives millions of donation dollars to Planned Parenthood: http://gerardnadal.com/2010/04/07/susan-g-komen-gives-million-to-planned-parenthood/
http://pinkmoney.org/komen_pp.htm
http://pinkmoney.org/pinkmoney.htm
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/news/061110/index.htm
Links to abortion and breast cancer: http://pinkmoney.org/komen_pp.htm
Direct link to Komen Foundation financial report: http://ww5.komen.org/uploadedFiles/Content/AboutUs/Financial/new-2008-2009AnnualReport-final.pdf
Home page for the Komen Foundation: Susan G. Komen website

Note:
I was forced to remove the photos of aborted babies and frankly, I understand why. It's very interesting to note that the stark, horrific reality of abortion violates the conditions Hubpages places on our Hubs - and they are extremely reasonable conditions, don't get me wrong. Graphic violence can not be depicted. So I do not have an issue with the Hubpages team in any way. I quickly took the photos down once I received the notice.
What I find interesting though is the fact that the realities of "choice"-- the "pro choice" movement etc. -- is that when we show the "fruits" of their labor, aborted babies in pieces, torn limbs, bloody mangled nightmarish images - it's too graphic and violent to show here on Hubpages. Think about that.
One could easily conclude - It's not a "choice" it's the slaughter of a helpless baby.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

ABC - Abortions Linked to Cancer

Links to more info about the PP and ABC (abortion to cancer) link

http://erlc.com/article/the-komen-foundation-and-planned-parenthood/

http://www.lifenews.com/2010/09/21/nat-6718/

AbortionBreastCancer.com


	Medical Groups Recognizing Link


	A list of medical organizations recognizing a link between abortion and breast cancer is provided below. Telling women their abortions are related to increased breast cancer risk is clearly not good for cancer fundraising businesses, the abortion industry and the pharmaceutical industry. Medical groups whose doctors do not perform abortions or refer women for abortions will be among the first to recognize that abortion raises a woman's breast cancer risk. National Physicians Center for Family Resources P.O. Box 59692 Birmingham, AL 35259 205/870-0234 www.physicianscenter.org The National Physicians Center for Family Resources offers a CD intended for parents and health educators which cites "increased breast cancer risk" as a "long-term complication of abortion" and offers a biological explanation for the abortion-breast cancer link. The CD is entitled, "Prescriptions for Parents: A Physicians' Guide to Adolescence and Sex." Catholic Medical Association 2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, #864 Washington, DC 20006 Tel: 1-877-CATHDOC (877-228-4362) www.cathmed.org "Whereas epidemiological evidence of an association between abortion and breast cancer has existed for almost a half century, "Whereas 29 our ot 38 worldwide epidemiological studies show an increased risk of breat cancer of approximately 30% among women who have had an abortion, "Whereas all women undergoing abortion are entitled to full informed consent as to all risks including long term risks, "Therefore be it resolved that the Catholic Medical Association endorses the passage of state legislation to require abortionists to inform all women of their future increased vulnerability to breast cancer." Resolution Approved 10/15/03 American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists 844 South Washington, Suite 1600 Holland, MI 49423 616-546-2639 www.aaplog.org AAPLOG has posted a position statement about the ABC link on its website. Breast Cancer Prevention Institute 9 Vassar St. Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 845/452-0797 www.bcpinstitute.org The Polycarp Research Institute 2232 Second Avenue Altoona, PA 16602 www.polycarp.org Ehtics and Medics 6399 Drexel Road Philadelphia, PA 19151 www.ethicsandmedics.com MaterCare International8 Riverview Avenue St. John's, Newfoundland Canada A1C 2S5 Phone: 709-579-6472 Fax: 709- 579-6501 E-Mail: info@matercare.org Statement Concerning the Link between Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer, R. L. Walley. FRCSC., FRCOG., MPH Executive Director and Honourary Research Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology "MaterCare International an international group of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists was presented with the evidence of the link between abortion and breast cancer at its international conference in Rome in October 2004 by Dr Joel Brind's research group. The medical explanation and the epidemiological evidence convinced our group that there is a significant increase in breast cancer risk after induced abortion, especially before the first full term pregnancy. This evidence has been denied by the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) and other researchers. Recently ten studies have been published in an attempt to discredit Brind's conclusion. "In turn Brind has examined these ten studies and in a peer reviewed paper published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Vol 10, No 4, Winter 2005, <http://www.jpands.org>) he has shown that they have serious methodological weaknesses and flaws and therefore do not invalidate the conclusion that there is a increased risk of breast cancer. "Women have a basic right to know of this increased risk of breast cancer and it is unacceptable that the information should be denied to them by the medical and cancer research establishments. MaterCare International as an organisation of women's health specialists recognies its responsibilities in this matter and will do all it can to publish this evidence." Breast Care Center-EAMC G/F OPD Bldg East Avenue Medical Center, East Avenue, Quezon City, Philippines Phone: (632)-928-0611 loc 578 E-mail: pfbci_bcc@yahoo.com http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/news/Santos/index.htm


	Medical Groups Supporting Disclosure of Research


	Association of American Physicians and Surgeons 1601 N. Tucson Blvd., Suite 9 Tucson, AZ 85716-3450 520-323-3110 "The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons believes that patients have the right to give or withhold fully informed consent before undergoing medical treatment. This includes notification of potential adverse effects. While there is a difference of medical opinion concerning the abortion breast cancer link, there is a considerable volume of evidence supporting this link, which is, moreover, highly plausible. We believe that a reasonable person would want to be informed of the existence of this evidence before making her decision." Jane Orient, MD Executive Director October 27, 2003 Read Mrs. Malec's article, "The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: How Politics Trumped Science and Informed Consent," in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons: www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf


	Medical Groups in Need of Political Courage


	Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists American Medical Association - A spokesman for the AMA told World Net Daily that its group "doesn't have a policy at all" on whether its doctors should inform women about the abortion-breast cancer research. [John Dougherty, "Can doctors be sued over abortion? Those who don't inform patients of breast cancer link could be targets," World Net Daily March 27, 2002. Available at: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26970 Visited October 8, 2003. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists American Society of Breast Surgeons Miami Breast Cancer Conference All Cancer Groups http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/newsletter102202.htm http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/050902.htm

Prostate Cancer May Be Linked to the Pill

http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Prostate+cancer+linked+birth+control+pills+Study/5709747/story.html

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Contraception and Fig Trees

"The root principle of birth-control is unsound. It is a glorification of the means and a contempt of the end; it says that the pleasure which is a means to the procreation of children is good, but the children themselves are no good.

In other words, to be logical, the philosophy of birth-control would commit us to a world in which trees were always blooming but never giving fruit, a world full of sign-posts that were leading nowhere. In this cosmos every tree would be a barren fig-tree and for that reason would have upon it the curse of God."

Archbishop Fulton Sheen

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Bishops' Statements Against the HHS Mandate

CV Blogger Thomas Peters is compiling a list of Bishops' statements against this HHS mandate at http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=25591. Is your bishop not on this list? Please check with your diocese to see if a statement has been made by your bishop, and if not, respectfully ask him to do so! If they have issued a statement, please email us at info@catholicvote.org.

[This past weekend millions of Catholics were read a letter from their Bishop in response to the HHS mandate (partial list below). CV Blogger John White published an excellent post on how we can help our shepherds. I thought you would enjoy it, and so we are featuring it today. -Brian

Pray for our Bishops.

Because they need it, they need lots of it.

And they need it now.

Many American bishops have publicly spoken out against the Obama administration’s recent declaration of war against the Catholic Church. So far, the response from the episcopate has been widespread, clear, and strong. We should all be encouraged by the readiness on the part of these bishops to lead the American Church in this fight for freedom.

But we ought not take this leadership for granted. So often it seems, when something Church-related gets us upset, we are all too ready and willing to focus our outrage on the local bishop. Granted, the last ten years have certainly reminded us that bishops can make poor, even seriously harmful, decisions. And the accounting for those transgressions is still underway.

But too often the bishops suffer our wrath over the fact that the state of the Church (in our parish, our diocese, or our country) isn’t just the way we want it to be. Expecting faithful leadership from the bishop is one thing. Calling up the chancery (which you have on speed dial) because Father Bob failed to mention Hell in his homily is something else.

It gets lonely at the top, or so they say.

The same thought has been echoed by high-ranking military officers, or their biographers, who speak of the “loneliness of command.” When you’re the top dog, or the top brass, or the top guy in the diocese, you get to call the shots. But that means that you also bear the responsibility, alone, for the shots you call.

In the case of bishops, it means that every day they are asked to make decisions, issue statements, and take actions with one thing in mind – the salvation of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of souls. That’s a sobering dose of responsibility. And as a bonus, these shepherds carry out their vocation with the certain knowledge that no matter what they do, a good percentage of the souls they are charged with will be left disappointed, upset, or outraged. At them. That’s not a job anyone should envy. Certainly not one that we should take for granted.

A Chesterton quote, on St. Thomas Aquinas, whose feast we just celebrated:

His experiences included well-attested cases of levitation in ecstasy; and the Blessed Virgin appeared to him, comforting him with the welcome news that he would never be a Bishop.

Welcome news indeed. And now things just got really fun if you have “Most Rev.” in front of your name. At the end of the day (and that day, if we want to be precise, is August 1, 2013), the HHS mandate doesn’t force most of us (unless we own a small business) to do anything. The bishops aren’t so lucky. Yes, the laity have a responsibility to engage this threat wherever and however they can. The ways for doing this are numerous and varied, and have been ably put forth on CatholicVote's site.

But in most cases, the actual responsibility for the decisions that will need to be made regarding the cold hard consequences of the mandate lies squarely on the shoulders of the bishops. Thus has it been, from St. Ignatius of Antioch to St. Thomas Becket. These successors of the Apostles, these shepherds of souls, these men clothed in black cloth and human weakness have been called through the ages to stand on the ramparts of the Church under siege and take the first blow from the enemy’s sword.

Thus has it been, and thus shall it be. The bishops will be the ones who will have to stand tall, just as St. Polycarp and St. John Fisher did before them, and say, with dire consequence, ”We cannot, and we will not.” And they will be the first to suffer. One American prelate, Francis Cardinal George, the Archbishop of Chicago, made this stark and rather chilling observation of the current state of affairs:

I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square.

Monday, January 30, 2012

Hell, Health Insurance, and A Man's Soul

National Director Column

January 30, 2012

v.2 n.2

Arland K. Nichols

Dear Friends of Life and Family,

"The Obama administration has just told the Catholics of the United States, 'To Hell with you!' There is no other way to put it. To Hell with your religious beliefs. To Hell with your religious liberty. To Hell with your freedom of conscience." With unusually strong language, Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh alerted his flock to a new threat to the Church.

The Obama administration has directly and deliberately attacked our fundamental right to religious freedom, and in a most patronizing way. His Department of Health and Human Services has mandated that contraceptives and abortion inducing drugs be part of every health care plan, free of charge. With this decision, Catholics and Catholic institutions such as hospitals, universities and social agencies will be forced to pay for and provide contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs.

With a veritable pat on the head, the administration has given Catholics a year to comply with the ruling. Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote, "In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences."

As Catholic citizens, we cannot let this unjust mandate and unprecedented violation of our beliefs stand. It is, as Bishop Paul Loverde has described, "a truly radical break with the liberties that have underpinned our nation since its founding."

It might not be so radical if the conscience was mere social construct, superficial conviction, or personal wishes and tastes. But conscience is much more. Cardinal Newman understood conscience to be the "perceptible and demanding presence of the voice of the truth of God within the person." Conscience involves one's inner inclination to do good and avoid evil, and then recognize the good that must be done in a particular situation.

We must never act against a certain conscience that has been well-formed. The Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it this way, "Man has the right in conscience and freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters" (CCC 1782). Yet, this is precisely what the Obama administration is demanding.

To follow the dictates of one's conscience is essential to the dignity of man. Further, to act freely and knowingly against one's certain conscience is a mortal sin. Saint Thomas More understood this well, and is an exemplar of how Catholics should respond to this threat to our consciences and religious freedom.

Robert Bolt's famous play "A Man for All Seasons," tells the story of Saint Thomas as he faced the tyrannical acts of Henry VIII, who destroyed the Church in England so he could marry Ann Boleyn. Imprisoned, Thomas faced his accusers including his one-time friend, the Duke of Norfolk, who beseeched him "But damn it Thomas, look at these names. Why can't you do as I did and come with us for fellowship?" Thomas responded, "And when we die and you are sent to Heaven for doing your conscience and I am sent to Hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?"

The administration has placed Catholics in an equally precarious situation. Condemnation is the reward for acting against a certain conscience (CCC 1790). Yet the Obama administration says we have no choice.

How will we respond? How will you respond? Is there a "proper response"?

I confess that I do not yet know the answer to such questions. But I do know that we cannot buckle over as this administration asks us to lose our very souls so that we might gain health coverage for our families and employees.

Following the announcement, Bishop Loverde wrote, "I urge the faithful of Northern Virginia and all citizens of good will to understand what is at stake in this unavoidable confrontation, which has been thrust upon us, and to be prepared to engage in a strong defense in the civil arena of the basic human right of religious liberty."

This much is certain: It does not profit a man to gain health insurance, and to lose his soul. Recognizing what is at stake, we must be willing to defend our freedom of religion and conscience. So, let us unite with our Bishops for fellowship and for Truth.

Sincerely yours in Christ,