People v. State

House Bill 1210, inter alia, prohibits performing an abortion unless the pregnant woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed is informed orally and in writing at least 18 hours before the abortion of “the possibility of increased risk of breast cancer following an induced abortion and the natural protective effect of a completed pregnancy in avoiding breast cancer.”

The language from the bill quoted above is more than accurate: a “possibility of increased risk” is strictly and practically speaking not a “possibility of increased risk” but an increased risk. And the increased risk of breast cancer following an induced abortion is supported by an overwhelming preponderance of the scientific evidence. See, e.g., my student comment published in the Wisconsin Law Review in 1999, the briefs I submitted to the North Dakota Supreme Court in the case of Kjolsrud v. MKB Management dba Red River Women’s Clinic (including extensive citations to the trial transcripts of my cross-examination of the defendant’s expert witnesses), and the website of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute (whose board of directors includes Joel Brind, who was my expert witness at trial in the Red River Women’s Clinic case).

It’s difficult for me to read all of the ignorant and deceptive commentary on the passing of this bill (after the Indiana Senate passed a similar bill in February) — such as this editorial in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, titled “Deceit doesn’t protect life” (H/T The Indiana Law Blog) — without having flashbacks to the maddening years in law school and immediately thereafter that I spent immersed in the scientific evidence linking induced abortion with increased breast cancer risk. All of this ignorant and deceptive commentary is made possible by the government-salaried hypocritical liars at the National Cancer Institute, which is cited by the ignorant — including the author of the above-linked editorial — as the final authority on the matter. My realization of the magnitude of the lies being actively told about the abortion-breast cancer link by this “trusted” federal government agency — one of which was central to the Red River Women’s Clinic case — coupled with the North Dakota Supreme Court’s disposition disposal of the Red River Women’s Clinic case and the longstanding failure of state and federal government in general to correct these lies, was in retrospect the impetus behind my gradual arrival at first libertarianism and then philosophical anarchism.

So, Indiana Republicans: I don’t have much to thank you for, but I thank you for your courage in standing tall, in the face of the ignoramuses who would portray you as anti-science rubes, to ensure that women considering abortion in Indiana will finally be told the truth about the evidence linking induced abortion with increased breast cancer risk.

My old law prof Ann Althouse links to an account of the Indiana House debate on the bill which exemplifies the hysterical and irrational opposition the bill’s proponents had to contend with. Along with the informed consent requirements, the bill also prevents insurance companies from providing abortion coverage under the new federal health care bill. The bill’s sponsor (Eric Turner) opposed a proposed amendment exempting women who became pregnant due to rape or incest on the grounds that such an exception would create a “giant loophole,” since “someone who is desirous of an abortion could simply say that they’ve been raped or there’s incest.”

Outraged by Turner’s allegation, state Rep. Linda Lawson (D) — who spent six years as a sex crimes investigator for the Indiana police — delivered an emotional rebuke. Describing her experience with both elderly and young children who had been raped, she forcefully informed Turner that “they don’t make it up.” “Women don’t make this up! My Goodness!” she exclaimed. “This is the state of Indiana!”

I beg to differ, Rep. Linda Lawson (D).

Follow