Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Best Interests

Why does the pro-abortion movement want to deny studying the effects of abortion on women's health?

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/de_solenni200403090920.asp

Interesting article, Jolly. I disagree with the obstetrician regarding "no negative influence". There have been studies linking abortions to higher incidence of breast cancer. It is thought that hormonal milieu associated with pregnancy activates some progenitor to breast cancer, which under normal circumstances would then be "turned off" with a normal delivery. With termination of pregnancy, however, it is thought that the progenitor remains in its semi-activated state and then at a later date, the breast tissue is stimulated by estrogen to go on to become cancerous.
This article represents a refreshing perspective on abortions that most have never considered.

Haven't there also been some studies involving breast cancer, with child-brearing women vs. non child-bearing women, with a higher incidence in those women without children?

I will say from the beginning that my feelings about abortion differ from situation to situation. While I have spent a significant amount of time in feminist circles, I have never encountered mention of the "pro-abortion movement" that Jolly cites. Edify me, Jolly. Who are these people? Who thinks of abortion in such a nonconflictedly positive light?

Then, following his assertion that women who have had abortions encounter a hormonal hoopla that places them at higher risk of developing breast cancer, John applauds the article for providing a "refreshing perspective on abortions that some have never considered." John, I find your comments chilling.

The article quotes a member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice saying that women "can learn from that experience" of abortion. My sense is that this comment was reported badly out of context. Women can learn from being in car accidents, too. Does this make either abortions or accidents anything less than regretable or, in some cases, tragic? I have a hard time imagining a woman so concrete that she would need to undergo an abortion to understand that her action was ending the possibility of a new life.

I was glad to read that the "pro-life" movement is reaching out to women who have had abortions. I fervently hope that this outreach confers the promise that women with unwanted pregnancies will receive fiscal and medical support to provide good lives for any future unplanned children, state of the art contraceptive counseling and, if indicated, professional psychotherapy to work through what must for many be the most traumatic experience of their lives.

Pro-abortion = Pro-choice.

If one advocates abortion, then I figure that makes one an advocate of the position.

However, Lucy, you made the same mistake as the people cited in the article. If abortion has a deleterious medical effect, shouldn't the patient be informed of that fact before the procedure?

When getting consent for any other procedure, we inform a patient about the problems that can occur, so why is abortion different?

Jolly,

Perhaps I've lived a sheltered life, but I do not know of one single person who "advocates" abortion across all circumstances! Additionally, why shouldn't a woman considering abortion or any other surgical procedure be informed of the risks? Does anyone believe that she shouldn't?

Go back and read the article, you are still missing the story.

There is a possibility, a distinct possibility, that having an abortion carries more medical risk than previously thought. The Senator wants to pursue that line of thinking with hard facts and research.

There are a group of people who do not wish for him to do so, for political reasons.

Now granted, the Senator is strongly pro-life, but does that negate his point?

"chilling"? Come on Lucy. Why is it chilling? Because I'm a doctor? What do you know about the medical procedure, "dilatation and curettage", anyway? How many have you assisted in?
Wouldn't you want to know that if you undergo an abortion, you may have an increase chance of developing breast cancer?
Jolly, you are correct. Here are some of the factors which INCREASE your chances of developing breast cancer:
Early menarche(menstruation)
late menopause
fewer/later pregnancies(after age 30)
NOT breast feeding
?number of abortions

Lucy, women who come into the office for "termination-of-pregnancy" counselling are not typically informed of the MEDICAL risks of such a procedure other than post-op bleeding, infection of the uterus(endometritis), and psychological trauma.
You are missing the point of the article.

THere is plenty of research about the effects of abortions on a woman's health. Senator Brownback's call for for more research was clearly politically motivated.

Good posts Lucy (who certainly DID get the point!)

You both are missing the point. Sure there is research on the effects of abortion, but is that information getting to the women who undergo abortions? I'll answer it for you, my dearest Kathy, NO, NO, NO, it is not!!

Senator Brownback is a republican. We elected him here in Kansas. He is definitely a politician and not extraordinarily conservative. To put things in perspective. Here in Kansas we have a lot of controversy surrounding a late term abortion clinic. I won't even go into it.

It certainly could be said his motivation was political. That's his job. Maybe he as a problem with the brain sucker. Who knows?

Quoting John Wayne in Bike Jake...."Not hardly...."

jf

All right, Johnny M, (small tweak intended) 'fess up. Your concerns about the risks of abortion reflect a wish, somewhere deep in your soul, that the government or some other power (like an M.D.) be required to scare the bejesus out of women undergoing abortions. I can respect your wish to curtail abortion as a means of contraception. But verbally informing a patient that she might be at some higher but unknown level of risk for breast cancer somewhere down the road is going to go in one ear and out the other. If the findings of robust research ever support your conjecture that abortion increases a woman's risk of developing breast cancer, that information (including the level of the risk) needs to be shared and appropriate counselling made available.

I have really respected some of your posts (like the one about car seats for kids) because they reflect your concern and experience as an emergency medicine physician. But in this thread you appear to be mixing values with pragmatics and I find that to be annoying and inefficacious.

thank you, doctor, for that load of b.s. women get pregnant all the time and then miscarry, often without even knowing it. from what you have written, they would therefore be at greater risk for breast cancer.

abortion may have risks, but the medical risks no where near approach the risks women face if they carry a baby to term. the pregnancy or the birth itself could kill them.

what you wrote is very disturbing, i agree with lucy, because, yes, it came from an MD, and it is irresponsibly out of context.

.....not as irresponsible as delegating that a populace be uninformed for political gain.

We have brains..

The point IS, we are quite well informed. There's plenty of research out there. The point IS, the thrust of this so-called call for researach is no doubt a thinly veiled attempt to find some data to show the detrimental effect of abortion to women, not in attempt to protect women, but rather to add a quiver to the anti-choice/anti-women crowd. WE (as in women) don't need some right-wing religious zealot from Kansas (ignore the man behind the curtain!) legislating on a federal level what ought and ought not be researched in this arena.

Tell that to the 14 year old girl who just discovered that she's pregnant. Tell her she should already be quite well informed and that you don't need to disclose any potential complications because she should simply know better.

While I personally have never had an abortion, (surprise surprise!) and so cannot say whether the doctor performing the procedure is informing his/her patients of potential complications, I find it impossible to believe that there is a doctor anywhere in the United States whose insurance company does not demand he inform his patients of such risks and requires them to sign some type of release form.

If this is not happening, all of the hoopla from the medical community and the medical insurance industry about unjustified malpractice lawsuits is nothing but hogwash. If these doctors are not even taking the most basic steps to protect themselves against unjustified lawsuits -- making sure the patient consents to and understands the potential risks of any medical procedure -- then they cannot be that worried about them.

But they are worried about them, which is why every person I know who has any sort of medical procedures, particularly an invasive one, signs a declaration that they have been advised and understand the possible risk.

It simply is not credible that this is not being done by doctors performing abortions.

There have been enough studies financed by the government on the effects of abortion on women. heck, I have read such findings over and over again -- the physical risks, the emotional risks, the psychological risks. I also know of no one who would argue there are no such risks or there are no effects from this or any other medical procedure.

If the prolife movement wants more studies, then let them finance the studies themselves. I am tired of my tax monies being used for the same thing over and over again. This may be just a little thing, but I find pork barrel politics really annoying -- and that is all this is.

Zymtil, all I have to say to your comment is, have you experienced it?