April 10, 2002
volume 13, no. 68

E-mail       Print
Wanted: Dead or Aborted!

It's plain to see that what has happened in courts on the plains of North Dakota and out west in California. It is no different than the savagery of the wild west when life wasn't worth a plug nickel on the old frontier. Today the culture of death wranglers are pushing blatant bias for abortion as pro-abort judges have clearly indicated on all counts! The culprits have been caught in the act and they've escaped time and time again. Where'd they go? They went thattaway! Towards perdition, pardner. Yep, the pro-life posse has very little chance against the pro-abort vigilanties who ride the range of the judicial system as bounty hunters against the unborn and the unsuspecting!

    "To give you more proof of the involvement of politics at the expense of good medicine, on March 8, in California, Superior Court Judge Ronald S. Prather issued an order dismissing a case on a lawsuit which sought to force Planned Parenthood to provide truthful and accurate information to women about the connection between induced abortions and breast cancer. There was NO TRIAL. The judge just read the briefs presented to him by both parties in his chambers and said there was NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE to go to trial. Can you beat that?! The evidence showing that abortions increase the risk of breast cancer is so superior in numbers and quality to the evidence that shows otherwise that this statement is sickening. Just another case, where a judge cannot add and subtract, or doesn’t want to, for political reasons, or possibly can be bought off by a powerful pro-abortion lobby. "
    Judge Michael McGuire ruled in favor of a North Dakota abortion facility that distributes information stating there is no link between abortion and breast cancer.

   And who did the judge rely on for his decision? None other than the NCI (National Cancer Institute) and the ACS (American Cancer Society). Of course, if one is going to depend on these institutions for the truth, then why even have a trial? The outcome is a forgone conclusion. These two organization have been hiding the truth -- that abortions increase the risk of breast cancer for years.

   It's like having a trial and the judge accepts as gospel truth, the words of a habitual liar.

   This was the whole idea of a trial -- to get the truth out. To weigh ALL the evidence. I think the plaintiffs would have won their case if they would have sued the NCI and the ACS for withholding life saving information, and then taken on the abortion industry at a later date.

   It is obvious that the NCI and the ACS are in the pockets of Planned Parenthood, NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) and NOW (National Organization of [liberal] Women)

   Don't take my word for it -- let's examine the evidence: On the website of the NCI, “Cancer fact” they say, “the current body of scientific evidence suggests that women who have had either induced or spontaneous abortions have the same risk as other women for developing breast cancer.”

   Their first lie appears in the very first paragraph. Contrary to what they say, the bulk of the studies show that abortions do INCREASE the risk of breast cancer. They also included spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) with induced (surgical) abortions. They should know better, if they really read all the studies. Most studies show that spontaneous abortions, do NOT increase the risk of breast cancer, because of the low estrogen level.

   The date of this new “Cancer fact” is 3-6-02. How's that for timing -- just in time for the North Dakota judge to read it. In the same paragraph they say, “Some investigators reported an increase in risk, typically from interview studies of several hundred breast cancer patients compared to other women. Other studies found no evidence of increased risk.”

   They cite 7 studies for references. Wouldn't it have been more HONEST to have cited the references for the 28 studies that DO SHOW that abortions increase the risk for breast cancer? 16 of which are statistically significant. Only 1 of their studies is statistically significant.

   In civil litigations, it is “the preponderance of evidence” that rules. It is apparent that the rules have been changed to accommodate the abortion industry. It is inconceivable that the judge, or anyone else could arrive at the conclusion that the preponderance of the evidence favored the abortion clinic? Is this some kind of a new math being taught in our schools? I still think that 16 is greater than 1. One of the prerequisites that we should demand from our judges, is they should be able to add and think.

   This decision is so outrageous and WILL lead to the death of thousands of women every year, because of the sheer numbers of abortions being done, that the judge should defrocked. Judge McGuire should never be allowed to sit on any bench, unless it’s a park bench, to feed the pigeons.

   In just the first paragraph alone, in the NCI fact sheet, there were two lies. There are more, but space being a factor, I must continue. I always thought that in a court of law, that if you lie in one matter, you are anathema. You have lost all credibility. Apparently, not when it comes to the NCI, the ACS and the abortion industry being sued.

   13 of 15 studies, which found that abortions increase the risk of breast cancer, were done right here in the United States. Just what does the NCI have against scientists from the United States? They looked high and low for a study that matched their political views and lo and behold they found just what they wanted in little Denmark. This, the Melbye/Danish study, which claimed the risk was inconclusive was the only study included on their web page.

   This study was so full of holes that reputable medical journals are reluctant to run it any more, without some kind of a disclaimer. Dr. Joel Brind the author of the only comprehensive review and meta analysis of scientific studies concerning the link between induced abortion and breast cancer risk exposed the many flaws in it and when they were removed, it did show that abortions do increase the risk of breast cancer. When he shredded the Danish study to pieces, he pointed out the specific flaws. He showed where the math did not add up. He showed what was left out.

   When the NCI and the ACS, attacks a study showing an increased risk, the reason is general -- “the study was inconclusive.” A ten-year old can say that. But because you are the NCI and the ACS, you can get away with it. They DON'T point out WHY it's inconclusive; what doesn’t add up, other than some women may not recall if they had an abortion. They even coined a phrase for it -- “recall bias.” As if a woman can forget if she had her child killed. This, they will remember the rest of their lives.

   Gee, maybe that's what Judge McGuire had -- “recall bias.” To show you the gall of the NCI and where their allegiance lies, the following should provide anyone with a clear mind and free of politics, that the NCI has indeed, bent over backwards to accommodate the abortion Industry: The NCI, funded the following study, which they now probably regret. Dr. Janet Daling and her colleagues at Seattle's Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center examined the possible linkage between abortion and breast cancer.

   This study was so thoroughly done and the fact that Daling is pro-choice and it found that abortions DO increase the risk of breast cancer that the NCI. did NOT, include it on their website. It was NOT what they wanted to hear. They could not attack it by saying it was done by someone, who is pro-life. What better way than to just sweep it under the rug. This blatant deception by the NCI which exists to warn the public about cancer risks is downright criminal.

   The size of the study (1,806 women -- 845 women who had breast cancer were compared with a "control" group of 961 women who did not); I mention this because the NCI stated that most of the studies that were done, which showed the increased risk, involve only several hundred women. So, what's another lie in the whole scheme of things. Women were interviewed one-on-one in their homes for two hours;

   Daling et. al.'s conclusion that a spontaneous abortion -- a miscarriage -- does NOT increase the risk of breast cancer, putting the emphasis back where it belongs, on induced abortion.

   The study showed that on the average, the chance of a woman having breast cancer before she turns 45 increases by 50 percent if she has had an abortion.

   But the Daling study contained even more frightening results, which were ignored by the judge, if he read it and he should have. If a woman had obtained her first abortion after age 30, her risk jumped by 110 percent. And if she had her first abortion before she turned 18, the likelihood of having breast cancer increased by 150 percent.

   Worse yet, if she has a family history (mother, sister, aunt) of breast cancer and had a first abortion after age 30, her risk went up by 270 percent.

   Most ominous of all were the results for women who had had an abortion before age 18 and who also had a family history of breast cancer. Twelve women in the Daling study fit that description. EVERY ONE OF THEM GOT BREAST CANCER! Startling, isn't it?

   OK, so let's say that Judge McGuire bought all the lies perpetuated by the NCI and the ACS. It is a matter of FACT that these two organizations and all reputable medical professionals readily ADMIT that a delayed first full term birth, increases the risk of breast cancer.

   Does not an abortion delay a full term delivery? Of course. Do teens/woman know when they're going to get pregnant again -- of course not. It could be 1 year, or 20 years, that is, if she was not made sterile by the abortion. According to a study at Harvard, every one year delay, before a full term delivery, increases the risk of breast cancer by 3.5 percent, compounded.

   And as stated above, if she's under 18 and there is a history of breast cancer in the family, EVERY girl in the study got breast cancer. These teen age girls are literally thrown to the wolves. And yet the judge ignored this. How could this happen?

   Even if the judge was bias, which he was -- he, being a man of some compassion -- I hope, could have easily said, “you MUST warn anyone under 18, contemplating to abort their first child, of this risk and if there is a history of breast cancer in the family, you should tell them to avoid an abortion at all cost.

   This would have been the civilized thing to do if he was in doubt and surely 28 studies to 7 studies against his decision, would have put even the most biased judge in doubt.

   But no -- this would panic the abortion industry and place their death knell in plain sight, as the mechanism that causes breast cancer in these young girls is the same as in older women and in all abortions and the public just may put 2 and 2 together -- unlike the judge.

   Better to let them die, then do anything to harm the abortion industry. It has been said that we are “the culture of death.” We live in a society that in addition to killing 1.4 million unborn children every year (98% for convenience sake), we also don't give a darn about the lives of women, who suffer and die from the risks and complications of abortions.

   Besides the abortion/breast cancer risk, the attorneys for the plaintiffs should have included the risk of premature children in subsequent pregnancies. These low birth weight babies are much more prone to develop physical and mental problems including cerebral palsy. Since Roe Vs Wade preterm children have skyrocketed, because of the damage done to the cervix and the inner lining of the uterus during an abortion.

   I am curious how the abortion industry would have attacked this risk, or the increased risk of alcohol and drug abuse and suicides. The reason is obvious -- THEY KILLED THEIR CHILD.

   Just what excuses, could they possibly conjure up? To be more accurate -- what lies?

   Abortion clinics advertise that abortions are safer than childbirth. There just aren't any words to convey the ridiculousness of this statement. Details, Abortion Vs Childbirth

   We live in a society that has no respect for human life and judge McGuire has just signed the death warrants for thousands of young and older women, every year, who have abortions.

   Daling's study, however, only followed women into their forties. What about later in life? A vastly underreported study in the December 1993 issue of the Journal of the National Medical Association traced the breast cancer experience of about 1,000 black women (500 with breast cancer, 500 without) as they grew older. "Breast Cancer Risk Factors in African-American Women: The Howard University Tumor Registry Experience" confirmed that the risks of breast cancer increased much more for women who had aborted than for those who had not.

   This fine study found the same overall 50 percent increased risk factor for women under 40 who had aborted. But black women now in their 40s who had aborted experienced a 180 percent increased risk. The risk jumped to a whopping 370 percent for black women over 50 who had aborted.

   The Daling Study, since she was pro-choice, had the entire pro-abortion camp in a dither. For instance -- commenting on the report by Daling et al., Lynn Rosenberg of the Boston University School of Medicine noted that, "a number of studies have produced contradictory conclusions regarding a link between induced abortions and breast cancer risk. ‘IF’ the women with breast cancer-who were more willing than healthy women to participate in this study-were also more willing to report induced abortions, bias would have occurred."

   Notice, I highlighted “IF.” This is known in the lexicon of deceivers, as “grasping for straws.” And so it goes with ALL the other studies which show that abortions do increase the risk of breast cancer. Just deny and deny -- no evidence -- just keep denying.

   The plaintiffs didn’t want money. They just wanted women to be informed that 28 studies have been done world wide, that found that abortions increase the risk of breast cancer and that 7 studies done which were inconclusive. This way women can really make a proper and informed “choice.” Since it is apparent that Judge McGuire can’t do the math, let women whose lives are in jeopardy do it. Is this really asking too much?

   Abortion are elective surgeries and ALL risks MUST be told to the pastient. Had this been any other form of elective surgery, other than abortion, with this kind of evidence, there is absolutely no doubt that the judge would have ruled in favor of disclosing the risks prior to surgery. The evidence is OVERWHELMING.

   To give you more proof of the involvement of politics at the expense of good medicine, on March 8, in California, Superior Court Judge Ronald S. Prather issued an order dismissing a case on a lawsuit which sought to force Planned Parenthood to provide truthful and accurate information to women about the connection between induced abortions and breast cancer.

   There was NO TRIAL. The judge just read the briefs presented to him by both parties in his chambers and said there was NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE to go to trial.

   Can you beat that?! The evidence showing that abortions increase the risk of breast cancer is so superior in numbers and quality to the evidence that shows otherwise that this statement is sickening. Just another case, where a judge cannot add and subtract, or doesn’t want to, for political reasons, or possibly can be bought off by a powerful pro-abortion lobby.

   One in eight women will get breast cancer. There are about 200,000 new cases of breast cancer every year. About 50,000 women die annually. Breast cancer cases have almost doubled since abortions were legalized in 1973, while all other cancers remain the same and some have gone down.42 million abortions have been done since then -- about 1.4 million every year.

   How does the NCI and the ACS explain the skyrocketing rate of breast cancer since abortions were made legal? They can't and don't even attempt to.

   The following is the mechanism which causes breast cancer in women, who have abortions. It can readily be understood by a 10th grader, but apparently not by judges. It is never refuted by the NCI, or the ACS. Why not? Because it is physiologically accurate. The NCI and the ACS have placed politics ahead of women’s lives. It is pitiful. Where is NOW?

   When pregnancy occurs, there is a SURGE of estrogen. This hormone causes the breast cells to proliferate dramatically in the first trimester, in order to lay the foundation for the production of milk. These young growing cells are more prone to develop cancer.

   In the second half of pregnancy, the estrogen levels RECEDE under the influence of such hormones as human placental lactogen. The immature cells, then grow and differentiate rapidly into mature, specialized milk producing tissue. Once specialization has occurred, the cells are less likely to turn cancerous.

   When the pregnancy is terminated by an induced abortion, these young growing cells (known as undifferentiated cells), and having undergone drastic changes are now in LIMBO. They are no longer normal breast cells, nor are they capable of producing milk.

   In plain English, these insulted cells (traumatized) have been hung out to dry. They are between a rock and a hard place. Scientists have known for years that any cell in the human body that has been traumatized, whether by chemicals, radiation, micro-trauma, or any other reason would be especially vulnerable to cancer

   One must then surmise that what has been instilled in physicians heads from time immemorial, regarding the vulnerability of abnormal cells, is no longer valid. To suit their political agenda, the advocates of abortions would have you believe that an abnormal cell is NO more prone to becoming cancerous than a normal cell. This defies all scientific knowledge, as well as common sense and shows the depths they will go, to keep the abortion industry flourishing. Human life means nothing to them.

   It has also been long known that a pregnancy carried to term protects against breast cancer. Even the NCI and the ACS, admits to this. However, if a woman has an induced abortion, this protection is terminated. The reason is because the proliferation of the undifferentiated, cancer vulnerable cells, by the estrogen secreted early in the pregnancy, no longer has the protection that comes from hormones released later in pregnancy, since the pregnancy has been aborted.

   The estrogen/breast cancer risk has been known by doctors for many years, thus their reluctance to prescribe estrogen for menopausal women, especially those with any family history of breast cancer. Manufacturers of oral contraceptives alert the public as to the possible link between their product and breast cancer. The induced abortion risk is greater than the relative risk associated with oral contraceptives.

   Women, who start their periods early and go through menopause late are exposed to more estrogen, because they have more periods. And women who have fewer or no children, are exposed to more surges of estrogen that come with more menstrual cycles. Women who breast feed their babies, also have fewer menstrual cycles, thereby lowering their risk.

   Foods high in animal fat can increase the blood estrogen level and thus increase the breast cancer risk. Leafy vegetables tend to help a woman, to rid her system of estrogen.

   As you can see, the estrogen factor is not just in the area of reproduction. We are warned of these risks by the top medical journals and the media. We are told what to eat and not to eat, but the biggest risk of all, the abortion/breast cancer link, they tell us NOTHING.

   Recently, it was plastered all over the media that cell phones MIGHT increase the risk of brain cancer. This on only six studies, of which the pros and cons were equal. But the most avoidable risk of all -- they tell us NOTHING.

   You can send your comments about the North Dakota case to:

    Michael O. McGuire, Presiding Judge
    East Central Judicial District
    Cass County Courthouse
    P.O. Box 2806
    Fargo, ND 58108-2806
    701-241-5709 Fax

Dr. Frank Joseph

For past columns by Dr. Frank, see PRO-LIFE PRESCRIPTIONS Archives

Wednesday, April 10, 2002
volume 13, no. 68
Dr. Frank Joseph's PRO LIFE PRESCRIPTIONS column
Return to Current Issue