[Pflienews] PharmFacts E-News Update: Abortifacient anti-HCG vax crashes; NIH Ok's embryonic stem cell experimentation; more...
PFLI PharmAid Center
pfli at pfli.org
Sat Dec 5 11:17:12 MST 2009
*PharmFacts E-News Update -- 5 Dec 2009 AD
**This daily e-newsletter is only possible through the generous gifts of
our readers and supporters. Please help us continue to fight for the
defense of babies by donating today!** **Click here*
<http://www.pfli.org/shop/index1.html>*
<http://www.pfli.org/shop/index1.html>to help or to renew your dues
online TODAY!*
*/_ABORTIFACIENT anti-HCG VACCINE CRASHES, BURNS..._/*
<http://www.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_0_0_t&usg=AFQjCNE0-XHJZe-snfkPF9u1rA7nKSevzg&cid=1482071115&ei=zJAaS-jdDaPglQfEu86eAg&rt=SEARCH&vm=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholicnewsagency.com%2Fnew.php%3Fn%3D17898>*/_
*/_Nelson: "I won't support health care without Stupak..."_/*
<http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09120201.html>
_/*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 2, 2009
*NIH OKAYS EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH*
Catholic League president Bill Donohue addresses today's news that the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) has cleared the way for federally
funded embryonic stem-cell research:
When Barack Obama was in the Illinois State Senate, he fought
passionately to deny little babies born alive as a result of a botched
abortion the medical care they needed to survive. It is not surprising,
then, that it took this ethically challenged man only seven weeks to
overturn President Bush's executive order limiting government money to
research on existing embryonic stem-cell lines. Now the NIH has decided
which new lines are "appropriate," leading those scientists who will get
rich from this disturbing decision to jump for joy.
It is true that all the stem lines that were approved involve embryos
left over from fertility clinics. But it won't stop there, and that is
because those with the muscle to do something about this
issue---beginning with the president---are essentially utilitarians who
lack a principled ethical base.
Dr. Bernadine Healy, a former director of the NIH, recently said that
embryonic stem-cell research was basically "obsolete." That's because,
in part, there are ways in which scientists can approximate this
research by using ethically neutral adult stem cells. But this isn't
good enough for those scientists who are literally salivating over the
thought of getting their hands on the stimulus package loot. Dr. Francis
Collins, the NIH's director, said it well when he offered the following
Pavlovian response: "People are champing at the bit for the opportunity
to get started."
What's next? Intentionally creating and destroying embryos with more
stimulus money? To those who say it doesn't matter, remember this: every
one of us started as an embryo, and it is impossible to do this kind of
research without first killing nascent human life. One more thing that
should give us pause: Germany has the strictest bioethical guidelines in
Europe. They know what happens when human rights are treated cavalierly.
Obama should know something about the same subject.
Susan A. Fani
Director of Communications
The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
450 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10123
212-371-3191
212-371-3394 (fax)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*This (almost) daily e-newsletter is only possible through the generous
gifts of our readers and supporters. Please help us continue to fight
for the defense of babies by donating today!** **Click here*
<http://www.pfli.org/shop/index1.html>*
<http://www.pfli.org/shop/index1.html>to help or to renew your dues
online TODAY!
**
It is time to renew your commitment for 2010
<http://www.pfli.org/shop>to the preborn and the mission of PFLI by
renewing your membership in the ONLY pro-life association of
pharmacists, technicians, interns, students and the lay public. _We rely
solely on the dues and donations of our members and supporters to
continue this apostolate of education, scientific inquiry and providing
material assistance to pregnancy help centers._ Consider a two year
renewal and save 10% over the annual rate!
We know the economy has been difficult for many families this year, and
non-profit volunteer organizations like ours are the first to feel those
effects. Can you send you most generous gift this Christmas for your
association? $5, $10, $25, $50, $100? <http://www.pfli.org/shop>
No gift is too small or not gratefully appreciated! With your help, we
have dispensed tens of thousands of prenatal vitamins and supplies this
year to women with troubled pregnancies; help us to continue that
mission in 2010, as well as providing breaking news on our website
daily. Thanks to those who have already responded.
Please do this TODAY by clicking this link! <http://www.pfli.org/shop>
** <http://www.pfli.org/shop>Thanks and God bless you this Christmas and
in 2010!*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php%3Fn%3D17919&ct=ga&cd=GOqrzq1V34Y&usg=AFQjCNHd4NCNimYk0m3Iy-bFiyqG9zpR0A>
Catholic News Agency
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php%3Fn%3D17919&ct=ga&cd=GOqrzq1V34Y&usg=AFQjCNHd4NCNimYk0m3Iy-bFiyqG9zpR0A>
Bishop still has 'very serious concerns' about health care legislation
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php%3Fn%3D17919&ct=ga&cd=GOqrzq1V34Y&usg=AFQjCNHd4NCNimYk0m3Iy-bFiyqG9zpR0A>
Catholic News Agency
Pro-life physicians and nurses as well as private health care
institutions need to be "free from coercion" on abortion,
*contraception*, sterilization and *...*
See all stories on this topic
<http://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php%3Fn%3D17919&hl=en>
Panel examines *conscience* clauses
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/news/panel-examines-conscience-clauses-1.952021&ct=ga&cd=ZDKR5q8pgXc&usg=AFQjCNGDtV3vtHSHMAd2cowtmNhVY46ojw>
Observer Online - IN,USA
*...* has delved into the political debate on *conscience* clauses and
continues *...* a panel discussion titled "What Would a Good *Conscience
Clause* Look Like? *...
**Oh? Michigan Abortion Facility Advertises Abortion as "Sacred Work"*
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09120402.html
<http://ss.all.org/link.php?M=18096&N=529&L=3778&F=H>
Life Site news
Northland "Family Planning Centers" of Michigan are now advertising
their services with a video calling abortion "sacred work." Set to
soft, upbeat piano music and themed with pink pastel shades, a recently
uploaded video entitled "Every Day, Good Women Choose Abortion," assures
prospective customers that deciding "to have an abortion is a normal
experience," and that the decision is a good decision.
*Openly Lesbian so-called 'Catholic' Woman Is Member of USCCB
Subcommittee For Health Care and Work
*http://www.pewsitter.com/view_news_id_26776.php
<http://ss.all.org/link.php?M=18096&N=529&L=3777&F=H>
Pewsitter
Michael Hichborn of American Life League, commenting upon CCHD funding
controversy last month stated, "Given how easily we discovered CCHD
funding going to anti-Catholic causes, the only two possibilities are
that the CCHD is incompetent or complicit." Mr. Hichborn's quote would
seem to apply here, to the present association between Mary Henry and
the USCCB, as well.
For the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq-KeN0-QSE
*Senate Passes Amendment that Could Mandate Abortion Coverage in
Insurance Plans*
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09120302.html
<http://ss.all.org/link.php?M=18096&N=529&L=3779&F=H>
Life Site News
The Senate on Thursday approved the Mikulski amendment by a vote of
61-39. All Republicans except Senators Vitter, Snowe and Collins voted
against the amendment, and all Independents and Democrats except
Senators Nelson (NE) and Feingold voted for it. Pro-life leaders opposed
the amendment over concerns that it provides authority that could be
used to mandate abortion coverage in private insurance plans.
/
/Neinstedt: Church speaks with 'moral voice' on health care reform
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/12/03/nienstedt-healthcare/&ct=ga&cd=uqJFTq8p3Ww&usg=AFQjCNEutito4AoI4UYtDgNj7ULz0KR6MQ>
Minnesota Public Radio - Saint Paul,MN,USA
*...* or lacks a "*conscience clause*" to allow medical providers to opt
out of performing abortions or other procedures they consider immoral. *...*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Coalition on Abortion Breast Cancer <mail at abortionbreastcancer.com>
Subject: Breast Cancer's Link to Abortion: The Daily Iowan Implies
Catholic Doctors Can't Do Science
To: response at abortionbreastcancer.com
Date: December 3, 2009
Dear Friends:
Editors at /The Daily Iowan/ were happy to invite Rebecca Curtis to
write a rebuttal to a guest opinion by two, impressionable law students
from the University of Iowa, until they learned what she had to say
about the link between abortion and increased breast cancer risk. Then
they fell back on the arguments that limited editorial space is
available and that Curtis isn't from the Iowa City area.
*Write to */*The Daily Iowan*/* and ask the editors to take on the
challenges that our group has presented to them.* We asked them to make
some simple requests of the American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen for
the Cure and the U.S. National Cancer Institute, which will help the
editors to shed light on the cancer establishment's honesty. These
requests include:
1) Review Dr. Angela Lanfranchi's paper in the journal, /The Linacre
Quarterl//y/, and identify what, if any errors, are in her presentation
of the physiology of the breast.
2) Refute the biological reasons for an independent link between
abortion and increased breast cancer risk.
3) Is childlessness a risk factor for breast cancer? If so, then please
answer this question. If a woman aborts all of her pregnancies, will she
be childless?
4) Who has a greater breast cancer risk - the 15-year-old who has an
abortion or the 15-year-old who has a full term pregnancy (all other
factors being the same)?
If the editors care about the young college students they serve, they
will take us up on our challenge.
/The Daily Iowan/'s contact page is
at: http://www.dailyiowan.com/pages/lte.html
Sincerely,
Karen Malec
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
------------------------------------
*ABORTION-BREAST CANCER NEWS HEADLINES*
*"Breast Cancer's Link to Abortion: */*The Daily
Iowan Implies*/* Catholic Doctors Can't Do Science"*
By Karen Malec, president, Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
/On two occasions early in November, The Daily Iowan/'s opinion editor,
Shawn Gude, invited a reader by the name of Rebecca Curtis to send him a
600-word rebuttal in response to a guest opinion written by University
of Iowa law students, Amber Fricke and Amy Hirst, on October 27, 2009
that incorrectly stated that abortion does not increase breast cancer
risk. [1]
/Curtis sent The Daily Iowan a rebuttal
<http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Response.PDF>, but Gude
rejected it on November 5 and invited her to re-write it. She quickly
responded by sending him a revised rebuttal
<http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Re-writeResponse.PDF>, but
on November 9, he rejected that too. Gude explained to Curtis, "While I
appreciate your submission, I remain skeptical of some of your sources." /
/Gude objected that Curtis had cited research published in /The Linacre
Quarterly/, a publication of the Catholic Medical Association, and
the /Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons/, a publication of the
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, even though both
publications are peer-reviewed medical journals and the authors of the
research papers in question are esteemed, international experts on the
abortion-breast cancer link. [8,9] (The term "peer-reviewed" means that
the scientific papers have been evaluated by an impartial panel of
experts who recommend the papers for publication or rejection.) /
/I/t appears that Gude and other editors had held Curtis' commentary to
a higher standard of scrutiny than the commentary by Fricke and
Hirst. The editors permitted Fricke and Hirst to cite the pro-abortion
Guttmacher Institute, as well as two studies that have been proven in
the /New England Journal of Medicine/ and the /Journal of American
Physicians and Surgeon/s to be fatally flawed. [2,3,4,5] Fricke and
Hirst, who are members of the euphemistically named University of Iowa
Law Students for Reproductive Justice, also cited the American Cancer
Society's web page, "Is Abortion Linked to Breast Cancer?" [6]
Had the editors at the paper conducted a 5-minute search on PubMed, they
would have learned that one of Fricke and Hirst's citations, a study
named Melbye et al. 1997, actually reported a statistically significant
89% risk increase for women who have abortions after 18 weeks gestation,
although researchers found no overall increase in risk. [2] (The
American Cancer Society insults women's intelligence by using this study
to deny an abortion-breast cancer link.)
Furthermore, Melbye's team found a dose effect of 3% per week of
gestation until the abortion takes place, thereby fulfilling one of the
criteria needed for establishing a cause-effect relationship. In other
words, the longer a pregnant woman is exposed to the cancer-causing
effects of an elevated estrogen level before her abortion takes place,
the greater her breast cancer risk is (provided the abortion occurs
before 32 weeks gestation). The breasts grow during a normal pregnancy
because estrogen stimulates the mother's cancer-susceptible lobules to
multiply. The longer she is pregnant before her abortion takes place,
the more places she grows for cancers to start.
Breast cancer risk plunges at 32 weeks and continues to plunge for each
week thereafter until delivery at 40 weeks, as the fetus produces
hormones that mature an increasing number of the mother's breast lobules
into permanently cancer-resistant lobules. [7,8] By 40 weeks, 85% of the
lobules are permanently cancer-resistant. Then, the mother is left with
fewer places in her breasts for cancers to start. (That explains why
full term pregnancy is protective against breast cancer.)
If /The Daily Iowan/'s editors had conducted a PubMed search, they would
have discovered a 1999 study by Melbye's team reporting that premature
birth before 32 weeks gestation more than doubles breast cancer risk (a
finding that supports an independent link between abortion and breast
cancer). [7] Early premature birth, like abortion, is a short pregnancy
exposing the mother's cancer-susceptible breast lobules to virtually the
same pregnancy hormones, which result in the same structural changes and
leave her with more places for breast cancers to start.
Instead of considering the scientific evidence on how the breasts
develop and function that had been presented in the journal,/The Linacre
Quarterly/, Gude and his colleagues decided to shoot its messengers. [8]
Gude wrote to Curtis that he was "/uneasy/" about the use of a source
from /The Linacre Quarterly, /which "/exists to uphold the principles of
the Catholic faith and morality as related to the science and practice
of medicine./"
What was Gude implying? That Catholic doctors can't do science? That
they bend science to fit their religious beliefs? The implication is
that Catholic doctors are incapable of objectivity when it comes to
scientific research on abortion, unlike doctors of other faiths and
atheists and agnostics (none of whom could possibly be biased in favor
of abortion). If Gude had dared to imply that a Jewish medical journal
was not credible because it exists to uphold the Jewish faith in the
science and practice of medicine, consider the outrage that would follow.
Bias is not exclusively a one-way street that occurs only in the
pro-life camp, but when bias goes the opposite way, in the direction of
the pro-abortion camp, abortion enthusiasts in the media are
indifferent, even if that bias endangers women's lives. For example,
although cancer experts universally consider childbearing to be
protective against breast cancer and an independent link between
abortion and breast cancer has been studied for 53 years, cancer
fundraising groups, like Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Breast Cancer
Action and the National Breast Cancer Coalition, have included radicals
among their leaders who had previously been associated with Planned
Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America and the American Civil Liberties
Union. Why would it be in their interest to educate women about the
three ways that abortion raises breast cancer risk?
Dr. Leslie Bernstein's bias in favor of abortion is overt, but no one
would ever dream of insulting her by associating her religious faith (or
lack of faith) with the way she has conducted herself as a scientist.
Bernstein was a leader/moderator at the U.S. National Cancer Institute's
phony workshop on the abortion-breast cancer link in 2003. After that
workshop, she told CancerPage.com why she doesn't want women to know
that abortion raises breast cancer risk. Note that she acknowledged that
the younger a woman is when she has her first birth, the lower her
breast cancer risk is. (It can't be denied that abortion is used to
delay first full term pregnancies.) Bernstein said:
/"The biggest bang for the buck is the first birth, and the younger
you are, the better off you are. I would never be a proponent of
going around and telling them that having babies is the way to
reduce your risk.... I don't want the issue relating to induced
abortion to breast cancer risk to be part of the mix of the
discussion of induced abortion, its legality, its continued
availability." /[10]
Imagine the howls among abortion enthusiasts in the media if a reverse
scenario had taken place. Pretend that Bernstein had been anti-abortion
and had said she didn't want women to know there were health benefits
associated with having an abortion (not that there really are health
benefits). There would be no end to the doleful wailing among those
members of the press, and the U.S. National Cancer Institute would
resemble the storming of the Bastille during the French Revolution in 1789.
After hearing that /The Daily Iowan/'s opinion editor had objected to a
citation from /The Linacre Quarterly/, one physician declared that if
the facts presented in that journal had been published on a bathroom
wall, on parchment, on toilet paper or in the /National Enquirer, /they
would still remain biological facts. If The Daily Iowan's editors had
bothered to review the secondary references listed at the end of the
article in /The Linacre Quarterly/, they would have found// studies
published in medical journals with politically correct names, such as
the /New England Journal of Medicine/, /Lancet/, /British Journal of
Cancer/, and /Breast Cancer Research and Treatment/. [8]//
Gude also objected that Curtis used the /Journal of American Physicians
and Surgeons/ as a source. [9] He told Curtis that the Journal is "a
political non-profit" (a description that could be be applied to the
American Medical Association); and he criticized the Journal for
publishing articles that challenged scientific hypotheses concerning
global warming and HIV/AIDS. He claimed,
/
/
/"It has also published reports claiming 'increases in (atmospheric
carbon dioxide) during the 20th and 21st centuries have produced no
deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate' and that HIV
doesn't cause AIDS."/
Gude said both the American Cancer Society and the World Health
Organization deny the abortion-breast cancer link. If Gude had been an
opinion editor during the 1930's, would he have also rejected a
commentary discussing Einstein's theory of relativity because 100
scientists had written essays disparaging it?
Jane Orient, MD, executive director of the Association of American
Physicians and Surgeons, commented on Gude's arguments. She wrote:
/"How can one respond to this kind of attack? It is not a good faith
assessment. But one might say://
// //
//"The validity of a scientific paper should be assessed by reading
it, not by skimming the table of contents of the journal that
published it.//
// //
//"The Daily Iowan// assumes the truth of the
catastrophic //anthropogenic global warming// hypothesis, which is
based solely on UN computer models, the predictions of which are
refuted by actual observations. Around 32,000 American scientists
are on the record as agreeing with the statement that The //Daily
Iowan// quotes. /
/"The Daily Iowan assumes the truth of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis; the
Journal has published a couple of articles pointing to difficulties
with it. All scientific hypotheses are subject to efforts to
disprove them; that is the nature of science.//
// //
//"Apparently, the fact that WHO (World Health Organization), a
heavily politicized international agency, questioned the
abortion-breast cancer link tells The Daily Iowan it must be not
worth looking at.//
// //
//"This is apparently the reasoning process used by The Daily Iowan:/
/"A peer-reviewed scientific journal's publication of articles
criticizing politically correct theories means everything in the the
Journal is worthless.//
// //
//"A political agency's criticism of a politically incorrect
hypothesis about an ABC (abortion-breast cancer) link means that all
the evidence for an ABC link is worthless.//
// //
//"What conclusions can one reach about the //critical thinking
skills//, the scientific understanding, or the journalistic
standards of The Daily Iowan?"/
Breast cancer is an extremely common disease, and abortion is a common,
elective procedure. Under these circumstances, what possible right do
journalists have to commit journalistic malpractice by ignoring the
opinion of eight medical organizations that acknowledge that abortion
raises breast cancer risk, independently of the recognized breast cancer
risk of abortion - the loss of the protective effect of childbearing?/ /
Consequently, the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is presenting
the /The Daily Iowan/'s editors with two easy challenges that will help
them cast light on the cancer fundraising industry's truthfulness.
First, no expert has ever challenged or even attempted to refute the
biological basis for the link presented in /The Linacre Quarterly /or
anywhere else, for that matter. If the editors have a sincere desire to
protect women's health, then why not ask the American Cancer Society,
the U.S. National Cancer Institute and Susan G. Komen for the Cure to
review Dr. Angela Lanfranchi's paper in /The Linacre Quarterly and
identify any errors?/ Why not challenge them to refute the biological
reasons for the abortion-breast cancer link? Cancer groups won't do it
because Lanfranchi's presentation is physiologically correct.
Second, since medical texts acknowledge that childlessness, delayed
first full term pregnancy and small family size raise breast cancer
risk, the editors should ask the cancer fundraising industry two simple
questions with two obvious answers. If a woman aborts all of her
pregnancies, will she be childless? Also, who has the greater breast
cancer risk - the 15-year-old who has an abortion or the one who has a
full term pregnancy? The second question has to do with the recognized
breast cancer risk of abortion - the loss of the protective effect of
childbearing.
Even Dr. Lynn Rosenberg (Boston Medical School), an expert witness for
Florida abortion providers in 1999 was forced to set aside the cancer
establishment's intellectual dishonesty when she testified under oath as
an expert witness for the Center for Reproductive Rights in a lawsuit
challenging Florida's parental notification law. Preferring not to
perjure herself by pretending that abortion that abortion does not cause
women to delay their first full term pregnancies, she said she agreed
with this statement:
"A woman who finds herself pregnant at age 15 will have a higher
breast cancer risk if she chooses to abort that pregnancy than if
she carries the pregnancy to term, correct?" [11]
Breast cancer increases with age at first full term pregnancy. A delayed
first full term pregnancy lengthens the period between puberty and first
full term pregnancy (the "susceptibility window") when nearly all of the
breast lobules are immature and cancer-susceptible and exposed to the
cancer-causing effects of estrogen increases during monthly menstrual
cycles, resulting in an accumulation of the effects of cancer-causing
substances.
Since the loss of the protective effect of childbearing is considered
settled science, most studies on the abortion-breast cancer link do not
compare the effect of having an abortion with the effect of having a
full term pregnancy. Rather, most studies compare the effect of having
an abortion with the effect of not having had that pregnancy (thereby
addressing the question of an independent link - whether abortion
further raises risk by leaving the breasts with more places for cancers
to start).
Certainly, it would be bad social policy to encourage unmarried teens
and young women to have babies. However, Professor Joel Brind from
Baruch College, City University of New York, has rightly argued that the
already-pregnant woman has only two realistic choices. Either she
aborts, or she has a baby. She doesn't have the choice of never having
had that pregnancy. Her doctor is ethically and legally obligated to
obtain informed consent from her before performing an abortion. That
means telling her that experts agree if she chooses an abortion, her
risk of developing breast cancer will be greater than it will be if she
chooses to have a baby(because she is delaying her first full term
pregnancy). The woman may be able to sue her doctor for medical
malpractice if he fails to provide her with this minimal information (as
five women have successfully sued their doctors who failed to warn them
about the risks of breast cancer and emotional harm). [12]
It takes a special kind of cruelty to cover up a risk that has caused
1.5 million Americans to develop breast cancer and 300,000 deaths since
1973 (based on 50 million abortions, a 30% increased risk of breast
cancer for women with abortions, and a 10% lifetime risk for the average
American woman without abortion).
The American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen for the Cure and other
cancer groups could have done a great deal of good by telling women the
truth about the abortion-breast cancer link. Instead, they use studies
that have been proven in medical journals to be significantly flawed
(even fraudulent) to make their argument that abortion does not raise
breast cancer risk. [13-22]
They didn't tell women the truth about the risks of using the pill and
combined hormone replacement therapy, although the data were available
in the 1980s. Now they're not telling women the truth about the
abortion-breast cancer link. Biased members of the media are their enablers.
*References:*
1. "Recent /DI/ advertising supplement strikingly inaccurate," By Amber
Fricke and Amy Hirst, /The Daily Iowan/, October 27, 2009. Available
at: http://www.dailyiowan.com/2009/10/27/Opinions/13910.html?dsq=21109498#disqus_thread
2. Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Olson JH, Frisch M, Westergaard T,
Helweg-Larsen K, Andersen PK. Induced abortion and the risk of breast
cancer. /N Engl J Med/ 1997;336:81-85.
3. Michels K, Xue Fei, Colditz G., Willett W. Induced and Spontaneous
Abortion and Incidence of Breast Cancer Among Young Women. /Arch Int
Med/ 2007;167:814-820.
4. Brind J, Chinchilli VM. Letter. Induced abortion and the risk of
breast cancer. /N Engl J Med/ 1997;336:1834-1835.
5. Brind J. Induced abortion and breast cancer: A critical analysis of
the report of the Harvard Nurses Study II. /J Am Phys
Surg/ 2007;12(2)38-39. Available at:
<http://www.jpands.org/vol12no2/brind.pdf>.
6. "Is abortion linked to breast cancer?" American Cancer Society web
page. Visited November 24, 2009. Available
at: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp?sitearea=.
7. Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Andersen A-M N, Westergaard T, Andersen PK.
Preterm delivery and risk of breast cancer. /Bri J Cancer/ 1999;80:609-13.
8. Lanfranchi, A. Normal breast physiology: The reasons hormonal
contraceptives and induced abortion increase breast cancer risk. /The
Linacre Quarterly/ 2009;76:236-249. Available
at:http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/LQ_76_3_2_Lanfranchi.pdf
9. Brind J. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast
cancer: A critical review of recent studies based on prospective
data. /J Am Phys Surg/ Vol. 10, No. 4 (Winter 2005) 105-110. Available
at: <http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf>.
10. Lowe RM, NCI scientific panel concludes abortion has no impact on
breast cancer risk. CancerPage.com, March 3, 2003. Available at:
<http://www.cancerpage.com/news/article.asp?id=5601>. Accessed November
18, 2009.
11. Rosenberg (1999) NW FL Women's Health vs. State of FL, FL Circuit
Ct., 2nd circ., videotape deposition of 11/18/99, pp. 77-78. Available
at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/rosenberg's_testimony.htm
<http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/rosenberg%27s_testimony.htm>
12. See the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer's Legal Issues web page
at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/Your_Rights.htm
13. Brind J. Breast cancer in relation to abortion: results from the
EPIC study. I/nt J Cancer/. 2008 Feb 15;122(4):960-1.
14. Brind J. California Teachers Study report on incomplete pregnancy is
flawed. /Contraception/ 2009;Mar;79(3):240.
15. Brind J. The abortion-breast cancer connection. National Catholic
Bioethics Quarterly Summer 2005; p. 303-329. Available at:
<http://www.AbortionBreastCancer.com/Brind_NCBQ.PDF
<http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/Brind_NCBQ.PDF>>.
16./ Lanfranchi A. The abortion-breast cancer link revisited. Ethics and
Medics (November 2004) Vol. 29, No. 11, p. 1-4. Available
at:http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/news/041120/index.htm/
17. Furton E. Editorial. The corruption of science by ideology. Ethics
and Medics (Dec. 2004) Vol. 29, No. 11, p. 1-2. Available
at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/E+MDec2004-EFurtonarticle.PDF
18. Schlafly A. Legal implications of a link between abortion and breast
cancer. J Am Phys Surgeons2005;10:11-14. Available
at:http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf
19. Lanfranchi A. The science, studies and sociology of the
abortion-breast cancer link. Research Bulletin 2005;18:1-8. Available
at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/June2005.pdf
20. Lanfranchi A. The breast physiology and the epidemiology of the
abortion breast cancer link. /Imago Hominis/ 2005;12(3):
228-236. http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/Lanfranchi060201.pdf
21. Brind J. Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk: A Critical
Analysis of the Report of the Harvard Nurses Study II. /Journal of
American Physicians and Surgeons/(Summer 2007) Vol. 12, No. 2, p.
38-39. Available at: <http://www.jpands.org/vol12no2/brind.pdf>.
22. Lanfranchi, A. The federal government and academic texts as barriers
to informed consent. /J Am Phys Surg/ (Spring 2008). Available at:
<http://www.jpands.org/vol13no1/lanfranchi.pdf>.
#####
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
<http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/start> is an international women's
organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women
by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for
breast cancer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PFLI PharmAid Center
pfli at pfli.org <mailto:pfli at pfli.org>
PO Box 1281
Powell, OH 43065-1281 USA
800-227-8359
www.pfli.org
<%3Cform%20action=%22https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr%22%20method=%22post%22%3E,%3Cinput%20type=%22hidden%22%20name=%22cmd%22%20value=%22_s-xclick%22%3E,%3Cinput%20type=%22image%22%20src=%22https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/btn/x-click-butcc-donate.gif%22%20border=%220%22%20name=%22submit%22%20alt=%22Make%20payments%20with%20PayPal%20-%20it%27s%20fast,%20free%20and%20secure%21%22%3E,%3Cinput%20type=%22hidden%22%20name=%22encrypted%22%20value=%22-----BEGIN%20PKCS7-----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%0A%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%0AVQQ%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-----END%20PKCS7-----,%22%3E,%3C/form%3E>
PFLI supports pharmacist rights of conscience NOT to be forced to
dispense or counsel for chemicals which violate their sincerely held
religious, moral or ethical beliefs. For more info see:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq
*** PFLI is the only pharmacy association which is exclusively pro-life.
It represents thousands of pharmacists and many lay supporters
in the USA, Canada and all around the globe. For membership info, key
PFLI texts, PFLI archives, late-breaking news, abridged newsletter excerpts
or general information, visit the PFLI web site at http://www.pfli.org.
Or e-mail us at mailto:pfli at pfli.org.
*** We do NOT send out SPAM. To subscribe to PharmFacts E-News, just
send an e-mail with the word
"subscribe" in the subject area or better yet, just enroll right from
our main news page at
http://www.pfli.org; to cease your subscription [although we can't
imagine anyone would!] self-manage your account at:
http://pfli.org/mailman/listinfo/pflienews_pfli.org
*** You may contact PFLI at any/all of the following: Pharmacists For
Life International,
PO Box 1281, Powell, OH 43065-1281 USA, 1-800-227-8359 [US & Canada only],
+1-740-881-5520 [voice] or +1-740-206-1260 [fax]; e-mail us at
mailto:pfli at pfli.org.
*** You can order our publications as well as begin/renew your
membership or donate right on our
secure website at http://www.pfli.org/shop <http://www.pfli.org>. Click
on the "PFLI Store" link on the toolbar and
follow the prompts! There you can also donate to PFLI as well as
purchase a wide range of publications.
* *
--
--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20091205/53e1e0ba/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 78028 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20091205/53e1e0ba/attachment-0003.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pkb4olzw4SMJ
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1231 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20091205/53e1e0ba/attachment-0004.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: moz-screenshot-3.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3212 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20091205/53e1e0ba/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 2923 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20091205/53e1e0ba/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 11831 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20091205/53e1e0ba/attachment-0005.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bho_pervertedscience.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 11831 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20091205/53e1e0ba/attachment-0003.jpg>
More information about the PFLIENews
mailing list