Let me see if I have this right. People who care deeply about finding a cure for breast cancer are no longer going to support the foundation that has done the most to advance that goal because...because that foundation has decided to no longer donate the money people donate to them, to financially support the organization most known for single handedly killing LOTS of women (aka unborn female babies)?
Do I have that right?
What? Planned Parenthood is doing cancer research now?
So the Race for the Cure isn't really about curing breast cancer? It's about showing support for one of the nation's biggest abortion provider? Figure in that a lot of research that shows that abortion increases the chance of a woman developing breast cancer and it kind of seems equivalent to the American Lung Association donating money to cigarette companies so that they'll donate free cigarettes to everyone who smokes, doesn't it?
The son of a woman who died of breast cancer jumped all over me because I made the mistake of being glad the Susan G. Koman Foundation had wised up. His mother died a horrible death, yadda, yadda, yadda...
I really wanted to ask him how many dead babies it would take to make up for his loss? I'll bet (and hope) they gave his mother a lot of things to help alleviate her pain while she was dying.  I don't doubt she suffered, but I've never heard of anyone giving dying babies a thing for their pain. Have you? Those babies are drowned and burned to death in salt water or torn apart and scraped from their private little God-made incubator, or in the case of full-grown babies who would easily survive outside their so-called mother's womb, turned feet first so they can go through all the trauma of birth, and then pulled, unnaturally, out the birth canal--except the poor baby's head.  Then scissors or knives or other instruments of pain and death are jabbed into the baby's brain so the baby can be (finally) delivered dead. I can't help wondering if that man's mother would have liked the thought of babies dying in exchange for her own life, even if they were actually using the throw-away babies to find a cure for cancer.
Now if the Susan G. Koman Foundation was giving money to Planned Parenthood to cover the cost of mammograms, it might make a little bit of sense, but all Planned Parenthood does is refer women to 'other' providers. Why not let the Susan G. Koman Foundation donate to the 'other' providers, the people and organizations who actually give mammograms?  Guess we will never know, because the people who like dead babies are generally the ones who yell the loudest and feign outrage the best. Without a single bit of common sense (more people donating= more money for finding a cure + more money to help more women actually get mammograms rather than referrals = earlier detection = less breast cancer deaths = their goal) they diverted attention from the cause they claim to care about, attacking the organization doing the most to make their goal a reality. Curing breast cancer. And the Susan G. Koman Foundation will get less money because, literally, the people who historically donate the most money  to causes--minus the baby killers--won't be as ready to donate now that their money is still going to help Planned Parenthood stay in the baby killing business.

Last week, several people on Facebook derided and condemned a teenager in California who wanted to start a boycott of Girl Scout cookies because the organization was admitting a 7 year old who was 'transgender.' There is so much wrong with this picture, I don't even know where to start.  But the point of those posts was to point out how intolerant (and wrong) that teenager was.  The same people were on the front lines (on Facebook) to condemn Tim Tebow for his 'inappropriate displays' of his religion in public.  They derided and ridiculed him. Where is their tolerance now?
I remember a time when people weren't nearly so 'tolerant' and, believe it or not, the world was a much nicer place.  Kids didn't run through stores screaming and knocking things about like they do now.  (Their parents wouldn't 'tolerate' them acting like that.)  People who cheated on their spouses weren't so open about it and when it was discovered, the 'cheaters' went down in everyone's estimation. Teenage pregnancy was whispered about--not admired--and so there was less of it and the 'norm' wasn't mothers--who are still children themselves--raising children without the help of a father.
Disapproval has its place in society.  It helps keep the world balanced and people in check rather than doing whatever feels good, no matter who it hurts. Why in the world, are we tolerating a situation where a 7 year old even knows what transgender means? (What has happened to that kid that it has even come up? At 7, shouldn't the kid be aware only that there is an anatomical difference between boys and girls, but happily oblivious to any sexual meanings? Someone needs to investigate this situation!)
And why are the people who constantly preach 'tolerance,' the least tolerant of all, if it is something they don't agree with?
The first Bible verse I remember learning in Sunday School was "Be ye kind, one to another." I wish we could go back to teaching kindness rather than tolerance.  There is a difference.