brighid

It seems that abortion may even have a positive effect on breast cancer! I bet you won't seem them putting forth that information. These people aren't worried about women's or children's health. It has always been and will always be about control and punishment.

If they cared so much about women's health they would make sure birth control was covered by all insurance, they would stop attacking Planned Parenthood where only 27% of the facilities provide abortion, but provide free and reduced pap smears, etc., they would address poverty issues that impact women and children disproportionately, along with domestic violence, education, and they would support reproductive freedom so women aren't more then baby producing uteri!

They will continue to lie and distort the truth whenever they can because they damn well know it is difficult to keep women down if they have the freedom to control their own bodies. Heaven forbid!

Brighid

Dr Rick

...let's not get too carried away

The protective effect seems to come from the pregnancy itself, irrespective of whether it's carried to term or aborted. I suppose that we could tell women that are at very high risk for breast cancer (those with a family history, for instance) but don't want any children that getting pregnant and then an abortion might be one way to reduce the risk, but I have a premonition that such advise would push some of our fundie pals right over the edge...

Loren Pechtel

The real problem is that they are being forced to lie about medicine. That sounds like malpractice.

Loren Pechtel

I wouldn't advise it. You might end up on murder charges--from the fundies that had a heart attack when they saw the idea. <G>

Pyrrho

Evidently, they are not forced to tell you about those things. After all, they did not tell you, did they?

Pyrrho

There have been attempts at "gag rules" in which doctors were not supposed to even mention the possibility of an abortion to pregnant women, unless she mentioned the subject first. I don't know if any of these were ever made into law, but I do know that there have at least been attempts at doing so.

Godless Dave

As Ventura pointed out, there are no disclosure requirements for any other medical procedure. Why single out this one?

Minnesota's law comes with a 24-hour waiting period for the patient to read over the materials. There are only a few cities in Minnesota with clinics where abortions are performed, so women who live anywhere else in the state have to take two days off work and either stay in a hotel or drive out of town twice.

Godless Dave

Maybe we should pass a "Men's Right to Know" law requiring a 24-hour waiting period before being prescribed Viagra. The doctor is also required to give the patient information on the health risks associated with pregnancy and abortion, since he might use the Viagra to get someone pregnant.

dk

Almost sounds like a tacit admission the American Cancer Society's misleads people. I wonder how much of that $100mil rides on a faultering reputaton. Recent revelations about HRT treatments didn't do the ACS's vaunted reputation much good. The NIH clipped the ACS's wings. One has to wonder how HRT treatments and breast cancer slipped by right under the noses of these people, and breast cancer has been a battle cry the last 10years. Seems to me the ACS fund raisers profit from breast cancer. Could it be that the pill, abortion and the rise in breast cancer don't pass the smell test? I'd say the ASC may have a more serious problem than they can afford to let on.

Dr Rick

Huh?! It sure looks to me more like an explicit denial that they don't.

I just know that I'm going to regret asking this, but would you please explain what you're going-on about here? Are your referrring to the same NIH as the one that you claimed on another thread was cajoled or conspired into fixing information for the "homosexual community"?

Probably the same way it slipped under yours and mine and everyone else's: we didn't know that it could be harmful in part because the relative risk is so small that it took the largest studies ever done to address this issue after several smaller ones had revealed contradictory data and after the benefits of preventing osteoporosis with HRT had been established. HRT's are just one of many medications that were "standard therapies " based upon early data later found to have problems and subsequently withdrawn or curtailed including some anti-arrhythmics, antibiotics, and chemotherapies.

Do you similarly "wonder how these slipped under the noses of these people?" Is this all part of that same "conspiracy" you cited on another thread against the "nuclear family"?

Spurious accusations without any supportive data are easy to post on the internet; it's also an easy way to lose any credibility one might have left. If you can't or won't support a diatribe, don't make one, or at least save it for some fundie site were it will be appreciated.