Posted on 06/15/2006 2:00:12 PM PDT by Coleus
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 30 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 30 years later, we can numerate abortion's "benefits" to society. From decades of soaring divorce and spousal abuse we can conclude that 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. [http://www.aapsonline.org/jpands/vol8no2/malec.pdf]
The ABCs of Abortion
The JP&S article, written by Karen Malec, 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 U.S. 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, misrepresentations and omissions in their discussions. One erroneous "fact sheet" on the NCI Web site 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 the 15 found that women who had abortions had an increased breast cancer risk.
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. [http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/8/19/171827.shtml]
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.
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 former president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Contact Drs. Glueck and Cihak by e-mail.
MAYO CLINIC SAYS PATRICK KENNEDY CURED AGAIN
yea, i wonder how much they were paid off.
Ignoring the argument over abortion and breast cancer, it would be interesting to get the statistics to see how abortion is doing on all it's other promises.
It would make a great presentation for a commercial.
"What would you say to a program that promised things it didn't deliver?"
"One program promised to significantly reduce divorce, but since it's approval divorce has risen X%.
"This same program promised to reduce out-of-wedlock and unwanted births, but they are up by X% and Y%, respectively.
And it was supposed to help prevent child abuse, but child abuse is up X%.
"This program was even supposed to prevent spousal abuse, but that is up over X% since the program was enacted.
"If you had to pass judgment on such a program, you would say it is an abject failure.
"Now, what if further you were told that the program had led to the deaths of over 45 million innocent lives in our country alone? Surely you would be outraged.
"Well, that program is abortion, enacted by judicial fiat in 1972 and forced upon our country. All the promises of abortion have proven to be false, and we are left with a legacy of broken lives and shattered dreams.
"Isn't it time we found a better way?
I have seen similar articles before and mentioned this subject to family members. While all of them are pro-life, none of them had heard these studies.
While I cannot attest to scientific validity, it is saddening to see that such studies can be so easily suppressed due to politics. Saddening, but not surprising, given that the only "science" we are routinely subject to includes Al Gore's "unanimous opinion" of scientists regarding Global Warming.
This is also true regarding the "obvious" acceptance of evolution. It would be nice if there were more curiosity in the general public given the current hysteria over global warming and, who can forget, the "coming epidemic" of Heterosexual AIDS.
I would like to think that there is atleast one brave, outspoken representative that would introduce these abortion-breast cancer links stories into the public dialogue.
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
BUMP
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Due to the refusal (thus far) of Carl Limbacher to answer questions about why he allows his website to be used for the dissemination of treasonous lies and slander, I will not ping out any FR thread that is a post of a NewsMax article going forward from here. I suggest that those Freepers who maintain prolife lists adopt the same policy. I know this isn't exactly going to bring Carl and company to their knees, but at this point I will no longer be part of anything that gives them even one extra hit on their site.
Sorry if this causes the prolifers any inconvenience.
Y'all need to go to the National Right to Life web site. They have been talking about the abortion-breast cancer link for years. You can subscribe to their monthly newsletter, or to the free on-line Today's News and Views. I'm sure you will find these resources extremely informative.
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.