Clinton Announces Ambitious Breast Cancer Research Effort

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

April 7, 2008 04:49 AM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.
Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., cups her ear as reporters ask her about Mark Penn, the pollster and senior strategist for Clinton's presidential bid who left the campaign Sunday, at the airport in Albuquerque, N.M., Sunday, April 6, 2008. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

WASHINGTON — A proposal by Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton would provide $300 million a year in increased government funding on breast cancer research, focusing on treatment and exploring possible genetic and environmental triggers for the disease.

The presidential hopeful and former first lady discussed her plan with talk show host Ellen DeGeneres on her television show, which was scheduled to air Monday. As president, Clinton told DeGeneres, she would set a goal of finding a cure for the disease within 10 years.

Clinton's plan would increase funding for breast cancer research and treatment through programs at the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, and the Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program.

It would also help more low-income women gain access to screenings like mammograms by making them more affordable. Among other things, she would eliminate Medicare co-payments for mammograms.

Clinton also planned to propose a new program to explore racial disparities in diagnosis and treatment of the disease.

About 40,000 women died of breast cancer in the United States in 2007, and some 240,000 new cases were expected to be diagnosed this year.

 
 

Comments
172
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)

President Nixon during his January 1971 State of the Union address first declared his intention for the war on cancer.

Since that time everyday more than 1,500 men, women and children die of cancer in the U.S.

We are seeing increases in many types of cancers to include pediatric cancer patients that are being diagnosed at a rate of two class rooms full of children or approximately 46+ children every school day in this country.

The American Cancer Society reports this year in the United States in neighborhoods across the country we will have over 200,000 women that will diagnosed with breast cancer and over 40 thousand women will die of breast cancer.

In the book The Secret War on Cancer, author Devra Davis, who heads up the world's first Center on Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute points out that while American"s today are living longer and better, we are also seeing the growth in chronic diseases, like cancer and neurological problems. The question of the combined effects of radiation and small doses of chemicals on our health over the long term is generally not being asked by those in positions to set standards for such materials.

Yes the cure is critical...but we must look to prevention and the environmental exposures choices that are both known and suspected to be linked to cancer.

Bill Couzens Founder Lesscancer.org

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:14 PM on 04/07/2008

The comment here are disgusting. Does any one think before they post?

Clinton co-sponsored the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act in 2007.

In 2005, she was inducted into the National Breast Cancer Coalition's Congressional Hall of Fame for her work increasing breast cancer awareness
and research funding.

As First Lady she helped create the National Action Plan on Breast Cancer.

She is getting totally trashed her and for what? A breast cancer plan. Something she has been involved in for years and years. This is absurd.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:44 PM on 04/07/2008

I always imagined people in the porn industry as being major supports of research for breast cancer

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:19 PM on 04/07/2008

Sen. Obama has already beat her to it......He talks about Women's health isues , including breast cancer on his website........uh-oh Hillary~!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:12 PM on 04/07/2008

Not exactly. Hillary has been working on this since Obama was in college...uh-oh Lucie.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:29 PM on 04/07/2008

To be fair, while Obama might have beat her to it as posting it as a campaign issue, Hillary does have a bit of a history with heallth care issues.

That said, it should be a non-issue. Both candidates have plans. You don't need to be a woman to understand cancer - though certain types may be gender specific. But then, guys can get a few of those gender-specific neoplasms too. Prostate cancer comes to mind. Though I guess thinking about it that way does make you wonder - why is Hillary being gender-specific, and not gender-neutral by suggesting funding for all of the most indiscrimibatory and pervasive cancers.

It's hard not to see where the suspicion of deliberate con-artistry comes from. But it's just as likely there's nothing to it except a temporary lapse of thinking in a gender-neutral sense.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:39 PM on 04/07/2008

Health care is not a non-issue. Clinton has worked on breast cancer, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer and cancer research in general. Making a gender issue out of this is absurd.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:31 PM on 04/07/2008

I didn't say health care is a non issue. I said the argument over who has a better handle on it should be. I hope twisitng my words to your advantage gave you comfort, though.

If any attempt to be even-minded is met with an attempt to be divisive, I think my point about con-artistry is very nearly proved.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:23 AM on 04/08/2008

Lord, cancer patients will be in serious trouble waiting on a SOLUTION from Hillary----period.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:30 PM on 04/07/2008

Obama would do well to begin appealing to woman on the emotional issues that attract many woman to Clinton.

Equality of woman in society, parenting, breast cancer, autism, etc.

If he can pick up on these concerns these Hillary supporters will still have a voice for these hot topics and turn support over to Obama when Hillary drops out.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:20 PM on 04/07/2008

Great! This is wonderful! Good job, Hillary! It may well be pandering towards what you perceive as your 'base', but it is still an important step in the fight against this disease.

However, that being said, I remain firm in my belief that (1) most women are too intelligent to base their vote or political backing solely on gender and (2) this admittedly very fine proposal doesn't make you a better presidential candidate.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:29 PM on 04/07/2008

I have no problem with breast cancer research (I got my PhD doing lymphoma research and continue to do medical research) but this Clinton proposal is blatant pandering to her base and an attempt to change the news cycle. Why not increase funding of cancer research in general, or the #1 cause of cancer induced mortality - lung cancer? Everything she does seems to be microtrend poll tested and calculated to help her in her quest for power.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:41 PM on 04/07/2008

For a PhD Drmavis, you aren't winning any awards now are you?

This is exactly what she should be doing and what Obama should be doing now.

Just because one has a PhD doesn't assume that it follows that your opinions would be of the same relevance when talking about anything else.

Of course, as a researcher, you should know that the scientific method calls for much study and testing.

Pure opinion, without real research, is not good science. And it's not good for anything else either.

I give you an F for failing.

Sheesh, and this is the caliber of so-called researchers?

No wonder my bills are so darn high!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:54 PM on 04/07/2008

Lay off the personal attacks (you don't know anything about me or my accomplishments), read my post, and respond to my points next time.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:20 PM on 04/07/2008

What research led you to your charge of pandering....Hillary is a woman with breasts.....that could be the reason, but your "large brain' led you to pick a small reason...interesting, says loads about you, not Hillary. If she cured cancer you would probably complain she did 5 seconds too late....shut up if all you have is baseless opinion.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:52 PM on 04/07/2008

Its great to support breast cancer research. But I see Hillary's move on this now is politically motivated more than anything else. It is her way to secure her base of women supporters. But that also shows the only way she does things is to pitch one group again another.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:51 PM on 04/07/2008

You see everything she does from your own narrow perspective.....no surprise there.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:53 PM on 04/07/2008

***and this just in: 8 out of 10 obama supporters now oppose all funding for breast cancer research.***

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:33 PM on 04/07/2008

Are you always that stupid?

No one objects to Breast Cancer research. They object to Clinton pandering to Edwards and women to get votes.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:47 PM on 04/07/2008

your mother.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:25 PM on 04/07/2008

She has supported and worked for health care and research for over 30 years, did Obama start before her? When he was 12 did he collect cans and turn them in for money for breast cancer research....you Obamatrons are so stupid you actually are arguing against Hillary supporting breast cancer research as if Obama somehow owns it and she is stealing it....are you actually FOR breast cancer research or just looking to trash Hillary, it's hard to tell any more.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:56 PM on 04/07/2008

BINGO!

First the "Poverty Czar" (for John) and now the "Breast Cancer Research Effort" (for Liz).

She's pimping that endorsement hard.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:30 PM on 04/07/2008

ok maybe you can go further to say that all the women supporting Obama encourage break cancer spread...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:53 PM on 04/07/2008

Actually for those of you who are completely unable it seems to do a quick google search--Hillary has been nominated in 2005 to The National Breast Cancer Coalition Hall of Fame saying:

"Clinton was selected because of her advocacy efforts in the fight against breast cancer. Clinton says that although many strides have been made in that fight, there is still a great amount of work to be done.

Clinton is an original cosponsor of the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2005, which was introduced in Congress last month. "

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=3&aid=51129

In addition, she has argued and championed the issue of breast cancer as far back as her days as first lady.

Now I am aware that cosponsoring a bill requires no action or dedication on the part of the sponsorer, but it does send home the message to constituents where one stands on an issue. Therefore, to say that she is proposing this just now as a means of regaining the women's vote or Edwards' support is I find pathetic. Maybe it is you who needs to step outside of your shell and look at what it is you are saying.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:03 PM on 04/07/2008

I agree that Hillary has long advocated on this important issue, and has a lot of other sound policy proposals as well. I look forward to her becoming Senate Majority Leader and working with President Obama to get laws on the books that will improve the health and welfare of Americans!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:13 PM on 04/07/2008

I agree that Hillary has a lot of good plans or ideas. But given how divisive she is she will not be able to get a majority in Washington to realize her plans. Whats the goodness of promises without a chance to realize them? Her campaign has been using opportunistic tactics using one group against the other and discounting whoever not on their side.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:59 PM on 04/07/2008

Ya we all get 2,000 as soon as Hillary is elected. She's going to ask Mark Penn to give Americans back some of the 10,000,000. Hillary gave him and give a piece of the pie to the cancer research center. Oh, now maybe Bill going to give some of that 51 million he got from burkles to the cancer society. You know they have so much money, and use it so wisely, and ran this campagne so financially smart I'm sure she could find a few million for the cancer research center, after all she did so good she had to loan herself 5 million dollars on her campagne trail to keep going! Yes, this is the woman that surely could find a few million laying around for the cancer center---------even if it was from Peter Paul on tax fraud----------or Mark Penn and his colobian connections. After all she came up with 381 Million dollars of pork spending, to Obama 92 million and Mccains 0 spending. Ya this woman has a way of comeing up with dirty or clean money as she sucks Americans dry to get it----------I'm sure she can promise a smalll amount back to the cancer research center----------God bless her!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:33 PM on 04/07/2008

The facts you are citing are wrong.....just fyi, Bill didn't get 51 mill from Burkles, it is 15 mill....at least try to use your brain to trash them....a few facts, something interesting, just a bunch of stuff that's wrong makes you look silly.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:00 PM on 04/07/2008

You are the reason Breast Cancer is still not on the top research list.

In any case. Boo on anyone who doesn't support this.


I'm tired of my girlfriends dying from this disease.

I don't care if it's a diversion.

It is relevant

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:29 PM on 04/07/2008

If people were not marching away from Clinton in droves, maybe you would have a case.

But it's a mass exodus out there.

People are having buyers remorse.

Look at PA. Her support dried up there in only 2 weeks,

They are realizing that Clinton will say this stuff just to get elected.

Everyone knows Clinton would forget she ever said this once elected.

She's not our candidate anymore.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:56 PM on 04/07/2008

IF I"M ELECTED PRESIDENT, EVERYONE GETS A BMW - OR A MERCEDES - OR A VETTE - OR A PORSCHE. YOUR CHOICE!!!

So vote for OTAY...otay?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:53 PM on 04/07/2008

If she only put forth in the senate 1% of what Obama has, there might be a shred of truth in this. Instead, this pathological LIAR just keeps going - LIE after LIE. So, how stupid does she think women are? We are going to vote for a president based on their breast-cancer stand?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:40 PM on 04/07/2008

Senator Obama has accomplished--what, in the Senate, exactly? You mean, perhaps, the many subcommittee hearings he has held, for example? The extensive bipartisan legislation? The always showing up for important votes part?

Give me a break.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:35 PM on 04/07/2008

Oh yeah Freedom Lover X???

Gee, I think that having won a SECOND SENATE TERM counts for something don't you?

Obama hasn't even finished ONE TERM and he was already running for president when he was elected to the Senate?

Please put your thinking cap on.

He's Black, don't you know and that's all he is other than being an excellent orator.

He hasn't done anything for me or my family as a United States Senator running for President!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:58 PM on 04/07/2008

He lied and called you a racist ....that's something.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:02 PM on 04/07/2008

Hillary's going after the women's vote strictly. She's positioned herself as the woman's candidate and her entire campaign is based on 3 things:
1) Her husband's name recognition

2) Cronyism by promising everyone that supporters her cushy well paying jobs in her administration

3) The fact that she's a woman.

Her constituency is mostly women desperate to see a woman in the White House, regardless of qualification and ignorant people who wrongly credit Bill Clinton for the prosperity of the 90s (rather than Alan Greenspan and the internet bubble).

If Barack Obama had been as sleazy a politician and had exposed as an opportunistic liar as Hillary has, African Americans would have abandoned him long ago.

Meanwhile, Hillary's campaign has been racked by one scandal after another; her multidimensional hypocrisy on NAFTA, sleazy Muslim whisper campaign (complete with Matt Drudge photo), her never ending surrogate race baiting, her delusional James Bond adventures in Bosnia, her now disproved claims of "35 years of experience", etc, etc, AND YET - women continue to support her based on simple gender bias.

It's so sad to see women put gender before party and before country.
And even sadder that so many women can be so easily manipulated by a purely emotional appeal to Sister Solidarity that nullifies logic and reason.

There are many women who have seen the light and jumped off Hillary's bandwagon but there are still many more that remain on board for nothing more than the sheer estrogen level of her

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:18 PM on 04/07/2008

And Obama's whole story is that he is a Black United States Senator, NOT that he has done anything of any relevance.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:00 PM on 04/07/2008

Barack avoided ANY mention of race in his campaign until the race baiting started and they tried to hang the Jeremiah Wright thing around his neck, plus the Geraldine Ferraro racist diatribe (which Hillary took 3 weeks to finally address!!).

THAT'S when he finally addressed the race question.

He has NEVER been the "Black candidate", but rather the AMERICAN candidate and has only spoken a populist message that appeals and helps ALL Americans, regardless of color or gender or ethnicity.

And in ALL his speeches, regardless of how badly he was doing in the polls, he NEVER ONCE played the victim, never once appealed to Blacks or intellectuals or lefty progressives or males or ANY group that you might call "his base" to rally around him on the virtue of his IDENTITY.

Instead he won people over with the force of his logic, his unassailable integrity, resilience, charisma, probity, unflappability and even temperment.

Hillary' been a shrieking, hissyfitting junior high "Mean Girl" who can't believe she doesn't get to be Class President, even after all the popular kids clicques were in her back pocket.

But she didn't count on the nerds, the uncool, the poor kids and the unfashionable "normal" kids coming together and electing the honest kid with a positive vision of change that benefits the entire student body - not just the It Crowd.

That's why Barack Obama is winning, has won and WILL BE the next President.

Meanwhile Hillary will go down in history as the political

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:59 PM on 04/07/2008

Law of Attraction,

You are so right! As a woman, I am disgusted with the premise that we must support this woman, this woman, this woman.....My God this woman! I recently posted a commentary to www.democrats.org wherein I proposed some rational thought and information for dems to peruse and think for themselves. The posting did not use fowl language, nor was it incendiary. Was it controversial, y