LIFE ISSUES ARCHIVES

PRO-CHOICE CHORUS: ABORTION-BREAST-CANCER IS FOR REAL 

Source:  QAQ Newsletter    10 February 2002
(Quash Abortion-Quackery Newsletter, Brent Rooney <stopcancer@yahoo.com>

Consider the following quote:
 
      "For example, if you were to have  an abortion at the age of 25,
      your risk of developing breast cancer  at  the  age  of 60 would
      increase from  1  in  24  to  about  1  in 18, especially if you
      have  more  than  one  abortion  before  your  first  full-term
      pregnancy." (The  Breast  Cancer  Prevention Program, Dr. Samuel
      S. Epstein et al, 1997, pp. 36-37).

Who wrote that passage?  Dr. Samuel S. Epstein.  Dr. Samuel S. Epstein
is an  internationally  recognized cancer expert.  In 1997 Dr. Epstein
co-authored the outstanding book: The Breast Cancer Prevention Program. 
Dr. Epstein is a professor at the University of Illinois, a friend  of
Ralph Nader, and 'pro-choice'.  What would be Dr. Epstein's motive for
conjuring up a breast cancer risk that does not exist?
 
Do others agree with Dr. Epstein?

   The [United States] National Cancer Institute is a very prestigious
organization  and their  main  journal, The  Journal  of the  National
Cancer Institute is a very prestigious journal. "Scientists agree that
a full-term pregnancy at a young age protects against  breast cancer."
(Troy Parkins (NCI employee), JNCI, 1993;85:1987). 

Dr. Susan Love is listed as a  director of Y-ME National Breast Cancer
Organization. She is a founder and board member of the National Breast
Cancer  Coalition  and  was  asked by  President  Clinton to  join the
National Cancer Advisory Board.   She  authored  the  books  Dr. Susan
Love's Breast Book  and  Dr. Susan  Love's  Hormone  Book.  She  is an
Adjunct Professor of Surgery at UCLA.

In her 1995 book,  Dr. Susan  Love's Breast Book,  she cautions women,
"And the younger you are when you  have your  first  child, the  lower
your [breast cancer] risk." [1995, p. 242]

In effect Dr. Susan Love has  subtly  warned  women about an abortion-
breast-cancer risk: having an induced  abortion of a  first  pregnancy
at a young age increases a woman's BC risk  relative to  carrying  the
first pregnancy to full-term.

Are there other 'Pro-choicers' conceding the ABC risk?
   Yes,  in  1994  Dr. Janet Daling  et al.,  self-described  as 'pro-
choice', reported in The Journal of the National Cancer Institute  the
following elevated breast cancer relative risks for  women  with prior
abortions:

   1. overall a 50% increase in BC risk
   2. 150% increased risk for women with abortions before age 18
   3. 110% increased risk for women with first abortions after age 29

[this was a study of  women who  contracted BC  before  the age of 45]

There are TWO (2), count'm two, independent ABC risks. The 1994 Daling
excluded one of the TWO ABC risks, medically postponed first full-term
pregnancy.  I.E. the total BC risk was even higher than that  reported
by Daling.

In a Florida court room on 18 November 1999  the  expert  witness  for
Planned Parenthood, Lynn Rosenberg (ScD),  conceded,  under  oath, the
higher risk of  breast cancer for  young  women who choose to  abort a
first pregnancy; (see the Appendix for the Rosenberg testimony)

A 'Pro-Choice' Chorus: ABC (Abortion-Breast-Cancer) is for REAL!

     More  and  more  honest 'pro-choice'  medical  professionals  are
conceding the ABC risk.  Why the concessions?  The logical explanation
is that the riskS (TWO of them) are real and  women  need to be warned
about them.  Some women who were not warned are now  suing  those they
believe  concealed  the  serious  risk  of breast cancer from elective
abortion.  The 'pro-choice' chorus conceding Abortion-Breast-Cancer:

           Daling, Epstein, Krieger *, Love *, Rosenberg

(* The Krieger and Love ABC  concessions are implied but  nevertheless
unequivocal)

For Informed Medical Consent,
Brent Rooney (Independent Medical Researcher)
Reduce Preterm Risk Coalition
email: stopcancer@yahoo.com
Vancouver, Canada

Appendix: Testimony  of  Lynn Rosenberg on 18  November 1999;  also,
          a quote from Nancy Krieger (PhD)

Dr. Lynn Rosenberg (Boston University Medical School epidemiologist)
has denied for many years that  there  is  a  SECOND abortion-breast
-cancer risk. But what about the FIRST risk, medically delayed first
full term birth?  The  following  testimony (UNDER OATH) occurred on
18 November 1999 in a Florida (USA) court room, (Dr. Lynn  Rosenberg
being questioned):

"Q: So, in other words a woman who finds herself pregnant at  age 15
    will have a higher breast cancer risk if  she  chooses  to abort
    that pregnancy, than if  she  carries  the  pregnancy  to  term,
    correct?
 A: Probably, yes.
 Q: Looking at that another way, let's compare two women.  Let's say
    both got pregnant at age 15- one  terminates  the pregnancy, but
    the other carries the pregnancy to term. And both women go on to
    get married and have two children, say at age 30 and  age 35. Is
    the risk of breast  cancer  higher  for  the  woman  who  had an
    abortion at age 15 or the women who  had a  baby  at age 15, all
    things being equal?
 A: It's probably higher for the one who had an abortion at age 15."

 Nancy Krieger (PhD, researcher) and the importance of a first full-
 term pregnancy

   Breast Cancer researcher Nancy Krieger wrote, "Conversely,  early 
age  at FFTP [first full-term pregnancy] consistently has emerged as 
the  strongest  protective [against breast cancer] factor".  (Breast
Cancer Research  and Treatment 1989;13:205-223)  Each one year post-
ponement  of a  first  full-term  pregnancy  boosts relative  breast
cancer risk by 3.5% (compounded).  (International J  Cancer, 1983;31
:701-704)  Thus, if a 20  year-old  childless  pregnant woman has an
induced abortion, but goes on to have a first full-term birth at age
30 years, her relative  BC risk is 41%  higher  than if she  carried
the pregnancy to term at age 20.

Women Have  Right to Know of Abortion's Risks

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet Weekly 
Source:   Chicago Tribune; January 28, 2002
by Dennis Byrne

[Pro-Life Infonet Note:  Dennis Byrne is a Chicago-area writer and public
affairs consultant. He writes regular columns for the Chicago Tribune.]

Now we're supposed to choose Illinois' next governor on the basis of where
candidates stand on 1 percent of abortions. Even though budgetary,
education, public works and other policy issues wait to be debated. Lt.
Gov. Corinne Wood, running for the Republican gubernatorial nomination,
and Planned Parenthood have unleashed a flood of scary and cheap-shot ads
denouncing Wood's opponents as "too extreme" because they do not support
abortion in cases of rape or incest. Even though a study by the Alan
Guttmacher Insitutute shows that only about 1 percent of abortions are
performed because of rape or incest.

Yet Planned Parenthood trotted out "Gretchen," who denounced those who
would stop rape victims, such as her, from getting an abortion. Even
though we later discover that "her ordeal didn't end in pregnancy."

To be fair, let's tell another story: A real person, with a real name, who
was conceived during a rape, who survived an abortion attempt and now
leads a productive personal and professional life. Attorney Rebecca
Kiessling was adopted by a Jewish couple in Michigan, raised in their
faith and with their deep support, as the New Hampshire Sunday News
reported last week. "The biggest message I have is all life has value,"
Kiessling said. She and her husband Bob adopted a son Caleb, whose was
conceived at a "rave" party. Their adopted daughter, Cassie, lived only 33
days, dying of DiGeorge syndrome, a rare group of abnormalities including
recurring infections and heart defects. "It's so sad that people could
look at Cassie and say she wasn't as good . . . It was an honor to take
care of her . . . It was the most important thing I've ever done." Yes,
carrying a baby who was conceived in violence is a horrible burden to
endure. We must in these cases attend to the mental and physical health of
these victims. Just as we must acknowledge that an aborted child conceived
in violence itself becomes a victim of violence. It is the ultimate
visiting of the sins of a father on his child. It is the ultimate act of
blaming a victim.

But now I'm doing what Wood and Planned Parenthood want me to do: engage
in a debate that is a diversion from the real issues. If abortion is a
real issue in this election, we should conduct the debate on the real
battlefield. Over existing, here-today policies that many pro-choicers
support and which most Americans don't. Such as partial-birth abortion and
live-birth abortion (an aborted baby is delivered live and allowed to
die). Or polices that pro-choicers oppose and many Americans support, such
as parental notification and informed consent.

Take informed consent. Do women have the right to be fully informed of the
risks of abortion before they undergo the procedure? The pro-choice logic
is that abortion poses no risks, so no right to know exists. That's
despite studies to the contrary, such as those that find elective abortion
is a risk factor in breast cancer.

In Texas, a group of women who say they have suffered physical and
emotional harm from abortion, including ruptured uterus, sterility, severe
guilt and depression, have filed suit against the state, charging it with,
among other things, failing to inspect licensed facilities and to
prosecute illegal and unlicensed abortions. One of the plaintiffs is the
mother of a child who had an abortion without parental consent. The child
previously had received medical care for depression; the abortion worsened
her condition and led to her hospitalization.

Now, a study in the British Medical Journal reports that married women who
abort a first pregnancy are "at higher risk" of long-term clinical
depression, compared with similar women who carry an unintended first
pregnancy to term. Even if Roe vs. Wade were overturned today by a new
U.S. Supreme Court and the question of abortion were returned to the
legislative arena, where it belongs, there is no chance--none--that
abortions would be banned in cases of rape and incest, because of
overwhelming public opinion that is unlikely to change soon. Wood and
Planned Parenthood know that, and that is why their ads are pure
demagoguery.

If pro-choicers really were interested in rational debate and, more
importantly, in a woman's right to make a healthy choice, they would can
the ads and back a woman's right to informed consent.

At Death's Door Source: www.faz.de  Georg Paul Hefty April 10 2001 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung The Dutch breached a dike on Tuesday evening. The incoming waters could reach neighboring countries, but they will first wreak havoc in the Netherlands. "Physician-assisted suicide" is the mendacious label attached to the country's new law. Admittedly, statistics show this form of death is used in the most pitiful terminal cases and is responsible for about 1 percent of annual deaths. But legalized killing will change the life expectancy of all of the country's 16 million citizens -- they just have not realized it yet. The hour and manner of our death are the greatest secrets our future holds. Certainly nobody wants to suffer at the end of his or her life. Although we cannot plan our own future, all human effort since time immemorial has concentrated on managing the circumstances surrounding death as effectively as possible. The deep-rooted dislike of war and longing for peace are almost certainly grounded in our firm wish not to be shot or buried in the rubble of a collapsing house. Less graphically, but no less intensively, the efforts of the individual and of society as a whole are aimed at prolonging life as long as possible and making death as easy and painless as possible. These objectives have driven medical science and clinical practice over millennia, and this has marked the development of families, religions and laws. Legalization of assisted suicide in the Netherlands is a break with this legal tradition. It disregards the precepts of the world's religions and changes the relationship among family members. When a sick person sighs: "I wish I were dead," it will no longer elicit sympathy and nursing care, but provide the opportunity to bind the patient to these words and begin legal proceedings, with the full approval of the state. Once people grow accustomed to the new legislation, complaining will carry a life-threatening risk, and providing medical and nursing care will be increasingly seen as flying in the face of the system. In the not too distant future, family members or doctors will have to justify such action. "Physician-assisted suicide" is not simply an addition to the existing options of voluntary suicide. Part of the image of euthanasia is that of the dying person lying helpless in bed, without the strength to end his own life -- while the doctor prepares the fatal injection. Yet Dutch practice belies the notion that it is a slightly "beefed-up Mother Teresa act." It is not by chance that the proponents of euthanasia have intentionally neglected palliative medicine in their country. The induced death of a 50-year-old woman, whose only illness was depression, makes us aware of other, very different cases. We are not talking about shortening "the final hours" because for that the procedure is too complicated -- quite correctly there are fail-safes built in for people's protection. We are talking here about days, weeks and months. In fact, the effort becomes more worthwhile when the shortening of life is carried out at the earliest time possible. The Dutch law betrays the legislators' bad conscience. If euthanasia really were a kind of mercy killing and release from intolerable and undignified suffering, the legislators could have left matters to be worked out between the doctor and the patient. It would have sufficed if parliament had amended medical ethics by providing immunity for shortening an agonizing death. Instead, the new law demands the consultation of a second doctor and thereby shows that the lawmakers have opened the door to many kinds of exploitation by the attending doctor and that a second doctor must help keep the door closed. The law saves its real horror for its regulations covering minors. For children up to the age of 16 permission need only be given by one parent. Those who are older may decide for themselves. Do they know how final death is and that there is no going back if they change their mind? As each death takes a certain amount of time to arrange -- personal choice, the first doctor's decision, the second doctor's decision and implementation, plus discussions with the family -- one cannot assume that the patient's mind is irrevocably made up. Who however would want to admit that he is frightened and now wants more time, who would tell the doctors that he has changed his mind, in the full knowledge that he may need them two or three days later? A new found confidence in life will not be seen as human dignity regained, but will instead feed the suspicion of cowardice in the face of one's original decision to end life. And who can expect sympathy from his or her family because there is now the extra layer of procedural formalities where the second doctor may suspect that the first doctor and the heirs have acted too hastily. The Netherlands, and most certainly the other European countries, is still a long way from using euthanasia for other purposes than easing suffering. Material considerations like the cost of care are part of the public debate, but have not yet been written into the law. But the damage done by the Dutch legislation is as unpredictable as when a dike breaks.  Apr. 10, 2001

Child of Rape Says All Life Has Value

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet Weekly 
Source:   New Hampshire Sunday News; January 20, 2002

Concord, NH -- Whenever attorney Rebecca Kiessling hears people condemn
abortion except in the case of rape or incest, she feels a deep personal
pain.

She was conceived during a rape. Her birth mother attempted to get an
abortion, but they were illegal at the time and she ultimately decided
against it. Her frightened mother gave up her baby for adoption instead.

Kiessling was adopted by a Jewish couple in Michigan who raised her in
their faith and encouraged her to become a lawyer. Until her late teens,
she had no idea of the circumstances of her birth or the identity of her
birth mother.

Yesterday, Kiessling spoke to about 350 people in the Sacred Heart Church
after most had just completed the annual March for Life from the New
Hampshire State House to the church.

"The biggest message I have is all life has value," Kiessling said.

Kiessling, 32, of Rochester Hills, Mich., is a semi-retired Christian
lawyer, having closed her law office to take care of her family and speak
around the country.

She still does some pro-bono legal work for women and pro-life groups.

She and her husband, Bob, adopted their son Caleb, who often travels with
her. His birth mother was 16 and conceived him at a rave party.

The Kiesslings also adopted a daughter, Cassie, who lived for only 33 days
and died of DiGeorge syndrome, which is a rare group of abnormalities
including recurring infections and heart defects.

"It's so sad that people could look at Cassie and say she wasn't as good,"
Kiessling said.

Kiessling said society too often judges people by whether they are a
burden or benefit without acknowledging the true value of each human life.

"It was an honor to take care of her . . . It was the most important thing
I've ever done," Kiessling said.

Kiessling believes God has a special place in his heart for disabled
children. "Each one of our lives makes a difference and don't let anyone
tell you otherwise," Kiessling said.

Medical Journal Finds Clinical Depression Linked to Abortion

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet Weekly 

Source:   British Medical Journal, 324: 151-152

Springfield, IL -- This week's prestigious British Medical Journal reports
that women who abort a first pregnancy are at greater risk of subsequent
long term clinical depression compared to women who carry an unintended
first pregnancy to term. Publication of the study coincides with
anniversary events related to the Supreme Court's January 22, 1973 Roe v.
Wade decision legalizing abortion.

Data from a national study of American youths, begun in 1979, was used to
conduct the research.  In 1992, a subset of 4,463 women were surveyed
about depression, intendedness of pregnancy, and pregnancy outcome.  A
total of 421 women had had their first abortion or first unintended
delivery between 1980 and 1992.

An average of eight yeas after their abortions, married women were 138
percent more likely to be at high risk of clinical depression compared to
similar women who carried their unintended first pregnancies to term.
Among women who were unmarried in 1992, rates of high risk depression were
not significantly different.  The authors suggest that the lack of
significance in unmarried women may be explained by the higher rate of
nonreporting of abortions among unmarried women.  Compared with national
averages, unmarried women in this study report only 30 percent of the
expected abortions compared with married women, who report 74 percent of
the expected abortions. This may make the results for married women more
reliable, say the authors. Another explanation is that unmarried women who
are raising a child without the support of a husband experience
significantly more depression than their married counterparts.

Since shame, secrecy, and thought suppression regarding an abortion are
all associated with greater post-abortion depression, anxiety, and
hostility, the authors conclude that the high rate of concealing past
abortions in this population (60 percent overall) would tend to suppress
the full effect of abortion on subsequent depression. Unreported abortions
would result in women who experience depression following an abortion
being misclassified as delivering women.

"Given the very high rate of concealment of past abortions "the fact that
significant differences still emerged suggests that we are just catching
the tip of the iceberg," said David C. Reardon, Ph.D., the study's lead
author.

Reardon, the director of the Elliot Institute in Springfield, Illinois,
says the study's findings are consistent with other recent research that
has shown a four to six fold increased risk of suicide and substance abuse
associated with prior abortion.  He says the findings are also important
because this is the first national representative study to examine rates
of rates of depression many years after an abortion, on average
approximately eight years later in this sample.

The data set used was the same as that used by feminist psychologist Nancy
Russo of Arizona State University, whose examination of a self-esteem
scale revealed no significant difference between aborting women and women
who carried to term.  Russo concluded that the absence of difference in
self-esteem scores in this large national data set proved that abortion
has no "substantial and important impact on women's well-being."

According to Reardon, Russo's much publicized study has frequently been
used to support the claim that, on average, abortion has no significant
effect on women's mental health.  The Elliot Institute's new analysis of
the same data set reveals that significant differences do exist.

"The most serious flaw of the Russo study is that the authors did not even
comment on the extraordinarily high rate of concealment of past abortions
in the sample," Reardon said.  "Women who do not want to mention a past
abortion are most likely the ones who will have unresolved feelings of
shame, guilt, or grief."

Reardon says that another problem with the prior analysis was that Russo's
team relied solely on a measure of self-esteem that is not sensitive to
post-abortion stress. He says the examination of depression scores is more
relevant to the known negative reactions to abortion.

"Russo's previous analysis of this data set was methodologically weak and
was frankly a poor basis on which to build the claim that abortion has no
measurable effect on women's well- being," he said. "The results of our
reexamination of this data set-especially in combination with other
studies showing higher rates of suicide, substance abuse, and other mental
health disorders associated with prior abortion-shows that the 'no effect'
hypothesis should be rejected.  Something is going on here. Where there is
this much smoke, despite the problem of high concealment rates, there is
likely to be a fire beneath the haze."

Another important aspect of this study, says Reardon, is that is one of
only a few studies to use any pre-pregnancy psychological score as a
control variable. The most commonly used control variable used in
regarding emotional reactions is "pre-abortion" evaluation on the day of
the abortion when the woman is in the crux of emotional distress. This is
why a pre-pregnancy score is much more useful than a pre-abortion score
for evaluating the independent effect of abortion on long term emotional
reactions.

Asked what the practical implications of this study are for physicians,
Reardon said: "We recommend that physicians should routinely inquire about
the outcome of all the patient's pregnancies. The simple question, 'Have
you experienced any pregnancy losses such as miscarriage, abortion,
adoption, or stillbirth?' may be sufficient to give women permission to
discuss unresolved issues related to prior pregnancy losses.  Physician's
should remember that there are few social contexts in which women feel it
is appropriate to discuss unresolved feelings about prior pregnancy loss.
Many patients will appreciate the opportunity to discuss their pregnancy
losses with an empathetic person and may welcome referrals for additional
counseling."

The new study was funded by the Elliot Institute, a non-profit
organization that is involved in research and education regarding
post-abortion complications and also promotes outreach and counseling
programs for women. Reardon is the author of numerous books on
post-abortion issues, including The Jericho Plan: Breaking Down the Walls
Which Prevent Post-Abortion Healing and Making Abortion Rare: A Healing
Strategy for a Divided Nation.  His newest book, Forbidden Grief: The
Unspoken Pain of Abortion, co-authored with Theresa Burke, will be
published in March of 2002.  Information on these titles and other
research conducted by Dr. Reardon and the Elliot Institute can be found at
www.afterabortion.org.


REFERENCED STUDIES:

Reardon DC, Cougle JR. Depression and unintended pregnancy in the National
Longitudinal Survey of Youth: a cohort study British Medical Journal, 324:
151-152. Full text available at http://www.bmj.com.

Russo NF, Zierk K. Abortion, childbearing, and women's well-being.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 1992; 23: 269-280.

Underpopulation, Not Overpopulation, The Real Global Problem

From: Pro-Life Infonet

 Source: Washington Post; Sunday, March 18, 2001

[Pro-Life Infonet Note: Nicholas Eberstadt holds the Henry Wendt Chair in
Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute. This article is
adapted from a longer one in the current issue of Foreign Policy
magazine.]

It may not be the first way we think of ourselves, but all of us alive
today are children of the "world population explosion." Thanks to sweeping
mortality declines, human numbers leapt from about 1.6 billion or 1.7
billion in 1900 to more than 6 billion in 2000.

In certain circles within Washington (and outside the United States), that
unprecedented leap in human numbers fueled an anti-natalist obsession. But
continuing preoccupation with high fertility and rapid population growth
leaves us poorly prepared to comprehend (much less respond to) emerging
demographic trends.

Three of these are poised to refigure our global profile in surprising --
and not always beneficial -- ways. The first is the spread of
"sub-replacement" fertility regimens: patterns of childbearing that will
eventually result, all else being equal, in indefinite population decline.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 83 countries and territories are now
thought to experience below-replacement fertility. Those places encompass
nearly 2.7 billion people -- roughly 44 percent of the world's total
population.

Today's global march toward smaller family size flies in the face of many
prevailing assumptions about when rapid fertility decline can and cannot
occur. Poverty and illiteracy (especially female illiteracy) are widely
regarded as impediments to fertility decline, yet they have not prevented
Bangladesh from reducing its fertility rate by more than half over the
past quarter-century. By the same token, "traditional" religious attitudes
are commonly seen as a barrier against low fertility. Yet over the past
two decades, Iran, under the tight rule of a militantly Islamic clerisy,
has slashed its fertility level by fully two-thirds, and now apparently it
stands on the verge of sub-replacement.

What accounts for the worldwide plunge in fertility? The honest answer is
that nobody really knows -- at least, with any degree of confidence. If
you can find the shared determinants of fertility decline in such
disparate below-replacement societies as the United States, Guadeloupe,
Thailand and Tunisia, then your Nobel Prize is in the mail.

While causes might be uncertain, results are quite predictable. Global
population growth will decelerate markedly over the coming generation. By
current projections, in fact, slightly fewer babies will be born worldwide
in the year 2025 than at any point over the previous four decades.

Thanks to extreme birth dearth, depopulation is now imminent for both
Europe and Japan. In Europe, immigration must nearly quadruple -- to an
average of almost 4 million net entrants a year -- to prevent a decline in
the size of the 15- to-64-year-old "working age" population over the next
50 years. In Japan, where net immigration approximates zero, more than
600,000 newcomers a year will be needed to keep the working age population
from shrinking.

Will these territories opt for indefinite decline -- or for ethnic
transformation? Given the arithmetic, they have no other options. Low and
decreasing fertility levels will accelerate the tempo of social aging --
the second great demographic trend of the coming era.

We all know about the coming pensioner problem in Western countries -- but
Western countries are rich. Many of today's developing countries, by
contrast, will become "gray" before they become "rich." One of the most
arresting cases of population aging is now set to unfold in China. Between
2000 and 2025, China's median age will soar -- in fact, it may exceed
America's within 25 years. By 2025, roughly 200 million Chinese will be 65
or older. Caring for China's elderly will inexorably become a domestic,
and global, political issue -- for nothing remotely resembling a national
pension system is yet in place in that country.

The third, and most ominous, demographic trend of the coming era involves
unexpected and brutal mortality spikes. In our era, we have come to
presume that death rates inevitably decline during times of peace and
order. That happy presumption must now be discarded. By Census Bureau
projections, nearly 40 countries and territories will have lower life
expectancies in 2010 than they enjoyed in 1990. More than 750 million
people -- one-sixth of the world's current population -- live in such
spots. Many of these countries are today's sub-Saharan victims of the
HIV-AIDS epidemic.

But the international health setback is not just about Africa and AIDS. In
Russia -- an urbanized, industrialized, peacetime society -- lifespans are
shorter today than 40 years ago. In a dozen other post-Communist
countries, life expectancy is lower today than in the 1970s.

Since virtually no one predicted these foreshortenings of national
lifespan, we cannot yet claim to know which countries will be afflicted by
-- or spared from -- uncontrollable bouts of mortality in the years to
come. Before too long, unfortunately, our current era's widespread anxiety
about health-driven global population growth may look remarkably quaint
and naive.

The Thought Police

source: NZEDF  : ISSUEZ NZ 

NO. 20, 14 NOVEMBER 2001

Woman Dies in Canadian RU486 Trials

By Randall K. O'Bannon, Ph.D., NRL Director of Education & Research

Pro-lifers warned that it would likely happen, but hoped the day would never come. Now, a Canadian woman participating in that country's trials of RU486 is dead, and questions are being raised about whether the abortion drugs she took may have factored in or contributed to her death.

Details are scarce, owing to the reluctance of the pill's promoters to publicize the problem, but facts gleaned from various Canadian and American news sources tell a tragic tale.

According to the September 17, 2001, National Post, a national Canadian newspaper, the unidentified woman came in to take RU486 pills August 23. Two days later she returned to take misoprostol, a prostaglandin which initiates contractions to expel the tiny corpse.

She was bleeding and suffering cramps, typical parts of the chemical abortion process, by day five (August 28), the National Post reports. An ultrasound showed an empty uterus.

The National Post says the woman continued to exhibit negative unspecified side effects and was admitted to the hospital. The woman died September 1, just 10 days after starting her chemical abortion, according to the National Post.

The Population Council, the group holding the U.S. patent and sponsoring the Canadian trials, suspended the studies, reported the death to Canadian and American authorities, and sent its own investigator, but declared through a spokesperson that "as of now, we have no reason to believe that the death is drug-related or study-related" (Reuters Health, 9/14/01).

The claim advanced by the Population Council and the abortionist heading the Canadian trials is that the woman died, not from her abortion, but from severe septic shock brought on by a "rare clostridium infection" (Associated Press, 9/11/01). To evaluate their assertion, it's helpful to look at what is known about such infections.

Clostridia refers to a class of bacteria commonly found in soil, water, and in the intestinal tracts of human beings and some animals. Some forms are normally benign, causing no obvious problems for human beings. Others, such as Clostridium tetani (the cause of tetanus) can be deadly if untreated.

As an "anaerobic" bacteria which thrives in oxygen-sparse environments, these bacteria can cause severe toxic reactions when they get into a cut or wound.

When a spokesperson for the Population Council said that a clostridium infection has never been associated with a chemical abortion she may be technically correct (CNSnews.com, 9/19/01). But the evidence suggests that the connection between abortion and clostridium may not be as coincidental as the pill's supporters imply.

An article in the 1989 American Journal of Clinical Pathology dealt with a death resulting from Clostridium sordelli, the bacterial strain said to be involved in the death of the Canadian woman. In the first line of their abstract, the authors observe, "Historically, intrauterine clostridial infections have been associated with puerperal sepsis, often subsequent to instrumented abortion." 1

In laymen's terms, this means that in the past such infections have been associated with poisonous toxins in the blood or tissue that have gained entry through the birth canal following surgical abortions. Finding retained tissue, or an open wound, in an enclosed place, the bacteria find the ideal conditions to thrive and flourish.

Another case report of a fatal infection from the June 1975 Journal of Trauma says that Clostridium sordelli infections present "deceptive clinical features frequently leading to delayed recognition and subsequent death." 2

From what is known about Clostridium sordelli infections, particularly their absence of fever or other special symptoms, there may be unique reasons to be

concerned about any occurrence of C. sordelli in the midst of a chemical abortion.

Symptoms frequently associated with Clostridium sordelli infections are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dizziness, weakness, and falling blood pressure.3 Some cases have been accompanied by abdominal pain or tenderness.4 An unusual feature of such infections is the absence of any rash or fever.5 Eventually, if the infection is not controlled and the toxins counteracted, a toxic-shock-like syndrome takes over and the patient dies.

Vomiting and diarrhea are not normal side effects of surgical abortions, but they are quite common in standard RU486/prostaglandin (PG) abortions. In U.S. trials of RU486, 26% of the women experienced vomiting (one serious enough to require hospitalization) and 20% reported diarrhea.

Nausea, which might bring on some dizziness or weakness, was experienced by 61% in those trials. Abdominal pain, a feature noted in some C. sordelli infections, was reported by 96% in the RU486 trials.

One possible consequence of this similarity of symptoms is that an RU486/PG patient told to expect nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain may not recognize anything unusual about her situation until it is too late. She will not necessarily run any fever, see any special rash, or experience any unique symptom that will tell her she is having a toxic reaction to the bacteria.

Dr. Ellen Wiebe, the Vancouver abortionist heading the Canadian study, admitted, "The drugs caused the abortion and the infection is related to the abortion," but said, "the drugs did not cause the infection" (National Post, 9/17/01). Strictly speaking, that may be true. However, it is disingenuous not to note how the chemical abortion procedure and process can both create the conditions for Clostridium sordelli infections and then mask its symptoms.

For instance, absent the abortion, there is no bleeding, no retained tissue, no raw wound, and thus no real way for the bacteria to introduce itself. And if abortionists and their patients weren't already expecting nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, etc., as part of their abortion experiences, they might recognize the symptoms of Clostridium sordelli infections for what they were before precious time had passed. If so, it seems a stretch to call RU486 and its accompanying prostaglandin "innocent bystanders."

Population Council spokesperson Beverly Winikoff told a Reuters Health reporter, "We are working with the Canadian authorities to get all the medical records to assess if anything needs to be done to change current or trial practices.... We do not want to resume the study until we are sure that everything is okay" (Reuters Health, 9/14).

While the trials of RU486 have been suspended in Canada, there is no indication that the Population Council has done or intends to do anything to halt or limit sales of the drug in the U.S. Nevertheless, officials from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which approved the drug for sale in the U.S. just a year ago, will be conducting an investigation of their own and "looking into all aspects of the situation" (CNS News.com, 9/19/01).

NOTES:

1. Stephen F. Hogan, M.D., and Karen Ireland, M.D., "Fatal Acute Spontaneous Endometritis Resulting from Clostridium sordelli," Am J Clin Path 1989, 91:104-106, at 104.

2. David A. Browdie, M.D., et al., "Clostridium sordelli infection," The Journal of Trauma, Vol. 15, No. 6 (June 1975), pp. 515-518, at 515.

3. James A. McGregor, M.D., et al., "Maternal deaths associated with Clostridium sordelli infection," Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 161: 987-95.

4. In addition to the references above, see also A. Bitti, et al., "A fatal postpartum Clostridium sordelli associated toxic shock syndrome," J. Clinical Pathol 1997, 50: 259-260. McGregor mentions that one of the three women he studied reported a sudden onset of lower abdominal and rectal pain (at 988), but later identifies a "relative absence of pain or tenderness" as one of the "distinctive clinical aspects" of C. sordelli - associated infections (at 992).

5. McGregor, at 992.

Therapeutic Cloning

Source: Christian Medical Fellowship Website UK

 

Key Points The Government's decision to legalise embryonic stem cell cloning before Christmas without primary legislation or proper debate was irresponsible and unnecessary. Embryo stem cell cloning is unethical because it uses embryos as a means to an end. It is unnecessary because there is a viable ethical alternative in adult stem cell cloning, and dangerous because it creates a slippery slope to reproductive cloning. The Donaldson Report's recommendations, now rubber-stamped, were based on an overly pessimistic belief in the capacity of adult stem cells to produce new treatments for debilitating degenerative diseases like Parkinson's and diabetes.

The cloning of human embryos for research is now legal in the UK. New regulations under the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act will allow 'therapeutic cloning' to produce stem cells for use in treating degenerative diseases.

The legislation was passed, by a 366-174 majority in the House of Commons in December, and by a 212- 92 vote in the House of Lords on 22 January. Although a committee is to be set up later to look further at the issues, Parliament have effectively rubber-stamped the recommendations in the Chief Medical Officer's 'Donaldson Report' tabled last summer.The new law makes the UK the first country formally to legalise the practice.[1]

The decision followed tough opposition from a powerful alliance of pro-life campaigners and religious leaders. The European Parliament also had earlier called on the British government to shelve its plans and leaders of several other European countries had expressed disapproval.

The implementation of the new law has since been delayed through an appeal by the Prolife Alliance who believe that the Parliamentary votes are invalid because cloned embryos do not fit the definition of 'embryo' as defined in the HFE Act (ie. Produced by fertilisation). The hearing has been delayed until June (after the election), so an embargo on research will meanwhile remain.[2]

CMF General Secretary, Peter Saunders, wrote to MPs and Peers prior to the debate, urging them to vote against the measure and enclosing a copy of the latest CMF File on 

The main substance of this letter is published below along with its appendix on adult stem cells (slightly abridged), based on research by Phil Jones of the CMF Study Group.

Medical Background

I am opposed to embryonic stem cell cloning for three main reasons:

1.Embryonic stem cell cloning is unethical because it uses human embryos as a means to an end.

The Judaeo-Christian ethic on which UK Statute Law was originally based affirms that human life at all stages of development deserves the utmost respect. Historical medical ethical codes based on the Hippocratic Oath enshrine a similar view, recognising the power and strength of doctors. The Declaration of Geneva (1948) stipulates that doctors must 'maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception'.

The Declaration of Helsinki (1975) says that in biomedical research 'the interest of science and society should never take precedence over considerations related to the well-being of the subject'.

Whilst allowing embryo research in some circumstances, The Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFE) Act itself recognises that human embryos have special status and deserve legal protection. Furthermore, the HFE Authority has an obligation to determine that any proposal for research using embryos is necessary and desirable, and that all alternative pathways have been fully explored through prior research or work with animals. This has not been done.

2.There is a viable ethical alternative to embryonic stem cell cloning in adult stem cell technology.

There is now good evidence, growing all the time, that adult stem cells may be a simpler alternative to using embryonic stem cells without the practical and ethical problems inherent in the cloning of human embryos. Very recent research (see below), has demonstrated that adult stem cells have much more flexibility to replace damaged cells than was previously thought. Much of this recent research post-dates the Donaldson Report, which recommended the use of embryonic stem cells and was accepted by the government last summer.

3.Therapeutic cloning will lead inevitably to reproductive cloning.

Once cloned embryos have been produced, theoretically all that is necessary for reproductive cloning to take place is for them to be implanted in a womb. This process is technically straightforward and would be impossible to police.

Therapeutic cloning of embryos therefore constitutes a very slippery slope to reproductive cloning.

The case for the use of Adult stem cells in Tissue Repair

In papers in Science published in December 2000, two research groups (from Stanford University and the US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke) showed that blood stem cells could generate nerve cells in the brain, when transplanted into mice.[6,7] The blood cells, which had been genetically engineered to fluoresce green, did not need to be injected into the brains of the animals, but migrated into the brain after intravenous injection. The authors of both papers stressed that these observations offered the hope of brain repair from adult blood stem cells.

Similar research reported in 1999 demonstrated the potential of blood stem cells to repair damaged muscle in muscular dystrophy.[8] Mice with a similar disorder to human muscular dystrophy were treated with a bone marrow transplant. The donor blood stem cells were found to have generated muscle cells, repairing the muscle defect in the recipient of the transplant. In November 2000 Canadian researchers at the McGill University Health Centre showed that adult blood stem cells could be used to build up damaged heart muscle; again in research involving rats.

Both embryonic and adult stem cell technologies share some of the same potential pitfalls. In a genetic disease like muscular dystrophy, all the cells in the patient carry the same abnormal gene, and adult stem cells from the patient would need to be genetically modified.

Extensive research to achieve successful modification of blood stem cells is ongoing - with some encouraging results.[9] The adult stem cell approach has major advantages. There is very extensive clinical experience with obtaining, purifying and transplanting adult blood stem cells, for example in the treatment of leukaemia, and there are none of the technical problems of developing the new technologies of human embryonic stem cell culture and cloning.

In reality, tissue repair by either route will require extensive further research. But given the remarkable properties of adult stem cells and the experience we already have in their clinical use, it would seem both ethical and scientific arguments favour the allocation of resources to this approach over embryonic stem cell cloning. Rather than amending the HFE Act prematurely, Parliament should adopt this more cautious and humane approach.

References

1. Times 2001; (21 January, 22 January)
2. Humanity 2001; 25(1):11 (February)
3. Osawa M et al. Long-term lymphohematopoietic by a single CD34- low/negative hematopoietic stem cell. Science 1996; 273: 242-5
4. Stem cells from umbilical cord or placenta are other alternative sources.
5. McKay R. Stem cells-hype and hope. Nature 2000; 406: 361-4.
6. Brazelton TR et al. From marrow to brain: expression of neurol phenotypes in adult mice. Science 2000; 290: 1775-9
7. Mezey E et al. Turning blood into brain: cells bearing neuronal antigens generated in vivo from bone marrow. Science 2000;290: 1779-82
8. Gussoni et al. Dystrophin expression in the mdx mouse restored by stem cell transplantation. Nature 1999; 401: 390-4.
9. Kelly PF et al. Highly efficient gene transfer into cord blood non-obese diabetic/severe combined immunodeficiency repopulating cells by onco-retroviral vector particles pseudo-typed with the feline endogenous retrovirus (RD114) envelope protein. Blood 2000; 96: 1206-14.

Canadian Research: Abortion More Dangerous than Pro-Abortion Claims

Source: Report Newsmagazine; August 20, 2001

by Eli Schuster

It is no surprise that pro-choice partisans do their best to portray the
aborting of unborn human life as routine and safe. For example, the
Canadian Abortion Rights Action League's (CARAL) Web site claims, ``Under
normal medical conditions, abortion is a very safe procedure.'' It does,
however, admit, ``rare, serious complications requiring follow-up
treatment can occur.'' It also acknowledges recent studies suggesting a
link between abortions and the development of breast cancer, but calls
these studies ``inconsistent and inconclusive.'' However, according to
Isabelle Begin, vice-president of the pro-life group Respect de la Vie
Outaouais (RVO) of Hull, Que., abortions are far more dangerous to women
than groups such as CARAL admit.

In February, Ms. Begin's group was sued by an abortion clinic for
publishing a pamphlet claiming that one out of 25 women receiving a legal
abortion in Canada is in subsequent need of up to seven days of hospital
care. The clinic claimed the pamphlet was ``fallacious, morbid and
alarmist.'' The clinic presented a Statistics Canada table placing the
abortion complication rate at 1.1%, far lower than RVO's claimed 4%.

In late July, however, the clinic dropped the suit. Ms. Begin believes it
was because her group did an effective job of rebutting the clinic's
evidence in court. ``I genuinely think they must have all been brainwashed
by the abortion industry's safe legal abortion myth,'' she says. ``They
are not a thorough kind of people and perhaps they never took the time to
read the endnotes at the bottom of the Statistics Canada complication
table they quote.''

RVO demonstrated to the court that the StatsCan study cited by the clinic
represented only those abortions performed in hospitals and did not
include the nearly one-third of abortions performed in clinics.
Furthermore, only 75% of hospitals report abortions to the Statistics
Canada Therapeutic Abortions database. Of those, only a limited number
declare medical complications, and even then, only ``immediate''
complications are taken into account. Another StatsCan study,
``Second-trimester abortions: Trends and medical complications,'' suggests
an abortion performed at five-to-six months gestation runs a 22% risk of
serious complications, up to and including death for the mother.

A medical researcher by training, Ms. Begin cites several reasons
abortions are dangerous. ``A pregnant woman should never have surgery, let
alone major abdominal surgery like abortion,'' she states. ``Her blood
coagulation factors are extremely vulnerable, and she can easily bleed to
death. Shock, coma and death can happen within a few minutes after the
onset of hemorrhaging, yet clinics can't be equipped for emergency blood
transfusions.''

The pro-life advocate notes that suction machines often used for the
procedure can damage a woman's uterus and even cause blood poisoning by
sucking in fecal material from the intestines. Blood poisoning can also
occur when abortions are incomplete. ``Cadaver parts remain inside the
mother's womb and general blood poisoning [septicemia] sets in,'' Ms.
Begin says. ``That's often fatal.''

Officials with the Canadian Medical Association and the Society of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists were not available for comment on the
issue.

Expanding the Culture of Death

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet Weekly 
Subject:   Nat Hentoff:  Dutch Euthanasia Expands the Culture of Death
Source:   Nat Hentoff Syndicated Column;

by Nat Hentoff


The Netherlands has become the first nation since Hitler's Germany to
legalize euthanasia -- the direct killing of patients by physicians. There
are restrictions. There must be voluntary consent to be euthanized; the
patient must be suffering irremediable and unbearable pain; and a second
physician's opinion must be obtained.

But these restrictions already existed during the years in which
euthanasia was quasi-legal in the Netherlands. That is, patients were put
to death by doctors who were very rarely even prosecuted, let alone
convicted. During that time, official figures revealed that many patients
were euthanized without their consent. Their compassionate doctors felt
those lives were of such low quality that they were not worth being
continued.

In his prison cell in Michigan, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, serving a 10-to-25
year sentence for sending yet another patient into eternity, is greatly
encouraged by the decision of the Netherlands' parliament. He predicts
that similar laws will be adopted here in the next three to five years.

Although measures legalizing assisted suicide have failed to pass in Maine
and Massachusetts, Oregon has already legalized the right of physicians to
provide the means of death to those who wish to commit suicide -- although
doctors are not allowed to be present at the actual departure.

Meanwhile, California's legislature will soon consider an assisted-suicide
law, and Alaska's Supreme Court is addressing the issue. Moreover,
referendums for "death with dignity" laws are likely to take place in
other states. In recent years, national polls have indicated that 60
percent to 70 percent of Americans believe that people suffering in pain
should be able to terminate their lives, with the help of a doctor if that
is necessary.

In Maine, assisted suicide was defeated by a close 51.3 percent to 48.7
percent vote.

In Toronto's Globe and Mail, Ian Hunter, a law professor at the University
of Western Ontario, quotes Ohio oncologist Eric Chevlen about the
"informed consent" that the Netherlands and the state of Oregon require
before euthanasia or assisted suicide are administered.

Informed consent is a sham, says Dr. Chevlen, "behind which doctors may
hide the awful fact that it is really they who make the life-and-death
decisions for their patients. Legalized euthanasia is not freedom to
choose; it is not even freedom to die. It is freedom to be killed."

Dr. Kathleen Foley of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New
York City is an expert on pain relief, and has been emphasizing that many
doctors are not aware of the advances in relieving pain when they are
confronted by acutely suffering patients.

She also points out that, with the increasing emphasis by HMOs on
controlling the cost of patient care, "my worry is that it's going to be
cheaper to kill people than to care for them when they're dying."
Palliative care can make terminal illness much more humane, but is it
"cost-effective" enough?

To my surprise and great disappointment, the California Nurses
Association, which has been battling on patients' behalf against HMOs now
says -- according to professor Ian Hunter -- that it favors
physician-assisted suicide because "long-term patient care is simply too
costly."

Not all of Dr. Kevorkian's patients were terminally ill, and not all of
the people euthanized in the Netherlands in recent years have been
terminally ill or in intractable pain. Some have been severely depressed.

During the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands, that country's physicians
rebelled against the culture of death by refusing to cooperate with the
killing of patients.

But now, their changed attitude reminds me of an Oct. 17, 1933, New York
Times report from Berlin that the German Ministry of Justice intended to
authorize physicians "to end the suffering of incurable patients, upon
request, in the interests of true humanity."

Before the gas chambers, before the Holocaust, German doctors euthanized
not only the "incurable" but also mentally defective patients on the
principle that some lives are unworthy of living ("lebensunvertes Leben").
Later, the Nazis called those unfit to live "useless eaters."

In "Culture of Death," a book by Wesley Smith that was published this
month, the author, who has done vast research on assisted suicide and
euthanasia, describes how many of us have gotten to the point of believing
that some lives are not worth living. "We ignore," he says, "the lessons
of the Netherlands at our own peril."

At last, have we learned nothing from the Holocaust?

Saltshakers are a Christian Ethics group based in Melbourne Australia

Adult Stem Cells Treat Rare Skin Disorder

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet Weekly 
Source:   Reuters Health; August 17, 2001; Archives of Dermatology

New York, NY -- A man with a rare, potentially fatal skin disorder that
was so severe that he could no longer eat is now symptom-free after
receiving a transplant of his own adult stem cells, doctors in Texas
report. The result is the latest of many such reports that show the
potential for adult stem cells to be used in place of life-destroying
embryonic stem cell research

The disorder, scleromyxedema, is similar to a chronic connective tissue
disease called scleroderma, which thickens the skin and causes it to
become shiny and stiff. The cause of the condition is unknown, and
treatment for the disease is often ineffective.

Six years before, the patient, a 46-year-old white man, had developed
itchy spots on his hands that disappeared after treatment with oral and
topical steroids. Three years later, the abnormalities returned as waxy,
thickened skin. At that time the patient was diagnosed with
scleromyxedema.

Despite treatment with steroids and other medications, the disease rapidly
progressed during the next 2 years. Eventually, the man's face took on a
``cobblestone'' appearance, and he was not able to close his eyelids
completely.

The side effects of two drugs used to treat the disorder--etanercept and
interferon alfa-2b--were too much for the patient to handle, so doctors
treated him with a therapy called photopheresis. This process involves
exposing a patient's white blood cells to ultraviolet light and then
returning them to the bloodstream. This restored the normal tightness of
his skin, but the benefits were temporary.

By then, the disease had progressed to the point that the man was not able
to eat and lost a significant amount of weight.

At that point, a team of doctors at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson
Cancer Center in Houston led by Dr. Adrienne M. Feasel performed what is
known as an autologous stem cell transplant on the patient.

After collecting stem cells from the man's bone marrow, the researchers
wiped out his immune system with chemotherapy. They then transplanted the
stem cells back into the man to reconstruct his immune system.

The approach seems to have worked, according to the report in the August
issue of the journal Archives of Dermatology . Three months after the
transplant, the cobblestone appearance of the man's face had disappeared
and he was able to close his eyes and open his mouth. Since the procedure,
he has gained more than 25 pounds.

``To our knowledge, this is the first report of treating scleromyxedema
with transplantation, and additional investigations would be helpful for
determining the response rate for progressive scleromyxedema,'' Feasel and
her colleagues report.

Free Abortion Is A Mark Of A Civilised Nation

From  Straight Talk Radio Rhema

Stephen's desk 29 June 2001

Or so they would have us believe. The latest figures from the Abortion Supervisory Committee are out and it’s no surprise that the numbers are up. Officially there were 16,103 legal terminations of the life of the unborn child in New Zealand, up nearly 4% from last year.

That this should occur in a world where we clearly understand how life begins is troublesome. That the number is growing in New Zealand with our law to supposedly protect the unborn from all but the most extreme justifications for abortion is worse.

Many myths have been used to support the free abortion argument.

1.      Abortion Hurt’s No-one
Aside from the obvious fact that an unborn child loses his life, more and more evidence is accruing that abortion causes long term emotional trauma which can give rise to destructive choices and life patterns as well as abuse of subsequent children.

2.      Surgical Abortion Is Safe
Considerable numbers of women suffer complications. Some become infertile.

3.      There Is No Option
Adoption by one of the thousands of childless couples in NZ is one. Why is it so bad? Why has it become the practise of the relevant government agencies to discourage open adoption and demonise adoptive parents?

4.      Free Abortion = Civilised Society
Really. Do civilised people kill other people?

5.      A Foetus Is Not A Person
When should the law recognise personhood? At conception, at birth? What is the test of personhood? Is it rational that the law will prosecute someone for causing a miscarriage in the case of a wanted child but support the destruction of an unwanted one?

6.      Unborn Children Do Not Feel Pain
Considerable research is under way on this point. Clearly the nervous system is developing in the early weeks of pregnancy. Perhaps an early foetus does not feel pain but is it relevant? A born child has no consciousness of self until 12 months or so yet the law protects them.

7.      Abortion Is Needed To Combat Teenage Pregnancy
Teen pregnancy is definitely a problem that must be addressed however abortion solves the main problem but creates others. Disturbingly, many young women for whom abortion is said to be the answer go on to have subsequent abortions. Others sink into a life of drug dependency and the self abuse which is such a common affect of post abortion trauma.

Free abortion is not a mark of civility. It dehumanises us and causes an expedient view of life which is a danger to the weak.

We need to bear this in mind as government and the Abortion Supervisory Committee move to improve access to what is now being regarded as a basic health service.

Abortion Breast Cancer Link Still Ignored

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet Weekly 
Subject:   Abortion Breast Cancer Link Still Ignored
Source:   World Net Daily; July 5, 2001

Washington, DC -- Even though 27 out of 35 studies published since 1957
have linked abortion with breast cancer, pro-abortion groups such as
Planned Parenthood continue to deny such a link exists and refuse to
inform prospective abortion recipients of the studies.

Led by group president Karen Malec, the Coalition on Abortion/Breast
Cancer is working to inform the public about a link since abortion
providers, as a rule, do not.

"Scientists have been studying this link for 44 years. We are appalled
that women haven't been informed about the existence of these studies. Why
are women being excluded from this discussion about their own health
care?" she remarked. "We intend to correct this grave injustice."

ABC Coalition volunteers in Chicago last month distributed brochures at
breast-cancer awareness walks that inform readers about abortion-breast
cancer research. The group's web address was also advertised on a Colorado
Springs Sky Sox stadium billboard for the baseball team's home-season
opener on April 13.

Malec says her organization is alarmed that despite almost a half century
of research demonstrating a link between abortion and breast cancer,
"women still have not been included in this discussion about their health
care. It is indefensible that this information has been censored from
women," she said.

"The public was informed when only 5 out of 7 studies linked cellular
phones with brain cancer," Malec argued, "so why aren't women entitled to
know that more than two dozen studies implicate abortion as a risk factor
for this deadly disease? Tragically, the bar has been raised for this risk
factor, and