Home | Contact Us | Newsletters

Organizers of the World Conference on Breast Cancer evicted women who were educating conference attendees about the link between abortion and increased breast cancer risk.  Conference organizers used a lame excuse to justify their eviction.  They suggested that Muslim women were offended by use of the word "abortion."  It's far more likely that feminists needed to soothe their own psyches and protect the abortion industry, rather than women's lives. 

Feminists sometimes have a peculiar attitude about breast cancer.  They argue that, if a risk factor for cancer causes some to feel guilty or to experience self-blame, then the truth should be swept under the rug.  It's an odd viewpoint to hear from people supposedly dedicated to women's health. As a 15-year survivor of colon cancer, I find it especially disturbing to hear this attitude expressed by some cancer survivors. Don't cancer survivors have an obligation to spare other women their own suffering?  Is protecting one's own psyche more important than protecting other women's lives? 

Nevertheless, feminist groups like Breast Cancer Action often reflect this attitude in their newsletters when research shows that diet and exercise influence breast cancer risk.  It's acceptable to blame someone or something else for your cancer - a polluted environment, for instance - but it's not acceptable to consider that lifestyle might influence cancer risk, even if it might be the truth. The same peculiar argument might have been used to justify covering up some risk factors for cancer, such as cigarette smoking. 

Feminists use this reasoning, however, to suppress the truth about abortion as a risk factor for the disease, even though only one scientist has ever explained why only the youngest of three generations - the Roe v. Wade generation - suffered a more than 40% increase in breast cancer rates since the mid 1980's.  He is Professor Joel Brind of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, and he says research shows that abortion is entirely responsible for the increase in breast cancer cases. 

At the 1997 World Conference on Breast Cancer, Brind presented his team's findings from the previous year showing that abortion raises a woman's risk 30%-50%. [1] The World Conference published his abstract reporting the updated findings of Brind et al. 1996. [2] Last week, the World Conference on Breast Cancer took place in Halifax. Conference organizers evicted women representing a Canadian group called Positive Options for Women because they distributed literature on the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link. 

Ellen Chesal, POW's director described what took place:

"On June 8th our booth was set up with banners that read 'Positive Options for Women - Abortion Breast Cancer Link.'  There were 41 exhibitors and an estimated 600 people from more than 60 countries attending. 

"On June 9th we were exhibiting from 7:30am till 3pm.  Many women came to our booth and there was such a demand for our literature, we had to keep photocopying more. We had seven different fact sheets comprising information taken from the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, Abortion Facts, the Coalition on Abortion Breast Cancer, Lifesite News, Concerned Women for America, etc. We estimated that at least 200 papers on fact sheets were distributed as well as the brochures that were on the table. 

"The second day, June 10th, was much the same with regard to interest, except that we did have a visit from an irate board member of the Cancer Foundation. She was hostile and accused us of having a hidden agenda. (She stated) that we were anti-abortionists, (that) our facts were absolutely not true, and that we were trying to scare women from having an abortion. Another woman apologized for her behavior and said that she did not speak on behalf of the whole board. 

Later that same day Margo Burke (she worked with me putting things together for the Conference) and I were asked to attend a meeting with the organizing heads.  There were three ladies present and introduced themselves as organizers for the World Conference.  A Ms. Valerie Hepburn commenced the meeting by apologizing for the incident that occurred earlier and hoped that we weren't upset by it.  She then proceeded to say that, although we have good intentions, and wanted to believe that we didn't have a hidden agenda, she felt that our booth was upsetting women.  At this point I gave her a copy of my letter, which certainly showed we had no hidden agenda.  She was a bit taken aback and passed the letter on to the others.  She then said regardless of whether we had permission to be there or not, our presentation was very upsetting to women.  She explained that the conference was set up as a healing and coping strategy conference and our booth wasn't conducive to the goals of the conference...." 

Conference organizers used a lame argument to justify evicting  Ellen Chesal and her colleagues from the conference.  They explained that Muslim women found the word "abortion" to be offensive. (It's far more likely that Ellen’s message offended the sensitivities of left-wing feminists.) 

Ellen commented on her eviction:  "To sum up, I would say that POW is pleased that we were instrumental in providing information on the ABC link to hundreds of women, from every corner of the world. It is most unfortunate however, that not all women were given the opportunity to be informed about the most avoidable risk for breast cancer, and also that the World Conference on Breast Cancer found it necessary to suppress the women's right to know." 

Abortion activists often like to suggest that women who educate the public about the ABC link have an "agenda." In their minds, having an agenda is a one-way street.  Abortion activists couldn't possibly have an agenda.  It's a shame that they can't unite with their ideological opponents for the sake of preserving women's lives. Abortion ideology, soothing one's psyche and the feminist lifestyle are just too important to them for that. 

Breast cancer is a disease embraced by feminists in the 1980's as their cause, and perhaps rightly so.  After all, the feminists' anti-childbearing lifestyle is largely responsible for high rates of female breast cancer in developed nations.  Feminists encouraged women to delay the birth of a first child, to leave their homes, focus on careers and have smaller families. They said that having access to abortion, using (carcinogenic) steroidal estrogens (found in oral contraceptives) and being sterilized were "reproductive rights" that were absolutely crucial for every woman's "reproductive health." 

It mattered little that research showed otherwise. Scientists knew as early as the 17th Century that childbearing protects women from breast cancer.  In fact, medical literature reveals that the single most important thing a woman can do to prevent breast cancer is to have an early first full term pregnancy before age 24. [3,4] Childbearing provides women with the only means of maturing their breast tissue into cancer-resistant tissue. It's a third trimester process in pregnancy that accomplishes this feat, and the sooner a woman develops this tissue, the better off she is when she's exposed to a carcinogen. 

Why aren't left-wing feminists telling women?  It was in the 1980's that feminist business women developed their breast cancer fundraising businesses. They told the press that breast cancer was uniquely their issue. By 1986, it became clear to U.S. government scientists that biological, epidemiological and experimental evidence supported abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer. [5] Might the evidence of abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer have influenced the proliferation of breast cancer fundraising businesses? 

Today, feminists who lead the cancer fundraising industry fiercely defend their religious sacrament of abortion against any efforts to recognize it as a risk factor.  It matters not that they are destroying the future for millions of young women around the world who are contemplating abortions. Nor does it matter that women who've had abortions are losing critical opportunities to undertake risk reduction measures and seek early detection for the disease. Their callousness is breathtaking.

 References:

1. Brind J, Chinchilli, VM, Severs WB, Summy-Long J. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health 1996;50:481-496.

2. Brind J. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: an updated meta-analysis. World Conference on Breast Cancer (July 16-17, 1997) Kingston, Ontario;

3. MacMahon, B, Cole P, Lin TM, Lowe CR, Mirra AP, Ravnihar B, Salber EJ, Valaoras VG, Yuasa S. Age at First Birth and Breast Cancer Risk. Bull WHO 1970;43:209-221.

4. Trichopoulos D, Hsieh C, MacMahon B, et al. Age at any birth and breast cancer risk. Int. J Cancer 1983;31:701-704.

  5. Stadel BV, Rubin GL, Wingo PA, Schlesselman JJ. Letter. Oral contraceptives and breast cancer in young women. Lancet 1986; ii:436.

Babies cut risk of cancer

Clara Pirani, medical reporter for The Australian wrote on 30 May 2005 about  a study by scientists at the Queensland Institute of  Medical Research:  The more babies a woman has, the less likely it is that she will develop breast, colorectal, ovarian and uterine cancers. An increase  in the hormones produced during pregnancy protected women from several forms of cancer. 

 "It is a well-known fact that the more children a woman has, the lower her risk of breast, endometrial and ovarian cancer. And we also know that the age that a woman has her first and last pregnancy is significant in terms of cancer risk," said QIMR scientist Steven Darlington. The study involved more than 1 million Swedish women who had delivered  babies between 1961 and 1996, including about 25,000 women who had at least one twin  pregnancy and 183 who had two or three twin pregnancies. 

According to the study, giving birth to twins was associated with lower risks of breast,  colorectal, ovarian and uterine cancers. However, researchers were not sure why giving birth to more children reduced the risk of some cancers.

"Studying the relationship between cancer occurrence and unusual features of reproductive  history, such as twinning, may help to shed light on how hormones influence cancer development," Mr Darlington said. "We know that the hormone levels of women who bear twins differ from women who have single pregnancies.”

Hundreds of scientists who back embryonic stem cell research are meeting in California to discuss the current state of the controversial research  and are admitting they've not made much progress and losing millions in trying to perfect it. "Many of the technologies we hyped to the general public haven't worked yet,'' Celgene President Alan Lewis said, according to an AP story. James Thomson, the Wisconsin biologist who was the first to isolate embryonic stem cells also admits they have been oversold. He told MSBNC that he understands the technology still has a long way to go and that embryonic stem cells are not being used in any human clinical trials yet..... “It's been so hyped in the press that people expect it to come the day after tomorrow." Thomson conceded that embryonic stem cell cures may not be available until "ten to twenty years from now." Meanwhile, Lewis also pointed out that venture capitalists, the source of much of the funding of stem cell research companies, "are very cautious'' about investing because of the limited success and lack of future prospects.