-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).
OS,
I hear ya! 😉
Bdaman, No actual climate warming for 15 years?
Lotta that is correct. Even the CRU agrees now Google it it’s there.
Gene, I know what an O-ring is. Also know how to look for the K-index on a wx chart.
An isobar is a line on a map indicating zones sharing the same barometric pressure.
An O Bar could be any number of things.
See, unlike you, when I don’t know what something is? I don’t make up a definition to suit my purposes. Why don’t you make something up and tell us what an O Bar is, Bron.
That’s what you’re
best atknown for around these parts.Elaine “…It’s certainly true that the U.S., even after President Obama’s election, remains an international outlier when it comes to belief in climate science, as former President Bill Clinton noted recently. Climate denial makes Americans “look like a joke,” Clinton said from the stage of his foundation’s annual meeting last month. “If you’re an American, the best thing you can do is make it politically unacceptable for people to engage in denial.” That was also the main message behind former Vice President Al Gore’s recent Climate Reality project, which was broadcast around the world on Sept. 14.”
—-
LOL, ain’t it the truth? When my insomnia keeps me up all night and I’m just sitting here at 3:30 am I keep hearing this low level ringing in my ears. I thought it was tinnitus from previously working in a high-noise job but then I realized that it was daytime in Europe and they were laughing at us, for this and so many other reasons. It’s so embarrassing 🙂
Bdaman:
by now I would have thought you would understand that only a certain element within our society has any interest in AGW.
People like Gene who wouldnt know an isobar from an O Bar.
Who’s Bankrolling the Climate-Change Deniers?
By BRYAN WALSH Tuesday, Oct. 04, 2011
Time Science
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2096055,00.html
Excerpt:
As the sociologists Riley Dunlap of Oklahoma State University and Aaron McCright of Michigan State University suggest, climate denialism exists in part because there has been a long-term, well-financed effort on the part of conservative groups and corporations to distort global-warming science. That’s the conclusion of a chapter the two researchers recently wrote for The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. “Contrarian scientists, fossil-fuel corporations, conservative think tanks and various front groups have assaulted mainstream climate science and scientists for over two decades,” Dunlap and McCright write. “The blows have been struck by a well-funded, highly complex and relatively coordinated denial machine.”
For those who’ve followed the seesaw of the climate debate in the U.S., there’s not much new in Dunlap and McCright’s chapter, but they do lay out just how long and how intensively some conservatives have been fighting mainstream climate science. Fossil-fuel companies like Exxon and Peabody Energy — which obviously have a business interest in slowing any attempt to reduce carbon emissions — have combined with traditionally conservative corporate groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and conservative foundations like the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity, to raise doubts about the basic validity of what is, essentially, a settled scientific truth. That message gets amplified by conservative think tanks — like the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute — and then picked up by conservative media outlets on the Internet and cable TV.
All of the naysayers seem to be following the playbook written by the tobacco industry in its long, ongoing war against medical findings about the dangers of smoking. For both Big Oil and Big Smoke, that playbook is lethally simple: don’t straight-up refute the science, just raise skepticism and insist that the findings are “unsettled” and that “more research” is necessary. Repeat that again and again regardless of the latest research, and you help block the formation of the solid majority needed to create any real political change. That’s made all the easier because whether you’re quitting smoking or oil, the job is painful — and voters don’t like pain.
“It’s reasonable to conclude that climate-change-denial campaigns in the U.S. have played a crucial role in blocking domestic legislation and contributing to the U.S. becoming an impediment to international policymaking,” write Dunlap and McCright.
It’s certainly true that the U.S., even after President Obama’s election, remains an international outlier when it comes to belief in climate science, as former President Bill Clinton noted recently. Climate denial makes Americans “look like a joke,” Clinton said from the stage of his foundation’s annual meeting last month. “If you’re an American, the best thing you can do is make it politically unacceptable for people to engage in denial.” That was also the main message behind former Vice President Al Gore’s recent Climate Reality project, which was broadcast around the world on Sept. 14.
Bdaman, No actual climate warming for 15 years? I beg to differ. Last year I wrote a long, generally boring posting about the warming caused death over the last 10 years of most every woody-stemmed plant in my yard. I won’t repeat it but finally the USDA has caught up to not only my observations but those of the guys that tend my diseased trees and the licenced arborist that I brought in for a consult. It’s getting warmer. And before you say that it’s all part of the govt. conspiracy consider how many people and business (including agribusiness) that rely on the USDA data for their planting thresholds. To lie to all of us and risk 10s of millions of dollars in crop loss for a propaganda point just isn’t plausible, big-agra wouldn’t stand for it. 🙂
Those of us that do put out plants in the spring and maybe a few tomato plants welcome the USDA finally updating its planting guide map. WooHoo, a new map with lots of colors, map fans rejoice! 🙂
“Long Overdue Plant Hardiness Map is a Hothouse”
“Compared to the 1990 version, zone boundaries in this edition of the map have shifted in many areas. The new map is generally one 5-degree Fahrenheit half-zone warmer than the previous map throughout much of the United States. This is mostly a result of using temperature data from a longer and more recent time period; the new map uses data measured at weather stations during the 30-year period 1976-2005. In contrast, the 1990 map was based on temperature data from only a 13-year period of 1974-1986.”
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/01/long-overdue-plant-hardiness-map-hothouse
Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
Yes 707 cause I read other peoples comments
Do you call yours open. Try airing it, I know it is hard.
Somebody take down the flag. He doesn’t honor it. Sounds like a one-man equivalent to a cable news program. Always more to come.
Let’s de-troll him. No more replies. He’ll wind down in a few years.
Maybe somebody will unplug him. I hope. Just think of all the tired computers listening to his yackety yack.
Bdaman is posting diatribe after diatribe, and no one’s reading it!
I didn’t.
Thats what you call is a closed mind. TISK TISK
Hilarious!
There’s no one else in the conversation!
Bdaman is posting diatribe after diatribe, and no one’s reading it!
I didn’t.
I just ran my eye down the last 20 comments, and they’re almost all by one person!
Save time…scan in the NYC phonebook, convert it to text with an optical reader, and paste it in this thread.
You sound tired. Maybe you should take your meds and go lay down for a while. Comeback when you feel rested :}
Kook there has been no statistical warming in the last 15 years. Google it.
When are you going to open your own blog? Yawn!
Not to mention according to the polls less people believe and or care about climate change year after year despite all the money and the so called consensus. Now thats a fact jack.
January 2012 the fourth warmest for the contiguous United States
What the Heartland documents show is how badly warmists have been beaten by those with a fraction of the resources they’ve enjoyed.
Al Gore spent $300 million advertising the global warming hoax. Greenpeace, the WWF, the Sierra Club, The Natural Resources Defense Council, NASA, NOAA, the UN and nation states have collectively poured billions into climate research, alternative energies and propaganda, supported along the way by most of the broadcast and print media.
Yet they’ve been thwarted by a few honest scientists, a number of blogs and a small pile of cash from Heartland.
what this episode really demonstrates to the world is how little money was needed to bring the greatest scam in history to its knees. That’s not something I’d think you’d want to advertise, but knock yourselves out.
http://dailybayonet.com/2012/02/hippies-hate-heartland/
Lets look at some budgets shall we.
Heartland Institute 6.5 million 2012
Greenpeace International 310 million 2011
Sierra Club 100 million 2012
Natural Resources Defense Council 95 million 2012
UK CRU 360 million 2011
What a major difference. The Sierra Club listed a category for $1,000,000 donations by “anonymous donors” in their 2010 annual report. Sierra Club annual report mentions “Matching Gifts”, and apparently supporters who matched gifts include the evil Exxon, not to mention GoldMan Sachs, Barclays, Google, Monsanto, Nestle, Yahoo, Bank of America, and many many more.
Confronting Falsehoods about the Charles Koch Foundation’s support of The Heartland Institute
Documents and analysis about the Charles Koch Foundation’s support for The Heartland Institute, posted on February 14 by a partisan blog calling itself “DeSmogBlog” are demonstrably FALSE in several key respects.
The documents presented by the blog indicate “[the Foundation] returned as a Heartland donor in 2011 with a contribution of $200,000. We expect to push up their level of support in 2012…if our focus continues to align with their interests.” But this is not so. The Foundation gave just $25,000 to Heartland in 2011 (the only such donation to that organization in more than 10 years) and that funding was specifically directed to a healthcare research program, and not climate change research, as was erroneously reported.
http://www.kochfacts.com/kf/confrontingfalsehoodsheartland/