This is how we know Jill Stanek is a liar.

Jill knows perfectly well that induced abortion does not cause subsequent breast cancer. She knows the evidence against such a link. She knows that this question was settled by the Melbye study which followed more than a million women over twenty-eight years. She knows that the AMA, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Cancer Society deny such a link. These are mainstream, authoritative organizations which report based on the data.

Jill, you embarrass the right-to-life side by posting this bs

Jill, you embarrass the right-to-life side by posting this bullshit.

Posted by: SoGM at March 25, 2008 4:22 PM
*************************
Thank you.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp

Can Having an Abortion Cause or Contribute to Breast Cancer?

Abortion and breast cancer are both topics that can bring out strong emotions in people. The issue of abortion generates passionate personal and political viewpoints, regardless of a possible disease connection. Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women. It can be a life-threatening disease--one that that many women fear.
Linking these 2 topics understandably creates a great deal of emotion, as well as controversy. Research studies, however, have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer.

Background

A woman's risk of developing breast cancer is related to hormone levels in the body. Breast cells normally grow and divide in response to the levels of certain hormones, such as estrogen, progesterone, and prolactin. Levels of these hormones change throughout a woman's life, but can change a great deal during pregnancy. When a woman is pregnant, her body begins to prepare for breast-feeding by altering the levels of these hormones. This causes changes in the breast tissue.

Concern about a possible link between abortion and breast cancer has been raised because abortion is thought to interrupt the normal cycle of hormones during pregnancy. This interruption is believed by some to increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.

There are different types of abortion:

Spontaneous abortion, which most people refer to as a miscarriage, is the loss of a fetus before 5 months' (20 weeks') gestation. It is often caused by problems with the fetus or with the maternal environment in which it is growing.
Stillborn birth (stillbirth) is usually considered to be the death of a fetus after 5 months' gestation while still in the uterus (womb).
Induced abortion is probably what most people consider "abortion." This refers to a woman's choice to end a pregnancy through a medical procedure.

All of these situations have been studied to see what effect they may have on a woman's risk of developing breast cancer later in life.

Research on Abortion and Breast Cancer

Research Study Problems

Many studies have looked at a possible link between abortions and an increased risk of breast cancer. But because of the nature of the topic, these studies have been difficult to conduct. This may help explain why some have reached different conclusions.

Before 1973, induced abortions were illegal in much of the United States. Therefore, when researchers asked about a woman's reproductive past, women may not have been comfortable disclosing the fact that they had an illegal abortion. Even though abortion is now legal, it is still a very personal, private matter that many women are hesitant to talk about.

Studies have shown that healthy women are less likely to report their histories of induced abortions. In contrast, women with breast cancer are more likely to accurately report their reproductive histories because they are searching their memories for anything that may have contributed to their disease.

The likelihood that women who have breast cancer will give a more complete account of their abortions than women who do not have breast cancer is called "recall bias," and it can seriously undermine the accuracy of study results.

Research Study Design

Most early studies of abortion and breast cancer used a case-control study design, one that is very prone to recall bias. In these studies, women with and without breast cancer were asked to report past abortions. The researchers then compared the frequency of abortions in women with breast cancer (the "cases") to those in women without breast cancer (the "controls"). It is likely that the higher rates of reported abortions in breast cancer cases (vs. controls) observed in many of these studies were not true findings because of recall bias.

A prospective (cohort) study design is stronger and less prone to bias. In this type of study, a group of women who are cancer-free are asked about their past abortions and then are observed over a period of time to see if a new cancer occurs. In this type of study all of the women are cancer-free at the start, so there is no chance that having the disease will influence their memory of past abortions or willingness to report past abortions.

Some prospective studies have addressed the problem of recall bias by using innovative ways to document induced abortions. For example, a recent study used birth certificates of children born to women with breast cancer to identify women who had had induced abortions. (The number of previous abortions was listed on these birth certificates.) This study found no increase in breast cancer risk in women whose abortion is followed by a live birth.

Recent research has confirmed that the type of study likely plays a role in what is found. A review of the previous studies on this issue, covering tens of thousands of women, showed that women followed in prospective studies (which are less prone to bias) had no increased breast cancer risk if they had had an abortion. Retrospective (case-control) studies, on the other hand, pointed to a slight increase in risk.

Research Study Results

The largest, and probably the most reliable, single study of this topic was conducted during the 1990s in Denmark, a country with very detailed medical records on all its citizens. In that study, all Danish women born between 1935 and 1978 (1.5 million women) were linked with the National Registry of Induced Abortions and with the Danish Cancer Registry. So all information about their abortions and their breast cancer came from registries, was very complete, and was not influenced by recall bias.

After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found that induced abortion(s) had no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer. The size of this study and the manner in which it was done provides substantial evidence that induced abortion does not affect a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.

Another large, prospective study was reported on by Harvard researchers in 2007. This study included more than 100,000 women who were between the ages of 29 and 46 at the start of the study in 1993. These women were followed until 2003. Again, because they were asked about their reproductive history at the start of the study, recall bias was unlikely to be a problem. After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found no link between either spontaneous or induced abortions and breast cancer.

What the Experts Say

In February 2003, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) held a workshop of more than 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed existing human and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. Among their conclusions were:

Breast cancer risk is temporarily increased after a term pregnancy (that is, a pregnancy that results in the birth of a living child).
Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.
Recognized spontaneous abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.
The level of scientific evidence for these conclusions was considered to be "well established" (the highest level).

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Committee on Gynecologic Practice reviewed the available evidence as well and published its findings in August 2003. The committee concluded that "early studies of the relationship between prior induced abortion and breast cancer risk have been inconsistent and are difficult to interpret because of methodologic considerations. More rigorous recent studies argue against a causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk."

The Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, based out of Oxford University in England, recently put together the results from 53 separate studies conducted in 16 different countries. These studies included about 83,000 women with breast cancer. After combining and reviewing the results from these studies, the researchers concluded that "the totality of worldwide epidemiological evidence indicates that pregnancies ending as either spontaneous or induced abortions do not have adverse effects on women's subsequent risk of developing breast cancer."

Conclusion

The topic of abortion and breast cancer highlights many of the most challenging aspects of studies of human populations and how those studies do or do not translate into public health guidelines. The issue of abortion generates passionate viewpoints among many people. Breast cancer is the most common cancer, and is the second leading cancer killer in women. Still, the public is not well-served by false alarms and at the present time, the scientific evidence does not support a causal association between induced abortion and breast cancer.

References

ACOG Committee on Gynecologic Practice. ACOG Committee Opinion. Number 285, August 2003: Induced abortion and breast cancer risk. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102:433-435.

Beral V, Bull D, Doll R, et al. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and abortion: Collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83,000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries. Lancet. 2004;363:1007-1016.

Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Olsen JH, et al. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:81-85.

Michels KB, Xue F, Colditz GA, Willett WC. Induced and spontaneous abortion and incidence of breast cancer among young women. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:814-820.

National Cancer Institute. Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop. Available at: www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report. Accessed May 8, 2007.

Revised: 08/06/2007

SOMG and TR,

I am certain both of you will wholeheartedly agree that women have a right to know of the research done on both sides of this issue and you would be the first to encourage women to thoroghly research both sides of this controversy before arriving at any conclusions.
If this is such a fallacy, women will see this instantly and you will have no cause for concern, right?
And of course women should not take into consideration the fact that the abortion industry would have everything to lose, and much to answer for, if a link is indeed established.

SOMG and TR,

I am certain both of you will wholeheartedly agree that women have a right to know of the research done on both sides of this issue and you would be the first to encourage women to thoroghly research both sides of this controversy before arriving at any conclusions.
If this is such a fallacy, women will see this instantly and you will have no cause for concern, right?
And of course women should not take into consideration the fact that the abortion industry would have everything to lose, and much to answer for, if a link is indeed established.

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2008 5:28 PM
*******************
What would they have to 'lose'? Do you really imagine a 2% higher 'possibility' of breast cancer is going to keep a woman from having an abortion? And no, most women are not well enough educated to do the research necessary to find out that antichoicers lie to them about the *dangers* of abortion. And antichoicers are fully aware of this and bank on it.

www.abortionbreastcancer.com

Texas Red 5:33PM

Excuse me, most women are not educated enough to do their own research? Can we say "patronizing"?
We need enlightened souls like you and SOMG to inform us of what we're apparently too ignorant to research for ourselves?
If a woman can read, and I don't know any who can't, she can research.
Again I ask, what does a woman have to lose by thoroughly researching both sides of this issue?

Mary you wrote: "I am certain both of you will wholeheartedly agree that women have a right to know of the research done on both sides of this issue and you would be the first to encourage women to thoroghly research both sides of this controversy before arriving at any conclusions."

That's usually what they pay medical professionals to do FOR them.

But if a patient wanted to research the issue herself, I would definitely warn her that there are people on the net who think it's their mission in life to scare you out of having an abortion and some of them post (essentially) fake research.

I would encourage her to trust serious professional societies such as the AMA, ACOG, and ACS, and not to trust poor propagandists like Jill Stanek.

SOMG,

I don't know about you but I don't pay anyone to do my research for me.
Why would you warn a woman about people on the net supposedly out to scare her? Certainly when she had done her research she will come to that conclusion herself, right? I mean if the research just isn't there to support the argument of an abortion/breast cancer link, women will see this for themselves. Or do you, like Texas Red, consider women just a little too stupid to figure any of this out for themselves?

SoMG -

You may know this, and it is a serious question. In the studies you have read is ethnic background listed?

I'll tell you up front why I am asking.

Both the CDC and the ACS say that black women have a slightly lower incidence of breast cancer than white women, however black women are more likely to die from it than white women. The reason for this, as stated by both organizations, is because of lack of testing. The women who do not do testing are usually the low to no income women with no or limited health insurance. When these women are diagnosed do the doctors get a detailed reproductive history of the woman? Usually she will be at a hospital that is government funded - meaning little money with a doctor to patient ratio that is almost off the charts.

Like I said - I am being honest here in my question - there is no hidden agenda, I'm just curious.

BREAST CANCER PREVENTION INSTITUTE
DR. JOEL BRIND, Ph.D. AND DR. ANGELA LANFRANCHI, M.D.

http://www.bcpinstitute.org

Valerie,

I recently read an article that stated black women have a higher incidence of breast cancer in proportion to their numbers in the population than do white women. Black women also have a higher incidence of abortions in proportion to their numbers in the population as well.

Mary -

Yes, that is what I have read as well.

SUSAN G. KOMEN BREAST CANCER FOUNDATION TO WOMEN: DON'T CONFUSE US
WITH THE FACTS

DENVER, Colorado, October 3, 2007
Contact: Leslie Hanks 720-394-8946, Lolita Hanks, RN, BSN, FNP 720-218-5050

Colorado Right to Life is challenging the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation to stop touting breast cancer awareness, while keeping women in the dark about the real causes of breast cancer. The latest study reporting an abortion-breast cancer link published just yesterday in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is entitled, "The Breast Cancer Epidemic." Among seven identified risk factors, abortion was found to be the "best predictor of breast cancer," with fertility listed as another useful predictor. (Carroll, P. The breast cancer epidemic: modeling and forecasts based on abortion and other risk factors." J Am Phys Surg Vol. 12, No. 3 (Fall 2007) 72-78. download the study at:
http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf).

This study by Patrick Carroll of PAPRI in London showed that countries with higher abortion rates, such as England & Wales, 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. In countries that report a decline in abortion, (i.e., Denmark and Finland) a decline in breast cancer is anticipated.

During a meeting last October with Komen officials in Denver, Komen media consultant, DanaBrandorff, told Colorado Right to Life leaders and former national Komen advisory board member, Eve Sanchez Silver that they weren't interested in telling women the truth about the well documented abortion - breast cancer link.

Ms. Silver was appalled at the stunning lack of information the Komen representatives had about basic breast physiology. When challenged about their refusal to stop
giving funds to America's largest abortion provider and to inform women that abortion of a first
pregnancy greatly increases exposure to future risk of breast cancer, the Komen officials made
this ridiculous assertion:

"We aren't so much about the prevention, we are all about the cure,"
noted Brandorff.

Raising the hopes of desperate women and their families while refusing to acknowledge the abc link,(www.abortionbreastcancer.com) is
dishonest. Beyond that irresponsible approach to treating women as if they can't handle the truth, the whole Race for the Cure premise is steeped in fraud.

"Even the tobacco industry wouldn't have had the nerve to try to
defraud smokers about the risk of using their products with the same audacity," said CRTL V.P., Leslie Hanks.

"Komen perpetuates breast cancer by giving funds to Planned
Parenthood. They claim the funds are for breast screening but we know that breast screening is down 15% at Planned Parenthood and abortions are
up 23%."

"Colorado women deserve the truth that abortion of a first pregnancy is linked with a doubling of the risk of future breast cancer. Raising millions to cure a disease that is largely avoidable is despicable," said Hanks.

Here's a second CRTL Press Release that has more fascinating info...

For Immediate Release
Oct. 4, 2006

Colorado Right to Life
To Join the Race for the Cure Protest

A meeting last Friday between Komen Breast Cancer Foundation’s Denver officials, CRTL board members, and scientific and medical experts led the pro-life organization to decide to join an annual protest to warn women at the Komen Foundation's Race for the Cure of the link between abortion and breast cancer.

Former Komen medical research analyst Eve Sanchez Silver explained to the Komen officials that she resigned from Komen two years ago because the organization denies the scientific studies showing the link between abortion and breast cancer, and it provides funding to abortion provider Planned Parenthood. Professor Joel Brind, PhD endocrinologist from Baruch College in New York City attended the meeting after saying on Denver radio that, “the 2003 conference of the National Cancer Institute which denied abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer refused to allow attending scientists to present the opposing position of the scientific research establishing the link, showing that abortion was declassified as a cancer risk for political and not scientific reasons.”

Further, "The NCI's own statistics show that breast cancer has increased, and only in women who were of child-bearing age when abortion was legalized in 1973, so much so that nationally, cancer would have steadily declined, except it has held steady at the expense of women getting breast cancer," said Dr. Brind.

Komen Denver board member and chairman of the grants committee, J.P. Pedinielli, and public relations representative, Dana Brandorff, attempted to dissuade CRTL from protesting at the Race arguing that "Planned Parenthood is not a current grantee" of Komen's Denver chapter, and when challenged, added that Planned Parenthood, "might have been a previous grantee." CRTL vice president Leslie Hanks then documented the continued local funding of the abortion provider throughout this decade. Eve Silver showed from Komen documentation that the national organization has given as much as $475,000 in a single year to abortion-provider Planned Parenthood.

"Even if abortion proved beneficial to a woman's health," said Hanks, "government should still prohibit the killing of an innocent human being, because abortion is always wrong."

Prof. Brind corrects a factual error on the Komen.org website, that "the breast is mature after puberty," stating that "Third trimester pregnancy hormones begin the final maturation process and the differentiation of mammary gland cells. Abortion prevents this, leaving the woman with more undifferentiated cells vulnerable to carcinogens, increasing her risk of breast cancer."

As transcribed from a recording of the meeting, CRTL asked, "Why aren't women being told about the most preventable risk factor?" to which Komen's Brandorff answered, "We tend to focus on the cure… we're focusing our energies on that, rather than the preventative."

Contact: Colorado Right To Life V.P. Leslie Hanks 303 753-9394

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is a well=known pay-to-publish rag. Your use of it as a supporting source damages your credibility.

Mary, you wrote: "I don't know about you but I don't pay anyone to do my research for me. "

Really? So you'd tell your surgeon what to do? How much bowel to take out, if you had bowel cancer? What margins to leave? I pay the surgeon to do the research and make these decisions for me with my best interests in mind.

Most people pay medical professionals for doing the research and deciding what to do FOR the patients.

But as I say, I'd definitely advise the patient about to start researching the abortion-breast-cancer "link" that there are some very rich people out there who think it's their mission in life to scare you out of having an abortion, and some of them post (essentially) fake research on the net. I agree that if she did her research thoroughly she'd probably figure it out for herself, but it would be part of my job to tell the patient the facts.

Many abortion vulnerable women are lied to about the development of their baby, led to believe its "just a blood clot" or "just a piece of tissue" and are convinced they aren't aborting a human being. Its not until later when they do their own research they find they were lied to.

Why aren't ALL the facts presented to women?

BTW, I believe there was even a pro abortion woman researcher who FOUND the link and was unable to deny it after she found it.

hmmm...

Notice how SOMG ignores the information that wasn't from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Oh - and the American Physicians and Surgeons Association isn't a pay to publish rag; it is a conservative organization that is made up of over 4,000 physicians, medical professionals and students along with some patients. A notable member is Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is a graduate of Duke University School of Medicine. His residence research into the causes of pregnancy toxemia was published in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology.

But he just must be a nutcase who knows nothing since he is a Republican.

OH Jill,
You really touched a sensitive spot with SoMG! Touche!!

SoMG, it must true if you are so vehemently opposed to this research.lol

Any woman can tell you that their breasts are very different after a natural full term pregnancy and lactation. Any woman in touch with her body knows this research confirms what she knows and what she experiences.

We need more billboards like this. I hope they put them up in Ohio!

SOMG,

Research, ok? When one researches one looks at the studies on both sides of an issue and draws their own conclusion based on that research.
No SOMG, I do not feel anyone should blindly follow the advise of a medical professional or anyone else. I have even advised people on this blog to do their own research on issues such as vaccinations, global warming, and mental illness and to not follow blindly what one side or another tells them.
Rich people with a mission to scare women? SOMG, its the abortion industry that rakes in the money and has everything to lose if a link between breast cancer and abortion is established. Tell me about the vast sums of money the pro-life movement rakes in by pointing out a possible breast cancer/abortion link.

Breast cancer used to be an old women's disease, it’s not any longer. Go to the Race for the Cure and see for yourself. So many young women are wearing shirts that say they survived cancer. Coincidently, the statistics show that breast cancer rates rose in proportion to abortion rates. It’s sad, women and their baby are dying and we choose to be ignorant.

Breast cancer used to be an old women's disease, it’s not any longer. Go to the Race for the Cure and see for yourself. So many young women are wearing shirts that say they survived cancer. Coincidently, the statistics show that breast cancer rates rose in proportion to abortion rates. It’s sad, women and their baby are dying and we choose to be ignorant.

This is how we know Jill Stanek is a liar.

Jill knows perfectly well that induced abortion does not cause subsequent breast cancer. She knows the evidence against such a link. She knows that this question was settled by the Melbye study which followed more than a million women over twenty-eight years. She knows that the AMA, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Cancer Society deny such a link. These are mainstream, authoritative organizations which report based on the data.

Jill, you embarrass the right-to-life side by posting this bullshit.

Posted by: SoGM at March 25, 2008 4:22 PM

I think that you may be suffering from Liberal Mania.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12945

Bismarck, perhaps we can direct SoMG to this article:
http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/28523.shtml

"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind,...."

Jo Scott, are you the wife of the crazy terrorist Kenneth Scott?

Just wondering.....

jo, You're right. The women are younger and younger.

In addition to that, I once worked with 2 white women. They both passed away from breast cancer in their 40s. They both had abortions when they were in their 20s.

Bismarck, perhaps we can direct SoMG to this article:

http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/28523.shtml
"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind,...."

Posted by: Patricia at March 25, 2008 8:30 PM

I read that article a while back. However, this one in The American Spectator cites specific recent examples that may be recognized by SoGM and perhaps encourage some serious introspection.

Heather, today somewhere in the USA, someone had a heart attack while praying. We should outlaw prayer to protect people from heart attacks.

Somg, you seem a little confused tonight.

Actually, you always seem confused.

Well it makes as much sense as your argument.

How so?

Praying is not surgery.

That's like saying that someone died from choking today because of eating. Should we all stop eating?

It makes just as much sense as reaching a conclusion about breast cancer from your personal experience of two women.

I was simply stating a fact. Were their early deaths from breast CA d/t their past abortions? I don't know, but it's worth further study.

Is Jo Scott the wife of crazy terrorist Kenneth Scott?

40 is kind of young to die from breast CA.

The research though SoMG isn't based on the experience of two women.
SoMG you need to bring yourself up to snuff on all the research being done with regards to women's health after abortion.
Of course, you don't want to know because you don't care.
You just blow everyone off!

My Mom's friend had two children and no abortions. She died of breast cancer.

I don't know. Why don't you look it up? Scott is a common last name.

She died young too.

Also eating meat greatly increases your risk of many types of cancer including breast. Seriously.

Running decreases your risk for many types of cancer, including breast.

Karen Malec discusses the relationship between Abortion/Contraception and Breast Cancer in a 55 minute online interview (see post#4)...

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=78841

------

Topics covered are...

It's a 55 minute talk. So if you don't have the time to listen to all of it, I will let you know the important parts to listen. Here they are...

IMPORTANT SEGMENTS

10:00 (minutes into the program) Biology Explaining the Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer.

45:50 (minutes into the program) Please Explain the Biology on How Contraception Contributes to Breast Cancer?

-----

OTHER SEGMENTS

2:30 (minutes into the program) Studies Showing A Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer.

22:45 (minutes into the program) Information on the Relationship Between Oral Contraceptives & Breast Cancer.

27:30 (minutes into the program) Why Does the Susan G Komen Foundation Never Tell Women About the Link Between Abortion/Contraceptives & Breast Cancer?

36:30 (minutes into the program) Studies about Breast Cancer Risk/Who Should You Believe About Whether or Not There's A Link Between Abortion & Breast Cancer?

----

If you are Pro-Life and want to stop Breast Cancer, you can give funds to ...

1. Breast Cancer Institute
2. Polycarp Institute
3. AbortionBreastCancer.com

Mike

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3149062.stm

Jess, I'm not saying that women who don't abort don't get breast cancer, but if abortion might increase their risk of getting it, don't you think that women ought to be informed?

According to the World Health Organization, up to 40 percent of all cancers are preventable, and one-third of all cancer deaths in the U.S. can be attributed to nutritional factors, according the American Cancer Society (ACS).
http://www.goveg.com/cancer.asp

Yes heather and people should be informed eating meat cause numerous types of cancer. So if you feed your family meat your signing them up for cancer too.

http://www.center4research.org/wmnshlth/2006/meat-cancer.html

Eating meat causes breast cancer.

http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=4191

Eating meat causes life threatening diseases.

Jess, thanks for the heads up. I eat meat in moderation. I'm not too concerned. However, if there really is an abortion/breast CA link, and a woman still wants an abortion, then I suppose the ball is in her court.

"Jess, I'm not saying that women who don't abort don't get breast cancer, but if abortion might increase their risk of getting it, don't you think that women ought to be informed?"

No, they don't Heather, it doesn't fit into their leftist agenda. Abortion is a power-trip for the feminists, the power to kill unborn children.

http://www.peta.org/feat/meat/meat.asp

Meat has arsenic. So feeding your children meat is feeding them poison.

Let's just make sure she gets the proper information. Just like you are posting to me.

Jess,

If research suggests that eating red meat increases cancer risk then I would agree the public has every right to know this. Just as I would agree that if research suggests abortion may increase breast cancer risk, the public has every right to know this as well.

So jasper, why doesn't Texas allow billboards that show eating meat gives you cancer?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22199057/

Meat causes lung cancer too.

hello, jasper!

Read all the research Mary.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/90952.php

Feeding your kids meat is like forcing them to smoke.

Mary, thank you for the e-mail. I'll get back to you ASAP. Mary, I agree with your post to Jess.

I'm not referring to the typical woman who is duped by the feminist, I'm referring to the radical feminist who gave us legal abortion.

Jess, thats a stretch, arsenic may be in many things we eat (at very low, insignificant levels).

Hi Heather, Jessica and Mary...hope your doing well

No jasper most chickens live in their own feces which contain arsenic and develop arsenic burns.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/13/AR2006111300824.html

"The study of more than 90,000 women found that the more red meat the women consumed in their 20s, 30s and 40s, the greater their risk for developing breast cancer fueled by hormones in the next 12 years. Those who consumed the most red meat had nearly twice the risk of those who ate red meat infrequently."

Jess, I agree. Get the message out. Even a cigarette pack has warnings about lung cancer.

http://goveg.com/factoryFarming_chickens.asp

Chicken is filled with arsenic. Giving your kids chicken is feeding them poison.

http://www.universal-tao.com/article/curse.html

Even the Bible tells us eating meat is a sin and will give you cancer.

http://www.universal-tao.com/article/curse.html

Meat causes - Rheumatism, Arthritis and Gout (uric acid buildup)
Meat causes - cancer - (liver & kidney breakdown from too much protein)
Meat causes - homosexuality in males. (Excessive testosterone over several generations)
(Meat causes masculine homosexual)
Meat causes - masculinity in women - hair on their arms and legs, deeper voice.
Destroys their true feminists and makes them bossy and stubborn. Many women from the back look like boys.
Meat causes - high blood pressure breaks down the blood vessel's.
Meat causes - heart problems
Meat causes Colitis - meat contains ……. Factitive bacteria
Meat causes excessive uric acid which leads to arthritis, kidney stones gallstones.
Meat causes headaches & far-sightedness, meat together with excess sugar and too much close work cause nearsightedness.

Meat has arsenic. So feeding your children meat is feeding them poison.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:13 PM
------------------------------------------------------- Well, we ain't dead yet.

Ok Jess, point taken. so do you deny the abortion breast cancer link?

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5437

The “evidence on red meat and processed meat [as a cause of cancer] is stronger than in the mid-1990s”;
“The evidence that red meats and processed meats are a cause of colorectal cancer is convincing”;
There is “limited evidence” that red meat alone is a cause of various types of cancers (esophageal, lung, pancreatic, and endometrium);
For processed meat, there is little evidence it is a cause of cancers of the esophagus, lung, stomach, and prostate; foods that are grilled, barbecued, and smoked are not a likely cause of stomach cancer; and
Because of the high content of animal fats (and calcium) in most dairy products, milk and cheese can contribute to the risk of different cancers, such as colon and prostate cancer.

Right. Let's get back on topic.

For many, many years the cigarette companies and doctors fooled the people into believing that smoking was cool and safe. Later they started selling light, low tar cigarettes to make it 'safer'. We accepted every study they presented as people died.

The abortion industry is following their playbook to the letter. Babies are being murdered and women are dying. When will we wake up?

Abortion/breast cancer.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17122667

Every day more cancers are shown to be caused by meat.

"Well, we ain't dead yet."
Not yet but soon if you keep it up.

And even if abortion does contribute to the cause of breast cancer it's minimal compared to all the cancers meat causes.

And if a woman, a year or two after having an abortion doesn't get breast cancer that means there isn;t a link?

philothea, right!

"When will we wake up?"

It's tough when the MSM is filled with pro-aborts. Thats why we'll never hear about it on the nightly news.

Jess, do you have proof that it's minimal?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/nov/01/health

Also animals who are killed for meat are horrifically tortured for days, months even years.

I mean compared to the whole five minutes abortion lasts. I would be aborted rather then spend a day at one of those farms any day.

Jess, I dunno. Look at all of the young women in the breast cancer walk for life. Some of those women look like they are in their 20s to me.

Ok Jess, we get the point, now do you deny the abortion/breast cancer link?

If any of you cared about preventing breast cancer, or any type of cancer, you would first look to turning vegetarian, and helping others become vegetarians.

But no meat is delicious and I don't need an abortion right now so let's blame the skanks!!! Get with it.

"Jess, I dunno. Look at all of the young women in the breast cancer walk for life. Some of those women look like they are in their 20s to me."

Do they all have breast cancer? And I bet all of them eat meat.

Jess, with all due respect, I could go to a PETA site for this. The topic is abortion. However, I kindly thank you anyway.

I've eaten meat for almost all of my 29 years and haven't died yet.

Maybe I should just eat grilled cheese and tomato soup for the rest of my life instead? Or is there arsenic in bread and cheese, too?

Why don't you meet your meat?

http://goveg.com/factoryFarming_pigs.asp

http://goveg.com/factoryFarming_cows.asp

Watch the video.

Jess, They sure look like they are suffering from cancer to me.

Hey Liz my Aunt had an abortion about 30 years ago and she doesn't have breast cancer so looks like it's bs!!!

http://goveg.com/factoryFarming_chickens.asp

Here's your chicken diner, swimming in it's own feces.

And heather are you saying they all had abortions? I'm saying more women who have breast cancer eat meat then have abortions.

Pork is nasty anyway...

And I know of 2 former dead co-workers who did have abortions. So, I cannot dismiss it as BS.

I'm a meat eater. This means that people claiming there is a meat/cancer link are all liars and the research is a lot of hooey. You are all an embarassment to vegetarians. This is a plot by very rich people who are determined to lie to me and make me stop eating meat.
There is no meat/cancer link, period!

Back to the topic at hand - induced abortion causing
a dramatic increase in breast cancer rates and why
Susan G Komen likes to keep women in the dark and marching, so
the $$$ keep flowing.

"Maybe I should just eat grilled cheese and tomato soup"

Yeah cause grilled cheese and tomato soup are totally the only meat-less options. Um... ever heard of FRUIT? Tofu? Soy?

One woman had 2 abortions in her 20s. The other lady had 1. They both passed away from breast CA in their 40s.

I have more proof that meat causes cancer then you have that abortion may increase your risk of having breast cancer Mary.

Mary, lol!

And they both ate meat didn't they heather?

You all just want to blame abortion because it's easy while meat is the real cause but you're too lazy and just want your tasty meat.

If any of you cared about preventing breast cancer, or any type of cancer, you would first look to turning vegetarian, and helping others become vegetarians.

But no meat is delicious and I don't need an abortion right now so let's blame the skanks!!! Get with it.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:32 PM

Every sane and decent person cares about preventing all disease. The primary objective of the pro-life movement is to end abortion. The possible breast cancer link is another reason for women to avoid the procedure.

Did they eat meat? I don't know. I can't ask them.

it's probably the meat that did it.

Jess, you are doing what a typical pro choicer does. It's called diversion. I've seen it done many times, but they usually tend to switch the topic to priests and dentists. I haven't a clue as to why.

Jill makes a valid point about the Komen Foundations real loyalites. They couldn't be very interested in preventing breast cancer if they are supporting an institution that offers the means to increase breast cancer. Especially when leaders of the organization say they aren't interested in prevention.

It seems like a waste of time dealing with all these troll posts from the usual suspects.

Why? Because you're trying to tell us abortion causes breast cancer. Like if people avoid abortions they won't get breast cancer. I'm telling people the real cause of breast cancer. I'm helping people. And this is the perfect place to do it. The perfect place to save a person is anywhere. If one person becomes a vegetarian because of me I will be happy. One life saved.

That barbecue held outside of the Weitz CEO's house by pro-lifers was really killing everyone there, yes even the children.

Why? Because you're trying to tell us abortion causes breast cancer. Like if people avoid abortions they won't get breast cancer. I'm telling people the real cause of breast cancer. I'm helping people. And this is the perfect place to do it. The perfect place to save a person is anywhere. If one person becomes a vegetarian because of me I will be happy. One life saved.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:49 PM

Every abortion is one life lost.

"It seems like a waste of time dealing with all these troll posts from the usual suspects."

It's not a waste of time to save people. People who are actually walking around right now. People and their children. Why have the baby just to kill it with diseased cancer causing meat?

Jess --

Why don't you head to the Tofu boards -- this is a pro-Life board.

I get it, you hate people eating animals -- but its good to kill babies. Is it then okay to kill animals, as long as you don't eat them?

You really make a lot of sense.....

Jess, 9:40PM

There's more than enough research on www.abortionbreastcancer.com indicating a possible link between breast cancer and abortion. I was being facetious, using the same arguments as those who go ballistic over any possible abortion/breast cancer link. Unlike them, I am more than willing to look at and consider the research suggesting a meat/cancer link, and not be as likely to dismiss it.

Well, I also know a woman who had a hysterectomy after her 7th abortion. Her 7th "choice." Doctors told her that the damage was from all of her repeat abortions. Should we blame that on her being a meat eater too?

pro-life? More like a pro-let's blame all our problems on abortion when it's really eating meat board.

heather we are talking about breast cancer.

Maybe she wouldn't have had so many abortions if she ate a vegetarian diet which promotes good self-image and general happenings.

yoy!

Jess --

Over 95% of Nobel prize winners and Rhodes Scholars are/were meat eaters. So I guess that means that eating meat causes intelligence.

It might not hurt you to have a bite or two every once in a while. :)

Maybe she wouldn't have had 7 abortions if she had been responsible about her sex life.

show me your source.

This is kind of annoying to me.

People shouldn't NOT have abortions because it could cause them to get breast cancer.

People shouldn't have abortions because they're killing a life.

End.of.story.

I wouldn't have an abortion..but NOT because it could cause me to have breast cancer..cause, I, uh, don't wanna kill my babies!

See Elizabeth gets it.

oops, my above post should have included that her hysterectomy was mandatory. Doctors told her that her uterus was severely damaged due to her 7 abortions.

Jess, Mary posted a link above.

Maybe no one would have an abortion if we were all vegetarians and respected life instead of torturing and eating it.

Jess, you don't get it.

Maybe no one would have an abortion if we were all vegetarians and respected life instead of torturing and eating it.

Lol...but Jess, you know eating even veggies destroys life...cause plants are alive. You can't win for losing.

Why are you harping on this meat tangent?

veggies can't look at you.

Elizabeth, good point.

They can wave in the wind.

Yeah but when you rip them out of the ground, that must be horrible for them! eeeek...don't eat me! lol.

Actually there are over 750 Risks Caused from Abortion Referenced in Medical Literature...

http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10117

To find out more about the over 750 risks contact...

Rutherford Institute
P.O. Box 7482
Charlottesville, VA 22906-7482
1-804-978-3888
and request "Major Articles and Books Concerning the Detrimental Effects of Abortion."

" wouldn't have an abortion..but NOT because it could cause me to have breast cancer..cause, I, uh, don't wanna kill my babies!"

Elizabeth, I think Jill is trying to expose the double standard of the Susan Komen Foundation

They can't show any signs of distress. they can't love or feel pain. They don't have brains. or a central nervous system.

Mike, Thanks for the link.

Maybe this will be the longest topic EVER on this site!

But Jess, if you read a biology book, that is not how "life" is determined.

And Jasper, I know. I just really think it's silly though because the decision to or not to have an abortion shouldn't be based off of your risk for cancer..it should be based off of the humanity of the baby growing inside of the mother.

fine i'll just have water from now on.

"it should be based off of the humanity of the baby growing inside of the mother."

Yes, I agree Elizabeth.

Elizabeth, you're right. I think this should be a mandatory part of pre abortion counseling {{if any exists]] I think the goal is to prevent abortion, or at least try to decrease it.

Well then it looks like my job is done here.

Even if the abortion industry wants to keep women in the dark, we won't.

Vegetarians have a shorter life span than meat eaters. Also, millions of our furry friends are killed by the combines used on farms to harvest vegetables.
These facts were pointed out by Dr. William Douglass who is an avid meat eater and has spent years debunking medical myths. I am an avid fan of his. Because of this, I also drink raw milk, eat at least two eggs a day, eat butter, limit starch and sugar, and eat some veggies and fruits. And yes, I eat meat, chicken, and fish big time! I'm careful of the fish and where it is obtained from. Dr. Douglass also gives a source for meat that is organic and free of additives and pesticides.
I also take nutritional supplements to keep my broken down old body going strong.

Mary,

What do you mean by raw milk? As in unpasteurized?

Dr. Douglass was probably some crazy drunk from 200 years ago who probably thought women who enjoyed sex would spontaneously combust.

Mary, If I'm not mistaken, I believe that Linda McCartney, former wife of Paul, was a vegetarian. She died of breast cancer.

Elizabeth,

Exactly, right off the farm. When I asked the clerk at the health food store for such a farmer, you would have thought I was asking for the name of a heroin dealer, it was that secretive. If anyone ever asks, the milk is for my cat. Also, I would recommend grandma's oldtime remedy of a tablespoon of cod liver oil every day.

They probably donate to PP because PP offers reduced health services for women so that they can go in for early detection. I know a lot of women that can't afford most clinics in the area and PP is the only one willing to work with their low incomes.

OH MY GOD, PP DOES MORE THAN ABORTION SERVICES? YOU'RE KIDDING, RIGHT?

You know how persons of color have higher incidences of breast cancer? A lot of that is due to the economic gap and the subsequent lack of health care. PP has been one of the most outspoken, out there clinics advertising reduced health services so that women can get diagnosed early on, instead of too late.

When you find me another large-scale organization doing the same thing to help women receive health care when other organizations won't, let me know.

Life is the leading cause of all deaths. Vegie or meat-eater something will do us in.

The fact that the abortion death-dealers don't care to share information about the risks -- is only par for the course. They are interested in $$$ only. Death is their business; every abortion is 100% fatal for one of the participants.

Oops, I meant reduced-price*

Sorry about that.

Heather, 10:27PM

I understand she also turned her cat into a vegetarian, if you can imagine. Have you ever heard of anything so stupid?

Linda McCartney
On April 17th, 1998 Linda McCartney died of breast cancer at the age of 56. Her husband, Paul McCartney, made no public display of strength. He was heartbroken that his wife of 29 years -- a wife he still referred to as "his girlfriend" -- was no longer by his side.

Linda's sweet nature and easy smile were an unlikely complement to the ferocity and passion she brought to animal rights and the issue of vegetarianism. PETA awarded her a Lifetime Achievement Award. Today, we can still enjoy the delicious legacy of her culinary experiments with vegetarian recipes. Thanks, Linda.

Therefore, should not abortion logically be considered a risk factor?

:: laughing ::

Well hell's bells yes - the same as continuing pregnancies and giving birth should be considered risk factors, (and of course having an abortion is some 10, 15, 30, 100, times safer than continuing a pregnancy and giving birth), since the risk isn't zero.

Here we go. So, shall we now argue that vegetarians die from breast cancer? Mary, that is ridiculous! lol!

Mary,

Ewwww...yucky...I mean maybe it's good for you..but I just couldn't do it. Sorry.

Edyt,

Spare us all the "PP does more than abortions" rhetoric. It's old and tired.

Anon, right!

Jess 10:26PM

He in fact has a fairly young wife and is still going strong at his age, which I believe is close to 80. He advises men, and women as well, on what supplements they can take to enhance what he calls the "midnight mambo".
He is certainly no "drunk" but does encourage the moderate use of alcohol as being very beneficial healthwise.

Mary, hahahaha!!

@Mary: Are you a sushi fan? Just wondering because I too love fish. ^_^

Salmon is delicious.

And by the way, things are going well. I've been pretty happy as of late, my medications have continued to work really well. :)

Elizabeth, 10:34PM

That's how I initially viewed it. I'll drink water instead. I know it sounds strange but the fact is I can't drink store bought milk anymore. Skim milk is nothing but totally nutritionless sugar water, and 1% and 2% are little better.

Rae,

I have never tried sushi. Also be careful of the fish you buy. Avoid salmon or any fish from fish farms. You can check with your local health food store where they often have canned tuna, salmon, etc. or can advise you on the safest kind to buy. I special order my tuna and make certain my salmon are fished from the Atlantic.

Also, thank you for the update. I think of you often and am pleased to hear when things are going well for you. I hope you stay the course:)

Elizabeth,

I meant to say I will drink water rather than store bought milk, that's how much I've lost my taste for it.

Oh, and the water I drink is filtered by an osmosis machine at my grocery store and I buy it from the store in jugs that continually refill :)
I only use tap water to clean my floors and flush the toilet.

@Mary: I usually don't eat fish because it is really expensive, but I do love it when I get the opportunity (I typically eat walleye as I'm from Minnesota- Land of the Walleye, lol).

I'm a big fan of Japanese food, tempura is probably one of the best foods ever made. :) Nigiri salmon rolls are delicious, I do recommend them if you have the opportunity (ditto with tuna rolls).

Haha, Mary, you sure do go through a lot just to eat and drink.

It must be exhausting...I got tired just thinking about it!

Rae, 10:59PM

Thank you. Sounds delicious and I will give them a try. Especially the tuna rolls! We have some excellent Japanese restaurants here in town though those flying knives make me a little nervous!

@Mary: Yup, no problem. It's one of the greatest things about living in Minneapolis...lots of Japanese restaurants. Though the stuff you're talking about is called "Teppanyaki" and it's not at every Japanese restaurant. :)

Sushi-grade fish is different from fish they typically sell in grocery stores, it's higher quality.

I think I know waaaaaaaaaay too much about sushi...lol.

Elizabeth, 11:04PM

LOL. Actually its easier than it sounds. I get several gallons of milk at once and freeze them and since my husband refuses to drink it, its all the more for me. I also stock up on the water. Believe me, I have NO problem eating and will indulge in foods I shouldn't more often than I should I'm not as fanatical as I sound:)

Elizabeth,

Then spare us the "abortions causes breast cancer" argument. There is no solid proof abortions cause breast cancer, nor do any major cancer organizations support that belief.

If abortions caused breast cancer, wouldn't miscarriages also lead to breast cancer?

Correlation =/= causation.

The majority of studies that support the breast cancer myth were funded by or conducted by pro-life persons. Who is to say personal bias didn't factor into those studies? That data wasn't misinterpreted just to get a certain conclusion?

Haha, Mary...I just try to eat what tastes good..and I try to eat veggies, especially the green ones that promote brain health. I also take omega-3 fatty acid supplements..which from what I hear, help reduce cortisol (stress hormone) and promote heart and brain health.

I admit that I'm a sucker for the quick and easy over what's good for me sometimes. I can't help it...2-year old, going to school full-time, laundry, cleaning, etc,etc.

I love to cook but it's a LOT of work!

Then spare us the "abortions causes breast cancer" argument. There is no solid proof abortions cause breast cancer, nor do any major cancer organizations support that belief.

Edyt,

Did you read ANY of my comments on this post?

Here's one for you..

Elizabeth 10:00 PM

What? Not having an abortion drastically increases my risk of dying, versus continuing a pregnancy and giving birth?

There it is.

Elizabeth, you could cook for me anyting.

Now, that sounds sort of sexist or something, doesn't it?

I'd cook for you anytime.

Doug

Haha, Oh Doug, a man who can cook...what will I do with myself?

:blushes:

Does not abortion delay child-bearing? Does not abortion make breast-feeding impossible?

Therefore, should not abortion logically be considered a risk factor?

For once I am going to take you at face value, Jill, but you are not going to like the result. By your own logic as quoted above, abstinence is every bit as much a risk factor as abortion.

NEWS FLASH: PRO-LIFE BLOGGER INFERS THAT ABSTINENCE CAUSES BREAST CANCER!

It seems to me, that when you abort, you most likely throw your hormonal system into a tail-spin.

Here is a womans body, going through this gargantuan chemical and hormonal change to support the incubation of a new life, and to prepare the breasts for their specific design: to feed the newborn baby.

Then, you deliberately terminate the pregnancy UNNATURALLY, either by chemical or instrumental physical means. This HAS to take it's toll on the endocrine system...how could it NOT ?

You can't possibly expect me to believe that doing so doesn't in some way, put a strain, or stress or whatever, on the hormone system by interrupting it when it's working overtime to do what it was designed to do in the first place, and not expect there to be adverse effects like breast cancer.

Abortion is probably the one thing that can screw up a woman's anatomy more than anything because it is completely contrary to the natural order and design of the female body, because you are invading the reproductive system against it's "will".

To not expect negative side effects of such, is pretty naive for a logical thinking person. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure this out. If you are a woman and knows basic female anatomy and what your body goes through when you're pregnant, (epsecially in the year 2008 with all the technology available) you've got to be some kind of moron to not think that aborting a pregnancy is going to mess you up in some way, like getting breast cancer.

For every action, there is a RE-action.
Cause and effect.

Why take the risk?

Mike said: Abortion is probably the one thing that can screw up a woman's anatomy more than anything because it is completely contrary to the natural order and design of the female body, because you are invading the reproductive system against it's "will".

BINGO, Mike!! That's it exactly. And the reason why a miscarriage is not considered a "risk" factor as abortion is, is for this very reason.

Dr. Joel Brind wrote that "'pregnancies destined to abort spontaneously (i.e., end in miscarriage) during the first trimester usually do not generate estradiol in quantities exceeding non-pregnant levels.' He explains that estradiol, which causes the breasts to grow during pregnancy makes for more undifferentiated cells - the same cells which are vulnerable to cancer - and thus with induced abortions, as opposed to miscarriage, there is a greater vulnerability to breast cancer."
(from PhysiciansforLife.org)

I beleive that there is a connection between abortion and breast cancer.

I can't believe that God created and designed women to abort their babies, therefore, in the infinitely complex system of the female human body, there must be a connection betweem something as violent to the human body as an intentional abortion and breast cancer. I'm not saying He would be punishing women but just that something so foreign to God's nature and design philosophy would have some negative effect. I mean we all know what happens when sugar is put in the gas tank of a car. And a womnen's body is infinitely more complex than a Chevy.

SoMG:

You are one arrogant person who pretends to know all about biological processes, their affects, causes and relationships. You can't tell me that there's at least a possibility of a connection between abortion and breast cancer.....logic dictates it. And if there's at least a chance that there's a connection, then it should be thouroughly studied and the possibility disclosed to all prosepctive abortion candidates.

Perhaps lawyers can find a way to hold abortion clinics and doctors who may now know of the connection between abortion and breast cancer and withheld the information from their patients who have had and will have abortions, and have had, have, and will contract breast cancer.

Have I got your attention now SoMG? I know lawyers especially scare the pants off your type because to your type of doctor it's about the money.

It just occured to me what it will take to prove once and for all that abortion causes breast cancer: (The answer has been there all along, it just never hit me til just now.)

One of the many brilliant, HIGHLY EDUCATED, and well respected Hollyweird Celebrities will reveal to mankind that abortion causes breast cancer...because she got it through having an abortion.

The bigger question though, is WHICH ONE it will be ?!? Brittney? Madonna? Jessica? JOY BEHAR??(now THAT'S funny !!!) It might even be Tommy Cruise ! You think I'm kidding? Trust me. People in this country hold these idiots in such high regard that they'll believe anything these fools say.

But alas, the primary point of such a profound revelation will be "save your boobies...not your babies".

Mike, lol! Another thing. How about the increased risk of miscarriage? Ever see an abortion perfomed?..It's very brutal.

Joy and Whoopi Grill Ron Paul Over Abortion
By Justin McCarthy | December 4, 2007 - 16:35 ET

Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul’s December 4 appearance on "The View" did not lead to the predictable agreement between Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg on Iraq, but a very strong disagreement over abortion. Whoopi Goldberg, who previously boasted about marching in a NARAL rally with Katie Couric, alluded to her confrontation with Elisabeth Hasselbeck asserted without doubt that "nobody makes this decision lightly."

Co-host Joy Behar occupied most of the segment attacking Paul’s abortion position. Though Behar admitted she believes killing a child immediately before birth is "murder" she asked "what about the first month?" and about the "mental state" or "health" line that many partial birth abortion apologists use.

Ron Paul then asked Behar if she would be okay with a law "that says abortion should be done no later than at six weeks gestation." Behar avoided the question claiming she is "not happy with abortion, period."

The transcript of the exchange is below.

BEHAR: I have to hit you with my first question because we discussed it in the in "Hot Topics." I’ve read all of your stuff and I know that you want limited government. Get government out of my life. Right?

REPRESENTATIVE RON PAUL (R-TX): Good idea!

BEHAR: What about Roe v. Wade? I don’t want the government telling me what to do with my body. How do you justify that?

PAUL: Well, I think the question is whether a baby that is unborn, that weighs eight pounds, seventh, eighth month of gestation has any rights. Is it a person?

BEHAR: But what about the first month or when you usually get an abortion?

PAUL: You’re not for all abortion.

BEHAR: I don’t know. It would have to come up in a specific case.

PAUL: So you, so you don’t want me to do an abortion on somebody that is an eight pound, normal baby.

BEHAR: No, of course not. But if-

PAUL: So you’re not for abortion really.

BEHAR: No wait a minute. But if the woman wants to abort a ch- a baby at eight months, something’s wrong either with her mental state or her health, so that-

PAUL: But the law, the law says they can do that.

BEHAR: Yeah, but the law should. It should-

PAUL: The mother, if it’s her body, why can’t she do it?

BEHAR: Shouldn’t it be between the doctor and the woman?

GOLDBERG: That’s, that’s not exactly true sir. That’s not exactly true. There is a limit as to when you can have an abortion. I believe that’s the truth.

PAUL: All the way through the third trimester.

GOLDBERG: I don’t think, I don’t think so anymore.

PAUL: Roe versus Wade allows it in a third trimester. It dictates to the doctor what he can do in the first trimester, second trimester, and third trimester. So it is the law of the land.

BEHAR: So are you not against, just you like Roe v. Wade, except to a point. Is that what your position is?

PAUL: No, I don’t like the Federal government doing anything.

BEHAR: Okay.

PAUL: So, I want the states to deal with it.

BEHAR: But what’s the- if you’re against abortion what’s the difference who’s doing it, the states or the government?

PAUL: Well, there’s a big difference because the Constitution does given them- the states deal with murder and violence and manslaughter.

BEHAR: Okay, so it’s not a moral position. It’s more of a particular position.

PAUL: It’s a legal position.

SHEPHERD: The states deal with it.

PAUL: It’s a legal position because I honor and respect the rights of the mother, but your home too, your home is your castle. I don’t want any government in your home, no searches without warrant-

BEHAR: Right.

PAUL: -no cameras. But you can’t kill your baby in your home.

BEHAR: Well, no, but that’s murder. That’s different.

PAUL: Yeah, okay, but somebody sees this- I have, as a physician, I’ve been trained to bring life into the world. And if I do harm to the baby, I get sued. So the baby is alive and has rights, right?

GOLDBERG: Well, let me ask you this: so what about-

BEHAR: Well, yes but that’s very unusual. What an unusual situation. We’re talking about girls who are in trouble and they want to have an abortion the first month.

PAUL: Would you be okay with a law that says abortion should be done no later than at six weeks gestation?

BEHAR: Look, I’m not happy with abortion period, you know?

PAUL: Well, nobody is.

BEHAR: Nobody is, but that’s not the point.

GOLDBERG: Well, that’s, that’s the idea. But here’s my question: If you make a decision that this is where you need to go, because I said to somebody else earlier on this show, no one makes this decision lightly. This is not someone somebody says "oh I think I’ll go get this." This is not a fun thing to go do. So someone has come to that place to make that decision is because it really needs to be there. Now, I think you should be able to get some help if you’re reaching out for somebody like that. What bothers me is that there is no one who says "here’s what we can do" because, you know, we have all of these children. What are we going to do with them? If everybody has the kids. Nobody, the churches don’t want to take them. Nobody wants to put them in the thing- no I want to finish the thing, period.

BEHAR: Alright, answer.

PAUL: Well, the question is whether abortion should be done on demand and who controls it. What you’re saying is a very difficult problem that we can deal with. And the more difficult a problem that we have, the more you want it to be held locally. Before Roe versus Wade, before it was legalized across the board, on demand, states did, I saw it happening, abortions were done on rare circumstances and it was done with caution.. There was a recognition , there was a recognition that life was valuable. And I don’t think anybody is going to win this. You’re not even for abortion, for anybody, anytime, a minute before birth. You don’t want to abort these normal babies.

BEHAR: No, that’s murder.

PAUL: At the same time, I don’t think we’ll ever reach the stage where there will be no abortions. But I want, I want to sort this out-

BEHAR: Okay.

PAUL: -the way the Constitution mandates and that is at the local level.

—Justin McCarthy is a news analyst at Media Research Center.

Mike, I thought you might enjoy this. Whoopi and Joy get confused.

BEHAR: No, that’s murder.
----------------------- Hey, maybe there's hope for Joy.

That's interesting Heather, when Behar is confronted directly, she doesn't want to answer the question.

jasper, They all twist in the wind. It's hard to keep a lie straight.

Edyt 10:29PM

You're going on the assumption that women of color are for the most part in a lower income group. The article I mentioned in a previous post stated that these women had equal access to early detection and treatment, but still died at a higher rate for reasons not known.
Also even if breast cancer is detected at PP, an oncologist and surgeon will likely have to be found for follow up, longer term care, so there must be doctors outside PP willing to take and care for these patients and PP is not the only hope for these women.

Edyt 11:14PM

All that is being said is that research exists pointing to an abortion/breast cancer link and every woman has a right to know this. All women should be strongly encouraged to research arguments on both sides, and draw her own conclusions. I have often urged people on this site to do the same when it comes to vaccinations and their own personal health issues.
How do you know for a fact most research is conducted by pro-life people? The vast number of studies I have read at www.abortion/breastcancer.com say nothing at all as to where the researchers stand on this issue. Do you honestly think PC side is totally unbiased?
Keep in mind that the abortion industry, like the tobacco industry 50 years ago, has everything to lose if a link is established. They are certainly not anxious to have any link exposed.
Also miscarriage, unlike abortion, is a natural process where the body makes hormonal adjustments, the cervix dilatates, and the uterus contracts. It is not the abrupt interruption of a natural body process that the body has not prepared for.

Hi Jess,
Your passion for animals is evident. I admire that. I have the same passion for humans, especially the unborn.
You said
"Also animals who are killed for meat are horrifically tortured for days, months, years. I mean compared to the whole five minutes abortion lasts. I would be aborted rather then spend a day at one of those farms any day."

The abortion procedure may take 5 minutes or less but the effects of that procedure last a lifetime.
Please don't trivialize it or try to equate it to animals. A baby is a baby. Unborn babies are tortured and killed through abortion.

Carla,

I too admire Jess' passion for her cause. The research she presented showing a meat/cancer link is interesting and informative and I would be the first to encourage people to look at studies on both sides of the meat eating issue and draw their own conclusions, as Jess has drawn hers.
Has anyone gone ballistic insisting this is all hooey, as has been done over the suggestion of a breast cancer abortion link? Do people get defensive and angry, accusing Jess of being full of BS? No.
Jess presents the studies and we all have the option to consider these and other studies that show no such link, and draw our own conclusions. No one gets defensive or angry, no one is adamant that a link cannot possibly exist, no one claims this is some plot by rich vegetable farmers and vegetarians, no one claims the researchers all oppose meat eating.
What a contrast to what happens when pro-life people point out the existence of studies showing a breast cancer/abortion link and support women being advised of this and encouraged to research both sides of the issue.

Mary, right. I also thank Jess for the info. No offense taken.

I beleive that there is a connection between abortion and breast cancer.

I believe in the tooth fairy.

Believing doesn't make it so.

Mary,
Exactly.

Ray,
I am anxiously awaiting your research and findings on the tooth fairy!! Cite those sources, man!!

Ray,

True, believing doesn't make anything "so". Not believing something doesn't make it non-existent either.
Objectively researching both sides of an issue and drawing your own conclusions is the best way and what I advise everyone concerning any issue.

Ray, I don't think you believe in the tooth fairy.

Ray, I don't think you believe in the tooth fairy.

Why would you think that, heather?

I am anxiously awaiting your research and findings on the tooth fairy!!

I can only cite my own personal experience, Carla, as I am not aware of any "scientific" research on the subject. When I was a kid, I put several teeth under my pillow on separate occasions, and each and every time there was at least a quarter (this was a long time ago) in its place the next morning. By my observation, the Tooth Fairy performed as reputed 100% of the time! This being so long ago, I am afraid I no longer have the actual quarters as physical evidence.

Mary you wrote: "I am certain both of you will wholeheartedly agree that women have a right to know of the research done on both sides of this issue and you would be the first to encourage women to thoroghly research both sides of this controversy before arriving at any conclusions."

That's usually what they pay medical professionals to do FOR them.

But if a patient wanted to research the issue herself, I would definitely warn her that there are people on the net who think it's their mission in life to scare you out of having an abortion and some of them post (essentially) fake research.

I would encourage her to trust serious professional societies such as the AMA, ACOG, and ACS, and not to trust poor propagandists like Jill Stanek.

Posted by: SoMG at March 25, 2008 5:53 PM
******************************
Thank you.
And Ive seen first hand the inability of most individuals to do adequate research on any subject, to comprehend the difference between propaganda and factual information, and to grasp what an objective source of information actually is. They also are not able to really understand what statistics and research really mean. There is nothing 'patronizing' about it. Antichociers bank on women being poorly educated, poorly informed, and susceptible to antichoice propaganda and never knowing the difference.

www.abortionbreastcancer.com

***************
I looked it up -
Catholic Medical Association
American Association of Pro Life OB/GYNs
Polycarp Research - who 'will not promote methods ... inconsistant with the ethical andmoral guidelines of the Catholic Church
I looked up some of the doctors mentioned from the other organizations - there seems to be a definite tendency to be affiliated with ultra conservative organizations and publications

This is your idea of objective research?

I don't know about you but I don't pay anyone to do my research for me.
Why would you warn a woman about people on the net supposedly out to scare her? Certainly when she had done her research she will come to that conclusion herself, right? I mean if the research just isn't there to support the argument of an abortion/breast cancer link, women will see this for themselves. Or do you, like Texas Red, consider women just a little too stupid to figure any of this out for themselves?

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2008 6:04 PM
**********************
I dont consider women stupid. But I do recognize the fact that a typical American will not be able to recognize the difference between propaganda and information from objective sources and will not be able to understand most of what statistics are really saying. This is a matter of education. And antichoicers bank on women being uninformed enough to believe what antichoicers tell them and rely on them not doing the research needed to realize what they are being presented is misinformation and propaganda.

In addition to that, I once worked with 2 white women. They both passed away from breast cancer in their 40s. They both had abortions when they were in their 20s.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 8:38 PM
************
yeah, heather - sure that happened

Ray,
Maybe it's time for a little conversation with your folks. :)

TR, it did.

There is no one 'cause' for any kind of cancer. There are things which increase the probability of developing cancer. Lots of non smokers die of lung cancer. Lots of smokers never develop lung cancer. Genetics play a role. Diet can play a role. Exposure to toxins can play a role. And you cant be sure *one* factor was the *cause* and not some other factor. But what is dishonest is trying to pretend that having abortions are 'dangerous'. Even when you read the studies you find the statistical increase is small and there is a serious problem in duplicating these studies. The touch stone of any research is when you conduct study after study after study and they all show the same tendencies and results. We are not seeing that with these studies.

Why take the risk?

Posted by: Mike at March 26, 2008 12:47 AM
****************************
No one can be this simple minded.
Do you really think a woman dealing with an unwanted pregnancy is going to be deterred from having an abortion because she MIGHT POSSIBLY face a 2% higher risk of having breast cancer?
Do you want to look at all the risks associated with gestation and birth?

Do you really think a woman dealing with an unwanted pregnancy is going to be deterred from having an abortion because she MIGHT POSSIBLY face a 2% higher risk of having breast cancer?

Indeed, Iva.

Texas Red, if she still wants to abort after the facts are given, that's her problem. Don't come back after your double mastectomy and say no one ever told you.

Somehow I don't think trivializing the A/BC link research by equating it to the "tooth fairy" is going to help ANYONE.

Again, it's just a way for you to mock something that you don't agree with. Breast cancer is a very serious issue, which takes so many lives.

We're told all the time that we don't "care" about women because we don't want them to abort, but then we're mocked when we say "there is strong evidence to support a link, so please consider this health risk before you obtain an abortion."

It will never matter what the research says, because blindness to truth is epidemic. After all, we still have Holocaust deniers today, even with all the photographic and historical evidence.

Texas Red, if she still wants to abort after the facts are given, that's her problem. Don't come back after your double mastectomy and say no one ever told you.

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 12:35 PM
****************************
Why dont you tell us all where you got the "information" that I've had an abortion?

Just FYI - the incidence of 'exotic' internal parasites has gone up since eating raw fish became popular.

Mike, lol! Another thing. How about the increased risk of miscarriage? Ever see an abortion perfomed?..It's very brutal.

Poste