Posted on 01/04/2002 7:11:49 AM PST by Notwithstanding
In what may be the first case of its kind in the world, an Australian woman has reached a settlement with an abortionist whom she had sued for not telling her about research findings linking abortion to breast cancer.
The information was disclosed during a recent legislative session in the state of Tasmania, where lawmakers were debating abortion legislation. Attorney Charles Francis warned the legislature about the risk of future litigation against doctors who perform abortions.
Francis has represented several women suing abortionists for not warning them of the possible psychiatric consequences of abortion.
Last year, he represented a woman who included in her psychiatric damage lawsuit the additional failure to warn of an increased risk of breast cancer caused by abortion.
The landmark case was settled out of court, Francis said by phone from the state of Victoria Friday.
His client cannot be identified because of a confidentiality clause in the settlement, he said, but he believed it to be the first case of its kind anywhere. Another, similar case was pending in the neighboring state of New South Wales, he added.
While preparing the cases, Francis said, "I had to go into all the evidence and the expert medical views for the purpose of presenting the case. It seemed to me, looking at it as a lawyer looking at evidence, the evidence was fairly strong - certainly strong enough, we thought, for [us to have] a good chance at winning."
Francis said there was no indication one way or the other that the doctor had decided to settle because he was worried about the cancer link claim.
Still, the doctor had not insisted that the cancer link claim be dropped before agreeing to settle.
"My impression is there is a good deal of reluctance to see this litigated in public. Often you have conflicting medical views [in court cases]. Doctors are called, give differing evidence and then the court decides what it thinks it the most likely situation."
The question of a link between abortion and breast cancer is a major source of contention between pro-life and pro-abortion campaigners. Each side points to research it claims backs its stance, questions the methodology of the other's research, and accuses the opposition of using the issue to promote its cause.
According to the U.S.-based Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, 27 out of 35 studies published since 1957 have found a link.
Groups advocating abortion, backed up by some leading medical bodies, deny that such a link exists.
Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, welcomed news of the Australian settlement.
"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," she said in a statement.
"Scientists know that abortion causes breast cancer but are afraid to say so publicly in today's hostile political climate."
Dr. Joel Brind, president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, is regarded by the coalition as a leading authority on the abortion-breast cancer link.
He believes there is a 30 percent overall increased risk of breast cancer after having an abortion, and an 80 percent increased risk for women with a family history of cancer.
Summarizing Brind's argument, Francis explained that upon conception, the level of estrogen in a woman's body increases dramatically. This results in the development of undifferentiated cells in the breast, which pose an additional cancer risk.
Late in the pregnancy, these cells become milk-producing cells, cease posing a greater cancer risk, and in fact provide added protection against cancer.
If a woman has an abortion before that stage - and the vast majority of abortions would occur before then - her body is left with a high number of undifferentiated cells which increase the risk of her contracting breast cancer, it is argued.
Francis said a woman who suffers a miscarriage well into a pregnancy - in a motor accident, for example - would face the same risk. However, in cases where a spontaneous, early miscarriage occurs, the woman would not have had the surge in estrogen in the first place, and therefore would not face the additional cancer risk.
The U.S. National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Britain are among those who argue that there is no need to tell a woman considering an abortion that there may be an increased risk of breast cancer. Doing so would only add to the woman's anxiety at an already stressful time, representatives have said.
Brind and others have slammed the approach as "paternalistic."
"There is no other issue than abortion that would be so immune from the concept of informed consent," Brind was quoted as saying last month.
A court in Fargo, North Dakota will hear a case in March in which a woman is suing an abortion clinic for allegedly misleading women to believe there is no link between abortion and breast cancer.
Plaintiff Amy Jo Mattson says pamphlets distributed by the Red River Women's Clinic quote the National Cancer Institute as saying there is no evidence of a direct relationship between breast cancer and abortion or miscarriage.
"None of [the claims of a link] are supported by medical research or established medical organizations," the pamphlets reportedly stated.
Oh, come on. I clearly stated that we do know that smoking appears to help cause (lung)cancer. You are talking about TOXINS, not a medical procedure here. Thats my problem with your claims. You are comparing apples and oranges. It would be more true to say, based on your claims, that simply not having children increases chances of breast cancer. I want to see studies conducted before industrialization, before "21st century technology". I want to know if women not having children, before the days of modern junk food and polution experienced the same.
Thats what I am asking you. Two "scientific" studies, with random samples, will not yield so different results. First year statistic students know this.
Blessed are the ignorant, for they entertain us and thus make easy targets;
You two are a riot. Pike's study included women under age 32, Daling's included women under age 45, both groups were women who had abortions before FFTP. Studying older women allows a longer latency period for the cancer to develop. As I said, this is simple epidemiology
Maybe you're not so well educated afterall, but you are indeed quite entertaining none-the-less.
By the way, I'm on the board of Dr Kahlenborn's research institute, and I help review his research prior to publication. Brind and Kahlenborn are the two leading researchers on the ABC link. I'm working on a press release for another of Dr. Kahlenborn's studies tonight, unrelated to the ABC link.
I know that of what I speak.
--Dr. Kopp
Here's the deal. When one is sold on the lies that it's nothing more than "tissue" by so-called authorities ("medical experts," the Supreme Court, and those who claim to care for and fight for womens' rights,) and told "you may be sad for a little while afterwards but then it passes," long-term consequences doesn't seem to be an issue. Once the truth slams you in the face, it's a whole different story - and also too late. And for others, common sense flies right out the window when they're being forced so to speak by parents, boyfriends or employers. They may desperately want the baby but are finding no support from anyone to have the child, they only receive pressure from those who wants the "problem" taken care of right now.
Once faced with the truth, the woman needs a chance to grieve and deal with the terrible guilt and shame. Unfortunately, society doesn't allow this. Either it's something they shouldn't have any reason to be bothered by it in the first place (because it's just tissue, don't you know?) or the severe judgementalism and condemnation from others increases their resolve to keep "the dirty secret" to themselves. Why listen to others label you a murderer when you already consider yourself one?
Thankfully, there's a God Who will forgive those broken by their past and very willing to help them come to terms with their decisions. These folks could be one of the biggest advocates to turning Roe v Wade around - if given the support to do so. But in the meantime, choices, good or bad, follows you throughout your lifetime. The emotions from reoccuring memories need to be released or the psychological problems flare up over and over again. I pray people will find more patience and understanding for those who wish they could go back and do things differently.
Should be:
"You know not of (that) which you speak (of)..."
or
"You know naught of what you speak (of)..."
That's right, I'm Noam Chomsky!
This gracious grammatical interlude brought to you by the letter "g".
These two were a real hoot none-the-less.
I'm looking forward to their response.
Think FreeTally will finally admit this single point of debate?
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.