Today, Bob was reacting to a new medical study published yesterday which put the figurative last nail in the coffin of the Religious Right's "Abortion causes Breast Cancer" hypothesis. The study included 105,716 women over a 10 year period of time. This New York Times article gives a good overview of the study. In summary,
[t]he scientists found no difference in breast cancer incidence between the women who had had spontaneous or induced abortions and those who had not. Breast cancer incidence did not differ among women who had had an induced or spontaneous abortion before or after their first birth, or who had had no abortion at all.Importantly, the article also details the errors with previous studies that tended to show a link between abortion and breast cancer.
Retrospective studies ... looked for a history of abortion in women who had already been given a diagnosis of breast cancer. [S]uch studies are subject to error caused by inaccurate reporting. Because of personal sensitivities and the stigma associated with the operation, healthy women may be reluctant to reveal that they have had an abortion, while those with breast cancer, seeking a cause for their illness, are more likely to report one.Nevertheless, Bob had no problem finding fellow anti-choice brethren who were quick to dismiss the study. I liked this quote from the "Christian" News Wire:
'So why has the [National Cancer Institute] continued to spend millions of dollars to fund studies on the abortion-cancer link?' asked [Karen] Malec. 'Clearly, its scientists must either suspect a link or know that it exists.'Check out that first-rate logical reasoning! Ms. Malec presumes that there's only one reason that the NCI would attempt to study an abortion-cancer link: Because it's a massive cover-up! Maybe the reason that the NCI continues to spend money on this is because blowhards like Bob Dutko and his ilk keep asserting that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, even though there isn't!
Last week, Bob was basking in the glory of the anti-choice crowd's victory at the Supreme Court. The Court upheld a federal law which banned so-called "partial birth" abortions, even when the mother's health was at risk. Keep in mind that Bob has repeatedly argued that overturning Roe v. Wade would simply return the issue of abortion to the states, so that each state could decide. This is the "state's rights" argument that Republicans, like Bob, often employ when it suits their interests, and discard when it doesn't.
But let's be clear what Bob really wants. Bob could care less about whether women get breast cancer or whether each individual state can pass its own abortion laws. Bob wants to use the power of the government to prevent women from getting an abortion, no matter what the circumstances. Furthermore, Bob also wants to use the power of the government to prevent women from using oral contraceptives.
What I'm always puzzled about is why is Bob finds it so necessary to use the power of the government to force women to comply with his narrow ultra-religious morality. I assume Bob's wife isn't going to have an abortion and he no longer has any daughters. So why is he so concerned about whether my wife and my daughters have an abortion or use contraceptives? Why does Bob feel it so necessary to control women he has never met?! Why does he find it necessary to stop an abortion that doesn't affect him in any tangible way?! If his arguments against abortion and contraceptives were so compelling and convincing, why would he need the law to enforce them?!
Why? Because Bob is an illogical control freak.