Virginia Should Opt Out on “Choose Life” License Plates


During the recently concluded legislative session, the Virginia General Assembly
passed a bill to authorize "Choose Life" license plates that now awaits
consideration by Governor Tim Kaine. Funds generated from the plates will
be distributed to so-called "crisis pregnancy centers."

There
are over 70 crisis pregnancy centers in Virginia, and you’ve most
likely seen their advertisements-billboards that read "Pregnant?
Scared? We can help." Many people mistakenly believe that these centers
do nothing more than provide materials and support to women who have
made the decision to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term.

In
reality, they have an extreme anti-choice agenda and often misinform
and mislead women about their options. Though they assume the
impartial, authoritative trappings of modern healthcare, their function
is primarily political-to berate and coerce those women they call
"abortion-minded" into carrying the pregnancy to term. A review of the
materials produced by crisis pregnancy centers and several
investigative reports about them reveal several of the deceptive and
coercive tactics most commonly employed by crisis pregnancy centers.

First,
crisis pregnancy centers give women medically inaccurate information
about abortion, claiming the procedure is dangerous and can cause
breast cancer, infertility and extreme mental health problems, such as
suicidal tendencies. There is no legitimate scientific evidence to
support any of these claims. In fact, first-trimester abortions are
among the safest surgical procedures performed in the United States.
Less than 0.5 percent of women obtaining abortions experience a
complication, and the risk of death associated with abortion is about
one-tenth that associated with childbirth. In addition, the medical
community has firmly established that no link exists between abortion
and the development of breast cancer, and that having an abortion does
not affect the psychological well-being of women over time.

Second,
in an effort to delay a woman’s decision to have an abortion until it
is too late to do so under Virginia law, crisis pregnancy centers often
tell women that they will probably miscarry anyway, so they should wait
to make a decision about what to do. Not only does this effectively
prevent women who want to terminate their pregnancy from exercising
their constitutionally protected right to do so, it also encourages
women who may decide to carry their pregnancy to term to delay seeking
critical prenatal medical care.

Further, in their zealotry,
crisis pregnancy centers frequently fail to maintain the professional
neutrality that is a commonly accepted tenet of counseling. For
example, in an investigative report compiled by NARAL Pro-Choice
Maryland, crisis pregnancy center staff were documented offering
congratulations for a positive pregnancy test, and one crisis pregnancy
center staffer became very aggressive with an investigator and yelled
at her for making a "terrible decision" when she refused to return to
the center. In addition, because crisis pregnancy centers are often
staffed by volunteers who are not medical professionals, they sometimes
give inaccurate information about basic reproductive health issues,
such as the effectiveness of contraception, the difference between
emergency contraception (which prevents pregnancy) and RU-486 (which
causes a medical abortion), and the prevention of sexually transmitted
infections.

Women are entitled to accurate, comprehensive and unbiased medical information with which they can make their own decisions.

If
the anti-choice movement really wanted to reduce the number of
abortions performed in this country, then they would work with the
pro-choice movement to increase access to contraception and
comprehensive sexuality education-real solutions that will lower the
rate of unintended pregnancies and reduce the need for abortion.

Funding
anti-choice centers that manipulate and coerce women does nothing to
accomplish this goal-and make no mistake, the license plates have the
potential to generate thousands of dollars in revenue for these
organizations (Florida’s DMV reports that in that state, the "Choose
Life" license plate generates over $65,000 a month for crisis pregnancy
centers).

We should support legitimate, comprehensive
reproductive healthcare clinics instead of crisis pregnancy centers
whose missions have nothing to do with healthcare and everything to do
with a political agenda. Hopefully, the governor will remember this
when the license plate proposal reaches his desk.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • invalid-0

    The problem with CPCs which no one mentions is: because they do not collect a fee nor operate under professional license, they are free to show fake pictures and free to lie about what they mean. You cannot get their license yanked because there is no license, nor sue them for damages resulting from their lies, because they do not provide a professional service. As long as they don’t pretend to be doctors, their right to say anything they want is protected by the First Amendment.

  • invalid-0

    CPCs drive me crazy!! The anti’s complain about Planned Parenthood getting tax money for providing a very important medical need (family planning, disease prevention and treatment, counseling – no tax dollars go towards abortion), but this is just throwing government money at religious zealots.

  • invalid-0

    Are you outraged by CPC’s abusive behavior towards women? So am I!

    Let Governor Kaine know that women’s choices need to be respected and deceptive CPCs should not be funded here:

    http://tinyurl.com/aufwrg

    • http://marika-barbie.blogspot.com/ invalid-0

      Really, the choice would be worthy, even is simple for creation of association of female solidarity, let alone the gold first in history for female activism.

  • invalid-0

    To support your opinion that Virgina should opt out of “Choose Life” license plates you state rather emphatically, “There is no legitimate scientific evidence to support any of these claims” about the relationship between abortion and breast cancer, infertility, emotional problems . . .and go on to state, “In addition, the medical community has firmly established that no link exists between abortion and the development of breast cancer, and that having an abortion does not affect the psychological well-being of women over time.”

    These statements are patently untrue and dangerously misleading.

    At least 27 out of 33 studies worldwide since 1957 have shown a link between abortion and breast cancer. In 1994, the National Cancer Institute specifically commissioned a study by Janet Daling, a well-respected breast cancer researcher, who is admittedly pro-choice. She reported that among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women. Highest risk (more than double) was observed when the abortion was done at ages younger than 18 years or at least 30 years or older. The 1991 edition of The Breast by Bland and Copeland, an authoritative medical text used by breast disease specialists, provided documentation of a breast cancer risk for users of oral contraceptives. In its 1998 edition of the text, the authors acknowledged an abortion-breast cancer link. A record linkage case-control study in 1989 by Howe HL; Senie RT; Bzduch H; Herzfeld P, and published in 1989 in the International Journal of Epidemiology, reported a statistically significant 90 percent increased risk among post-abortive New York residents. Breast cancer rates have risen steadily among women under age 40 at time of Roe V. Wade, (and in no other age group) paralleling rising number of abortions since 1973 (U.S. government/American Cancer Society report, 2001). Insurance Actuaries have analyzed and published data demonstrating abortion to be best predictor of breast cancer in eight European nations (2007). Eight medical organizations acknowledge abortion/breast cancer link (2008). Pro-choice physicians have testified under oath that abortion raises breast cancer risk. Cancer researchers explore ways to identify hormonal treatments that may mimic protective effects of full-term pregnancy on the breast (2007). Animal research supports abortion/breast cancer link (1980). The biological facts of breast physiology unequivocally support an abortion/breast cancer link. By contrast, there is a body of ten studies routinely cited by journalists and cancer fund-raising organizations as evidence there is no abortion-cancer link. The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, however, published a critical review of these 10 studies in 2005 detailing the significant flaws in each and every one of them, concluding, therefore, that these studies cannot be used to invalidate the larger body of research that has shown a link. To date, no scientist has attempted to refute these conclusions. The obvious question, especially for someone calling for accuracy in the abortion debate, is why not? This critical review is available at http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf.

  • http://www.cpcwatch.org invalid-0

    We’ve got pending “Choose Life” plate legislation in NC too, but it’s been hanging out in subcommittee for a while now. What’s most interesting to me is the fact that no pro-choice alternative exists, but not from lack of trying… it really blows the “free country” argument out of the water.

    CPCs are probably one of the greatest threats facing choice today. Many already receive state-subsidized funding, and others receive direct funds from license plate sales. Our position at CPC Watch has always been “education, not legislation.” Awareness would pose a great challenge to CPCs and the work they do, as many do roll over and admit they don’t provide medical services, but only when put on the spot. After that, the facts speak for themselves. Of course legislation that would REQUIRE CPCs to disclose their agenda to women. Strides have been made through lawsuits where CPCs have been court-ordered to change their name or sign font as not to confuse women trying to find the Planned Parenthood that’s in the same shopping center. They’re so ridiculously covert, and incredibly well-funded, that taking them on has been a huge task… the defeat of “Choose Life” plates is of course an important step.

  • invalid-0

    Just a thought on a pro-choice lisense plate

  • invalid-0

    I encourage anyone who is tempted to take Rebecca Curtis’s comment at face value to do a Google search on Joel Brind, the sole author of the review she cites, and draw their own conclusions.

  • http://myacaiberryreviews.com invalid-0

    I would suggest that you might want to go with more than a single source for your data. Joel Brind has been discredited zillions of times over and is not a very trustworthy source it would seem.

    Perhaps a bit more data from nonbiased sources would work a bit better?

  • invalid-0

    If Joel Brind’s analysis of the 10 most recently cited studies that purport to prove no link between breast cancer and abortion is not credible show me where in the medical journals his analysis has been disproven or shown to lack credibility or truth.

    In what Medical Journals might I find where the authors of these studies have refuted Dr. Brind’s conclusions?

  • invalid-0

    Rebecca,
    You could start with the NIH’s analysis of 100 studies which concludes that there is no basis for this much beloved myth. This URL is http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage
    If that is insufficient, may I suggest you google “breast cancer” +abortion and ignore the sites from those with an emotional investment in establishing a pattern of divine retribution for women who have had abortions?

    • http://nation-health.blogspot.com/ invalid-0

      It agree all of 100 %! And the red wine praised by dieticians, promotes development of a cancer of a mammary gland. For example, such cocktail promotes development of a cancer of a mammary gland and increases risk of a cancer of a rectum.

  • therealistmom

    The summary of the 2003 workshop on Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer: http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report

     Religioustolerance.org includes some statements from different groups in regards to the breast cancer- abortion myth here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_canc3.htm

     Included there  is the World Health Organization’s statement:

    "Most of the information on whether induced abortion modifies the
    risk of breast cancer among women comes from epidemiological studies,
    which are either case-control studies, or historical cohort studies. For
    information on abortion, all published case-control studies have relied
    on interviews of cases and controls with the inherent problem of recall
    bias. This bias occurs because women with breast cancer (cases) tend to
    truthfully report induced abortion while controls, who often are healthy
    women, have no "incentive" to provide information about personal and
    sensitive matters such as induced abortion. Such bias can produce
    elevated relative risk estimates in case-control studies. As a result,
    the outcome of such studies has been inconsistent, with some having
    indicated a small increase in risk, while others have not."

    "Historical cohort studies, on the other hand, are more
    methodologically sound. Two major studies have been carried out using
    this methodology, and neither found an increased risk of breast cancer
    associated with first trimester abortion."

    "Therefore, results from epidemiological studies are reassuring in
    that they show no consistent effect of first trimester induced abortion
    upon a woman’s risk of breast cancer later in life."

     

    Other groups that have come out against the abortion-breast cancer link due to the flawed studies (the ones beloved by "Dr." Brind) include:

     The American Cancer Society

    The American College of Obstetricians and Gynocologists

    The US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Public Health and Science

    The National Breast Cancer Coalition

     In all honesty, the only sites still using Brind’s information are those with a distinct pro-life bias. One of the biggest questions is why would an abortion increase breast cancer risk when miscarriage does not seem to do the same? The fact that there should be no difference helps to show a bias in the reported data.

     

     

     

     

  • invalid-0

    A common area of misconception is that of miscarriage and induced abortion. These are not the same event with respect to their effect on the breasts. Most miscarriages are early in a pregnancy and are the result of insufficient levels of hormones necessary to carry on the pregnancy. Hormone levels in a pregnancy that is miscarried never even approach the levels that are reached in a healthy pregnancy.

    • mellankelly1

      Please do feel free to cite your source(s) for your statement that spontaneous and induced abortion vary in the "levels of hormones."  I’m certain that the good people at the American Cancer Society, the  American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Public Health and Science & the National Breast Cancer Coalition would most interested.  Thanks in advance, Rebecca. 

  • invalid-0

    I asked where in the Medical Journals could I find Dr. Brind’s conclusions refuted. Where in the medical literature have the authors of the following studies countered Dr. Brind’s conclusions?

    Melbye, Lazovich, Tang, Goldacre, Ye, Newcomb, Erlandsson, Paoletti, Brewster, Palmer.

    Further studies that purport to show no link but have been found to be flawed are the Michels, et. al study and the Beral Study.

    Dr. Brind’s analysis of these studies was published after the NCI workshop, which I believe you are referring to with the comment “NIH analysis of 100 studies.” The NCI convened a workup in 2003 to study the abortion breast cancer link. It was 100 cancer specialists, not 100 studies. At any rate, of the 100 cancer specialists invited, few if any were independent of the federal government, and they only invited one viewpoint, i.e., they looked only at studies that did not show a link. The ignored all of the studies going as far back as 1957 that did show a link.

    Furthermore, one of the studies so adamantly held up as proving there is no link, the Danish Melbye study, is so flawed it is astonishing: 60,000 women were misclassified as having not had abortions, when the record shows they did; furthermore, they tracked breast cancer cases at a point in time different from the tracking of abortions. Melbye’s own followup study a few years later showed an increase in breast cancer risk with premature birth, essentially contradicting their earlier study showing no link between abortion and breast cancer because premature birth and abortion have the same biologic effect on the breasts; only the outcome of the pregnancy is different.

    There is no dispute in the scientific and medical communities that an early, first, full-term pregnancy is most protective against breast cancer. In light of this, it is counterintuitive to conclude that an abortion of a first, full-term pregnancy carries with it no increase in breast cancer risk. It just doesn’t make biologic sense. Finally, if there were no basis for a link why do studies regarding the effects of hormones on the breasts during pregnancy continue to be funded?

  • invalid-0

    Further studies that purport to show no link but have been found to be flawed are the Michels, et. al study and the Beral Study.

    Well then, Rebecca, please go and convince the following organizations (cited by TheRealistMom) of the error of their ways:

    • The American Cancer Society
    • The American College of Obstetricians and Gynocologists
    • The US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Public Health and Science
    • The National Breast Cancer Coalition

    Till then, we’ll rely on the expertise of these (and other) specialist organizations, and not the studies of one ideologically-driven scientific researcher, okay?

  • invalid-0

    It is naive to think that these organizations do not have their own bias.

    Breast physiology speaks for itself.

  • invalid-0

    Why not write the NIH with your questions?

  • therealistmom

    The American Cancer Society, the NIH (during an anti-choice president’s administration) the WHO, and the National Breast Cancer group would be biased against the findings? Wouldn’t these in general be organizations that would jump on ANY cancer link in order to promote treatment/ prevention? Particularly the ACS which habitually finds correlation/causation in any kind of study.

    You’re the naive one if you honestly think that anti-choice activits aren’t going to be more biased in their accounting of data. BTW the Danish study is the one that was dismantled by the WHO as having an extreme amount of reporting bias and poor controls.

  • invalid-0

    It is naive to think that these organizations do not have their own bias.

    Maybe they do. Still, these organizations are secular, do not have an avowed ideological agenda, and have a hell of a lot more credibility than this one pro-life born-again Christian dude with a Ph.D.

    Breast physiology speaks for itself.

    Breast epidemiology, however, is more complicated. And I’ll listen to the National Breast Cancer Coalition on this subject long before Dr. Brind.

  • invalid-0

    80% of 70 epidemiological studies since 1957 report risk increases for women who have had abortions.

    Tell women this and then let them make an informed choice about abortion.

    What are you so afraid will happen if we use caution when counseling women on the potential health effects of abortion? Women deserve to be treated better than this.

  • invalid-0

    Yes the Danish Study has been discredited. And not just by Dr. Brind as you state. Experts other than Dr. Brind have discredited the other studies as well. Somebody tell Susan G. Komen and the NCI!

    All you have to do is read the comments of the NCI’s Leslie Bernstein to see the bias that exists in these organizations, and I quote, “The biggest bang for the buck is the first birth and the younger you are the better off you are”, followed by, “There are so many other messages we can give women about lifestyle modification and the impact of lifestyle and risk that I would never be a proponent of going around and telling them that having babies is the way to reduce your risk.” Then she added, “I don’t want the issue relating to induced abortion to breast cancer risk to be part of the mix of the discussion of induced abortion, its legality, its continued availability. I think it should not be part of the argument.” Available at: http://www.cancerpage.com/news/article.asp?id=5601

    The 2007 study by Michels, et al. like numerous other studies, which purport to refute the link, is flawed methodologically. 1) Michels, et al. did not allow sufficient follow-up time between exposure to abortion and the development of breast cancer. An example that most could relate to is the folly of conducting research on a group of people who smoke cigarettes today to see whether or not they will develop lung cancer next month. 2) The Michels study also excluded cases of in situ breast cancer, which show up sooner than do cases of invasive breast cancer. 3) Michels, et al. did not adjust for miscarriages in reporting the overall statistics. By failing to adjust for it, it had the effect of lowering the risk, statistically.

    In 2007, Dr. Lewis A. Chodosh, MD, PhD, and researchers at the Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania, reiterated that women who give birth to their first child at young age have a substantially reduced risk of breast cancer compared to women who never have children or who have their first child later in life. The researchers go on to state that their research has “defined a molecular signature that identifies central features of the molecular changes that occur in the breast following an early first full-term pregnancy. These observations, which provide new insights into potential mechanisms by which early first full-term pregnancy decreases breast cancer risk, were featured on the cover of Cancer Research.” Available at: http://www.bcrfcure.org/action_0708grantees_chodosh.html

    I ask again, if the NCI’s workshop is definitive in proving no breast cancer/abortion link, then why do the NCI and other cancer research organizations continue to study the effects of estrogen on the breasts and the protective effects of pregnancy, particularly a first, full-term pregnancy?

  • invalid-0

    I am 16 yrs old. I request, for my sake, as a teenager, that you look at both sides, not one side of abortion. I plan to be a maternity nurse after I graduate from highschool.
    America is a nation of freedom. Am I right? For my sake, look up Nancy McCorvey, otherwise known as Roe in the Roe v Wade case of the 1970s.
    Here me out! Please! Why shouldn’t the CPC’s get their buildings or their license plates? Why shouldn’t pregnant teenagers have a place to go? Have you ever been a pregnant teenager? I have not. But I have seen girls who have been. I used to live in MS. It is now 1 of the states with the hightest level of teen pregnancies.
    Personally, I believe there is another alternative to abortion. Again, if you believe I am wrong, tell me. I believe that other couples would gladly adopt those little babies. I love babies. I can’t wait to be married and have some of my own.
    If you, as adults, offer another alternative to abortion, then teenagers like me I believe would give their babies for adoption. There is still heartache, but, in giving your baby up for adoption, you give that baby another chance. Again, for me, look up the damages that have been caused by abortion on women & teenagers.
    Chances. We all need another chance at life. I would like to ask you, please, if you would consider what I’ve just said.
    One more question, have you ever seen an abortion? Seen it done… personally? I have not. I have seen a computerized print of it. A flier that we have once received in the mail.
    Thank you for your time in reading this comment. I sincerely appreciate it! :D Feel free to leave your comments. You will not offend me. Thank you again.

    • invalid-0

      As a woman who HAS been a pregnant teenager, I am eternally grateful that I had no CPCs in my tiny town. The Planned Parenthood I visited had no agenda, they wanted me to make the best decision for ME, not for a god that I don’t even believe in. Had I not had a miscarriage, I would have had an abortion in order to protect my health. At sixteen years of age, I had no idea that my body would suffer irrepairable damage (due to several birth defects that I wasn’t aware of) from carrying a baby to term. The nurse practitioners I saw at Planned Parenthood told me these things so I could make an informed decision regarding my body and my health. Had I gone to a CPC, I doubt that the volunteer there would have given me that info straight up due to it decreasing the chance of me carrying the fetus to term, and who knows if they or anyone at the CPC were even medically qualified to find that out.
      I believe getting an abortion isn’t even close to “denying a baby life”, but it was necessary to give ME another chance. I’m a fully formed, sentient human and I chose myself over a clump of cells. I have been caused no damage by making that decision and I would do it again if I became pregnant in the future. The only reason I’m glad I miscarried over having the abortion was that it was much cheaper.

  • invalid-0

    If you, as adults, offer another alternative to abortion, then teenagers like me I believe would give their babies for adoption.

    Since when has anyone worked to take away your right to carry your pregnancy to term, and give up your baby for adoption? You have that alternative, and have always had it.

    What some adults have been trying to do, however, is take away the alternative of abortion. Is that what you would want? To not have any other option besides carrying the pregnancy to term?

    There is still heartache, but, in giving your baby up for adoption, you give that baby another chance.

    And that’s fine, if that’s what you really want to do. But if you don’t want to do that, and you would rather have an abortion, then that is your right, too. And we will continue to fight to ensure that that option remains available to you.

    That’s why we call ourselves “pro-choice” and not “pro-abortion.” We don’t say that you MUST have an abortion, or even that you SHOULD have an abortion. We say that the decision—the choice—is yours, and yours alone, to make.

  • invalid-0

    I felt like you when I was younger. To make matters worse I was adopted, and Catholic. I swore up and down I would never ever have an abortion, because my birth mother did not abort me. Unfortunately after the birth of my first child I went into severe post partum depression In the 1980’s they really did not know much about this condition then. I was suicidal and had noone to turn to I was ashamed I could not even tell my doctor because I did not understand it myself.
    Three months after my child was born I got pregnant again I was married by the way, I did not even realize it until I was about 8 weeks along. I panicked and told my abusive husband that I wanted to give the baby up for adoption. He would not hear of it. So I had an abortion. The unthinkable to me, I did. Was it the extreme depression? Who knows.
    Life situations can change who you are in a second. Just remeber that. Or never say never. Hopefully something like this would not happen to you. Good luck.

  • invalid-0

    I can only hope that Governor Kaine, even though a Catholic will veto this bill. I know my representative voted against it.

  • invalid-0

    You might look in the yellow pages under “Abortion Alternatives.” It is self-explanatory what you will find there. If you want to visit them, try it. Pretend to be pregnant if you like. You’ll find helpful volunteers, free services, and help. If anyone from VA wants to drive down to Durham, NC, I’d be happy to join you on a tour of our CPC. Pregnancy Support Services of Durham and Chapel Hill NC provides assistance and help for women who might be pregnant, are pregnant, or were pregnant. They help women after abortions without judgement. There are parenting classes for moms, dads, and couples. Don’t take my word for it. Try it out. You can bet that the volunteers and supporters include Democrats, reflecting the politics of Durham and Chapel Hill. I’m one.

  • invalid-0

    Susan G. Komen for the Cure is hardly an unbiased source. The organization disagrees only because they rely solely on the NCI for their position. They will not look at the full body of evidence. Many affiliate representatives have told me so.

    Susan G. Komen for the Cure routinely donates fundraising proceeds to Planned Parenthood.

    Several SGK execs are former Planned Parenthood personnel. They are hardly an objective voice when it comes to this debate.

    It is disingenuous for Susan G. Komen and Breast Cancer 3-Day to purport as their mission, “to end breast cancer forever,” when they donate fundraising proceeds to the largest abortion provider in the nation. In fact, it is an outrage. SGK gave over $700,000 to PP in the past fiscal year, ostensibly for mammograms, but you know a funny thing about money – it’s fungible.

    Why doesn’t SGK use race and walk proceeds to set up their own breast cancer screening centers? Why not partner with independent mammography centers that have no stake in the abortion business? This would more certainly guarantee that women who need breast cancer screening would receive it and would disentangle the SGK name from the abortion business. It appears, however, that maintaining ties to Planned Parenthood is more valuable to the Susan G. Komen organization than any appearance of a conflict of interest.

    What is so disheartening about their refusal to acknowledge an abortion/breast cancer link is that they acknowledge every other factor about pregnancy and it’s effects on the breasts, primarily that 1) an early, first, full-term pregnancy is most protective against breast cancer and 2) the protective effect of breastfeeding. It is not rocket science to conclude that an abortion, which ends a pregnancy and takes away any baby to breast-feed, will raise the risk for the development of breast cancer. Premature birth before 32 weeks has been shown to raise the risk as well and abortion and premature birth before 32 weeks have the same effect on the breasts. Only the outcome of the pregnancy is different.

  • invalid-0

    1. Bland IE, Copeland, EM. The Breast: Comprehensive management of benign and malignant diseases, 3rd ed. Saunders 2004. (Ch.3. Breast physiology: normal and abnormal development and function).

    2. Vatten LJ, et al. Pregnancy related protection against breast cancer depends on length of gestation. Br J Cancer 2002;87:289-90.

    3. Daling JR, et al. Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion. J Natl Cancer Institute 1994;86:1584-1592.

    4. Russo J, et al. Developmental, cellular, and molecular basis of human breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Institute Monographs. No. 27, 2000;17-37.

    5. Russo J, et al. Cancer risk related to mammary gland structure and development. Microscopy Research and Technique 2001;52:204-233.

  • http://burningbird.net invalid-0

    My believe in freedom of speech would have to support the organization’s license plate campaign.

    A better approach would be to gather evidence of medical practice, and people giving medical advice without license, and file suit in court, or turn evidence over to the Attorney General for prosecution.

    In other words, if the centers stick to the truth, then let them have their say. We should then support planned parenthood and other organizations who provide alternative information.

    If the centers don’t stick to what’s medically verified, give false or misleading information, which may actually harm women, or follow the the laws in regard to medical advice, then fight such falsehood using all legal means.

  • invalid-0

    PS For those claiming the health risks due to abortion, I believe if you’ll check with the AMA and most medical schools, you’ll have find carrying a baby to full term carries greater risks to a woman’s health, then having an abortion IF, the abortion is performed in a certified clinic by a trained physician — not in a back alley, by a butcher, which is what the anti-choice folks want.

  • invalid-0

    Interestingly, First Amendment case law actually suggests that a legislature that approves a pro-life license plate without also approving a pro-choice one is in violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment. The ACLU has long opposed license plates like this as a violation of free speech. See Planned Parenthood v. Rose in South Carolina.

  • invalid-0

    You say: “Women are entitled to accurate, comprehensive and unbiased medical information with which they can make their own decisions”

    And you must also then believe that they are going to get this information from organizations like Planned Parenthood who have a financial interest in the choice of the woman to abort her baby? And where is the equal interest of the volunteers at the pregnancy centers? Please, tell me if you have ever volunteered at a local pregnancy center. Consider it. These terrible volunteers, who want to save a baby and save the health of the mother. Despicable, eh?

  • invalid-0

    I find it curious and puzzling when the those who call themselves Pro-Choice seem to go insane with rage that a woman would make any choice other that killing a baby.

  • invalid-0

    Yes, I agree wholeheartedly.

    The mere mention of the importance of giving women ALL of the information related to the potential or debated health risks of abortion seems to draw the most venom.

  • invalid-0

    Ms. Bearden,

    If you do not agree with the message or cause of these license plates…by all means do not buy them. That is the benefit of “choice”…as opposed to, say, my tax dollars now being spent by Obama on overseas abortions. Even though I am morally opposed to abortion I also have the obligation to pay my taxes. There is no choice left available to me. I understand that you are upset by the amount of money potentially raised by these license plates…but the good news is that the people who choose to purchase them probably already donate directly to crisis pregnancy centers anyway. I want this license plate on my car not only to support a cause I already donate to…but to exercise my free speech and celebrate my personal decision.

    In reference to your rather harsh criticism of crisis pregnancy centers, I don’t think there is doubt in anyone’s mind that they are biased towards choosing life. However, I also don’t think anyone could dispute that when a girl walks into an abortion clinic the advice she receives there is biased towards the furthering of their business. I suppose schools are supposed to offer unbiased sex-education but I would put money on the fact that those programs are also biased based on the ideology of the instructors. If you have the desire to see girls receive unbiased information regarding abortion (although I don’t think such information exists on this particular issue because most people have such strong opinions one way or the other) I think it would be a very worthy cause to encourage counselors to do so pro bono or to set up centers where girls can go when facing this very frightening situation.

  • progo35

    Instead of getting rid of choose life license plates, just let someone come up with a pro choice license plate and let people choose whether or not they want either one on their car. So simple, and I’m not even getting paid!

    "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich