Skip to comments.Another Defeat for Women - Abortion-Breast Cancer Debate
Posted on 03/29/2002 7:21:13 AM PST by Saundra Duffy
From: The Pro-Life Infonet Reply-To: Steven Ertelt Subject: Judge Rules for Abortion Facility in Abortion-Breast Cancer Case
Source: Pro-Life Infonet; March 28, 2002
Judge Rules for Abortion Facility in Abortion-Breast Cancer Case
Fargo, ND -- Fargo, ND -- After more than three days at trial in state court, Judge Michael McGuire ruled in favor of a North Dakota abortion facility that distributes information stating there is no link between abortion and breast cancer.
Ruling from the bench, Judge McGuire relied on trial testimony from those who deny a link between abortion and breast cancer -- despite testimony presented by expert witnesses showing evidence for the link.
McGuire asserted that it was reasonable for the abortion facility to rely on preeminent cancer research institutes, such as the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society, neither of which have acknowledged that there is an established link between abortion and breast cancer.
Pro-life advocate Amy Jo Kjolsrud filed a false advertising lawsuit against the Red River Women's Clinic abortion business for information contained in the brochures
You can send your comments about the case to:
Michael O. McGuire, Presiding Judge; East Central Judicial District; Cass County Courthouse; P.O. Box 2806; Fargo, ND 58108-2806; 701-241-5680; 701-241-5709 Fax
The Pro-Life Infonet is a daily compilation of pro-life news and information. To subscribe, send the message "subscribe" to: email@example.com. Infonet is sponsored by Women and Children First (http://www.womenandchildrenfirst.org). For more pro-life info visit http://www.prolifeinfo.org and for questions or additional information email firstname.lastname@example.org
In either case, liberal win!
If tobacco needs warning labels, so does abortion. The public saftey should come first, before ( as the libs would say) "big business."
On the other and, the possibility of lung cancer doesn't deter smokers.
Experts argue over correct cancer information
By Mary Jo Almquist The Forum - 03/27/2002
Scientific experts went head-to-head Tuesday trying to establish whether or not there is a link between abortion and breast cancer.
In the second day of the abortion-breast cancer link trial, Judge Michael McGuire heard testimony from three expert witnesses from across the country.
McGuire will have to decide whether or not the Red River Womens Clinic in Fargo misled patients through false advertising allegedly contained in its brochures.
The brochures quote a National Cancer Institute fact sheet saying there is no evidence of a direct relationship between breast cancer and either induced or spontaneous abortion.
The lawsuit was filed by Amy Jo Kjolsrud, a former Fargo resident, in 1999 on behalf of the general public.
But before the judge can make his decision, he must determine which of the expert testimony has the most convincing evidence.
Joel Brind, a professor of human biology and endocrinology at the City University of New York, testified both Monday and Tuesday on behalf of the plaintiff.
Brind was the lead author of a 1996 comprehensive review and meta-analysis of the worldwide medical literature on the abortion-breast cancer link. It was published by the British Medical Association.
According to Brind, the link between abortion and breast cancer is explained by the hormonal disruption that occurs when a womans pregnancy is artificially terminated.
Experts for the defense disagree, but attorney for the plaintiff, John Kindley said there clearly is evidence of an established link.
Of the studies done on this topic, a majority indicate a relative risk of developing breast cancer for women who have had an abortion.
Clearly there is evidence of a direct relationship, Kindley said.
And even if this doesnt influence a womans decision on whether or not to have an abortion, the woman has a right to information, he said.
According to Jane Bovard, administrator of the Red River Womens Clinic, women do have the right to be informed but not to be scared unnecessarily.
Polly Newcomb, epidemiologist and expert witness for the defense, agreed that if an abortion-breast cancer link were ever established, women should be told.
However, Newcomb, a full member of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, said there is not enough statistical significance in current studies to establish a link.
Women are not at risk, Newcomb added. Im absolutely persuaded of this.
Newcomb also said information contained in Brinds 1996 meta-analysis is outdated, and that there are newer, more accurate reports.
Some of the studies Brind utilizes are based in part on self-reported abortions, which are unreliable, she said.
Not all women are willing to admit to having had an abortion, especially those who may have done so before 1973 when abortion became legal, Newcomb added.
Gil Mor, assistant professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Yales School of Medicine, also testified in favor of the defense.
Mor said there are many theories about whether or not a link exists between abortion and breast cancer.
There is not enough biological evidence to support any hypothesis linking abortion to breast cancer, Mor said. And to say estrogen is a carcinogenic factor is wrong.
The trial will continue at 9 a.m. today at the Cass County Courthouse. The defense is expected to call two more expert witnesses to the stand.
The trial is expected to last at least through today and possibly into Thursday.
Readers can reach Forum reporter Mary Jo Almquist at (701) 241-5531 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
The material contained in this file is made available courtesy contributors and editors of Pro-Life E-News. Copying of this material is free for non-commercial educational and research use. Unless explicitly stated, copyright of this material is owned by the author and/or sponsoring organization, and/or newswire services.
Exactly! The only "people" who claim their is a link are those who set out to show there is one, and who's studies conclude ranges of "escalated risk" from 5% to over 200%. This junk science is laughed at by most of the scientific community.
Why don't you post a link to the recent thread where two Freepers who work in biotechnology thoroughly debunked this junk?
if it's not the abortions, what could be causing their increased risk of breast cancer?
Hmm, I point out that why women who have abortions are probably a fairly separate social group with different behaviors from those who dont, and you make a dumb a~s remark and say it defines junk science.
Thank you for your example here of projection, denial and dishonesty newbie. You only discredited yourself.
I'm not sure why you care that abortion mothers are getting sick anyhow, since they are all murderers to you anyhow -- they're going to burn in hell for eternity. What's a little breast cancer?
Face it, you are trying to scare them with self-interest rather than convincing them that abortion is murder and wrong in its own right. You are diluting your message, excusing the "perpetrators of murder", engaging is wishful thinking (bad science searching for a pre-ordained conclusion) and condemning those so afflicted to the permanent hell fires anyhow.
Such is the emotionalism of religiosity. You don't want a judge deciding these issues anyhow, you want a holy see.
Heck of a good question.
Be correct. The linkage is between use of the pill, when combined with smoking tobacco; there is not at this time any substantial evidence linking only use of the pill to breast cancer.
My Mom died of cancer. I have had two bouts with cancer. I want people to be able to protect themselves in every way possible. Information is a life saver. How dare you say the things you did. Abortion hurts women. Women are dying from breast cancer. How can you say those things?
I'm a Mormon.
HELLLOOOOO, did you have any knowledge of this case before you started spewing your ad hominem attacks? The judge ruled in favor of an abortionist making the unfounded claim that abortion doesn't cause cancer. The burden of proof is on the abortionist and all the available evidence is to the contrary.
The rest of your post is a fallacious attack on the motivations of those who support the plaintiffs and has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the case. Merely getting personal and avoiding the substantive issues is adds nothing to this discussion. It's too bad you and your side do not seem to have anything relevant to say.
Actually, the judge ruled in favor of an abortionist passing along the assertion of the main cancer authorities in the nation that there is no known link between aboriton and breast cancer.
The burden of proof is on the abortionist and all the available evidence is to the contrary.
All the available evidence, as long as you exclude the research conclusions of the leading cancer authorities and all the researchers who agree with them.
The way to deter abortions, as has been pointed out here already, is to focus on the despicable act itself. To paraphrase that vile ogre James Carville -- It's the baby, stupid. And pro-lifers should never patronize the pro-abortion mentality that abortion is only about women. Focusing too much on abortion's effects on women plays into this idea, I'm afraid. Concentrate on showing women the gruesome truth about what abortion does to the baby, and they will stop the blood orgy.
Nah, 'cause before that happens, the link between human industry and global warming is going to become irrefutable, and we'll all be screaming because we're drowning from rising sea levels. Quick, file lawsuits requiring everyone who sells energy or products which it takes energy to make that this energy use is going to kill us all by causing global warming! There's tons of "science" which "proves" this! Why don't you want to stop all these evil greedy corporations from killing us?
You're right. The Agenda is the only thing that matters. Why should they care about women's lives when they don't care about the lives of the babies they murder? Why should they consider the risks to a woman's physical health when they gleefully ignore the devastation to her spiritual and mental health caused by abortion?
Interesting...two things women have an urge to do after sex. Neither is good for them but the government subsidizes them both.
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.