Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ABORTION-BREAST CANCER NEWS HEADLINES, Letter to the National Catholic Register
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer ^ | 06.14.05 | Karen Malec

Posted on 07/24/2005 12:01:01 PM PDT by Coleus

Dear Friends:

I'd like to share with you my letter to the editor of the National Catholic Register addressing Patrick Novecosky's article (June 5-11, 2005) on the abortion-breast cancer research. Readers of our e-newsletter know that Novecosky's article last month discussed the publication of an eye-popping paper by Baruch College Professor Joel Brind.  Brind accused governmental agencies and others of using fraudulent research in an attempt to rub out the idea in the public mind that abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer.

My letter to the editor could be entitled, "How governmental agencies and cancer fundraising businesses easily deceived journalists about the abortion-breast cancer link."

With few exceptions, secular journalists have difficulties writing about this subject objectively.  There might be two reasons for this:

1) A number of journalists promoted abortion throughout their careers. Perhaps they feel responsible for the "walking wounded" cancer survivors and patients who appear at cancer walks every year.  Nevertheless, the greatest responsibility for surging breast cancer rates lies with the federal government and cancer fundraising businesses.

2) Some journalists undoubtedly lived their ideologies.  They might be fearful that they or their loved ones are at risk for the disease.

Is it more important to save face and protect one's psyche than to save women's lives?  How long will Americans tolerate being exploited by cancer fundraising businesses - cash cows that have no desire to either prevent breast cancer or blow the whistle on the government's 48-year cover-up of the abortion-breast cancer link?

Spread the word.

Sincerely,
Karen Malec
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

ABORTION-BREAST CANCER NEWS HEADLINES

Letter to the National Catholic Register

How governmental agencies and cancer fundraising businesses easily deceived journalists about the abortion-breast cancer link

By Karen Malec, June 14, 2005

Dear editors:

Thank you for Patrick Novecosky's article discussing Professor Joel Brind's landmark paper in the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly concerning the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) research.  Brind accused governmental agencies and others of using fraudulent research to persuade women that abortion is safe.

Few realize that abortion raises a woman's risk for breast cancer in two ways.  The first way isn't debated, but the second way is.  Scientists have known about the first risk for centuries.  They agree that childbearing protects women from breast cancer.  If having a baby reduces your risk for the disease, then choosing not to have that baby means you'll have a greater breast cancer risk.  Therefore, scientists agree that the woman who aborts has a higher risk than the woman who has a baby (assuming her pregnancy lasts at least 32 weeks).

Cancer fundraising businesses acknowledge that women who have few or no children or who delay the birth of a first child are at greater risk for breast cancer.  However, they're not intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that abortion contributes to the nation's breast cancer rates by depriving hundreds of thousands of women every year of the health benefits of childbearing.

The second risk is called the "independent link." It addresses this question: Does abortion leave women with an increase in cancer-vulnerable tissue?

Journalists mislead women by reporting that research shows no increase in risk for women who choose abortion.  Medical researcher Brent Rooney explained:

"Suppose you ask for an estimate of the cost to fix your car, but you're quoted the cost of parts only (labor excluded).  That's not terrible, if you know that labor is excluded.  The vast majority of ABC studies over the last 20 years exclude one of two risks - the loss of protection women receive from childbearing.  In other words, the risk figure quoted is not the total breast cancer risk.  Well-informed researchers know this, but many doctors and the public do not.  Specifically, the 30% higher breast cancer risk reported by Joel Brind excludes the loss of the protective effect.  So, the true breast cancer risk is more accurately put at (approximately) 40% to 50% if both risks are included."

If cancer fundraising businesses sincerely wanted to prevent the disease, they'd encourage women to have larger families, starting before age 24, and breastfeed them longer.  They would have pilloried Planned Parenthood years ago for depriving women of childbearing's protective effect. Research in the journal Lancet in 2002 established that breast cancer rates could be cut by over 50% if women would have larger families and breastfeed them longer.  For more information, see www.AbortionBreastCancer.com.

Sincerely,
Karen Malec
President
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer


#####

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.

 The IRS recognizes the coalition as a 501(c)3 organization.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
www.AbortionBreastCancer.com

Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
www.BCPInstitute.org

Polycarp Research Institute
www.polycarp.org

This newsletter can be viewed online at:
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/news/050722/index.htm


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abc; abclink; abortion; breastcancer; cancer; cancerprevention; joelbrind; karenmalec; lanfranchi; prevention; whatacrock

Breast Cancer Walkers Uninformed about Abortion Link, Komen Foundation gives to Planned Parenthood
Freeper Press Conference(HAULING BIG ABORTION BACK TO COURT)
Abortion/breast cancer link can't be denied
Biography of Joel Brind
Joel Brind, Department of Natural Sciences, Baruch College
Biology Courses, Department of Natural Sciences, Baruch College
Faculty, Department of Natural Sciences, Baruch College
Best-selling author Michael Fumento reports: "Cancer Study Exposes  the Media's Hypocrisy.
Abortion leaders, Democrats attack White House health decisions - (BP)


1 posted on 07/24/2005 12:01:03 PM PDT by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...


2 posted on 07/24/2005 12:01:38 PM PDT by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; american colleen; Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; ...
Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list


3 posted on 07/24/2005 12:07:39 PM PDT by NYer ("Each person is meant to exist. Each person is God's own idea." - Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
I saw a bumper sticker once that sums up your tagline rather nicely...
Be a hero, save a whale.
Save a baby, go to jail.

4 posted on 07/24/2005 12:11:53 PM PDT by LongElegantLegs ("Se habla, MoFo!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

From the article:

"So, the true breast cancer risk is more accurately put at (approximately) 40% to 50% if both risks are included."

Wow!


5 posted on 07/24/2005 12:16:54 PM PDT by Sun (Call U.S. senators toll-free, 1-877-762-8762; tell them to give Roberts an up or down vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sun

Shouldn't a more approriate title be:

'Dem Govts aid baby killing & breast cancer'


6 posted on 07/24/2005 12:23:59 PM PDT by NickatNite2003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sun

Remember, this is 40-50% higher than your normal chance of getting bc. Not that women who have had abortions have a 40-50% risk. Just like other risk factors, this is a multiple of your base risk, which for women 40-49 is about 1.5%


7 posted on 07/24/2005 12:56:35 PM PDT by pa mom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Bump


8 posted on 07/24/2005 1:20:47 PM PDT by Siobhan ("Whenever you come to save Rome, make all the noise you want." -- Pius XII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maeve

Ping


9 posted on 07/24/2005 1:21:03 PM PDT by Siobhan ("Whenever you come to save Rome, make all the noise you want." -- Pius XII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sockmonkey; Jaded; GOP_Thug_Mom; ejo; Nubbin; Slyfox

Ping.


10 posted on 07/24/2005 1:22:20 PM PDT by Siobhan ("Whenever you come to save Rome, make all the noise you want." -- Pius XII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Why do people believe in FR there is NO connection between smoking and cancer smoking
....and yet at the same time believe this headline?
11 posted on 07/24/2005 3:18:26 PM PDT by Fawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fawn

Ping me when you get an answer. I won't be holding my breath . . .


12 posted on 07/24/2005 4:20:59 PM PDT by pa mom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Fawn
Why do people believe in FR [that] there is NO connection between smoking and cancer smoking
....and yet at the same time believe this headline?

Smoking only put bad things in your lungs. Abortion is like running a car into a brick wall.

Once a young girl is pregnant, there are changes in the body, and hormones released. The breasts are pushed into development as a biological clock is started -- the child will need nourishment in 9 months.

The studies have proven the younger the girl, the effects are more devastating.

The running of a car into the brick wall is the sudden stoppage of the hormones and the development of the breast -- the effect of having an abortion.

The good news is that people who do not have a history of breast cancer in the family are fairly safe.

And the other good news is that if a very young girl goes ahead with giving birth to the child, subsequent pregnancies ending in abortion are not as likely to cause breast cancer (i.e., the breasts were developed as part of the first pregnancy fully).

As for lung cancer and throat cancer from smoking, some people do not have a problem unless there is a family history of cancer.

So there are variables.

A New Jersey breast surgeon became very alarmed with all the young women that came to her with breast cancer. She is now full time on the abortion-breast cancer link because she had too many victims enter her office (25 to 35 year old women).

At least when people smoked, they might get cancer in their 40's or 50's. It appears with the abortion-breast cancer link, that dying of breast cancer can happen when a woman is in her 20's -- especially if she had an abortion around the age of 10, 11, 12, or 13 years old -- which is not UNCOMMON in this day and age.

13 posted on 07/24/2005 4:21:28 PM PDT by topher (God bless our troops and protect them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: topher
Once a young girl is pregnant, there are changes in the body, and hormones released. The breasts are pushed into development as a biological clock is started -- the child will need nourishment in 9 months.

There is also evidence that breast cancer occurs in more women who do not breast feed their children.

It is messing with nature.
14 posted on 07/24/2005 4:29:20 PM PDT by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: All; pa mom

Here are some stats re: breast cancer/abortion link:

http://www.abortionfacts.com/breast_cancer_connection/studies.asp


15 posted on 07/24/2005 4:29:35 PM PDT by Sun (Call U.S. senators toll-free, 1-877-762-8762; tell them to give Roberts an up or down vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: topher; Fawn; pa mom
Article about woman MD who is breast surgeon and whose mother also died of breast cancer:

Abortion-Breast Cancer Link is Convincing

by Dr. Angela Lanfranchi

[Source: The Age (Australia); February 16, 2003]

[Pro-Life Infonet Note: Dr Angela Lanfranchi is a breast cancer surgeon, a fellow of the American College of Surgeons and clinical assistant professor of surgery at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Jersey.]

When I first heard of the link between abortion and breast cancer, in 1993, I thought it was a pro-life fantasy. "That’s crazy," was my initial response. However, out of curiosity I changed the history form I used in my work as a breast surgeon, asking each woman the order and outcome of all pregnancies. The results surprised me.

In the first six months I had two patients in their 30s with breast cancer; one had had seven pregnancies and six abortions, the other five pregnancies and three abortions. I continued to see more and more young women with a history of abortion, developing breast cancer. Of course, I may have been witnessing a statistical fluke.

But then, in 1996, City University of New York Professor Joel Brind published his meta-analysis, which revealed 23 of 28 studies showing a link between abortion and breast cancer. The uproar that study caused in Britain, where it was published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, prompted the editor to write: "I believe that if you take a view (as I do) which is pro-choice, you need at the same time to have a view which might be called pro-information without excessive paternalistic censorship (or interpretation) of the data."

Paternalistic censorship is what I experience every time I try to speak on the science supporting the abortion-breast cancer link.

About 85 per cent of cigarette smokers do not get lung cancer. Doctors who tell their patients of the risk of lung cancer are not labelled fear-mongers. Similarly, not all women who have had an abortion will get breast cancer; only 5 per cent will develop the disease. And 95 per cent of breast cancer patients will not have a history of abortion. But some women are at especially high risk. And 5 percent still adds up to a lot of women.

The 1994 Daling study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute showed that teenagers younger than 18 who had abortions between nine and 24 weeks had nearly a 30 per cent chance of getting breast cancer in their lifetimes. The US National Cancer Institute’s web page on reproductive risk informs women there are studies that show this link.

Many people ask me about first trimester miscarriage. This is quite different, in its effect on the woman’s breasts, from induced abortion of a normal pregnancy. Miscarriages do not increase breast cancer risk, since they are associated with low oestrogen levels that do not cause breast growth. However, when pregnancy is terminated before the breast cells reach full maturity, a woman is left with more immature type 1 and 2 breast lobules (milk glands) than before her pregnancy started, and therefore is at increased risk. Her breasts never mature to type 3 and 4 lobules, which would have occurred in the third trimester and would have lowered her risk.

Ideology should not prevent the dissemination of this information. Australia’s breast cancer organisations are not helping women exercise informed consent when they deny them this knowledge. There are three legal actions in the US by women who were not told of the link before having an abortion.

As Dr Janet Daling, who identifies herself as being pro-choice, says: "If politics gets involved in science, it will really hold back the progress we make. I have three sisters with breast cancer, and I resent people messing with the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It’s not a matter of believing. It’s a matter of what is."

Information only empowers women to make informed choices. Women who choose abortions need to be aware that they are at higher risk, so they will have mammograms earlier and more regularly. Cancers found on mammograms are more likely to be stage 1 and curable. No woman should die of breast cancer because she was not warned.

I watched my mother die of metastatic breast cancer. In my practice, I see young women with small children die of breast cancer. If the information I give patients can prevent a single death from a completely avoidable risk, I will gladly pay the price of being labelled a fear-monger.

These women have experience with this, and though one [Dr Janet Daling] identifies herself as pro-choice, both are interested in helping women.

I believe Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., has left the practice in New Jersey to try to make people aware of the link. It is too late to try to cure the patient when they already have breast cancer -- easier to make the facts known BEFORE women/girls have abortions. And Dr. Lanfranchi has testified before state legislatures about informed consent laws on abortion.

16 posted on 07/24/2005 4:45:04 PM PDT by topher (God bless our troops and protect them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sun

Everyone gets so worked up over these cancer studies. Your initial risk is so low that even a five to ten fold increase only raises your risk to 10-15%.

Eat, drink and be merry. We all have to go someday.


17 posted on 07/24/2005 5:02:11 PM PDT by pa mom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: topher

This is no bigger than drinking, or any other breast cancer risk. It only increases your risk by the given percentage. Unless you have a major family history, our risk is low.

Check yourself, have your mammograms and be happy. Optimism is great for your health.

We cannot get too worked up over all these cancer links. Goodness, you'd never go out of your house.

Why is this such a big deal?


18 posted on 07/24/2005 5:04:37 PM PDT by pa mom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: pa mom

"Eat, drink and be merry. We all have to go someday."

Yep, we all have to go some day, but none of us wants a premature death, and none of us wants a poor quality of life while we are alive, and none of us should want to have the blood of preborn kids on our hands when we face God.

Eat, drink and be merry, and CHOOSE LIFE, so preborn babies will be able to "Eat, drink and be merry" some day, too.


19 posted on 07/24/2005 5:18:28 PM PDT by Sun (Call U.S. senators toll-free, 1-877-762-8762; tell them to give Roberts an up or down vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sun

That's great, be pro life, but don't use the cancer link. It's disingenuous and looks like you are grasping, unless you are going to post about every cancer link to every human activity.

You should chose not to have an abortion because it is morally wrong.

The cancer risk is minimal.


20 posted on 07/24/2005 5:23:10 PM PDT by pa mom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: pa mom

Perhaps it is you who is being disingenous.

Are your pro-life, btw?


21 posted on 07/24/2005 5:26:20 PM PDT by Sun (Call U.S. senators toll-free, 1-877-762-8762; tell them to give Roberts an up or down vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Sun

Yes I am pro life, but all this health hysteria makes me nuts.

And it makes us look like fools. This is not going to change any woman's mind but a paranoid one.

We cannot latch onto a poor argument just because we like the outcome.


22 posted on 07/24/2005 5:37:04 PM PDT by pa mom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: topher
Dr. Lanfranchi will be a speaker at the Second Pro-Life Science & Technology Symposium, to be held on September 24, 2005, at the Engineers Club in Dayton, Ohio.

For more info, check the web site, www.prolifetechology.org.

23 posted on 07/24/2005 5:49:46 PM PDT by JoeFromSidney (My book is out. Read excerpts at www.thejusticecooperative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: pa mom
Why is this such a big deal?

For Dr. Lanfranchi, I think the big deal is that because of politics, any sort of link between breast cancer and abortion is squashed -- because of political reasons.

She found out that her patients with histories of abortions were getting breast cancer. It is really for her to answer, not me, why she became such an activist...

24 posted on 07/24/2005 5:56:17 PM PDT by topher (God bless our troops and protect them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: topher

Interesting. Your post led me to think about the drugs women get to dry up their milk ducts when they do not choose to breast feed. Wondering if there's been any studies done on that angle?


25 posted on 07/24/2005 7:45:00 PM PDT by american colleen (Long live Benedict XVI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NYer
"How many abortions have you had?"

Some of the women in my family have had to go to the hospital for surgery. In the interview, they were automatically asked, "How many abortions have you had?"

I think the question is posed so bluntly because some women would say "no" if the they were asked, "Have you had an abortion?" even if they did have an abortion. Maybe the unpublicized psychology for murdering an unborn child is to block it out completely. "I had a miscarriage," might be the other response.

The women in my family were quite shocked when they were asked such a cold question...even by female hospital staff. Femininity and the "care" part of "Health Care" seems to have died in the medical industry if this is how patients are surveyed.
26 posted on 07/24/2005 7:46:07 PM PDT by SaltyJoe ("Social Justice" begins with the unborn child.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pa mom
Your initial risk is so low that even a five to ten fold increase only raises your risk to 10-15%.

But women should be told the truth about this, don't you agree?

27 posted on 07/24/2005 8:49:53 PM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: pa mom; Sun; Fawn; topher
This is not going to change any woman's mind but a paranoid one. >>

it's not about changing a woman's mind, it' about bias in the media, the agenda in schools where a guidance counselor, could, in the long run, by driving a school girl to get an abortion, CAUSE her breast cancer in the future. I've heard Dr. lanfranchi talk at conferences, she's a breast surgeon and has seen girls in their 20's die of breast cancer, which is something most doctors never saw before roe v. wade. The press, AMA, schools, etc. are covering up the facts while promoting their demonic agenda.
28 posted on 07/24/2005 9:26:24 PM PDT by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
Your post led me to think about the drugs women get to dry up their milk ducts when they do not choose to breast feed. Wondering if there's been any studies done on that angle?

I am not even aware of the drug. In general, I believe what is natural is good, and unnatural is bad, ... for the body.

29 posted on 07/25/2005 5:27:56 AM PDT by topher (God bless our troops and protect them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights

If all the folks here are just as worked up over all breast cancer risks, sure.

But would a study that found childbirth caused uterine cancer get as much play?

I don't like seeing science used for political purposes and I think folks in general get way too excited over cancer links.

As we saw in the news just the other day, lots of these health stories turn out not to have basis years down the road.


30 posted on 07/25/2005 5:50:07 AM PDT by pa mom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

But even if the risk is four fold, or ten fold, which it is not--this article says 50%--A woman aged 45 with an abortion and no family history only has at most a 15% risk.

Using the 50% figure it's only 2.25%.

Family history is the single biggest factor in breast cancer.

Having a few drinks every week raises your risk more than an abortion.


31 posted on 07/25/2005 5:52:59 AM PDT by pa mom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: pa mom

You're right it is morally wrong--but you know what? Some women in this post Roe world would probably have that poor baby instead of taking ANY risk that they might lose their breasts. That is so sickening. The pro-life protesters ought to carry around signs shouting, "SAVE YOUR BREASTS!!!"
You bet your a## it would probably shut those aboruarys down for lack of busines. Vanity of vanities

Teresa


32 posted on 07/25/2005 4:29:21 PM PDT by SaintDismas (Jest becuz you put yer boots in the oven, don't make it bread)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: wequalswinner

Well, if the risk were really high, I might agree.


33 posted on 07/25/2005 4:30:15 PM PDT by pa mom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
ROE, MEDICAL SCIENCE, THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT, ROSS PEROT + HILLARY CLINTON
34 posted on 07/27/2005 5:42:45 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

thanks for the link


35 posted on 07/27/2005 5:22:29 PM PDT by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

you're welcome:)


36 posted on 07/27/2005 7:22:12 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

later pingout for sure.


37 posted on 07/27/2005 7:36:00 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thompsonsjkc; odoso; animoveritas; DaveTesla; mercygrace; Laissez-faire capitalist; ...

Moral Absolutes Ping.

The evidence that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer is pretty damning. What is also odious is that many in the media and gov't don't want people to know.

Abortion is, after all, the cornerstone of feminism, the left, the Democratic Party, and the rejection of sexual morality. Take away abortion, and the house of cards falls down. Think about it - all the above are based on the freedom to murder the most helpless of all.

Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.


38 posted on 07/29/2005 5:57:28 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson