Printer Friendly Version from http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/
Illinois Senate Committee Passes Resolution to Investigate Abortion-Breast Cancer Link
April, 2001
On November 29, 2000 Karen Malec, president
of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, and John Kindley, Esq. testified
before the Illinois Senate Executive Committee in support of Senate Resolution
214, now called SR 8. The resolution calls for a task force to investigate
the abortion-breast cancer link.
A representative from Planned Parenthood appeared, but did not publicly speak
against the resolution. Only one witness, a lobbyist for
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), testified against the
resolution. This is peculiar, considering the fact that the ACLU's
George Annas once asserted in a patients' rights book that "even a 1 in 10,000
risk of death must always be disclosed." [George Annas, "The Rights of Patients:
The Basic ACLU guide to Patient Rights," 86 (2d ed. 1992)]. Apparently,
the ACLU has deviated from its own standard and raised the bar for the
abortion-breast cancer risk. One in every 100 women who procure abortions
is expected to die.
The ACLU's lobbyist depended upon the usual arguments to oppose the
resolution. For instance, she argued that "recall bias" is an explanation
for the studies reporting increased risk. This is based on the hypothesis
that studies depending on interviews from women to obtain abortion histories,
retrospective studies, are less reliable because women diagnosed with breast
cancer are allegedly more likely to report that they've had abortions than
healthy women are. It has been argued that prospective studies, studies
relying on a computerized registry of abortions, are more reliable in reporting
abortion history than the women themselves. However, a number
of scientists have tested for recall bias, and no one has ever found any
direct evidence that this phenomenon exists in this area of research.
The 1989 Howe study, a prospective study, is often conveniently overlooked
by ABC opponents. It is completely based on fetal death certificates
recorded in New York State at the!
time of abortions. Howe's team reported an increased risk of
90%. [Howe et al. (1988) Int J Epidemiol
18:300-4].
In spite of the adverse testimony, the resolution was passed in the Executive
Committee by a vote of 7 to 4. Although it was expected that a vote
of the full Senate would take place the following day, Senate leaders decided
to postpone it because a new session of the General Assembly would begin
on January 10, 2001. There would be little time for the members of the task
force to be identified and to complete a report before this date. For
these reasons, the resolution was reintroduced after the start of the new
session in January, 2001 and is now known as SR 8.
Coalition participants did have opportunities to speak with a number of senators
to learn how they plan to vote on this matter. Ironically, a number
of our opponents in the Senate are women who describe themselves as
"pro-choice." Sadly, they do not support women who want to make an
informed choice. They are not pro-information or pro-life for
women.
We have spoken with some of the opponents of the resolution. It is
apparent to us that they all had virtually the same excuse for not supporting
this women's health issue. They argued that the General Assembly does
not belong in health matters! This is a blatantly disingenuous
argument. The General Assembly has been legislating abortion for 30
years. Many legislators have parroted the abortion industry's
representatives over the years by asserting that abortions were necessary
for the sake of women's health. Now that more than two dozen studies
have shown the procedure to be disastrous for women's health, these same
legislators tell us that they do not want to insert themselves into matters
concerning health and examine the overwhelming evidence of a
link.
The hypocrisy of the resolution's opponents was evident. Some of them
supported taxpayer funded Medicaid abortions in the spring of 2000.
They opposed House Bill 709 which would have prohibited these abortions,
except in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother. Other legislators
attempted to pass House Bill 3201 which would have required Catholic hospitals
to violate their religious beliefs by informing rape victims where and how
to acquire abortifacients (drugs which chemically induce
abortions).
The truth is that the opponents of this measure do not want the public to
know about the abortion-breast cancer research. They want to continue
to cover up the evidence because they fear the predictable reaction of the
public when it is learned that abortion causes breast cancer. They
fear the inevitable wrath and outrage of women who have been cruelly deceived
and exploited. They fear the loss of the next
election.
In any case, our opponents will have to explain to their constituents why
they are not pro-life for women. We expect that their constituents
will recognize the intellectual dishonesty inherent in their arguments and
hold them accountable for it.