In my previous column, I revealed that the son of the founder of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation is in a joint business venture with Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest (“PPGNW”).

Located in Washington state, PPGNW holds a 12.5 percent share of the Metro Centre mall in Peoria, IL, where Nancy Goodman Brinker’s son Eric Brinker maintains “controlling interest,” according to an e-mail he sent me.

Eric is also a Komen board member.

This only matters because Komen refuses to acknowledge the link between abortion and breast cancer while it insists on bestowing grants to affiliates of the United States’ largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.

That Eric Brinker is in business with one of those affiliates thickens the plot.

Brinker wrote me that only “20 of Komen’s 122 U.S. affiliates fund breast health services through local Planned Parenthood clinics.”

Coincidentally, two of those 20, Komen Puget Sound and Komen Boise, fund Brinker’s business partner, PPGNW.

Komen has gone to quite a bit of trouble to protect what it claims is an infinitesimal relationship with Planned Parenthood.

Stating Planned Parenthood receives “less than 1 percent” of its donations, Komen now has a webpage, message points and a dispensation letter from a Catholic named Norman dedicated to sanctioning their relationship.

Why? If there were even the remotest chance abortion causes breast cancer, which several worldwide studies conducted over the course of many decades confirm, wouldn’t a responsible breast-cancer foundation back away from any risk of facilitating it?

Eric wrote in his e-mail to me, in bold, “There is no conclusive link between abortion and breast cancer.” “Conclusive,” interesting. Was Eric subtly acknowledging there is an inconclusive link?

Eric also wrote that Komen only funds Planned Parenthood “in areas where Planned Parenthood clinics are the only venue for women to receive breast screenings.” He and other Komen officials I spoke with stressed these are in underprivileged areas.

That this may be true is only because Planned Parenthood locates clinics in poor and minority areas specifically to control their populations through contraception and abortion. Komen merely corroborates this fact.

But that is no excuse to partner with Planned Parenthood. Early detection of breast cancer through screening should not be the goal. Prevention should be the goal.

All five PPGNW Planned Parenthoods involved with Komen either commit or refer for abortions. All dispense birth-control pills and emergency contraceptives.

Which leads to another point. Komen states on its website:

A large analysis that combined the results of many studies found that while women were taking birth-control pills (and shortly thereafter), they had a 10 to 30 percent higher risk of breast cancer than women who had never used birth-control pills.

As for the emergency contraceptive pill, which contains 10-15 times the amount of artificial hormones as a single birth-control pill, its labeling states it is contraindicated if one has a current or past history of breast cancer.

In fact, it appears hormonal contraceptives are more seriously implicated in breast cancer than previously known.

In 2009 a study published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention showed that the risk for women under 40 of contracting a newly identified and virulent form of the disease called triple-negative breast cancer rose by 320 percent if using hormonal contraceptives for a year or more.

That same study, co-authored in part by two of the very National Cancer Institute researchers who in 2003 denied a link between abortion and breast cancer, also acknowledged a 40 percent increased risk of contracting breast cancer under the age of 40 if a woman had had an abortion.

So there are several reasons for Komen to part company with Planned Parenthood.

A final point. Tragically, Susan Goodman Komen was only 33 years old when contracting breast cancer, and she died three years later. Her sister Nancy contracted breast cancer at age 39. She is now a 25-year survivor.

Both were under 40.

Would recognition that one’s reproductive history may be implicated in breast cancer be too hard to handle within the upper echelon of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation?

Would it make the disease less noble?

International Planned Parenthood Foundation’s recently released report, “Stand and Deliver: Sex, Health and Young People in the 21st Century,” advocates policies that jeopardize the well-being of children’s health, the importance of parents and the moral values of our society, says Family Research Council.

The report promotes contraceptive sex education for children as young as ten years old. Most disturbingly, the report advocates that children as young as ten be “empowered” to “develop satisfying and pleasurable sexual lives.” The report demands that children 10 and older be given a “comprehensive sexuality education” by governments, aid organizations and other groups, and that young people should be seen as “sexual beings.”

This report represents an ideological point of view that over sexualizes children and attempts to remove parents from being the primary conveyor of what their child learns and from whom. Illinois citizens will be shocked and outraged by what this report recommends. Parents should find out what is being taught in their child’s school and understand their rights under the law.

Moreover, polls show parents overwhelmingly believe that sex education should reflect the values taught at home. Contrary to parental desires, Planned Parenthood seeks to undermine parental and religious influence by advocating for a ‘human right’ to unlimited contraception and mandating so-called comprehensive sex education for children as young as ten.

You can read the report online HERE.

According to a Harvard Business School case study, despite profits of $85 million in 2008, Planned Parenthood is facing serious financial difficulties. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is structured as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization with multiple affiliates, each of which is also a 501(c)(3) non-profit. The national entity lobbies on national policy, sets affiliation standards, and leases its “Planned Parenthood” brand to affiliates.

The difficulties stem from the uneven strength of its affiliates. According to the Harvard case, PP’s president Cecile Richards says her organization faces “tough economic times, a hostile political climate, and limited ability to raise philanthropic dollars in a resources constrained area of the country.”

The Florida Association of Planned Parenthood Affiliates (FAPPA) laments that “while we worked hard this session to zero-fund the $2 million appropriation for so-called crisis pregnancy centers in Florida, we were not successful in its defunding.” In other words, Planned Parenthood sees crisis pregnancy centers and abstinence-only programs as substitutes for what they are selling, with abstinence a substitute for contraception, and adoption for abortion.

Planned Parenthood hopes to increase its client base, but the simple fact is that most potential clients have low incomes and cannot pay for the services. The case study also reports that the number of generic contraceptives is increasing, forcing Planned Parenthood to face both more competition and less per-unit profit.

While abortions account for only 3 percent of the services performed by Planned Parenthood, explains LifeNews.com, abortions provide 33 percent of the income from “health center” operations ($122 million). Sales of emergency contraceptive kits add another $35 million to the top line.

Read more:

Harvard Study: Planned Parenthood is an Abortion Business and Business is Bad (LifeNews.com)