What He Didn’t Say
Posted by Adam Graham in : Idaho Conservative, TheBreast Cancer survivors are mad at Bill Sali for suggesting an increased chance of getting breast cancer if you’ve had an abortion:
“To put this on top of you, this horrible idea that you must’ve had an abortion because you got breast cancer – that is totally unacceptable, the research isn’t there and this kind of statement should not be made,” said House Minority Leader Wendy Jaquet, D-Ketchum, herself a survivor of the disease.
Oh come on, that’s a load of bull, Ms. Jaquet, no one has ever said, “If you have breast cancer, you’ve had an abortion.” Clearly, that’s not the case, it’s been Mr. Sali’s point that if you’ve had an abortion, you have an increased chance of getting breast cancer. Clearly, there are many risk factors in a variety of diseases that increase your chances of getting that disease. It’s never been stated that all women who have breast cancer have abortions, which is the words that the Spokesman Review and Ms. Jacquet are trying to shove in Mr. Sali’s mouth.
Comment by binkyboy [Visitor]
Actually, there is only data suggesting that there is a possiblity of the link, but the link has not been confirmed. The data the Mr. Sali used was not conclusive and was not formed to prove the link, only suggest one might exist.
Until the final studies have been done and peer reviewed, the issue is non-conclusive and Mr. Sali’s use of the early data was incorrect and he should have apologized after being informed of that.
But I’ve told you that before and you still think he was correct. Which makes you as much of a scumbag as Sali.
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
I’ll take a comparison from you of me to Bill Sali as a compliment, Bink.
My question here is how many women are you willing to see die from breast cancer unnecessarily while we wait for the scientific community to come to a mutual conclusion. Not all studies politicians cite are 100% conclusive everywhere, but Mr. Sali has good reason for citing the study.
Comment by binkyboy [Visitor]
He has no reason to cite the study. The study is one amongst a hundred, and the majority of the other 99 disagree with him.
Science takes time and any knee jerk reaction to a bad study will cost more in the long run.
You only want abortion banned, and so you’re willing to lie, to cheat, to misinform the public to get your will.
Thats pathetic.
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
There’s more than just one study on this, there’s multiple ones.
Comment by binkyboy [Visitor]
And none that are conclusive. The basic cause, if there is one, has not been found, and the multitude of variables have not been reduced to a negligable size to turn this into a direct link. The only people making it a direct link are those that want to ban abortion and will do so through any means necessary, including lying, cheating and misinforming.
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
Some of these studies have been from pro-choice people who saw the way the science actually played out and reported it.
Comment by binkyboy [Visitor]
Adam, I’ll admit that there might be a link, however there is not definative evidence of the link. There needs to be a long term study that includes such a great cross section of societal norms over such a long period of time that there is very little chance of the study ever being completed or finished.
Instead of using these studies to back abortion bans (which would never decrease the number of abortions), these studies should be used to increase funding in the area of scientific advancement for breast cancer.
The problem with a stance like that is that people like yourself would feel that you are supporting and helping women that possibly had an abortion, and that would be a bad thing, right?
never mind, you won’t tell the truth about that anyway. You just want a federal ban on abortion and your willingness to sell any snakeoil to do it is evidence enough.