Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Science, Studies and Sociology of the Abortion Breast Cancer Link
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer ^ | June 2005 | Angela Lanfranchi, M.D.

Posted on 09/24/2005 9:30:32 AM PDT by Coleus

The Science, Studies and Sociology  of the Abortion Breast Cancer Link

by Angela Lanfranchi, M.D.

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abc; abclink; abortion; abortionbreastcancer; abortionlist; angelalanfranchi; breastcancer; cancer; feminism; lanfranchi
Breast Cancer Walkers Uninformed about Abortion Link, Komen Foundation gives to Planned Parenthood

Dear Friends:

You might consider sending the link shown below to the editors at Glamour and Redbook so they can educate themselves on the abortion-breast cancer research.  The link is for an article that appeared in the journal Research Bulletin by Angela Lanfranchi, MD, FACS, Associate Professor of Surgery at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical Center.  It's entitled, "The science, studies and sociology of the abortion breast cancer link."

Even a person without medical training can understand Dr. Lanfranchi's explanation of the biological events that take place during pregnancy and the biological reason for the abortion-breast cancer link.  She offers reasonable explanations why many medical experts and their organizations refuse to acknowledge the link and why some even participate in covering it up.  She compares the situation to the tobacco-cancer link cover-up and cites economic loss, peer pressure, political correctness and fear of litigation as reasons why medical and scientific experts hesitate to recognize the link.

Redbook and Glamour are supposed to be "women's" magazines. Therefore, it's singularly remarkable that its journalists lack a basic understanding of the biological reason for the link and are unaware that no scientist has ever attempted to disprove it. Their efforts to debunk the research are anti-woman.

After contacting Redbook and Glamour, please be sure to spread the word to family and friends.

224 West 57th Street
New York, NY 10019
Editorial: (212) 649-3450 (phone)

4 Times Square
New York, NY 10036-6593
212-286-6922 (fax)

Karen Malec
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.

Tax-deductible, credit card donations can be made at Donations can be mailed to: the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, P.O. Box 957133, Hoffman Estates, IL 60195. The IRS recognizes the coalition as a 501(c)3 organization.


Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

Breast Cancer Prevention Institute

Polycarp Research Institute

This newsletter can be viewed online at:

1 posted on 09/24/2005 9:30:33 AM PDT by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

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

2 posted on 09/24/2005 9:30:52 AM 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]

Women's magazines accused of 'despicable' cover-up, causing deaths
Redbook, Mislead Women about Abortion-Cancer Link

3 posted on 09/24/2005 9:43:54 AM 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 2 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: bobbdobbs

That is, when people get cancer they are much more willing to report all their medical history. Whereas women randomly sampled who don't have cancer, are less willing to give their complete medical history. >>


5 posted on 09/24/2005 9:50:30 AM 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 4 | View Replies]

To: bobbdobbs; Coleus
The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link is America's Best Kept Secret

By Dr. Frank Joseph, M.D.

Being a physician and having heard talk of a possible link between abortions and breast cancer, I decided to investigate this very serious matter. Here are my findings:

The ACS (American Cancer Society) reports that one of every seven women in the United States will develop breast cancer.

Breast cancer has risen dramatically in America by 50% since 1973, when abortions were legalized (Roe Vs Wade) and is also increasing worldwide. Recent studies, have pointed out a dramatic relationship between the rate of abortion and the rising incidence of breast cancer. In fact, as the rate of abortion rises in America, so does the rate of breast cancer, with those women who have aborted having significantly higher rates.

Of the 1.4 million abortions done, yearly, in the United States and accounting for the increased risk posed by abortion, researchers estimate that the 800,000 first-time abortions performed annually would thus generate roughly 25,000 excess cases of breast cancer each year, as the first group of women exposed to legal abortion advances in age.

Given the margin of error, the researchers predicted that excess cases of breast cancer would be between 9,000 and 40,000 per year, due to the impact of induced abortion.

However, the ACS refuses to include induced abortions as a breast cancer risk. They say the link is inconclusive, but they are wrong. The evidence is overwhelming.

This is not good news for women, who are still actively being kept in the dark by the very agencies who should warn them about avoidable cancer risks.

Yet, they will report minor risk factors, such as weight and diet. But the most closely guarded secret is the connection between abortion and breast cancer.

Recently, I was in the office of an oncologist (tumor and cancer specialist) and I picked up one of the many brochures concerning breast cancer, hoping to finally see induced abortions listed as one of the risks for breast cancer, but it wasn't there, so what else is new. However, the following was one of the risks word for word:

“One study suggests that more than three alcoholic drinks per week, may increase your risk of getting breast cancer."

They included this risk, based on just ONE study and yet, they refuse to list the Abortion Breast cancer risk, even though 13 of 15 studies in the USA, revealed the risk and 28 of 37 studies worldwide. Laboratory test on rats also revealed the risk.

With all this evidence, why is the ACS withholding this vital information, BUT, they will expose a risk (alcohol) found as a result of just ONE study.

This is a question that every woman should want answered. They should write to the ACS and complain. They should contact the Media and demand answers.

I am not alone, other doctors have tried for years, to convince the ACS and the Media that this link is real. Those conducting the studies that reveal the link are looked upon as some sort of a traitor, for even hinting that the link is real. It has also been discussed in congress, but a certain segment of our society, wants the truth hidden. Better women die, then to harm the abortion industry. This is tragic and it is sick. Is it any wonder that our society is referred to as the "Culture of Death."

I have nothing against the ACS for revealing the alcohol risk, as a result of just ONE study, BUT, for the sake of honesty, if they can include a risk from just one study, WHY do they refuse to include a risk that was shown in over 28 studies.

One would think that the Media, would be all over this story. I personally have contacted them and others have too. They have NO story as newsworthy as this. However, they won’t touch it with a ten foot pole, because, apparently, it would raise havoc with the abortion andustry and reduce dramatically the number of abortions and being the liberals that they are, the Media will do NOTHING to harm the abortion industry.

And what makes this matter even worse is that, in the ABC risk -- the direct link is known and can be understood by a ten year old. They tell us that certain foods may increase the risk of cancer. Products have been pulled from the shelves on much less evidence. NONE of these come close to the abortion risk of breast cancer. The abortion link affects the breast cells directly, as you will see later.

This is sad -- to expose women to this kind of danger, when it could be easily avoided. This lie perpetuated by the ACS, when they say the link is inconclusive has resulted in thousands of women dying needlessly, every year.

It's obvious why the lucrative abortion industry will not warn women of this deadly risk prior to an abortion, but why the silence by the ACS, the Media, and what about NOW and other feminist groups. Isn’t the sole purpose of their existence, to help women, or are they just a front for political agendas.

If they want women to have a choice, then why not give them all the facts -- to make the most important decision of their lives. How is it possible, that in our day and age, something like this could happen?

The reason is political. It should be obvious to all, that the American Cancer Society is in lock step with NARAL, Planned Parenthood and all the other abortion providers, as well as the pro-abortion Democratic party.

They are so afraid this news would be a major blow to the abortion industry, that they will do anything and everything to protect it. And believe me -- I am NOT exaggerating.

The other risks, though not nearly as great as the abortion risk, are exposed because they are NOT based on ideology, or politics. This is disgraceful. They should have NO place in medicine. It's only a matter of time before there will be a flood of law suits and the abortion facilities will lose, because they DID NOT warn women of this risk, prior to their abortions. To withhold this vital information in elective surgeries is against all medical ethics. It is downright CRIMINAL. The evidence is overwhelming.

But don’t take my word for it. One need not be a specialist in the field to understand it -- it’s not that complicated. You be the judge. But first, here are the basics:

It is estrogen, which is produced in the ovaries, that transforms a young girl into a woman. When pregnancy occurs, there is a SURGE of this hormone causing the breast cells to proliferate dramatically in the first trimester, in order to lay the foundation for the production of milk. These young growing cells are more prone to develop cancer.

In the second half of pregnancy, the estrogen levels RECEDE under the influence of such hormones as human placental lactogen. The immature cells, then grow and differentiate rapidly into mature, specialized milk producing tissue. Once specialization has occurred, the cells are less likely to turn cancerous.

When the pregnancy is terminated by an induced abortion, these young growing cells (known as undifferentiated cells), and having undergone drastic changes are now in LIMBO. They are no longer normal breast cells, nor are they capable of producing milk.

In plain English, these insulted cells (traumatized) have been hung out to dry. They are between a rock and a hard place. Scientists have known for years that any cell in the human body that has been traumatized, whether by chemicals, radiation, micro-trauma, or any other reason would be especially vulnerable to cancer.

One must then surmise that what has been instilled in physicians heads from time immemorial, regarding the vulnerability of abnormal cells, is no longer valid. To suit their political agenda, they would have you believe that an abnormal cell is NO more prone to becoming cancerous than a normal cell. This defies all scientific knowledge, as well as common sense and shows the depths they will go, to keep the abortion industry flourishing. Human life means nothing to them.

It has also been long known that a pregnancy carried to term protects against breast cancer. However, if a woman has an induced abortion, this protection is terminated.

The reason is because the proliferation of the undifferentiated, cancer vulnerable cells, by the estrogen secreted early in the pregnancy, no longer has the protection that comes from hormones released later in pregnancy, since the pregnancy has been aborted.

The estrogen/breast cancer risk has been known by doctors for many years, thus their reluctance to prescribe estrogen for menopausal women, especially those with any family history of breast cancer.

Manufacturers of oral contraceptives alert the public as to the possible link between their product and breast cancer. The induced abortion risk is greater than the relative risk associated with oral contraceptives.

Women, who start their periods early and go through menopause late are exposed to more estrogen, because they have more periods.

And women who have fewer or no children, are exposed to more surges of estrogen that come with more menstrual cycles. Women who breast feed their babies, also have fewer menstrual cycles, thereby lowering their risk.

Foods high in animal fat can increase the blood estrogen level and thus increase the breast cancer risk. Leafy vegetables tend to help a woman, to rid her system of estrogen. As you can see, the estrogen factor is not just in the area of reproduction. We are warned of these risks by the top medical journals and the media. We are told what to eat and not to eat, but the biggest risk of all, the abortion/breast cancer link, they tell us NOTHING.

One common rebuttal offered by the ACS, and the abortion advocates to dismiss the ABC link, is to point out that most of the studies done, have relied on interviewing women and asking them if they have ever had an abortion and asking them if they have been diagnosed with breast cancer, and then comparing their answers.

So, those who fear the truth say -- probably women who have breast cancer are more likely to remember or admit that they have had abortions, whereas women who do not have breast cancer may not admit they had an abortion. They call this, "recall bias." I call it, "grasping for straws."

But when your back is to the wall, you’ll try anything, even accusing some women of lying. Women know how important these studies are. They’re not going to lie. It means life or death for thousands of women.

After all, they don't have to take part in the study -- they can just refuse, rather than lie. Notice they don’t actually say they’re lying -- they say more likely to remember. As if someone would forget if they had their unborn baby killed.

An experiment done in Michigan in 1980 destroys this theory. According to a report in the American Journal of Pathology, August 1980, pp 497-511, cancer researchers injected a number of pregnant rats with DMBA, a cancer-causing substance. They then aborted half the rats; the other half were allowed to carry their pregnancies to term.

Among the aborted rats, 77% developed breast cancer. Among the term rats, only 5.5% developed breast cancer.

Too bad they couldn't interview the rats -- they might have found recall bias.

With all of the above evidence, even without epidemiological data, and given the extremely high estrogen levels experienced by women in the first several weeks of normal pregnancy, which doctors have always known -- for the ACS to say that the link is inconclusive is not only repugnant, but in my book, it’s downright CRIMINAL.

But we DO have epidemiological data to prove it. 13 of 15 studies in the United States have proven it and 28 out of 37 world wide.

A 1996 study carried out in the Netherlands found almost a twofold increased risk for breast cancer after an induced abortion. However, the investigators suggested that this figure may have been influenced by reporting bias attributed to the underreporting of abortions by healthy control subjects in the largely Catholic southeastern region of the Netherlands.

In the western regions of the country, the association between abortion and breast cancer was statistically insignificant. The authors concluded that their "study does not support an appreciably (whatever that means) increased risk for breast cancer after an induced abortion."

These people are constantly looking for excuses. Now, you can’t rely on this study because someone's religion is involved. Are they trying to say that Catholics are more liable to lie than Protestants? This is disgusting.

Why didn’t the study involve the whole country, it's not that big and average it out? Because they wouldn’t like what they would find. I never knew that a certain section of the Netherlands had a largely Catholic region.

We must also believe that middle-aged black women, in particular, are incredible liars, as a study published in the Journal of the National Medical Association (December 1993) traced the breast cancer experience of about 1,000 black women (500 with breast cancer, 500 without) as they grew older.

Breast Cancer Risk Factors in African-American Women -- The Howard University Tumor Registry Experience confirmed that the risks of breast cancer increased much more for women who had aborted than for those who had not. This fine study found the same overall 50% increased risk factor for women under 40 who had aborted. But black women now in their 40s who had aborted experienced a 180% increased risk. The risk jumped to a whopping 370% for black women over 50 who had aborted

Well, this completes the cycle -- someone's religion and now their race makes them liars. In the future, in order to save time and money, let’s not include Catholics and Blacks in any study, because we all know they are liars. We have been told so, by the ACS. So, that eliminates about 35% of the world’s population for all future studies.

In 1996-OCT, four US scientists announced the result of a statistical analysis of previous studies. They selected 23 studies which involved over 60,000 women. They combined all of their results using a process known as "meta-analysis." They found "overwhelming" evidence that women who terminate a pregnancy by an abortion have a 33% higher chance of contracting breast cancer later in life.

Now, read how this study was attacked by those who are conspiring to withhold the truth from the American people:

“This particular statistical method is fraught with hazard, because the results can easily be influenced by the method of selecting the studies to be included. Three of the four scientists in the 1996-OCT study are known to be vocal opponents of abortion. They might have been biased, consciously or unconsciously, in their selection processes.”

That’s it -- the above statement is double-talk -- sour grapes. Three of the scientists are pro life, so their study cannot be taken seriously. What about the other scientist, who was pro-choice? This is too serious of an issue to involve politics.

Does this mean that in the future, a scientist, who is pro-life, should not work on studies involving abortions -- only pro-aborts should do the studies?

The American Cancer Society scanned the entire world, to look for a study that would match their ideology and political views. And sure enough, they found just what they were looking for -- a study that was done in little Denmark, which stated that the link was inconclusive. So they accepted it as the Gospel truth and published the Melbye/Danish Report.

There was no mention, if those who conducted the Report were pro-choice or pro-life.

Isn’t it odd that they couldn't find a study in the USA that they liked. 13 of 15 studies in the United States, showed the abortion-breast cancer link. Our country has the best scientists and researchers in the world. They didn’t publish these studies, because it wasn’t what they wanted to hear. Thousands of women WILL DIE every year, needlessly, because of politics.

On another page, you will read where Dr. Joel Brind shreds this report to pieces, as well as his ,"Comprehensive Review and Meta Analysis" of the Abortion/Breast Cancer risk. Click below.

So now, if anyone who is involved in a study, is pro-life, then that study cannot be trusted. We can now add pro-lifers to the distrustful list along with Catholics and blacks. Now, we have about 65% of the world’s population on the list. Are these people serious, or are they a big joke?

Can you see where this is going? Politics and ideology should have NO part in medicine. It's absolutely ludicrous.

How the American Cancer Society can continue to perpetuate this cover-up, is mind boggling, in view of the fact that their own man, Dr. Clark Heath, who is the head of Epidemiology and Surveillance Research of the American Cancer Society, on February 20, 1998, conceded to one aspect of the ABC link -- that an abortion delayed first birth increases breast cancer risk. The longer the time to her first full term delivery, the greater the risk.

Quite a concession, isn't it? So then, why aren’t women told of this one aspect, before they have an abortion and why don't we hear of this on TV, or read about it in the newspapers? Why didn't it make the headlines and why isn't it included with all the other breast cancer risks?

Do abortions mean that much to them, that they don't care if thousands of women die every year, because of their withholding the truth? How could this happen in the United States of America?

The only court decision, regarding the abortion/cancer risk that I am aware of -- is a law suit against the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation (SEPTA) for denying those who wanted to put posters in public transit areas to warn people of the ABC link.

After hearing both sides of the argument, the appellate court stated there WAS a link and ruled in favor of CBM.

It didn't help their case when the SEPTA experts admitted that some studies showed a weak association between abortions and breast cancer. If the SEPTA experts would admit to a slight link, then you know, the link is much greater. They were paid by SEPTA. The link is definitely NOT weak.

But, you can bet your bottom dollar that this is just the tip of the iceberg. It's only a matter of time before there will be a flood of lawsuits brought on by women who were not warned of the risk by the abortion clinics.

Critics who formerly dismissed the possibility of a relationship between induced abortion and breast cancer are increasingly on the defensive, largely as a consequence of the findings of a fascinating study by Dr. Janet Daling, (who by the way, is Pro-choice) and her colleagues at Seattle's Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Their study which shows that abortions increase the risk of breast cancer on an average of 50%, is on another page. Click below.

In summation, let's isolate the facts that are indisputable:
1- It's an indisputable fact that estrogens are strong growth promoters of normal and most cancerous breast tissue.

2- It's an indisputable fact that most known risk factors for breast cancer are attributable to some form of estrogen overexposure.

3- It's an indisputable fact that maternal estradiol (estrogen) rises 20-fold (2,000%) during the first trimester of a normal pregnancy.

4- It's an indisputable fact that abnormal cells are more vulnerable to cancerous changes than normal cells.

5- It's an indisputable fact that pregnancies which abort spontaneously (miscarriage) usually generate subnormal amounts of estradiol; no increased risk of breast cancer is seen.

6- It's an indisputable fact that the incidence of breast cancer is dramatically increased in rats whose pregnancies are aborted.

Frank Joseph MD

References -- Abortion/Breast Cancer Link

Exposure, susceptibility, and breast cancer risk, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Nancy Krieger, 1989, 13:205-223

Breast Cancer Risk Factors In African-American Women: The Howard University Registry Experience, J Nation Medical Association, A E Laing et al., 1993, 85:931-939

Reproductive and lifestyle risk factors for breast cancer in African-American women, Genetic Epidemiology, A E Laing et al., 1994, 11:300

Suicides after pregnancy in Finland, 1987-94: register linkage study, British Medical J, Mika Gissler et al., 1996, 313:1431-1434

Lower Risk of Suicide During Pregnancy, American J Psychiatry, P M Marzuk et al., 1997, 154:122-123

Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis, J Epidemiology and Community Health, J Brind et al., 1996, 50:481-496

Recent Trends in Breast Cancer Mortality among White and Black US Women, American J of Public Health, Emily White and Frances Chevarley, 1997, 87:775-781

Breast Cancer Trends -- Incidence, Mortality, and Survival Cancer, E Sondik, 1994, 74:995-999

A 26-Year-Old Woman Seeking an Abortion, JAMA, D Grimes, 1999;282:1169-1175

Following is the list' of the 16 studies that are at least 95% confident that induced abortion increases breast cancer risk.

1 - Journal of Epidemiology, Bu L et al, 1995;141:S85

2 - Daling JR et al, 1994;86:1584-1592.

3 - J Epidemiology, Daling JR et al, 1996;144:373-380

4 - British J Cancer, Ewertz M, Duffy SW, 1988;58:99-104

5 - International J Epidemiology, Howe HL et al, 1989;18:300-304

6 - Natl Med Assoc, Laing AE et al, 1993;85:931-939.

7 - International J Cancer, Lipworth L et al, 1995;61:181-184.

8 - British Journal of Cancer, Luporsi et al, 1988;72:744-751.

9 - Am J Epidemiology, Newcomb PA et al, 1995;141:S54 (abstract #215).

10-hikoku Ichi, Nishiyama F, 1982;38:333-343 (in Japanese).

11-Am J Epidemiology, Palmer JR et al, 1996;143:S32 .

12-Am Journal of Epidemiology, Rohan et al, 1988;128:478-489

13-Am J Epidemiological, Rookus MA, 1995;141:S54

14-Am J Epidemiology, Rosenberg L, et al, 1988;127:981-989.

15-GANN 48 (Suppl), Segi M et al, 1957;1:63.

16-International J Cancer, Tavani A et al, 1996;65:401-405.
6 posted on 09/24/2005 10:11:25 AM PDT by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Coleus, I support your work against abortion wholeheartedly. In doing this, you are doing a great thing. We must not lose sight, however, that we are opposed to abortion because it takes an innocent and defenseless human life.

There certainly is evidence that supports a link between abortion and breast cancer, however, as bobbdobbs pointed out, there may be a recall bias that is affecting the data, and anyone who attempts to argue for an abortion-breast cancer link in a medical setting is likely to be attacked pretty viciously. This is not a dispassionate area of medical practice, any doctor, nurse, or health care student who argues against abortion is effectively pointing out that those who commit abortions are committing homicide. Rest assured, there are no easy consciences among abortionists, and they will react forcefully, and arguments like these give them an opportunity to discredit anti-abortion people.

The bottom line is that many people are willing to accept certain risks as a possible consequence of unhealthy behaviors. For example, smokers realize that cigarettes are dangerous when one looks at population data, and folks fond of MacDonalds understand they are potentially at risk for adverse health outcomes. They do it anyway. A high number of sexual "partners" does in fact predispose a woman to cervical cancer. We already know that the oral contraceptive pill carries with it certain health risks, and yet it is widely used. Abortion will similarly skate through if we focus on health issues. The short term solution to a difficult situation overshadows possible, but not definite long term consequences.

At the end of the day, while we can oppose abortion for physical health reasons in the mother, it is on moral grounds that it must ultimately be challenged, because it takes a human life, namely, the fetus or embryo. Arguing for a link between breast cancer and abortion puts us in a position where we can be attacked, and our arguments called into question. Arguing from a moral position does not, our opponents simply retreat to their "gray area" framing of morality or change the subject to a vague abstract related to autonomy--that is, one must be free to choose, whithout specifying that life and death are what is being chosen. Both of those approaches are ultimately unsatisfactory, and it is on those grounds that abortion must ultimately be defeated.
7 posted on 09/24/2005 10:15:48 AM PDT by InterestedQuestioner ("Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc


You posted as I was composing my reply, so I didn't see your post. I have to run now, but will look at your data later. Thank you for posting.


8 posted on 09/24/2005 10:18:26 AM PDT by InterestedQuestioner ("Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc; Rabid Dog

Thank you for the post. This is the best and simplist explanation of the BC/Abortion link, and will be invaluable in any future discussions.

9 posted on 09/24/2005 11:52:56 AM PDT by Snapping Turtle (Snap on and don't let go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bobbdobbs
Whereas women randomly sampled who don't have cancer, are less willing to give their complete medical history. Therefore abortions in breast cancer free women are under-reported, causing an apparent increase correlation in those with cancer.

Well that certainly explains the multitude of rat studies showing statistically significant increases in breast tumors among rats undergoing induced abortion in the studies. After all, what self respecting female rat would reveal her medical history to a researcher.

10 posted on 09/24/2005 2:55:28 PM PDT by jwalsh07 ("Don't get stuck on stupid!" General Honore to twit reporter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: InterestedQuestioner

So let them attack. The moral thing to do is both. If there is a statistically significant inccrease in BC due to abortion women can not make an informed decision. The freedom comes after the information.

11 posted on 09/24/2005 2:57:22 PM PDT by jwalsh07 ("Don't get stuck on stupid!" General Honore to twit reporter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | 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
Topics · Post Article

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