A report by Rep. Henry A. Waxman found that federally funded crisis pregnancy centers often mislead women about the risks of abortion. Investigators posing as 17-year-old girls contacted 23 centers for information about an unintended pregancy. Twenty of them gave them false information to the effect that abortion puts women at a greater risk of breast cancer, infertility and mental illness.
According to the report [pdf]:
- The centers provided false and misleading information about a link between abortion and breast cancer. There is a medical consensus that induced abortion does not cause an increased risk of breast cancer. Despite this consensus, eight centers told the caller that having an abortion would in fact increase her risk. One center said that “all abortion causes an increased risk of breast cancer in later years,” while another told the caller that an abortion would “affect the milk developing in her breasts†and that the risk of breast cancer increased by as much as 80% following an abortion.
- The centers provided false and misleading information about the effect of abortion on future fertility. Abortions in the first trimester, using the most common abortion procedure, do not pose an increased risk of infertility. However, seven centers told the caller that having an abortion could hurt her chances of having children in the future. One center said that damage from abortion could lead to “many miscarriages†or to “permanent damage†so “you wouldn’t be able to carry,†telling the caller that this is “common†and happens “a lot.â€Â
- The centers provided false and misleading information about the mental health effects of abortion. Research shows that significant psychological stress after an abortion is no more common than after birth. However, thirteen centers told the caller that the psychological effects of abortion are severe, long-lasting, and common. One center said that the suicide rate in the year after an abortion “goes up by seven times.†Another center said that post-abortion stress suffered by women having abortions is “much like†that seen in soldiers returning from Vietnam and “is something that anyone who’s had an abortion is sure to suffer from.â€Â
This dishonesty seems to be an ongoing thing with abortion opponents as shown by CareNet, an evangelical sponsor of such centers nationwide in this article:
Care Net, an umbrella group for evangelical pregnancy centers acrossthe country, instructs its affiliates to tell callers there is apossibility that abortion can lead to greater risk of breast cancer,according to Molly Ford, an official with the organization. She saidthere have been several studies that say it does, and several that sayit doesn’t.
“I know the report is wanting to say that it’s conclusive, but it isn’t,” Ford said.
And anti-abortionists wonder why some of us wouldn’t trust ‘em to be telling the truth if they said that grass is green. It would be one thing if they were just working off the known information, but they’re not. In all cases they are going against the conclusions of the professionals in those fields and appear to be relying on the general ignorance of the people to spread them.
For example, in February of 2003 the National Cancer Institute gathered over 100 of the world’s experts in pregancy and breast cancer. At the end of the conference it was concluded that having an abortion or a miscarriage does not increase the risk of breast cancer.
Why hasn’t CareNet (and other sponsors) instructed its affliates to report this finding by the professionals in the field if all they wish to do is inform women about the “true” risks of abortion?
There’s also the immorality of what they’re doing. They are intentionally giving women false and misleading information in order to stop women from making truely informed decisions.
The Atheist Ethicist has a post up about the morality at play in this situation. A quote:
This form of deception can be described as a form of tyranny.
A rather blunt, but truthful statement in my honest opinion. Imagine that you wanted to stop someone from doing something that you disapprove of – but there’s no facts to support your stance. What do you do?
You give the impression that something very bad is going to happen if they choose the path you disapprove of. And when it comes to abortion – these groups tell women that they’ll get breast cancer – if they don’t kill themselves in the midst of a major guilt-induced depression. If they’re lucky – they’ll just be unable to have children in the future.
Blogged with Flock
{ 2 comments }
1) That is 23 centers out of over 4000 centers mostly staffed by volunteers with the sole objective of helping women in a very difficult situation.
2)Planned Parenthood has an even worse record of misinforming women, preventing them from having sonograms, promoting their profit making abortion mills.
3)Telling a woman there is a “possibility” of increased risk of breast cancer” is not a scare tactic. Valid studies have shown and the physical nature of breast cell transformation during pregnancy support the “possibility”.
4) Have you looked at the inserts in any drug you take nowadays? You may get cancer, heart disease or die, but people still take the drug. The difference is that they are informed consumers.
5)This “study” is just political manipulation by Waxman. He doesn’t care about women. I hope you do!
1. No, they’re not. They’re fronts for anti-abortionist groups whose sole objective is to stop women from aborting – not making the best decision for themselves. Why else would they lie and decieve women in such a manner?
2. No. Planned Parenthood has put up a fight against anti-choice demands that women be forced to have sonograms before an abortion is performed and other tactics that are clearly aimed at not at helping the woman, but in stopping abortions.
Seriously. Consider a friend of mine who had a pregancy terminated in the third trimester. I forget the exact name of the problem, but he, the fetus, was severely malformed, would’ve lived a short life of a pain should he have survived birth which would’ve possibly killed my friend also. Why should she have been forced to have a sonogram?
Because anti-choicers hope that such women will see the heart beating and make an entirely emotional decision and not the “informed” one they bray about.
3. Yes it is. The evidence is, at best, inconclusive. If you tell someone they’re going to catch a disease that has no cure if they do XXX – without evidence that such an assertion is true and even contrary to the conclusions of that disease’s researchers- you are engaging in a scare tactic.
4. There’s a big difference between being informed and misinformed. Telling people that mixing pain-killers and alcohol can lead to death is informing them. Tell them that mixing pain-killers and iced tea will lead to death is misinforming them. There’s support for the first situation. There’s no support for the second situation – which is where the whole abortion-equals-breast cancer falls under.
5. I’d like to see some evidence supporting this assertion in regards to Rep. Waxman. As far as I can tell, he has never voted yes on any legislation put through by anti-choicers . He voted against making it a crime to transport minors across state lines. He voted against tieing foreign aid to pro-birth policies. He is the one behind the above report exposing CPCs for the liars that they are. I’d say that falls under being “pro-woman”.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }