-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
For those who oppose abortion no tactic is too sleazy. The scare tactic of stopping abortion by linking it with breast cancer was manna from heaven. The visceral fear of breast cancer would present the faithful with a weapon to be wielded with no regard for the facts. The fact that the scientific evidence shows no link between abortion and breast cancer fazed them not.
The recent Komen/Planned Parenthood publicity and Komen’s ties to this woo, has reanimated this long-dead controversy.
The Komen tie-in is via Jane Abraham, a member of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Advocacy Alliance board of directors. Abraham is also on the board of directors of The Nurturing Network, an organization founded and chaired by Mary Cunningham Agee. It was Agee who, in 1999, wrote in a Culture of Life Foundation newsletter that “the undeniable link between breast cancer and abortion is only the ‘tip of an iceberg’ of damage that medical science is now able to reveal about this procedure.”
Abraham is also founder and General Chairman of the Susan B. Anthony List. On its website, the SBA List touts its Komen connection while claiming:
There are also studies that link abortion to breast cancer- which is precisely what SGK is supposed to be fighting against.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a lie.
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released a report, Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk, that found:
More rigorous recent studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found:
Breast cancer: induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.
The American Cancer Society studied the link and reported the results:
- Induced abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.
- Spontaneous abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.
These scientific results are known to the anti-abortion cadre, and they’d rather lie to women.
H/T: Jodi Jacobson, Catholics For Choice (pdf).
254 thoughts on “Lying For Jesus: The Abortion/Breast Cancer Link”
Do the Koch brothers provide funding to just one institute/center that promotes the “there is no such thing as climate change” agenda?
The Koch Brothers & Their Amazing Climate Change Denial Machine
The Mercatus Center: A Tentacle of the Deregulation-Loving Kochtopus Helping in the Effort to Deny Climate Change and Eviscerate the EPA
Yeah think of the Chevy Volt thanks Big Government.
Read this MESPO
Then you’ll get your answer to
the government takes in tax revenue and subsidizes critical industries who must use the money to purchase infrastructure. That infrastructure has to be populated so workers are hired either here or abroad. The goods and services rendered are purchased by consumers who pay in dollars or other currency which is returned to the company which in turn pays dividends to investors or is reinvested into business infrastructure.
That is unless those companies go bankrupt which is exactly what is happening. Not only here but elsewhere where in China despite the government subsidies 80% of Solar manufactures are projected to go bankrupt.
Mespo, they are just True Believers. Facts be damned. If the facts don’t fit, make up some. Some witty attorney told me years ago, that if pressed for a source of some statement, some so-called experts will cite a study done at Yale. A lot of studies are done at Yale and no one will be able to verify it. That reminds me a lot of the climate change deniers. They often cite studies that cannot be verified, or if so, one bought and paid for study leads to another astroturf study and so on.
When some folks are so vehement about the subject and absolutely will not let it go, I am reminded of the admonition of “Deep Throat” from the Watergate scandal, “Follow the money.”
MS Elaine I’m speaking of the money from the Koch brothers.
I post a statement made by Morano
Koch Foundation provided $25,000 to Heartland Inst. in 2011 for research in healthcare — not climate change, & this was first & only donation Foundation made to institute in more than a decade’
and then you post an article about Morano working for a denier James Inhofe.
Funny thing is that despite the so called consensus 97% of scientist agree, and the billions of dollars the alarmist get they have lost the global warming debate even though Al Gore said the debate is over. Poll after poll shows less people today believe in the junk science than as recently as three years ago. If the message was so clear and the science indisputable that would not be the case. Nor would the failure of the green energy sector. Instead of curbing CO2 emissions we are increasing them.
Where is the actual proof of the exact dollar amounts that the Koch brothers provide funding for Heartland and other various organizations. Then take those figures and match it to the BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS the other side receives. Despite this they not only are losing the battle but are losing the war.
“Either by taxes or inflation, the belief that the economy prospers when government takes from those who produce and gives to those who do not evades the obvious: no wealth is created.”
Let’s see, the government takes in tax revenue and subsidizes critical industries who must use the money to purchase infrastructure. That infrastructure has to be populated so workers are hired either here or abroad. The goods and services rendered are purchased by consumers who pay in dollars or other currency which is returned to the company which in turn pays dividends to investors or is reinvested into business infrastructure. Think GM and Chrysler. You’re right Mr. Hoenig no wealth created there just jobs, infrastructure, and ROI. All economic “bads” if you want to bankrupt the country and kill teh government — especially a Democratic government.
No worry you’re probably just used to looking around your hedge fund and seeing money made by playing the market. Now that my fat cat friend is creating no wealth at all — except for your regulation-free brethren.
You Republicans are so transparent.
this is why milking the cow doesnt work:
By JONATHAN HOENIG
It you keep repeating a lie long enough, people eventually start to accept it as truth. So even as the Federal debt hit new record highs and bankrupt entitlement states like Greece collapse, how else to explain the persistent belief among many politicians and policymakers that the American economy’s continuing woes stem from a lack of consumption.
.It’s the modern incarnation of Keynesian economics, the belief that the economy grows as a result of government spending. By putting more money in people’s pockets, so the thinking goes, they will spend more and stimulate growth. This approach holds forth that that consumption itself is the source of prosperity.
The falsehood has been repeated innumerable times in recent years under both the Bush and Obama administrations. It has been used as the economic justification for government interventions like Cash for Clunkers (to boost auto sales), homebuyer tax credits (to boost housing prices) and the supposed “shovel ready” stimulus jobs that even President Barack Obama admitted never materialized as hoped.
Yet you hear it over and over again.
As then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said back as 2008, “Congress is committed to completing action quickly so that we can get money into the hands of families who will spend it to spur American job creation and economic growth.”
Just recently Rep. Mike Honda, (D., Calif.), who serves on the House Budget and Appropriations Committee, remarked: “If we invest money into this economy and get cash into people’s hands, they’ll spend it and once they start spending the money, it starts to circulate through our economy and it’ll stimulate the economy.”
Creating a job is easy. But as has been evidenced by the still persistently high unemployment rate, despite the record stimulus (read: spending), creating a remunerative job — one that actually results in the production of new wealth — is an entirely different matter. Wal-Mart’s (WMT: 62.04, 0.28, 0.45%) two million employees, for example, produce over $200,000 in revenue each. Those jobs don’t cost investors (let alone taxpayers ) a dime. They create wealth, not consume it.
From food to fashion, the desire and need to consume is a given — and limitless. Regardless if it’s a cup of coffee or a Caribbean vacation, we desire things which improve our lives and happiness.
But before wealth can be consumed, it must be produced. Our very lives depend on the creation of new wealth, not the forced redistribution to homeowners, car companies financial firms or anyone else bureaucrats determine is a “public good”.
Either by taxes or inflation, the belief that the economy prospers when government takes from those who produce and gives to those who do not evades the obvious: no wealth is created. It’s just transferred from those who’ve earned it to those who have not, precisely why deficits have skyrocketed under the “consumptionist” approach even as unemployment and GDP growth have barely budged.
—Jonathan Hoenig is managing member at Capitaistpig Hedge Fund LLC
Didn’t Morano work for Rush Limbaugh at one time?
Are you suggesting that Morano doesn’t have an agenda? I like to look at the sources of information.
Silencing the scientists: the rise of right-wing populism
by Clive Hamilton on March 2, 2011
Last month, Americans were shocked at the attempted murder of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the killing of six bystanders. The local County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik captured the immediate assessment of many when he linked the attempted murder to the rise of violent anti-government rhetoric and imagery, observing, “The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous.”
When asked if the Congresswoman had any enemies her father replied: “Yeah. The whole Tea Party”. Many, including Giffords herself, had had a premonition that the inflammatory language of radical right-wing activists would sooner or later find real expression.
The same hate-filled rhetoric that created the circumstances in which Gabrielle Giffords was gunned down also stokes ferocious attacks on climate scientists and environmentalists in the United States. Debunking climate science is official policy at Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News; a leaked memo from management has instructed reporters to always cast doubt on data reporting global temperature increases.
Some of the bitterest attacks on climate scientists are made by commentators employed by Fox News. Fox ranters Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity often ridicule climate science. Glenn Beck calls global warming “ the greatest scam in history” and gives air-time to Christopher Monckton to attack the work of climate scientists as fraudulent with his unique blend of statistical gobbledegook, invented “facts” and off-the-planet conspiracy theories. The network sometimes features Steve Milloy, an energy lobbyist who ran the The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, a front group initially devoted to denying the link between smoking and cancer. As James Hoggan points out in his book Climate Cover-Up, Milloy is introduced as an expert on “ junk science”, meaning climate science.
Another Fox regular is Marc Morano, the former aide to Republican Senator James Inhofe, founder of the most malicious anti-science blog, and the man who said climate scientists deserve to be publicly flogged. Last April on Fox News, Morano launched a virulent attack on Professor Michael Mann of Penn State University, calling him a “charlatan” and responsible for “the best science that politics can manufacture”. When Morano singles out a climate scientist for attack on his website he includes their e-mail addresses and invites his followers to “get in touch”. Many of them do.
doesnt the left have a big ole fat sugar daddy who doesnt create anything but makes his money on misery? Didnt he almost tank a country?
What is that assholes name, George somebody, oh yes Soros. He doesnt make things as far as I know, he just makes money on people who make things. Now that I think about it, typical progressive, use productive people as milch cows to fund your enterprises.
Where is all this ghost money from the Koch Brothers going vs the billions upon billions the other side gets.
Here is just but one example
Yes we can turned to I just can’t
“I want to look him in the eye and say, ‘Thank you so much’ ” for his work, said Buell, who expresses deep disappointment in the president’s leadership on environmental issues, especially climate change.
With Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign in full swing, “I would just love to write my big check … or have a high-dollar dinner here” on his behalf, she said. “I can’t.”
Way to attack the messenger instead of the message Ms. Elaine.
Stick to the facts and don’t deflect.
Fact : Koch Foundation provided $25,000 to Heartland Inst. in 2011 for research in healthcare — not climate change, & this was first & only donation Foundation made to institute in more than a decade’
Mike S.–the true Gospels have been replaced by AstroTurf. And means whatever the Koch Crime Family and their minions want it to mean.
Wind turbine expert Dominique Roddier
‘We can design turbines that will sustain the highest hurricanes without a problem. They will just be a lot more expensive and maybe not worth it’
Could hurricanes wreck $700m offshore wind farms in U.S.? Experts predict HALF of proposed turbines will be ruined in 20 years
Windmills did you say windmills ?
End of tax credit a blow for wind power industry
Up to 37,000 jobs, many in Illinois, could be lost as projects are halted or abandoned
The state is home to more than 150 companies that support the wind industry. At least 67 of those make turbines or components for wind farms. Chicago is the U.S. headquarters to more than a dozen major wind companies that wanted to take advantage of powerful Midwestern winds.
Marc Morano of Climate Depot once worked for climate change denier Senator James Inhofe.
This Man Wants to Convince You Global Warming Is a Hoax
Marc Morano broke the Swift Boat story and effectively stalled John Kerry’s presidential run. Now he is working against an even bigger enemy: belief in climate change. Somehow, he seems to be winning.
By John H. Richardson
Capitalism vs. the Climate
November 9, 2011
There is a question from a gentleman in the fourth row.
He introduces himself as Richard Rothschild. He tells the crowd that he ran for county commissioner in Maryland’s Carroll County because he had come to the conclusion that policies to combat global warming were actually “an attack on middle-class American capitalism.” His question for the panelists, gathered in a Washington, DC, Marriott Hotel in late June, is this: “To what extent is this entire movement simply a green Trojan horse, whose belly is full with red Marxist socioeconomic doctrine?”
Here at the Heartland Institute’s Sixth International Conference on Climate Change, the premier gathering for those dedicated to denying the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity is warming the planet, this qualifies as a rhetorical question. Like asking a meeting of German central bankers if Greeks are untrustworthy. Still, the panelists aren’t going to pass up an opportunity to tell the questioner just how right he is.
Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who specializes in harassing climate scientists with nuisance lawsuits and Freedom of Information fishing expeditions, angles the table mic over to his mouth. “You can believe this is about the climate,” he says darkly, “and many people do, but it’s not a reasonable belief.” Horner, whose prematurely silver hair makes him look like a right-wing Anderson Cooper, likes to invoke Saul Alinsky: “The issue isn’t the issue.” The issue, apparently, is that “no free society would do to itself what this agenda requires…. The first step to that is to remove these nagging freedoms that keep getting in the way.”
Claiming that climate change is a plot to steal American freedom is rather tame by Heartland standards. Over the course of this two-day conference, I will learn that Obama’s campaign promise to support locally owned biofuels refineries was really about “green communitarianism,” akin to the “Maoist” scheme to put “a pig iron furnace in everybody’s backyard” (the Cato Institute’s Patrick Michaels). That climate change is “a stalking horse for National Socialism” (former Republican senator and retired astronaut Harrison Schmitt). And that environmentalists are like Aztec priests, sacrificing countless people to appease the gods and change the weather (Marc Morano, editor of the denialists’ go-to website, ClimateDepot.com).
Most of all, however, I will hear versions of the opinion expressed by the county commissioner in the fourth row: that climate change is a Trojan horse designed to abolish capitalism and replace it with some kind of eco-socialism. As conference speaker Larry Bell succinctly puts it in his new book Climate of Corruption, climate change “has little to do with the state of the environment and much to do with shackling capitalism and transforming the American way of life in the interests of global wealth redistribution.”
Yes, sure, there is a pretense that the delegates’ rejection of climate science is rooted in serious disagreement about the data. And the organizers go to some lengths to mimic credible scientific conferences, calling the gathering “Restoring the Scientific Method” and even adopting the organizational acronym ICCC, a mere one letter off from the world’s leading authority on climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the scientific theories presented here are old and long discredited. And no attempt is made to explain why each speaker seems to contradict the next. (Is there no warming, or is there warming but it’s not a problem? And if there is no warming, then what’s all this talk about sunspots causing temperatures to rise?)
In truth, several members of the mostly elderly audience seem to doze off while the temperature graphs are projected. They come to life only when the rock stars of the movement take the stage—not the C-team scientists but the A-team ideological warriors like Morano and Horner. This is the true purpose of the gathering: providing a forum for die-hard denialists to collect the rhetorical baseball bats with which they will club environmentalists and climate scientists in the weeks and months to come. The talking points first tested here will jam the comment sections beneath every article and YouTube video that contains the phrase “climate change” or “global warming.” They will also exit the mouths of hundreds of right-wing commentators and politicians—from Republican presidential candidates like Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann all the way down to county commissioners like Richard Rothschild. In an interview outside the sessions, Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, proudly takes credit for “thousands of articles and op-eds and speeches…that were informed by or motivated by somebody attending one of these conferences.”
The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think tank devoted to “promoting free-market solutions,” has been holding these confabs since 2008, sometimes twice a year. And the strategy appears to be working. At the end of day one, Morano—whose claim to fame is having broken the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth story that sank John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign—leads the gathering through a series of victory laps. Cap and trade: dead! Obama at the Copenhagen summit: failure! The climate movement: suicidal! He even projects a couple of quotes from climate activists beating up on themselves (as progressives do so well) and exhorts the audience to “celebrate!”
There were no balloons or confetti descending from the rafters, but there may as well have been.
did you know electric cars run on coal?
Did you know the environmentalists are trying to stop a copper mine in Alaska?
Did you know windmills are killing endangered birds like the Bald Eagle?
Did I mention you need copper to make windmills?
You know what I see?
Lots of contradictions.
An O Bar is or was a bar in Palm Beach, Florida.
and you would have known that an O Bar had nothing to do with science if you actually knew anything about science.
You want to talk funding ?
Overall, the Post found that $3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama administration staffers and advisers.
Keep in mind the majority of these companies ARE NOW BANKRUPT!!!!!!!
Sanjay Wagle was a venture capitalist and Barack Obama fundraiser in 2008, rallying support through a group he headed known as Clean Tech for Obama.
Shortly after Obama’s election, he left his California firm to join the Energy Department, just as the administration embarked on a massive program to stimulate the economy with federal investments in clean-technology firms.
Following an enduring Washington tradition, Wagle shifted from the private sector, where his firm hoped to profit from federal investments, to an insider’s seat in the administration’s $80 billion clean-energy investment program.
Koch Foundation provided $25,000 to Heartland Inst. in 2011 for research in healthcare — not climate change, & this was first & only donation Foundation made to institute in more than a decade’
Marc Morano – Climate Depot
Regardless of what side of the issue you are on, the answer to the problem that solves the theory is done. Reducing CO2 emissions ain’t gonna happen. What we’ve seen in the last few years is no binding agreements by countries to reduce emissions. Koyoto II was non binding and countries did not sign on anyways. In fact, one country, Germany is going back to producing emissions as they phase out all nuclear facilities by 2020 and revert back to burning coal and fuel. They can’t depend 100 percent on alternative energy and that industry is on it’s last breath. Wind and solar manufactures are closing the doors in record numbers. Carbon markets have all but closed and no one that is trading is making money at it except for all the thieves who stole credits.
Say what you want, call me names and laugh in my face, We are approaching 400 ppm and the weather is no better or worse. Thomas Jefferson thought of Climate Change before Darwin came up with the theory of evolution. Thats how long it’s been around.
Earlier I was being too hasty in stating that Bdaman had hi-jacked the thread. He was merely developing a thread sub-set: Lying for the Koch Brothers. To many their money has replaced The Gospels.
Comments are closed.