by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli

• At Coming Home, Dr. Gerard Nadal details the perfect storm swirling in Australia (as well as the United States) where empirical evidence on the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link is confronted with an ideology which seeks to suppress the data:
  Melbye, Brinton, and the rest of the NCI coterie deny the validity of their own data (as well as data from all over the globe), data that time and time again substantiate the ABC link. Their sole reason for denying the data in case-control studies (which are retrospective analyses) is the assertion that women who have had induced abortions are more likely to recall them, or report them if they have breast cancer. Dr. Janet Daling who included in one of her studies a test of this putative bias, studied women with cervical cancer and found absolutely no recall bias in her cases or controls. That makes sense because nearly all cervical cancers are caused by human papilloma virus. Janet Daling also publishes with the deniers….

  The issue is the legality of induced abortion and what the frightening specter of breast cancer fifteen or twenty years later might mean. In other words, it’s scientists denying scientific data because of a political agenda.

Guest post by Joel Brind, Ph.D.

“China is on the cusp of a breast cancer epidemic,” acknowledged a prestigious group of American epidemiologists in 2008 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Studiously avoiding the “A-word” the JNCI group blamed the emerging epidemic on “shifting reproductive trends” among “risk factors associated with economic development [that] are largely unavoidable.”

That’s because NCI still officially denies the reality of the abortion-breast cancer link.

But a new systematic review and meta-analysis of abortion and breast cancer in China was just published last week in the prestigious, peer-reviewed international cancer journal, Cancer Causes and Control, dealing the great wall of denial a serious blow.

Guest post by Joel Briend, Ph.D.

He may or may not be on Mitt Romney’s short list for VP, but journalists always seem to have his name near the top of their list. At least Tim Pawlenty’spro-life credentials are reliable, right?

Well if you ask me, the view from under the Pawlenty bus ain’t so pretty.

As you may know, I have been researching and trying to bring into public awareness the abortion-breast cancer link (ABC link) for twenty years with some success, no thanks to Gov. Pawlenty.

I’ve said before the British press is much more honest about abortion than the American press. Here’s another example, a story in the June 24

by Susie Allen, TN pro-life activist Jay at the latest article in Slate regarding what Saletan terms “pregnancy termination.” Saletan unbelievably attempts to equate pre-term delivery with abortion….

As expected, pro-aborts did not take well to my “The truth about breast cancer and abortion,” RH Reality Check’s managing editor Amie Newman relied heavily on one of the researchers publishing the study – to dispute the results of her own study: According to one of the researchers and authors of the report, Kathi Malone […]

In February 2003, Dr. Louise Brinton (pictured lower right), the National Cancer Institute’s chief of the Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, served as chairperson at an NCI workshop in Bethesda, MD, to assess whether abortion was implicated as a breast cancer risk. In the opinion of “over 100 of the world’s […]

UPDATE, 1/9, 7:30p: I just learned from David Schmidt of LiveAction.org (which is why his group is known for super sleuthing and I’m not… :) that About.com is owned by the New York Times. Sure enough, from About.com’s home page… Checking back this morning, About.com blogger Pam Stephan has added to her original post, making […]