One common rebuttal offered by the ACS, and the abortion advocates to dismiss the ABC (Abortion-Breast Cancer) link we introduced in last week's first part of this article, is to point out that most of the studies done, have relied on interviewing women and asking them if they have ever had an abortion and asking them if they have been diagnosed with breast cancer, and then comparing their answers. So, those who fear the truth say -- probably women who have breast cancer are more likely to remember or admit that they have had abortions, whereas women who do not have breast cancer may not admit they had an abortion. They call this, "recall bias." I call it, "grasping for straws."

    But when your back is to the wall, you'll try anything, even accusing some women of lying. Women know how important these studies are. They're not going to lie. It means life or death for thousands of women. After all, they don't have to take part in the study -- they can just refuse, rather than lie. Notice they don't actually say they're lying -- they say more likely to remember. As if someone would forget if they had their unborn baby killed.

    An experiment done in Michigan in 1980 destroys this theory. According to a report in the American Journal of Pathology, August 1980, pp 497-511, cancer researchers injected a number of pregnant rats with DMBA, a cancer-causing substance. They then aborted half the rats; the other half were allowed to carry their pregnancies to term.

    Among the aborted rats, 77% developed breast cancer. Among the term rats, only 5.5% developed breast cancer. Too bad they couldn't interview the rats -- they might have found recall bias.

    With all of the evidence provided so far, even without epidemiological data, and given the extremely high estrogen levels experienced by women in the first several weeks of normal pregnancy, which doctors have always known -- for the ACS to say that the link is inconclusive is not only repugnant, but in my book, it's downright CRIMINAL.

    But we DO have epidemiological data to prove it. 10 of 11 studies in the United States have proven it and 31 out of 35 world wide. A 1996 study carried out in the Netherlands found almost a twofold increased risk for breast cancer after an induced abortion. However, the investigators suggested that this figure may have been influenced by reporting bias attributed to the underreporting of abortions by healthy control subjects in the largely Catholic southeastern region of the Netherlands. In the western regions of the country, the association between abortion and breast cancer was statistically insignificant. The authors concluded that their "study does not support an appreciably (whatever that means) increased risk for breast cancer after an induced abortion."

    These people are constantly looking for excuses. Now, you can't rely on this study because someone's religion is involved. Are they trying to say that Catholics are more liable to lie than Protestants? This is disgusting. Why didn't the study involve the whole country, it's not that big and average it out? Because they wouldn't like what they would find. I never knew that a certain section ofthe Netherlands had a largely Catholic region.

    We must also believe that middle-aged black women, in particular, are incredible liars, as a study published in the Journal of the National Medical Association (December 1993) 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% increased risk factor for women under 40 who had aborted. But black women now in their 40s who had aborted experienced a 180% increased risk. The risk jumped to a whopping 370% for black women over 50 who had aborted

    Well, this completes the cycle -- someone's religion and now their race makes them liars. In the future, in order to save time and money, let's not include Catholics and Blacks in any study, because we all know they are liars. We have been told so, by the study that the ACS endorses. So, that eliminates about 40% of the world's population for all future studies.

    In 1996-OCT, four US scientists announced the result of a statistical analysis of previous studies. They selected 23 studies which involved over 60,000 women. They combined all of their results using a process known as "meta-analysis." They found "overwhelming" evidence that women who terminate a pregnancy by an abortion have a 33% higher chance of contracting breast cancer later in life.

    Now, read how this study was attacked by those who are conspiring to withhold the truth from the American people: "This particular statistical method is fraught with hazard, because the results can easily be influenced by the method of selecting the studies to be included. Three of the four scientists in the 1996-OCT study are known to be vocal opponents of abortion. They might have been biased, consciously or unconsciously, in their selection processes."

    That's it -- the above statement proves nothing - it's just plain grasping for straws. Three of the scientists are pro-life, so their study cannot be taken seriously. What about the other scientist, who was pro-choice? Now someone who believes that life is sacred is wasting his time, if he participates in any scientific studies.

    The ACS, scanned the entire world, to look for a study that would match their political views. And sure enough, they found just what they were looking for -- a study that was done in little Denmark, which stated that the link was inconclusive. So they accepted it as the Gospel truth and published the Melbye/Danish Report. There was no mention, if those who conducted the Report were pro-choice.

    Isn't it odd that they couldn't find a study in the USA that they liked. 10 of 11 studies in the United States, showed the abortion/cancer link. Our country has the best scientists and researchers in the world. They didn't publish these studies, because it wasn't what they wanted to hear.

    Dr. Joel Brind shreds this report to pieces, as well as his , "Comprehensive Review and Meta Analysis" of the Abortion/Breast Cancer risk. That can be found at Dr. Brind's Meta-Analysis ABC. So now, if anyone who is involved in a study, is pro-life, then that study cannot be trusted. We can now add pro-lifers to the distrustful list along with Catholics and blacks. Now, we have about 70% of the world's population on the list.

    I guess the only people who are trustful and and do not lie, are the highly moral people, who kill their unborn baby, or condone the killing, even while they're being born and suffer excruciating pain in the process. And we must not forget the trustful and honest people who publish only one side, (their side) of an issue, in their medical journals, strictly for political reasons.

    It now appears that the only studies that the ACS, would even consider to publish are those conducted by those who hold their same political views. Since Catholics, Blacks and Pro-lifers cannot be trusted, according to the ACS, and the Pro-aborts, the only ones left to study are the abortion advocates. The abortion advocates will study the rest of the abortion advocates. It's absolutely ludicrous.

    How the American Cancer Society can continue to perpetuate this cover-up, is mind boggling, in view of the fact that their own man, Dr. Clark Heath, who is the head of Epidemiology and Surveillance Research of the American Cancer Society, on February 20, 1998, conceded to one aspect of the ABC link -- that an abortion delayed first birth increases breast cancer risk. The longer the time to her first term delivery, the greater the risk. Quite a concession, isn't it? So then, why aren't women told of this one aspect, before they have their first unborn baby killed and why don't we hear of this on TV, or read about it in the newspapers? Why didn't it make the headlines?

    The only court decision, regarding the abortion/cancer risk that I am aware of -- is Christ's Bride Ministries (CBM) who wanted to put posters, warning of the ABC link, in public transit areas. They sued Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation (SEPTA) for denying them that right. After hearing both sides of the argument, the appellate court stated there WAS a link and ruled in favor of CBM. It didn't help their case when the SEPTA experts admitted that some studies showed a weak association between abortions and breast cancer. If the SEPTA experts would admit to a slight link, then you know, the link is much greater. They were paid by SEPTA.

    But you can bet your bottom dollar that this is just the tip of the iceberg. It's only a matter of time before there will be a flood of lawsuits brought on by women who were not warned of the risk by the abortion clinics.

    Critics who formerly dismissed the possibility of a relationship between induced abortion and breast cancer are increasingly on the defensive, largely as a consequence of the findings of a fascinating study by Dr. Janet Daling, (who by the way, is Pro-choice) and her colleagues at Seattle's Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Daling's findings can be found at Daling abortion/breast Cancer .

    In summation, let's isolate the facts that are indisputable: