The breast cancer whitewash

Elective abortion, especially before a woman's first full—term pregnancy, is a risk factor for breast cancer. A majority of studies, both American and international, have demonstrated this relationship, commonly called the ABC link.

 

This relationship has been affirmed by five physician organizations. Other medical groups and publications have called the ABC link plausible and called for further research.

 

Nevertheless, health department officials of some states are antsy about disclosing even the possibility of the ABC link. A January 1, 2004 article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune quotes Doneen Hollingsworth, South Dakota's Secretary of Health, as stating that she wants to "avoid the controversy" which surrounded neighboring Minnesota's publication of its booklet "If You Are Pregnant,' which noted the possibility of an abortion breast cancer causal link The Star Tribune article says that Planned Parenthood officials were glad that South Dakota made the "right decision" to omit information about the ABC link. Ms. Hollingsworth is worried "that a similar controversy in South Dakota would diminish the integrity and credibility of our own web site.'

 

Minnesota is one of a number of states which have legislation in place mandating informing women of the short and long term risks of abortion, in addition to alternatives to abortion. Minnesota Health Commissioner Dianne Mandernach defends her state's informed consent document as "evenhanded.'

 

The Minnesota booklet states on page 22, "Findings from some studies suggest there is an increased risk of breast cancer among women who had an abortion, while findings from other studies suggest there is no increased risk. This issue may need further study.' This is similar language to a Texas informed consent document, "A Woman's Right to Know" (page17).

 

Why should such tepid language which, if anything, understates that case that can be made for the ABC link, excite such controversy? After all, US courts have even allowed physicians to be sued for damages for not giving women informed consent about the ABC link. The censoring of any mention of the link constitutes a significant whitewash of an important health issue for women.

 

The answer has to do with a medical manifestation of the phenomenon known as "the abortion distortion."  Overwhelming prejudice causes politicized elites in law, medicine, and education to suspend disinterested inquiry and logic where abortion issues are concerned. In the medical sphere, the abortion distortion results in suppressing information and "managing" research.

 

One prime example is the National Cancer Institute (NCI) conference in February, 2003, "Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Risk". This was supposed to be a forum which would invite open discussion of the ABC link, and produce a "consensus report." However, the NCI meeting turned out to be a parody of science, by not allowing dissenting scientists to speak at the conference, and by terminating the conference early to suppress discussion. The resulting one—sided conference report is frequently cited as the final conclusive word on the subject by pro—abortion advocates seeking to dismiss the ABC link.

 

Joel Brind, a scientist with two decades of experience researching the ABC link who attended the meeting, but was not allowed to speak, gives a scathing review of the conference in his minority report.  He states that other researchers believe in the ABC link, but are politically intimidated from speaking up because of NCI control over their funding.

 

Why is this important? Breast cancer is the most common cause of death of women in their 40's. One in eight women will develop breast cancer. Women need to have all the information and make up their own minds about their life choices, not be spoon—fed politically manipulated statistics and incomplete data.

 

Parents need to have all relevant information to help their daughters make the best decisions in the event of an unintended teen pregnancy. Currently, parental notification legislation is on the books, or soon to be on the ballots, in a number of states. In one of NCI's own studies (originally created to help disprove the ABC link) 100% of teenagers who had a family history of breast cancer and had induced abortions later developed pre—menopausal breast cancer, which is usually more virulent than the post—menopausal variety. This information is such a hot potato that it is ignored in the abstract of the article ( see Daling et. al., 1994), and has never been dealt with or explained away.

 

The ABC cover—up has been systematic, deliberate and disgraceful. The behavior of many medical organizations and publications has been timid, afraid to confront NCI and reproductive health establishment gurus. Heads need to roll.

 

Even the Bush administration has found it difficult to make a dent in the bias of the beltway scientists who control the NCI. Thank goodness for the courts and the internet, which allow information to circulate beyond the control of the politicized abortion advocates, who have grabbed control of much of the official apparatus of scientific medical inquiry. And thanks also to state government officials in Minnesota and Texas who are more concerned about women's lives than succumbing to current medical standards of political correctness.

Elective abortion, especially before a woman's first full—term pregnancy, is a risk factor for breast cancer. A majority of studies, both American and international, have demonstrated this relationship, commonly called the ABC link.

 

This relationship has been affirmed by five physician organizations. Other medical groups and publications have called the ABC link plausible and called for further research.

 

Nevertheless, health department officials of some states are antsy about disclosing even the possibility of the ABC link. A January 1, 2004 article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune quotes Doneen Hollingsworth, South Dakota's Secretary of Health, as stating that she wants to "avoid the controversy" which surrounded neighboring Minnesota's publication of its booklet "If You Are Pregnant,' which noted the possibility of an abortion breast cancer causal link The Star Tribune article says that Planned Parenthood officials were glad that South Dakota made the "right decision" to omit information about the ABC link. Ms. Hollingsworth is worried "that a similar controversy in South Dakota would diminish the integrity and credibility of our own web site.'

 

Minnesota is one of a number of states which have legislation in place mandating informing women of the short and long term risks of abortion, in addition to alternatives to abortion. Minnesota Health Commissioner Dianne Mandernach defends her state's informed consent document as "evenhanded.'

 

The Minnesota booklet states on page 22, "Findings from some studies suggest there is an increased risk of breast cancer among women who had an abortion, while findings from other studies suggest there is no increased risk. This issue may need further study.' This is similar language to a Texas informed consent document, "A Woman's Right to Know" (page17).

 

Why should such tepid language which, if anything, understates that case that can be made for the ABC link, excite such controversy? After all, US courts have even allowed physicians to be sued for damages for not giving women informed consent about the ABC link. The censoring of any mention of the link constitutes a significant whitewash of an important health issue for women.

 

The answer has to do with a medical manifestation of the phenomenon known as "the abortion distortion."  Overwhelming prejudice causes politicized elites in law, medicine, and education to suspend disinterested inquiry and logic where abortion issues are concerned. In the medical sphere, the abortion distortion results in suppressing information and "managing" research.

 

One prime example is the National Cancer Institute (NCI) conference in February, 2003, "Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Risk". This was supposed to be a forum which would invite open discussion of the ABC link, and produce a "consensus report." However, the NCI meeting turned out to be a parody of science, by not allowing dissenting scientists to speak at the conference, and by terminating the conference early to suppress discussion. The resulting one—sided conference report is frequently cited as the final conclusive word on the subject by pro—abortion advocates seeking to dismiss the ABC link.

 

Joel Brind, a scientist with two decades of experience researching the ABC link who attended the meeting, but was not allowed to speak, gives a scathing review of the conference in his minority report.  He states that other researchers believe in the ABC link, but are politically intimidated from speaking up because of NCI control over their funding.

 

Why is this important? Breast cancer is the most common cause of death of women in their 40's. One in eight women will develop breast cancer. Women need to have all the information and make up their own minds about their life choices, not be spoon—fed politically manipulated statistics and incomplete data.

 

Parents need to have all relevant information to help their daughters make the best decisions in the event of an unintended teen pregnancy. Currently, parental notification legislation is on the books, or soon to be on the ballots, in a number of states. In one of NCI's own studies (originally created to help disprove the ABC link) 100% of teenagers who had a family history of breast cancer and had induced abortions later developed pre—menopausal breast cancer, which is usually more virulent than the post—menopausal variety. This information is such a hot potato that it is ignored in the abstract of the article ( see Daling et. al., 1994), and has never been dealt with or explained away.

 

The ABC cover—up has been systematic, deliberate and disgraceful. The behavior of many medical organizations and publications has been timid, afraid to confront NCI and reproductive health establishment gurus. Heads need to roll.

 

Even the Bush administration has found it difficult to make a dent in the bias of the beltway scientists who control the NCI. Thank goodness for the courts and the internet, which allow information to circulate beyond the control of the politicized abortion advocates, who have grabbed control of much of the official apparatus of scientific medical inquiry. And thanks also to state government officials in Minnesota and Texas who are more concerned about women's lives than succumbing to current medical standards of political correctness.