President's abortion ideology endangers America's next generation of women

December 11, 2013 09:00 AM

By Paul E. Rondeau

Obamacare may trigger a new wave of breast cancer in the next generation. According to a massive meta-study from China—the land of forced abortion and one-child politics—there is a 44 percent increased risk of breast cancer with one abortion and a 76 and 89 percent increase with two and three abortions. Meanwhile, Obamacare—legislation that abortion giant Planned Parenthood proudly admits it helped write—includes a $1 billion superfund for abortions, enough to triple abortions in America. 

Michael New, Ph.D., assistant professor of political science at the University of Michigan–Dearborn and an associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, wrote in National Review Online

Earlier this month, the academic journal Cancer Causes Control published a meta-study analyzing the link between abortion and breast cancer in China. This meta-study pooled the results of 36 separate academic studies on the subject. . . . 

The meta-study provides very compelling evidence that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. By pooling the 36 studies, it concluded that induced abortion raises the risk of breast cancer by 44 percent. Each of the 36 studies showed a positive correlation between abortion and breast cancer—and for at least 19 of the studies; the correlation reaches conventional standards of statistical significance.

What is shocking is that this is not really news. The abortion breast cancer (ABC) link is well-known in America, but suppression of legitimate research documenting this link is just as widespread.

As New explains: 

Unsurprisingly, this study has received no attention from the mainstream media. The only outlets that have reported on the study are Christian, conservative, and pro-life media outlets. Of course, the mainstream media lavishes attention on studies which purportedly find that abortion does not pose health risks to women. . . . Once again, instead of thoughtfully engaging public-health debates about the health risks of abortion, the mainstream media is circling the wagons for their allies in the abortion industry.

Mary L. Davenport, M.D., who is on the board of directors of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute and is immediate past president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, wrote in the American Thinker: “The censorship of medical journals, prevention of conference presentations, denial of grant money and faculty promotions, and self-censorship of honest scholars in academic medicine who want to tell the truth but feel they cannot, impoverishes us.”

Davenport illustrates this when she explains that Joel Brind, Ph.D., professor of biology and endocrinology at Baruch College, published a meta-analysis in 1996 “on abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer. The Brind meta-analysis, combining the results of 23 studies, gave a more complete view than any single study. But even though it was the most comprehensive study on the topic at the time, it was disregarded by establishment medical groups.” His study, published in the British Medical Association’s epidemiology journal, showed a 30 percent risk increase due to ABC.

So, what does Brind think of the new ABC study? 

“The Huang study follows right on the heels of two new studies this year from India and Bangladesh, studies which reported breast cancer risk increases of unprecedented magnitude: over 600% and over 2,000%, respectively, among women who had any induced abortions,” writes Brind at LifeNews. “[The] Chinese meta-analysis is a real game changer. Not only does it validate the earlier findings from 1996, but its findings are even stronger.”

Medical research is dependent upon millions or billions of dollars in government grants and the anti-ABC cabal is global. Both Davenport and Brind agree the suppression of ABC information by the established medical community is widespread. 

In August 2013, Davenport’s presentation of a scientific paper on abortion and pregnancy, accepted months earlier by the Medical Women’s International Association in Seoul, South Korea, was cancelled at the last minute. Davenport described the chain of events: “Shelley Ross, the Secretary-General of [MWIA] personally barged into an interview with Korean journalists to attempt to prevent us from speaking to them, almost causing a fist fight. In a press release regarding this incident, [Ross] claimed that the [ABC] presentations threatened a woman’s reproductive rights, and further asserted that ‘the evidence is overwhelming and undisputable that a woman’s control over her reproductive health is linked to . . . the health of women and children.’” 

Brind describes the anti-ABC effort in the strongest of terms: “Since . . . our study came out in 1996, the ‘mainstream’ abortion advocates entrenched in universities, medical societies, breast cancer charities, journals, and especially, government agencies like the National Cancer Institute (in reality, the NCI is just another corrupt federal agency like the IRS and the NSA) have relentlessly targeted the ABC link with fraudulent studies and other attacks, culminating in a 2003 international phony ‘workshop’ by the NCI, which officially declared the ABC link non-existent.”

President Obama recently described himself with jaw dropping sincerity as “not a particularly ideological person.” If true, then our president is either intentionally ignorant, incompetent, or just delusional when it comes to abortion.

Obamacare is feverously pitched to young women. Beyond all the window dressing of rights and sexual freedom, young women are seen as little more than reproductive units to be controlled with government-sponsored drugs and surgery. 

And when the price our young women are paying today comes due tomorrow, it will be too late.

Paul Rondeau is executive director of American Life League.

Back to news