May 2002 bring VICTORY for a woman's right to know the truth about the link between abortion and breast cancer. Go to www.AbortionBreastCancer.com for more information on this subject. Thanks to all for your interest and support. For victory & freedom!!!

1 posted on 12/27/2001 9:00:38 AM PST by Saundra Duffy (Saundra111@msn.com)

To: Saundra Duffy

If we are successful (and it's very possible we will be), it could change the future of the abortion debate. For victory & freedom!!!

2 posted on 12/27/2001 9:01:23 AM PST by Saundra Duffy

To: Saundra Duffy

Planned Parenthood will hit us with everything they have. They stand to lose mega bucks and power if we are successful. Funny, though. All they would have to do is start admitting that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer. You know, give women a clue. Science is on our side. Many women will still choose abortion but at least they would have been informed. But as I say PP stands to lose too much and they'd have to admit they've been wrong, thereby subjecting women to untold tragedies. Anyway, we are hopeful. For victory & freedom!!!

3 posted on 12/27/2001 9:07:04 AM PST by Saundra Duffy

To: Saundra Duffy

God bless ya, Saundra, and your co-plaintiffs. GIT 'EM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

4 posted on 12/27/2001 9:08:48 AM PST by RightOnline

To: Saundra Duffy

PING BUMP BANG and TO THE TOP! For victory & freedom!!!

5 posted on 12/27/2001 9:09:35 AM PST by Saundra Duffy

Thanks for the encouraging words, freeper pal. For victory & freedom!!!

6 posted on 12/27/2001 9:11:39 AM PST by Saundra Duffy

To: Saundra Duffy

Thank you Saundra Duffy.....

Ashland, Missouri

7 posted on 12/27/2001 9:16:30 AM PST by rface

To: Saundra Duffy

Don't they have to put a notice on the door of all abortion clinics in California warning that the abortion clinic contains known carcinogenic procedures? ;-)

8 posted on 12/27/2001 9:17:30 AM PST by Excuse_Me

To: Saundra Duffy

You are doing what we all must do if we're going to turn this country around - FIGHT THEM IN THE COURTS! God bless the law firm that is taking the fight to the liars and everyone should make note of their name. Use them whenever possible because they deserve to grow and grow and GROW!

Saundra, my hat's off to ya' gal!! You are the BEST!!

9 posted on 12/27/2001 9:22:06 AM PST by Humidston

To: Saundra Duffy

They should be forced to have 'warning labels' 20 feet high posted in front of their abortuaries. Great work!

Here's potential wording: "Warning: Murdering your unborn baby may cause you to get cancer."

10 posted on 12/27/2001 9:23:15 AM PST by Antoninus

To: Saundra Duffy

11 posted on 12/27/2001 9:27:43 AM PST by scouse

To: Saundra Duffy

Be sure to forward this development and an update to Blanquita.

12 posted on 12/27/2001 9:31:55 AM PST by SMEDLEYBUTLER

To: Saundra Duffy

Can you imagine the avalanche of lawsuits this would bring on from women with breast cancer who had abortions in their past? Should be interesting.

13 posted on 12/27/2001 9:32:30 AM PST by alnick

To: Saundra Duffy

Do you know the judge's background and political leanings? Just curious of the playing field you are dealing with. It looks though at least your lawyers are countering with a sound legal argument, the 1st Amendment doesn't protect fraud.

14 posted on 12/27/2001 9:34:56 AM PST by Free Vulcan

To: Saundra Duffy

Thank you for your courage and wisdom. The Lord has and will continue to bless your efforts.

I hate PP. They lie, they murder, they hate women and children. They are organized evil.

My prayers are with you, that He continue to protect you and yours from the evil with which you do battle.

15 posted on 12/27/2001 9:45:44 AM PST by MSSC6644

To: Saundra Duffy

To all the Christian Freepers, we need to pray continually for the situation and for the truth to finally be exploited about organizations like PP and CARAL.

16 posted on 12/27/2001 10:01:21 AM PST by workamania

To: Saundra Duffy

Wow, didn't know about this, SD! Way to go! Prayers for victory on the way!

17 posted on 12/27/2001 10:03:28 AM PST by Freedom'sWorthIt

To: Saundra Duffy

19 posted on 12/27/2001 10:10:37 AM PST by LiveFree2000

To: Saundra Duffy

Let me say that I am opposed to abortion on moral grounds, but I think it is very risky to approach the argument based on "science" and "statistics." Please do some research before you pursue this risky approach. Otherwise you might find you'll get the results you do not want.

http://www.junkscience.com/news/more-abortion.html

http://www.junkscience.com/news/abortion-breast-cancer.html

More Abortion and Breast Cancer

The Wall Street Journal (October 11, 1996) The Washington Post (October 12, 1996)

New research published in the British Medical Association's Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health has again linked abortion with breast cancer. A team of researchers reviewed 23 existing studies on abortion and breast cancer, pooled the studies' data and concluded that a woman who has an abortion has a 30 percent increase in the risk of breast cancer.
But abortion is a sacred cow among the public health establishment. So I don't have to criticize this study again; the public health establishment will do it for me.
As reported in The Washington Post, Lynn Rosenberg, an epidemiologist at Boston University, said:

There is evidence that women grossly under-report abortion,... An [increase in risk of 30 percent] is indistinguishable from [such bias]... We are certainly not going to arrive at the truth by averaging all the studies.

According to Karin Michels, an epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School ,

[The studies used in the analysis] to date are inadequate to infer with confidence [a relation between abortion and breast cancer].

As reported in The Wall Street Journal, Clark Heath, a vice president at the American Cancer Society, said:

This is a fight between science people and pro-life people. It is a great mistake to start issuing warnings about risks or possible risks when the evidence is so unclear.

Thanks Lynn, Karin and Clark. I can't wait to apply your style of thinking to the epidemiology of air pollution, radon, environmental tobacco smoke, dioxin, DDT, breast implants, environmental estrogens, etc.

Material presented on this home page constitutes opinion of the author.

Copyright © 1996 Steven J. Milloy. All rights reserved. Site developed and hosted by WestLake Solutions, Inc.

Abortion Contortion

Janet R. Daling, Louise A. Brinton, Lynda F. Voigt, Noel S. Weiss, Ralph Coates, Kathleen Malone, Janet Schoenberg, and Marilie Gammon Am J Epidemiol 1996;144:373-380

Over the past several years, four published studies have weakly associated abortion with an increased risk in breast cancer.

Despite the weak association, these studies have given pro-choice supporters a headache. So much so that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) even issued a press release indicating that weak association epidemiology was not very reliable.

Of course, NCI thinks that weak association epidemiology is bad only in the context of abortion. For anything else, weak association epidemiology is just hunky-dory!

In this fine tradition, Daling et al. pull off a remarkable feat by both repudiating their own abortion-breast cancer link while asking for more money to study it.

Daling et al. interviewed 1,302 women with breast cancer about their reproductive histories, including induced abortion, and reported that:

Women who had been pregnant once and had an abortion had a 20 percent higher rate of breast cancer than women who had no abortion (95 percent confidence interval, 0 percent to 50 percent).

Women who had never had a child and had a first trimester abortion had a 100 percent higher rate of breast cancer (95 percent confidence interval, 20 percent to 230 percent).

Usually, when public health researchers report their results, they FIRST try to SUPPORT their results and then, almost as an afterthought, point out flaws and weaknesses as an afterthought. Not Daling et al.

The very first sentence in the discussion section is

Some possible limitations of our study warrant discussion.

Daling et al. then go on to discuss how they were able to directly interview only about 80 percent of the women in their study. And they question the accuracy of the responses from their own interviews. Then they state

Although a positive association has been seen in a number of studies that have focused on young women, the overall magnitude is not so great that the possibility of bias... can be excluded.

Funny, I can remember how a reported 30 percent increase in lung cancer risk associated with second-hand smoke was SO definite and meaningful to the public health research crowd. But a 100 percent increase in breast cancer risk from abortion "is not so great"?

Then Daling et al. close with their shameless pitch and not-so veiled threat for more research funding on this issue:

Nonetheless, as additional studies are carried out [shameless pitch] among cohorts of women who have had legal abortions available to them for most of their lives,... there is reason to hope that in the future we [where future funding should go] will have a better understanding of the possible role of induced abortion [not-so veiled threat] in the etiology of breast cancer.

Material presented on this home page constitutes opinion of the author.

Copyright © 1996 Steven J. Milloy. All rights reserved. Site developed and hosted by WestLake Solutions, Inc.

20 posted on 12/27/2001 10:23:45 AM PST by Log

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794