Pink Orthodoxy and The Real War on Women

Copernicus painting of a heliocentric universe

Copernicus painting of a heliocentric universe

As with all revisionist history, the truth is more complicated than the myth.  Mikolaj Kopernik was a canon in the Polish cathedral in Frombork, Poland.  Educated in elite universities in Krakow, Bologna and Padua with support from his uncle, the bishop, he was a church administrator, a lawyer, practiced medicine and to pass the time translated ancient poetry from Greek to Latin, formulated currency reform and painted.  He died in obscurity in 1543 and was buried unmarked beneath the cathedral floor with a hundred others who spent their lives working for the Church.

MIkolaj chose to be known by the Latinized version of his name, Copernicus, and his enduring legacy and thirty year passion was astronomy.  Two months prior to his death, he published in Latin, “De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium”, or “On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres.” In it he challenged the scientific orthodoxy that had persisted through ancient Greece and Rome of a geocentric universe which taught that the sun, the planets and the stars revolved around the earth.  His heliocentric hypothesis was indeed a revolution based on his mathematics and observations from the planetarium in a corner of the cathedral grounds.  An esoteric academic work, it was little contested by the Church or anyone else.

“There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.” Martin Luther about Copernican theory

Everything changed when in the conflagration of the Protestant Revolution, Protestant theologians proclaimed a heliocentric universe as contrary to Holy Scripture.  After Galileo took up the Copernican heliocentric model in 1616, the Church was grievously wrong and reacting to the Protestant position, added “On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres” to her list of banned books. The Pope ordered Galileo held in home confinement.  The book remained on the list for over two centuries until 1835.  The Church has since acknowledged the error.  Science and faith are two complementary, not opposing, aspects of human understanding and truth.

Science can purify religion from error and superstition.  Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.” Pope John Paul II

In our secular humanist culture, orthodoxies are dearly held, and contrarian evidence is enthusiastically ignored.  One such article of faith recklessly endangers women, especially young women.  “Women’s reproductive rights” as a principle of secular orthodoxy transcends politics, transcends religion and transcends science as well.

Two news stories in the last week or so were not covered extensively in that most ardent defender of the faith, those impregnable bastions of orthodoxy, the liberal press and electronic media from the New York Times to MSNBC et al.  The first defense against heterodoxy is to disregard all evidence that contradicts the precepts; the second is to suppress the sources.

The first story informs us that new incidences of cancer worldwide are up substantively from 12.7 million in 2008 to 14.1 million in 2012.  According to the World Health Organization, deaths from cancer rose in the same period from 7.6 million to 8.2 million.  Deaths from breast cancer rose to 522,000 last year.  Diagnosis of breast cancer rose 20% in four years to 1.7 million women in 2012.  Despite enormous effort in expense and brilliance, cancer seems to keep on keeping on, especially as the developing world claims the dubious benefits of modern culture.

The second story is indeed the ‘elephant in the living room’ that is becoming more and more difficult to overlook. Dr. Joel Brind (Professor of Endocrinology at City University in NY) and Dr. Angela Lanfranchi (breast cancer oncologist, medical school professor and surgeon) founded the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute (BCPI) in the late nineties and have for many years been voices crying in the wilderness regarding the correlation between induced abortions, birth control drugs and breast cancer.  On their website (see link) dozens of studies over many years document these relationships.  A small minority of studies doesn’t show this correlation, and those are the studies most frequently cited by Planned Parenthood and other defenders of abortion, including the current administration in Washington.  The negative finding studies were sometimes funded by abortion advocates or employed flawed methodology in compiling their statistics, according to BCPI.

Last week, the voice of BCPI was joined by a most unlikely chorus – a China based meta study and a study based in India that ties without doubt induced abortion and breast cancer. The meta-analysis from China was published in the peer reviewed international journal, “Cancer Causes and Control.”  A meta-analysis studies data from many experiments and draws conclusions from all of them.  China’s recently modified one child policy has resulted so far in 336 million induced abortions, so there is no lack of subjects available.  The results showed a 44% increase in breast cancer risk for women with a single induced abortion, a 76% increased risk for women with two, and an 89% raised risk for women with more than two.  Dr. Brind commented their findings as “of the sort of magnitude that has typified the link between cigarettes and lung cancer.”

A study in the Indian Journal of Community Medicine found a six fold increased risk for breast cancer for women who have had abortions.  The governments of China and India support abortion, so there is no political motivation for these findings.

For birth control pills, the evidence is also clear.  The birth control pill is actually listed along with tobacco, formaldehyde and plutonium as a group 1 carcinogen by both the American Cancer Society and the World Health Organization.  Group 1 carcinogens are proven to cause cancer.

The reason these facts are not discussed with the women showing up for abortions or birth control pills at Planned Parenthood and other providers and/or advocates for these things is secular orthodoxy revolving around “women’s reproductive rights.”  That Planned Parenthood performed over 327 thousand abortions last year at an average billing of between $300 and $950 ($202 million per year at average) perhaps could influence their reticence[1].  That the pink epicenter of breast cancer awareness, the Susan G Komen Institute funds over $500,000 per year to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screening[2] may have something to do with their reluctance to publicize these facts. Federal funding for Planned Parenthood under the Obama administration has risen to an all time high of tax payer money – $540 million last year or $1.5 million a week.  Great incentive exists to limit scrutiny.  History will eventually sort out this, as it sorted out a geocentric universe.  For 1.7 million women last year, the sorting will be too late.

“The Muslim world is threatened by religious fanaticism.  The Western world is threatened by secular fanaticism.”  Dennis Prager

[1] Planned Parenthood has 33 executives making more than $200,000 per year.  Their president, Cecile Richards, makes $583,323 annually.

[2] Planned Parenthood’s well publicized breast cancer screenings used to justify the Komen grants dropped 14% last year and a total of 29% from 2009 to 2011. Their screenings are all manual, similar to a self examination.  Although they have publically touted mammograms, none of their facilities actually do them or have the equipment.  They do referrals.


Filed under Culture views

2 responses to “Pink Orthodoxy and The Real War on Women

  1. Rita

    Thanks Jack for this well researched and powerful blog.

    Jack often hears me grumbling about “pink” when it is used by football players, and other athletes as accents on their uniforms or when the White House sports a huge pink ribbon In its foyer. I sound like a crazy person when I mumble “I hate pink!” But it’s because I love women, especially young women in their early teens, as young as 10 yrs., who are cavalierly put on birth control in order for them to be “protected” from unwanted, or unprotected sex. The first message this young girl gets is she is now available for sex and the first message the guys around her get is she is now available for sex. Since there is no such thing as “safe” sex, she is instantly exposed to over 50 STDs. BC doesn’t protect women from STDs. Condoms don’t protect women from all STDs. When women have been on BC for many years, the lining of their uterus, which ages twice as fast while on BC, may not support a pregnancy when she decides to have a baby in her thirties. Infertility is a major side-effect of long term use of BC. Then there is the breast cancer link to BC and the backup to failed BC, abortion.

    Is this not the real war on women??!! It makes me want to weep… I hate the color pink! I hate the secular age ignoring the dangers of birth control and abortion for women. No one wants to listen. Priests don’t want to talk about it from the church pulpit. Doctors hand out this poison to youngsters who should still be playing hopscotch, without blinking and eye. Parents don’t want to listen as they are probably using BC themselves. It’s a perfect, death dealing, Luciferian plot to silence the truth. For what? Population control? We’re about to enter a demographic winter… Free love? Nothing in life is free folks…

    For those of you who are about to send your sons and daughters to college, I recommend the book Unprotected by Mariam Grossman. Dr. Grossman is a psychiatrist who worked at Columbia U. and saw girls who needed counseling. She first wrote the book under a pseudonym as she was afraid she would lose her job. She now writes openly about the issues Jack and I mentioned above.


    • One of the ironies in Pink Orthodoxy is that doctors can prescribe birth control pills, even doctors through the public schools, to minors without their parent’s consent or knowledge. The kid can’t take an aspirin without a note from home, but they can be given a politically correct group 1 carcinogen that makes them sexually available to any predator on the prowl.

      It is well documented that a twenty something “friend” or “uncle” can bring a fifteen year old they impregnated to a Planned Parenthood clinic for an abortion without fear of being dimed out as a statutory rapist, even though the law is clear they are supposed to be reported. Infuriating.

      I don’t think anything is more important than protecting our kids and grandkids from this morbidly disordered culture. They are the future who will either make things better or get pulled under themselves.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.