Barbara Kay: Tough questions on the health risks of abortion remain
October 23, 2015
(reprinted with permission from the author)
October is International Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Upcoming, November is International Preterm Birth Awareness Month. “Uh oh,” I can almost hear certain pro-choice stakeholders muttering: “Is she actually going there?” Yep. Fasten your seat belts, readers. Like they say in those corny action movies, “I’m going in!”
“In” is the political war zone of Induced Abortion (IA) research in which the contested territory are the links between IA with i) future preterm birth and ii) elevated rates of breast cancer (known as ABC). The links are there. Nations that proscribe abortion have low premature-birth rates and low breast cancer rates. Nations with high abortion rates have high rates of premature birth and breast cancer. But are the links causal or coincidental? An army of pro-choice obstetricians and gynecologists and their supporting institutions deny causality. A battalion of (both pro-life and pro-choice) researchers and epidemiologists producing reams of large-scale, peer-reviewed studies insist on causality.
Full disclosure: I have no personal dog in this hunt (never had an abortion or miscarriage or preterm birth myself, or breast cancer). My views on abortion are not dictated by religious belief. Politically I’m neither pro-life nor pro-choice. Like the majority of Canadians I believe in regulation. Sex selection abortion, for example, really disgusts me, but even pragmatically speaking, we need regulation so we can collect the data we need for research. One thing I don’t believe is that the science on any reproductive intervention on a woman’s body — IA, IVF, surrogacy or whatever — is “settled.”
My “ideology” is therefore pro-scientific research that is untainted by political correctness, and pro-informed consent. But our culture can’t seem to get beyond the “rights” aspect of abortion into the “data” aspect. Ambiguity around what is promoted as a risk-free surgery can dampen women’s confidence, obviously. But if the risks actually exist, what benefit to women is there in suppressing knowledge of it?
That is the main point I make as an interviewee in a new documentary film that just premiered in Los Angeles. “Hush” is dedicated to exploring the effects of internal politics on scientific inquiry into women’s reproductive health. To be more precise, the politics that kick in on one issue only: abortion. It’s actually kind of weird: There is no controversy surrounding the elevated breast cancer risks causally linked with childlessness, late-start pregnancy, early menstruation, the Pill and hormone replacement therapy. All these causes, known because of continuing research, have one thing in common — estrogen proliferation. But suggest a causal link between estrogen-proliferative IA and breast cancer — and watch the fur fly!
The film’s director, Punam Kumar Gill, a respected member of the arts community and a Chatelaine nominee for “woman of the year” has served as writer, director and producer on seven documentary films to date. She brings a deft combination of personal motivation and investigative acumen to her task.
Gill, who considers herself a “product of feminism,” had always assumed IA was safe and without harmful effects. That changed some years ago, when the sudden onset of pre-eclampsia in her second trimester of pregnancy resulted in the spontaneous abortion of her baby. When she attempted to gather information on possible health consequences, Gill encountered resistance amongst health professionals to discussion of any risks. She was further troubled by the bromides set out by health organizations on their websites, as well as by the disparity in public policies around informed consent in different jurisdictions. In Canada and many states, as the film notes, abortion seekers are given no routine pre-surgery counselling, while 35 states mandate pre-abortion counselling, 25 cite IA-linked fertility risks, and five cite the potential ABC link.
What you will mainly see in Hush, apart from graphically illuminated revelations of research suppression amongst health organizations, notably the National Cancer Institute, is Gill talking to people, including amongst others: women whose abortions resulted in physical and psychological complications they were not advised might happen; an internationally prominent gynecologist who denies that IA involves any significant consequences whatsoever, and who considers continued research unnecessary; a breast surgical oncologist disturbed by her growing roster of patients with aggressive breast cancer in the 25-39 cohort, many with a history of IA; and a statistician studying eight European-Scandinavian countries who finds IA “to be the best predictor of breast cancer.”
Women’s reproductive health issues are the third rail of the medical profession. I rarely see an objective news article on abortion, fertility or female cancers that is not immediately either attacked or defended from a politicized perspective, rather than simply assessed on its own terms. I think Hush, which seems to me an objective overview of the situation, should be seen by pro-choice women, pro-life women and women who are simply concerned about themselves or their daughters achieving their reproductive goals with optimal chances for long-term health. That is to say, by pretty well all women.
Showing posts with label Abortion Breast Cancer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abortion Breast Cancer. Show all posts
Friday, October 23, 2015
Friday, February 14, 2014
Pinko Pepsi
Today my sister and I saw a pink Pepsi truck. It was doing the breast cancer industry a great big favour with their "support" breast cancer schtick.
That's the very same industry that refuses to acknowledge any possible link between abortion and breast cancer.
This week while shopping, I saw Cashmere toilet paper at a great price. But when I looked to see if the breast cancer industry logo was still on the package, and it was, I said nope, not buying that.
And now I won't buy Pepsi. Not that I buy Pepsi in the first place. But if I did, well I wouldn't anymore.
For more on the ABC link see here.
As Barbara Kay wrote in the National Post on the recent ABC research done in China.
That's the very same industry that refuses to acknowledge any possible link between abortion and breast cancer.
This week while shopping, I saw Cashmere toilet paper at a great price. But when I looked to see if the breast cancer industry logo was still on the package, and it was, I said nope, not buying that.
And now I won't buy Pepsi. Not that I buy Pepsi in the first place. But if I did, well I wouldn't anymore.
For more on the ABC link see here.
As Barbara Kay wrote in the National Post on the recent ABC research done in China.
In what has been described as a “real game changer” in breast cancer research, a new peer-reviewed study from China not only endorses the long-mooted link between IA and breast cancer, but concludes the risk rises with every abortion a woman has. The study, “A meta-analysis of the association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk among Chinese females” was published last week in Cancer Causes and Control, an international cancer journal.Even after this recent study, what do we still find on the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation's web site?
MYTH: Abortion and miscarriage cause breast cancerPretty sure I won't be buying anything pink anytime soon.
THE FACTS: Abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer. Scientific evidence demonstrates that there is no link between breast cancer and spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) or induced abortion.
Monday, August 8, 2011
No pink for me
I responded to Thinking pink may impede breast cancer support: study with this letter in the National Post:
Why I am not thinking pink
National Post · Jul. 30, 2011
Re: Thinking Pink May Impede Breast Cancer Support, July 28.
There are two reasons why I refuse to purchase any products with the pink ribbon, even though I know women who have had breast cancer.
The first is that the whole "pink ribbon" thing has come to symbolize what has become a huge industry in and of itself. According to Charity Intelligence, breast cancer receives 36 times more money from donors than colorectal cancer. And those dollars have little impact on breast cancer prevention.
Charity Intelligence also tells us that breast cancer is the most funded cancer in Canada and receives 28% of all Canadian cancer funding, even though breast cancer represents fewer than 10% of all cancer deaths.
The second reason is that the breast cancer industry refuses to acknowledge the possibility of a link between abortion and breast cancer. It categorically refuses to even consider any evidence in that area. And it refuses to inform women of that possible link as well.
So I refuse to "think pink".
Patricia Maloney, Ottawa.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This elicited a response from Dr. Gail Erlick Robinson, University of Toronto director, Women's Mental Health Program University Health Network, Toronto.
Dr. Robinson says in 2003 the National Cancer Institute and a panel of 100 experts assessed the ABC studies. They concluded there was no link between having an abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer, reaffirming this in 2010.
"Despite this strong statement, anti-abortion groups continue to claim there is a relationship."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Robinson's letter elicited this letter from Joel Brind
Abortion and cancer link (II)
National Post · Aug. 5, 2011
Re: No Abortion and Cancer Link, letter to the editor, Aug. 3.
Letter-writer Dr. Gail Erlick Robinson cites the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) to claim there is no abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link. Specifically, Dr. Robinson cites the NCI's 2003 "panel of 100 experts" who concluded so. I was one of those experts, but my minority report was only cited by the NCI without disclosing where to find it (It is posted on bcpinstitute.org.) My report exposed that panel - organized as a so-called "workshop" - as a political sham.
Dr. Robinson further states: "This finding [of no link] was reaffirmed in 2010." True, but the reaffirmation on the NCI's website was merely a response to the organizer of the 2003 "workshop" who was caught with her proverbial pants down, when she co-authored a paper in 2009 that reaffirmed the ABC link.
Joel Brind, professor of biology and endocrinology, Baruch College, City University of New York, New York.
----------------------------------------------------------
and from Dr. Angela Lanfranchi:
National Post · Aug. 5, 2011
Despite the NCI's conclusion after its 2003 workshop that abortion is not a risk for breast cancer, that conclusion flies in the face of widely known reproductive risks. An abortion does not turn back the clock and make a pregnant woman "unpregnant." If she chooses to have a full-term pregnancy, she will have a lower risk of breast cancer. Since it was first reported in 1743 that nuns have a higher breast cancer risk, medicine has known that a pregnancy lowers a woman's risk of breast cancer.
If she chooses an induced abortion, she will either remain childless, a well-established risk of breast cancer, or delay her pregnancy until she is older, also a well-established risk of breast cancer. In fact, for each year she delays a full-term pregnancy, she increases her risk of premenopausal breast cancer 5% and postmenopausal cancer 3%.
The NCI also disregarded the cigarette lung cancer risk until the 1960s, 30 years after the first study linking the two was published.
Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, clinical assistant professor of surgery, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------
Yesterday three more letters were published on the National Post's website.
Dr. Andrew Caruk, Kitchener, Ont. Dr. Karuk says in part:
"It seems that no amount of common sense, scientific reason or past experiences will persuade anti-life people to see the truth."
Jakki Jeffs, executive director, Alliance for Life Ontario, Guelph, Ont. Ms. Jeffs says in part:
"Seventy epidemiological studies dating from 1957 have been conducted, and approximately 80% report a correlation between having an abortion and increased breast cancer risk."
Denise Mountenay. Ms Mountenay sums it up nicely:
"The evidence is clear, we hold the cancer society’s accountable for not informing women about the link, and demand them to do their homework and begin a massive education campaign that will truly prevent women from getting breast cancer. That is to promote motherhood and breastfeeding and renounce induced abortions to save lives of women and their children. If only they would remember that one ounce of prevention, is worth a ton of cure. No pink for me!"
I guess I'm not the only person who refuses to think pink.
Why I am not thinking pink
National Post · Jul. 30, 2011
Re: Thinking Pink May Impede Breast Cancer Support, July 28.
There are two reasons why I refuse to purchase any products with the pink ribbon, even though I know women who have had breast cancer.
The first is that the whole "pink ribbon" thing has come to symbolize what has become a huge industry in and of itself. According to Charity Intelligence, breast cancer receives 36 times more money from donors than colorectal cancer. And those dollars have little impact on breast cancer prevention.
Charity Intelligence also tells us that breast cancer is the most funded cancer in Canada and receives 28% of all Canadian cancer funding, even though breast cancer represents fewer than 10% of all cancer deaths.
The second reason is that the breast cancer industry refuses to acknowledge the possibility of a link between abortion and breast cancer. It categorically refuses to even consider any evidence in that area. And it refuses to inform women of that possible link as well.
So I refuse to "think pink".
Patricia Maloney, Ottawa.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This elicited a response from Dr. Gail Erlick Robinson, University of Toronto director, Women's Mental Health Program University Health Network, Toronto.
Dr. Robinson says in 2003 the National Cancer Institute and a panel of 100 experts assessed the ABC studies. They concluded there was no link between having an abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer, reaffirming this in 2010.
"Despite this strong statement, anti-abortion groups continue to claim there is a relationship."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Robinson's letter elicited this letter from Joel Brind
Abortion and cancer link (II)
National Post · Aug. 5, 2011
Re: No Abortion and Cancer Link, letter to the editor, Aug. 3.
Letter-writer Dr. Gail Erlick Robinson cites the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) to claim there is no abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link. Specifically, Dr. Robinson cites the NCI's 2003 "panel of 100 experts" who concluded so. I was one of those experts, but my minority report was only cited by the NCI without disclosing where to find it (It is posted on bcpinstitute.org.) My report exposed that panel - organized as a so-called "workshop" - as a political sham.
Dr. Robinson further states: "This finding [of no link] was reaffirmed in 2010." True, but the reaffirmation on the NCI's website was merely a response to the organizer of the 2003 "workshop" who was caught with her proverbial pants down, when she co-authored a paper in 2009 that reaffirmed the ABC link.
Joel Brind, professor of biology and endocrinology, Baruch College, City University of New York, New York.
----------------------------------------------------------
and from Dr. Angela Lanfranchi:
National Post · Aug. 5, 2011
Despite the NCI's conclusion after its 2003 workshop that abortion is not a risk for breast cancer, that conclusion flies in the face of widely known reproductive risks. An abortion does not turn back the clock and make a pregnant woman "unpregnant." If she chooses to have a full-term pregnancy, she will have a lower risk of breast cancer. Since it was first reported in 1743 that nuns have a higher breast cancer risk, medicine has known that a pregnancy lowers a woman's risk of breast cancer.
If she chooses an induced abortion, she will either remain childless, a well-established risk of breast cancer, or delay her pregnancy until she is older, also a well-established risk of breast cancer. In fact, for each year she delays a full-term pregnancy, she increases her risk of premenopausal breast cancer 5% and postmenopausal cancer 3%.
The NCI also disregarded the cigarette lung cancer risk until the 1960s, 30 years after the first study linking the two was published.
Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, clinical assistant professor of surgery, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------
Yesterday three more letters were published on the National Post's website.
Dr. Andrew Caruk, Kitchener, Ont. Dr. Karuk says in part:
"It seems that no amount of common sense, scientific reason or past experiences will persuade anti-life people to see the truth."
Jakki Jeffs, executive director, Alliance for Life Ontario, Guelph, Ont. Ms. Jeffs says in part:
"Seventy epidemiological studies dating from 1957 have been conducted, and approximately 80% report a correlation between having an abortion and increased breast cancer risk."
Denise Mountenay. Ms Mountenay sums it up nicely:
"The evidence is clear, we hold the cancer society’s accountable for not informing women about the link, and demand them to do their homework and begin a massive education campaign that will truly prevent women from getting breast cancer. That is to promote motherhood and breastfeeding and renounce induced abortions to save lives of women and their children. If only they would remember that one ounce of prevention, is worth a ton of cure. No pink for me!"
I guess I'm not the only person who refuses to think pink.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
If ABC is real, what then?
Today I discovered that WonderBra also supports the Breast Cancer Industry (BCI). So I sent them my letter.
The Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation also lists all the products that support the BCI. And they have a shaving cream load of products too. Of course all one needs to do, is look for that little pink ribbon on product packaging.
I just had a crazy thought. Imagine the following scenario.
It's some time in the future. Research finally, and conclusively tells us that, yes indeed, abortion is a contributing factor to breast cancer. What will happen to all those women who have had an abortion, but never knew of the possible ABC link, because nobody ever told them about it?
(Think about it. If ABC is possible, any woman who chooses to have an abortion, should at the very least, obtain more breast cancer screening and/or mammograms, than women who have never had an abortion.)
Maybe they will get real cranky pants, and you know, launch a class action suit against the Industry and/or the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. Sort of like what people did with the tobacco companies. For not telling them about the risks of smoking.
That would be interesting, don't you think?
The Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation also lists all the products that support the BCI. And they have a shaving cream load of products too. Of course all one needs to do, is look for that little pink ribbon on product packaging.
I just had a crazy thought. Imagine the following scenario.
It's some time in the future. Research finally, and conclusively tells us that, yes indeed, abortion is a contributing factor to breast cancer. What will happen to all those women who have had an abortion, but never knew of the possible ABC link, because nobody ever told them about it?
(Think about it. If ABC is possible, any woman who chooses to have an abortion, should at the very least, obtain more breast cancer screening and/or mammograms, than women who have never had an abortion.)
Maybe they will get real cranky pants, and you know, launch a class action suit against the Industry and/or the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. Sort of like what people did with the tobacco companies. For not telling them about the risks of smoking.
That would be interesting, don't you think?
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Breast cancer prevention
Not only does the Breast Cancer Industry receive 36 times more money from donors than colorectal cancer, but those dollars have little impact on breast cancer prevention.
On page 38 of Charity Intelligence Canada's report Cancer in Canada there is a graph that identifies the Opportunity for Donor Impact of the top cancers in Canada.
Under the prevention column you see there are no dollar signs for Breast Cancer. According to the legend on the graph, this means there is:
"Limited or no opportunity for donor impact".
Page 41 says:
"Breast Cancer in Canada: Donor opportunity for impact – Very Low, due to saturation and past success"
And yet we know there is evidence that points to a possible link between breast cancer and abortion, a link the Breast Cancer Industry refuses to acknowledge.
The report also summarizes some of other cancers and their donor impacts:
"Pancreatic Cancer: Donor opportunity for impact – Very High
Lung Cancer: Donor opportunity for impact – High
Colorectal Cancer: Donor opportunity for impact – High
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: Donor opportunity for impact – Moderate to High
Ovarian Cancer: Donor opportunity for impact – Moderate to High"
On page 41 the report summarizes breast cancer funding in this way:
"Breast cancer is the most funded cancer – receiving 28% of all Canadian cancer funding, despite representing fewer than 10% of cancer deaths or PYLL [potential years of life lost]. Breast cancer receives 3 times the average of the other 9 top killers: more than $10,000 per breast cancer death. With 45 charities focused on breast cancer and high support from general cancer charities – and the resulting high survival rates – breast cancer has a low funding need relative to other cancers."
If breast cancer "has a low funding need relative to other cancers", why do we see that little pink ribbon on so many consumer products?
So, let's go out on a limb here.
Let's assume just for one tiny moment (work with me on this), that yes, there just might actually be an increase in the incidence of breast cancer for women who have had one or more previous abortions.
If we then started telling women about this evidence, letting them decide for themselves if it had merit, I wonder what might happen?
Maybe some women might opt out of choosing to have an abortion. Maybe some women might choose to keep their baby. Maybe some women would choose to put their baby up for adoption instead.
I wonder how much breast cancer prevention we might see then?
On page 38 of Charity Intelligence Canada's report Cancer in Canada there is a graph that identifies the Opportunity for Donor Impact of the top cancers in Canada.
Under the prevention column you see there are no dollar signs for Breast Cancer. According to the legend on the graph, this means there is:
"Limited or no opportunity for donor impact".
Page 41 says:
"Breast Cancer in Canada: Donor opportunity for impact – Very Low, due to saturation and past success"
And yet we know there is evidence that points to a possible link between breast cancer and abortion, a link the Breast Cancer Industry refuses to acknowledge.
The report also summarizes some of other cancers and their donor impacts:
"Pancreatic Cancer: Donor opportunity for impact – Very High
Lung Cancer: Donor opportunity for impact – High
Colorectal Cancer: Donor opportunity for impact – High
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: Donor opportunity for impact – Moderate to High
Ovarian Cancer: Donor opportunity for impact – Moderate to High"
On page 41 the report summarizes breast cancer funding in this way:
"Breast cancer is the most funded cancer – receiving 28% of all Canadian cancer funding, despite representing fewer than 10% of cancer deaths or PYLL [potential years of life lost]. Breast cancer receives 3 times the average of the other 9 top killers: more than $10,000 per breast cancer death. With 45 charities focused on breast cancer and high support from general cancer charities – and the resulting high survival rates – breast cancer has a low funding need relative to other cancers."
If breast cancer "has a low funding need relative to other cancers", why do we see that little pink ribbon on so many consumer products?
So, let's go out on a limb here.
Let's assume just for one tiny moment (work with me on this), that yes, there just might actually be an increase in the incidence of breast cancer for women who have had one or more previous abortions.
If we then started telling women about this evidence, letting them decide for themselves if it had merit, I wonder what might happen?
Maybe some women might opt out of choosing to have an abortion. Maybe some women might choose to keep their baby. Maybe some women would choose to put their baby up for adoption instead.
I wonder how much breast cancer prevention we might see then?
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Breast cancer industry won't tell you about ABC
The Ottawa Citizen's Randall Denley tells us that:
"colorectal cancer killed an estimated 9,100 Canadians last year. It’s the second-deadliest cancer, after lung cancer. Breast cancer took 5,400 lives and has an 89-per-cent survival rate, and yet breast cancer received 36 times more money from donors than colorectal cancer."
Not only does the breast cancer industry get all that money from individual donors, but all manner of household products now endorse the breast cancer industry with their pink ribbon logo.
The breast cancer industry also refuses to inform women about the possible link between breast cancer and abortion (ABC). So I've decided to start boycotting these companies when I see the pink ribbon on their products.
Recently I sent an email to Kruger and to Country Harvest Bread because of the pink ribbon.
This is what I wrote to Country Harvest Bread:
I used to purchase your bread products frequently.
However recently I note that all of your bread products support the Breast Cancer Industry with the pink ribbon logo on your packaging. So I have decided to boycott your products because of this, and will encourage others to do the same.
You see, the Breast Cancer Industry refuses to acknowledge the possible link between abortion and breast cancer (ABC). Many studies have shown evidence for a link between abortion and Breast Cancer, evidence the Breast Cancer Industry continues to dismiss. For further information please see:
http://www.bcpinstitute.org/nci_minority_rpt.htm
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.ca/
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.ca/Abortion%20and%20Breast%20Cancer%20-%20The%20Link%20That%20Won't%20Go%20Away.pdf
http://www.difficultchoices.org/2011/01/a-link-between-abortion-and-breast-cancer/
http://www.pinkmoney.org/criteria_causal_a_bc.htm
Should you decide to
a) stop supporting the Breast Cancer Industry,
or
b) acknowledge the possible ABC link,
I will again start purchasing your products.
Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney
"colorectal cancer killed an estimated 9,100 Canadians last year. It’s the second-deadliest cancer, after lung cancer. Breast cancer took 5,400 lives and has an 89-per-cent survival rate, and yet breast cancer received 36 times more money from donors than colorectal cancer."
Not only does the breast cancer industry get all that money from individual donors, but all manner of household products now endorse the breast cancer industry with their pink ribbon logo.
The breast cancer industry also refuses to inform women about the possible link between breast cancer and abortion (ABC). So I've decided to start boycotting these companies when I see the pink ribbon on their products.
Recently I sent an email to Kruger and to Country Harvest Bread because of the pink ribbon.
This is what I wrote to Country Harvest Bread:
I used to purchase your bread products frequently.
However recently I note that all of your bread products support the Breast Cancer Industry with the pink ribbon logo on your packaging. So I have decided to boycott your products because of this, and will encourage others to do the same.
You see, the Breast Cancer Industry refuses to acknowledge the possible link between abortion and breast cancer (ABC). Many studies have shown evidence for a link between abortion and Breast Cancer, evidence the Breast Cancer Industry continues to dismiss. For further information please see:
http://www.bcpinstitute.org/nci_minority_rpt.htm
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.ca/
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.ca/Abortion%20and%20Breast%20Cancer%20-%20The%20Link%20That%20Won't%20Go%20Away.pdf
http://www.difficultchoices.org/2011/01/a-link-between-abortion-and-breast-cancer/
http://www.pinkmoney.org/criteria_causal_a_bc.htm
Should you decide to
a) stop supporting the Breast Cancer Industry,
or
b) acknowledge the possible ABC link,
I will again start purchasing your products.
Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney
Monday, May 3, 2010
The truth is a funny thing
Jen Skerritt in the Winnipeg Free Press reports on Women who had abortions report more depression, drug abuse: Study published in the Canadian Journal of Psychology
Pro-lifers have been talking about the psychological effects of abortion for years.
But Natalie Mota, a University of Manitoba graduate student who was the study's primary author says:
"You absolutely cannot say from this data that an abortion causes mental illness. There's an association present, but whether the mental illness comes before or after needs to be further examined."
Reminds me of the Abortion Breast Cancer Link which pro-abortion advocates also completely discounted until the main stream media started reporting on it.
Looks like the truth is leaking out. It can only contain itself for so long.
Pro-lifers have been talking about the psychological effects of abortion for years.
But Natalie Mota, a University of Manitoba graduate student who was the study's primary author says:
"You absolutely cannot say from this data that an abortion causes mental illness. There's an association present, but whether the mental illness comes before or after needs to be further examined."
Reminds me of the Abortion Breast Cancer Link which pro-abortion advocates also completely discounted until the main stream media started reporting on it.
Looks like the truth is leaking out. It can only contain itself for so long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)