Posted on 01/06/2003 8:36:25 AM PST by dead
The National Cancer Institute has been bullied by Congressional conservatives into revising its best judgment on whether abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Unless the institute can summon the courage to express its true views, it will be severely damaged.
Researchers have long debated whether abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, possibly by altering hormones and tissue development in the breast. A fact sheet distributed by the institute last March noted that studies conducted before the mid-1990's produced inconsistent results but that subsequent studies generally found no association between abortion and breast cancer. The American Cancer Society reached the same conclusion.
Those judgments were anathema to anti-abortion groups, which have been trying to scare women away from abortion by raising the specter of breast cancer. A group of 28 anti-abortion members of Congress complained to Tommy Thompson, secretary of health and human services, that the institute's formulation was "scientifically inaccurate and misleading." So in June, the institute removed the fact sheet from its Web site and later replaced it with a statement that some studies have found an increased risk of cancer while others have not. That statement, while technically accurate, is such an egregious distortion of the evidence that one can only hope it is an interim statement, as some staff members suggest, not a final surrender.
The institute plans to address the issue at a conference on pregnancy and breast cancer in February. If the experts at the meeting agree that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer, the institute will have no excuse to suppress the information. It will have to issue a new fact sheet or admit it can no longer provide objective guidance on matters that inflame social conservatives.
a statement that some studies have found an increased risk of cancer while others have not. That statement, while technically accurate
does nothing to advance the “women’s rights” cause of sucking babies out of wombs.
The statement is accurate, and that enrages the Times.
Elliot Institute director, David C. Reardon, Ph.D., one of the nation's leading experts on post-abortion issues is asking pro-life advocates around the country to donate copies of Detrimental Effects of Abortion to their local public, high school, and university libraries.
Though Reardon works full time on post-abortion research, he says Strahan's earlier bibliographies have always been his first reference source whenever he begins a new research project.
"Tom Strahan has performed a great service in tracking down all the best studies and organizing their finding in a way that is easily accessible to the average reader," Dr. Reardon said. "Without it, the task of searching for this material on the Internet or in a reference library would be overwhelming. Many of the best studies are simply not indexed under the keywords you would normally expect to find abortion complications."
Strahan edits The Research Bulletin for the Association for Interdisciplinary Research in Values and Social Change and has written numerous articles on abortion. He hopes this revised and expanded reference book will help people to better understand the range of risks associated with abortion.
"Most people think that because abortion is legal, it's safe for women, period," Strahan said. "They think that as long as the government says it's okay, then it must be good for our society. They don't realize that many researchers and scholars studying this issue have found that just the opposite is true."
|
But, if it were true, and God willing it will be, would it not be poetic justice that the woman who subjects her baby to the slow horrible death by being eaten up alive by a strong saline solution, now suffers the same thing, death by the slow horrible means of being eaten up alive. |
They are often pressured; they turn to abortion because they are not supported and see no alternative. Far from being a genuine choice, abortion is often an act of desperation. Women are often devastated in many ways, by feelings of guilt, regret, depression, and by physical damage. Abortion is a terrible assault on the woman, psychologically and physically. One might easily say they have suffered enough. Moreover, women are often unaware of the full reality of the child, and how horrible abortion is for the child.
|
and that enrages the Times |
The Times According to William Proctor About the Author
Bill Proctor is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, and has worked as a reporter for the New York Daily News. He has written or co-authored more than 70 nonfiction books, including several national bestsellers.
William Proctor '66 recognizes the New York Times's preeminence as the country's newspaper of record. That's why he reads it every morning, and why he's written a book lambasting it.
He is, on the other hand, adamantly opposed to abortion. He questioned how, with regard to the animal rights movement, the paper can be "moving towards giving animals a certain degree of personhood that they wouldn't accord to a fetus two minutes before birth."
Noting an irony, a 'poetic justice' in this case, isn't the same thing as "wishing someone dies of cancer".
Now, if Tim had said, "I wish that the mudering b!tches would die of cancer" I'd have to agree that some 'wishin' was uh goin' on dere'...
You are a DISGUTING human being!! How DARE YOU wish cancer apon ANYONE????? I can ONLY assume you haven't known anyone who has died from this horrible disease.
I hope for only ONE thing for you...That ANYTHING you wish apon others happens to you and anyone you know or love.
You IDIOT!
The only thing that is being suppressed is the preponderance of studies linking abortion and breast cancer. (even some by abortion advocates) Is there any other potential health threat that the New York Times is willing to so casually dismiss? For example, the danger of second hand tobacco smoke is far more disputable than the health risks of abortions.
The New York Times has made getting women into the Masters golf tournament its centerpiece. Which issue is going to effect the lives of more woman, whether they can become member of a golf club in Georgia or whether a procedure performed on over a million women a year may raise their risk for cancer?
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.