Jill Stanek has written two brilliant articles in World Net Daily, detailing Susan G. Komen Foundation’s multi-million dollar donations to Planned Parenthood. They are presented here.
(Part I) PLANNED PARENTHOOD DEEPENS LINK TO BREAST CANCER GROUP
The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation had noble beginnings, launched by Nancy Goodman Brinker in response to a promise she made to her dying sister, Susan Goodman Komen, to do all she could to eradicate breast cancer. Komen succumbed to the disease in 1980 at age 36. Nancy went on to contract the disease herself and is now a survivor.
SGK has a noble mission, “to save lives and end breast cancer forever.”
But for years pro-lifers have opposed contributing to SGK because it not only denies that induced abortions may cause breast cancer, it also bestows financial grants to Planned Parenthood affiliates.
Pro-lifers believe that for all the good SGK does, it shoots its mission in both feet by refusing to educate women about the abortion-breast cancer link while funding the United States’ largest abortion provider.
Disregarding decades of worldwide studies concluding there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, logic alone says abortion increases the risk.
On its website, SGK acknowledges that childbearing protects women from breast cancer, and the more children a mother bears and the younger she begins bearing them the better. SGK also acknowledges breast-feeding protects against breast cancer.
But abortion blocks all those preventative measures.
Only last week a new study got lots of press that found breast cancer survivors lower their risk of dying by 42 percent simply by getting pregnant.
But abortion blocks that protection.
SGK acknowledges never having children increases a woman’s risk of getting breast cancer, and delaying childbearing, particularly after age 35, also increases the risk.
And abortion increases the risk of both those risks.
It would seem logical that with all the controversy surrounding abortion’s role in breast cancer, SGK would simply back away from involvement with it in any way if wanting to stay true to its mission “to save lives and end breast cancer forever.”
That would include SGK’s relationship with Planned Parenthood.
But SGK is not backing away. Between 2003 and 2008, SGK gave $3 million to Planned Parenthood. In Fiscal Year 2008 alone, Planned Parenthood got $805,000 from SGK.
SGK now has a webpage dedicated to defending its involvement with Planned Parenthood, including message points and a letter from a “pro-life Catholic.”
Most recently added to the webpage, in March, was an open letter from SGK’s chief scientific adviser quoting two Catholic ethicists who “concluded that it was morally permissible for the church to be involved with Komen in light of its funding agreements with Planned Parenthood … specifically and solely for breast health services. …”
SGK maintains there are certain places in the United States where Planned Parenthood is the sole provider of breast-cancer screening, education and treatment.
I don’t believe it, but that is SGK’s defense. Even if so, is it really “morally permissible” to cause breast cancer in one room if screening for it in the next?
Three days ago a diligent pro-lifer in Washington state discovered on Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest’s IRS 990 forms that it has held a 12.5 percent share in Metro Centre, a mall in Peoria, Ill., since 2006.
PPGNW is Washington’s largest abortion provider. (It is also currently under investigation for Medicaid fraud.)
Metro Centre is owned by Eric Brinker.
Eric Brinker is the son of Nancy Goodman Brinker, the founder of SGK. Eric also sits on SGK’s board.
Eric was a stand-up guy and responded to most of my initial questions. He explained in an e-mail, “This share represents a minority, non-operating interest in the business which they inherited from one of the original shareholders, a resident of Peoria. I, Eric Brinker, have controlling interest in Metro Centre.”
But when I pursued follow-up questions, Eric wrote he was no longer available.
So there is much still unanswered. Why didn’t PPGNW cash in its inheritance? Why didn’t Eric buy? If the share was willed, it was worth something. The real-estate market was thriving in 2006. It appears both partners are OK with this now four-year-old business partnership.
Eric wrote in his e-mail only “20 of Komen’s 122 U.S. Affiliates fund breast-health services through local Planned Parenthood clinics.” SGK states the total money given represents “less than one percent of the total granted by affiliates.”
My question then is why bother? Why play with fire?
Whatever, the fact remains that the son of the founder of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, who is also a member of the board, owns a business – a mall – together with a Planned Parenthood affiliate.
The irony. Susan G. Komen’s nephew is financially enabling an abortion business.
And condemning more women to develop breast cancer.
(Part II) THE CONSEQUENCES OF ADMITTING ABC LINK
In my previous column, I revealed that the son of the founder of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation is in a joint business venture with Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest.
Located in Washington state, PPGNW holds a 12.5 percent share of the Metro Centre mall in Peoria, Ill., where Nancy Goodman Brinker’s son Eric Brinker maintains “controlling interest,” according to an e-mail he sent me.
Eric is also a Komen board member.
This only matters because Komen refuses to acknowledge the link between abortion and breast cancer while it insists on bestowing grants to affiliates of the United States’ largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.
That Eric Brinker is in business with one of those affiliates thickens the plot.
Brinker wrote me that only “20 of Komen’s 122 U.S. affiliates fund breast health services through local Planned Parenthood clinics.”
Coincidentally, two of those 20, Komen Puget Sound and Komen Boise, fund Brinker’s business partner, PPGNW.
Komen has gone to quite a bit of trouble to protect what it claims is an infinitesimal relationship with Planned Parenthood.
Stating Planned Parenthood receives “less than 1 percent” of its donations, Komen now has a webpage, message points and a dispensation letter from a Catholic named Norman dedicated to sanctioning their relationship.
Why? If there were even the remotest chance abortion causes breast cancer, which several worldwide studies conducted over the course of many decades confirm, wouldn’t a responsible breast-cancer foundation back away from any risk of facilitating it?
Eric wrote in his e-mail to me, in bold, “There is no conclusive link between abortion and breast cancer.” “Conclusive,” interesting. Was Eric subtly acknowledging there is an inconclusive link?
Eric also wrote that Komen only funds Planned Parenthood “in areas where Planned Parenthood clinics are the only venue for women to receive breast screenings.” He and other Komen officials I spoke with stressed these are in underprivileged areas.
That this may be true is only because Planned Parenthood locates clinics in poor and minority areas specifically to control their populations through contraception and abortion. Komen merely corroborates this fact.
But that is no excuse to partner with Planned Parenthood. Early detection of breast cancer through screening should not be the goal. Prevention should be the goal.
All five PPGNW Planned Parenthoods involved with Komen either commit or refer for abortions. All dispense birth-control pills and emergency contraceptives.
Which leads to another point. Komen states on its website:
A large analysis that combined the results of many studies found that while women were taking birth-control pills (and shortly thereafter), they had a 10 to 30 percent higher risk of breast cancer than women who had never used birth-control pills.
(Column continues below)
As for the emergency contraceptive pill, which contains 10-15 times the amount of artificial hormones as a single birth-control pill, its labeling states it is contraindicated if one has a current or past history of breast cancer.
In fact, it appears hormonal contraceptives are more seriously implicated in breast cancer than previously known.
In 2009 a study published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention showed that the risk for women under 40 of contracting a newly identified and virulent form of the disease called triple-negative breast cancer rose by 320 percent if using hormonal contraceptives for a year or more.
That same study, co-authored in part by two of the very National Cancer Institute researchers who in 2003 denied a link between abortion and breast cancer, also acknowledged a 40 percent increased risk of contracting breast cancer under the age of 40 if a woman had had an abortion.
So there are several reasons for Komen to part company with Planned Parenthood.
A final point. Tragically, Susan Goodman Komen was only 33 years old when contracting breast cancer, and she died three years later. Her sister Nancy contracted breast cancer at age 39. She is now a 25-year survivor.
Both were under 40.
Would recognition that one’s reproductive history may be implicated in breast cancer be too hard to handle within the upper echelon of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation?
Would it make the disease less noble?