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

Skip to comments.

Another Defeat for Women - Abortion-Breast Cancer Debate
Pro Life Infonet ^ | March 29, 2002 | Pro Life Infonet

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: infonet-request@prolifeinfo.org. 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 ertelt@prolifeinfo.org


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; US: North Dakota
KEYWORDS: abortion; breastcancer; mosher; poporg; populationcontrol; populationinstitute; populationresearch; pri; stevermosher
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-114 next last
I think it's interesting that folks are being encouraged to write to the judge. Hmmmmmm. For victory & freedom!!!
1 posted on 03/29/2002 7:21:13 AM PST by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: notwithstanding
Sad PING
2 posted on 03/29/2002 7:24:29 AM PST by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
Not just a sad day for women - but for all people. Breast cancer is a scourge that affects men, too - all families. Hopefully they will appeal.
3 posted on 03/29/2002 7:25:45 AM PST by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: matt_the_brain
Thank you for your comment, pal. I feel sick. Every bit of publicity help, though, to get the word out about the ABC link. Go to www.AbortionBreastCancer.com for more info. For victory & freedom!!!
5 posted on 03/29/2002 7:27:08 AM PST by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: Saundra Duffy
Liberals never let facts confuse their judgement. Also, liberals know that "all facts are belong to us".

In either case, liberal win!

7 posted on 03/29/2002 7:27:52 AM PST by JesusIsLord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
Unbelievable! The first thing about this legal system we need to fix is to eliminate judicial immunity from personal liability. Women will die as a result of this political ruling and this judge should bear the responsibility.
8 posted on 03/29/2002 7:35:28 AM PST by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt_the_brain
Newsflash! Press conference re. the lawsuit against Planned Parenthood on this same issue. (I'm one of the plaintiffs.) The judge ruled against us, too, and ordered us three poor women to pay PP's legal fees. ANYHOO: At the press conference, attorney from Thomas More Law Center will announce the appeal. That's 1 p.m., Friday, April 5th, in Santa Clara, CA, at the Santa Clara Marriott Hotel. Speakers will include Steve Mosher, President, Population Research Institute; Saundra Duffy-Hawkins, plaintiff, Bernardo et al. v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America et al.; Patrick Gillen, Attorney, Thomas More Law Center; Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, Breast Cancer Surgeon; Dr. Joel Brind, Professor of Endocrinology, Baruch College, New York; and Dr. Charles Francis, Melbourne University, Australia. Should be interesting. (Prayer wouldn't hurt.)
9 posted on 03/29/2002 7:38:38 AM PST by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: matt_the_brain
Good point. Just like big tobacco, the abortion industry KNOWS THE TRUTH but refuses to fess up. It's all about money and power.
10 posted on 03/29/2002 7:39:55 AM PST by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: Saundra Duffy
Prayers for you folks.

If tobacco needs warning labels, so does abortion. The public saftey should come first, before ( as the libs would say) "big business."

12 posted on 03/29/2002 7:53:11 AM PST by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
There is also a link between useing the "pill" and breast cancer.
13 posted on 03/29/2002 8:02:19 AM PST by fella
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
All right. When more women start dying of breast cancer, then they'll begin to care.

On the other and, the possibility of lung cancer doesn't deter smokers.

14 posted on 03/29/2002 8:02:49 AM PST by A Ruckus of Dogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt_the_brain
Refer to: http://new.in-forum.com/articles/?id=7883

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 Women’s 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 woman’s 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 doesn’t influence a woman’s 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 Women’s 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. “I’m absolutely persuaded of this.”

Newcomb also said information contained in Brind’s 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 Yale’s 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.

15 posted on 03/29/2002 8:09:50 AM PST by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: notwithstanding
This is going to be a long drawn-out process but we have to hang tough. The truth must go out.
17 posted on 03/29/2002 8:11:32 AM PST by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
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.

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?

18 posted on 03/29/2002 8:12:23 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
PING, pal.
19 posted on 03/29/2002 8:12:42 AM PST by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
Is there a FR abortion index to ping? I'd like to get the URL and provide links from my own page.
20 posted on 03/29/2002 8:17:32 AM PST by scripter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
You use the sound-bite, "junk science". Hmmmmmmm. Now I know where you're coming from, bud. "Junk science" is what the abortion industry calls Dr. Brind's findings. If you tell a lie often enough, people start to believe it - stupid people, that is.
21 posted on 03/29/2002 8:19:10 AM PST by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: scripter
If only I were computer literate, pal.
22 posted on 03/29/2002 8:20:18 AM PST by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

To: Saundra Duffy
I strongly suspect that women who have abortions are more likely to have less self-discipline. On average, they're less likely to follow strict religious or secular disciplines. Therefore, it's reasonable to believe that they smoke more and drink more and do drugs more often than women who refuse to have premarital sex. I bet they don't even exert the discipline to exercise as regularly or eat well as women who refrain from premarital sex. And if they don't protect themselves during sex, they probably don't protect themselves around dangerous chemicals.

Hmmm… if it's not the abortions, what could be causing their increased risk of breast cancer?

24 posted on 03/29/2002 8:24:22 AM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: A Ruckus of Dogs
Nor does the proven link between barbequed meat and certain cancers, most animal fats and heart disease, alchohol and a myriad of health problems, etc, etc. deter many people from indulging in these things. I'm going to BBQ up some ribs tonight, knowing full well the that the I am increasing my chances of colon cancer somewhat, even if infinitesemally.
26 posted on 03/29/2002 8:26:00 AM PST by proud to be breathing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
These characters are about as likeable as Steve Buscemi and William Macy in the movie Fargo.
27 posted on 03/29/2002 8:26:09 AM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
Lib women want their abortions. Facts, common sense and ordinary caution cannot dissuade them from killing the living evidence of their selfish and irresponsible behavior. As the cancer link becomes irrefutable, they'll go screaming to the same judges that protected their homicidal rights - they'll claim the courts did not "warn them of the danger".
28 posted on 03/29/2002 8:26:36 AM PST by steenkeenbadges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt_the_brain
" Elf, Thanks for showing the class what defines 'junk science'. You may go back to your seat now."

Hmm,… I point out that why women who have abortions are probably a fairly separate social group with different behaviors from those who don’t, 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.

29 posted on 03/29/2002 8:39:56 AM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Comment #30 Removed by Moderator

To: Saundra Duffy
I'm am sorry for you (in a sympathetic way.) But the fact is you guys want so badly for there to be some deterimental consequences to the woman's health that your advocates will conjure up bad science to find it.

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.

31 posted on 03/29/2002 8:56:47 AM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
Probably because they debunked nothing and the two you are talking about are, I assume, the STUDENT in that field and her husband. What they did was reiterate the information that supported their pre-existing prejudice on the subject. Face facts. A lot of people in this country have been involved in abortion and have a vested interest in denying reality not only as to the humanity of the unborn but as to the potential consequences to themselves. Does that debunk your claim? The thread to which you refer also had many medical journal articles posted in support of the link between abortion and breast cancer.
32 posted on 03/29/2002 9:28:54 AM PST by BlackElk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
That is to say the STUDENT in thatfield and her husband who is not in that field and posted many times as to what his wife had told him. She posted briefly and inconclusively as I recall and he was a typical pro-abort know nothing.
33 posted on 03/29/2002 9:33:19 AM PST by BlackElk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Finally, with a name like Maguire, this dim bulb in black robes probably had Catholic ancestors and is therefore an affront to those of us who still practice the faith.
34 posted on 03/29/2002 9:35:18 AM PST by BlackElk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: elfman2
Hmmm… if it's not the abortions, what could be causing their increased risk of breast cancer?

Heck of a good question.

35 posted on 03/29/2002 9:40:39 AM PST by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: proud to be breathing
No doubt, women will continue to choose abortion, even after finding out the truth about the link. But many will choose to be more cautious with their future health. And many will decide NOT to take the chance in the first place. Any way you look at it, the information is important. Consumers have a right to access to as much info as humanly possible.
36 posted on 03/29/2002 9:43:09 AM PST by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: fella
There is also a link between useing the "pill" and breast cancer.

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.

37 posted on 03/29/2002 9:46:39 AM PST by Agamemnon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
you guys want so badly for there to be some deterimental consequences to the woman's health that your advocates will conjure up bad science to find it.

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?

38 posted on 03/29/2002 9:47:16 AM PST by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
You don't want a judge deciding these issues anyhow, you want a holy see.

I'm a Mormon.

39 posted on 03/29/2002 9:48:36 AM PST by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon
Thanks. Info on the ABC Link can be found at www.AbortionBreastCancer.com. For victory & freedom!!!
40 posted on 03/29/2002 9:49:33 AM PST by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
You told 'em! (Thanks, pal.)
41 posted on 03/29/2002 9:57:10 AM PST by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
But the fact is you guys want so badly for there to be some deterimental consequences to the woman's health that your advocates will conjure up bad science to find it.

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.

42 posted on 03/29/2002 10:08:16 AM PST by d-fens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
These people can not be reasoned with. Their zeal to stop abortions blinds them. They have posted their studies time and time again. I have read them, as have many others. A meta-analysis is not a scientific study - they are not accepted - they are not duplicable. I will continue to post that this this scare tactics and junk science as long as they post this nonsense. Trying to compell abortion providers to mention these studies is BAD precident. I have told them that, but they don't listen.
43 posted on 03/29/2002 10:22:59 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
Ignore the clueless armchair biologists. Ignore the naive and ignorant who would believe that a liberal government funded agency would never lie to protect their agenda. Keep fighting. Every time the truth gets publicized you win. I'll believe independent university professors, biologists and physicians with no agenda but sound science anyday over a liberal government and liberal judges with agendas. Anyone with half a brain cell functioning can read the medical studies and see the correlation.
44 posted on 03/29/2002 10:29:57 AM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: d-fens
The judge ruled in favor of an abortionist making the unfounded claim that abortion doesn't cause cancer.

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.

45 posted on 03/29/2002 11:40:35 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Moderator, Moderator:
Sir: What egregious thing do people say that would cause you to remove so very many replies on this subject. Do you advocate abortion rights yourself?
46 posted on 03/29/2002 11:43:50 AM PST by born yesterday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
I have to agree with some of the other comments here about this being a less than ideal tactic to try to deter abortions. I believe there probably is some sort of long term health risk associated with abortion, only because it's such an unnatural act that disrupts the physiological changes the female body undergoes when it becomes pregnant. However, most abortive ladies won't give a rat's behind about what diseases they may develop 30 or 40 years later. I mean, do many people care that they're exploding their risk of heart disease by frequenting McDonalds for greasy cheeseburgers? This tactic is a waste of time, pure and simple.

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.

47 posted on 03/29/2002 11:45:58 AM PST by helmsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steenkeenbadges
As the cancer link becomes irrefutable, they'll go screaming to the same judges that protected their homicidal rights - they'll claim the courts did not "warn them of the danger"

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?

48 posted on 03/29/2002 11:49:42 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
These people can not be reasoned with.

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?

49 posted on 03/29/2002 11:50:15 AM PST by giotto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: A Ruckus of Dogs
All right. When more women start dying of breast cancer, then they'll begin to care. On the other and, the possibility of lung cancer doesn't deter smokers.

Interesting...two things women have an urge to do after sex. Neither is good for them but the government subsidizes them both.

50 posted on 03/29/2002 11:55:24 AM PST by sayfer bullets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-114 next last

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