|
Dear Friends:
On Sunday, the Chicago Tribune joined the growing chorus of news outlets that are challenging the information that crisis pregnancy centers give to expectant mothers about the risks of abortion (i.e. breast cancer, infertility and emotional harm).
The abortion industry's leaders hope to see crisis pregnancy centers lose their federal funding. But, Planned Parenthood should lose its federal funding because there are recognized risks of breast cancer and premature birth associated with abortion. Planned Parenthood "adds fuel to the fire" by selling the post-abortive woman cancer-causing female anabolic sex steroids (hormonal contraceptives and abortifacients).
Who pays the increased costs of health care, special education, and medical malpractice lawsuits? Taxpayers, doctors and health insurance consumers!
The day will come when abortion will be viewed as the health catastrophe that it is - as medically backwards as the 18th century practice of using leeches as a cure all.
An article discussing the Chicago Tribune's story appears below. Spread the word.
If you have not yet sent the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer a tax-deductible donation, please do so today. We are still desperate for your help, as our funds for the last two months remain lower than normal. Remember that our work is made possible only through your charity.
Please help us to help abortion-bound, expectant mothers. You can send a check or make a credit card donation. Just click on this link:
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/support/index.htm
Thank you in advance for your support for expectant mothers.
Sincerely,
Karen Malec
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
ABORTION-BREAST CANCER NEWS HEADLINES
Chicago Tribune Joins Chorus of News Outlets Harassing Crisis Pregnancy Centers
With the publication of an article entitled, "To foes, pregnancy sites blur the abortion picture," on March 25, 2007, the Chicago Tribune joined the growing chorus of news outlets that are challenging the information that crisis pregnancy centers give to expectant mothers about the risks of abortion (i.e. breast cancer, infertility and emotional harm). [1]
Time Magazine, the Palm Beach Post, the Seattle Post Intelligencer and the New York Daily News have all published similar articles recently. It is beginning to look like an orchestrated effort on the part of the abortion industry to attack crisis pregnancy centers in the hope that their federal funding will be withdrawn. Their work, after all, is bad for the abortion industry's business.
Yet, it isn't crisis pregnancy centers, which should lose federal funding. Planned Parenthood should lose its federal funding. Through the sale of hormonal contraceptives and abortions, Planned Parenthood's work increases the nation's breast cancer rates.
Moreover, dozens of studies show that abortion puts women at risk for having prematurely born children later in life. [11] More premature births mean that more babies are at risk for cerebral palsy and neonatal deaths.
Taxpayers, doctors and health insurance consumers are paying for the increased number of patients with breast cancer and cerebral palsy.
The harassment of crisis pregnancy centers began last year when Congressman Henry Waxman, an abortion enthusiast, and his Democratic colleagues on the House Government Reform Committee issued a report that included the false statement that "There is a medical consensus that there is no causal relationship between abortion and breast cancer." [2]
If you repeat a lie often enough, it soon takes on a life of its own. It is what the German dictator Adolph Hitler called a "Big Lie" - a term used to describe the criminal use of propaganda fed to the public for political or official purposes.
The conclusions in Waxman's report are being repeated in the nation's newspapers ad nauseum, and very little critical thinking is taking place. The problem is Waxman and his pals are struggling to protect a cancer-causing industry - much like tobacco-state Congressman who struggled to protect the tobacco industry.
If what Waxman says is true - that medical experts agree there is no cause-effect relationship - why do scientists continue to spend millions of dollars studying the abortion-breast cancer link?
This situation is especially egregious since Patricia Hartge of the U.S. National Cancer Institute assured the public in 1997 that the Danish study by Melbye and his colleagues [3] was the "definitive study" - the Mother of All Studies that conclusively established that "a woman need not worry about breast cancer when facing the difficult decision of whether to terminate a pregnancy."
Professor Joel Brind of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute opined at that time that the National Cancer Institute's position was:
"A very odd position for the National Cancer Institute of a country to take, of a country in which twelve studies had looked at the issue and eleven out of twelve of them had found increased risk in women who had had induced abortion, increased risk of breast cancer. Eight out of eleven of them were statistically significant most of them funded by or even done by the very National Cancer Institute...."[4]
In their report, Waxman and his colleagues used the Danish study to support their erroneous claim that abortion is not causally related to breast cancer, but they neglected to include one small fact that most expectant mothers would find relevant. Even the Danish study found a statistically significant 89% risk increase for women who have abortions after 18 weeks gestation.
In her story for the Chicago Tribune, Judy Peres cited Waxman's report and repeated some of its allegations. Peres wrote:
"...87 percent of federally funded pregnancy centers reached by (Waxman's) investigators provided false or misleading information about abortion.
"According to the report, the centers told potential clients there is a link between breast cancer and abortion, which has been refuted by the National Cancer Institute, and that abortion causes infertility and mental illness, which is not supported by comprehensive reviews of the medical literature."
Peres treated the minority report as if its findings were completely factual. She did not question or challenge the conclusions.
Even so, expectant mothers who are contemplating an abortion have a right to know what the facts are in order to make an informed health care decision about abortion. Peres, nonetheless, omitted important facts that most expectant mothers would find relevant to their decisions.
For example, eight medical organizations recognize the abortion-breast cancer link and a ninth organization has called on doctors to warn patients about a "highly plausible" link. Even scientists who oppose the independent link admit that the biological reasons for it are physiologically correct.
Several abortion providers have been known to acknowledge the risks of breast cancer, infertility, depression, suicide and other serious complications on their consent forms.
For example, Planned Parenthood of Australia's website includes consent forms that provide a list of serious health complications associated with having an abortion including three accepted risk factors for premature birth (infection and cervical and uterine anomalies), an accepted risk factor for breast cancer (infertility), depression and suicide. [5]
Mainstream medical organizations agree that increased childbearing, starting at a younger age, protects women from breast cancer. Scientists, therefore, agree that the expectant mother who aborts has a greater breast cancer risk than the one who has a baby. The only risk they debate is whether abortion leaves women with an increased number of cancer-vulnerable breast lobules.
What is the problem with reporting these scientific facts on the pages of the Chicago Tribune?
There are more significant facts that Peres omitted. A scientific review of ten studies published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons in 2005 demonstrated that the research used by the abortion industry (and others) to deny an independent link between abortion and breast cancer contains outright violations of the scientific method. The author concluded that the ten studies do not invalidate the much larger body of research showing a link. [6]
Importantly, no expert has ever sent a letter to the journal challenging these conclusions.
A premature birth before 32 weeks gestation is known to more than double the mother's breast cancer risk. [7,8,9] The hormonal changes to the breasts are the same whether the expectant mother delivers a living child or a dead one.
Finally, expectant mothers have a right to know that the Institute of Medicine lists "first trimester abortion" as a risk factor for premature birth. [11] These findings were not included in the Waxman report. Moreover, to our knowledge, the Chicago Tribune (and other news outlets) has never reported the Institute's findings on the abortion-premature birth link.
Expectant mothers, therefore, have the right to ask: Is there a bias for lack of what the facts are in the nation's news rooms?
Taxpayers and health insurance consumers had better start considering what the health consequences of the sexual revolution are costing them in taxes and rapidly escalating health insurance premiums - especially now that some legislators are forcing insurance carriers to provide coverage for cancer-causing, anabolic sex steroids (hormonal contraceptives and abortifacients).
Sexual permissiveness, the use of cancer-causing hormonal contraceptives/abortifacients, and abortion are health care time bombs that we all must pay for. Is it any wonder that we are experiencing a health care crisis in this country?
The day will come when abortion will be viewed as the health catastrophe that it is - as medically backwards as the 18th century practice of using leeches as a cure all.
Doctors should consider what abortion is costing them in terms of rising medical malpractice insurance premiums. Andrew Schlafly, Esq., general counsel for the American Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, warned doctors in 2005 that the most common cause of medical malpractice lawsuits in the U.S. is failure to diagnose breast cancer (or failure to diagnose it early). [10]
Doctors are failing to diagnose the disease because they're not looking for breast cancer among women who've had abortions. They're not looking for breast cancer in post-abortive women because their biased medical organizations and the gatekeepers of science have kept this evidence under wraps for a half-century. Although doctors read medical literature, they do not have time to review and evaluate a mountain of medical literature on one risk factor. They rely heavily on scientists to perform that task for them.
References:
1. Peres, Judy. "To foes, pregnancy sites blur the abortion picture. Crisis pregnancy centers offer alternatives to abortion, but critics say they are misleading." Chicago Tribune, March 25, 2007. Page 1.
<http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/health/chi-0703250325mar25,1,892098.story>.
2. "Federally Funded Pregnancy Resource Centers Mislead Teens about Abortion Risks," July 17, 2006.
Available at:
<http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1080>.
3. Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Olson JH, Frisch M, Westergaard T, Helweg-Larsen K, Andersen PK. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1997;336:81-85.
4. Transcript of the talk by Professor Joel Brind at an Endeavour Forum Public Meeting at Malvern, Victoria. August 24, 1999.
5. Planned Parenthood of Australia website. See:
<http://websites.golden-orb.com/plannedparenthood/100158.php>.
6. Brind J. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: A critical review of recent studies based on prospective data. J Am Phys Surg Vol. 10, No. 4 (Winter 2005) 105-110. Available at:
<http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf>.
7. Vatten LJ, et al. Pregnancy related protection against breast cancer depends on length of gestation. Br J Cancer 2002;87:289-90.
8. Melbye M, et al. Preterm delivery and risk of breast cancer. Bri J Cancer 1999;80:609-13.
9. Hsieh C-c, Wuu J, Lambe M, Trichopoulos D, et al Delivery of premature newborns and maternal breast-cancer risk. Lancet 1999;353-1239.
10. Schlafly A. Legal implications of a link between abortion and breast cancer. J Am Phys Surgeons 2005;10:11-14. Available at:
<http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf>.
11. Richard E. Behrman, Adrienne Stith Butler, Editors. Preterm birth: Causes, Consequences and Prevention. Committee on Understanding Premature Birth and Assuring Healthy Outcomes. Institute of Medicine. Appendix B, Table 5, p. 519. Available at:
<http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11622&page=519>
####
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.
Tax-deductible, credit card donations can be made at http://www.AbortionBreastCancer.com. Donations can be mailed to: the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, P.O. Box 957133, Hoffman Estates, IL 60195. The IRS recognizes the coalition as a 501(c)3 organization.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
http://www.AbortionBreastCancer.com
Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
http://www.BCPInstitute.org
Polycarp Research Institute
http://www.polycarp.org
|
|
