Search this Site!
    Dedicated to the return to the constitution as written by our forefathers, The return of common sense in our laws, the return of morality in our
    Decisions, and the proliferation of environmental truth.

    1994 – Breast Cancer, Abortion & NOW

    Second Study Links Abortions to Breast Cancer

    “A report published last week in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute says women under 45 who have had abortions may have a 50% higher risk of developing breast cancer than other women in that age group. The study, which corroborates similar findings obtained last year by New York endocrinology professor Joel Brind (BCR Jan. I1, 1993), was conducted by scientists at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle and involved 1,800 Seattle-area women. Those women under 18 who had had abortions increased their risk of breast cancer by 150%, while women over 30 increased their risk 110%. The study found no increased risk associated with spontaneous abortion or miscarriage. The article’s co-author, Noel Weiss, says the suspected connection between abortion and cancer involves the proliferation of breast tissue that occurs early in pregnancy.”   From BC Report November 1994


    1994 – Breast Cancer, Abortion & NOW

    By Chuck Diaz

    I am not a doctor or a scientist.  But I am a human being with a lot of common sense.  It would seem to me that when a woman’s body becomes pregnant an enormous number changes start to happen in preparation for the carrying of the child and the feeding after the child is born.

    I couldn’t begin to tell you what all the changes are, but common sense would lead me to believe that major changes must start in the women’s breast.  Think of what actually happens.  A breast that is basically just there is suddenly awakened and messages are transmitted saying its time to prepare yourself for what’s coming.

    The glands go through some kind of miraculous transformation and become factories for producing the milk that an infant will need to survive once born.  Try and think of the changes that are started inside a woman’s breast.  The switches that are turned on and off, the transformation of tissue from an apparent sleep state to its awakening.  Or maybe some kind of regeneration.

    All these happenings are part of the miracle of life and are normal and natural.  Once started the body assumes it will continue until the total cycle of pregnancy ending in birth is completed.

    At that point things start to slowly shut down and return to the normal non-pregnant state.

    It would seem to me that when the body starts this transformation anything that would stop it before it completes its cycle would cause all sorts of havoc with the tissues and cells that have started to transform.

    It’s like shutting anything down pre-maturely but far more complex.  Expected cycles do not occur.  Chemicals in the body that are required for shut down may not be produced.

    Common sense would lead me to believe the woman’s breast would go through a major shock, and shut down may not go as planned.

    As the report above indicates, breast cancer can develop as a result of pre-mature shut down of the pregnancy cycle.  This is understandable to a layman such as myself.

    While it may be understandable for me, the feminists have all but ignored these reports.  The Greens continue to link breast cancer to DDT, pesticides in general and every other thing mankind has created, invented and produced.

    Their goal is not to save women from death or the harm breast cancer brings.  Their goal is the advancement of a political agenda and they don’t care how many women die of breast cancer. Name one conservative woman the National Organization of Women supports, agrees with or acknowledges in any way.

    Watching C-Span’s coverage of the National Organization for Women’s (NOW) national conference a few years ago was a revelation for me. As most, I had always assumed it was a women’s rights organization. At the time I had no idea NOW is as militant, anti-men and pro-lesbian as it is.

    In a meeting that ended by officially calling for civil disobedience, Patricia Ireland, NOW’s current President, announced any pro life or anti abortion movement is really an attempt to reassert man’s control over women. She preached “Hold on to your ass boys, we’re coming after you.”

    Gloria Steinem advised the organization “There are many women who have come up from the lesbian organizations that can help us make decisions.”

    Flo Kennedy, a NOW activist, opened the proceedings with comments like:

    “We don’t have to be reasonable, we just have to take names and kick ass.”

    “We don’t have to ask anybody’s permission anymore.” “We’re going to change this country.” “This country is an embarrassment.”

    “We’re going to teach a lot of people how to act.”

    “We don’t care if they lie, just as long as they say the right thing.” When commenting on President Bush’s Supreme Court appointee, Clarence Thomas, she remarked        “We’re going to Bork him.”

    My overall impression of the meeting was as if Hitler had replaced his hatred of Jews with men and pro-lifers.

    If NOW has it’s way, a visitor to earth in the year 2500 AD would find females, gays and sperm banks.

    An ancient Chinese proverb states “When the hen starts crowing, the family will fall.” Well, these hens have been crowing for twenty five years now and the American family is in the worst shape it has ever been.

    In an era of worldwide manufacturing competition, worldwide marketing competition, our worldwide existence depends on our ability to have the best representatives possible in our government. The American life-style is not a guarantee, it is something that must be protected at all times, in all parts of the world. It is a shame that the people, male and female, that need to lead us in worldwide coexistence will be voted in or out of office depending on what their view is on abortion. What organizations like NOW have accomplished is to divide this nation on a subject that should not be brought up at any national level. The Supreme Court is not a legislative body and should not be the activist court that the Warrens and Marshalls of the country made it.

    One could be pro-choice and still believe abortion is not protected under the constitution. The point is, the Supreme Court is not the place to legalize it. If anyone in their right mind thinks the authors of the Constitution meant for subjects like abortion, nude dancing and flag burning to be protected by rights of privacy and freedom of expression, they’re nuts.

    Simultaneously, the pro-lifers are wrong in interpreting the fourteenth amendment’s statement, “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law” to mean protection of an unborn fetus. They meant you can’t execute someone, jail him or take his property without due process. They were talking in political terms because the Constitution is a political document not a moral one.

    The problem created by the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Roe v Wade is that it presumes the Constitution should address moral issues. Given the passion involved on both sides, faith in our system of government is at risk. It has been said before, our form of government will only stand as long as the people have faith in the Supreme Court.

    Once they lose that faith, our form of government (The Constitution) will be under attack. Because of the passion, women would be the first to call for a radical change. The seeds of dissent are already out there in organizations like NOW calling for third political party.

    Women typically are not Democrats or Republicans, they are women first. Because of this they feel only women should decide this issue.  But they are wrong when they believe abortion should be a Constitutional right. I may be some other right, but not a Constitutional one.  The Constitution is a political document, not the Ten Commandments. It does not, nor should it, address moral issues. What the Constitution does say is, anything not covered is left to the states jurisdiction and that is exactly where abortion ought to be.

    Before Roe v Wade, 49 state had laws outlawing abortion indicating the morality at that time. If the people in a state wish it, then so be it. The people should decide through their own states congressional process whether or not to outlaw abortion.

    The main thing is, get the decision out of Washington.

    The Supreme Court should reverse Roe v Wade as a acknowledgment they had no right to their original decision. Then the states should each enact whichever position as the people of that state desires.

    If necessary by putting it on a state ballot. Organizations like NOW could still take out their venom at that level and our national politician’s wouldn’t have the anchor on their back.

    Supreme Court nominee’s would not be subjected to the “Borking” Clarence Thomas almost got.

    If as a nation we are to continue to compete in this world, moral issues like abortion should not determine who sits on the Supreme Court; in the White House or who goes to Congress