It's enough to drive an angel to drink

My late mother had a number of colourful expressions, the title of this post being one of them. Another favourite of hers was, "It's enough to make a preacher swear!" Given that I never once heard my sainted mother swear, nor ever saw her take a drink, I knew that she was genuinely frustrated when she uttered these sayings.

Mom's expressions passed through my mind recently when I read, on the same day, studies showing a conclusive link between abortion and breast cancer, and an article on a science website claiming that such a link is a myth.

Here are excerpts from the two articles:

1. Link between abortion and breast cancer demonstrated

WASHINGTON, DC, October 3, 2007 - The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons published a study yesterday entitled "The Breast Cancer Epidemic." It showed that, among seven risk factors, abortion is the "best predictor of breast cancer," and fertility is also a useful predictor.

The study by Patrick Carroll of the Pension and Population Research Institute in London showed that countries with higher abortion rates, such as England & Wales, could expect a substantial increase in breast cancer incidence. Where abortion rates are low (i.e., Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic) a smaller increase is expected. Where a decline in abortion has taken place, (i.e., Denmark and Finland) a decline in breast cancer is anticipated.

Carroll used the same mathematical model for a previous forecast of numbers of breast cancers in future years for England & Wales based on cancer data up to 1997 that has proved quite accurate for predicting cancers observed in years 1998 to 2004.

In four countries - England & Wales, Scotland, Finland and Denmark - a social gradient has been discovered (unlike that for other cancers) whereby upper class and upwardly mobile women have more breast cancer than lower class women. This was studied in Finland and Denmark and the influence of known risk factors other than abortion was examined, but the gradient was not explained.

Carroll suggests that the known preference for abortion in this class might explain the phenomenon. Women pursuing higher educations and professional careers often delay marriage and childbearing. Abortions before the birth of a first child are highly carcinogenic.

Carroll used national data from nations believed to have "nearly complete abortion counts." Therefore, his study is not affected by recall bias. (Source: LifeSiteNews.com)

2. Link between abortion and breast cancer denied

In his article "Five Myths About Breast Cancer," LiveScience.com's columnist Christopher Wanjek says the link between abortion and breast cancer is one of five myths that women should know this October, which is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

He calls the link a "persistent myth" that "was thoroughly resolved by the 1990s."

"Nevertheless, the Bush Administration revisited the issue in 2002, gave equal weight to the earlier, smaller studies showing a correlation, and told the National Cancer Institute to state the possible abortion-cancer connection in its fact sheets and Web site," Wanjek wrote. "It took Congressional action and a three-day conference on the topic to remove this erroneous information by 2003."

Wanjek's position was challenged by Dr. Joel Brind, a professor at Baruch College in New York, who says there is 50 years of research showing a link between abortion and breast cancer.

Brind pointed out that breast cancer cases have risen 40 percent since abortion was made virtually unlimited in the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade.

Brind said the first study showing the abortion-breast cancer link was published in Japan in 1957 and it showed that women who have abortions have two-three times greater a chance of contracting breast cancer than those who decide to keep their baby.

Dr. Janet Daling, who considers herself pro-abortion, brought the abortion-breast cancer link into the mainstream when her 1994 research found that among women who had been pregnant at least once experienced a 50 percent increase in breast cancer risk when having an induced abortion.

In 1996, Brind and other researchers conducted analysis of all the major studies done in the field to that time.

They concluded that women who had an abortion before their first term child had a 50% increased risk of developing breast cancer while women who had an abortion after their first child sustained a 30% increased risk.

A few years ago, the British Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists confirmed Brind's study and said it contained no major flaws or errors (see www.lifenews.com/nat3367.html).

Given the track record of recent Canadian governments, nothing will be done in light of this newest study of the abortion-breast cancer link. Our current government will carry on as if the alleged mythical link were true.

But in Britain, members of the governing Labour party feel more inclined to take action in the best interests of women.

Members of the British parliament wants to add an amendment to an abortion bill the legislative body will debate next month as the nation marks 40 years of legalized abortion. Labour Party MPs Claire Curtis-Thomas and Geraldine Smith say they want the abortion bill amended to tell women of the abortion-breast cancer link.

Their bill follows on the heels of new research showing the number of breast cancer cases in England will skyrocket because of the high number of abortions in the European nation.

The bill would focus on more research into the link between abortion and breast cancer.

"This needs to be investigated properly. It is just another example of the possible physical repercussions women face," Smith told the London Daily Mail. "Women sometimes enter into an abortion quite lightly and in some cases it is being used as a form of birth control."

"We know there are psychological repercussions and it is now being shown that there are physical repercussions," Smith added (see www.lifenews.com/int459.html).

What is it about our current culture of debate that information vital to the health of women is suppressed or dismissed for the sake of some ideology? Is the pro-choice movement simply gullible? I suspect many of its members are, given the paucity of information that is allowed to get near their eyes, ears and brains.

Are the utterances of certain celebrities so powerful that we mere mortals are too cowed to truly investigate the facts?

NEW YORK, October 4, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Once again the pro-life views of Elisabeth Hasselbeck, the only conservative woman on ABC's "The View," have landed her in trouble after a heated exchange with Whoopi Goldberg, Rosie O'Donnell's replacement, on Wednesday's program edition.

Hasselbeck noted her opinion that presidential Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's proposal to give $5,000 for a new birth could help reduce abortions in the United States.

Goldberg then took the opportunity to attack Hasselbeck's pro-life views by asking her if she had ever been in a position to abort a child. Hasselbeck responded "never."

Goldberg then said, "Okay, then back off a little bit. Back off a little bit. Very few people want to have abortions." Goldberg's "very few people", however, have aborted nearly 50 million children since Roe v. Wade legalized it in 1973. According to one Goldberg biographer, Goldberg has had at least 6 abortions and used to joke perversely that she had a do-it-yourself coat hanger abortion at 14 years-old.

Goldberg then lectured Hasselbeck that Americans ought to "revere" women, who have had abortions.

"It is the hardest decision that a woman ever- wait- ever has to make. So, when you talk about it, a little bit of reverence to the women out there who have had to make this horrible decision," Goldberg continued.

Hasselbeck, being the only pro-life and conservative out of the four women on The View, has been repeatedly castigated for her opinion, most notably by fired "View" co-host Rosie O'Donnell. Earlier in September, Barry Manilow had refused to appear on ABC's "The View," because the show's producers refused to remove Hasselbeck from the segment.

Manilow called Hasselbeck "dangerous" and "offensive" for her "views" and said that while he was "a big supporter of the show," he was canceling his appearance because he felt "I cannot compromise my beliefs."

And what of the medical community who take oaths with respect to putting health first? I phoned the communications director of the British Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons to ask what efforts they would make to draw to the attention of their members such studies as the one cited at the beginning of this post.

She said that this kind of action was outside the mandate of the College and passed me on to the Manager of Communications of the BC Medical Association, which provides professional development opportunities for physicians. That woman told me that because there are hundreds of studies that come to the attention of doctors, it would be up to individual doctors to note such findings as an abortion/breast cancer link. Both spokespeople said that there was no body representing the medical fraternity that would take that initiative.

So where does that leave us? The government is mute. The so-called pro-choice celebrities bully those who speak for one of the choices. The medical fraternity provides no leadership.

I sat by my mother's bedside while she was dying of breast cancer at age 59. She had never had an abortion nor did she ever smoke. She was simply unlucky enough to be part of a family where most of the women contracted breast cancer. It was agonizing for her and for me. She died 23 years ago and I still think of her virtually every day. I wish that my kids could remember her. She loved them so much as babies.

Why, oh why, oh why do the government and all major political parties, the pro-choice movement, the medical fraternity and many celebrities and columnists want to put women into the bed in which my mother died for the sake of ideology? If women are to be left alone to choose, can't they be trusted with all of the information necessary to make that choice?

Shame!