Posted on 12/29/2001 12:18:11 AM PST by Notwithstanding
December 27, 2001 -- The world's first known abortion-breast cancer settlement has taken place in Australia. News of this settlement comes to light as Australian legislators in Tasmania voted in favor of expanding access to abortion for women. The plaintiff's attorney in the lawsuit, Charles Francis, Queen's Counsel, had cautioned the parliamentarians about the possibility of increased litigation against abortion providers which might occur as a result of expanding abortion rights.
"In Victoria, civil claims for negligence from women suing their abortionists are becoming much more common. Doctors haven't warned them and about 10 per cent have serious psychological repercussions," said Francis.
The plaintiff, who cannot be publicly identified, due to a confidentiality clause in the settlement agreement, alleged her physician had not informed her of the research connecting abortion with an elevated breast cancer risk.
The plaintiff proved her physician failed to secure informed consent, prior to her abortion, which led to this landmark decision.
Since 1957, 28 of 37 studies have concluded abortion increases the risk of breast cancer in women.
Francis commented on the settlement and also discussed additional cases in which plaintiffs alleged they suffered emotionally as a result of their abortions. Francis stated the plaintiffs in the emotional distress cases had obtained "quite large, out of court settlements."
"In Australia, the case of Rogers v. Whitaker in the High Court decided that before any operation a doctor has a duty to warn the patient of any material risks," Francis said. "Abortionists give the women concerned little or no information about the many risks of an abortion. In 1996, two Australian women commenced legal actions because their abortionists gave them no warning that there might be adverse psychiatric consequences. Both these cases were eventually settled for undisclosed amounts."
"Since 1998, cases have commenced which have also claimed the additional failure to warn of an increased risk of breast cancer caused by abortion," continued Francis. "Recently, one of those cases was settled for an undisclosed amount. This is believed to be the first case of its kind in the world. A confidentiality clause, which was part of the settlement, prevents further discussion."
Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, based in Palos Heights, Illinois, said the settlement of the abortion-breast cancer case represented an admission by abortion providers and their medical experts that abortion causes breast cancer. "We're delighted with the settlement of an abortion-breast cancer case. The abortion industry and its medical experts know that it will be far more challenging for them to lie to women about the abortion-breast cancer research when they are called upon to testify under oath." Malec added, "Women and their families are the real victims of this scientific misconduct. Tragically, abortion data from the only Australian abortion-breast cancer study was concealed from Australian women for seven years. Scientists could have spared women a great deal of suffering, if they had only set aside their abortion ideology and published their abortion data."
The Australian study, authored by Thomas E. Rohan et al and published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 1988, was conducted on women from Adelaide, Australia. Rohan examined reproductive and dietary risk factors for the disease. Researchers determined Australian women who had abortions increased their risks for breast cancer by 160%. As the study's most significant and only statistically significant risk factor, abortion was unparalleled among all of the variables examined. The elevated risk resulting from induced abortion far and away exceeded that of family history for the disease and even childlessness, according to the research.
Joel Brind, Ph.D., author of a 1996 review and meta-analysis of the abortion-breast cancer studies and president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute located in Poughkeepsie, New York, expressed a sense of horror that researchers would selectively omit data for the most significant risk factor.
At a talk given in 1999 in Malvern, Australia, Brind said, "This is not what you see in scientific research, ever. I've never seen it before, where the most significant finding in a study is specifically left out of a research paper." He concluded, "We hypothesize that there is more of it."
Rohan's abortion data had been buried in a file cabinet, until the publication of a small meta-analysis by French researchers, Nadine Andrieu et al, in the British Journal of Cancer. Andrieu not only reported previously unpublished data, but also found a synergistic effect between induced abortion and a family's history of breast cancer.
Oh my... That would be tragic.
I would have loved to have Carly Simon!!
The primary message of Jesus was and is love and mercy.
Let's look at St. Paul. He was torturing and murdering Christians. He was indeed redeemed and went on to be a great apostle. Not because he merited grace, but because God chose to use him as an instrument to show love and mercy.
:)
Did you miss this from the article?:
determined Australian women who had abortions increased their risks for breast cancer by 160%. As the study's most significant and only statistically significant risk factor, abortion was unparalleled among all of the variables examined. The elevated risk resulting from induced abortion far and away exceeded that of family history for the disease and even childlessness, according to the research. ... At a talk given in 1999 in Malvern, Australia, Brind said, "This is not what you see in scientific research, ever. I've never seen it before, where the most significant finding in a study is specifically left out of a research paper."
Bit of a story: every January, NARAL has a banquet to celebrate Roe vs. Wade. They toast each other, eat, drink, and make merry. Minions of hell?
Yes.
Your arguments are sound, but I think the bottom line will be economic, not ideological.
If this dog (successful lawsuits) hunts, the women who've killed their children will pursue it.
And so will the lawyers.
Everyone involved will rationalize that, 'yes abortion is a sacred right, but I'm justified in my action because...'
At some point the radical pro-death infiltrators in the government will have to move to protect their (as you put it very well) 'sacrament'.
If the dog doesn't hunt (or doesn't hunt very well) you'll be right, no public moves to protect the murderers will be made.
I'm hoping, with some confidence, that these murdering women and ambulance chasing shysters just won't be able to resist the $$$ bait! (LOL)
"Informed consent" is based on those facts which a reasonable patient (woman) would want or need in order to make a decision (NOT what a "physician" thinks is necessary and sufficient).
The AMA, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association, to name a few, have deliberately engaged in criminal collusion, to deprive women seeking abortion of the kind of information which any reasonable woman would want.
This is a time-bomb waiting only for the right case before the right judge, and a US Supreme Court ruling ultimately is inevitable.
Informed consent is legally a civil rights issue in the US; and the leftists will choke on their own dishonesty when this one hits the federal courts.
patent
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.