ABORTION-BREAST CANCER NEWS HEADLINES, Letter to the National Catholic Register

Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer ^ | 06.14.05 | Karen Malec

[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

[Sun]

Perhaps it is you who is being disingenous.

Are your pro-life, btw?

[pa mom]

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.

[JoeFromSidney]

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.

[topher]

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...

[american colleen]

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?

[SaltyJoe]

"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.

[Know your rights]

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?

[Coleus]

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.

[topher]

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.

[pa mom]

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.

[pa mom]

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.

[SaintDismas]

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

[pa mom]

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

[Mia T]

ROE, MEDICAL SCIENCE, THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT, ROSS PEROT + HILLARY CLINTON

[Coleus]

thanks for the link

[Mia T]

you're welcome:)

[little jeremiah]

later pingout for sure.

[little jeremiah]

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.