-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
For those who oppose abortion no tactic is too sleazy. The scare tactic of stopping abortion by linking it with breast cancer was manna from heaven. The visceral fear of breast cancer would present the faithful with a weapon to be wielded with no regard for the facts. The fact that the scientific evidence shows no link between abortion and breast cancer fazed them not.
The recent Komen/Planned Parenthood publicity and Komen’s ties to this woo, has reanimated this long-dead controversy.
The Komen tie-in is via Jane Abraham, a member of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Advocacy Alliance board of directors. Abraham is also on the board of directors of The Nurturing Network, an organization founded and chaired by Mary Cunningham Agee. It was Agee who, in 1999, wrote in a Culture of Life Foundation newsletter that “the undeniable link between breast cancer and abortion is only the ‘tip of an iceberg’ of damage that medical science is now able to reveal about this procedure.”
Abraham is also founder and General Chairman of the Susan B. Anthony List. On its website, the SBA List touts its Komen connection while claiming:
There are also studies that link abortion to breast cancer- which is precisely what SGK is supposed to be fighting against.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a lie.
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released a report, Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk, that found:
More rigorous recent studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found:
Breast cancer: induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.
The American Cancer Society studied the link and reported the results:
- Induced abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.
- Spontaneous abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.
These scientific results are known to the anti-abortion cadre, and they’d rather lie to women.
H/T: Jodi Jacobson, Catholics For Choice (pdf).
What Bob Kauten said.
Well done, sir.
Bdaman:
Your assertion, “The abortion breast cancer debate is as bad as the Global Warming debate. ”
is right on-the-money. There’s no real debate on either one. Arguing about either is a waste of time. New, compelling data are needed to renew either debate.
There’s no substantial evidence that abortion significantly increases cancer risk.
There’s no substantial doubt among scientists that humans are contributing significantly to global warming. The evidence is overwhelming that we are.
We should really drop the ‘page charges’ and ‘advertisement’ issues. I’ve published in journals that do the same thing. ‘Advertisement’ is just a legal term. It’s triggered by some journals’ routine practice of charging authors per-page fees. If you don’t pay the fees, you don’t get your article published. I consider it an insult to the authors, to charge them by the page. The authors did all the work, after all. But the practice exists.
Having belabored that, I totally agree with David Drumm’s viewpoint.
Well, when my law review comment was distributed to every member of the U.S. House of Representatives by a Congressman / M.D. along with a letter urging them to read it, which I don’t believe typically happens to law review comments, my hopes for successful litigation went up significantly.
As I also indicate on my site, I’ve long ago washed my hands of this issue, and have, as you suggest I do, moved on. After all, not only has the “breast cancer awareness” movement and the “pro-choice” movement long known the facts underlying this issue, so has the so-called “pro-life” movement, and contrary to popular belief the latter movement has for the most part done precious little about it over the years. It doesn’t really fit in with its agenda and its priorities. If none of these people care about it, why should I?
It’s an understatement to say I “won’t find support here” for what I’m saying, no matter how true it might be. It’s a rather inconvenient truth. I was quite naive when I started this whole thing. I figured everyone, liberals included, would agree that women considering abortion had the right to be informed about this information prior to undergoing an abortion. (Indeed, all of my fellow law students on the editorial board of the law review who decided to publish my comment were “pro-choice,” and you can bet they rigorously scrutinized it prior to agreeing to publish it.) Boy was I wrong. I had yet to discover that abortion, and any perceived threat to its legitimacy, trumped everything, and especially trumped the rights and autonomy of women who have abortions.
I didn’t go out of my way to pick this fight here. But I think I’ve made my point.
I started also a 13, quit at 48 after first heart attack. Tough then, but no sweat after 27 years. Even my smoking in my dreams has stopped. (smile)!
Except for bypass/aorta valve/pacemaker etc. have had NO subsequesnt effects (irony intended).
Wish we would raise the age of smoking to 25 years.
What you are doing is prevaricating on a large scale.
Did you really have hopes that you could start a legal case accusing the state,et al for misleading women who have abortions and later get breast cancer, on the basis of information withholding, a la cigarettes and lung cancer?
And you lost money on it too, you say on your site?
Stop beating a dead horse. The bell has rung. Go get a new life as confirmation of you worth. You won’t find support here for your false-flagging of concern for breast cancer patients who were denied knowledge of the effects of abortions.
Bdaman,
Congrats on kicking the habit!
Mike somehow I just ran across your comment. I don’t know how I missed it earlier. Thank you for your kind words. Yes I am making it everyday. I am one month removed from smoking cigarettes after being a pack a day smoker for 35 years.
Bdaman,
It’s great you stopped smoking. I started at 13 and look what happened to me. Hang in there with it and you’ll get to the point where you won’t understand why you ever started it in the first. Keep conquering it and you can have the satisfaction of beating what I think is the worst addiction.
Don’t forget Dr Wakefield. Dr. Wakefield fabricated and falsified his data. In addition, he was found to have had significant financial conflicts of interest and to have violated standard ethical practices when conducting his study on vaccines and autism.
And the all time scientific fraud
Piltdown man
The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleontological hoax ever. It has been prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of human evolution, and the length of time (more than 40 years) that elapsed from its discovery to its full exposure as a forgery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
We see this time and again. Just last month.
An extensive misconduct investigation that took three years to complete and produced a 60,000-page report, concludes that a researcher who has come to prominence in recent years for his investigations into the beneficial properties of resveratrol, a compound found in red wine, “is guilty of 145 counts of fabrication and falsification of data”.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/240222.php
Bron in the 60 minutes case above the doctor fabricated his data. The doctor was exonerated after an independent review and he was able to resume with his so called breakthrough treatments. In the end they were able to figure out this was a fraud
Michael Mann of Climategate has been accused of fabricating his data. He refuses to turn over that data for scrutiny from others. He has been cleared of wrong doing from independent reviewers. In the end people with common sense know global warming is a fraud.
OS,
Don’t try confusing their theories with the facts.
” Could end up one of the biggest medical frauds”
Regarding your “advertisement” misconception, here is the section of the U.S. Code referenced in the study which required that disclaimer: http://us-code.vlex.com/vid/editorials-other-matter-advertisements-19190386
The claim is not extraordinary. Given what is known about the biology of both pregnancy and breast cancer, it would be surprising if induced abortion did NOT increase breast cancer risk. See here (co-written, presumably, by Joel Brind): http://bcpinstitute.org/abcbrochure.htm
Video, a must see
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7398476n
Just finished watchin this on 6o Minutes
Deception at Duke – Scott Pelley reports on a Duke University oncologist whose supervisor says he manipulated the data in his study of a breakthrough cancer therapy. Kyra Darnton is the producer.
If you missed it it only goes to show you how a mass of people can be duped by a doctor. We see it time and time again.
Conspiracy theories abound in the face of fact and research.
Kindley, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You have provided none. The our-of-date journal article you proudly touted is nothing but a paid advertisement. The correlations you cite are not proof of anything.
There is a known correlation between high levels of estrogen and increased cancer risk. There is no known correlation between abortion (whether spontaneous miscarriage, or induced) and breast cancer. Or any other kind of cancer for that matter.
You have been provided a great deal of information, but insist on being disingenuous and a contrarian in the face of facts.
Christine N.: As I noted upthread, I do not support making abortion illegal. What this “all boils down to” is the powers that be thinking that the increased breast cancer risk associated with induced abortion should not be relevant to a woman’s decision whether to have an abortion. They’re thinking for you. They don’t want you to worry your pretty little heads about it.