Abortionists in this country are actively burying risk research just as tobacco companies did many decades ago. There are now literally piles of genuine medical research which show what most would deem dire elevated risks from abortion — not just to the baby killed in the procedure — but to the woman and also to the future siblings of the aborted baby.
Just as tobacco companies once deep-sixed any negative research on the smoker’s health and well-being, abortionists and their extensive lobbying web of far-left, social-engineering “feminists” now scamper to squelch every new research study which demonstrates elevated risk associated with their killing-field business model. In this diabolical scheme, abortionists are far, far worse than tobacco companies could ever have been, if only for the single reason that abortion is controlled not by known capitalistic corporations, but by the very people whom the public trusts for its healthcare.
We give our medical doctors all benefit of doubt and trust them implicitly to tell the truth, the whole truth as they know it and nothing but the truth — every single time.
Not even the most deluded ninny ever went to a tobacco shop seeking trustworthy medical advice.
No, that kind of trust is reserved to the medical community. So, when medical practitioners are less than fully truthful about risks to their wholly personal and invasive procedures, the public has a due right to be not only dumbfounded but outraged at the professional betrayal.
When the United States Supreme Court created a woman’s “right” to abortion in 1973, one of the reasons given was that modern cleanliness techniques and antibiotics made abortion safe. Safety to women was supposed to be the reason why the killing needed to be taken from the back alley coat-hanger wielders and into the modern, sterile confines of a real “medical” facility.
However, by 1973, many other countries had legalised abortion. The Soviets were the first to do so, followed quickly by China and the socialist-democracies of Western Europe. Some negative research on the abortion/breast cancer link already existed.
As pointed out in a detailed article by Karen Malec, “The abortion-breast cancer link: how politics trumped science and informed consent”, in the 2003 professional journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, the Justices either ignored or didn’t know about already-on-the-books research showing elevated risk of breast cancer for women having abortions.
Malec writes: “Two Japanese studies showed a positive association between induced abortion and breast cancer: a 1957 study reported a statistically significant relative risk of 2.61 and a 1968 study found a relative risk of 1.51.”
And that wasn’t all. Malec further points to a landmark World Health Organisation (WHO) study in 1970, by MacMahon et al, “Age at first birth and breast cancer risk”, which showed that early pregnancy and childbirth served to somewhat immunise a woman from breast cancer. This study estimated “that women having their first child when aged under 18 years have only about one-third the breast cancer risk of those whose first birth is delayed until the age of 36 years or more”. Results from MacMahon et al also showed that abortion might be an independent risk factor for breast cancer and suggested “an increased risk associated with abortion — contrary to the reduction in risk associated with full-term births”.
These studies all came prior to the United States Supreme Court’s landmark controversial decision, in the 1973 Roe vs. Wade case, that overturned many federal and state restrictions on abortion in the U.S.
If these early studies were on the mark, then one would expect to see a dramatic rise in breast cancer rates among American women due to abortion gaining such a distinguished imprimatur from both the medical and the legal communities of professionals. And sure enough, this dramatic rise has taken place right here in America. In 1975, fewer than one woman out of every 12 was likely to ever get breast cancer, almost always late in life. However, since 1975 those odds have increased to at least one in every eight American women and the age of onset has come markedly earlier.
To see this sharp rise in terms of the legalised-abortion date line, take a hard, cold look at a graph in a current cancer medicine textbook.
As even a layperson can easily see, breast cancer rates began their sharp rise in the late 1990s, just long enough for women who had taken advantage of legal and newly “safe” abortion to have developed the disease.
This is so ugly that it makes corporate tobacco kingpins look saintly in comparison.
Since 1973, as Malec also points out, the research has validated earlier concerns: “Thirty-eight epidemiological studies exploring an independent link between abortion and breast cancer have been published. Twenty-nine of these report risk elevations. Thirteen out of 15 American studies found risk elevations. Seventeen studies are statistically significant, 16 of which report increased risk. Biological evidence provides a plausible mechanism for this statistical association.”
With all this known risk, it seems more than a little fishy that the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the statistical arm of Planned Parenthood, still — to this very day — insists categorically in broad daylight on its own website that there is “NO association between abortion and breast cancer”. (Emphasis added).
Guttmacher contends that respected “panels” from both the U.S. and British governments concur with this assessment, which is formally true and is attested to on government websites as well. Guttmacher protests — too loudly to pass the commonsense test — that all this mountain of abortion/breast cancer research is done by its pro-life political opponents and that every single bit of it is “flawed” in some way.
Tobacco executives must surely stare in wonder at the unmitigated gall of these people.
No mention on any of these reassuring websites is made of the inescapable fact that both abortion and breast cancer treatment are mammoth business enterprises, which represent billions of dollars annually for the thoroughly-vested folks at Guttmacher, Planned Parenthood and every medical association and for-profit hospital and every pharmaceutical company in the world.
Not only that but it would take a ninny not to see how governments, which have vouched for and actively promoted the safety of abortion for decades now, would face an outraged public if this safety-imprimatur is shown to have been given without any real evidence to support it. Added together, these vested financial and governmental interests make those of tobacco companies look paltry and picayune in comparison.
But the link between abortion and breast cancer isn’t the only tip showing on the abortion negative-research iceberg.
More and more researchers are looking into what now seems a substantial link between induced abortions and later premature births. Being born prematurely is no small thing in a person’s life. Premature infants, even those born a mere few weeks early, bear a startling increase in a set of disabilities known by the acronym MACE. This cluster of disorders includes mental retardation, autism, cerebral palsy and epilepsy.
Very preterm newborns (under 32 weeks’ gestation) have 55 times the cerebral palsy risk as do full-term (at least 37 weeks) babies. Reproductive system infections in the mother have a known high risk for causing preterm births. Reproductive system infections are the most common complication of induced abortion, whether in the first trimester or later in the pregnancy.
Imagine a young woman walking unsuspectingly into an abortion “clinic”, and soothingly reassured that though she has chosen to “terminate” her first pregnancy, she ought have no fears whatsoever about future fertility or the well-being of future siblings of the little one she is about to have killed. This is precisely what happens. Right here. Right now.
Even though over the past decade, 26 states in the U.S. have passed Woman’s Right to Know legislation, which attempts to shed a little light on the very real risks of even early-term abortion, most of the informed consent literature continues to maintain that these procedures — especially those early in the pregnancy — are little more dangerous than having a tooth filled. The possibility of infection in one’s gum is of far less future concern to the patient, however, than an infection in one’s reproductive system.
I interviewed Canadian medical researcher, Brent Rooney (M.Sc), on his published professional articles dealing with elevated risk from prior induced abortions for premature births. Mr Rooney pointed out that when a patient reads the word, “infection”, in a sketchy informed consent document, there is a huge temptation in this modern age of effective antibiotics to regard this warning as “trivial”. Infection is anything but trivial when it comes to abortion.
He warns: “Reproductive tract infections may be the most important risk of induced abortions. A 1998 study by Krohn et al. reported that women who had an induced abortion in the previous pregnancy had four times the intra-amniotic infection risk (i.e., a womb infection) compared to women whose prior pregnancy went to term. Even the March of Dimes is pointing fingers at reproductive tract infections as a major cause of very premature deliveries.” (Emphasis in the original).
Yet, how many, mostly young, women walk into abortion “clinics” every day in America earnestly encouraged to believe that the only victim of this “terminated” pregnancy will be the unseen, developing baby about to be vacuumed “safely” from her womb? Reproductive tract infections might occur without her even being aware of it until she later tries to become pregnant. By then, it may be too late for the miracle antibiotics to work. And if she does become pregnant, that undetected infection will impose significant risk upon her “wanted” newborn for premature birth and the host of maladies associated with it.
This potential risk for lifelong disabilities in future children deserves a big, black warning box on all abortion facility literature. If we were dealing with anything but the sacred cow of abortion, I think we all know how stringent the health warnings would be.
Researchers Brent Rooney and Dr Byron Calhoun allowed me to review their soon-to-be-published article detailing their study showing that the “abortion-‘preemie’ effect elevates newborn autism and cerebral palsy risk”. This is scary stuff. Rooney and Calhoun cite systematic reviews by Shah and Swingle in 2009, which reported “that women with more than one previous induced abortion have nearly double the preterm risk as women who had no induced abortions”. Additionally, “Dr Evelyn Himpens’ 2008 systematic review and meta-analysis reported that very preterm newborn babies (between 28.0 and 32.0 weeks’ gestation) have 55 times the cerebral palsy risk compared to full-term newborns; babies under 28.0 weeks’ have 129 the cerebral palsy risk as do full-term babies.”
Some of the most damning abortion evidence has come from Poland, where the government passed a stringent abortion-restriction law in 1989, which reduced their former abortion rate by 98 per cent. Poland’s Central Statistical Office demonstrated that between 1990 and 2006, the death rate of Polish children under age 5 with cerebral palsy plummeted by 71 per cent. That’s an awful lot of suffering saved, not to mention the monetary cost, and if outlawing abortion played even a small part in this saving grace, it ought to raise the awareness levels of every conscious citizen with a beating heart.
The risks of induced abortion just continue to pile up, but are buried by vested interests before the ink on the research documents gets dry. It’s no wonder. Billions of dollars, thousands of professional reputations and political careers, and hundreds of thousands of jobs are on the line.
The most appalling thing I discovered while researching this article is the fact that the most common method of abortion in use in America today, vacuum aspiration, was never even tested on any primate animal subjects before being adopted wholesale by the worldwide medical community. For those who don’t know, this failure to animal test first is a serious contravention of the Nuremberg Code, adopted in the aftermath of the Holocaust.
The vacuum aspiration (VA) device and technique was pioneered by Chinese doctors, who published their study on the device’s effectiveness in 1958 (translated into English and made available by the British Medical Journal in 2008). The Chinese doctors tested their newfangled device for killing babies in utero on 300 women under state control; no animal studies were ever done. Ever. And the entire Western world of so-called excellent and humane medicine never bothered to do any animal studies either.
Even though there have been improvements over time to both the device and the methods used, primate studies might have indicated breast cancer risk, infection risks and future birth problems for patients and should have been conducted. There’s simply no excuse for a bunch of eugenics-minded social engineers foisting upon an unsuspecting public a medical procedure with no proven foundation of safety. Period.
From this one glaring breach of medical ethics alone, it should be concluded that doctors themselves have collaborated in this monstrous abortion-risk cover-up.
And the only question now is where are the lawyers? We’re looking at a gold mine here. Fraudulently claiming no risk where risk is known to exist is very serious grounds for legal action.
So, if I were a trial lawyer, I would be rounding up class action suits right this minute. And if I were counselling women approaching abortion facilities, I would keep God in my private thoughts and speak instead of breast cancer risk and reproductive tract infections and premature birth horrors.
When this thing finally reaches critical mass, the public outrage will make that against tobacco companies look like nothing more than a tempest in an inconsequential teapot. The truth of the abortion risk cover-up will cause a veritable tsunami of vitriol, lawsuits and long-overdue bankruptcies. Pro-abortion politicians will be running for cover faster than you can say flip-flop.
And if you ask me, it couldn’t happen to a more deserving lot of guileful scoundrels. Abortion is good women’s healthcare? Oh, please.
The Marlboro man couldn’t have saidanything more disingenuous.
Kyle-Anne Shiver is an American columnist and mother. She hosts a website Common Sense Regained, at: www.kyleanneshiver.com
This article originally appeared in American Thinker, at: www.americanthinker.com