By Dave Andrusko
Talk about a coincidence. On the same day a pro-abortionist writes still another phony baloney criticism of the demonstrated link between having an induced abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer, a reader writes to ask me to fold into one post all four parts of Prof. Joel Brind’s brilliant explanation of what he calls the “ABC link.” So instead of a point by point rebuttal of “Do Abortions Cause Breast Cancer? The shaky science behind Kansas’ House Abortion Act,” I can direct the reader to www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2012/05/four-part-series-on-the-abortion-breast-cancer-link-abc-link.
But Elaine Schattner’s essay merits one general and one specific comment. To begin with, it is impossible for pro-abortionists to get their heads around the biology that explains WHY it only makes sense that having an induced abortion would increase a woman’s risk of having breast cancer.
Impossible not because they are dumb, but impossible because to do so would be to recognize (and eventually admit) that abortion not only takes a baby’s life but that there are also negative consequences for the mother as well. That is a road down which they resolutely refuse to take even one step.
But at the core of her essay at Slate.com is this cutesy paragraph:
“What’s curious from a med-ethics standpoint is the way in which anti-abortion activists have adopted the language of patient empowerment, like a Woman’s Right To Know, and turned it upside down. The nascent laws insist that those contemplating the procedure be made aware of a falsehood or, at best, an unproved and frightening correlation. They stipulate confusion rather than informed consent.”
Get it? Turned “patient empowerment” upside down. But is that really the case?
Of course not, and the reason Schattner can say this is….because she can say that. As Prof. Brind has explained countless times, if you look carefully at the research which purports to debunk the ABC link, it is riddled with errors, inconsistencies, conflates spontaneous abortion with induced abortion, and demonstrates a penchant for including studies that are not peer-reviewed, if they go against an ABC link, and excluding studies that are peer-reviewed, if the buttress the case for an ABC link.
The irony of Schattner’s last paragraph is incredible. She writes, “If I were to counsel a woman contemplating an abortion, that’s what I’d say. We know too little.”
The fact is we know too much NOT to counsel the woman to consider the increased risk of breast cancer she will incur if she has that abortion.
Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to email@example.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha