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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Won't Hear Abortion-Breast Cancer Link Lawsuit Women Filed
LifeNews.com ^ | October 18, 2004 | Steven Ertelt

Posted on 10/18/2004 2:14:28 PM PDT by nickcarraway

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case filed by two California women who sued Planned Parenthood abortion businesses there because they refuse to disclose information concerning the link between abortion and breast cancer.

The nation's high court allowed a decision by the California Supreme Court to stand and told the women they must pay $77,000 in attorney fees to the nation's largest abortion business.

The women had asked a judge to required the Planned Parenthood abortion business in San Diego and Riverside counties to tell women considering an abortion that induced abortions increase the risk of breast cancer.

Of the 41 studies which have been previously published, 29 show increased risk of breast cancer among women who have chosen abortion. According to the Breast Cancer Prevention Institution, some 16 of those studies are statistically significant.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons says the relationship is "highly plausible" and women may reconsider abortion if they are told the facts.

"The AAPS believes that patients have the right to give or withhold fully informed consent before undergoing medical treatment. This includes notification of potential adverse effects," says AAPS executive director Jane Orient, M.D.

According to BCPI, a teenager who has an abortion between 9 and 24 weeks of pregnancy -- when most are performed -- has a 30% chance of developing breast cancer in her lifetime, compared with a 12.5% risk among all women.

If that same teenager also has a family history of breast cancer, the risk increases so much that one study showed all such women developed breast cancer by the age of 45.

A medical research analyst for the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation resigned last month because she is upset that the group denies the link between abortion and breast cancer and has sent large grants to Planned Parenthood.

According to former Komen public relations director Kristin Kelly, Komen affiliates awarded $38.4 million in grants to support community outreach programs in 2003. That figure includes 21 grants to their local Planned Parenthood chapters totaling more than $475,000.

When confronted with data showing Komen made donations to Planned Parenthood, the information didn't sit well with Komen analyst Eve Sanchez Silver. The Hispanic outreach director for the national chairty, SIlver resigned in protest.

Related web sites:

Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer - http://www.AbortionBreastCancer.com

Breast Cancer Prevention Institute - http://www.bcpinstitute.org

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons - http://www.aapsonline.org


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: abortion; courts; lawsuit; prolife; supremecourt

1 posted on 10/18/2004 2:14:31 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy

ping


2 posted on 10/18/2004 2:14:52 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Why should they pay attorney fees? Sounds like justice is hard to come by in California, and even the Supreme Court. Don't mess with the abortion industry.


3 posted on 10/18/2004 2:27:00 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah; Desdemona; cpforlife.org; MHGinTN; Mr. Silverback

ping


4 posted on 10/18/2004 2:38:27 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Why did the court refuse to hear the case? Where there problems with how the case was brought or other legal things that have nothing to do with science?


5 posted on 10/18/2004 2:40:15 PM PDT by foolscap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Why should they pay attorney fees?

The courts ruled their arguments as frivolous.

6 posted on 10/18/2004 2:47:51 PM PDT by Poohbah (SKYBIRD SKYBIRD DO NOT ANSWER...SKYBIRD SKYBIRD DO NOT ANSWER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
When confronted with data showing Komen made donations to Planned Parenthood, the information didn't sit well with Komen analyst Eve Sanchez Silver. The Hispanic outreach director for the national chairty, SIlver resigned in protest.

Good for her.

7 posted on 10/18/2004 3:10:26 PM PDT by cgk (Teresa Heinz Kerry: ``The Democratic machine in this country is putrid.'')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
This sounds like an odd way to go about pursuing a case like this. Instead of filing a lawsuit against Planned Parenthood on these grounds, a plaintiff would be better off doing the following:

1. Find a woman who had an abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic, and who later developed breast cancer.

2. Hire John Edwards to sue the clinic into bankruptcy.

3. Repeat Steps 1 and 2 until Planned Parenthood no longer exists.

8 posted on 10/18/2004 3:53:02 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (I made enough money to buy Miami -- but I pissed it away on the Alternative Minimum Tax.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case filed by two California women who sued Planned Parenthood abortion businesses there because they refuse to disclose information concerning the link between abortion and breast cancer.

It was a phony case based on statistics that were both misrepresented (by those framing the case) and misunderstood (by many of those believing the characterization of those framing the case) done for polemical purposes.

The fact is that abortion didn't increase the risk of breast cancer; it merely very, very, very slightly decreased (if at all) a protection against breast cancer afforded by pregnancy/breastfeeding through the interrupting of menses. In no study did the so-called "risk" exceed that of women who had never given birth nor breastfed.
9 posted on 10/18/2004 4:08:18 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

That is 100% false. Even Dr. Janet Darling, who is vehemently prochoice, found in her study that breast cancer risk is increased by abortion. That is especially true for certain women. For example, women who have a family risk of breast cancer and get an abortion in their teens or early 20s, have been found virtually certain to get breast cancer.


10 posted on 10/18/2004 4:29:48 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
That is 100% false.

Unfortunately, no.
11 posted on 10/18/2004 4:50:08 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; Notwithstanding

Ooops. I posted this, too. I just found out about it. Double posting. DANG IT ALL!!!!!!!!! I can't believe this.


12 posted on 10/19/2004 3:47:13 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
The fact is that abortion didn't increase the risk of breast cancer
Can you explain us then, what did ?
13 posted on 10/19/2004 5:02:39 PM PDT by Truth666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | 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