Federal Appeals Court Says World Health Organization Classified Birth Control Pill as Cancer-Causing

Federal Appeals Court Slaps Down ObamaCare Mandate, Says World Health Organization Classified the Birth Control Pill as Cancer-Causing

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer vigorously applauds a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a lawsuit filed by two business owners who have religious objections to being forced by ObamaCare to provide employees with insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptive steroids and sterilizations. In the case, Francis Gilardi, et al. vs. U.S. Health and Human Services, et al., the court agreed to enjoin (stop) the government’s mandate as to the Gilardi’s. 1

Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, said, “We’re encouraged the court cited the amicus brief 2 filed by Bioethics Defense Fund on behalf of our organization, the Polycarp Research Institute and the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute. As stated in the decision:

Equally unconvincing is the government’s assertion that the mandate averts ‘negative health consequences for both the woman and the developing fetus.’ From the outset, we note the science is debatable and may actually undermine the government’s cause. For the potential mother, as one amicus notes, the World Health Organization classifies certain oral contraceptives as carcinogens, marked by an increased risk for breast, cervical, and liver cancers. Br. of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, at 8–9.

The World Health Organization (WHO) classifies combined oral contraceptives (the birth control Pill containing estrogen + progestin) as a Group 1 carcinogen. 3 The WHO said the Pill causes cancers of the breast, liver and cervix, but prevents (uncommon) endometrial and cervical cancers. 4 The amicus brief surveyed serious health risks associated with the use of the Pill, Depo Provera and other contraceptive/abortifacient steroids.

The court said the government had not provided a ‘compelling’ justification for violating the Gilardi’s rights to religious freedom. Hopefully, the U.S. Supreme Court will be keen to review this case and others like it next year.

Mrs. Malec concluded, “This shows the dangerous hypocrisy of Obama administration officials and ‘reproductive health organizations.’ 5 They harp on a supposed concern for women’s health while pushing carcinogenic hormonal steroids on women. During the 2012 election, they falsely accused opponents of the mandate of conducting a ‘war on women.’ Their behavior exposes their true agenda of viewing pregnancy as a disease, and of making money for Big Pharma and Big Abortion.”

Dorinda Bordlee, lead counsel on the brief, noted that:

“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is the first court to take judicial notice that the World Health Organization classifies certain oral contraceptives as carcinogenic, a fact that completely undermines the government’s false claim that the mandated drugs ‘promote women’s health,’ and must therefore be provided for free by all employers, even those with religious objections.”

Angela Lanfranchi, MD, FACS (clinical associate professor of surgery at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical Center, president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute) offered her comments. She wrote,

“It is gratifying to learn that such a high court recognized the detrimental impact that ObamaCare will have on women’s health by promoting the Pill, a Group 1 carcinogen for breast, cervical and liver cancer as classified by the World Health Organization. These Justices looked at the facts without the cloud of an agenda that promotes the Pill as somehow tied to the liberation of women instead of the poison that it is causing more cancer as well as deaths through blood clots in the lungs, brain and heart. When is it ever ok to give a healthy woman a carcinogen? I don’t see men taking any. A woman is fertile for about a 100 hours per month and yet she is encouraged by free Pills under ObamaCare and the propaganda that it is somehow liberating to poison herself while she is in a healthy, fertility state.”

Chris Kahlenborn, MD (lead author of a Mayo Clinic Proceedings review of studies on use of the Pill and breast cancer risk; internist, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; and president of the Polycarp Research Institute) related that:

“The Mayo Clinic Proceedings study published in October 2006 is the world’s most recent meta-analysis regarding oral contraceptives (the Pill) and breast cancer. It found in 21 out of 23 studies that women who took oral contraceptives at an early age, especially if they took them for 4 years or more, had over a 50 percent increased risk in aggressive breast cancer prior to the age of 50.”

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women’s organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.

  • 1. See page 26. Francis Gilardi, et al. vs. U.S. Health and Human Services, et al. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. No. 13-5069. Decided 11-1-2013. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/814108-gilardi-vs-hhs.html
  • 2. Brief Amici Curiae of Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, Polycarp Research Institute and Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer. Gilardi et al. vs. Kathleen Sebelius, et al. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. No. 13-5069. Available at: http://bdfund.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/FINALGilardiAmicusBDF2.pdf
  • 3. Look for estrogen-progestagen oral contraceptives alphabetically in the document, “Agents Classified by the IARC Monographs,” Volumes 1-109. Available at: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/ClassificationsGroupOrder.pdf
  • 4. IARC Monographs Programme Finds Combined Estrogen-Progestogen Contraceptives and Menopausal Therapy are Carcinogenic to Humans. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Press Release No. 167, July 29, 2005. Available at: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2005/pr167.html
  • 5. The Center for Reproductive Rights, the Guttmacher Institute, the National Women’s Health Network, the American Public Health Association and other ‘reproductive rights’ organizations actually argued in their amicus brief that the Pill should be given to healthy women to control fertility (which is not a disease) and to treat various non-life threatening conditions. They said women should use the Pill to help prevent cancers of the endometrium and the ovaries. In other words, women should take a carcinogen to prevent cancer! However, the incidence for the cancers the Pill causes every year in the U.S. far exceeds the incidence for the cancers the Pill prevents. For example, the annual U.S. incidence for breast cancer is four times greater than that of endometrial and ovarian cancers combined. See: Brief of the Center for Reproductive Rights et al. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, et al. United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth District. Appellate Case No. 12-6294. Document 01019023890. Date filed: 3-22-2013.  Available at: http://www.apha.org/NR/rdonlyres/C043359F-9406-4C8C-B2FE-D7BAA02B2C33/0/HobbyLobbyvHHScontraceptiverule.pdf

Press Release Date