|
Media Watch: Trib, Sun-Times, ignore ABC Link, Illinois Leader, March 21st, 2003 (Link to Article)
Women's Organization Accuses Mamm of Misleading Public about Abortion-Breast Cancer link (Press Release)
International Women's Coalition Urges Media to report Abortion-Breast Cancer Research Objectively (Press Release)
4-25-01 Mainstream media does its best to downplay the possible Abortion/Breast Cancer link (link)
10-31-01 A Politically Incorrect Risk Factor for Breast Cancer (link)
How governmental agencies and cancer fundraising businesses easily deceived journalists about the abortion-breast cancer link. (Link to Article)
__________________________________________________________________
Mainstream Media Does its Best to Downplay the Possible Abortion/Breast Cancer Link.
NEW YORK, NY, April 25, 2001 (RFM NEWS)--In the March 12th edition of Newsweek, staff writer David France reported on the facts surrounding a possible link between abortion and breast cancer.
The Newsweek article portrayed the connection between abortion and breast cancer as being nothing more than a political tool used by pro-life advocates
in the fight against abortion.
France called the issue a "novel legal push." The Newsweek reporter also quoted an American Medical Association board member and another source from the American Cancer society who did not see a link between abortion and breast cancer.
David France's reluctance to tell both sides of this story is indicative of the wider media's handling of the issue. RFM NEWS reviewed press coverage of the possible connection between abortion and breast cancer during the last year. The results paint what some say is a troubling picture of the media's refusal to address an issue that may have an impact on the lives of millions of women. Critics of the press point to France's methods of reporting to illustrate their claims of media bias.
France interviewed Dr. Joel Brind, Ph.D., president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute and one of the foremost international authorities on the subject before writing his Newsweek piece. However, France did not quote Brind or refer to his research in the Newsweek article. Sources tell RFM NEWS France did everything he could not to interview Brind, including e-mailing Brind, requesting a return phone call, but not providing a number so his call could be returned. A source also told RFM NEWS, France claimed Brind would not answer his other messages.
But RFM NEWS has learned that Brind, who at the time was participating in a speaking engagement in Wisconsin, had indeed went to great lengths to make sure he was available to France. When the Newsweek reporter finally interviewed Brind, the publication omitted any reference to Brind or his organization's research which cites an increased risk of breast cancer that women may experience as a result of abortion.
"The Newsweek article is typical of how the elite press tries to cover for the abortion industry," said Judy Cleary, a spokesman for Republicans For Fair Media. "The multibillion-dollar abortion business has deep ties to organizations like the AMA and publications such as Newsweek."
Cleary added, "Just look at how many pharmaceutical companies advertise in Newsweek and you'll see why France's article might have been slanted towards the abortion agenda."
Karen Malec, President of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, an international group concerned with the health of women said, "As a cancer
survivor, I am deeply offended that some members of the media have cooperated in the abortion industry's efforts to protect their profits by attempting to delete 44 years of abortion-breast cancer research from the public record."
Malec concluded, "This is all in an effort to convince women that abortion is safe. When science does not conform to their ideology, the media has resorted to 'shoot the messenger' tactics by labeling those who have raised awareness concerning this women's health issue as nothing more than the rantings of pro-life religious conservatives. We encourage the press to
remove their ideological blinders and engage in an honest discussion of the scientific research. This is not just another abortion debate. Women's lives
are at stake."
There have been 17 statistically significant studies published worldwide on the possible link between abortion and breast cancer. Sixteen of those studies confirm such a link exists. The Newsweek article did not mention any of the research, except for saying recent studies refuted the a/bc link. It must be noted, the more recent research Newsweek refers to does not stand up to scientific scrutiny, according to some experts on statistical analysis.
France also implied Illinois House of Representative, Dan Reitz (Democrat--Steeleville), had authored legislation that would force doctors to mention the abortion/breast cancer link to women seeking abortions. In reality, Reitz never formally submitted his bill for consideration. There has not been any other legislation originating in the state House of Representatives in Illinois.
RFM NEWS contacted Rep. Reitz concerning his phone interview with France. "I was taken out of context. I think the reporter may have had an agenda. My motivation was to put information into women's hands," said Reitz. Rep. Reitz never introduced his bill which would have prompted physicians to inform women of the possible abortion/breast cancer link.
Recently, ABC's Good Morning America also covered the a/bc link. The program's host, Charles Gibson, interviewed the network's staff physician, Dr. Nancy Snyderman who is not an authority on breast cancer. Snyderman dismissed the possible link between cancer and abortion without referring to any of the 27 studies published worldwide that indicate there is evidence for the a/bc link.
Gibson closed the women's health segment by saying, "So, Nancy, there's no need for women to be worried?" The GMA segment shortly followed a USA Today article written by Rita Rubin. In her piece, Rubin misquoted an extensive review of the subject printed in MAMM Magazine which had reported the science connecting abortion and breast cancer was "murky." Contrary to the MAMM article, USA Today implied MAMM Magazine dismissed the a/bc link entirely.
*****
RFM NEWS sent an e-mail to Newsweek reporter David France. He replied to RFM NEWS by e-mail saying:
"You (RFM NEWS) have misread my article. My article was not about the disputed abortion/breast cancer link, but about the bills pending in states around the country that would force doctors to disclose as fact such a link
to their patients, despite a lack of science and consensus. I interviewed Mr. Brind on that subject (as well as a dozen or so other authorities, whose names I likewise didn't include). (author's comment: note France's refusal to acknowledge Brind as a doctor) He gave me insights which I included in the article. In my reporting, the revelation that most struck me as newsworthy was the plurality of views among those politicians who were sponsoring the laws that they simply did not care about the science around this supposed link--did not have a belief one way or the other about it, didn't even care if it was wrong--but only cared about stemming the number of abortions. That's politics, not science; that's what I wrote about. "
RFM NEWS went back to review France's Newsweek piece. France's claims that he included Dr. Brind's viewpoints on the issue could not be substantiated. In fact, RFM NEWS scrutiny of the Newsweek article turns up no such reference. The following is a verbatim text of David France's piece which appeared in the March 12th edition of Newsweek magazine.
NEWSWEEK TEXT
"Abortion, making scare tactics legal" by David France
Though the first anti-abortion administration in eight years is just over a month old, emboldened abortion foes have already launched a novel legal push. Abortion rights advocates say 15 states are considering bills requiring abortion doctors to tell patients that abortion increases breast cancer
risks.
"The American Medical Association and American Cancer Society oppose the bills which force doctors to tell our patients something that is not true,"
says AMA Board Member, Dr. John C. Nelson.
Early 90s survey suggested a link which was disputed by more recent studies. The new strategy has medical ethicists worried. "It is despicable," says Arch Kaplan of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Bioethics. "There is nothing else going on here, other than abortion politics."
Illinois State Representative Dan Reitz, who introduced one of the bills, agrees. "I'm not really sure about the science," he says. "My intent was strictly about limiting abortion."
END OF NEWSWEEK TEXT
Author's note: The Newsweek piece speaks for itself.
"The abortion industry is a powerful institution in America and the World. Billions of dollars are at stake," said Fran Eaton, Illinois Director of the
Eagle Forum. Eaton concluded, "Pharmaceutical interests, the medical establishment and abortion providers themselves are not interested in getting this information out."
Media critics point to the controversy surrounding the partial-birth abortion issue when anti-abortion activists first brought that procedure to public light. "The press was reluctant to report on this. It took a courageous
abortion provider himself, Ron Fitzsimmons, to substantiate whether the gruesome method was being used by abortion providers," Cleary stated. "Onlythen did the press, reluctantly, report the story. Part of the reason stems from the physical makeup of newsrooms themselves. I would be willing to say you would be hard pressed to find a pro-life woman working in many media newsrooms."
Cleary added, "It's hard to explain why this dynamic exists. In part, it's due to indoctrination at the academic level. Today, many journalists themselves are social activists. Abortion is a big time women's issue, at
least for liberal women. The result is abortion stories are slanted far to the left and society is forced to pay the price. And, in the case of a possible link between cancer and abortion, women, unfortunately, are the big
losers."
Shortly before his death, Chicago Tribune columnist, Mike Royko, wrote on how the mainstream press deals with the subject of abortion, titled "News media, others swallowed abortion lie hook, line and sinker" February 27, 1997. In his piece, Royko described how the elite press goes out of its way to buy the pro-abortion line in nearly every circumstance. Royko told of how the media was reluctant to report on partial-birth abortion, until a pro-abortion physician forced their hand. Royko told how Ron Fitzsimmons, who ran the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, acknowledged he had lied about the number of and reasons for the partial-birth abortions taking place in
America.
Royko wrote, "The press swallowed the lies like worms by a bass because the lies fit so neatly into what is sometimes referred to as a 'world view' that is shared by the mainstream news media. Part of that view seems to be that anyone who questions the need for the vast number of abortions performed each year is some kind of right-wing, bomb-tossing, gun-toting religious nut."
Some say Royko's analysis is a perfect representation of the media's refusal to cover the abortion/breast cancer story.
"I'm sad to say I've seen this type of behavior from the press many times," said Dr. Brind. "It's unfortunate because the information we are trying to get out may have a definite impact on the lives of women. And it should be those women alone making the decisions whether or not to accept or reject the data available on the possible connection between breast cancer and abortion, not some journalist."
A special thank you to Dan Zanoza of RFM News for having written this article.
A Politically Incorrect Risk Factor for Breast Cancer
by Karen Malec October 30, 2001
October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Many efforts to create awareness of the risk factors for breast cancer are being made, except for the most preventable one -- induced abortion. Although most women who have breast cancer have not had abortions, it has been estimated that approximately 1 in 4 American women have procured abortions. Hundreds of thousands of American women don't know that they're at increased risk for breast cancer and are, therefore, less inclined to take steps to reduce their risks or seek early screening for the disease. It's appalling that women haven't been told that scientists have been studying this optional procedure as a risk factor for breast cancer for nearly a half of a century. Why not?
The research has a long history of ideological bias in the American scientific and journalistic communities. In September, 2001 Redbook joined the effort to falsely reassure women of the safety of abortion. Relying on University of Pittsburgh physician, Mitch Creinin, M.D., who'd researched the abortifacient, RU 486, the magazine told its readers that the abortion-breast cancer link was a "myth." This month, Chicago Parent, the Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization and a Northwestern University Medical School physician, Valerie Staradub, M.D., teamed up to disinform women about the research. Our women's group demands full retractions from both publications.
Redbook, Chicago Parent and their experts acknowledge that having a first full term pregnancy (FFTP) before age 30 and breast feeding reduce risk, but they deny that abortion causes breast cancer. How does a childless woman obtain the protective effect of an earlier FFTP and breast feed if she aborts her child? Obviously, the truth that abortion causes breast cancer in this way is too discomforting for the editors to say so.
Independent of this effect, abortion causes changes to take place in a woman's breasts which make her cancer-vulnerable. Chicago Parent says that it's pro-life mythology. As a cancer survivor, I'm offended by this blatant attempt to mix politics with science. It's a women's health issue. Even Illinois Lieutenant Governor Corinne Wood, a pro-abortion breast cancer survivor and spokesperson, testified before the Senate Executive Committee against a resolution calling for a task force that would have examined this research. She said that women should remain in the dark about the research because they'd feel added "guilt." This is a strange argument. It was never used with the tobacco-cancer link. What does she think women have to feel guilty about?
Since 1957 -- starting long before any pro-life groups existed -- 28 out of 37 studies have associated abortion with breast cancer, most of which were conducted by abortion supporters. Our website at <www.AbortionBreastCancer.com> provides the references. The studies were published in prestigious journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association and the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, but Redbook, Chicago Parent and Y-ME make it sound as if these scientists don't practice science.
Various sources confirm that the "gatekeepers" in medicine know that abortion causes breast cancer. Both a 1998 medical book called The Breast and the 1988 Henderson lecture published in the journal Cancer Research say that a first trimester abortion increases risk. [1]
In 1986 Bruce Stadel of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Phyllis Wingo of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and two other prominent epidemiologists wrote to the journal, Lancet, and said, "Induced abortion before first term pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer." [2] Their statement was based on only two American studies linking abortion with breast cancer. [3] Why weren't women told?
Last year the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a warning to its abortion providers by saying that this research "could not be disregarded." [4] Why weren't women told?
Since the publication of the first American study implicating abortion in 1981, there has been a shameless effort to discredit the research and to deliberately design studies in order to achieve a negative result. [5] Two arguments, already effectively shot down within the scientific community, continue to be employed to blow smoke on the research and to falsely reassure women of the safety of abortion. Drs. Staradub and Creinin and Y-ME used both arguments, although they are all in a position to know that the arguments are lame excuses for denying a causal relationship.
The first argument is an unsubstantiated theory called reporting bias. The theory says that healthy women underreport their abortions, but patients don't (or, incredibly, that patients make up abortions that they never had). If so, then this would explain why many more patients report having had abortions than healthy women, and it would invalidate any studies relying on interviews instead of medical records. The problem is that several groups of scientists have tested for reporting bias, but none has produced any plausible evidence that it exists. A Swedish group said it found evidence that 7 patients had reported abortions that the computer said they'd never had. In other words, the women either lied or overreported their abortions. [6] When this absurd claim was challenged by other scientists, the Swedes withdrew it. [7] I challenge Y-ME and Drs. Creinin and Staradub to find one study whose scientists currently maintain that they've found plausible evidence of reporting bias.
The second argument is a 1997 Danish study by Melbye et al. whose bottom line was that abortion has no overall effect on breast cancer risk. Readers weren't told that Melbye found a statistically significant 89% increased risk related to induced abortion after 18 weeks gestation. [8] Melbye's publisher, the New England Journal of Medicine, rejected Melbye's conclusions three years after its publication when the journal published an article and identified abortion as a possible "risk factor." [9]
Melbye was severely criticized for its many errors. [10] For instance, Melbye included 1.5 million women in the study, but 1.2 million hadn't had an abortion and hadn't had breast cancer. Even a non-scientist can recognize that flaw. Nevertheless, Melbye has served its intended purpose well.
It's unusual that a Chinese study published in the International Journal of Cancer was used to represent the breast cancer risk for American women. Fifteen American studies have been conducted and 13 show increased risk. The Howe study conducted on New York women was ignored altogether. Howe found a statistically significant increased risk of 90%. As a study relying solely on medical records instead of interviews, it rules out any possibility of reporting bias. [11] If Dr. Staradub and Y-ME wanted to discuss Chinese studies, why didn't they discuss the Bu study which found an almost tripling of a Chinese woman's risk if she has a single abortion? [12]
Dr. Staradub said, "Some studies show that abortions make no difference, while some studies show that they make a small difference." [13] In California three women are suing Planned Parenthood Federation of America for having misled women about the safety of abortion. [14] The plaintiffs complain that Planned Parenthood's website identifies only 5 studies reporting increased risk and 5 reporting no increased risk. How does Dr. Staradub's statement differ from Planned Parenthood's deception?
Drs. Staradub and Creinin should visit the website, <www.johnkindley.com>, to read a Wisconsin Law Review article discussing the legal liability of physicians who paternalistically censor this information from their patients.
Breast cancer risk should not be minimized. It is the greatest cancer killer of women between the ages of 20 and 59. The incidence of breast cancer among American women has risen 40% since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in 1973, while the incidence of all other cancers has declined.
There is no shortage of individuals willing to put ideology and greed ahead of women's lives. This continuing effort to suppress the truth is reminiscent of the tobacco industry's cover-up of the tobacco-cancer link.
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.
References
1. Robert B. Dickson, Ph.D., Marc E. Lippman, M.D., "Growth Regulation of Normal and Malignant Breast Epithelium," The Breast: Comprehensive Management of Benign and Malignant Diseases, edited by Kirby I. Bland, M.D. and Edward M. Copeland III, M.D.; (1998) W. B. Saunders Company; 2nd edition; Vol. 1, p. 519; and Henderson, B.E., Ross, R., Bernstein, L.; "Estrogens as a cause of human cancer," The Richard and Hinda Rosenthal Foundation Award Lecture, University of Southern California School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California; Cancer Res 48:246-253, 1988. 2. Lancet, Feb. 22, 1986, p. 436. 3. Pike et al. (1981) Br J Cancer 47:757-62; and Brinton et al. (1983) Br J Cancer 47:757-62. 4. Evidence-based Guideline#7 (2000) RCOG Press, pp. 29-30. 5. Id 6. Lindefors-Harris et al (1991) Am J Epidemiol 134:1003-8. 7. Meirik et al (1998) J Epidemiol Community Health 52:209. 8. Melbye et al. (1997) N Engl J Med 336:81-5. 9. Armstrong (2000) NEJM 342:564-71. 10. Joel Brind & Vernon Chinchilli, Letter, "Induced Abortion and the Risk of Breast Cancer," 336 NEJM 1834-35 (1997). 11. Howe et al. (1989) Int J Epidemiol 18:300-4. 12. Bu et al. (1995) Am J Epidemiol 141:S85. 13. Chicago Parent (October, 2001) p. 45. 14. Bernardo et al. v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside Counties.
|
|
