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
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 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.
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?
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.