In October of 2005, Amy Steele - a notable writer in Calgary - wrote the following piece about a pro-life campaign that misled women to believe that an abortion could cause breast cancer:
A
campaign by a pro-life group to convince women that there’s a link
between having an abortion and getting breast cancer doesn’t have any
credible scientific basis, says the Canadian Cancer Society.
And
the executive director of the Calgary Birth Control Association Sexual
and Reproductive Centre, Pamela Krause, questions the motivation behind
the campaign.
(The
campaign) could act as a scare tactic and is not really very helpful to
a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy," says Krause.
The
pro-life group LifeCanada has launched a website
(www.abortionbreastcancer.ca) and has put up 38 billboards across
Canada, including three in Alberta, to get their message across. The
billboards feature the breast cancer ribbon used by the Canadian Breast
Cancer Foundation and state "Stop the Coverup."
Joanne
Byfield, president of LifeCanada, says her organization decided to
launch their campaign because it’s Breast Cancer Awareness Month. On
its website, the organization argues that women who have abortions have
an increased risk of breast cancer because they are delaying childbirth
and breastfeeding. Both breastfeeding and giving birth to a child at an
earlier age have been proven to reduce the risk of breast cancer.
This
is something Canadian women should be aware of," says Byfield. "This
link has been studied for over 50 years. There are 50 some studies that
do show an increased risk, and by and large women are not told about
the possibility of an increased risk of breast cancer when they choose
to have an abortion. We think that is unconscionable.
"Informed
consent is a recognized and long standing principle of health care in
Canada and it strikes us as wrong that women don’t have this
information."
But the Canadian Cancer Society disputes Byfield’s claims."Basically,
although there are some published studies that suggest a slightly
increased risk of breast cancer in women who have had an abortion, the
total body of scientific evidence doesn’t support this," says Lori
Boychuk, spokesperson for the Canadian Cancer Society.
LifeCanada
alleges on its campaign website that there’s been a major coverup of
the link, and Byfield says that’s because "abortion is a sacred cow in
this country."
"In
Canada, to challenge the status quo on abortion makes you a complete
pariah," says Byfield. "Just because we as a group do not think
abortion is good for women and children does not mean everything we say
can be discounted as biased and everything pro-choice groups say is
truth."
However, Boychuk says the society carefully monitors and weighs all scientific evidence on cancer.
"Our
number one priority is providing women with the best information that
is available and we’re there to serve them and give them support in
terms of reliable information that’s science based," says Boychuk.
Boychuk says if women want "reliable" information on breast cancer they should go to www.cancer.ca.
Krause agrees there is no conspiracy to hide information from women and describes the LifeCanada campaign as "unfortunate."
"There
is nothing hidden from women who make the choice to have an abortion,"
she says. "The difficulty is research can be found and statistics can
be developed around any issue from a particular bias, and I believe
they’re operating from a specific bias."
Krause
says the National Cancer Institute (in the U.S.), the American Cancer
Society and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
have all refuted a link between abortion and breast cancer. In 2003,
the National Cancer Institute brought together 100 of the world’s
leading experts on breast cancer and reviewed existing research and the
experts concluded there is no link between abortion and breast cancer.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also reviewed
available evidence in 2003 and concluded there was no link.
In response to this article, Dan Bidulock - the new VP Academic of Graduate Students' Association at the U of C - wrote the following letter to FFWD magazine:
Let's
all follow the example of Pamela Krause, executive director of the
Calgary Birth Control Association. She questions LifeCanada's motives
in campaigning to link breast cancer with abortion. I don't know about
cancer or alleged coverups, but I can think of two things that might
motivate the monsters over at LifeCanada to spread these "lies":
women's health and the welfare of unborn babies.
Every
day children are sacrificed to the gods of convenience, economy, and
whim in numbers that would make Montezuma himself cringe. We're a long
way from the jungles of ancient Mexico, yet the savagery continues.
How is murdering the most helpless among us accepted and even lauded in
our society? LifeCanada's claims of breast cancer aside, there are
hundreds of couples in this province alone that would adopt an unwanted
baby. Abortion is selfish, senseless, and dehumanizing to both mother
and child.
I am just going to make three comments about this letter and then consider the implications of this type of reasoning for someone who holds the position of VP Academic.
- Why is "lies" in parentheses? Is Bidulock suggesting that misinforming women about breast cancer is trivial?
- Why is savagery equated with Mexico? Does this smack of racism to anyone else?
- Does Bidulock really think he can speak to the feelings and motives of women who get abortions?
So, it seems that the new VP Academic believes the ends justify the means.
Bidulock will fit in well, however, with the current executive of the GSA. Incidentally, he lost the general election, but effectively harassed the true winner out of her position with the help of the executive. You see Bidulock supports the GSA's anti-CFS agenda and certainly appears comfortable employing unethical strategies to meet political agendas. For certain, the GSA uses its own unethical tactics to push their agenda of de-federation from the Canadian Federation of Students.
I have seen firsthand how the executive flat out lies about the CFS, while also explicitly acknowledging that they REFUSE to invite the CFS to visit the campus to respond to any concerns U of C students may have, including those of the executive.
And while I cannot provide evidence (note: this claim could be false), I was told by a former staff member of the GSA that the executive conspired to remove all the information pages about the Canadian Federation of Students from the day planners that the CFS supplies as part of the services that students pay for with their CFS levy each year. In fact, according to the staff member, the children of the Executive Director were hired with student funds to tamper with student property.
I encourage everyone with a day planner to check to see if the CFS pages have been removed from your planner.
Finally, students should know that the GSA passed a motion in April to no longer pass on the money levied from students to the Canadian Federation of Students. So while students' accounts will show that a levy was collected for the CFS, the GSA will actually not pass on the money collected in the name of the CFS. Misleading? Yes.
Instead students' money will go into a "reserve fund" until 2015 at which time the Graduate Representative Council will decide what to do with the "fund." So know that money is being taken from students while denying them the benefit of CFS services. And likely students' will not receive any benefits of the levy since the fund will likely not be used until after paying students have graduated!!!
See what I'm saying about lack of integrity when it comes to the means this executive will employ to achieve its myopic political goals?!
Recent Comments