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
28 of the 37 studies published to date have found a positive correlation between breast cancer and abortion. 80% of all studies done to date find a positive correlation between the pill and breast cancer.
Why do you folks accept the 24% of studies denying the abortion link, and the 20% of studies denying the pill link, as "real science" but reject the vast majority of evidence as "junk science?"
The tobacco industry denied their own link for decades. Denial did not make their position correct in the face of the preponderance of unbiased medical studies.
Same goes for the hysterical denial of science on this thread. Abortion causes increased breast cancer, especially when it occurs before first full term pregnancy.
Even the Melbye study admits this, yet everyone points to Melbye as proof there is no overall link.
I'm disapponited that so many Freepers here accept the proganda that there is no link, a propaganda effort fueled by the pro-abortion bias of the NCI under Clinton.
But why the increase?
1)Decreased breastfeeding 2)Decreased family size and 3) Delay in childbearing have always been known to increase Br. Ca. incidence. Because they are independant risk factors, their relative increased risk is know. The increase in breast cancer is far beyond what can be explained solely due to 1)Decreased breastfeeding 2)Decreased family size and 3) Delay in childbearing.
Therefore, other factors must have come into play over the last 50 years.
Hundreds of studies have looked for a link to environmental toxins, pollution, chemicals, diet and fat intake, and NOT ONE OF THESE STUDIES has found a positive link.
However, 28 of 37 studies to dat, or 76%, have found a positive link between abortion and breast cancer. 80% of all studies to date have found a positive link between the pill and breast cancer.
Think about it...
Increase from 1 in 13 to 1 in 7.9 over 50 years!
No studies of pollution or diet or chemicals or even smoking reveal ANY LINK WHATSOEVER!
75% of abortion studies and 80% od pill studies show a positive link!
Where is the "junk science???"
It is in a government health bureacracy that Bush has failed to purge of militant Clintonian pro-aborts who do not want abortion rights to be jeopardized by this info going public.
The National Cancer Institutes' position is corrupt because it is biased by a militantly pro-abort agenda. That is where the true charge of junk science should be laid.
Those denying this link are blinded by their agenda. Period. Those trying to expose the link have the facts as well as the moral high ground on their side.
Actually, the link between smoking and the pill is related to increased risk for deep venous thrombophlebitis, pulmonary embolism, stroke, and myocardial infarction.
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.
All that you and this crap does, is to put back the stigma, that was not so long ago attached to anyone poor sou, who got cancer. Now, it isn't the dreaded disease, it's what you and your ilk decide to attach to HOW someone gets it. the fact is, they are still searching for that answer. Many things keep getting thrown out ; however, no, there hasn't ever been a definative study. NO ONE REALLY KNOWS !
The insidences, of breast cancer, which have been found in mummies, in Egypt, have NOT been all that carefully kept, throughout history. Many women did NOT even tell a doctor, in the 20th century, becuase either way, it was a death sentence. Of course, none of this matters to you. All you care about, is that NO woman should use nonRoman Catholic sanctioned birth control and have pregnancy after pregnancy, from as eraly an age as possible. Anything else is some sort of sin / crime to you, whether they are Catholic or not.
Geez! Ask any doctor anywhere anytime, and they will agree that these factors increase the overall risk of breast cancer. This has nothing to do with an agenda, its simply fact. Breast cancer used to be called "Nun's disease."
Why? Because nuns did not have babies, and it has been a medically known fact FOR CENTURIES that women who don't have babies get more breast cancer. Also, it has been known for at least 150 years that women who do have babies and do not nurse them, had a slightly increased risk. Likewise it has been known that the longer you wait, your risk increases.
For heaven's sake, stop making such a fool of yourself just because you disagree with my religion.
Facts are facts. They have nothing to do with my faith. Re read my post carefully. It is simple well established epidemiological facts that I am relating. Get a grip.
--Dr. Kopp
The FACT is, the search is over, the answer is the pill and abortion, and because the answer is so diametrically opposed to accepted cultural "wisdom" and practice, NO ONE will admit to the obvious.
Besides the other obvious point...no one wants to ever admit that the RCC is right about anything.
Population control and the right to murder the innocent in the womb takes higher precedent in this culture of death than the right of women to fully informed consent.
But isn't that always the bottom line? The more women are "emancipated," "liberated," by hornonal human pesticides and surgical abortion, the more enslaved they become to sickness and death and heartbreak.
And for pointing out these truths, hidden by the mainstream media in their liberal bias, and mainstream medicine by their liberal bias...for this act you attack us?
Who really are the dangerous radicals here? And Who is just mouthing the propaganda of the liberal establishment?
I haven't read the studies, but a "link" seems very likely. As I recall, there's a link between Asian women in Asia and dramatically reduced rates of breast cancer, but not Americans of Asian descent and breast cancer. That leads people to speculate that it's either diet or environmental. The study that I read focused on diet.
As far as links go, I'd be willing to bet money that there's a link between poverty and breast cancer. There's probably a link between poverty and abortions, and there's probably a link between risky behavior and all three.
You'll know a link does not mean a cause. Please take a look at post #24. If you're honest, you'll admit that several of the behaviors that I pointed out is #24 are both more likely to be practiced by women who have abortions and are potential causes of an increased risk of breast cancer.
Ooops, I just read another of your posts. I see that you are denying a link. You said, "Hundreds of studies have looked for a link to environmental toxins, pollution, chemicals, diet and fat intake, and NOT ONE OF THESE STUDIES has found a positive link." I don't study this, but it took all of 5 minutes to find these.
Asian Link to Breast Cancer
Alcohol Link to Breast Cancer
Exercise Link to Breast Cancer
Exposure Link to Breast Cancer
An interesting statistical anomaly regarding poverty and breast cancer. Before the early 1970's, breast cancer occurred at a higher rate in white women. Black women at that time were at a lower risk. Starting in the 1970's, the rate of breast cancer among black females skyrocketed, and today it is higher than that of white women. Now, a logical person would have to ask, 'Why is that?' Before the late 60's and early 70's, birth control was expensive and abortion was clandestine and expensive. This meant that more women of means and connection (usually white) had access to them and black women (usually low income) did not. Planned Parenthood was the great equalizer. Abortion and the Pill became accessible to all, and especially promoted among the lower socioeconomic class. Breast cancer became an equal opportunity killer.
No one is saying that ALL breast cancer is due to the Pill and abortion. They are both significant risk factors however, and abortion is now considered on par with family history of the disease as a risk factor. The medical profession is already aware of the artificial hormonal link. Women are asked if they take the Pill or estrogen when they go in for a mammogram. Why? Because they know it increases the risk of cancer. Estrogen has now been declared a carcinogen. As for abortion, they know of the studies and the link. It's just a matter of time before the powers that be acknowledge what the medical community already knows. Medicine has become very political. Politicians have no business hijacking it for their personal agendas. People are dying.
But the studies show that Asians lose their relative immunity from breast cancer once they move to America. There are links to discussions of this in #90 above. Diet is suspected.
Diet might also be another big difference between black and white women in the 60s, but not today. The 60s was the period of the greatest rise in the black middle class and a greater integration of the races. Traditional diets were probably replaced by fast food, chicken with more red meats. There may have also be greater urbanization and integration of blacks women into the workforce at that time, bringing with it greater exposure. I really don't study this stuff, but there are more potential explanations than just abortions.
I suspect that most of the people arguing that abortion is causing breast cancer have far more invested in the anti-abortion movement than in healthcare. I can't personally vouch for the consensus of how much weight medical experts give the pill or abortion in assessing cancer risk, but I think there's plenty of evidence that it's the abortion opponents are "hijacking it" for their agendas.
To discredit the data as if it is the tool of a particular religion or religious sect or an organization or population group is absurd ... the correlations are real, whether bill clinton cites them or the Pope (I'd personally be more inclined to accept them from the Pope, but whom presents them is actually irrelevant to the actual correlations that exist).
Diet was thoroughly investigated as a risk factor. The last study that I read in the past year or two thoroughly debunked this. Previous studies raised questions but the last study put this theory to rest completely. You won't see many, if any more studies investigating this as a possible link. It's gone nowhere. Now, overweight people with a high fat diet are definitely prone to more cancer in general, heart disease, diabetes, etc, but not specifically breast cancer. Thin women who are vegetarians get breast cancer.
Please read Dr. Brind's estrogen page on his website www.abortioncancer.com This is not a theory or a hypothesis. This is pure biology. These people study cadavers, analyze hormonal activity and levels, and tissue samples under slides. Reputable scientists are true to science first and their personal ideology second. They value their careers and their futures would be over if they practiced junk science. Please educate yourself on this topic. Lives are at stake.
No, it leads people to speculate that they take the pill, have less kids, breast feed less, and have more abortions, here than back home. Heck, Japan only legalized the pill within the last decade. It will be several years till the breast cancers there attributed to pill use surface.
All the links you point to, with the possible exception of the alcohol link (notice I did not mention alcohol) are weak links or not even statistically relevant. In other words, the studies are equivocal.
Such is not the case with abortion and the pill.
It's possible, but your are of course speculating. I really didn't spend much time on those links, but I did read through these:
Exercise
Exercise
Smoking
Smoking
Milk
Nightshift workers
Diet
Drinking
To be fair there were more than a half dozen studies there regarding delayed child birth, breast feeding and estrogen, but I'm just posting these to demonstrate other correlations exist. I suppose it's possible that the people who practice these behavior are more likely to have more abortions, and it's the abortions that cause the cancer, but unless the studies accont for that, we're only guessing.
I've spent more time on this than I intended. I just want to make it clear to people here that there are other behavior linked to breast cancer so the abortion link does not prove a cause and effect.
Hmmm… I've said that I don't deny the "link", but the question should be why after I present a reasonable alternative explanation you ignore it, present limited credentials and accuse me of being an aborter. That appears more than a little evasive. Couple that with your "lives are at stake" and "women are dyeing" closings, and it looks more than a little Clintoneque.
I'm not the one denying links backed by studies. I'm simply giving a reasonable alternative for the cause of the link. Some people here are promoting only the abortion one with great certainty while denying the others. I presume there's a positive correlation between the abortion link and their agenda. Judging by your debating tactics here, I now suspect that includes your agenda.
I took a look at www.abortioncancer.com. I don't think I'll get an objective analysis there.
Yeah, riiight...I'm a physician and surgeon. I have an equal investment in both. If there is no fundamental right to life, as in "LIFE, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," then there are no other real rights or freedoms.
I know personally some of the folks involved in this research, and I'm on the board and an officer of one of the research foundations exploring this link.
Frankly, the truth is that those denying the link have far more invested in pop con and abortion rights bias than the healthcare of women, and the fundamental right to fully informed consent.
A Blessed Easter to you,
Dr. Kopp
In the end, all these other areas are red herrings, an effort to provide alternatives to the glaringly obvious real answer. They are desperately looking for some other "big" factor to hang this on, but they know in the end the number one and two highest risk factors are abortion and the pill.
But because that does not fulfill their pop con and abortion rights agenda and bias, they will continue deceiving poor saps who buy their propaganda as "unbiased" and "scientific."
And frankly, dishonesty and deception are not beyond researchers with a pro-abort bias and agenda.
The media coverage of the Melbye study, trumpeted as THE PROOF denying an ABC link, failed to mention that Melbye even found a 42% increased risk for br ca among those having an abortion before first full term pregnancy.
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.