Gloria Steinem: "Only 1 in 8 Women Get Breast Cancer, But 1 in 3 Need an Abortion"
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 at 08:08PM Or, women need abortion coverage more than breast cancer screening.
Feminist icon of the 1970’s and abortion-Nazi Gloria Steinem on CNN’s Anderson Cooper talking about the recent recommendations by a government panel to discourage women from learning self-breast exams and getting mammograms before age 50:
STEINEM: … But what worries me is that I fear that, in some ways, the coverage of this, which is good, has so outweighed another huge health issue. I mean, one in eight women gets breast cancer. One in three women needs an abortion at some time in her life.
That is a huge — a huge, huge, health issue. I mean, for years, I have been wearing a bracelet here with the name of Rosie Jimenez, who was the first person who died because they’re — of the Hyde amendment.
So, where is that coverage? And that’s a deal-breaker.
Has Gloria Steinem forgotten the link between abortion and breast cancer? Maybe she wants women to get both.
PREVIOUSLY:
Chinese, Turkish Researchers Find Significant Link Between Breast Cancer and Abortion
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (16)
Gloria Steinem, giving women in general a bad name for close to four decades now. What a sad and pathetic foolish woman! She seems to be fine with just killing babies and mothers now, is that right?
I wonder what she will say when Obamacare presents the ice float option in its final form?
I am glad that you, Amy, and others like you (Michelle Malkin, Pamela Gellar, Angel of WHY and many others) continually show the world that women can be strong, intelligent, opinionated and traditionally good people without being feminazis.
Thanks, kimbal.
Here's a stat for you, Gloria: 10 out of every 10 baby girls aborted die.
Is that clear enough?
And black women are the most at risk: while black women make up just 6% of the US population, they receive 36% of all abortions. Planned Parenthood, whom Barack Obama vociferously supports, targets minority women with its 'health services.'
This is nothing less than genocide against black children and a vicious stealth attack on women of color.
www.blackgenocide.org
Johnny, as we know that was the plan from the start.
One in three women needs an abortion at some time in her life.
I am intrigued by this statement. I have read elsewhere that perhaps as many as one in three women has had an abortion. And I'm not so sure about that statistic either. Is it one in three women in the U.S.? Or in the developed countries? Or in the world? I don't think it's in the Islamic world, because they're having like 8 or 9 children per family.
But to claim that one in three women needs an abortion is something else altogether. What constitutes "need"? If the life of the mother is put in jeopardy, that would constitute "need" in my opinion. That circumstance certainly does not apply to "one in three women". I cannot even say that rape or incest constitutes the "need" for an abortion, although I certainly think it constitutes "justice".
How does Gloria define "need"? If a woman wants one... then she "needs" one? Gimme a break!
im curious as to why the republicans have never passed legislation outlawing abortions when they have been in control? it seems like if they are so against it why not outlaw it? you could say that such a law may be found unconstitutional, but thats never stopped them before, plus how many abortions would be stopped in the time it took to get a US supreme court decision. if its such a fundamental issue to the repubs, why not fight for it?
Planned Parenthood was formed as an Eugenics tool. Margaret Sanger and those of her ilk deliberately laid out a scenario in which the majority of PPH clinics would be in poor/minority neighborhoods. Conveniently, the Democrats have control of the big cities and have passed bills that encourage the poor to have an entitlement attitude, thus getting moderate payments for staying poor and Democrat when you separate the wheat from the chaff. Democrats want the minority poor boxed up in ghettoes, voting Democrat and aborting babies. Abortion doctors then sell the parts for research and to makeup companies for big bucks.
Kimbal: this is so illogical its frightening. If your half-baked conspiracy theory was true, wouldn't the democrats want the poor minorities to have as many babies as possible so they could have more democratic voters. Why would they want to kill their own future babies, wouldn't they want to set up abortion clinics in white, republican neighborhoods. Ridiculous!!!
Timo,
Would that make sense? After all they can only allow so many new welfare recipients, and keep the PPH clinics open. Sanger's plan was to wipe out Black people all together. Look it up.
Gloria Steinface is so cavalier with numbers it's really opens her up to ridicule. There are maybe 155 to 157 million women in the US. Even with the lower number that means more than 19.375 million women will get breast cancer.
Now there are 1.1 Million people with AIDS in the US. I say screw it. Let them die. We can use that money for tummy tucks, or chin lifts.
Now I would not really advocate that, but damn if you look at the numbers that is a lot of people. 1 in 8 is an epidemic. It's not like 1 in 1000, or 10,000.
Now if 1 in 3 "need" and abortion out of the current female population that is 51.6 Million. That might jive if the Abortion Holocaust was not spread over a 36 year period.
It is highly unlikely that 1 in 3 will "need" "want" or plain "stumble" on such a procedure. It may very well be the case that rich, secular, white people want abortion legal so they can kill off the daughter's unintended pregnancy with the guy that was good enough to date but not marry, and they also know that it's eugenics.
I love the argument that because 1 in 3 women kill their innocent child that we should not only keep the murder legal, but we should force everyone to pay for it. The only difference between the innocent child they want to kill is location and age. If it is a foot over it could not be murdered without it being a crime. With age, we are continually seeing children born earlier months and live so that window is closing except that the baby killers really wanted last minute partially out of the womb location rights to still kill them.
So since it is much more likely a child in the ghetto of Chicago will be murdered, should we make it legal and pay the killer off with tax money? I have to believe that God who loves every child thought that placing the child in its most vulnerable state in the womb of the woman was the right thing to do. In most cases it certainly is right. But sin corrupts. With birth control the woman started to say no and when life was created anyway, it obviously had to have the ability to go ever deeper in sin and kill life where God had placed it for safety. The argument is that what do you do with the woman and the doctor who do this anyway if it is against the law. Chris Mathews tried to make that to Bishop Tobin. My answer is what do you do to the person who kills a kid in the Chicago ghetto? What do you do with anyone that kills a child? I am not sure why Bishop Tobin or others are reluctant to say this.
Timo, think. More people live in cities and urban areas than live in rural areas. Democrats control inner cities and the big cities get them elected. Abortion mills produce huge profits, so they want that money, and it keeps the poor populations manageable. After all, we can't have a population explosion of color, right? Democrats want all the cities to vote blue but most of them don't actually want to live with "those people."
But Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to actually come in contact with a poor person unless it is one of her gardeners. She and her cohorts are rich enough to insulate themselves from commoners.
Some of that crowd is focused on money and power, some on idealogies, some on eugenics, and some have these things combined in their heads. Let's face it, the welfare society does not eliminate poverty, it supports it! Duh. The terrible education system in the inner cities makes it easy to fool the folks into believing in the Democratic song and dance and the entitlement mentality keeps them in line. ACORN promises money for nothing and houses for free. The economy is teetering and meanwhile the fascist in chief goes around doing "unprecedented" things like walking his dog.
Kimbal, you are funny,
I am not getting it, is Obama a fascist or communist? He can't be both? Some call him a commie, some fascist.......Maybe you all should go for a group huddle/orgie and get your collective stories (oops I meant individualistic........cause collective and fundie-right-winging don't like each other for some reason) together and jiving just a little bit, before yah all go ape-poop.
timo, did you pass 8th grade government? Legislators in both parties passed anti-abortion laws for nearly 200 years in all the individual states of the Republic until the Supreme Court overthrew the Tenth Amendment to the Consitution in Roe vs Wade in 1973. Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe has since become a zealous Christian and a tireless advocate for Pro Life Causes.
The right to decide on the legality of abortions belongs with the 50 states and not the federal government.
Rex says "I am not getting it, is Obama a fascist or communist? He can't be both? Some call him a commie, some fascist" Sorry, but this statement is not true. A government and its leaders can move from one part of a belief to another quite easily. We tend to think of various movements and labels from some government in the past. Was the USSR Marxist, communist, or socialist? Did it have some of the tendencies of a facist state? You can have actions by the government that are socialist in nature and use facist methods to enforce them or for other reasons. Hitler believed he was founding a new third way of governing. Obama and the democrats one day act like pure socialist and on another day pure facist. the problem is that they never seem to understand free market or capitalism very well and have no use for it. the tax the rich cry is proof that they understand our system very little. Every time we go about punishing the most successful and taking their money and putting it into government programs providing free stuff, we see our country start down hill.
Keep in mind that Nancy Pelosi won't let the people that work in her family's business Unionize. Do as she says, not as she does.
Actually, Rex, it is perfectly possible to be both as they are not polar ends of the politico-economic continuum