By Randall Terry, Special to The Kansas City Star
Well, Mary Sanchez got one thing right in her column: (7/21: “Randall Terry won’t go quietly, if he goes at all”): I hate getting old! (But it sure beats the alternative.)
And she is right: In my fight to end abortion, I am stuck in the ’80s – and the ’70s and the ’60s: The 1880s, the 1770s, and the 1960s, that is.
Every social revolution in American history — whether civil rights in the 1960s, woman’s voting rights in the 1880s, the abolitionists in the 1850s, or the anti-child labor movement of the 1900s — used incendiary rhetoric, offensive images and clamorous activism.
What do you picture when you think of the civil rights movement? Lunch counter sit-ins; illegal marches; women getting arrested; black men being hung by the Ku Klux Klan; police with billy clubs; dogs biting protesters, water cannons and a lot of bad press.
The abolitionists and the suffragettes likewise offended the sensibilities of polite society. The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison said: “I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation … I will not retreat a single inch—and I will be heard.”
Ms. Sanchez also observed, “The anti-abortion movement changed tactics.” She is right, and she accidently explained why the pro-life movement has been steadily shrinking as a political, cultural and media force the last 15 years.
Unless we reverse course, and create and expose social tension in a fierce and deliberate way, the pro-life movement in America will become politically neutered, and child-killing will be with us for 100 years.
Sure, “women in black, coffins filled with ‘blood’-covered fetal dolls … an audio tape of a newborn crying” are agitating and offensive. But the reality it represents is far worse.
All of the social revolutions I referenced used similar tactics to help reach legislative victory. No one can own a slave; women can vote; young boys are not dying in coal mines; and black Americans can ride in the front of the bus all the way to the White House.
Our mission in this battle is to make it illegal from conception until birth to kill an unborn human being. For total victory — as in social revolutions past — we must employ the words, deeds and images that propel political change.
If I get “a second act,” I do promise a “few new tricks.” And I promise that they will come from the playbooks of social movements in our past.
Believe me, if I could figure out a way to burn a bra and have it draw attention to the injustice of slaughtering the unborn, I would do it.
Randall Terry is the director of Operation Rescue Insurrecta Nex. He lives in Washington, D.C.
Delicious
Digg
Whisper words of wisdom let it be
Just let it be if you don't believe in abortion don't get one some people need it.
high pressure tanning bedsshower stalls
ugg boots
Good ! I like it ! Welcome to read following news: ugg boots,Nike dunk sb,discount ugg boots, uggs ,nike dunk low,ugg boots sale,UGG Bailey Button boots,new nike sb,UGG Classic short boots,UGG Nightfall boots,cheap nike dunks,UGG Classic tall boots.
Planned Parenthood Inc Top Award Winner, Kansas City Star
Your source is run by radical pro death zealots who are driving this paper right into the ground.
You're never going to learn, are you, Danny Boy?
Your "source" is a one-man operation funded by anti-abortion groups.
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/index.blog?entry_id=1750979
By the way is England in Europe?
Another Study Indicates Abortion/Breast Cancer Link
By Bob Ellis on October 5th, 2007
From WorldNetDaily:
A new study shows that abortions can be classified as carcinogens, because the number of breast cancer cases can be predicted reasonably accurately based on the number of abortions in a given population.
The study, “The Breast Cancer Epidemic: Modeling and Forecasts Based on Abortion and Other Risk Factors,” was done by Patrick S. Carroll of London-based research institute PAPRI and the results were published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons this week.
It shows, that among risk factors, abortion is the “best predictor of breast cancer.” The results show that countries with higher abortions rates, such as England and Wales, higher breast cancer incidence is reported. “Where abortion rates are low (i.e. Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic) a smaller increase is expected,” the study said.
Carroll used a mathematical model to develop forecasts for the numbers of breast cancers in several countries based on abortion, and found that when matched with the actual numbers of cases later reported, the forecasts were very accurate
“The forecast predicted 100.5 percent of the cancers observed in 2003, and 97.5 percent of those observed in 2004,” the study reported.
“It’s time for scientists to admit publicly what they already acknowledge privately among themselves – that abortion raises breast cancer risk – and to stop conducting flawed research to protect the medical establishment from massive … lawsuits,” Malec said.
Malec has been among those critical of studies that appear to disprove a link between abortion and breast cancer, noting that such studies many times are set up to reveal what those researchers choose to have as results.
The Carroll study concluded that, “The increase in breast cancer incident appears to be best explained by an increase in abortion rates, especially nulliparous abortions, and lower fertility.”
The results included that, “The South East of England has more breast cancer than other parts of the British Isles. It also has the highest abortion Rate. Ireland has the lowest reate of breast cancer and the lowest abortion rate.”
There have been previous studies which really go into why this link exists, and the link is compelling for those with eyes to see.
Liberals can find a link between your SUV and temperature change across the planet, but they just can’t accept this link.
Please help me
Show me exactly where it says that?
Which is not what you said.
First, the association reported is not between induced abortion and increased breast cancer risk, but between age and induced abortion and breast cancer risk.
Second, the association is STATISTICALLY significant. The increase reported is six, not sixty-six percent. That's STATISTICALLY significant, which means only that the results do not tend to discredit a hypothesis that there's an association between age and induced abortion and breast cancer risk.
Third, you refuse to acknowledge that the population studied has, for no known reason, FOUR TIMES THE BREAST CANCER INCIDENCE OF THEIR EUROPEAN COUNTERPARTS. That's not cures or treatment, but INCIDENCE.
Fourth, you refuse to acknowledge that even given all that, the study admits the test group was NOT typical of the population from which it was drawn.
Educate yourself before you post.
In the Abortion/ Breast Cancer Study scientist's own words:
"Conclusion-
These findings suggest that age and induced abortion were found to be significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk"
No, it doesn't
The figure quoted in the study is a SIX percent increase. You didn't read the study. You read the LifeSite News article, which said 66%. That's a lie. Don't repeat lies. The study is also of a population that has a breast-cancer rate FOUR TIMES that of European women, and the study admits that, even putting that aside, the population it studied is not representative of the general population.
Yet another study links abortion and breast cancer
New Study Finds 66 Percent Increased Breast Cancer Risk After Abortion
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
July 28, 2009
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new study done on women in Turkey who had abortions finds a 66 percent increased risk of contracting breast cancer as a result. The study is the latest to confirm that abortions cause significant adverse medical risks for women who have them, in addition to killing unborn children.
The results also found that, while induced abrotion causes increased breast cancer risks for women, having a spontaneuous abortion, or miscarriage, does not.
Dr. Vahit Ozmen and his colleagues at the Istanbul Medical Faculty at Istanbul University and Magee-Women's hospital in Pittsburgh conducted the new retrospective study.
They published their findings in the April 2009 issue of the World Journal of Surgical Oncology and examined women who, between January 2000 and December 2006, were admitted to clinics of Istanbul Medical Faculty for examination.
The researchers said that their findings showed abortion was "significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk."
"Breast cancer risk was found to be increased in women with ... induced abortion (95% confidence interval)" and an age above 35 years-old at the time of a first live birth. "However, decreased breast cancer risk was associated with ... presence of spontaneous abortion."
"Our study revealed that spontaneous abortion was associated with the decreased risk of breast cancer in univariate analysis whereas induced abortion was associated with increased breast cancer risk in both univariate and multivariable analyses," they wrote.
Contrary to the claims of groups like Planned Parenthood and Susan G. Komen for the Cure that say there is no such-abortion breast cancer link, the physicians involved in the study assert otherwise.
Other studies "found a positive association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk in women younger than 50. Therefore, similar to our findings, the majority of the studies reported that induced abortion was associated with increased breast cancer risk."
Joel Brind, Ph.D., the head of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute in the United States and a professor of endocrinology at Baruch College in New York, says he is not surprised by the results.
"I guess they didn't get the 'memo' from the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI), which declared back in 2003 that the non-existence of the abortion-breast cancer link had been 'established,'" he told LifeNews.com.
Brind also said that the breast cancer risk the doctors found in Turkey is likely higher than they reported. He said Ozmen's team most likely underestimated the breast cancer risk associated with abortion because of a flaw known as "selection bias."
Selection bias is a flaw in the study because only hospital or clinic patients were selected as study subjects, and they were therefore not representative of the general population.
According to Brind's hypothesis, a disproportionate number of "modern" women were likely represented among the controls -- a group more likely to have abortions and visit the hospital often for minor complaints.
By contrast, a disproportionate number of "traditional" women were represented among the patients; women less likely to abortions and visit the hospital.
"To their credit, Dr. Ozmen et al. did acknowledge the likelihood of selection bias in their study, although they were not specific in attributing any effects on their results to it," he said.
Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, also commented on the study and said American medical groups need to take notice of the results.
"Although the NCI, the nation's largest funder of cancer-research, and others have worked feverishly to suppress the ABC link by publishing fraudulent research and even leaning on scientists whose studies have shown risk increases among women who have abortions, honest research occasionally escapes the NCI's purview," she said.
Citation: Ozmen et al. Breast cancer risk factors in Turkish women - a university hospital-based nested case control study. World J Surg Onc 2009;7:37.
Related web sites:
Abstract of the study - http://wjso.com/content/7/1/37