Rep. Jackie Speier Slams Susan G. Komen On The House Floor

A companion story to Rick’s earlier post. California Democrat Jackie Speier took to the House floor to take the Susan G. Komen foundation to the woodshed after their decision to end funding for Planned Parenthood. To be honest, it’s not exactly like Susan G. Komen had some sort of epiphany about the evils of abortion; no, they simply made a decision, a wise one at that, to no longer send funds to organizations currently under investigation.

Speier on the other hand could care less about investigations. She lambasted Komen for “becoming a political advocacy group.” Pahleese. It’s always about politics with these people.

From The Hill:

“I guess it means that Susan G. Komen has become a 501(d)(4), because no longer do they want to be providing nonprofits, they want to become a political advocacy group,” she said on the floor. “Last time I checked, we were all presumed innocent until proven guilty.”

She said Komen’s decision means Planned Parenthood will not get as much as $600,000 a year, which has helped provide for about 170,000 breast cancer screenings for women over the last five years.

Missing the irony, Speier closed her floor remarks by asking advocates for abortion on demand to contact Susan G. Komen and tell them to stick to their cancer fighting work. Which, by the way has nothing to do with funding abortion.

You simply don’t get in the way of a Democrat and easier access to abortions. You just don’t.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Shortlink:

Posted by on February 1, 2012.
Filed under Abortion.
Tagged with: .
I'm not an author, lawyer, or professor. These seem to be the most common careers of bloggers these days. I'm just an average, commonsense, conservative who lives in a red state that flipped blue. America is lacking in the commonsense department. We've got plenty of lawyers and professors.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

    Money is fungible.  Funds dedicated to “breast cancer screening” free up other funds to provide other services.  It’s refreshing to see a donor realize this fact.

    • hyperboliszt

      Planned Parenthood offer breast cancer screenings to low-income women in areas where they otherwise would not be able to get it. And they also offer abortions and birth control counseling. So: you would rather poor women die of breast cancer than zygotes be sacrificed on the alter of–what would you call it?–liberal-Marxist-post-modern selfishness?

      • jim_m

         Here let me fix that for you:

        Planned Parenthood offers breast cancer screenings to low risk women, taking money away from women in higher risk groups who won’t get access to screenings, but the left is more upset about money being taken away from abortions than to worry about women getting breast cancer.

        • hyperboliszt

          Shorter jim_m: low-risk women ought not be screened for a disease because it’s a low risk.

          Komen backs down on this within two weeks, fucking guaranteed.

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

             Do you prefer dropping babies in a blender or do you prefer to chop them up by hand, Herr Mengele?

          • hyperboliszt

            Babies? Or cell clusters that are contingent upon the biological welfare and intentionality of the person in which they exist? Regardless, neither method seems conducive to respecting the health of the mother so I will say neither and defer to the medical professionals who carry out the legal practice with an eye to the Hippocratic oath that they all swear prior to entering the profession.

            You pretend to be an intelligent person on the internet and you often do a good job of it, Adjoran. But then you drop an Ad Nazi and reveal yourself to be a bit dull.

          • jim_m

             4 month old fetus’s are not blobs of cells you ignorant ass.  I’ve provided you links that demonstrate that fact but you continue to show how stupid and what an unthinking ideologue you are.

          • hyperboliszt

            Well call them whatever you want but a “person” they aren’t.

          • jim_m

             That isn’t the argument I am making, but what you are doing is creating a false impression which is intended to extinguish any debate as to whether they are a person or not.  You are being dishonest about the advanced state of development for the sole purpose of being able to claim that personhood is impossible.  

            Yet the truth is that the baby is quite advanced by that point and there can be reasonable cases either way.  Your case is unreasonable as you will not even stick to facts.

          • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

            By the end of the 4th week of pregnancy, the human embryo has its own heartbeat and brain activity. What besides a person has its own heartbeat and brain activity?

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

            An embyro does not show brainwave activity after 4 weeks. Period.

            http://tigtogblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/fetal-brain-development-myths-and.html

            Nor is it showing any brain activity comparable to any kind of vertebrate, as late as 13 weeks.

          • kathysamuels

            Brain activity is present at 4-6 weeks.

      • RTF1refly

        Oh yes.  Its all about zygotes and brac1.

        I believe the reason given was that PP was under investigation.

        When the investigation is concluded, they might refund.

        I do believe it is KOS and the DU trying to paint it as an anti-abortion move, and WB posters as an anti-abortion move.  

        You’ve both got it wrong.

        The Board of the SGK Foundation is protecting itself and its cause by insulating itself against a possible legal problem being associated with PP.  I suspect SGK Foundation also gets Federal $$.

      • Gmacr1

        Herbie, KGFY , no lube MF’er.

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        What don’t you understand about the fungible nature of money?

  • GarandFan

     ”She lambasted Komen for “becoming a political advocacy group.”

    You’ll have to pardon Speier, she’s unclear on the concept that a foundation can specify what it’s donated dollars are used for.

    For Speier, that equates to ‘blank check to do whatever’.

    • herddog505

      GarandFanYou’ll have to pardon Speier, she’s unclear on the concept that a foundation can specify what it’s donated dollars are used for.

      Exactly.  Apparently, in dem world, NOT giving money makes you a “political advocate”.

      • jim_m

         Hey,  Not paying for insurance is economic activity that the government can regulate so why isn’t not giving money political action that they can regulate too?

  • jim_m

     That’s right.  The dems will punish ANYONE who strays from the party line.  It doesn’t matter who you are, once you start paying into the dem funding scam you can’t get out.  Continued payments are little more than protection money.

    It will be interesting to see how far they are willing to take this.  Komen has a good reputation with the public, but PP delivers millions to the campaign.

    • hyperboliszt

      Women will die of breast cancer because of this.

      Trolling this blog all day and it’s a bunch of middle aged men crowing about how cell clusters in poor people’s wombs will now go unscathed, at the expense of poor women dying of breast cancer.

      Ghouls.

      • jim_m

        Yes you conveniently ignored the information that I posted on the other thread:

        75% of abortions are done on women under 30 which is the lowest risk
        group for breast ca so exams are being given to the population least in
        need of them.

        Nobody is going to be dying because of this but ignorant assholes like you will use it as an excuse to air their bigoted beliefs about Christians and conservatives. You’ve already done a fine job of demonstrating that.

        • hyperboliszt

          Women under 30 don’t die of breast cancer. Is that what you’re saying?

          Or are you saying that it’s safe to accept the risk of women under 30 dying of breast cancer, to protect the life of not-yet-humans?

          • jim_m

             I actually know some that have died of breast ca under 30.  I am saying that if you are going to spend millions of dollars that you are better off spending it on those that it will make the biggest difference for.  The relative risk for women under 30 is quite small.

            By the way, men get breast ca too.  I don’t hear you whining about the lack of funding for breast exams for men.  Don’t go claiming that it is too rare because you already surrendered that argument dumbass.

          • hyperboliszt

            I’m just fucking with you, jim. I know that you aren’t saying either of those things, because you aren’t intelligent enough to consider the consequences of what taking a categorically anti-abortion stance actually entails for the people who receive the procedures and the groups that administer them. I know you don’t think that 16 year old girls should be charged with first degree murder for asking someone to terminate a fetus inside of them, because you fail to see that if a fetus is a person then getting an abortion is the same thing as convincing someone to murder one’s spouse. Your mind doesn’t process syllogisms the same way that, say, an above-average-intelligence child’s mind does. And that isn’t your fault.

          • jim_m

            I don’t take a categorically anti-abortion stance dim wit.

            Maybe you could actually address the argument that it’s a waste to be spending money on breast exams for low risk women rather than spending on exams for high risk women .

          • jim_m

             I’ll also point out your totalitarian stance that people cannot decide for themselves what the best place to invest their money is to benefit their fellow man (or woman).

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AMGYR3NLFGJNCDBY2DRPQQUG4Y Mike

            How do you feel about when a pregnant women is murdered is it two counts or one? 

          • hyperboliszt

            Two. The intention of the woman with respect to the future of the child is relevant, and that’s why abortion is not murder and killing a pregnant woman is two counts of murder and not one. Comes down to respecting a woman’s autonomy.

          • Sky__Captain

            But as you pinted out upthread, “Babies? Or cell clusters that are contingent upon the biological welfare and intentionality of the person in which they exist? ”

            Intriuging.
            If they’re not babies, then logiclly it’s only 1 murder.

            You, see, that’s one of the areas where the logic of “they’re not babies” falls down.

            They’re going to be babies. Not Barbie dolls. Not tigers. Not Internet triolls (at least not without years of liberal indoctrination).
            Just babies.

          • http://scum-and-villainy.blogspot.com/ Evil Otto

            Oy, trying to disentangle Hyper’s bizarre contortions of logic can cause your eyes to start bleeding. Anyone remember when the little twit started arguing that babies weren’t persons?

            “SCSI: a person is an entity that has the capacity for rationally engaging with their environment and with other minds.”

            “I’ll save retired_military the trouble of pointing out that yes, this does mean that babies
            aren’t persons. I wouldn’t suggest, though, that killing babies and
            infants ought to be permitted. There are lots of things that are legally
            protected that lack the capacity for rational action: paintings and
            sculptures; endangered fish; protected forests.”

            Hyperbolist

            http://wizbangblog.com/2011/04/13/liars-figures/#comment-254556771

            Maybe it’s a different Hyperbolist… this one didn’t have a Z.

          • hyperboliszt

            Nope, same one. The original name was taken in the Disqus registry.

            Stand by the definition of personhood I offered before, because it’s the correct one. It’s not about looking like a person. It’s more complicated than that.

            We don’t kill babies for the same reason we don’t abort babies against a woman’s will. They have legal protection. This view isn’t monstrous, it’s just more conceptually precise and accurate than what you’re usually subjected to when you watch two professional liars bark at each other on television.

            Go sit in on a moral philosophy or applied ethics lecture on the subject, you will almost certainly learn something.

          • jim_m

             Wow. You were far more rational without the “z” . Go figure.

          • http://scum-and-villainy.blogspot.com/ Evil Otto

            No, he wasn’t.

          • http://scum-and-villainy.blogspot.com/ Evil Otto

            Since, If I wrote a reply to you here it would end up five words wide and twelve feet long, go here:

            http://scum-and-villainy.blogspot.com/2012/02/its-over-9000.html

          • hyperboliszt

            So your beef is that I used the correct definition for this context–a  philosophical discussion on an ethical concept–and not the plain English definition?

            If plain English was good enough we wouldn’t need lawyers and conceptual analysis would have wrapped up with Socrates.

          • http://www.pohdiaries.com/ TWB

            Oh. I see. So essentially every woman is god. Since her intention toward the life growing inside of her is all that is necessary to deem it a life in the first place. You just have to love the left-wing’s thought process.

          • hyperboliszt

            God? No. A rational actor with autonomy over her own person? Yes.

            It’s her umbilical cord. You gonna tell her that the government is the boss of her umbilical cord? What kind of creepy freak are you?

          • jim_m

            Umbilical cords are shared. 

            So are you going to argue that a baby that hasn’t had it’s cord ciut, but has been fully delivered and is breathing room air is fair game for an “abortion” (which is really murder in this case and few would argue otherwise)? 

            Because that is the logical extension of what you just posted.

          • hyperboliszt

            I wouldn’t argue that that child could be legally killed, no. The child can breathe on its own, she’s already endured labour, the cord will die on its own, nothing further is required of the mother were the child to be taken away and given up for adoption–I think the law is fine as is.

          • hyperboliszt

            This and the below are a reply to your comment below–thread was getting too skinny…

            If the umbilical cord is shared, and–as you and most others here believe–a fetus ought to have legal protections at a certain point in its development, then would you support criminal charges against any woman who uses any household product containing BPA; or who ingests any food containing nitrates, particularly processed deli meats; or who fails to ingest a certain amount of the right kind of vitamins?

            If not, why not? These things are known to be toxic to fetuses. Shouldn’t it be illegal for somebody working at Subway to sell a sandwich to a pregnant woman?

          • SCSIwuzzy

            So they are lives when you decide they are, and only then.
            When does one become a life, regardless of your (or the host organism’s) opinion?

            And what if a pregnant woman on her way to Planned Parenthood is shot?  One murder or two?

          • hyperboliszt

            I’d have to look at how the courts would understand such an uncommon case. It’s a woman’s right to change her mind and keep the baby as much as it’s her right to terminate the fetus, so probably two counts of murder right up to the point where the procedure has begun and is irreversible.

            As for me deciding when something is or isn’t a life–no, I’m not on the supreme court, I’m not a neuroscientist, and I’m not a bioethicist. But neither are you.

            “Host organism” — aaaand, you reveal yourself to be a lazy misogynist. Thought you were meant to be one of the bright kids on the playground?

          • SCSIwuzzy

            No, I used a term that fit your attitude.  If an unborn child is merely a clump of cells (as you say again and again) then what is a mother if not a host?
            You can’t have it both ways.  Life and motherhood are exalted for a reason, the same reason, and you cannot deny the status of one with denigrating the other.

          • hyperboliszt

            Sure I can. It’s illegal to kill a mother; it’s not illegal to kill a fetus. They have different moral statuses and the law reflects that.

            If you want to fetishize life itself, go chain yourself to a tree, weirdo.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            It’s not illegal to kill her “because” she is a mother, it’s illegal because she is a living human being. which is what the pro life side of the debate holds the fetus to be.

          • hyperboliszt

            Sure I can. It’s illegal to kill a mother; it’s not illegal to kill a fetus. They have different moral statuses and the law reflects that.

            If you want to fetishize life itself, go chain yourself to a tree, weirdo.

          • jim_m

             And I don’t think Komen was thinking that they wanted to be paying for abortions I thought that they wanted to pay for breast exams.

            This is about spending money for the greatest effect. If you spend money to do exams you want to do them on the people most likely to get cancer. 

            With Planned Parenthood you are spending the money to give exams to the least at risk first.  It is backwards and counter productive.  But that doesn’t matter to hateful ideologues like you.  You would rather see 100′s of older women who are really at risk for cancer get it and die than divert money away from abortions.

          • hyperboliszt

            There’s one organization in parts of major urban centres that administers breast exams to poor women: Planned Parenthood. They also provide abortions.

            Komen made their choice and now women most likely will die because of it. But hey, gotta keep the jackals at bay.

            Here’s what I’d like to fucking see: your government pay for every woman over the age of 25 to get a breast exam every year, from a doctor and not a lab tech. That would be enormously expensive but then healthcare isn’t cheap anywhere, especially not in the United States with its absurd multi-tiered system.

            Read this: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/MedExpress/20080716/cancer_statistics_080716/

            People of colour in the United States–who are disproportionately poor–are way, waaaaaay more likely than people in Cuba to die of breast cancer, but you would deprive them of a source of detection because… ?

          • jim_m

             I disagree.  Komen will reallocate their resources somewhere else where women who are at real risk will actually get the help they need.

            Your idiotic argument is essentially that no one else will ever provide those screenings.  That simply isn’t true and it is foolish to suggest that the Komen foundation won’t find someone else to provide the same services that doesn’t have the issues that Planned Parenthood does.

            For you it isn’t about preventing cancer because if it was you would be in favor of screening women really at risk.  You only care about the abortion funding.

            And don’t go telling me about how my country misallocates health care spending when 80% of people diagnosed with colon cancer in your country are treatable at diagnosis and only half of those are still treatable when your country gets around to giving them chemo. 

            Canada sucks when it comes to health care and ESPECIALLY so when it comes to cancer.

          • hyperboliszt

            Did you read the fucking article you clown? Cuba is better at treating cancer than the United States, and Canada is far better at treating it than the United States when it comes to people of lower income. But you don’t care about them (even though you probably are one of them).

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Um – no, Cuba’s not.  They’re better at REPORTING they’re doing really, really well – but when you have no independent checks you can claim a 100% success rate on 5 year survival on pancreatic cancer (which normally has 4%, even with the best medicine has to offer) - and who’s to say different?

            They also report their infant mortality is lower than the US – but there you get into differing standards re reporting of infant mortality.  And THAT’s an entirely different can of worms.  (That, according to the old song, crawl in, crawl out, and play pinochle on your snout…)

            http://home.earthlink.net/~halloween_magenta/hearsesong.html

            Anyhow -at this point there’s a good bit of skepticism about Cuba’s reporting.  And other countries don’t fare as well as the US.

            Sorry…

            http://www.economist.com/node/11777096?story_id=11777096&fsrc=nwl

            (Takeway quote… “Cuba had impressive survival rates, but these were probably over-estimated, say researchers”)

            The rest of Europe – the UK had significantly worse.

            http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/07/21/most-cancer-survival-rates-in-usa-better-than-europe-and-canada/

            Looks like the US is the place to be if you develop cancer, no matter what income group you’re in.

          • RTF1refly

            I don’t believe your reading comprehension AND understanding of statistics, margin of error and standard deviations is adequate to understand what the numbers demonstrate.

          • hyperboliszt

            RTF, I work in statistics–demographic and market research–so whatever criticisms you may have of me, that’s not a legitimate one.

            JL, I’ll have to concede the point about Cuba’s statistics being unreliable. That’s fair.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            Shorter:  I work in advertising.  Would you like to buy some soap?

          • hyperboliszt

            Advertising is creative; I work in interpreting consumer and demographic data to drive creative.

            Shorter SCSI: I don’t understand how marketing works.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            Sorry, you try figure out why the soap isn’t selling as well as the customer wants.

          • jim_m

             Hyper, I’ll bet that the Catholic Church has more health resources in more poor areas in this country than Planned Parenthood, which isn’t even in every urban area.  But you wouldn’t know that they aren’t everywhere because you are Canadian.

            Of course the left can’t allow for the Catholic Church to provide health care for anyone because the church is anti-abortion.  Now who is against the poor? 

          • hyperboliszt

            The Catholic Church is performing abortions now? (It’s a legal medical procedure so if they’re offering health services then they ought to be; if they’re performing some narrower ideological function then it’s less impressive.)

          • SCSIwuzzy

            Heart surgery is a legal procedure, but Planned Parenthood doesn’t perform them.  If they are offering heath services, they ought to be.
            After all, more women die of heart disease (26%) than cancer.
            They must hate women…

          • hyperboliszt

            SCREENING for breast cancer does not require an on-staff surgeon. Offering heart SURGERY would require paying a cardiovascular surgeon.

            And offering a clever reductio ad absurdum would be asking a lot of SCSI.

          • jim_m

            SCREENING for breast cancer does not require an on-staff surgeon

            So there is no surgeon when they perform abortions?  Glad to know they care so much about women’s health that they are giveing substandard care.

          • SCSIwuzzy

             And heart screening is something PP doesn’t offer either, despite the fact that it kills more women than cancer.
            They must hate women.

          • RTF1refly

            Again, show me ONE bit of evidence that women under the age of 40 benefit from any form of screening for breast cancer.

          • hyperboliszt

            I went to a fundraiser last week for a 27 year old friend who is getting a masectomy and won’t be able to work for several months. She had lumps discovered during a regular check-up with her GP.

          • jim_m

             anecdotes are not evidence.

          • DocEpador

            WRONG.  There are lots of organizations in urban centers who provide this, and many States have free breast, cervical and colon cancer screening programs.  You are either lying or woefully ignorant.  Which is it?

            Here’s a map of just ONE type of medical center providing that service, among many others:
            http://www.raconline.org/racmaps/mapfiles/fqhc.png

          • hyperboliszt

            They’re the largest HCP in the United States and in some areas the only option for people of low income. If your point is that they could get on a bus and schlep to another neighbourhood were PP to be shuttered, then sure. That’s a nice thing to wish on someone. But the reality is a lot of people, particularly lower income women and particularly those of minority backgrounds, rely exclusively on PP for medical help.

          • DocEpador

            This is so wrong, if you are saying PP is the largest HCP in the US.

            Citation please, and not a rectal one.

          • http://profiles.google.com/jinxmchue Jinx McHue

            Obviously he cannot cite it.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7FMXY3DZP7JF7SGSPIOSLLXNE Stephen

            Bullshit alert.

            Komen has made statements that this had nothing to do with PP and abortions, but Jim_M channels his inner pink ribbon and knows the truth, – they “didn’t want to pay for abortions”.

            Hint: JimM rarely has a clue what he is talking about, He just rambles and spews whatever nonsense pops into his head.

            At least now he’s been trained to say “And I don’t think…” as a preface. Before his recent “re-training” he’d just state categorically what Komen was thinking, even though he had no insight or concept of what the truth was.

            And he always end with his bubblegum pscyh insight in the liberal mind.

            “But that doesn’t matter to hateful ideologues like you.  You would
            rather see 100′s of older women who are really at risk for cancer get it
            and die than divert money away from abortions.

            ROTHLMFAO! Go back to reading comic books, jim. You haven’t a clue as to what liberals think.

          • jim_m

             If you had actually read anything you would know that my argument is that the money for screening women at low risk is not effectively spent and that Komen would be better off screening older women who have a real risk of cancer.

            I’m saying that ignorant leftists like you and Hyper are upset that the money won’t be available for abortions anymore,

          • hyperboliszt

            QUIT TRYING TO RATION HEALTH CARE YOU FUCKING COMMUNIST

          • jim_m

             socialized medicine is rationing.  Rationing by delaying until treatment is no longer useful. 

            The Supreme Court in Quebec ruled years ago that the Canadian health system violated the people’s constitutional right to access to health care.  The court ruled famously that,”Access to a waiting list is not access to health care”.  No one has ever been able to claim that in the US. 

            If you can pay you can get treted.  If you can’t pay you can still get treated.  95% of prostate cancer patients survive despite far fewer than that having insurance.  That is far higher than in any other nation.

            The US runs significantly higher rates for cancer survival than anywhere else.  You will not be able to find a serious journal article claiming otherwise.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            1 private group decides to  not give money to another private group, out of suspicion that the other group may be a little shady with their finances… is now communism to Hyper.
            Free association and private (as in non-government) control of funds is now communism to Hyper.

            Just like a life is not a life, unless Hyper says it is.

          • hyperboliszt

            So that’s your criteria for whether or not it should be legal to abort a fetus? It just has to be “alive”? If something is alive, it’s automatically protected?

            What are you doing to stop the genocide against bacteria, hypocrite?

          • SCSIwuzzy

            Nothing in my comment had nothing to do with abortion.  It was about private organizations deciding how to spend their money.

            For someone that complains about RAA arguments, you certainly use them alot yourself.BTW, can you have a conversation without insults Hyper?

            For the record, however, I do not support abortion.  There are some exceptions that I understand, like the life of the mother being in danger.  And I don’t know if I am ready to support outlawing the practice.
            But I would support mandatory waiting periods with pro/con counselling before allowing the procedure.

            And I certainly don’t support forcing any doctor or provider to perform the procedure if they have a moral objection, or using public funds for abortion.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            Nothing in my comment had nothing to do with abortion.  It was about private organizations deciding how to spend their money.

            For someone that complains about RAA arguments, you certainly use them alot yourself.BTW, can you have a conversation without insults Hyper?

            For the record, however, I do not support abortion.  There are some exceptions that I understand, like the life of the mother being in danger.  And I don’t know if I am ready to support outlawing the practice.
            But I would support mandatory waiting periods with pro/con counselling before allowing the procedure.

            And I certainly don’t support forcing any doctor or provider to perform the procedure if they have a moral objection, or using public funds for abortion.

          • Sky__Captain

            Nice for L’il Stephen to start his post with a warning.
            Let everyone know they can skip it (like I did).

            Thanks, L’il Stephen!

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Hey, hyper! How’s it going?

            Re breast cancer screenings… my lovely bride is in oncology research. So she was rather appalled when there was a proposed change to policy a few years back suggesting that before age 50 mammograms weren’t much needed.   

            This was a government study, by which we can only assume that government wants women to die of undetected breast cancer.  Right?  Just think  of the savings down the line!  (sarc, if you couldn’t tell…)

            They’ve since walked that back.

            Anyhow – there’s lots more resources for free/low cost mammograms than just PP.   Somehow, that the Komen foundation doesn’t want to give them money doesn’t equate (at least to me) to a lack of availability.  (In fact, the sites I’ve got below don’t even reference Planned Parenthood for free checks…)

            http://liv.com/free_mammograms.php

            http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/nbccedp/

            Of course, you’ve got to qualify for the free ones. 

          • hyperboliszt

            I’m well, JL, hope you can say the same. :)

            I just think that the optics of pulling funding from a group that offers any cancer screening because one doesn’t want to be even tangentially associated with a group that has come under fire from its ideological enemies is bad; and, they deserve to be pressured in the opposite direction too. If abortion is killing babies (it’s not–it’s illegal to kill babies!) then pulling funding from a group that provides legal abortions will cause people to get unsafe illegal abortions; and, in this case, it may also make it impossible (and certainly more difficult) for people who rely on PP for cancer screening to get the proper assurances re: their long-term health.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            I can understand your point of view – but the thing is… the money’s Komen’s to allocate as they see fit.  If they don’t want the money going to X, Y, or Z, then that’s their privelege.  That they’ve given money to X, Y, or Z in the past does not obligate them to keep funding said organizations forever.

            That said – as long as they’re still donating money, that’s what’s important.

          • hyperboliszt

            But it’s not just about the cancer screening. It’s also about providing access to reproductive technologies and legal procedures.

            I wouldn’t suggest that a group ought to be forced to spend money on something it doesn’t believe in, but I am suggesting that political pressure on PP from people whose sole objective is to make it harder for women to get legal abortions in the U.S. is a way of forcing a group to go against its own values (i.e. giving underprivileged women access to quality care) and there ought to be push-back.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Perhaps – but when a foundation dedicated to cancer screening is lambasted because they’re not supporting a group that provides access to reproductive technologies and legal procedures – who’s major function is to do just that – then there’s something a bit iffy going on.

            I just don’t see any reason to get worked up about it.

      • RTF1refly

        Please show me scientific evidence that shows that women under 30 benefit from screening for breast cancer.  Or under 40, for that manner.

        • hyperboliszt

          Are you asking if anyone ever gets breast cancer under the age of 30? If so I’m not going to provide you with examples other than the one above. Young people get all forms of cancer, at lower rates but the numbers aren’t all that meaningful to someone who receives a positive diagnosis are they.

          • DocEpador

            I believe Groucho’s alter ego is referring to the inefficacy of mammograms in screening for cancer in younger patients.  Younger women (under age 40) do indeed get breast cancer, at a much lower rate than older women.  Their cancers are harder to detect by mammogram before they are palpable, and tend to be more virulent even when detected early.  Thus their survival rates do not correlate with screening.  In fact some are worried that starting mammograms early increases radiation exposure and it’s inherent risks are greater than the breast cancer risks – thus mammograms are not recommended for asymptomatic low risk women under the age of 40 or 50, depending upon who you want to believe.

          • jim_m

            Hyper is not swayed by statistics and data.  He finds his anecdotes to be far more “significant”.

            Back when I ran a cell therapy lab we did a bone marrow transplant on a 24YO woman with stage IV breast ca.  It was sad.  Sadder still was the fact that our center was running a 25% disease free survival rate at 5 years in stage IV breast ca when the insurance companies stopped paying for the therapy.  I know we were not the only center experiencing that kind of success but that’s the way it goes sometimes.  The weight of the studies indicated otherwise. 

            Although there are always reasons to dispute the findings, like the Komen foundation, the insurance companies can choose to invest in therapies they think will provide more success.

          • DocEpador

            Unfortunately with breast cancer, the 10 and 15 year survival rates are more appropriate when looking at changing mortality from the disease.

            I did preliminary work on autologous stem cell therapy in the early 80′s.  It was indeed sad to see the patients with horrible diseases and little hope.  What was sadder was watching the government first insist that insurance companies pay for this investigative treatment, then back down when the long term studies didn’t pan out so well.

            I saw several patients who received various experimental therapies that appeared to have cured them, but the therapies investigations were ended when the overall toxicities and benefits were not well balanced.

  • Brian_R_Allen

    Wizbang was Mister Tea was Wizbang.

    Bring back Mister Tea!

  • RTF1refly

    BTW, this is what your article about the article said:

    The range of survival rates across the five provinces was quite narrow, from a low of 79.3 per cent in Nova Scotia to a high of 85.4 per cent in British Columbia.
    The other provinces studied were Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan.
    However, the survival rate for the seventeen regions in the United States that were included in the study ranged from 78 per cent to 90 per cent.
    The disparity in survival rates crossed racial lines in the U.S., as well, with white patients having a five-year survival rate of 84.7 per cent and black patients having a survival rate of 70.9 per cent.

    • hyperboliszt

      The 71% survival rate among black patients means they need better screening. PP offers screening at some of their facilities. PP’s clients are disproportionately people of colour.

      I read the article and I understood it.

      • DocEpador

        Let me impose here.  I am a Board Certified Medical Oncologist, so I do have a bit of cred on this matter.

        Improved screening for cancers does not necessarily mean improved outcome.  It has dramatically reduced death from cervical cancer.  Not all cancers are alike.

        Racial differences in survival rates for breast cancer have not been able to be attributed to any specific factors, but theories include genetic, social and screening rates, or access to care.  They are all THEORIES.

        However, there is little proof that screening significantly decreases breast cancer mortality overall.

        http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/screening/breast/healthprofessional/page5

        A similar problem has been recognized in screening for prostate cancer, which also has different incidence and mortality rates for different racial groups.

      • DocEpador

        Just in case you get all excited reading the results in the link without a critical analysis, here’s the key part:

        Screening for breast cancer does not affect overall mortality, and the absolute benefit for breast cancer mortality appears to be small.A way to view the potential benefit of breast cancer screening is to estimate the number of lives extended because of early breast cancer detection.[20,21] Harris [22] estimated the outcomes of 10,000 women aged 50 to 70 years who undergo a single screen. Mammograms will be normal (true negatives and false negatives) in 9,500 women. Of the 500 abnormal screens, between 466 and 479 will be false-positives, and 100 to 200 of these women will undergo invasive procedures. The remaining 21 to 34 abnormal screens will be true positives, indicating breast cancer. Some of these women will die of breast cancer in spite of mammographic detection and optimal therapy, and some may live long enough to die of other causes even if the cancer has not been screen detected. The number of extended lives attributable to mammographic detection is between two and six. Another expression of this analysis is that one life may be extended per 1,700 to 5,000 women screened and followed for 15 years. The same analysis for 10,000 women aged 40 to 49 years, assuming the same 500 abnormal examinations, results in an estimate that 488 of these will be false-positives, and 12 will be breast cancer. Of these 12, there will probably be only one to two lives extended. Thus, for women aged 40 to 49 years, it is estimated that one to two lives may be extended per 5,000 to 10,000 mammograms.

        • hyperboliszt

          So don’t screen for breast cancer, then?

          Honestly, what’s your professional opinion as to what ought to be done about the disease?

          • DocEpador

            You claimed that the poorer survival in blacks meant they needed more/better access to screening, or that they were being denied access that other have and that’s why they had poorer survival rates.  I think I pretty much decimated that argument.  

            Determining appropriateness of screening for any disease is balanced by many factors, that include cost of screening, effectiveness of screening getting patients to treatment that makes a difference in morbidity or mortality from the disease, and whether overall all mortality is affected by treatment for the disease being screened.  If you detect more prostate cancers and treat them, but people end up living the same length of time (or shorter due to treatment toxicity) and die of other old age problems, then the screening for prostate cancer is neutral or even harmful.

            Breast cancer screening includes provider exams, mammograms, and teaching/patients performing self exams.  The final outcome, if you are looking at long term survival and a lower overall mortality rate, is SLIGHTLY affected by vigorous screening techniques.  At a very large cost both in money and resources.  

            Breast cancer treatment has evolved considerably over the past few decades, and appears to have made a significant dent in the mortality, but no where near eradicating the disease.  The toxicity of the current treatments is considerable.

            We have no idea how to prevent the disease in any significant fashion other than by removing the breast.

            So if you ask what my opinion is about what should be done about the disease, and I suspect by correlation, where should SGK put their money, in my opinion it is into research into prevention and more effective and less toxic treatments.

          • hyperboliszt

            Prevention is always preferable, I would never disagree with that. And I would assert that companies that profit from harmful radiological therapies have a vested interest in the medical community refusing to explore alternative therapies such as massively high doses of vitamins. This is explored in a very poorly made but thought-provoking documentary called Food Matters, where physicians argue that cancer treatments are in fact a leading cause of cancer and diet is the leading cause of cancer, and that they have had success treating ‘terminal’ pancreatic cancer with, say, 500,000mg daily doses of vitamin C and niacin…

            …which would go a long way to explaining the discrepancy in cancer rates between people of colour in the United States, where everybody eats garbage, and people of colour in poorer equatorial countries, where people eat fruit and vegetables.

            Maybe SGK should invest in advocacy groups that are trying to do something about urban food deserts.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            “that they have had success treating ‘terminal’ pancreatic cancer with, say, 500,000mg daily doses of vitamin C and niacin…”

            I know, I know, it’s a conspiracy of the medical-industrial complex… only… what if it isn’t?

            What if there ISN’T any actual proof that such a thing works?  Plenty of people claim that homeopathy really works – but it rather flies in the face of logic.  

            BTW, the  ‘Food Matters’ documentary… um… check out

            http://www.pikespeakskeptics.org/?p=50


            In my previous blog, “Wading Through Woo,” I mentioned the first questions one should ask when being presented a new idea is: “Who are the authors?” and “What credentials do they have?” This “documentary” has multiple authors: Andrew W Saul (Ph.D, Therapeutic Nutrition Specialist and Author), David Wolfe (World Authority on Raw Foods & Superfoods), Charlotte Gerson (Founder of the Gerson Institute), Ian Brighthope (Prof., M.D., M.B.B.S., D.Ag.Sci), Victor Zeines (Holistic Dentist & Nutritionist), Phillip Day (Investigative Journalist), Dr Dan Rogers (Curing the “incurable”), and Jerome Burne (Medical Health Journalist). Now I that I know who they are I am REALLY worried.
            Nutritionists? Superfood expert? The Gerson Institute? Holistic dentist? Is that a flock of ducks I hear? A nutritionist knows all about nutrition, right? Well, not exactly. The term is essentially meaningless. Why? Unlike certified dietitians, nutritionists are unregulated in most states, and they may actually be unqualified to educate you on science based nutrition. What about the superfood expert? Superfood? Sounds yummy. What does it mean? The term “superfood” is a quack word that is little more than an alternative health marketing term. The first use of the term I could find was a description for wine. Maybe David Wolfe is a sommelier?”
            —–

            A holistic dentist as one of the authors… ummm… okay.  I’ll pass.  Not to say that it couldn’t be right – but I think the odds are just about lottery jackpot ranges.

          • hyperboliszt

            I hate naturopathic quackery as much as the next guy! When someone tells me a story about praying for their aunt to get better, and she does, therefore God answered his prayers; or suffering spinal damage, and repairing it with “healing stones”, I have a hard time not laughing in their face.

            But these doctors/whatever they are had a lot of anecdotes about treating late-stage abdominal cancer with insane doses of vitamins.

            As I mentioned above, nutrition–vitamin intake–may be the leading cause of cancer as poor people in poor countries are a lot less likely to get sick than people in countries where processed meats, grains and vegetables constitute a bigger part of the diet.

          • DocEpador

            WOO WHO!?!

            You have now officially jumped the shark for the 3 gabillionth time.

          • jim_m

            I suppose that this is the kind of garbage medicine we can expect to be recommended by someone who lives under socialized medicine where you can’t get real medical help.

            Seriously.  He whines about cutting off funding for mammograms that aren’t even being done and then offers vit C as treatment for pancreatic ca.

            Yep.  Let’s hurry to the clinic for our free cancer screening so we can get the latest quack treatment that won’t cost the government a penny!

          • SCSIwuzzy

            Remember, in Canada a dog has a shorter wait to get an MRI than a human.

        • herddog505

          Is the issue that, once it’s found, it’s really too late to do anything?  Or, conversely, that, no matter when it’s found, the probability of successful treatment remains about the same?

          • DocEpador

            Neither.  Early detection is better than late detection.  However the amount of risk and cost you have to go through for successful early detection weighted with the percent improvement you get after successful treatment isn’t all that huge – great for the 1-2 people who do benefit per 5-10000 mammograms, but there is hardly going to be a genocidal loss if PP has to find $$ from someone else to REFER patients for mammograms (they don’t do or pay for them).  PP does provider exams and teaches self exams, which are MUCH LESS EFFECTIVE at reducing mortality compared to mammograms.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            I heard the freak outs this morning on the drive to daycare, but no mention of the dollar figure until later…
            First though after that was to wonder how big a loss 600k a year is to a group as big as PP.  What is their total spend, and what is their spend on breast cancer screening?

            My suspicion is that this is more about politics and enforcing the orthodoxy of the left than a devastating loss of funding.

          • herddog505

            OK.  Thanks.

  • Meiji Man

    But we’ve proved it again and again,
    That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
    You never get rid of the Dane.

  • hyperboliszt

    My livelihood is swaying people with statistics and data, jim.

    Your experience is another reason to delete insurance companies from the health care equation entirely. They provide zero value and are the reason health care in your country is so much more expensive than in any other, without the results to justify the expense.

    • jim_m

      No.  My experience suggests only that the power of the good data coming from a few centers that knew what they were doing was overwhelmed by the number of centers that did not. 

      the right answer is to cut off the centers who are not helping the patient, which is what happened. 

      Contrast that with the experience related to me from the transplanters at Sick Kids in Toronto:  They would run out of money for transplanting kids with Leukemia by mid year, so anyone still on the list had to wait until the next year and hope that their child would still be alive and not so far gone that they could still be treated.  A lot of kids died unnecessarily.

      That’s called rationing care.  I know you believe that it never happens in Canada, but it does.  Every day they are delaying treatment because the government won’t pay. 

      More people get treated and get better under our system than under yours.  That is a simple statistical truth.

      • hyperboliszt

        Insurance companies ration care. Along with making a profit, it’s their raison d’etre. Such a rotten, parasitic business model. They add no value to your lives and drive up the cost of care to the point where it’s embarrassing to even compare the cost-per-outcome of the U.S. to any other developed country.

        “A lot of kids died unnecessarily” — cite something, please. I have friends who work there in paediatric cardiology, oncology and nursing and while they see a lot of kids die it’s usually because they’re waiting on a transplant, not the funds to pay for it. There are government mechanisms to fund life and death procedures and kids don’t die because of a lack of funds. Compatible bone marrow samples don’t grow on trees.

        Contrary to your anecdote, my grandfather has had cancer three times and has always received treatment–at no cost–within six weeks, despite being over the age of 75 each time he was diagnosed. My father was diagnosed with prostate cancer and received surgical treatment–at no cost–within a month, and free home care while recovering. My best friend died of brain cancer but survived his first bout at the age of 10 and lived to be 21 before being diagnosed with a recurrence and passing away two months later, on a hospital bed, receiving world-class care for a malignant brain tumor.

        Here’s a simple statistical truth: Americans don’t live as long as Canadians, Scandinavians or Japanese people and that is impacted by access to health care. Americans with good insurance may get access to the best doctors but the ones without it do not. Insofar as you care about statistics, that’s a salient point.

        • jim_m

          No, insurance companies do not ration care.  They pay for care or they do not.  You can still get treatment for things the insurance does not cover.  Unfortunately, in a socialized system you cannot get treatment if it is not covered.  THAT is the reality.

          People can and do pay for healthcare that is not covered.  In fact Canadians come to the US for that express purpose.

          • hyperboliszt

            And more Americans travel abroad for healthcare than do Canadians as a proportion of the population so go fuckin’ figure, eh?

          • hyperboliszt

            http://www.health-tourism.com/medical-tourism/statistics/

            Also, Americans do come to Canada for affordable care. Prescription drugs are affordable here; they are not affordable in the United States.

    • DocEpador

      Its funny how we can agree on a concept and then separate so far on implementation.  I totally agree that insurance companies, at least the way most function in the US now, provide zero value and are the reason health care is so expensive here.  However, I suppose your solution is to have the government do the job as a single payor system.  Mine is to put the “consumer” back in control of where and how the dollars are spent, rather than some beneficent tyrant.

      • hyperboliszt

        If there were one example of a system such as that functioning anywhere on Earth…

        As for the single payer system, Japan, France, Canada, Sweden, Australia…  Lots of very affordable and very effective single payer systems to emulate.

        • jim_m

          And not a one of them has the cancer survival rates that we do in the US.  Next…

          The question is whether you value making people better or if you value political issues like “social justice” which doesn’t benefit anyone but makes certain that more people die unnecessarily. 

          Truth be told the US system actually takes care of the poor better than the other systems.  In the US you can still get treatment that is paid through charitable sources, whereas under socialized medicine you have to wait no matter what.  Well, that is unless you are a politician or a friend of a politician, then you jump to the front of the line.

          • hyperboliszt

            “…more people die unnecessarily.”

            More people die unnecessarily in the United States than in Japan or Sweden.

            As for “waiting no matter what”, I love that Americans all think this, and yet anyone here could go see a doctor at a walk-in clinic after waiting for maybe an hour and pay zero dollars for the privilege. Might have to wait a month to see a specialist depending on what’s wrong with you, but then it is in every way imaginable preferable to having to liquidate your kid’s college fund to pay for a hip replacement.

            As for jumping the line, that’s idiotic and unsubstantiated.

            Fun fact, jim: more Americans travel abroad for health care than Canadians, as a percentage of the population. If the system is so fucking great then why do people go to Mexico, India and Thailand to see specialists?

      • SCSIwuzzy

        How much of the current incentive and pricing system the insurance companies have is a result of the medicare and medicaid systems, however?
        My wife is an Dr (AuD) in an ENT practice, and many of the prices her office charge is based on medicare.

  • hyperboliszt

    That was supposed to be posted above, but jim will figure it out…

  • deltamary

    I scanned through all these remarks -and WOW- sure got a lot of experts out here.  Reading them is just like watching C-Span. One that made sense was from DocEpador  and  Hey- Jim M-the one that is dominating everything –should check his chances of getting  on C-Span.

  • Commander_Chico

    All I got to say is that looking at the picture, Rep. Jackie Speier ain’t bad looking.

    • http://www.pohdiaries.com/ TWB

      I know Chico, I’m glad her mother didn’t decide to kill her when she was an embryo.

  • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

    If poor women can get screenings for breast cancer without PP’s help, then what is the problem?

    After all, it’s not like PP has a shortage of funds.

    • hyperboliszt

      It’s now harder for poor women who rely on PP for more than just reproductive technologies and support. They operate disproportionately in areas that are underserved by traditional health care channels.

  • hyperboliszt

    Otto, I’m not signing in to post a reply on your blog. So here you go, as a response to this: http://scum-and-villainy.blogspot.com/2012/02/its-over-9000.html

    I taught logic and critical thinking. I also taught seminars on bioethics, medical epistemology, and applied ethics. I taught them because I took those classes, achieved high grades, and then studied those same subjects in grad school under the supervision of people whose job it is to understand these things very carefully.If your assertion is “all humans are persons” then you would fail that particular writing assignment. They aren’t.

  • hyperboliszt

    Otto, I’m not signing in to post a reply on your blog. So here you go, as a response to this: http://scum-and-villainy.blogspot.com/2012/02/its-over-9000.html

    I taught logic and critical thinking. I also taught seminars on bioethics, medical epistemology, and applied ethics. I taught them because I took those classes, achieved high grades, and then studied those same subjects in grad school under the supervision of people whose job it is to understand these things very carefully.If your assertion is “all humans are persons” then you would fail that particular writing assignment. They aren’t.