New studies show that women who undergo cancer treatments during pregnancy may be more likely to see good outcomes for themselves and the fetus. But anti-choice activists want to know why women won’t “sacrifice themselves” anyway.
It’s natural to feel good about buying a product from a company that is contributing money to a good cause like breast cancer prevention. But what are we buying into? And is it part of the problem?
Note to advertising folk…always double check your opponent’s name.
Crisis pregnancy centers are an especially reprehensible tool of the pro-life movement, and an investigative piece in the Toronto Star reminds us why.
Insurance giant Wellpoint responded to charges levied last week by a Reuters article that the insurance giant was discriminating against breast cancer patients.
If one out of four Orange County residents use Planned Parenthood because they trust the health center provides excellent care, why did anti-choice lawmakers vote to strip funding from this same center just months ago?
Chris Smith is obsessed with abortion, and with thwarting women’s rights. Smith, whose top campaign contributor is Right to Life’s PAC, has made it his mission to make both contraception and safe abortion inaccessible here and abroad.
Anti-choicers use pseudo-science and pseudo-sympathy to perpetuate misinformation about the risks of abortion, and the unproven links to breast cancer. Why? Because they “care” about women.
A new study confirms no variation in risk related to abortion and triple negative breast cancer. But the anti-choice crowd is misrepresenting it anyway.
In the Weekly Pulse, Lindsay Beyerstein reports on this week’s developments on health care reform, the public option, and new recommendations on mammogram screening for breast cancer detection.