Posted on 09/19/2003 5:46:54 PM PDT by rhema
Whatever your personal, spiritual or scientific beliefs regarding abortion you have the right to know the facts.
Abortion-on-demand has been with us for over thirty years - far too long for most people to remember what the pro-abortion movement promised America in the years preceding Roe v Wade. "Woman's Body, Woman's Right" - I want it because I want it - was only part of the sales package.
Two other claims were made. One was that, when every child was a "wanted" child, unhappy marriages, divorce, child abuse, spousal abuse, and sundry other woes and dysfunctions would evanesce. The other claim: Abortion-on-demand would have neither physical nor psychological long-term ill effects.
Some thirty years later, we can numerate abortion's "benefits" to society. >From decades of soaring divorce and spousal abuse, abortion-on-demand has been a disaster. Nor is it any longer possible to deny the long-term psychological effects, not when everyone has a story to tell, about themselves or someone they know. But only now is the evidence of long-term physical danger becoming scientifically apparent.
And lots of people don't want you to know about it.
According to a new study published in the Summer 2003 Issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JP&S) titled "The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: How Politics Trumped Science and Informed Consent" some scientists, women's groups, doctors and media outlets, for their own personal and political purposes, have consistently suppressed or ignored research that establishes a direct link between abortion and breast cancer.
The JP&S article discusses the epidemiologic evidence of an ABC (Abortion-Breast Cancer) link; the silence and denial of the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association and women's groups; media filtration of the story; the bitter opposition of pro-abortion politicians; the implications for patient care; and medical malpractice issues. Further, as a result of withholding this evidence women considering abortion are not given adequate information about the real risks and are not given enough information to provide valid consent.
According to Malec, political and medical authorities suppressed or ignored several studies conducted as early as 1957 as well as later post-Roe research that showed significantly higher rates of breast cancer in the "Roe Generation." For example, in 1996, Joel Brind, Ph.D., professor of biology and endocrinology at City University of New York's Baruch College, and co-authors published a review of the data on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer; they estimated that an excess of 5,000 cases of breast cancer were attributable to abortion, and that the annual excess would increase by 500 cases each year. They predicted 25,000 excess cases in the year 2036.
But now comes politics - the politics of abortion as a political issue, and the politics of getting your research funded. Political pressure has apparently induced some authors of the cited studies to recant their own findings. Holly Howe, an author of a record-linkage case study in 1989, worked with a group of American Cancer Society (ACS) researchers who reviewed the research. By 1997, 11 of 12 US studies indicated increased risk, but Howe still stated the research - including her own - was "inconsistent" and that she could not arrive at "definitive conclusions."
Malec also found that the web pages of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and leading American and Canadian cancer organizations contain false statements, misrepresentation, and omissions in their discussions. One erroneous "fact sheet" on the NCI website attempted to deny the ABC link, citing 15 American studies. Yet the NCI provided some funding for most of the 15 American studies; and 13 out of 15 found that women who had abortions had an increased breast cancer risk. . . .
< snip >
Authors' Note: One of the writers supports a woman's choice to abort her fetus and the other supports the unborn baby's right to life.
Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D., is a multiple award winning writer who comments on medical-legal issues. Robert J. Cihak, M.D., is a past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and a Discovery Institute honorary fellow and board member. Both JWR contributors are Harvard trained diagnostic radiologists.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
[last three paragraphs of the article]
Scientific and medical authorities admit that the reasons for this data suppression are political. The president of the American Society of Breast Surgeons said that she presented her concerns about getting information to the public about the abortion-breast cancer link to her board, but the board felt it was "too political." The director of the Miami Breast Cancer Conference explained that there was no presentation on the program because it was "too political." George Lundberg, former editor JAMA, said that abortion was on the journal's "don't touch" list.
These failures are an egregious example of medical organizations also suffering from the New York Times Syndrome and place a higher priority on political sensitivities than on accurate reporting of the general or scientific news.
So what's the remedy? Malec suggests that the whole issue may end up in court. Perhaps it will. But for now, just add "scientific honesty" and "medical integrity" to the list of abortion's victims - a fact that should cause you a certain sadness if you're pro-life . . . and a certain fear if you're not.
My wife has presented some of this information to groups soliciting contributions and asked them why they're silent. Needless to say, she wasn't given an answer.
As of 2003, 29 out of 39 studies show that women who had an induced abortion have an increased risk of developing breast cancer, as noted in the bar graph below.
Ping. (As usual, if you would like to be added to or removed from my "conservative Catholics" ping list, just send me a FReepmail. Please realize that some of my "ping" posts are long.)
"Some marginal number of babies die, who would live if their mothers had accurate medical information."
I have no clue why anyone would be surprised with this information.
Providing true scientific facts goes against every grain of the socialistic mindset of the liberals seeking to tell everyone what to do.
The nanny-do-gooders only wish you to know what they consider important to the sheeple.
The health-nazis claim that any increased risk of later breast cancer following an abortion is statistically insignificant. Yet the same gnatzies claim exposure to second hand smoke (SHS) is life threatening.
A 30% increase in risk of breast cancer after abortion is statistically insignificant (that is true) Yet the same people claim a 19% increase in risk of lung cancer due to second hand smoke exposure is prima facie evidence to ban smoking.
Can someone please explain to me the rationale behind this idiotic manipulation of science.............
I am going to use this when I next write my minister of health.
Huh? The cancers are already occuring. Haven't you heard about the "breast cancer epidemic," seen the fund-raising postage stamps and all the pink ribbons?
The issue here is whether the medical establishment will be honest about a significant element in causation. At the moment, it's like they're pretending there's no evidence that smoking causes lung 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.