Why I Won’t Donate to the Susan G. Komen Foundation
It’s breast cancer awareness month again, and pink ribbons are everywhere. My Krispy Kreme donuts were pink. The rodeo has 'Tough Enough to Wear Pink' night. Car bumpers have 'Save the Ta-Tas' stickers. A crass attempt at breast-cancer awareness has been circulating around Facebook. Prepubescent males have been sighted wearing pink arm bands with 'I Love Boobies' written on them. Even the NFL has hopped on the bandwagon with pink uniforms, gloves, shoes, etc.
I’m not even close to being a prude, but do we have to use ‘Boobie’ and ‘Ta-Ta’? I don’t consider those particular slang terms to be dignified or respectful. The Komen Campaign seems to be giving the less mature members of our society an excuse to be flippant and crude.
But none of those things are the reason that I won’t donate to Susan G. Komen.
A team of women from my workplace have been fundraising for three years for the Breast Cancer Three Day Walk. They sell baked goods and coffee to raise funds. I asked my coworker if it were possible to direct my funds toward researching the cause of the breast cancer boom. I asked if there was any way that I could ensure that my donation would not go to Planned Parenthood or any other abortion provider.
The answer came back that there was no way to guarantee that monies would go toward research and not toward Planned Parenthood and abortion. I declined monetary support of their efforts, and it was disappointing to have to do so.
Finding a cure for the 211,000 women per year who come down with breast cancer is of great importance. Of greater importance, it seems to me, would be finding the causes and preventing as many cases as possible. One cause has already been discovered. Look here for the meta-analysis of the research published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Here are a few tidbits I extracted from the research article:
Oral contraceptive (OC) use early in life is associated with more aggressive [breast cancer] disease.
OCs can be carcinogenic, especially when used before first full term pregnancy. The nulliparous breast is composed of undifferentiated structures, and it is only during a full-term pregnancy that the breast attains its maximum development. This development occurs in 2 distinct phases, an early growth phase and a late phase of lobular differentiation. The undifferentiated breast structures found in the nulliparous breast may be more susceptible to carcinogens than the more differentiated structures found in the fully developed breast.
The results of this meta-analysis suggest that use of OCs is associated with an increase in breast cancer risk among premenopausal women or women younger than 50 years. The greatest risk appears to be for parous women who use OCs before first full term pregnancy.
Essentially, the younger a woman is when she starts taking oral contraceptives, the greater her risk. Her risk increases again even more once she becomes pregnant and carries the child to term. This is shocking news! How many women in the US fit this description? How does taking the pill ever win in a cost benefit analysis? Is being sexually available 24/7 more important than being around to watch your own children grow up? And why are the men involved here allowing this slow poisoning of their loved ones?
This article and others like it should be getting a lot of media coverage. They are not. This is a scandal of massive magnitude. This article should have been front-page news starting the day it was published, and if the Susan G. Komen Foundation really cared about women they would become instrumental in spreading the word of this risk.
Until they take a stand for women by financing more research into the CAUSE of the breast cancer epidemic and disassociate themselves from Planned Parenthood and any other anti-woman association, they will get none of my money.