Another Defeat for Women - Abortion-Breast Cancer Debate

Pro Life Infonet ^ | March 29, 2002 | Pro Life Infonet

[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

[Saundra Duffy]

You told 'em! (Thanks, pal.)

[d-fens]

But the fact is you guys want so badly for there to be some deterimental consequences to the woman's health that your advocates will conjure up bad science to find it.

HELLLOOOOO, did you have any knowledge of this case before you started spewing your ad hominem attacks? The judge ruled in favor of an abortionist making the unfounded claim that abortion doesn't cause cancer. The burden of proof is on the abortionist and all the available evidence is to the contrary.

The rest of your post is a fallacious attack on the motivations of those who support the plaintiffs and has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the case. Merely getting personal and avoiding the substantive issues is adds nothing to this discussion. It's too bad you and your side do not seem to have anything relevant to say.

[FreeTally]

These people can not be reasoned with. Their zeal to stop abortions blinds them. They have posted their studies time and time again. I have read them, as have many others. A meta-analysis is not a scientific study - they are not accepted - they are not duplicable. I will continue to post that this this scare tactics and junk science as long as they post this nonsense. Trying to compell abortion providers to mention these studies is BAD precident. I have told them that, but they don't listen.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Ignore the clueless armchair biologists. Ignore the naive and ignorant who would believe that a liberal government funded agency would never lie to protect their agenda. Keep fighting. Every time the truth gets publicized you win. I'll believe independent university professors, biologists and physicians with no agenda but sound science anyday over a liberal government and liberal judges with agendas. Anyone with half a brain cell functioning can read the medical studies and see the correlation.

[GovernmentShrinker]

The judge ruled in favor of an abortionist making the unfounded claim that abortion doesn't cause cancer.

Actually, the judge ruled in favor of an abortionist passing along the assertion of the main cancer authorities in the nation that there is no known link between aboriton and breast cancer.

The burden of proof is on the abortionist and all the available evidence is to the contrary.

All the available evidence, as long as you exclude the research conclusions of the leading cancer authorities and all the researchers who agree with them.

[born yesterday]

Sir: What egregious thing do people say that would cause you to remove so very many replies on this subject. Do you advocate abortion rights yourself?

[helmsman]

I have to agree with some of the other comments here about this being a less than ideal tactic to try to deter abortions. I believe there probably is some sort of long term health risk associated with abortion, only because it's such an unnatural act that disrupts the physiological changes the female body undergoes when it becomes pregnant. However, most abortive ladies won't give a rat's behind about what diseases they may develop 30 or 40 years later. I mean, do many people care that they're exploding their risk of heart disease by frequenting McDonalds for greasy cheeseburgers? This tactic is a waste of time, pure and simple.

The way to deter abortions, as has been pointed out here already, is to focus on the despicable act itself. To paraphrase that vile ogre James Carville -- It's the baby, stupid. And pro-lifers should never patronize the pro-abortion mentality that abortion is only about women. Focusing too much on abortion's effects on women plays into this idea, I'm afraid. Concentrate on showing women the gruesome truth about what abortion does to the baby, and they will stop the blood orgy.

[GovernmentShrinker]

As the cancer link becomes irrefutable, they'll go screaming to the same judges that protected their homicidal rights - they'll claim the courts did not "warn them of the danger"

Nah, 'cause before that happens, the link between human industry and global warming is going to become irrefutable, and we'll all be screaming because we're drowning from rising sea levels. Quick, file lawsuits requiring everyone who sells energy or products which it takes energy to make that this energy use is going to kill us all by causing global warming! There's tons of "science" which "proves" this! Why don't you want to stop all these evil greedy corporations from killing us?

[giotto]

These people can not be reasoned with.

You're right. The Agenda is the only thing that matters. Why should they care about women's lives when they don't care about the lives of the babies they murder? Why should they consider the risks to a woman's physical health when they gleefully ignore the devastation to her spiritual and mental health caused by abortion?

[sayfer bullets]

All right. When more women start dying of breast cancer, then they'll begin to care. On the other and, the possibility of lung cancer doesn't deter smokers.

Interesting...two things women have an urge to do after sex. Neither is good for them but the government subsidizes them both.

[Notwithstanding]

You miss the whole point: We are trying to appeal to reasonable women to show them that science shows us that abortion harms the mom no matter how she looks at it.

Aside from being painfully bad for the baby, it is emotionally bad for the mother, and medically abortion causes breast cancer (as well as cervical cancer if you believe this week's leading British medical journal, the Lancet).

This approach is geared at moms who are blind to the murder involved but who have demonstrated they are very self-interested (those moms incined to abort). Its all very rational and not at all religious, notwithstanding your humorous claims to the contrary.

[Saundra Duffy]

Thank you so much. Sometimes it gets pretty frustrating around here. For victory & freedom!!!

[Saundra Duffy]

This issue is but one small portion of the problem. This issue deals with a woman's right to know. Informed consent. A consumer rights question. Why is this so hard to understand?

[Saundra Duffy]

Thanks for your post, pal.

[proud to be breathing]

If we, as consumers, have a right to access as much information as possible, then I suppose you would agree that Cheney should open up the files and transcripts of his energy task force meeting? I tend to agree that you are taking a wrong path on this. The demographics of women getting abortions would show that the majority of them are quite young, probably scared, often minority, lower income, women without access to birth control at the right time. I honestly don't believe they would give a rats a'' about a statistical correlation (which is at best inconclusive to my eyes) that there might be an increased chance of gretting cancer. They don't want to have a child right then, and all the lectures about cancer or abstinence are just not going to wash. Also, does this study show the same risk levels carry over to the abortion pill? That will almost certainly become the method more and more women use.

[helmsman]

You're right, of course. Women should indeed be told about whatever risks may exist. I was only addressing the issue of action designed to discourage abortions. I believe the focus in that effort should be on the brutality and evil of the abortion itself, because this approach has proven to be much more effective.

[Saundra Duffy]

If you were a woman from a family with a history of BREAST CANCER - OR ANY CANCER FOR THAT MATTER - wouldn't you want to protect yourself from piling on another risk factor? Grrrrrrrr. Please give women some credit. Please!

[buffyt]

Abortion still causes major depression. Churches here are noticing that fact and ministering to the women who sink into a deep depression months or years later. They have a 12 step program that the women go through, then it ends with a trip to the cemetery and a ceremony there. It is so sad. Abortion kills and it is not good for women, children, men, families, America!

[Saundra Duffy]

Abortion causes a myriad of mental illnesses, no doubt. There's this one condition I've noticed: Women who have had abortions can't wait to get pregnant again. It's weird. Either they "enjoy" the drama of it all or they want to undo the damage, replace the lost baby. I actually feel very sorry for women who have undergone abortions. I swear, I do. They are so sad and messed up! It would all be worth it if women would start THINKING SERIOUSLY before engaging in behavior which might lead to this disastrous "solution". For victory & freedom!!!

[Frank Grimes]

thanks for saying what I was thinking.

I for one happen to think that women who kill their own children deserve breast cancer, much in the same way that I think that rapists and child molesters deserve to have their b@lls chopped off!