Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Politics prevents women from learning about abortion/breast cancer risks
Jewish World Review ^ | 9/19/03 | Drs. Michael A. Glueck & Robert J. Cihak

Posted on 09/19/2003 5:46:54 PM PDT by rhema

Whatever your personal, spiritual or scientific beliefs regarding abortion you have the right to know the facts.

Abortion-on-demand has been with us for over thirty years - far too long for most people to remember what the pro-abortion movement promised America in the years preceding Roe v Wade. "Woman's Body, Woman's Right" - I want it because I want it - was only part of the sales package.

Two other claims were made. One was that, when every child was a "wanted" child, unhappy marriages, divorce, child abuse, spousal abuse, and sundry other woes and dysfunctions would evanesce. The other claim: Abortion-on-demand would have neither physical nor psychological long-term ill effects.

Some thirty years later, we can numerate abortion's "benefits" to society. >From decades of soaring divorce and spousal abuse, abortion-on-demand has been a disaster. Nor is it any longer possible to deny the long-term psychological effects, not when everyone has a story to tell, about themselves or someone they know. But only now is the evidence of long-term physical danger becoming scientifically apparent.

And lots of people don't want you to know about it.

According to a new study published in the Summer 2003 Issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JP&S) titled "The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: How Politics Trumped Science and Informed Consent" some scientists, women's groups, doctors and media outlets, for their own personal and political purposes, have consistently suppressed or ignored research that establishes a direct link between abortion and breast cancer.

The JP&S article discusses the epidemiologic evidence of an ABC (Abortion-Breast Cancer) link; the silence and denial of the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association and women's groups; media filtration of the story; the bitter opposition of pro-abortion politicians; the implications for patient care; and medical malpractice issues. Further, as a result of withholding this evidence women considering abortion are not given adequate information about the real risks and are not given enough information to provide valid consent.

According to Malec, political and medical authorities suppressed or ignored several studies conducted as early as 1957 as well as later post-Roe research that showed significantly higher rates of breast cancer in the "Roe Generation." For example, in 1996, Joel Brind, Ph.D., professor of biology and endocrinology at City University of New York's Baruch College, and co-authors published a review of the data on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer; they estimated that an excess of 5,000 cases of breast cancer were attributable to abortion, and that the annual excess would increase by 500 cases each year. They predicted 25,000 excess cases in the year 2036.

But now comes politics - the politics of abortion as a political issue, and the politics of getting your research funded. Political pressure has apparently induced some authors of the cited studies to recant their own findings. Holly Howe, an author of a record-linkage case study in 1989, worked with a group of American Cancer Society (ACS) researchers who reviewed the research. By 1997, 11 of 12 US studies indicated increased risk, but Howe still stated the research - including her own - was "inconsistent" and that she could not arrive at "definitive conclusions."

Malec also found that the web pages of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and leading American and Canadian cancer organizations contain false statements, misrepresentation, and omissions in their discussions. One erroneous "fact sheet" on the NCI website attempted to deny the ABC link, citing 15 American studies. Yet the NCI provided some funding for most of the 15 American studies; and 13 out of 15 found that women who had abortions had an increased breast cancer risk. . . .

< snip >

Authors' Note: One of the writers supports a woman's choice to abort her fetus and the other supports the unborn baby's right to life.

Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D., is a multiple award winning writer who comments on medical-legal issues. Robert J. Cihak, M.D., is a past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and a Discovery Institute honorary fellow and board member. Both JWR contributors are Harvard trained diagnostic radiologists.

(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: abortion; breastcancer; catholiclist; informedconsent; prolife; pufflist

1 posted on 09/19/2003 5:46:56 PM PDT by rhema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rhema
BIngo! Try getting that put in a sex-ed course!
2 posted on 09/19/2003 5:48:22 PM PDT by .cnI redruM (There are two certainties. Death and Texas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema
Of course. Death is what they're about. Some marginal number of babies die, who would live if their mothers had accurate medical information. Then some additional number of women die from breast cancer, who would live if they had delivered the babies. All gain for the pro-death forces.

I'm only surprised that anyone would be surprised at this. Does anyone really believe they care about "choice" or benefits to women?
3 posted on 09/19/2003 6:00:56 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Sons are a headache from the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
for you
4 posted on 09/19/2003 6:33:32 PM PDT by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
Sadder yet is the craven silence of the groups who could be helping women make informed choices:

[last three paragraphs of the article]
Scientific and medical authorities admit that the reasons for this data suppression are political. The president of the American Society of Breast Surgeons said that she presented her concerns about getting information to the public about the abortion-breast cancer link to her board, but the board felt it was "too political." The director of the Miami Breast Cancer Conference explained that there was no presentation on the program because it was "too political." George Lundberg, former editor JAMA, said that abortion was on the journal's "don't touch" list.

These failures are an egregious example of medical organizations also suffering from the New York Times Syndrome and place a higher priority on political sensitivities than on accurate reporting of the general or scientific news.

So what's the remedy? Malec suggests that the whole issue may end up in court. Perhaps it will. But for now, just add "scientific honesty" and "medical integrity" to the list of abortion's victims - a fact that should cause you a certain sadness if you're pro-life . . . and a certain fear if you're not.

5 posted on 09/20/2003 3:48:28 AM PDT by rhema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
I'm only surprised that anyone would be surprised at this. Does anyone really believe they care about "choice" or benefits to women?

My wife has presented some of this information to groups soliciting contributions and asked them why they're silent. Needless to say, she wasn't given an answer.

6 posted on 09/20/2003 3:51:29 AM PDT by rhema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: coulson3
Here is some more information for you.
7 posted on 09/20/2003 4:18:48 AM PDT by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema
A lot of medical workers have come through our bawlderized, left of Sartre, university system and become politically radicalized. Abortion could make a woman 40 times more likely to get breast cancer and Dr. Dean wouldn't utter a peep.
8 posted on 09/20/2003 8:12:57 AM PDT by .cnI redruM (There are two certainties. Death and Texas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding; .45MAN; AAABEST; AKA Elena; al_c; american colleen; Angelus Errare; Antoninus; ...
Thanks!

As of 2003, 29 out of 39 studies show that women who had an induced abortion have an increased risk of developing breast cancer, as noted in the bar graph below.

Ping. (As usual, if you would like to be added to or removed from my "conservative Catholics" ping list, just send me a FReepmail. Please realize that some of my "ping" posts are long.)

9 posted on 09/20/2003 8:10:02 PM PDT by Polycarp ("The only thing worse than being patronized is being piously patronized." --FReeper Polycarp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
I'm sorry to have to ask, but could you explain the following setence in your above post?...

"Some marginal number of babies die, who would live if their mothers had accurate medical information."

10 posted on 09/20/2003 8:20:31 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rhema; *puff_list; Just another Joe; Flurry; SheLion; Max McGarrity; Madame Dufarge; CSM
Malec also found that the web pages of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and leading American and Canadian cancer organizations contain false statements, misrepresentation, and omissions in their discussions. One erroneous "fact sheet" on the NCI website attempted to deny the ABC link, citing 15 American studies. Yet the NCI provided some funding for most of the 15 American studies; and 13 out of 15 found that women who had abortions had an increased breast cancer risk. . . .

I have no clue why anyone would be surprised with this information.

Providing true scientific facts goes against every grain of the socialistic mindset of the liberals seeking to tell everyone what to do.

The nanny-do-gooders only wish you to know what they consider important to the sheeple.

The health-nazis claim that any increased risk of later breast cancer following an abortion is statistically insignificant. Yet the same gnatzies claim exposure to second hand smoke (SHS) is life threatening.

A 30% increase in risk of breast cancer after abortion is statistically insignificant (that is true) Yet the same people claim a 19% increase in risk of lung cancer due to second hand smoke exposure is prima facie evidence to ban smoking.

Can someone please explain to me the rationale behind this idiotic manipulation of science.............

11 posted on 09/20/2003 8:53:37 PM PDT by Gabz (Smoke-gnatzies - small minds buzzing in your business - SWAT'EM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
Some of this is indeed printed in the paper, but on page 30.

I am going to use this when I next write my minister of health.

12 posted on 09/21/2003 7:19:00 AM PDT by Great Dane (You can smoke just about everywhere in Denmark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
For the same reason they can be for the decrimilization of marijuana while being against smoking in bars and the same reason they can claim they are for the environment while opposing GMOs which lower the land requirements and reduce pesticide use and the same reason the can claim Bush's tax cuts are for the rich only while everyone gets a check.

They are Liberals, Facts are malleable to their position.

Though I will say on this subject just because the liberals employ and often get away with pushing junk science on their issues that doesn't mean Conservatives should do the same with ours which I am afraid to say is exactly what is happening with the breast cancer/abortion link some are promoting.  2 wrongs don't make a right and no matter how bad/evil you may feel abortion is the ends still don't justify the means and in the long run you are only going to end up hurting the prolife position, Especially since it's kind of morbid because it seems some are actually rooting for cancer.

13 posted on 09/21/2003 8:21:39 AM PDT by qam1 (Don't Patikify New Jersey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
No problem ... just accountant-speak! The marginal amount is the difference between Situation A and Situation B. So say you have (all numbers just examples) 100 pregnant women who walk into an abortion clinic. If they're told they have 3 or 4 times the risk of breast cancer if they abort, say 35 of them decide against abortion. If they're told there are no health risks, say 10 of them change their minds for some reason. So the number of deaths directly attributable to the lie ("marginal number") is 25.
14 posted on 09/21/2003 8:51:06 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Sons are a headache from the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: qam1
Especially since it's kind of morbid because it seems some are actually rooting for cancer.

Huh? The cancers are already occuring. Haven't you heard about the "breast cancer epidemic," seen the fund-raising postage stamps and all the pink ribbons?

The issue here is whether the medical establishment will be honest about a significant element in causation. At the moment, it's like they're pretending there's no evidence that smoking causes lung cancer.

15 posted on 09/21/2003 8:55:05 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Sons are a headache from the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson