The quotes below in this article are 100 times more important
than any Al Gore quote and I welcome people checking them out:


25 November 2000
RTV Bulletin
Why are 'pro-choice' Doctors scaring women about breast cancer?
(article in the Public Domain)

Are 'pro-choice' medical doctors telling women that NOT having an
induced abortion will increase their BC risk? No, the opposite, that
undergoing an induced abortion will INCREASE breast cancer risk. Are
these obscure medical doctors that no one has ever hear of? Dr.
Samuel S. Epstein is an internationally recognized cancer expert
In 1997 Dr. Epstein co-authored the outstanding book: The Breast
Cancer Prevention Program. Dr. Epstein is a professor at the
University of Illinois, a friend of Ralph Nader, and 'pro-choice'.
Dr. Epstein wrote:

"For example, if you were to have an abortion at the age of 25,
your risk of developing breast cancer at the age of 60 would
increase from 1 in 24 to about 1 in 18, especially if you
have more than one abortion before your first full-term
pregnancy." (The Breast Cancer Prevention Program, Dr. Samuel
S. Epstein et al, 1997, pp. 36-37). What would be Dr. Epstein's
motive for conjuring up a breast cancer risk that does not exist?

Is there solid medical research to support Dr. Epstein's assertion?
In medical studies, findings that are 'statistically significant'
carry much more intellectual 'weight' than studies that are not
'significant'. What does 'statistically significant' mean? It means
that the researchers are at least 95% confident that a specific risk
factor (e.g. high salt diet) actually increases the odds of a
person contracting a specific disease (e.g. hypertension). In the
field of 'ABC' ( Abortion-Breast-Cancer ) seventeen studies have
achieved 'statistical significance', with the results:

1. ONE study (Burany, 1979) reported that induced abortion
DECREASED BC risk; (being 95% confident of decreased risk
is also 'statistical significance').
2. SIXTEEN ( 16 ) studies have reported that induced abortion
INCREASED BC risk.

I.E. 94% of the 'significant' reports found that induced abortion
increased BC risk.

Perhaps, the Researchers are a bunch of pro-lifers -
The Journal of the National Cancer Institute is a very prestigious
medical journal. In the November 1994 issue it published the results
of an 'ABC' study on 'young' (under age 45) women. Results:

1. women with an induced abortion before age 18 increased their
breast cancer risk by 150% (95% CI =1.1-5.7)
2. women who had their first induced abortion after age 29
increased their BC risk by 110% (95% CI=1.2-3.5)
3. overall (for all women who had ever been pregnant) induced
abortion increased BC risk by 50% (95% CI=1.2-1.9)

(Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1994;86:1584-1592). [a 95%
confidence interval (CI) of '1.2-1.9' means the researchers are
95% confident that the risk increase is somewhere between +20% and
+90%].

Dr. Janet Daling was one of the authors of this 'JNCI' report and
acknowledges that she was and remains 'pro-choice'. For reporting
what she believes to be the truth, she is considered to be a traitor
by many 'pro-choicers'.

Are researchers telling women the TOTAL 'ABC' risk?
When 'Daling et al' report an overall 50% increase in breast
cancer risk from induced abortion, then 50% is the total risk increase,
right? Absolutely NOT! Breast cancer researchers have known since
before 1980 that the earlier a woman has a first full-term birth, the
lower her BC risk. So it is obvious, that MEDICAL delay of a first birth
via abortion increases BC risk for a childless woman. From the 'Daling'
study: "The RR [Relative Risk] was also 1.5 [i.e. 50% increase in risk]
(95% CI=1.2-2.0) in women who had give birth at least once, adjusting
for age at first full-term pregnancy." What does the phrase "adjusting
for age at first full-term pregnancy" mean? It means that the medical
researchers are 'subtracting out' (i.e. not including) a known breast
cancer risk in the their risk estimate. This first risk (delayed first
full-term pregnancy) is well-known and they want to report on a second
breast cancer risk (interrupted pregnancy). The cases (women with BC)
will on average have an older age at first birth than controls (women
without breast cancer) and the 'adjustment' 'subtracts out' this
higher risk.

So what is the total risk increase?
Consider 4 childless women who have induced abortions at age 20
(Ann, Barbara, Carol, and Diane). Here are their TOTAL BC risks:

TOTAL Age at First Years First Relative Risk Increase
increase Term Birth Birth Delayed caused by Delay of
in Relative first Birth
BC risk

Ann 53.5% 21 1 3.5%
Barbara 61% 23 3 11%
Carol 69% 25 5 19%
Diane 91% 30 10 41%

(every year a woman delays her first full-term pregnancy increases
her relative breast cancer risk by 3.5% compounded, (International
Journal of Cancer, Dimitrios Trichopoulos et al, 1983;31:701-704))

Are there other 'pro-choice' professionals warning about 'ABC'?
Dr. Susan M. Love is a very high profile surgeon, author of
best sellers in the health field, and a vocal feminist who is
'pro-choice'. Dr. Love has issued a subtle warning to women: "And the
younger you are when you have your first child, the lower your
[BC] risk." (Dr. Susan Love's Breast Book, Dr. Susan M. Love,
1995, p. 242). This book sold in the hundreds of thousands. No
rational person denies that a young childless woman will MEDICALLY
delay her first term birth, if she has an induced abortion. Because
this delay involves the medical profession, the concept of informed
medical consent comes 'into play'. Backing up Susan Love strongly is
Nancy Krieger, who wrote, "Conversely, early age at FFTP [first term
birth] consistently has emerged as the strongest protective [against
breast cancer] factor [5-12]"; (source: Breast Cancer Research and
Treatment 1989;13:205-223)

But women are consenting to this BC risk when they sign the consent
form, right?
No, the consent form does not have the word CANCER anywhere. Is this
malpractice? Is a circle round in shape? If induced abortion was pre-
dominantly a life-saving (i.e. non-elective) procedure, the breast cancer
warning would have to appear on the consent form. But induced abortion
is pre-dominantly elective surgery (according to abortion doctors),
which means the standard of informed consent is higher than for a
non-elective procedure! This lack of a breast cancer warning is one
of the worst examples of misinformed consent ever. A medical doctor
has a legal duty to protect a woman's health. Elective induced abortion
is a legal violation of that duty, since breast cancer risk is a threat
to a woman's health, not a cure or a protection of her health.

In this article four 'pro-choice' professionals have demonstrated
that they believe the 'ABC' threat is real and they believe in WRTK
(Women's Right To Know) the breast cancer risk (the testimony of a fifth
is in P.S.2):

1. Dr. Samuel S. Epstein
2. Dr. Janet Daling
3. Dr. Susan M. Love
4. Nancy Krieger (PhD)
5. Dr. Lynn Rosenberg (see P.S.2)

WRTK (Women's Right To Know) NOW!!!,
Mike Richmond
email: newscan@vcn.bc.ca

P.S.

The [U.S.] National Cancer Institute is a very prestigious
organization and their main journal, The Journal of the National
Cancer Institute is a very prestigious journal. "Scientists
agree that a full-term pregnancy at a young age protects against
breast cancer." (Troy Parkins (NCI employee), JNCI, 1993;85:
1987).

P.S.2

Dr. Lynn Rosenberg (Boston University Medical School epidemiologist)
has denied for many years that there is a SECOND abortion-breast
-cancer risk. But what about the FIRST risk, medically delayed first
full term birth? The following testimony (UNDER OATH) occurred on
18 November 1999 in a Florida (USA) court room, (Dr. Lynn Rosenberg
being questioned):

"Q: So, in other words 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?
A: Probably, yes.
Q: Looking at that another way, let's compare two women. Let's say
both got pregnant at age 15- one terminates the pregnancy, but
the other carries the pregnancy to term. And both women go on to
get married and have two children, say at age 30 and age 35. Is
the risk of breast cancer higher for the woman who had an
abortion at age 15 or the women who had a baby at age 15, all
things being equal?
A: It's probably higher for the one who had an abortion at age 15."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Dave wrote:

> That quote came from the following web site:
> http://fathersmanifesto.com/gore.htm
>
> > > I looked up page 342 of "Earth in the Balance".
> > > It contains no such reference. Nothing even remotely close to it.
> > >
> > > Vytas Safroncikas
> > > Editor, Truthcast.com
>
> ---------- original message ----------
>
> Refusing to accept the earth as our SACRED MOTHER, these Christians
> have become a dangerous threat to the survival of humanity.
> They are a
> BLIGHT on the environment and TO BELIEVE IN BIBLE
> PROPHECY IS UNFORGIVABLE."
> VP Al Gore, in his book EARTH IN BALANCE, p. 342.
>

mike richmond