Posted on 03/29/2002 7:21:13 AM PST by Saundra Duffy
From: The Pro-Life Infonet Reply-To: Steven Ertelt Subject: Judge Rules for Abortion Facility in Abortion-Breast Cancer Case
Source: Pro-Life Infonet; March 28, 2002
Judge Rules for Abortion Facility in Abortion-Breast Cancer Case
Fargo, ND -- Fargo, ND -- After more than three days at trial in state court, Judge Michael McGuire ruled in favor of a North Dakota abortion facility that distributes information stating there is no link between abortion and breast cancer.
Ruling from the bench, Judge McGuire relied on trial testimony from those who deny a link between abortion and breast cancer -- despite testimony presented by expert witnesses showing evidence for the link.
McGuire asserted that it was reasonable for the abortion facility to rely on preeminent cancer research institutes, such as the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society, neither of which have acknowledged that there is an established link between abortion and breast cancer.
Pro-life advocate Amy Jo Kjolsrud filed a false advertising lawsuit against the Red River Women's Clinic abortion business for information contained in the brochures
You can send your comments about the case to:
Michael O. McGuire, Presiding Judge; East Central Judicial District; Cass County Courthouse; P.O. Box 2806; Fargo, ND 58108-2806; 701-241-5680; 701-241-5709 Fax
--
The Pro-Life Infonet is a daily compilation of pro-life news and information. To subscribe, send the message "subscribe" to: infonet-request@prolifeinfo.org. Infonet is sponsored by Women and Children First (http://www.womenandchildrenfirst.org). For more pro-life info visit http://www.prolifeinfo.org and for questions or additional information email ertelt@prolifeinfo.org
A true clinician learns to isolate what factors contribute to the clincal observation.
The link between the pill and breast cancer is completely independant of smoking, and is well established, with 80% of all published studies showing a positive link, higher for younger women and when used before first full term pregnancy.
Have you personally read "all published studies," or are you just quoting a line? I don't mean to be confrontational with you. I am absolutlely 100% pro-life. The pro-life position without question stands as the only correct position in the abortion debate. I also oppose the sexual promiscuity of women (and men) -- young or old -- regardless of whether they embolden themselves by use of the pill or not.
Face the issues of abortion and sexual promiscuity head-on. As a health issue, one would be advised to concentrate more on the observed increased frequency of Human Papilloma Virus risk --- a venereal disease associated with promiscuity and infertility --- relative to the increased observance of the appearace of cervical cancer.
I am always wary when people carelessly throw around statistics, and extrapolate clinical terminolgy in error simply in an attempt to appear more knowledgeable. The pro-life cause is not helped by charging up the debate with alarm about clinical issues which are not relevant, and not concentrating more on the ones which are.
This is not intended to be anything except to establish my bona fides to share my opinions on this issue.
Frankly, I do know more about this issue than some, but far less than others. I do not claim to be doing the actual research but I have indeed examined more of the research more closely than most here on Free Republic.
And frankly, I doubt that many of those attacking the ABC link know anything about this issue whatsoever. Their comments bely they are shooting from the hip, with no more knowledge of the subject than . . . I'll just stop here...
I suspect there are physicians who would claim the opposite. Your claim would be more convincing if you took the leading studies to the contrary and explained why they were invalid. Otherwise it appears that you're only presenting the side that favors your agenda.
I'm arrogant enough to point out your creepy behavior.
I am equally impressed with your credentials, doctor.
Well, that's a lie. The link has been proven, or at least the question is still open for debate. This Judge should be fired.
The liberals stand for everything the Constitution is against, including disrespect of human life, so no wonder liberal tyrants are so against individual enterprise leading to personal responsibility leading to better quality living and longer life.
Communist theory advocates the elimination of private property, so let's just call these guys what they are. Liberalism is Communism.
40% ("86% of Nevada, 68% of Alaska, 64% of Utah, and 44% of California") of American soil is owned by the federal goverment. Hello! Do we not see the agenda here? The agenda is not about individual rights, but about taking away those Constitutional rights real Americans hold dear.
For a liberal? These are the same people who question reality itself. Start there, and you'll begin to understand, at least as far as is possible to "understand" the lunatic left. Some are complete skeptics against reality (skeptic tanks).
I once was talking with a guy about why we are going to war with Iraq. Of course, being a clueless liberal, he stated oil (ignoring the fact that his car needed oil and gas to drive him to work that day) and American imperialism (ignoring the fact that Iraq attacked Kuwait and is violating their terms of surrender) as our entire motive. Somehow he switched over onto the subject of reality and told me that "we can't even know" if the desk that was sitting next to us is real or not. I knew then that no matter how reasoned my arguements were, I was not going to get through to planet mars on this occassion.
And do you suspect the same to be true of the abortion advocates in this case? Are abortion advocates somehow less suspect in your view and are more inclined to honesty? On which side of the issue does your skepticism originate? And don't say you have no bias.
You could add to that list "and not too bright either." Of course, why would you suspect that minorities are more often to have abortions? Would it be the fact that the liberals encourage the right of fertile miniorites to kill their offspring? Racisim perhaps?
Of course, in your entire line of reasoning you provide no scientific evidence, but rather skepticism and speculation, proving nothing but your doubt.
It’s the anti-abortion advocates that are bringing the issue up in face of conventional thinking that there is no cause and effect. (Notice that I said “cause and effect”, not “link”.) Therefore, it’s the anti-abortion, not the pro-abortion rights advocates that are promoting something extraordinary and attempting to change conventional wisdom. It’s the anti-abortion advocates that initiated this. Therefore, seeing it for what it is (or may be), of course opposition to this is going to be led or at least joined in by pro-abortion rights people.
Therefore, the motives and primary agenda behind the opposition to this fraud (or possible fraud) are not as primary an issue as those of its promoters. In my eyes, I’d never be persuaded to take a “morally superior” course from someone who commits what I see as a fraud in its promotion. I’d immediately question the validity of everything else that he said.
The same suspicions are valid for those promoting other issues.
- Radical environmentalist spend more time opposing capitalism than studying chemistry and biology.
- Those promoting redirecting our military at this time to focus on Korea spend more time protesting any military campaign than studying the Asian threat.
The motives of those opposing their transparent agenda are not the issue in any of these examples. The agenda of these ideologues are very transparent, and their sabotaging any moral credibility they may have had.
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.