Abortion and Breast Cancer

On November 1, 1994 at a time when there were more than two dozen studies available which showed an association between induced abortion and breast cancer, NBC's news program, Dateline, interviewed the president of Planned Parenthood at that time, Pamela Maraldo, to discuss Planned Parenthood's informed consent policy. The following conversation took place between Maraldo and the reporter:

Reporter: "If indeed your panel of medical experts studies this study by Dr. Daling and you find it to be solid good science, what are the chances you will begin warning women about this possible link?”

Maraldo: "Even if it's solid good science, then to begin to warn women, and upset women, on the basis of one study is clearly irresponsible. One study is not an adequate, uh, uh -- evidence for us to change a policy, or -- or to upset or frighten women."

Reporter: "Five studies -- say you have five studies?"

Maraldo: "Well I think we're a long ways away from that."

Why is Planned Parenthood excluding women from this debate about their health? An increased risk of breast cancer would undoubtedly impact the decision making process for many women considering an abortion. Withholding vital information, which is needed to make an informed choice about health matters, is paternalistic censorship. Women have a right to know all of the risks associated with induced abortion. [taken from the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer]

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Is Pro-choice really PRO-choice?

1) If "pro-choice" were really PRO-choice, then abortion clinics would counsel the women there on all the legal options available for them, including adoption. Millions of well qualified adoptive parents are waiting to take care of a precious baby.

2) If "pro-choice" were really PRO-choice, then abortion clinics would fully inform their patients to any and all ramifications and consequences of abortion, even if the possibilities were slim. They would tell patients that they may suffer from:

I am a physician, and when I perform surgeries, I am expected to inform patients of risks associated with the procedure.
If it is common for a patient to later regret that a procedure is done, then it is of paramount importance that the patient be fully informed as to all possible short and long term side effects. It is also important to tell the patient that many people later regret having the procedure done. Then the patient is given the choice...do you still wish to proceed with the procedure?
That is true pro-choice!

3) If "pro-choice" were really PRO-choice, then abortion clinics would make sure that the mother fully understood what was growing inside of her, so that she could make a fully informed choice. It would be appropriate to show pictures of babies
[or "fetus" if you prefer that term] inside the womb at the current gestational age of the pregnancy. It would also be appropriate to show the mother what the baby [fetus] would look like 4 weeks, 8 weeks, or 12 weeks later. If the mother had all these facts and chose abortion, she would be fully informed and "pro-choice" would really be PRO-choice!

4) When "pro-choice" fails to fully inform a patient, they are removing the ability of the mother to make a choice based upon ALL the available scientific, photographic, and clinical information available. When these facts are not offered, the abortion clinic is practicing "paternalistic censorship." They are censoring information and taking on a parental, or paternal role, and presuming that they know what is best for the patient. THAT is not proper medicine. THAT is not proper informed consent for a surgical procedure. THAT is NOT truly "pro-choice"!

"Thank you Mom for choosing to have me!"

© 2005 EadsHome Ministries
All materials produced by EadsHome Ministries are free for your use as long as a profit is not made.
Materials copyrighted to others are specifically noted and linked.