It seems there's a vested interest in the scientific community to set the data aside and assure women that breast cancer is an unavoidable "fact of life." While it often strikes unexpectedly, there are ways of increasing the odds of contracting it. One way is to have an abortion before the first full-term delivery. But that enormous factoid is being irresponsibly disputed:
New York, NY (LifeNews.com) -- A leading web site on science issues ran an article on Tuesday from its "junk science" reporting that misleads women by saying the abortion-breast cancer link is nonexistent. It also says there is little or no way to prevent breast cancer, despite studies showing that having children helps protect women from the disease.
In his article "Five Myths About Breast Cancer," LiveScience.com's columnist Christopher Wanjek says the link between abortion and breast cancer is one of five myths that women should know this October, which is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. He calls the link a "persistent myth" that "was thoroughly resolved by the 1990s."
Well folks, it wasn't. In fact the "myth" has only been increasingly shown true with a growing pile of documentation that is being ignored or shoved aside.
Dr. Joel Brind, a professor at Baruch College in New York, says there is 50 years of research showing a link between abortion and breast cancer. Brind pointed out that breast cancer cases have risen 40 percent since abortion was made virtually unlimited in the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade.
Brind said the first study showing the abortion-breast cancer link was published in Japan in 1957 and it showed that women who have abortions have two-three times greater a chance of contracting breast cancer than those who decide to keep their baby.
Dr. Janet Daling, who considers herself pro-abortion, brought the abortion-breast cancer link into the mainstream when her 1994 research found that among women who had been pregnant at least once experienced a 50 percent increase in breast cancer risk when having an included abortion.
While the scientific community is not above sensationalism over every proposed thesis (speculating breathlessly about what affects blood pressure and cholesteral, and the dangers of mad cow disease, bird flu, cell phones, trans-fats, ephedra, steroids, radio towers, etc.) study after consistent study links a common procedure with a more common form of cancer and the data is refuted. Out of hand. Unthinkable.
As outined in the Casey decision ("women have made their family planning decisions with the understanding that abortion will be available, therefore it cannot be denied" or somesuch reasoning) abortion is determined essential, no matter what the risks. Proofs to the contrary cannot be acknowledged because men need uninhibited access to women; women need uninhibited access to abortion; and the deadly side-effects are irrelevant.
The pink ribbon campaign is useless without the incorporation of essential data. Donate accordingly.
Comments