Special Series

"We thought that 'partial birth' is a color phrase for people who are anti-abortion rights," said Mason. "This is a procedure usually done after 20 weeks. Therefore, 'late term' is appropriate. Now, some colleagues have come back to me and questioned this because the name of the law before the Supreme Court is the 'Partial-Birth Abortion.' When people refer to the case, they should call it by the correct name. But a CBS reporter should call the procedure a 'late term abortion.'"

Whether due to our petition or not, it looks like some members of the MSM are getting it: "partial birth abortion" is a rhetorical phrase, not a medical definition.

(Hat-tip to far-right blog, Newsbusters, for picking this up. Our readers will undoubtedly get a kick out of the comment string on their site. It's worth checking out.)

I feel like I've written this post before. (I did, sort of: "Where is the Pro-Family Lobby Now?") Conservatives have developed a reputation for sticking to talking points - they're on about gay marriage, abortion in South Dakota, and the "looming threat" of a second President Clinton - but it is still surprising that such significant Supreme Court cases would apparently escape their attention.

Family Research Council. Priests for Life. Focus on the Family. Even the Pro-Life Action League. None of them have said anything about these cases that is featured anywhere prominent on their websites (as of the time of this writing). Concerned Women for America released a long brief on the cases a couple weeks ago, but they have buried it on their website too. It appears that only smaller or fringe groups are making this a major issue for them, groups like "Operation Outcry" that gathered 180 women who have had abortions to file an amicus curiae brief ("friend of the court") against what they call "partial birth abortion."

If you want to learn about the case, major media outlets are talking about it. Check out NPR or the New York Times to start. These sources seem to think it's newsworthy. You can look at other posts in RH Reality Check's special series on these cases.

But why are the most dedicated "pro-life" groups not talking about it? Is it hauteur considering the makeup of the new Roberts/Alito Supreme Court? They may have decided they don't even have to put up a fight.

Or could it be that they are banking on gruesome descriptions of these procedures to suffice for inciting public outcry, and would rather keep quiet and avoid the conversations about personal liberty, federalism, and the doctor/patient relationship that follow such descriptions? Conversations like those usually leave Americans either siding against extreme social conservatives, or else thinking that conservatives are incredibly inconsistent. Pursuing a virulent federalism in some cases, and a federal abortion ban in this case? Individual liberty and freedom of religion on one hand, and federal judges making decisions about personal healthcare on the other? It's hard to reason those out in the public sphere.

The cases have yet to begin, and I'm sure we'll be hearing from all of these groups in the days ahead. But it is worth noting at the outset that these landmark cases just haven't quite made it into the "pro-life" talking points. Perhaps they are just dazed and confused after an election cycle that, if anything, is a referendum on the fact that government should pay attention to what governments are supposed to, like war, terrorism, natural disasters - and leave private family decisions to the beliefs and values of each American.

First, the report's lead author, Dr. Chris Kahlenborn, is associated with the "The Polycarp Research Institute," (TPRI) whose website includes this statement of itself:

"TPRI will support research efforts that improve the spiritual condition of men and women, and will not promote methods or intentions that are inconsistent with the ethical and moral guidelines of the Catholic Church..."

For the purposes of the Mayo article, Dr. Kahlenborn lists his email as drchris@polycarp.org, and his mailing address as "Department of Internal Medicine, PO Box 263, Hollidaysburg, PA." Seem strange to you that a doctor associated with a "Department of Internal Medicine" would prefer his email at his nonprofit instead of at his hospital or medical school? Well, one reason here might be that there is no hospital in Hollidaysburg, PA. Another might be that that mailing address is actually the EXACT SAME address that TPRI lists on its website. From the looks of it, Dr. Kahlenborn just felt like being associated with a "Dept. of Internal Medicine," so he made one up.

Another co-author, Dr. Francesmary Modugno, was a computer science specialist (that's actually her PHD), who got a Master's in Public Health in 1998 and has since fervently devoted her research to trying to establish a link between contraceptives and breast cancer.

The other two co-authors, however, do not show as clear signs of activism: Dr. Potter is an established biostatistician, and Dr. Severs, a professor emertius of Penn State University, is even cited by the ACLU as a co-author of a study denying the link between abortion and breast cancer.

So what to make of this new study? First, it seems quite reasonable to hold it suspect on the grounds of Dr. Kahlenborn's and Dr. Modugno's apparent ideological commitment to establishing such a link. And regardless of any ideological commitment to establishing this link, it seems reasonable to hold any medical research institution suspect which explicitly states that their research will not deviate from religious dogma.

Consider this article from PATH which suggests the opposite, or try a Google search of "contraception" and "breast cancer" to see what else you come up with -- most research suggests that the link between hormonal contraception and breast cancer is inconclusive, or that it is a minor link in some specific circumstances. The National Cancer Institute for example has a sober-minded fact sheet published on the issue. Or from the WHO's website:

Concerning breast cancer (and hormonal contraception)...even if the association is causal, the excess risk for breast cancer associated with patterns of use that are typical today is very small...

This new paper's author makes some alarmist sounding statements, particularly in the press release regarding the paper in which he says, "The risk association was 44% over baseline parous women (having been pregnant) who took OCs prior to their first pregnancy." It sounds scary, and it has far-right groups not only reiterating the claims (like Dr. Janet Smith's "One More Soul"), but twisting them further. LifeSite.net turns that 44% into "over-all risk increase for breast cancer of 44 percent." Bad reporting certainly. But bad science too?

The verdict on whether this is bad science is still out, and I'll leave that to more expert voices who will hopefully revisit this issue soon on our website. In the meantime, it is safe to say that doctors with clear ideological persuasions making bold claims like this tend to undermine their own work, regardless of its quality. If there really was such a risk for breast cancer (remember, major medical organizations don't seem to think so), the public would deserve to know, but they need the news from a source they can trust.

And the fact that right-wing media outlets pick up questionable research and blatantly misreport it, making much more far-reaching claims than the actual research, is...? Well, I guess by now it's just expected, and that's why we're asking questions.

A study from Oxford researchers was released this week that once again concluded that there is no data to support the claim from radical anti-choice activists that abortion (induced or spontaneous) causes breast cancer. This research only further bolsters the arguments from the American Cancer Institute (a federally-funded branch of NIH), the Mayo Clinic, a US Congressional report and others that say there is conclusive evidence that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. But for some reason, the far-right Canadian website, LifeSite, was quick to write that this new research is flawed, and to reaffirm their claim that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer. What on earth is going on here? How can they keep making these claims? Some people are inclined to think that it’s just because they’re so ideologically constrained that they can’t see the science sitting right in front of them. But if you read their article, you get an even more comical picture: they have absolutely no ability to logically evaluate the science, and (why is this typical of the far-right?) they will continue on message regardless of the research and regardless of how ridiculous they look.

So what did they say that’s really so illogical? I’ll let them explain the basis of the debate first:

Two breast cancer risks are associated with abortion - the loss of the protective effect of a full term pregnancy (the universally recognized risk) and the independent link (the debated risk). The study, Reeves et al., concerns only the second risk. The independent link addresses this question: Does the woman who has an abortion have a higher breast cancer risk than she would have had if she hadn't had that pregnancy?

By contrast, the first risk (omitted by Reeves et al.) has to do with this question: Does the woman who has an abortion have a greater risk than does the woman who has a full term pregnancy? Experts universally agree that the post-abortive woman does have a higher risk than does the woman who has a baby.

Professor Joel Brind, president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, maintains that the methodology (of the most recent Oxford research) is "seriously flawed in the direction of covering up the (first) link."

Ok. Verbal acrobatics there, I know. What they’re saying is this: there is a universally recognized protective effect against breast cancer from carrying a pregnancy to full term. A protective effect. That means that for a woman who has never been pregnant or for a woman who has an abortion, that they are both at greater risk for breast cancer than a mother who has carried a pregnancy to term. But that is because of her full-term pregnancy, not because of their lack of one.

What it also means, and what this recent research confirmed again, is that there is absolutely no causal relationship between abortion and breast cancer. This recent research reaffirmed that the risk of developing breast cancer is exactly the same between women who never become pregnant and women who have abortions.

To put it another way, the only thing at stake here is lost “opportunity costs,” to use economists’ term. A woman who carries a pregnancy to term enjoys a protective benefit against developing breast cancer, and a woman who has an abortion, be it a miscarriage or an induced abortion, does not enjoy the opportunity of that benefit. But there is absolutely no research to suggest that having an abortion in any way causes breast cancer. The risk of developing breast cancer does not increase from having an abortion, it decreases from having a baby.

That these radical activists are still trying to tow their old line reveals the utter lack of faithfulness to medicine and to the scientific method that undermines this and so many of their other claims. Ideology comes first for them. Period. And they will apparently say anything at all to make it look like their ideological position is supported, even to the point of essentially lying to their readers (as they do in the quote above) by calling a lost benefit a “risk.”

This kind of bad science is being spread too often by these groups, and in ways that is seriously damaging public debate. That damage that is being done not because bad research offers a contradictory point of view, but because it twists the facts received by the public and leaves them without a solid ground for their beliefs. It’s ridiculous, yes. But it borders on being malicious too, considering that it’s coming from medical professionals who have (likely, though nothing’s certain here) been trained better and are aware of the errors they’re making.

Referring to Mark Dybul, the Bush Administration's appointee to direct the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council (FRC) had this to say:

“We have to face the fact that putting a homosexual in charge of AIDS policy is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.”

While there haven't been many additions to our Reckless Rhetoric section of the website since we launched in May, Mr. Sprigg definitely deserved his place of dishonor in that section. (Granted, there could be daily additions if we searched widely enough, but who really thinks these people are worth keeping track of that dilligently?)

Check out other Reckless Rhetoric to see what the "nuts" have been saying about reproductive health issues.

No mention of White House Press Secretary Tony Snow saying essentially that Foley's comments were okay because others have done worse. No mention of the top House leadership collectively dodging resposibility for the children entrusted to their care during the summers.

Instead, both groups try to blame Mark Foley's abuse of power on "the homosexual lobby." CWA dives right into Mark Foley's sexual orientation, passing quickly over the children involved. And FRC has explicitly tried to distance itself from him, essentially saying on the blog that he wasn't really a conservative in the first place. Neither group even mentions the importance of protecting these children, nor do they issue calls for accountability.

At the same time, these groups call Democratic leadership to task when their Republican counterparts fail to come through for them (aka balking on the only anti-abortion law this session). And if the Democrats can't be blamed for anything, well then they'll blame the gays... So much for accountability and responsibility.

There is nothing pro-family about the way they are handling this situation, and if anything, they seem to be showing their true colors -- extreme partisan politics cloaked in the language of faith and values.

Editorial Update: FRC released a press release while this was being posted.  They blame the incident on "aberrant sexual behaviors" and a society that values diversity and say nothing explicit about the House leadership, but they do get around to saying they think children should be protected... 

But apparently this won't be the case: news early from NFPRHA early this morning reports that Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) filed a procedural motion that could still get the Senate to vote on this bill before this session of Congress ends. If this happens, CIANA -- aka the Teen Endangerment Act -- would almost certainly become law.

Just in time for election day too... Considering that this Congress has done strikingly little in recent months, conservative politicians appear to be banking on this as a last-ditch effort to look good to social conservative voters. Nancy Keenan was right -- this is a distraction move.