[Saundra Duffy]

The law suit was filed in August 2001 in San Diego; the legal muscle is being provided by Thomas More Center out of Michigan. We had a news conference when the suit was filed, complete with hostile press. Planned Parenthood called us a bunch of names including "extremists". I have a history of skin cancer and my mother died of cancer. I wish I had known about the LINK between sun exposure and skin cancer so I could have protected myself. Now that I know, I can take precautions. The other two plaintiffs have had abortions and are angry because they weren't given all the facts; they worry about developing breast cancer. If we are successful (and many believe we will be!), it could change the future of abortion. All we are saying is women should be given ALL THE FACTS in order to make an INFORMED DECISION. Why is that so controversial?

[Saundra Duffy]

This is a little scary. Planned Parenthood (BIG BUSINESS) is going to come after us with everything they have. We have been warned they may sue us back individually. Actually, I'm not worried about that cuz I don't have anything in the way of material wealth. For victory & freedom!!!

[joathome]

Good going!

[mlmr]

For Pete's Sake sue them for money. The way to cripple a business of death is to sue it.

[Media2Powerful]

Why is that so controversial?

Beats the heck outta me! If does prove that pro-choice activists do not care about facts. They are uninterested in whether the baby can feel anything. They do not even consider whether the child is a "life" or not. They cannot conceive of a circumstance when it is not okay to kill the unborn. And, this lawsuit proves that they don't even really care about the woman.

For the sex-obsessed left it's always only about one thing---"gimme my smut, or give me death.."

[rainingred]

Good luck, and keep us posted.

[doug from upland]

This is great, Sandra.

[ArGee]

Evidence shows that women who have abortions, especially in their younger years, have a greater risk of developing breast cancer later in life.

The study I read made the link to the abortion of the woman's first pregnancy. More than just a statistical analysis, the research suggested that the first time a woman is pregnant her brests change to be able to produce milk. The rapid transformation is a special development cycle that only occurs in the first pregnancy. If a woman has an abortion in the first pregnancy the transformation is not completed properly. This may lead to the development of cancerous behavior in the cells that were changing rapidly to support the mother's nurturing role.

G-d bless you. You'll be in my prayers.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Ping!

[kidd]

YES!!!! I once calculated that the risk of developing and dying from breast cancer following an aborion (when the woman did not previously give birth during a prior pregnancy) is many many times higher than the risk of taking a pregnancy to full term. So much for abortion being "safe". Its all a big lie. Get 'em.

[CounterCounterCulture]

BUMP for justice!

Abort Planned Parenthood.

[Truliberty]

May the Lord give you victory, Amen!

[aruanan]

Saundra, there's a link between pregnancy, onset of menses, number of births, age at first birth, breastfeeding, length of time breastfeeding, and age at which breastfeeding first occurred and breast cancer. ALL of these have stronger statistical links to breast cancer than abortion is alleged to have. If abortion could possibly have any link to breast cancer it would be for the same reason that breastfeeding for a shorter rather than longer time has a link to breast cancer: both get a woman back into the cycle of ovulation sooner. The greater a woman's total number of fertile cycles, the greater her chance of developing breast cancer. Abortion, though a bad thing for many other reasons, isn't adding a risk, it's merely interrupting the reduction of risk. Because of this, a woman who has had a mid-second trimester abortion would still suffer less risk of breast cancer, all else being equal, than a woman who has never given birth and has never breastfed. Face it, you're using something that's statistically not even substantiated for a political and moral purpose. Although your ultimate goals are to be praised, you still shouldn't abuse science. What you are doing is almost exactly equivalent both in methodology and tactics to what global warming advocates are doing with the greenhouse effect and CO2 (of course, in their case their end goal is nothing to be praised for). Lest you think to characterize me as being pro-abortion, I'll just say that I have written and posted some of the best anti-abortion pieces ever to have appeared on FreeRepublic.

[Harrison Bergeron]

According to the government's own figures, breast cancer, all by itself - not including any other female specific cancers - receives more government funding than all male and childhood specific cancers combined. This does not include the benefit concerts, the big Hollywood names, the New York elite cocktail parties, the corporate tie-ins, or the breast cancer portion of the American Cancer Society funds.

It's big business, with the deepest pockets of all the "disease specific" charities. The battle to maintain this status quo will be fought fiercly and no quarter will be given to anyone who threatens to upset the apple cart.

[TheOtherOne]

Link to the case number and reference at the SD Sup. Ct.

BERNARDO vs PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA

[Vladiator]

Every Story has Two Sides.

It's all politics and fund raising.

[areafiftyone]

I wish you lots of luck you are taking on the Big Guns. Keep us posted.

[martian_22]

There are people we can't see or hear thanking you. They are future's humanity.

BTTT!

[aposiopetic]

It is good to urge them to tell the truth. May what you're going through be of (ever)lasting benefit.

[Paulie]

I think it's a mistake not to sue for as much money as you can get. Please reconsider.

[Slyfox]

Bump