There needs to be more cancer research

I thought the mission of the Komen foundation was curing cancer — so states their logo [“Komen stops all grants to Planned Parenthood,” page one, Feb. 1].

Yet the current flap is all about screening, which is hardly equivalent to curing cancer, especially since X-ray mammography is controversial among scientific investigators and in many cases, if not most, is not going to detect breast cancer early enough to save a life. The hyperventilating critics do not seem informed of this reality.

The last Komen annual report posted to their website shows “research” at 24 percent. Unfortunately no detail is given, but I should guess most of that “research” favors vested interests. Independent cancer expert Ralph Moss, has said that various promising projects languish for lack of funding; these no doubt are not the kind that interest the drug companies.

Organizations sponsoring the foundation should insist on a higher percentage of research, with more true anti-cancer studies selected by independents such as Moss.

— Murray Swanson, Issaquah

Let’s look at Planned Parenthood’s behavior

To my reading, news organizations and Planned Parenthood (PP) trashed one of the most important private organizations in the country fostering care and research for detection, treatment and cure for breast cancer.

The real lesson of history here may be that an organization that purports to be for woman (Planned Parenthood) and their friends in the media may have set back finding a cure for breast cancer by their shortsighted attacks on Susan G. Komen for the Cure.

Did any aggrieved PP supporters consider that an organization that principally caters to needs of pre-menopausal women (PP) may not be the ideal place to provide care and prevention for a disease that overwhelmingly affects postmenopausal women?

Did anyone consider that a clear separation of structures/finances by PP for their abortion-related services would end most of the issues raised in Congress? (I believe PP has refused such a clarifying move.)

Corporate sponsors considering support should take heed of Planned Parenthood’s behavior in this matter, and their directors should be wary, less they too are caught in the juggernaut of PP’s public-relations machine should they decide to fund some other worthy cause.

— Joseph W. Mulcahy, Anacortes

The irony behind the tempest

Now that the tempest surrounding the Susan G. Komen foundation has died down, it is interesting to reflect on the irony of it all. The main issue seems to be that Planned Parenthood provides abortions and those who want to defund it consider abortion to be murder.

Without a doubt, Planned Parenthood does provide abortions; 3 percent of its money goes provides abortion services (2009 data). At the same time, it spends 35 percent of its money on contraception services. The irony is that the very best way to eliminate most abortions is to eliminate unwanted pregnancies, which is safely and most realistically done by contraception.

Of course, many people feel just as strongly about contraception as they do about abortion. I can see a case for considering abortion the ending of a “life” depending on the age of the fetus and other tangible considerations. However, contraception does not end the “life” of anything. It is just not the same issue.

Why those so obsessed with Planned Parenthood cannot focus on the end result that they profess to want so much and support any effort to achieve it, defies reason.

Perhaps it’s political after all?

— Richard Thompson, Bellevue