Pro-Life Campaign Falsely Linking Abortion with Breast Cancer is OK...Or So Says the U of C's New VP Academic

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.

1. Why is "lies" in parentheses? Is Bidulock suggesting that misinforming women about breast cancer is trivial?
2. Why is savagery equated with Mexico? Does this smack of racism to anyone else?
3. 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?!

Comments

[skdadl]

The guy who wrote those absurdly ill-informed and racist two sentences about Montezuma is a grad student at U of C? A grad student? In what discipline?

And then there are his problems with women, whose lives he seems to think he personally should be defining and controlling.

I don't know what to say. I don't know how people like that get out of high school in this country. And I would sure want to be keeping my distance from him, Polly.

[Polly Jones]

I think he is in Computer Science. I am sure that there are many great people in that department, but there is a crew attached to the GSA executive that often leaves me asking: are these grad students?

The president could not even answer the simple question: "In your view, what is the scope and mandate of student politics?"

Of course, I believe they do not support the CFS, which unlike CASA, runs date rape awareness campaigns and promotes safe campuses for women and the LGBTQ community.

Of course, to the GSA these are not REAL student issues. Indeed, they supported the U of C's decision to host Condi Rice!!!

There are a lot of stupid people dominating the executive. My teenage nephews are truly more sophisticated thinkers!

[Dave]

Please find something better to do than dig up 4-year old articles that basically slander someone for espousing his personal pro-life views.

My teenage nephews are more mature.

[Polly Jones]

How is examining political views and condoned methods immature?

[Dave]

I am not a lawyer, but this post is treading dangerously on the Canadian laws against slander and libel. You didn't just examine political views, you are strongly insinuating many slanderous things from his simple letter to the article espousing pro-life beliefs.

The fact that it's come up now and out of the blue seems to indicate this is part of an effort to dig up dirt on the guy. And for what purpose? I ask you that -- what is the purpose of this post if not to defame the character of this guy? The fact that the defamation is completely unsupported is what makes it slander.

For the record, I do not know this guy nor am I a current student at the UofC. I'm an alumni who is watching this drama with great interest, but starting this mudslinging is embarrassing for the UofC, the CFS, and -- I would hope -- you personally.

[Polly Jones]

The purpose is to raise awareness about the political views and accepted practices of my student representative.

I am not breaking any laws and I am acting in accordance with my own moral compass.

My stats counter indicates that your comments have originated from the U of C; if you can't be frank about who you are and what angers you about this post, you are wasting space.

[Dave]

Check your stats counter again. I am posting from Toronto (Scarborough specifically). The question is, did you know that, or are you trying to mislead again?

For a post that speaks of integrity you are certainly doing yourself a disservice here.

[Polly Jones]

If you have no argument to make, Dave - move on.

[Grant Neufeld]

Proving, yet again, the point that student politics are almost as bad as government politics. It’s unfortunate to see representatives so focused on their ideological agendas that they fail to act in the interests of their constituents.

[Victoria]

I don't think bringing up an old article necessarily has a lot of relevance to the current debates, although I can see that it does provide a bit of a character reference (and I'm referring to the part in Bidulock's own words, which cannot possibly be slanderous - at least against himself).

Given what I've seen as a GRC rep, it suggests that Bidulock will fit in with a GSA exec that tends to see things in very polarized terms. The divide between pro-life and pro-choice is politically fruitless, and we know that common ground is distinctly possible; a pro-choice person might not think an abortion is justifiable in some situations, and a pro-life person can have moral doubts about whether every pregnancy should be brought to term regardless of its impact. Meaningful discussion and action arises when we set aside the "partisan" element of this debate and focus on the underlying ethics.

Similarly, the GSA exec has (in my view) treated the views of representatives and members more as nuisances or as proponents of wrong-headed thinking than as meaningful contributors of student voices. In other words, the Exec has an agenda that it wants its constituents to support, and is frustrated with members when they disagree. Rather than opening further discussion so that flaws in the Exec's plans can be solved or members can see the wisdom of the Exec's ways, the situation has devolved into recrimination and closed-mindedness.

I don't know "who started it," but it's hard not to feel that both sides are participating. I'm guessing that some of the language I'm responding to comes from lots of frustration, and I really respect Joanne for having the guts to swim upstream all year (and beyond!) the way she has. The way they decided to resolve their electoral dilemma - itself a product of idiotic bylaws that somehow failed to consider the possibility of 3+ candidates - was totally wrong. However: I don't think the protests to the Exec policies have always been registered in ways that invite discussion. There, I said it. Now I run.

And yeah, that Mexico statement was racist. I guess we didn't all make it through Latin American Studies, but really. I'm pretty sure you don't need higher education to recognize that the "ignorant savages" thing is out of style (thanks for demeaning my ancestors, Dan!). So is "abortion demeans mothers." The new thing for preventing abortion? "FREE CHILD CARE NOW!" Let's stop the sacrifice (by savage colored people) of all those cute little babies on the altar of economics.

[Polly Jones]

I won't play nice with people who have spread lies about me simply because I have the audacity to have my own thoughts regarding the CFS. The executive created a climate of hostility. If, however, you feel I am part of the problem, you can describe how in detail here. I, for one, support open discussion. I have tried a number of strategies with the executive and I am sure that I could benefit from feedback, but to say that I've devolved into close-mindedness when I continue to participate despite being explicitly made "the enemy" seems rather unfair.

[Polly Jones]

It is very sad, Grant. It seems that little effort is made to seek student input and REPRESENT the student body. The GSA has not received any approval from the student body to divert their levy. To me, it is unethical and, perhaps, illegal.

[Victoria]

Dang. I had a response all worked out and then I lost it. Let's see if I can summarize, since brevity is obviously not a strength for me.

I want to apologize for sticking my oar in. I know that I am quite distant from this situation, and I was providing input from that perspective. I know that non-conflictual discussions are more productive than conflicted ones; however, I also know that some people cannot understand the idea of not competing with or tearing down someone who disagrees with them (and I'm definitely not referring to you!). Non-conflict doesn't work if the other side isn't interested in participating. I'm sorry, because it sounds like that's the situation you, Paula, the GRST student whose name is escaping me, and the other people really working for this are in. Like I say, I really respect your activism, and I thought you were very articulate and open at the meeting. As I say,

I also work at a pregnancy counselling center (the pro-choice one), so I was reeled in by the article quoted, not the CFS debate; it composed a substantial part of the post, so I figured that would be okay, but in retrospect I guess it wasn't on topic.

I think a lot about activist techniques - the "fighting for" metaphor vs. "nonviolent communication" vs. democracy vs. consensus etc. - and I wrote more from a place of pondering these strategies than specific criticism. I didn't intend to be disrespectful of the effort you've put in and the shit you've put up with, but I was, and I apologize for that. I definitely didn't intend to imply that you were not open-minded; I called the debate/discussion closed minded, and because I honestly believe that a discussion between people can be closed without the people themselves being closed - or wanting a closed discussion - I stick by that.

Based on Rithesh's needlessly angry, and very anti-democratic "if we can't make decisions without the student body's input, why are we even here" comment at the last meeting - among others - I find it pretty easy to believe that he's created the hostile situation you describe. Since I don't know the details, I wrote on the limited information that I do have: that meeting and the updates that you (generously! thank you!) provide for the faculty.

I'm pretty classically good at sounding like an ass. For a while, I just had a "Victoria's not allowed to talk on the internet" policy, but that seemed like I was cutting myself out of an awful lot of discussion. So I thought I'd dip my toe in here. I am sorry about that, and sorry for not making it clear that I support you and your actions so far.

I think I've re-proved my brevity point.

[Polly Jones]

Victoria,

Your input is valued. There are a lot of things about the GSA and its members that I have been told that I can't say on this blog not for fear of a lawsuit but because people's identities need to be protected and I cannot fight personal fights for others.

Among the things that I have had to deal with are the GSA threatening to sue me, Ritesh inviting me to a private meeting only to accuse me publicly of having CFS lawyers and so on...

I have lived in Alberta my entire life and have a reputation for laying my cards on the table and certainly no one can accuse me of partisanship because there is not a single political party or ideology that I see as fixed or perfect nor give my unconditional support.

I have done nothing other than express my opinions and document what I have seen.

People are entirely free to challenge anything I say right here on my blog...

...but the GSA does not because they count on winning their debates using strategies like closed meetings; slotting important topics/issues at the end of meetings; misleading people with ghastly Power Point presentations and so on...

Quite frankly, I think they are scared to engage me in any real dialogue because I think my insights have been pretty dead on.

They only wish that I worked for the CFS...
I am just a student with an opinion and that is the biggest threat to that GSA right now because its agenda relies on student apathy.

Also, unfortunately for the clan, the GSA is not my raison d'etre...it is a tiny part of my activism. So, if they want to waste student dollars to build a lawsuit against me, print off my emails, etc., let them...they're small potatoes when in comes to the larger picture.