The divide between Right and Left in this country is becoming a chasm. It is a divide across the spectrum of problems facing the country as we gear up to confront what is to be done about terrorism, immigration, the hazards of our poorly policed borders, and the immense work of integrating functional new citizens into our culture.
The Left ought to be closed for repairs. All their wonderful theories, put into practice to address unfairness and inequality, have metastasized into monsters which they can no longer treat, remove, or contain. Persevering on, they draw up proposals full of outmoded solutions to address their invented “issues.” Meanwhile the band plays on as they ignore the failed results of their previous bungled attempts at social and economic engineering.
The Left never met a difficulty they couldn’t transform into an eternal entitlement or a national threat.
The Left is guilds and unions and tenure. It is playing by rules that were made up by children in the 1960’s — children led by anarchists and charlatans from the wastelands of the 1930’s. Those overgrown kids who aren’t dead due to overindulgence or self-inflicted wounds are riding the rails explaining why they weren’t wrong and why this is Vietnam redux.
Due to its many failures, the Left has become exquisitely sensitive. This is the result of their ongoing experience of incompetence. To fail repeatedly is to live in shame and the only rememdy is to isolate with others of similar background. Shame, in turn, dulls curiosity and leaves one less open to the novel or the untried. The capacity for uncertainty atrophies. It is here you can spot the similarity they have with terrorists and other borderless people.
Thus, weaving a thin veneeer of “inclusiveness” the Left makes the rules for membership within its ivoried towers all the more stringent, narrow and dogmatic. Truth is not reality-based. Rather, what is true is what feels right. The belief in victimization, the certainty of being superior due to one’s uniqueness, and fidelity to the concept of Utopia are all necessary qualifications for membership.
The Left does not act; it thinks and then it acts against. Absolute in its certainty about global warming and the industries that it claims promote catastrophe, the Left distrusts business, especially successful, large corporations. Walmart is evil. The military is primitive; it chews up and spits out minorities and the marginalized. Rumsfeld is evil. Government is despicable except when addressing social or economic unfairness or raising the necessary monies to do so.
Peace is lack of conflict; peace is “understanding.” Pursuing peace would never entail vigorous action in the face of aggression. In fact, aggression — except in mass demonstrations that lead to nothing but narcissistic catharsis — is among the mortal sins of the Left. And so Bush is evil. Passive aggression, on the other hand, is cool and acceptable. Lying down in front of a tank, for instance, is an act worthy of canonization. Ghandi would curl his lip at their self-indulgent histrionics.
Above all, the Left is afraid. It preached a global famine that failed to materialize. Nuclear Holocaust was a poison fruit nurtured for decades only to vaporize like a city in one of the prevailing “morning-after” disaster stories. Even the Population Bomb proved to be a dud. And the prediction of the end of fossil fuels timed to coincide with the millenium, as intoned by Jimmy Carter? That myth ran out of gas, too. Every piece of dogma that the Club of Rome, the Greens, and the Leftist nay-sayers repeated to the point of insensibility — every page is at the bottom of the canary cage, including the benefits society would reap from giving money to single mothers.
But now the most beloved of all their myths is disintegrating. Women’s bodies are not their own. They thought they were, they wanted this to be so, and thus because it felt right, it was true. "Anatomy is destiny" was an evil Freudian lie. Freedom to choose; abortion on demand; I have my rights: what could be more American, more feminist? And in that, they are absolutely correct. We are all free to choose.
However, there is a caveat and it is usually written in fine print somewhere in the middle of the page. Choose what you will, but always look under the bed for the corollaries. Choices have consequences.
One of the consequences of abortion is an increased risk of breast cancer. The highest risk groups are girls 18 and under and women over 30. In each category, where there is a family history of breast cancer, the increase in risk of breast cancer for these two groups is more than 100 %.
Oops--[NOTE and hat tip to the mathematically literate: this is a one hundred percent increase in risk. There will be an updated post later outlining the actual risk table for young girls with the BRCA gene who have never carried a pregnancy to term and who undergo abortion]. Meanwhile, certain subsets of the female population who have electively interrupted abortions have an increased risk more than two hundred per cent higher than the female population at large. Thus, thank you Shrinkwrapped and Solomon2, et al. for the needed correction in language and understanding.
How does the Left confront this disturbing news? Suppression. Refusing to look at it or to let others know about it. Denial is one of the strongest of the defenses used by this group to manage unpleasant truths. And since the gatekeepers of the media are largely Leftists, the information simply doesn’t see the light of day. Or it is “refuted” by large segments of the abortion industry and the breast cancer business.
In many doctors’opinions the media cover-up and silence in the face of the consequences of abortion is going to have far-reaching effects on the cohort of boomers who have widely used and promulgated abortion as a “right” — almost as a holy obligation to the creed of the unfetttered and free.
One scientist who questions this cover-up has the credentials to do so. Joel Brind, Ph.D., is a professor of human biology and endocrinology at Baruch College, City University of New York and president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute. He has taken on the politically correct received opinions of the feminist abortion/breast cancer consortium.
Brind dismisses two highly-publicized sources which deny any ABC connection. One is a study by Oxford University scientists published by the Lancet in 2004; the other is the stand the National Cancer Institute has taken on the issue. Both the study and NCI make strong claims for the contention that there is no link between abortion and an increased risk for breast cancer.
Wrong, says Brind:
|"The trouble is, to accept this conclusion, one needs to dismiss almost half a century's worth of data which do show a significant link between abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer…”|
|“[D]enial of the ABC link has become the party line of all major governmental agencies (including the World Health Organization), mainstream medical associations (including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists) and the most prestigious medical journals (including the New England Journal of Medicine)."|
The WHO Bulletin was ignored -- eventually even by WHO itself. So was a subsequent study two years later at the University of Southern California. Here, women who had an abortion before carrying a child to term increased their risk of breast cancer by 2.4 fold over those women who did not abort.
Brind has further points to make, points we didn’t hear — and won’t hear if the mandarins in charge of the abortion clinics continue to hold sway:
|Brind points out that the connection went beyond statistics. Scientists were conducting laboratory research on reproductive endocrinology. They documented the incredible rise of estrogen and progesterone in the first trimester of pregnancy. Further, they studied the short-lived rise of these same hormones in spontaneous abortions (miscarriages). According to Brind, these findings explained why miscarriage did not correlate with an increased risk of breast cancer: During the 1980s and 1990s, Brind asserts that study after study – in Japan, Europe and the U.S. – continued to report significant increased breast cancer risk in women who had an induced abortion.|
|"By 1994, six epidemiological studies out of seven in the United States, on women of both black and white ethnicity, had reported increased risk with induced abortion," he writes.|
|Then in 1994, Janet Daling and colleagues of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle published a study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute showing a 50 percent increase in the risk of breast cancer among women who had chosen abortion. It also showed an increase of more than 100 percent for women who had an abortion prior to the age of 18 or after age 30. The risk was compounded for those who had family histories of breast cancer.|
|"... the overall results as well as the particulars are far from conclusive, and it is difficult to see how they will be informative to the public." Rosenberg even speculated the study may have been faulty because of "reporting bias" that generated false positive results.|
|"Many adjectives may be used to properly describe induced abortion, but 'safe' is assuredly not one of them," he concludes. "The day will surely come when this is common knowledge, and for every day sooner that this happens, thousands of lives may be saved."|
Meanwhile, here is a rent in the curtain: in Portland, Oregon, a clinic settled out of court rather than face the publicity a trial would have brought to bear on current abortion practices. The young woman whose case was heard in January 2005, was fifteen at the time of her abortion; she had indicated on her medical history that there was breast cancer in her family. No one ever gave her any information about the ABC link. Her chances -- i.e, her increased risk --of getting breast cancer went up to the point that she will no doubt choose to do what many women in her situation are doing: undergo elective double mastectomy and an oophrectomy to avoid cancer of her reproductive organs. How's that for a future at the age of 18?
Another Utopian dream -- woman freed of her anatomic destiny -- is going to vanish in death and indignity. In fact, given their penchant for finding victims and bad news, this twist in the tale is particularly ironic for the believers themselves.
But for as long as they continue their death grip on the media, for that long more women will be set up to die for someone else's dogma. Eventually, though, Roe v. Wade will go the way of Dred Scott and Mao's Little Red Book. It will be made irrelevant by reality.
The old bugaboo of the Left always has been reality.