Pages

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Updating the 2005 SD Abortion Task Force Study

South Dakota's last two abortion ban attempts have based their findings statements on the December 2005 report of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion. That document, branded by even some members of the task force as a biased presentation of sloppy science by a committee stacked with anti-abortion zealots, included the following statement on the connection between abortion and breast cancer:

The question concerning whether abortion causes an increased risk for breast cancer cannot be answered by this Task Force based on the record. However, the subject is of vital importance and the reasons to suspect such a connection sufficiently sound. We conclude that further study of this topic is justified and needed. Sorting out the science and truth of this matter is of the utmost importance so that relevant informed consent information can be provided towomen considering an abortion.

I agree. Interestingly, when Dr. Maria Bell, the only gynecologist who served on the task force, tried to include evidence in the report that would answer that question in the negative, the task force voted her down. [Nancy Hatch Woodward, freelance writer, "Abortion in South Dakota," Planned Parenthood, published 2005.12.22, updated 2006.02.27].

In the spirit of sorting out the truth, I direct the attention of South Dakota's legislators and voters to "U.S. Study Shows No Breast Cancer/Abortion Link" [Maggie Fox, health and science editor, Reuters, 2007.04.24]:

A study of more than 100,000 U.S. nurses found that those who had an abortion or miscarriage were no more likely to have breast cancer than any other woman in the study.

The findings fit with a 2003 report from an international expert panel put together by the U.S. National Cancer Institute.


As long as the anti-choice, anti-science, anti-woman crowd continue to follow the strategy put forward by pseudo-scientific sophist* David Reardon of repeating their scientifically disproven claims just to confuse the issue. As long as they keep shouting their rhetoric, those interested in protecting women's rights need to keep shouting the science.

*My use of the term sophist is a nod to my friend DB, whose chortles and accusations of hypocrisy I eagerly await.

4 comments:

  1. All the scientific evidence in the world can't turn casual abortion into an act of moral responsibility... and that's why it should be banned, not because of hypothetical links to breast cancer.

    I have morons on my team.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The moral debate is another issue, and a welcome one. I look forward to hearing the straight moral argument from the major political figures on this issue without disingenuous efforts to disguise their moral agenda with bad science. (And if one's moral cause is right, why disguise it?)

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The moral debate is another issue, and a welcome one."

    Welcome? Really? Great! Let's hear your side, then. I've articulated my position all over the comments of the abortion-related threads, and still am waiting for a worthy reply.

    (And by all means, if my position is still unclear, I would be happy to elaborate.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with David Bergan. I never paid much heed to the link to breast cancer because I didn't think it was proven. But I do believe that life begins at conception, that unborn babies feel pain, and that abortion is morally wrong. And that partial birth abortion is extremely immoral and akin to murder.

    The only instances in which I could support abortion are to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape/incest. The problem is that when exceptions are allowed then people will exploit them to simply continue with abortion on demand and as a method of birth control.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are closed, as this portion of the Madville Times is in archive mode. You can join the discussion of current issues at MadvilleTimes.com.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.