I also respect other people’s opinions when they “have the courage to tell the truth” as I see it, but that is rather obvious. What is not so obvious is to respect people whose opinion about what is the “truth” in a rather complex matter disagrees with mine. As I know Babette, I am sure she would never call an article appearing here “baldfaced dishonesty” even when she disagreed with its position.

Dear Simon666
Before insulting Dr. Lanfranchi by claiming her views are rejected by scientists, why don't you read the paper co-authored by Louise Brinton from the National Cancer Institute (USA), which acknowledged the link between Induced Abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer?
Why don't you explain why childless women have a higher risk of breast cancer? Or why the only study on Australian women, by Rohan et al, listed induced abortion as the greatest risk factor for breast cancer, a higher risk factor even than a family history of breast cancer?
The reality is that cancer organisations in the West are dodging admitting that induced abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer because this would bring down the whole edifice of abortion being "good" for women. Cancer researchers in China, India, Turkey and Bangladesh, unconstrained by western feminists, are publishing honest research.
Also please explain why the incidence of breast cancer is rising? The death rate is fortunately going down because of early diagnosis and better treatment, but the incidence is rising while the incidence of most other cancer is declining.
The Southern Poverty Law Centre is a left wing organisation, so it is going to be critical of a pro-life, pro-family organisation like the World Congress of Families. The WCF cancelled its Congress in Russia when Putin annexed Crimea. Incidentally the law on homosexuality in Russia only deals with propaganda to children. The WCF has had nothing to do with legislation in Uganda and you must be psychic to know exactly what Larry Jacobs is going to say and the precise time when he is going to say it.
And why don't you tackle the Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia where homosexuality is punishable by execution? Now there's real "discrimination" for you.
Gadfly42

Gadfly 42 -
Re : "why don't you read the paper co-authored by Louise Brinton from the National Cancer Institute (USA) etc blah blah" : The rejection of her hypothesis by the National Cancer Institute itself, the World Health organisation and every major scientific body is enough for me or any thinking person who has does not believe that western medicine is a feminist/homo conspiracy and that dinosaurs never roamed the earth. You people will never overturn science by claiming that overwhelming majority scientific opinion is a feminist conspiracy; and that your ragtag bunch of religiously-inspired outliers are having their rejected "truths" repressed. It all falls apart when we get back to how science itself is defined, and it always will.
Re : "Incidentally the law on homosexuality in Russia only deals with propaganda to children."
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on not being stupid enough to not understand the actual effect of those laws on the rising level of violence and murder against LGBTI Russians; and assume that you don't care about that effect.
Re : "The WCF has had nothing to do with legislation in Uganda". Oh please. Scott Lively is involved in planning work for WCF conferences, and his central role in the inspiration and development of the "kill the gays" laws is documented. The WCF kills.
Re : "you must be psychic to know exactly what Larry Jacobs is going to say and the precise time when he is going to say it."
Maybe I missed something in Russia's so-called "pro family" laws (or the dishonestly-named concept of "pro-family" itself) that was/is NOT about gay people, and for your next comment, you can fill me in?
In regards to 4.45pm, while I am not psychic enough to know if Babette and her band of fringe misfits are organised enough to keep to a schedule - particularly as some of the moderators are best known for harrassing women outside abortion clinics, creating an environment in which a madman killed one of the security guards - that is indeed the scheduled time for Jacobs' speech.

Gadfly42 -
I forgot about one of your 'points' : The reason I don't take on Saudi Arabia in regards to anti-gay prejudice is that their anti-gay prejudice doesn't draw Australian government ministers in. This is the extremist christian position that says, hey, we're beating you up but at least we don't kill you like those other extremists. I'm taking on the prejudice itself; and the best place to do that is with the ever-dwindling set of fundamentalists who are rejected by the decent people within their religion. Working from principle - don't beat up gay people - is more effective.

Dear Simon666,
You are quite defamatory of Babette Francis and Dr. Larry Jacobs to imply they have ever suggested beating up homosexuals. Both of them have shown nothing but compassion for homosexuals, especially the males who have their very own disease, HIV/AIDS. Yes, I know heterosexuals also get AIDS, but they have not "adopted" this disease in the way the homosexual community has. And that does not take into account all the other gastro-intestinal infections caused by sodomy: hepatitis, HPV, anal cancer , rectal incompetence, fungal infections etc.
etc.
It is strange that with other lifestyle caused diseases, the message from the medical community is behavioural change, e.g. don't smoke. Why is that not applied to sodomy?
Why don't you go minister to your own flock instead of misleading hapless women about the link between induced abortion and breast cancer? How can the National Cancer Institute in the US disavow Louise Brinton when she is one of their own researchers? Or Janet Daling? Or Russo and Russo?
Gadfly42

Dear Suseonline
You are quite ingenious about finding excuses for rejecting research that does not fit your worldview that induced abortion does not increase breast cancer risk. You disregard the Swiss researchers because their world-first was in 1976. Well no one has rejected their findings, they were able to predict miscarriages with 92% accuracy, now a simple blood test at 8 weeks gestation could probably identify estradiol levels and hence the risk of miscarriage with an even higher degree of accuracy. And what is your reason for rejecting the Australian research by Rohan et al?
And you are partially right about the rise in hormones in pregnancy increasing breast cancer risk, it is known as the "transient effect". Transient because if the pregnancy proceeds beyond 32 weeks gestation, the breast cells mature into type 3 and with lactation to type 4, both of which are stable and resistant to cancer.
As I have pointed out, Induced Abortion is not the only risk factor for breast cancer during a pregnancy. A miscarriage caused by a car accident or blow to the abdomen will also increase risk, as will a miscarriage during the second trimester, or a premature birth under 32 weeks. It is all dependent on the hormone levels, which are high during a healthy pregnancy.
And Suse, before you reply, please discuss my comments with an endocrinologist and an epidemiologist as you seem to have little knowledge of hormone fluctuations or statistics.
Gadfly42