|From: The Pro-Life Infonet
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt
Subject: Self Magazine Accused of Bias on Abortion-Breast Cancer
Source: Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer; July 25, 2002
Accused of Bias on Abortion-Breast Cancer Link
Chicago, IL -- The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer denounced Self Magazine
for having published an article misrepresenting 45 years of
research which implicate abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.
an August 2002 article entitled, "Abortion and breast cancer: The truth
trial," Barry Yeoman attempted to persuade women that the
cancer link is nothing more than a "controversial theory."
Self Magazine, whose masthead claims it's the "founder of the pink
ribbon," sells advertising space to pharmaceutical companies which manufacture
abortifacients. "I'm not surprised that Self Magazine wants to jump
disinformation bandwagon," argued Mrs. Malec, president of the
"History has a way of repeating itself. In the 1950's, newspapers and
magazines were disinterested in informing the public about risks
with tobacco because of the hefty revenues received from tobacco
advertising. Only Readers Digest informed smokers about the risks
it didn't accept advertising at that time. It published an article
entitled, "Cancer by the Carton," and accused the tobacco industry of
covering up the link between tobacco and lung cancer."
Yeoman assured his readers that the National Cancer Institute (NCI),
World Health Organization (WHO) and the American Cancer Society (ACS)
reviewed the claims (about abortion as a risk factor) and declared them
flawed." Yet, early this month, the NCI removed from its website an
erroneous fact sheet discussing the abortion-breast cancer link. Most
the 15 American studies exploring a link were funded, at least in part,
the NCI, and 13 of them found increased risk. Mrs. Malec asked, "Does
Yeoman really expect women to believe that these scientists, whose
was paid for by U.S. taxpayers, don't really practice science?"
Let's review the facts. Research published in 1997 and authored by a
scientist working for the ACS, Phyllis Wingo, showed increased risk,
she refused to say so in her conclusions. In 1986 she worked for the
Centers for Disease Control when she co-authored a letter to the
journal, Lancet, and said "Induced abortion before first term pregnancy
increases the risk of breast cancer."
The WHO published a widely recognized landmark study in its journal,
Bulletin of the World Health Organization, in 1970 which found that the
earlier a woman had a first full term pregnancy (FFTP), the lower her
for breast cancer is. The WHO study also found a "suggested increased
associated with abortion - contrary to the reduction in risk associated
with full term births."
Mrs. Malec said, "WHO denies that abortion causes breast cancer, but
acknowledges that early FFTP reduces risk. That is not only illogical,
but also disingenuous."
Just recently, Lancet published what was touted as a landmark study by
Valerie Beral et al., although their findings were nothing new. It was
reported that women who bear more children and who breast feed longer
reduce their risks for breast cancer.
"Scientists and anti-cancer organizations have long acknowledged
this," said Mrs. Malec, "yet they've been completely silent for three decades
while a war has been waged on women's health - an aggressive marketing
campaign promoting sales of abortions and abortifacients and funded by
nation's wealthiest entrepreneurs, corporations and foundations. Although early age at FFTP has long been considered the strongest protective
against the disease, our nation's cancer watchdogs did nothing to
a nationwide public health awareness program for married women. Instead,
they watched women's breast cancer rates surge to unprecedented levels
concealed the fact that abortion was being studied as an independent
factor for the disease throughout the last half of the 20th Century. Now
they expect us to believe them when they say that abortion doesn't
breast cancer, although they never wanted women to know about the
in the first place."
Yeoman offered quotes from officials at several organizations which can
expected to deny a link, including: 1) Planned Parenthood, the nation's
largest abortion provider; 2) Family Health International, a family
planning group which, the Population Research Institute reported, was
funds to develop quinacrine hydrochloride pills for use in developing
nations (The pills are inserted into a woman's uterus, usually
surreptitiously, and cause a severe chemical burn that scars shut her
fallopian tubes); and 3) Breast Cancer Action in San Francisco, some of
whose board members are self-described "reproductive rights" and gay
"Apparently, Yeoman thinks women shouldn't worry their pretty little
about the safety of abortion," Mrs. Malec asserted. I wonder whether
choose to have an optional surgical procedure - a vasectomy, for
instance if strong biological evidence and 28 out of 37 studies published over
nearly a half century in peer reviewed journals supported a causal
relationship between vasectomies and prostate cancer? Would he
get a vasectomy if a medical text cited the procedure as a risk factor
prostate cancer and if four medical organizations recognized a link?
Wouldn't he want to be told the truth about the research by physicians
men's magazines? Why are women deserving of anything less?"
[pro-life reports] [home]