“Dick Rowland Image”
”Shoots (News, Views and Quotes)”
– 8/14/03 — News from AAPS: Summer Issue of Journal Exposes Suppression
of Evidence of Abortion – Breast Cancer Link
Medical Journal: Political Correctness Prevents Women from Learning
About Abortion Risks
Politics Trumps Science in Abortion – Breast Cancer Link
Washington – Aug 14, 2003 — Scientists, women’s groups, and the media
have consistently suppressed or ignored research that establishes a
direct link between abortion and breast cancer for their own political
purposes. Further, women considering abortion are not given true
informed consent about the real risks of the procedure as a result of
withholding this evidence.
Those are the conclusions of the new study published in the Summer 2003
Issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
(JP&S) titled “The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: How Politics Trumped
Science and Informed Consent.” The article discusses the epidemiologic
evidence of an ABC link; the silence and denial of the National Cancer
Institute, the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association
and women’s groups; media bias; the bitter opposition of pro-abortion
politicians; the implications for patient care; and medical malpractice
issues. A companion article documents at least 49 studies that
demonstrate a statistically significant increase in premature births or
low birth weight with prior induced abortions.
Karen Malec, author of the article on the abortion-breast cancer link,
suggests that the U.S. Supreme Court might have come to a different
finding in Roe v. Wade if the science had been available to them while
making their decision: “A reason cited for the decision was that modern
aseptic technique and antibiotics made it possible for abortions to be
performed safely. The court’s opinion might have been different if the
justices had been aware of earlier epidemiological research supporting a
relationship between abortion and breast cancer.”
Malec shows how several studies conducted as early as 1957 showing the
link were suppressed or ignored, as were later post-Roe studies that
showed significantly higher rates of breast cancer in the “Roe
Generation.” For example, Brind et al estimated that in 1996 an excess
of 5,000 cases of breast cancer were attributable to abortion, and that
the annual excess would increase by 500 cases each year. They predicted
25,000 excess cases in the year 2036.
Authors of studies actually denied their own findings when political
heat was applied. One lead author of a record-linkage case study in
1989 worked with a group of American Cancer Society ACS) researchers who
reviewed the research. By then 11 of 12 US studies indicated increased
risk, but she still stated the research — including her own — was
“inconsistent” and that she could not arrive at “definitive
conclusions.”
The scientific and medical community admits that the reasons for the
suppression are political. The president of the American Society of
Breast Surgeons said that she presented her concerns about getting
information to the public about the abortion-breast cancer link, but the
board felt it was “too political.” The director of the Miami Breast
Cancer Conference explained that there was no presentation on the
program because it was “too political.”
The author found that the web pages of the National Cancer Institute
(NCI) and leading American and Canadian cancer organizations contain
false statements, misrepresentation, and omissions in their discussions.
Yet when pressured by scientists to post studies that show a 2.4 fold
increase in breast cancer risk, pro-choice activist cried foul, accusing
them of using “pro-life scare tactics.” Equally astounding is the fact
that most of the 15 American studies were funded at least in part by the
NCI, and 13 of them found increased risk.
For their efforts to inform women about the studies that the NCI forgot
to mention, the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer was compared to the
Taliban in a newspaper.
In conclusion, the author writes that in the end, it may be the trial
lawyers, not the medical community, who force full disclosure through
liability litigation against those who perform abortions without
providing women with fully informed disclosure about the elevated risk.
Above article is quoted from Association of American Physicians &
Surgeons Press Release 8/14/03 https://www.aapsonline.org
– Howard Dean is No Fiscal Conservative
An Aug. 3 front-page story regarding Howard Dean’s fiscal record during
his tenure as governor of Vermont called Mr. Dean a “fiscal
conservative.”
According to Americans for Tax Reform’s Cost of Government Day report,
the average Vermonter worked 60 days to pay for Vermont spending in
1992. By 2001, the average resident needed to work an additional two
weeks — 75 days — because state spending rose so much faster than
family income. State employment soared under Mr. Dean as well. From
1997 to 2002, Vermont’s workforce grew from 7,196 (6,939 employees
plus 257 vacancies) to 8,239 (7,791 employees plus 448 vacancies).
That’s a 14.5 percent increase in just the last half of the Dean
administration. Being a fiscal conservative means more than balancing
a budget or allowing a scheduled tax sunset to proceed. Being a fiscal
conservative means resisting the growth of government and cutting
taxes. Those looking for a fiscally conservative Democrat for
president must look beyond the Dean campaign.
”Roots (Food for Thought)”
– Lessons in Political Humility
By John Hood
RALEIGH — At a recent lunch with a friend in Salisbury, I happened to
be downstairs at a restaurant where gubernatorial candidate Patrick
Ballantine was upstairs introducing himself to a gathering of prominent
Rowan County Republicans. After the meeting, I got a chance to visit
with some of the attendees.
Two of them had a lot to say about politics in general and the
governor’s race in particular, though most was off the record. But one
common denominator in both of their reactions stood out: until that day,
they told me, they did not know who Patrick Ballantine was.
This isn’t meant to be a reflection on Ballantine, a 10-year veteran of
the state senate from Wilmington and currently the minority leader in
the chamber. He’s about as well known as anyone else would be in his
position, if not more so. The point is that most North Carolinians, even
those who are politically active, do not follow the legislature closely
enough to know many of the players — other than, perhaps, their own
representative or senator.
Nor is this lack of recognition limited to state officials. A recent
poll reported in the Washington weekly The Hill, 41 percent of Americans
did not recognize the name of Dennis Hastert, the current speaker of the
U.S. House and third-in-line to the presidency. About the same
percentage did not know Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic minority leader
from California.
Perhaps some would view this as an opportunity to deliver a
finger-wagging civics lecture about how irresponsible people are and how
our representative government is doomed. I don’t. Sure, I’d like voters
to be better informed, and I like to think that our efforts at Carolina
Journal and the John Locke Foundation are improving the situation a bit.
But it’s important to keep things in perspective. For most voters, the
cost of acquiring political knowledge, at least as it is currently
delivered, is higher than the value they place on it. Consequently, they
engage in “rational ignorance.” They choose to focus their attention on
acquiring knowledge that they believe will be more useful in everyday
life. A tradeoff is inevitable.
Interest in politics can certainly change, and there are surely ways for
politicians and activists to communicate more effectively their views
and agendas. But the public’s priorities aren’t all that malleable. The
best thing for politicians to do is to keep a sense of humility. Just
because their word is, quite literally, law on Capitol Hill or within
the environs of Raleigh’s Jones Street doesn’t mean they should expect
great public notoriety or deference.
Getting into politics is a little like joining a monastic order. (No
snickering; remember, I said only a “little like.”) Those who live in
the cozy cloister of politics shouldn’t expect everyone else
automatically to recognize and respect their ordination. Much missionary
work is required.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation and publisher of Carolina
Journal.
Above article is quoted from the Carolina Journal, John Hood’s Daily
Journal 8/14/03 https://www.carolinajournal.com
”Evergreen (Today’s Quotes)”
“The words of Thomas Jefferson come to mind: “Honor, justice, and
humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received
from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a
right to receive from us.”
“Funny how our gallant ancestors had gallant ancestors of their own.
Let’s pray we all fit that description someday.”
Above quotes are from The Evergreen Freedom Foundation 8/12/03
”’Edited by Richard O. Rowland, president of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, 1314 S. King Street, Suite 1163, Honolulu, HI 96814. Phone/fax is 808-591-9193, cell phone is 808-864-1776. Send him an email at:”’ mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com ”’See the Web site at:”’ https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/