Part I
By Kyle-Anne Shiver
Abortionists in this country are actively burying risk research just as tobacco companies did many decades ago. There are now literally piles of genuine medical research which show what most would deem dire elevated risks from abortion—not just to the baby killed in the procedure—but to the woman and also to the future siblings of the aborted baby.
Just as tobacco companies once deep-sixed any negative research on the smoker’s health and well-being, abortionists and their extensive lobbying web of far-left, social-engineering “feminists” now scamper to squelch every new research study which demonstrates elevated risk associated with their killing-field business model. In this diabolical scheme, abortionists are far, far worse than tobacco companies could ever have been, if only for the single reason that abortion is controlled not by known capitalistic corporations, but by the very people whom the public trusts for its healthcare.
We give our medical doctors all benefit of doubt and trust them implicitly to tell the truth, the whole truth as they know it and nothing but the truth—every single time.
Not even the most deluded ninny ever went to a tobacco shop seeking trustworthy medical advice.
No, that kind of trust is reserved to the medical community. So, when medical practitioners are less than fully truthful about risks to their wholly personal and invasive procedures, the public has a due right to be not only dumbfounded but outraged at the professional betrayal.
When the Supreme Court created a woman’s “right” to abortion in 1973, one of the reasons given was that modern cleanliness techniques and antibiotics made abortion safe. Safety to women was supposed to be the reason why the killing needed to be taken from the back alley coat-hanger wielders and into the modern, sterile confines of a real “medical” facility.
However, by 1973, many other countries had legalized abortion. The Soviets were the first to do so, followed quickly by China and the socialist-democracies of Western Europe. Some negative research on the abortion/breast cancer link already existed.
As pointed out in this detailed article by Karen Malec in the 2003 professional journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, the Justices either ignored or didn’t know about already-on-the-books research showing elevated risk of breast cancer for women having abortions. “Two Japanese studies showed a positive association between induced abortion and breast cancer: a 1957 study reported a statistically significant relative risk of 2.61 and a 1968 study found a relative risk of 1.51.”
And that wasn’t all. Malec further points to a landmark WHO study in 1970, by MacMahon et al, “Age at First Birth and Breast Cancer Risk,” which showed that early pregnancy and childbirth served to somewhat immunize a woman from breast cancer. This study estimated “that women having their first child when aged under 18 years have only about one-third the breast cancer risk of those whose first birth is delayed until the age of 36 years or more.” Results from MacMahon et al also showed that abortion might be an independent risk factor for breast cancer and suggested “an increased risk associated with abortion—contrary to the reduction in risk associated with full-term births.”
These studies all came prior to the Roe decision.
If these early studies were on the mark, then one would expect to see a dramatic rise in breast cancer rates among American women due to abortion gaining such a distinguished imprimatur from both the medical and the legal communities of professionals. And sure enough, this dramatic rise has taken place right here in America. In 1975, less than one woman out of every 12 was likely to ever get breast cancer, almost always late in life. However, since 1975 those odds have increased to at least one in every 8 American women and the age of onset has markedly come earlier.
To see this sharp rise in terms of the legalized-abortion date line, take a hard, cold look at this graph in a current cancer medicine textbook.
As even a layperson can easily see, breast cancer rates began their sharp rise in the late 1990s, just long enough for women who had taken advantage of legal and newly “safe” abortion to have developed the disease.
This is so ugly that it makes corporate tobacco kingpins look saintly in comparison.
Since 1973, as Malec also points out, the research has validated earlier concerns: “Thirty-eight epidemiological studies exploring an independent link between abortion and breast cancer have been published. Twenty-nine of these report risk elevations. Thirteen out of 15 American studies found risk elevations. Seventeen studies are statistically significant, 16 of which report increased risk. Biological evidence provides a plausible mechanism for this statistical association.”
With all this known risk, it seems more than a little fishy that the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the statistical arm of Planned Parenthood, still—to this very day—insists categorically in broad daylight on its own web site that there is “NO association between abortion and breast cancer.” (emphasis added) Guttmacher contends that respected “panels” from both the U.S. and British governments concur with this assessment, which is formally true and is attested to on government web sites as well. Guttmacher protests—too loudly to pass the common sense test—that all this mountain of abortion/breast cancer research is done by its pro-life political opponents and that every single bit of it is “flawed” in some way.
Tobacco executives surely stare in wonder at the unmitigated gall of these people.
No mention on any of these reassuring web sites is made of the inescapable fact that both abortion and breast cancer treatment are mammoth business enterprises, which represent billions of dollars annually for the thoroughly-vested folks at Guttmacher, Planned Parenthood and every medical association and for-profit hospital and every pharmaceutical company in the world. Not only that but it would take a ninny not to see how governments, which have vouched for and actively promoted the safety of abortion for decades now, would face an outraged public if this safety-imprimatur is shown to have been given without any real evidence to support it. Added together, these vested financial and governmental interests make those of tobacco companies look paltry and picayune in comparison.
But the link between abortion and breast cancer isn’t the only tip showing on the abortion negative-research iceberg.
Read tomorrow’s commentary for part II.
Kyle-Anne Shiver is an independent journalist and a frequent contributor to online journals, American Thinker and Pajamas Media. Her greatest claim to any sort of fame, however, is her forty-one year marriage and raising two self-sufficient, honorable American children, now adults. She currently fills her empty-nest-provided hours researching and writing on the topics of our day from a conservative perspective. She welcomes you to visit and comment at her web site: http://www.commonsenseregained.com.
This article has been reprinted with permission and can be found at http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/the_coverup_of_abortions_real_1.html.
