RFFM.ORG

Catholics Fair Game, But Kinsey's Research Also Abused Children: When Will Time Magazine Be Consistent Regarding Reporting Sexual Abuse Of Minors?

 

EDITOR'S NOTE:  Recently, Time magazine featured a cover story critical of the past sexual abuses of children within the Catholic Church.  The following open letter to the Editor of Time magazine appeals for consistency in their reporting on the sexual abuse of children and asks why the issue of Indiana University's research conducted by Alfred Kinsey has not been addressed. 

 

 

An Open Letter to Time Magazine

 

June 2010

 

Regarding: Priest Sex Abuse Stories

Dear Editor:

Considering your recent stories on priest sex abuse and your "enthusiasm" for protecting minors, when can we expect a story about the pedophiles that Alfred Kinsey used in his "research" on children, and when can we find--on the front cover of your magazine--a demand for an apology from the president of Indiana University?

Since protecting children is your true objective, not attacking Catholics, their church and their Pope, we expect you will lead the charge against Indiana University with the same vigor.  Failure to do so would reveal your hypocrisy.

Sincerely,

Eileen Griffin

Schaumburg, Illinois

 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

McChrystal / Rolling Stone Interview: Obama Will Be The Only Loser

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director  

 

After President Barack Hussein Obama meets with Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the Commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama will be painted into a political corner from which he cannot escape.  In an upcoming article in Rolling Stone magazine, soon to be on the newsstands, McChrystal and his aides were critical of Obama's handling of the war in Afghanistan.  McChrystal was hand-picked by the Obama administration to fight the battle against the Taliban.  However, I am pleased to see that a high-ranking member of the U.S. military has decided to put the defense of his nation before politics.

 

Yes, some will say McChrystal was insubordinate with his criticism of the Obama administration's handling of the war on terror in Afghanistan, and they are technically right to do so, but it is refreshing to see a man put the welfare of our nation and the men and women under his command who put their lives on the line to defend it.

 

Many believe McChrystal may be forced to resign which would be akin to being fired.  Or perhaps there is the slim chance the very thin-skinned President of the United States will scold McChrystal and send him back to the Middle East to continue his command.

 

No matter what decision Obama, as Commander in Chief, makes regarding the situation, it will be the President who will be the loser.  This President, who in the minds of many Americans puts politics ahead of sound policy, finds himself in an untenable position.  There are a number of scenarios which may unfold regarding McChrystal that will result in Obama being seen as an inept leader.  If he fires McChrystal, the General--who is highly respected in many quarters--will be free to go in front of the American people and tell the whole story about the Obama administration's failure to promote sound military strategy.  On the other hand, if Obama simply scolds McChrystal, Obama will lose face and credibility with the American public. 

 

It is clear McChrystal will not be in a bread line, if Obama forces him to resign.  And it is also clear that McChrystal is not willing to play the political game that the President wants him to. 

 

Many Americans believe Colonels and Generals achieve their ranks due to their ability to command.  In reality, and unbelievably, politics plays an inordinate role in how (and how far) an individual can climb up the ranks in the United States Armed Forces.  Those who play the political game, no matter their qualifications, often advance to positions of highest authority.  Majors--who go against the flow--do not become Colonels and, if they do not become Colonels, they do not become Generals. 

 

How does one become a General?  He or she must be confirmed by Congress.  Therefore, it is not necessarily the merit achieved on the battlefield, in administration or in tactical proficiency which, far too often, puts individuals in positions of high command.  But there are rare opportunities in peace time when the most qualified reach the ultimate military rank. 

 

Obviously, McChrystal's willingness to tell it like it is demonstrates he is a special man.  In contrast, Obama is now put in a place where he cannot win.  No one can impugn McChrystal's integrity.  They can say he did not follow military protocol, but they cannot say he does not care for his country and those under his command. 

 

It will be interesting to see how an administration--which uses political spin at every opportunity--will handle the "dilemma" regarding Gen. McChrystal.  And let there be no doubt, the White House does not see this as an opportunity for Obama to demonstrate leadership and authority with either the military or the American people.  There's no question, if polled, the public would indicate they trust McChrystal more than they do the President of the United States regarding the assessment of what needs to be done in Afghanistan.  The only doubt remaining is how far Obama's polling numbers will drop after his meeting with McChrystal and the decision Obama makes over McChrystal's fate.

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]  

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Mark Kirk For U.S. Senate: Open Letter To Republican Leadership Requesting Kirk Drop Out Of U.S. Senate Race In Illinois From Influential Pro-Family Activist

by Laurie Higgins

 

The following open letter from Laurie Higgins to Illinois Republican Party leadership is posted below by RFFM.org with Mrs. Higgins permission.  Higgins appeals to GOP leaders, urging Mark Kirk to bow out of the Senate race "for the good of the party."  Higgins joins a growing chorus of conservatives who believe Kirk should be encouraged to do what's best for not only Illinois Republicans, but the integrity of the political process as well. 

 

Laurie Higgins is an influential pro-family activist and a widely read columnist.  Higgins has a background as an educator.  Her articles and columns have been published across the country.

 

**********

 

Higgins writes:

 

I live in Deerfield, Mark Kirk’s Congressional District, and I’m writing to plead with the IL GOP to force Kirk to drop out of the Senate race. I have never voted for a third-party candidate, but this year for this race I will.  Not only am I not voting for him, but I am urging everyone I know not to vote for him.

I will not vote for Mark Kirk. His votes on, for example, cap and trade, the troop surge in Iraq, abortion, and “hate crimes” legislation enrage me.  And his prevaricating on both his military and teaching experiences is disgusting.  In addition, his likely homosexuality and likely deceit about it are character issues for me.  You managed to dump Jack Ryan for far less.

Some people argue that "for the good of the Party," Republicans have some sort of ethical obligation to vote for a prevaricator.  I contend that for the good of the party, the prevaricator should bow out.  I find it utterly hypocritical for Republicans to wax indignant at the idea that a Republican would refuse to support a lousy Republican candidate, as if not supporting Kirk is a moral issue of the highest order; those same indignant Republicans seem to find nothing morally problematic with Kirk’s lying, his support for the barbaric partial-birth abortion, and his support for the deeply troubling “hate crimes” legislation.

Kirk should go.

Laurie Higgins

* Higgins sent her letter to the following Republican Party leaders at the e-mail addresses listed below.  

 

[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

To make a secure online donation to support RFFM (Republicans For Fair Media), please go to:  https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=5U5V8GAKCYTU8

U.S. Census Bureau Finds New Ways To Waste Taxpayer Dollars

by RFFM.org Staff Writer

 

RFFM.org is reporting the United States Census Bureau is making phone calls, contacting households which have already returned their 2010 census forms. 

 

Some accused the U.S. Census Bureau of wasting taxpayer dollars when letters were sent out in advance informing every U.S. household that they would soon be receiving a census form in the mail.  A week later, the forms arrived.  The next week, a follow-up letter was issued which said, in essence, by now you should have received your form and sent it back to comply with federal law.  It is not known how much these extra mailings cost American taxpayers.

 

But more taxpayer dollars may be wasted because the United State Census Bureau is contacting households--who have already returned their census surveys--to confirm information submitted on the original U.S. Census Bureau document. 

"I was shocked," said a central Illinois resident who requested anonymity.  "I received a phone call on June 15th from a census worker who was essentially reviewing with me the information I had already mailed in.  My wife and I are in our late 50's and this worker was asking me if we had any newborn children since submitting the original document.  I questioned the caller why the Census Bureau was wasting taxpayer dollars with such a redundant phone call.  I also became concerned that the caller might not have been connected with the Census Bureau because I know of no one who had ever received such a phone call during past or current census taking periods." 

When asked, the Census worker provided this individual with a toll-free number [1-866-851-2010] to call the Census Bureau, in order to confirm the call was legitimate.  The individual was also provided an eight digit case number to refer to regarding their census form. 

"The very next day, June 16th, I received another phone call from a different census worker.  I told him I had received a call the previous day and would not answer his questions and promptly hung up.  These phone calls were a clear waste of my taxpayer dollars," said the irate central Illinois resident. 

The Census Bureau has always hired workers to visit households who did not return their surveys and this procedure is still a part of the census taking process. 

However, RFFM.org is not aware of any time in the past when a phone bank system has been used to contact those who have complied with federal law.

From April 25th through May 1st, 2010 the U.S. Census Bureau website http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/jobs/temp-workers.html reported 575,700 temporary workers were employed for the 12 Regional Census Centers which cover the entire U.S.  The website does not provide a break down of how many of these temporary workers are participating in the phone bank system.

Some estimate these phone calls may be costing American taxpayers millions of dollars.  RFFM.org is reporting possibly thousands of similiar follow-up phone calls are being made by Census Bureau employees. 

The U.S. Census Bureau could not be reached for comment regarding the issue.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

To make a secure online donation to support RFFM (Republicans For Fair Media), please go to:  https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=5U5V8GAKCYTU8

Rep. Mark Kirk Should Bow Out of Illinois U.S. Senate Race

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

On July 30, 2009, I wrote a commentary titled "Mark Kirk's U.S. Senate Bid Doomed: When Will GOP Ever Learn?" http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/07/-mark-kirks-us-senate-bid-doomed-when-will-gop-ever-learn-.html

I wrote the commentary long before the recent revelations regarding Kirk's exaggeration of his military service.  On Sunday, June 13, 2010 the Chicago Tribune ran a major article which will put a damper on a political candidate which was forced upon Republican voters by the Illinois GOP leadership. 

From the beginning, Kirk was out of step with GOP social and fiscal conservatives.  Kirk's voting record in support of abortion rights, his anti-Second Amendment votes in Congress and Kirk's support for values that run contrary to the Republican Party platforms on the state and national levels alienated the U.S. Representative from Illinois 10th U.S. Congressional District with social conservatives.  However, when Kirk was one of only eight Republicans in the U.S. House of Reps. to vote for the "American Clean Energy and Security Act" (HR2454), commonly called Cap and Trade, he infuriated fiscal conservatives as well--not only in Illinois, but across the entire nation. 

Afterwards, Kirk threw salt on a festering wound by saying if he could have a do-over he would vote against the climate control bill that, if passed by the U.S. Senate and signed into law by President Obama, would devastate America's economy.  The bill is so toxic, the U.S. Senate has yet to act on the legislation, even though it is a primary component of Obama's left-wing political agenda.

But red flags went up with many Republicans, like myself, when it appeared Kirk was the "chosen one" according to statements made by Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady before the February 2010 GOP primary.  Kirk contributed $50,000 to the Illinois Republican Party and shortly thereafter became the obvious favorite of the Republican establishment.

Questions about Kirk's exaggerated military service were raised before the February primary.  In recent weeks, Kirk has come under withering fire for embellishing his U.S. Naval military record.  In fact, campaign ads Kirk ran during the primary race were comical to many of us who follow politics closely.  In one ad, Kirk gave the definite impression he was in harm's way while "flying over Kosovo, Iraq and on the ground in Afghanistan."  This was clearly a ridiculous and misleading claim.  Obviously, common sense dictates a sitting Congressman would not be placed in harm's way and, unless a waiver is issued, there are rules which, to quote a Chicago Tribune story says "Politicians -- particularly members of Congress -- are not allowed to serve in imminent danger areas unless the Dept. of Defense specifically allows it."  http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/elections/ct-met-senate-kirk-giannoulias-20100612,0,2203077.story  [posted June 13, 2010]

Before it came to light that Kirk exaggerated his role in the Naval Reserves and took personal credit for an award given to his unit, it was evident the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate was using his military service as a reservist for his own personal agenda.  Indeed on June 1st, the Washington Post reported Kirk "had claimed, inaccurately, to have received the Navy's 'Intelligence Officer of the Year' award.  But he did not receive that award:  In reality, the unit Kirk led in Aviano, Italy, was given an award for outstanding service by a group called the National Military Intelligence Association.  Kirk, who is seen on video claiming to have won the award, was not singled out for individual recognition." 

Before eventually offering an apology, Kirk compounded his faux pas by telling reporters at CBS TV Channel 2 in Chicago his claim wasn't "legally precise."  CBS reported the Washington Post said Kirk cast the comments as an oversight, not an attempt to exaggerate his record.  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20006430-503544.html  [posted June 1, 2010]

Now, some will say Kirk was simply playing politics with his braggadocio regarding his service in the military, but those who have family members currently serving in the United States Armed Forces and the families of millions of Americans who served our nation honorably in the past, some of whom paid the ultimate sacrifice, interpret Kirk's claims as a reflection of character or lack thereof.

And here is a fact that cannot be denied.  Any politician who would vote for or support the practice of partial-birth abortion--which is so radical a procedure many liberal Democrats oppose it--will not get the vote of Republicans, Democrats or Independents who cannot support an individual because their conscience would prohibit them from doing so.

The operative question for all Illinois Republicans, as the titular head of the GOP ticket is:  How much of a drag will Kirk be for the entire Republican slate?  Therefore, since Kirk is out of step with a growing number of Republicans, including social and fiscal conservatives, perhaps he should do the honorable thing and drop out of the Illinois U.S. Senate race.  There are more acceptable candidates with high name recognition who could replace Kirk on the November ballot and strengthen the entire Republican ticket...Adam Andrzejewski, state Sen. Kirk Dillard and Andy McKenna to name just a few.

I do not ascribe to the "Republican right or wrong" mantra.  Kirk must do the right thing by bowing out of the Illinois Senate race.  Most definitely, Illinois needs a candidate for the U.S. Senate who not only abides by the GOP's state and national platforms, but reflects the character necessary to help formulate and advance policies at a time when our nation is at a critical turning point in history.

Although Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady will most assuredly continue to support Kirk's candidacy, pressure is building among activists and Republican leaders who recognize Kirk's liabilities which would most likely lead to the election of his Democratic opponent, Alexi Giannoulias.  We are at a crucial crossroads in our nation's history when every vote in Congress matters. 

If Kirk would step aside, the 19 members of the State Central Committee, by weighted vote, would choose another candidate to replace Kirk.  Such a political move would not set precedent. 

Some will say I am ignoring the proverbial elephant sitting in the corner concerning questions surrounding Kirk's sexual orientation.  However, I will leave that issue to others to discuss.  Mr. Kirk does not represent the values of many Republicans and does not deserve to be on the ballot in the upcoming midterm election.

Some Republicans will disagree with my opinion, but as Kirk's record comes under closer scrutiny, the question is:  Will voters hold their nose and vote for a man whose voting record as a member of Congress more closely resembled that of a radically liberal Democrat?

Military fraud and the exaggeration of military service are much more serious issues with the public than the dominant media and Mark Kirk would like us to believe.  This is especially true in time of war when men and women are losing their lives in the service of their country.

For the good of the Party, I urge Mark Kirk to drop out of the U.S. Senate race in Illinois and soon.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Chicago Tribune:  Mark Kirk and Alexi Giannoulias resume bashing:  Kirk again challenged over military record:  Congressman's use of 'deployment' comes under scrutiny http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/elections/ct-met-senate-kirk-giannoulias-20100612,0,2203077.story  [posted June 13, 2010]

CBS News: Will Mark Kirk's Military Claim Hurt Senate Bid? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20006430-503544.html  [posted June 1, 2010]

Washington Post:  Mark Kirk campaign ad makes false claim about his military service: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/mark-kirk-campaign-ad-makes-fa.html [posted June 1, 2010]

Former GOP U.S. Senate Candidate Andy Martin:  Andy Martin drops new “Bunker Buster” ad on Mark Kirk: Kirk inflates his military service:  http://andyforussenator.blogspot.com/2010/01/andy-martin-drops-new-bunker-buster-ad.html  [posted Jan. 18, 2010]

RFFM.org:  Mark Kirk's U.S. Senate Bid Doomed: When Will GOP Ever Learn? http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/07/-mark-kirks-us-senate-bid-doomed-when-will-gop-ever-learn-.html [posted July 30, 2009]

RFFM.org:  Cap and Trade Passes U.S. House: Kirk, 7 other Republicans, Vote for Greatest Tax Increase in U.S. History
http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/06/cap-and-trade-passes-us-house-kirk-7-other-republicans-vote-for-greatest-tax-increase-in-us-history-.html  [posted June 27, 2009]

RFFM.org Satire: ABC 7 Chicago's GOP U.S. Senatorial Debate: Where Mark Kirk Really Was  http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/01/abc-7-chicagos-gop-us-senatorial-debate-where-kirk-really-was.html  [posted January 16, 2010]

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected] 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

To make a secure online donation to support RFFM (Republicans For Fair Media), please go to:  https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=5U5V8GAKCYTU8

Obama Promised Social Security Recipients $250 To Offset COLA Freeze: Where Is It?

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

 

In January of 2010--for the first time in nearly three decades--Social Security recipients did not receive a Cost Of Living Adjustment (COLA).  It is being reported the COLA freeze may remain in effect for up to three years.  COLA's are calculated according to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).  The CPI is a measure which estimates the average cost of goods and services purchased by households. 

 

The U.S. Dept. of Labor calculates the CPI.  Seniors and the disabled who receive Social Security benefits did not receive a COLA in 2010 because the CPI indicated there was no increase in inflation. 

 

Now, there are those who swear by the CPI, but every American who purchases goods and services knows full well there has been an increase in the cost of living.  Anyone who disagrees with this fact must not do grocery shopping or pay utility bills and they must be living in a cocoon.

 

The COLA freeze will save the U.S. government billions of dollars and there have been reports there will not be a COLA for two years or more.  Someone must have a crystal ball at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics which can predict there will be no inflation for the next two years or more.  However, some economists are predicting the United States may go through a period of hyper-inflation in the near future. 

 

To soften the political blow from the fall out regarding the COLA freeze, late last year President Barack Obama suggested a one-time payment of $250 for Social Security recipients.  However, when Republicans suggested the money for the one-time payment come out of Obama's $862 billion stimulus package, this issue was taken off the table.

 

Why didn't Social Security recipients receive a COLA?  Democrats had other ideas for use of the stimulus money, including building tunnels for migrating turtles, trains for visitors who want to get a good look at California's wine country and we must not forget the millions of dollars that were allocated for Congressional Districts that do not exist. 

 

The strange thing is the Obama administration and the Democratic Party poured salt on an open wound with the passage of health care reform which cut Medicare by $500 billion.  The message seniors are being sent is they are expendable--both in life and at the ballot box.  But, one of these days, someone's going to remind the Democratic brain trust that the senior voting bloc they controlled for generations may have flown out the window with fiscal responsibility. 

 

Perhaps the Democrats were counting on the votes of illegal immigrants (via the passage of comprehensive immigration reform) to replace the political support they had received from the elderly.  However, due to the failure of the U.S. government to enforce existing immigration laws, this issue may have a huge impact in the upcoming midterm election and even more Democrats may be left out in the cold. 

 

Therefore, I would expect those who receive Social Security to get a little financial bump before November.  The Democrats aren't that stupid...or are they?

 

SPECIAL NOTE:  RFFM.org's Daniel Zanoza Discusses Advocacy for Seniors, Retired and Disabled on Dr. Laurie Roth Radio Show:  http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/07/rffmorgs-daniel-zanoza-discusses-advocacy-for-seniors-retired-and-disabled-on-dr-laurie-roth-show.html

 

Related Articles:

 

Obama's Cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Other Programs Leave Seniors and Disabled On Outside Looking In, Economically and Politically:  RFFM.org To Launch Effort To Inform Seniors, Retired And Disabled About Issues Involving This Group
http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/07/obamas-cuts-to-social-security-medicare-and-other-programs-leave-seniors-and-disabled-on-outside-loo.html posted July 13, 2010 

 

Social Security COLA: Congress Gets Pay Raise, Seniors & Others Did Not by Daniel T. Zanoza

http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/01/social-security-cola-congress-gets-pay-raise-seniors-others-did-not.html posted Jan. 22, 2010

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]  

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

To make a secure online donation to support RFFM (Republicans For Fair Media), please go to:  https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=5U5V8GAKCYTU8

The Pill As A Contraceptive: Mainstream Media Misrepresents Its Danger

U.S. Journalists 'Celebrate' a Carcinogen's Birthday / British Scientists Shill for the Pill 

 

by Karen Malec, President, Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer *

Karen Malec is a frequent contributor to RFFM.org.  Malec is the Founder and President of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer. 

 

A free press and the dissemination of accurate information are among the elements needed for the continuation of a democratic republic. A free people must be educated and have access to truthful information in order to make decisions about the issues of the day, choose worthy candidates for office, participate in the legislative process and promote the common good.

One of the marks of a totalitarian government is one in which the flow of information is tightly controlled so that the attitudes and beliefs of citizens can be formed in a way that benefits the powerful. When journalists in a free society omit or misrepresent scientific evidence that is critical for making life-or-death health decisions, they violate a fundamental human right. Indeed, having the right to protect one's own life trumps every other right.

News stories "celebrating" the birth control pill's birthday - also known as "oral contraceptives" - raise troubling questions about the dedication of journalists in the mainstream press to the democratic ideal and their traditional roles as defenders of civil liberties and watchdogs of government.

When feminist ideology, left-wing politics, corporate agendas or even keeping one's job supersede women's lives in importance, journalists abandon their professional responsibilities and become complicit in the abuse of power exercised by governments and wealthy men striving to reduce the populations of nations around the world.

When journalists tout pro-pill studies funded by pharmaceutical companies - as they have done with the recent study in the British Medical Journal, Hannaford et al. 2010 - or when they promote studies that receive heavy criticism from researchers' peers in medical journals (also like Hannaford et al. 2010), they become instruments of corporate greed, perhaps unknowingly. [1]

Here is a glimpse of a few "news stories" celebrating the 50th birthday of a carcinogen.

Associated Press: "'The health benefits are tremendous,' said Dr. Melissa Gilliam, chief of family planning contraceptive research at the University of Chicago Medical Center. 'It decreases the risk of ovarian cancer and uterine cancer. If we called it "the cancer-preventing pill," it would have far better traction. It's a real success story.'" [2]

Response: There was not even a veneer of objectivity here. Why didn't the author, Carla Johnson, bother to interview researchers whose studies show that the pill raises the risk of cancers of the breast, liver and cervix? Why only interview a family planning contraceptive researcher?

The World Health Organization (WHO) assigned combined (estrogen + progestin) oral contraceptives and combined hormone replacement therapy the highest level of carcinogenicity as Group 1 carcinogens in 2005. [3] These drugs are on the same list as benzene, tobacco, asbestos and cadmium.

The WHO's press release in 2005 said combined oral contraceptives raise the risk of cancers of the breast, liver and cervix, but reduce the risk of cancers of the endometrium and ovaries. [4] Incredibly, some softheaded doctors tell women to take a carcinogen (the pill) to prevent cancer. The truth is that more than twice as many American women die every year from the cancers that the pill causes than the cancers it prevents.

Combined oral contraceptives and combined hormone replacement therapy contain the same type of drugs, but the former have a larger dose of those drugs. Unlike combined hormone replacement therapy, women often use the pill during the most cancer-susceptible time of their lives - before the birth of a first child.

In April, Dr. Gerard Nadal, a microbiologist, explained on his blog, Coming Home, that combined hormone replacement therapy, combined oral contraceptives and abortion share the same biological mechanism for cancer production. [5] All three risks have to do with the negative effect of estrogen overexposure, while in the presence of progesterone, on immature, cancer-susceptible breast lobules.

Only eight years ago, researchers stopped a large study - the Women's Health Initiative - because study subjects using these steroidal hormones - combined estrogen and progestin - were at risk for stroke, heart attack, breast cancer and blood clots. [6] One year later, after thousands of women had stopped using combined hormone replacement therapy, there were 14,000 fewer U.S. cases of breast cancer.

Beyond all reason, mainstream journalists unconscionably ignored last year's monumental study on oral contraceptives and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), an aggressive form of breast cancer associated with a high mortality rate. Led by Jessica Dolle, the study included as co-author Dr. Louise Brinton, a U.S. National Cancer Institute branch chief. [7] The authors reported that recent users of the pill within the last one to five years multiply their risk of TNBC - by 4.2 times. Women who started using the pill before age 18 multiply their risk of TNBC by 3.7 times. Women with abortions in the study had a statistically significant 40% increase in risk for breast cancer, whether or not it was TNBC.

Other than the Chicago Tribune's Dennis Byrne, what American mainstream journalists cared enough about women to inform them about these findings - especially those who develop TNBC most often, i.e. African Americans and women under age 50?

Researchers' findings contradicted the U.S. National Cancer Institute's official position that the abortion-breast cancer link is "non-existent." They contribute to overwhelming evidence that the agency conned women into believing this blatant falsehood with its sham workshop on the link in 2003. [8] Nevertheless, while Uncle Sam physically abuses women in every country that has made abortion legally accessible, America's mainstream journalists are taking a siesta.

CBS News: "Control your cycle; control your life. What could be more empowering? Plus it made your boobs bigger. Win-win....It may have produced fewer children, but it produced better mothers: fulfilled women who deliberately created families." [9]

Response: Yeah, right. Taking hormonal contraceptive steroids and developing cancers of the breast, cervix and liver makes women feel powerful. How many cancer patients would agree that the pill made them better mothers? This silly pitch for the pill reads like a pharmaceutical ad.

Time Magazine: "One of the world's largest studies of the Pill — 46,000 women followed for nearly 40 years — was released this March. It found that women who take the Pill are less likely to die prematurely from any cause, including cancer and heart disease, yet many women still question whether the health risks outweigh the benefits." [10]

Response: As of April 4, 2010 - eighteen days before Time published its article - the British Medical Journal had published on its website a long list of scientists, who criticized the study, Hannaford et al. 2010, and demonstrated the flaws in the study. [1] Time Magazine might be interested in the fact that at least one letter by Joel Brind, Ph.D. rebutting the findings in the study was published during the week of the pill's birthday in the print version of the British Medical Journal. [11] Professor Brind is Deputy Chair for Biology and Environmental Sciences at Baruch College, City University of New York.  He offered his comments on the Time article by saying:

"Here are some inconvenient truths about Time's statement: They say: '46,000 women followed for nearly 40 years.'

"The truth: Of the 46,000 in the original study, only 10,000 were actually followed up for the whole study, and even at that, the follow up for those 10,000 ended in 1996, i.e., after only 28 years--not 40! When the analysis was restricted to those 10,000 women followed up until 1996, there was no significant difference in longevity between pill users and never users.  Why did the study end so long ago? Because it started long ago, back in 1968, when the average pill user was already 29 and married with children; the type of women whose future health is least affected by the pill.

 

"But now, of course, most pill users are very young--teens and early 20's, unmarried and with no children; the type of women whose future risk of breast cancer and other life-shortening illnesses is most affected by the pill. And if you actually bother to read the whole Hannaford study--which the Time author likely did not--these trends actually show up. For example, here's a sobering quote directly from the results of the paper, where the authors are referring to the subset of younger women (they don't tell you how many), who were under age 45 in 1996:

 

"'The increased rate of death from circulatory disease persisted in pill users five to nine years after stopping use and was accompanied by an increased rate of death from all cancers combined, including breast cancer. This resulted in a significantly increased adjusted relative risk of death from any cause among this group (1.76, 1.27 to 2.45 for all causes; 1.91, 1.18 to 3.07 for all cancers combined), compared with never users.'"

When women choose to take the pill (or have an abortion) is an important piece of information in any study focusing on the link to breast cancer. Women in the 1960s took the pill after they had already had their families. Today, women take the pill before the birth of a first child during the "susceptibility window" - the period between puberty and first full term pregnancy when nearly all of the breast lobules are cancer-susceptible Type 1 and 2 lobules. Ninety-seven percent of all breast cancers develop in Type 1 and 2 lobules (where ductal and lobular cancers arise).

On the other hand, by the end of first full term pregnancy, 85% of the lobules are permanently cancer-resistant. The more carcinogenic time to be exposed to the pill is before first full term pregnancy. Abortions before first full term pregnancy are called "highly carcinogenic." Women who followed the more current patterns of pill use, using before first full term pregnancy at a younger age and for longer periods, have greater health problems, not less.

Hopefully, Time's editors have the integrity to print a retraction.

Chris Kahlenborn, MD, the lead author of a meta-analysis published in 2006 in the journal, Mayo Clinic Proceedings, calls breast cancer "the pill's dirty secret." [12] Kahlenborn and his colleagues' paper included an examination of studies dating from the 1980s. They found that women who used the pill before a first full term pregnancy increased their risk of developing pre-menopausal breast cancer by 44%.

In a recent commentary "The Pill after 50 Years: The Dirty Little Secret of Contraception"  http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/05/the-pill-after-50-years-the-dirty-little-secret-of-contraception.html  Kahlenborn said he was stunned that the meta-analysis brought almost no press coverage, although Mayo Clinic sent a press release to all major media in the country and 40,000 American women develop pre-menopausal breast cancer annually. The mainstream media continue to studiously ignore the meta-analysis, although it remains the most recent one in this area.

There is a simple explanation for the mainstream media's hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil practices. Although the pill is accepted as a risk factor for certain cancers in the highest places of medicine, in feminist theology it (and induced abortion) is a sacred sacrament. Belief in the safety of so-called reproductive rights is an article of religious faith. For true believers, it serves as an impediment to science.

Hopefully, both scientists and journalists dedicated to the cause of "reproductive rights" will ask themselves in good conscience whether it is really worth causing large numbers of women to lose their breasts or cut their lives short. Is it really worth causing children to lose their mothers to cancer?

Alexis de Tocqueville, a 19th century political thinker and French aristocrat, used to argue that it is easier for people to believe a simple lie than a complex truth. In the case of the birth control pill, the simple lie is that it is "safe" for women. Keeping women in the dark about the deadly risks of the pill and induced abortion is a form of totalitarianism through science and the mass media.

References:

1. Hannaford et al. British Medical Journal 2010;340:c927.

2. "America's Favorite Birth Control Method Turns 50," By Carla Johnson, Associated Press, May 7, 2010. Available at: http://www.nbc11news.com/home/headlines/93071369.html

3. Cogliano V, Grosse Y, Baan R, Secretan B, El Ghissassi F. Carcinogenicity of combined oestrogen-progestagen contraceptives and menopausal treatment. Lancet Oncology 2005;6:552-553.

4. Press Release No. 167, "IARC Monographs Programme Finds Combined Estrogen-Progestogen Contraceptives (the "pill") and Menopausal Therapy Are Carcinogenic to Humans," World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer, July 29, 2005.

5. Dr. Gerard Nadal, “My interview on abortion-breast cancer link in Fathers for Good,” Coming Home, April 16, 2010. Available at: http://gerardnadal.com/2010/04/16/my-interview-on-abortion-breast-cancer-link-in-fathers-for-good/

6. Writing group for the Women’s Health Initiative Investigators. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women. JAMA 2002;288:321-33.

7. Dolle J, Daling J, White E, Brinton L, Doody D, et al. Risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(4)1157-1166. Available at:
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Abortion_Breast_Cancer_Epid_Bio_Prev_2009.pdf

8. See the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer's press release, "Groups Request Congressional Investigation of National Cancer Institute's Misinformation on Breast Cancer Risks of Abortion, Oral Contraceptives," January 25, 2010. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/100125/index.htm

9. "Faith Salie: Happy Birthday to the Pill, Says the 'Pro-Choice Contraceptive Empowered Women to Become Better Mothers," CBS News, May 9, 2010. Available at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/09/sunday/main6469959.shtml?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CBSNewsOpinion+%28Opinion%3A+CBSNews.com%29

10. "The Pill at 50: Sex, Freedom and Paradox," By Nancy Gibbs, Time Magazine, April 22, 2010. Available at: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1983712,00.html

11. Brind J. Wrong Conclusions Drawn Again. Letter. British Medical Journal 2010;340:c927.

12. Kahlenborn C, Modugno F. Potter D, Severs W. Oral contraceptive use as a risk factor for premenopausal breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2006;81(10):1290-1302. 

 

 

* Karen Malec, President
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
P.O. Box 957133, Hoffman Estates, IL 60195
www.AbortionBreastCancer.com
[email protected]
1-877-803-0102 (toll free)

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.

RELATED ARTICLES:

 

The Pill after 50 Years:  The Dirty Little Secret of Contraception by Chris Kahlenborn, MD posted May 31, 2010 http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/05/the-pill-after-50-years-the-dirty-little-secret-of-contraception.html

 

Birth Control Pill:  50 Year Legacy Of A Carcinogen:  No Cause For Celebration by Karen Malec posted September 10, 2009: http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/09/birth-control-pill-50-year-legacy-of-a-carcinogen-no-cause-for-celebration.html

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]  

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

To make a secure online donation to support RFFM (Republicans For Fair Media), please go to:  https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=5U5V8GAKCYTU8

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

To make a secure online donation to support RFFM (Republicans For Fair Media), please go to:  https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=5U5V8GAKCYTU8

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

To make a secure online donation to support RFFM (Republicans For Fair Media), please go to:  https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=5U5V8GAKCYTU8

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

To make a secure online donation to support RFFM (Republicans For Fair Media), please go to:  https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=5U5V8GAKCYTU8