Biased Reporting on Abortion-Breask Cancer Link Still a Problem

Biased Reporting on Abortion-Breask Cancer Link Still a Problem

by Karen Malec
Karen Malec is the president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer.

During the last year, both the New York Times and the Minneapolis
Star-Tribune published editorials opposing the efforts of public
health agencies to educate the public about a public health risk,
the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link. [1,2] The editors at the
first newspaper were displeased that the National Cancer
Institute briefly informed the public late last year about the
existence of research implicating their cherished sacrament -
induced abortion - as a risk factor for breast cancer. In the
case of the second newspaper, the editors feel aggrieved about
similar efforts on the part of the Minnesota Public Health
Department. Neither newspaper has informed its readers that five
medical organizations recognize abortion as one of the causes of
breast cancer.

Although it is relevant to the issue at hand, neither newspaper
has since informed its readers that the Association of American
Physicians and Surgeons issued a statement early in November
calling for "full disclosure" of a "highly plausible"
relationship. Readers weren't told that the Catholic Medical
Association passed a resolution on October 15 calling on the
states to pass legislation, which would require doctors to inform
patients about the research, and that the nation's first
settlement of an abortion-breast cancer malpractice lawsuit took
place on October 17, 2003.

Its predictable that many doctors and their medical groups will
be exceptionally biased against the ABC research. Why? Many have
either performed abortions or referred women to abortion doctors.
Doctors feel an inherent revulsion toward medical malpractice
lawsuits. Acknowledgement of the ABC link will only open the
floodgates to more lawsuits. True to their own interests, the
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the
Minnesota chapter of the American Medical Association (AMA) have
reportedly taken stands against informing Minnesota women about
the breast cancer risk. [3] The AMA is on record as having put
its financial interests ahead of patients interests. In 1964,
the group accepted $10 million from the tobacco industry and then
opposed efforts to pass legislation in Congress requiring warning
labels on cigarette packages.

A recent column in the news weekly, The Wanderer, provides a
second possible explanation for the suppression of the truth. In
the column, "From the Mail," an anonymous author reflected upon
the words of a 20th Century writer, Hilaire Belloc. [4] In his
book, The Free Press, Belloc discussed the rise of small,
non-corporate sponsored, weekly newspapers. He labeled them the
"free press" and compared them with the "official press" - the
large daily newspapers, whose views generally represent the
objectives and morals of the ruling class.

Belloc elaborated on the success of the newsweeklies in the
publication, The New Age. He said:

"Here is a force numerically quite small, lacking the one great
obvious power of our time (which is the power to bribe), rigidly
boycotted - so much so that it is hardly known outside the circle
of its immediate adherents and quite unknown abroad. Yet this
force is doing work - is creating at a moment when everything
else is marking time; and the work it is doing is growing more
and more apparent.

"The reason is, of course, the principle which was a common-place
with antiquity, though it was almost forgotten in the last modern
generation, that truth has a power of its own. Mere indignation
against organized falsehood, mere revolt against it, is
creative."

Belloc drew a distinction between hard news and suggested ideas.
He argued:

"These two things are quite distinct in character and should be
regarded separately, though they merge in this: that false ideas
are suggested by false news and especially news that is false
through suppression."

The Wanderer's columnist said this about Belloc: "In his view,
the 'Free Press,' however, born in rebellion to the 'Official
Press' which usually serves the interests of the governing
classes, was growing in credibility for exposing the 'incapacity
and falsehood' of many large newspapers."

Belloc further opined, "The Capitalist Press has come at last to
warp all judgment. The tiny oligarchy which controls it is
irresponsible and feels itself immune. It has come to believe
that it can suppress any truth and suggest any falsehood. It
governs, and it governs abominably: and it is governing thus in
the midst of a war for life."

Belloc's concepts might explain why the nation's medical,
scientific, political and journalistic elite has concealed the
truth about the ABC research for almost a half-century. The
suppression of the truth serves the interests of Fortune 500
corporations and the wealthiest members of society who fund
population control efforts. Included among Planned Parenthood's
long list of wealthy donors are the New York Times, George Soros,
Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and the Rockefellers. They
aggressively fund causes which limit the size of families, even
though increased childbearing starting before age 24 is the
single most effective measure a woman can take in the fight
against breast cancer.

The New York Times and the Minneapolis Star-Tribune do an
exceptional job of serving the interests of the wealthy.


Enter your email address to receive news from LifeNews.com via email. Do you prefer to receive news daily or weekly? Daily Weekly Do you favor or oppose abortion? Favor Oppose Click here to make a PayPal donation to LifeNews.com!	Biased Reporting on Abortion-Breask Cancer Link Still a Problem by Karen Malec Karen Malec is the president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer. During the last year, both the New York Times and the Minneapolis Star-Tribune published editorials opposing the efforts of public health agencies to educate the public about a public health risk, the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link. [1,2] The editors at the first newspaper were displeased that the National Cancer Institute briefly informed the public late last year about the existence of research implicating their cherished sacrament - induced abortion - as a risk factor for breast cancer. In the case of the second newspaper, the editors feel aggrieved about similar efforts on the part of the Minnesota Public Health Department. Neither newspaper has informed its readers that five medical organizations recognize abortion as one of the causes of breast cancer. Although it is relevant to the issue at hand, neither newspaper has since informed its readers that the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons issued a statement early in November calling for "full disclosure" of a "highly plausible" relationship. Readers weren't told that the Catholic Medical Association passed a resolution on October 15 calling on the states to pass legislation, which would require doctors to inform patients about the research, and that the nation's first settlement of an abortion-breast cancer malpractice lawsuit took place on October 17, 2003. Its predictable that many doctors and their medical groups will be exceptionally biased against the ABC research. Why? Many have either performed abortions or referred women to abortion doctors. Doctors feel an inherent revulsion toward medical malpractice lawsuits. Acknowledgement of the ABC link will only open the floodgates to more lawsuits. True to their own interests, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Minnesota chapter of the American Medical Association (AMA) have reportedly taken stands against informing Minnesota women about the breast cancer risk. [3] The AMA is on record as having put its financial interests ahead of patients interests. In 1964, the group accepted $10 million from the tobacco industry and then opposed efforts to pass legislation in Congress requiring warning labels on cigarette packages. A recent column in the news weekly, The Wanderer, provides a second possible explanation for the suppression of the truth. In the column, "From the Mail," an anonymous author reflected upon the words of a 20th Century writer, Hilaire Belloc. [4] In his book, The Free Press, Belloc discussed the rise of small, non-corporate sponsored, weekly newspapers. He labeled them the "free press" and compared them with the "official press" - the large daily newspapers, whose views generally represent the objectives and morals of the ruling class. Belloc elaborated on the success of the newsweeklies in the publication, The New Age. He said: "Here is a force numerically quite small, lacking the one great obvious power of our time (which is the power to bribe), rigidly boycotted - so much so that it is hardly known outside the circle of its immediate adherents and quite unknown abroad. Yet this force is doing work - is creating at a moment when everything else is marking time; and the work it is doing is growing more and more apparent. "The reason is, of course, the principle which was a common-place with antiquity, though it was almost forgotten in the last modern generation, that truth has a power of its own. Mere indignation against organized falsehood, mere revolt against it, is creative." Belloc drew a distinction between hard news and suggested ideas. He argued: "These two things are quite distinct in character and should be regarded separately, though they merge in this: that false ideas are suggested by false news and especially news that is false through suppression." The Wanderer's columnist said this about Belloc: "In his view, the 'Free Press,' however, born in rebellion to the 'Official Press' which usually serves the interests of the governing classes, was growing in credibility for exposing the 'incapacity and falsehood' of many large newspapers." Belloc further opined, "The Capitalist Press has come at last to warp all judgment. The tiny oligarchy which controls it is irresponsible and feels itself immune. It has come to believe that it can suppress any truth and suggest any falsehood. It governs, and it governs abominably: and it is governing thus in the midst of a war for life." Belloc's concepts might explain why the nation's medical, scientific, political and journalistic elite has concealed the truth about the ABC research for almost a half-century. The suppression of the truth serves the interests of Fortune 500 corporations and the wealthiest members of society who fund population control efforts. Included among Planned Parenthood's long list of wealthy donors are the New York Times, George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and the Rockefellers. They aggressively fund causes which limit the size of families, even though increased childbearing starting before age 24 is the single most effective measure a woman can take in the fight against breast cancer. The New York Times and the Minneapolis Star-Tribune do an exceptional job of serving the interests of the wealthy.