Coming Home

In the early 1970’s a comic send up of the hit movie, The Godfather, was released on 33 1/3 record: Everything You Wanted to Know About the Godfather, But Were Afraid to Ask. It was hilarious. In their riff on the crooked police lieutenant scene, the “Godfather” quips, “It’s guys like him that make me lose respect for the law”.

I could say the same about my regard of pro-abortion rights apologists when I think of Dr. Louise Brinton. She and her gang have been masterful in their duplicity. Another bit of duplicity here today.

In their renunciation of the substantial body of literature showing a link between abortion and breast cancer, with relative risks (RR) between 40%-90%, these odds have been dismissed by the Brinton Gang with a wave of the hand as being ‘statistically insignificant’. Data that are significant, we are admonished, reside in the RR range of 2.0 (doubling) or higher.

So how would Brinton characterize a RR of 1.7 (70%)? One would expect that 70% being between 40% and 90% would be, in their estimation, statistically insignificant, whether such a percentage were associated with increased or decreased risk.

The answer is: It depends!

It depends on whether or not we are discussing abortion. In the 2007 paper that we shall examine later today (#12), when the topic is endometrial cancer with parity as a risk factor, Brinton states the following:

“Similar to previous investigations (Brinton et al, 1992; Albrektsen et al, 1995; Hinkula et al, 2002), we found a substantially reduced risk of endometrial cancer associated with parity, with women having three or more full-term births being at a 70% lower risk than nulliparous women.”

So here, when abortion is not on the table, 70% is a “substantially reduced risk”.

But a 70% increased risk of BC arising from induced abortion is statistically insignificant.

When medical scientists subordinate truth to their pet agendas, people die. Women are dying because of these lies, because they are being denied fully informed consent. They are suffering the physical and emotional disfigurement that comes with mastectomy. Intimacy suffers frightfully. Families are upended. Children suffer the loss of mothers needlessly.

Need we discuss the avoidable medical costs in all of this?

And for what? For Brinton’s vanity. Bernstein’s vanity. Palmer and Rosenberg’s vanity.

Women are losing breasts, losing families, losing their lives, because these ardent pro-aborts can’t lose face. It’s difficult to admit that the means employed in attempting to realize noble goals that organized the worldview of one’s youth could have had such unforeseen and disastrous consequences. Admitting the mistake and breaking with the feminist establishment would no doubt exact a terrible price. Concealing it is selfish, cowardly, cruel, and unethical.

Having betrayed the ethical precepts of scientific inquiry, these liars have betrayed women in the scores of millions, the self-same women they purportedly champion.

The biological and medical sciences do not have as their ends the maintenance of positive law rights, such as abortion. Science has as its end the discovery of truth, including biological and medical truth. Policy debate comes after, and is predicated on the truth discovered. Knowing the truth of their discoveries, the Brinton Gang have much to fear on the policy front. They know well that women in significant numbers will opt out of abortion if they were presented with the truth. Why else would they go to the extent that they have in falsifying the truth?

The co-opting of a valid debate predicated on new information shows the imperiousness of this gang, their utter contempt for anyone who doesn’t share their vision, and even for those who do.

It is time to demand that Brinton make a decision. If she believes her 2003 NCI “Fact Sheet” is correct, then she must withdraw her subsequent 2009 paper identifying abortion as a known risk factor for BC. If on the other hand 70% is a substantial number, then her published papers are in direct opposition to her “Fact Sheet” and that document must be rescinded. Both cannot stand simultaneously.

This is the decade when the truth, long-suppressed, finally makes its way into women’s hands. The Brinton Gang will ultimately be remembered as politically driven hacks who never really valued the virtue of choice inherent in their brand of feminism and resorted to deception in order to keep the revolution alive. Fearing that women would actually choose husbands, children, and family life over career, the feminist leadership in every quarter has done all it can to drive women, like so many cattle, toward the promised land.

In so doing, they will be remembered as having contributed to visiting the horror of breast cancer on untold numbers of women, all in the name of sisterhood, and will have secured for themselves an ignominious place in the annals of biomedical ethics.

Science continues to grow and truth continues to be discovered. The harder one tries to suppress that truth, the more it leaks out of the crevices created under such pressure.

These are yesterday’s women.