What does it take to convince a research oriented organization like the National Cancer Institute of a scientifically demonstrated reality? One assumes not much, unless, it would appear, abortion becomes a factor in research studies. When researchers become so bold as to draw any statistically valid conclusions from such studies showing cancer as a possible risk to women, ideologically motivated organizations like the NCI shamelessly proceed to discredit their politically incorrect work. And it matters little that machinations of this kind are also conducted against NCI`s own researchers - as happened with Dr. Janet Daling who reported a 50% increased risk for women choosing an abortion during their first pregnancy. In that particular instance, NCI used a medical hack, feminist Lynn Rosenberg of Boston University School of Medicine, to undermine her highly conclusive study with the dismissive "There's no medical research that validates her statement (of a link between abortion and breast cancer). There's no medical research that proves abortion has anything to do with breast cancer."

In a move unheard of in the annals of medicine, the NCI cadres boldly keeps brushing aside lifesaving information in order to serve Mammon - Planned Parenthood, the rich abortion industry, and the wealthy pro-abortion Rockefeller/Turner/Packman foundations that, from all evidence, now call the shots at NCI. Forget the estrogen/progesterone rational in explaining the simple connection between a deliberately aborted first pregnancy and breast cancer, forget that presently 28 scientific articles (of some 35 published on this subject) show irrefutable evidence of the lethal connection, forget that 1 in 100 women will die of abortion-induced breast cancer, forget everything, don’t pay any attention to the problem and it will go away - so is the public being reassured by the prestigious NCI ostrich with its huge posterior sticking out of the sand.

A question I have already directed at its director, M.D. Andrew C. von Eschenbach, is the following: What if 28 out of 35 mechanics had raised serious doubts about the safety of the brakes on his car, would he let his daughter drive the car? Frankly, I`m not too sure what his answer would be. In my mind, anyone who is not convinced by 28 scientific studies showing a 30 to 50% increased risk of breast cancer after induced abortion, is not competent to make that decision. Presumably, his personal vast contribution to the scientific literature - some 200 articles, chapters, and books - has not received the contempt reserved for the objective work of scientists who have discovered lethal consequences for aborting mothers.

Dr. von Eschenbach stated in a recent interview with reporter Michael Miller that he wished "to work collaboratively and collectively towards a comprehensive solution to the problem of cancer." That laudable goal is impossible to attain with the continued denial of certain findings about cancer that don`t fit the radical feminist and abortion industry agenda of protecting abortion on deman no matter what. He also say he is a cancer survivor who has successfully battled that awful disease twice. No doubt he knew then - and would have insisted - that he had all the information necessary to tackle and beat cancer. I`m sure, if 28 of 35 studies discouraged a certain treatment he was taking as having potential lethal consequences, he would rightfully had wanted to know about it, regardless of the opinion of the oncologist treating him. After all that`s what informed consent is all about. Why then, in heaven`s name, would he support NCI`s agenda to deny this very same right to women, who might be considering the so-called therapeutic treatment of abortion, to be warned of the potentially dangerous consequences of their decision? I find it truly unconscionable that NCI would prostitute itself to the point of knowingly submitting women to what has now been irrefutably demonstrated (notwithstanding NCI`s politically motivated denials) as a clear serious danger to their health and even, for some, a death sentence.

Von Eschenbach makes the startling observation in his interview with Miller that, "Developing cancer did not make me more compassionate or more passionate." All one can reply to the good doctor`s remark is that it should have. Vulnerable women deserve much better than the condescending attitude his institute offers them. Were breast cancer linked to any other procedure besides abortion, the uproar over NCI`s silence would be deafening.

His agency has even been accused in the U.S. Congress of misleading the public about 41 years of research linking induced abortion with breast cancer and of selectively releasing data. NCI is further accused as having a "bias for lack of what the facts are." Its web page has also been criticized by congressmen as "not scientifically driven, on the (abortion) issue, but is more politically driven..."

I would point out that there need only be one statistically significant study finding a health risk in a peer reviewed medical journal for a health warning to be issued. Has there been one statistically significant study finding an increased breast cancer risk from previous induced abortions of first pregnancies? There have been at least 28 statistically significant studies finding an abortion/breast cancer risk - some frighteningly high. TWENTY-EIGHT exceeds ONE by 2,700%. By law, once there is credible evidence of adverse risk from an elective medical procedure, patients must be warned of the possible harm. Only spokespersons for the abortion industry, Planned Parenthood, and the National Cancer Institute which obviously supports "choice" at the expense of informed consent, would claim that there should be no health warnings before more conclusive evidence of an induced abortion/breast cancer link, than now exists, is produced.

My immediate reaction to all this would be to suggest to my American friends to boycott NCI fund raisers, because of its obvious censorship of scientific studies dealing with abortion and cancer, and redirect their funding for breast cancer research to organizations other than the National Cancer Institute, that recognize a woman`s right to know. They should certainly boycott the U.S. Postal Service`s "Fund the Cure" stamps now sold to raise money for breast cancer research, as these funds are being funneled to the National Cancer Institute.

Thaddée Renault

New Brunswick, Canada

February 25, 2002

Return to the Unborn Children's Website