The real “abortion scandal” is that the truth is being suppressed

 

By Dave Andrusko

Joel Brind, Ph.D.

Joel Brind, Ph.D.

The headline in today’s edition of the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph screamed “Abortion Scandal.”

Surely this must be an update of last year’s decision by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) not to prosecute two abortionists who were willing to abort female babies, not because there wasn’t sufficient evidence, but because prosecution would not be in the “public interest.” This astonishing conclusion followed a 19-month investigation spurred by the uncover work of Daily Telegraph demonstrated beyond dispute that there are abortionists in England who will abort a child because the mother says she does not want a girl.

But, actually, no. The full headline reads, “Abortion scandal: ‘abortions increase breast cancer risk’, claims counselor.”

The “scandal” is that a counselor at a Crisis Pregnancy Centers told an undercover reporter for the newspaper that an abortion could increase their risk of developing breast cancer. And that the same adviser said “women who had terminations were 25 percent less likely to be able to carry a pregnancy to full term.”

Why is that a “scandal”? Because the ultra-pro-abortion Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said there was “absolutely no evidence” that women were more likely to develop breast cancer” [after having an abortion]. The RCOG also “described the suggestion that they were less likely to be able to carry a pregnancy to full term as ‘absolutely wrong.’”

This is, of course, the wedge that pro-abortionists in the United States use to pry legal protections away from CPCs: they are “lying” when they talk about abortion’s detrimental effects. And that sweeping allegation includes any assertion that there are future problems for women and/or subsequent pregnancies following one (or more) abortions.

But there is an abundance of evidence for what Joel Brind, Ph.D., has aptly called the “ABC Link” (between abortion and an increased incidence of breast cancer). Here are a just a few stories about studies showing that link that are very, very recent: nrlc.cc/1gnsRVv ; nrlc.cc/1eOzaTB; nrlc.cc/1gnt2jL; and nrlc.cc/1eOzotU.

Likewise, there are umpteen studies documenting the detrimental psychological and medical after-shocks of abortion. The best overview is found in “Complications: Abortion’s Impact on Women.”

Quick thought: why would anyone think it unusual to conclude that scraping and cutting around a woman’s reproductive organs would increase the likelihood that she would be able to successfully carry subsequent babies?

For an excellent factsheet on “Abortion’s Physical Complications,” download www.nrlc.org/uploads/factsheets/FS06AbortionPhsysicalComplications.pdf

Please join those who are following me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.