BOSTON – Women are not being properly informed—and in some cases misinformed—about the physical and psychological risks associated with abortion, a panel of doctors and pro-life officials testified at the state house last Thursday.

The panel spoke before the Joint Committee of the Judiciary in favor of "Women’s Right to Know Act," a bill strengthening state law on informed consent.

During the 11-hour hearing, which encompassed nearly 50 bills, several other panels and individuals testified on both sides of the informed consent legislation.

Under Massachusetts state law, abortion providers are required to describe the development of the unborn child, discuss risks associated with the procedure and outline abortion alternatives. The statute also imposes a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion is performed.

Despite a 1992 Supreme Court ruling deeming such laws constitutional, the Attorney General’s Office refuses to enforce the law, according to materials provided by the Massachusetts Catholic Conference.

Dr. Joel Brind said women need education on the connection between abortion and breast cancer.

"Abortion is the single most avoidable cause of breast cancer," said Dr. Brind, professor of biology and endocrinology at Baruch College of the City University of New York. Studies show a 50 to 80 percent increase in breast cancer risks in women who have had abortions, he added.

Twenty-eight of 36 medical studies have found a link between abortion and breast cancer, according to the Massachusetts Catholic Conference.

Dr. Brind said the increased risk may be caused by elevated estrogen levels. When women undergo abortions, the estrogen levels are not allowed to taper off as would be the case with a full-term pregnancy.

Fellow panel member Dr. Joanne Angelo, a psychiatrist at Tufts University School of Medicine, said hundreds of women suffer from negative psychological effects of abortion. These effects include: depression, suicide, eating disorders and post-traumatic stress disorders.

The suicide risk is six times higher in women who have had an abortion than in women who have given birth, Dr. Angelo noted.

Women who have abortions use defensive denial to ignore the intellectual fact of the child’s existence and common fantasies about child rearing, she said. In the weeks and months following the procedure, this denial fades, leaving waves of grief.

"Truly informed consent requires that all information be disclosed," she added.

Maria Parker echoed this sentiment during her testimony. "True choice dictates that the woman facing the abortion decision should have all the information that is relevant to make an informed choice," said Ms. Parker, associate director of public policy for Massachusetts Catholic Conference.

Bob Joyce, part of another panel, also supported the "Women’s Right to Know Act." Twenty-five percent of all pregnancies in Massachusetts end in abortion, Mr. Joyce said, adding that the informed consent bill would save hundreds, perhaps thousands, of lives.

Later, a panel of activists offered testimony against the bill’s passage while also addressing some of the 14 other abortion-related bills on the Committee’s docket.

Norma Shapiro of the American Civil Liberties Union argued that "pregnancy is in fact far more dangerous than abortion."

Furthermore, aspects of the "Women’s Right to Know Act" are unconstitutional, Ms. Shapiro said, adding that abortion is a fundamental right under the Massachusetts state law.

Pam Nourse of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said the agency offers ambivalent women more counseling, sometimes with other agencies, and often suggest delays to insure an informed decision.

Rev. Ann Fowler, an Episcopal minister, spoke on behalf of Reproductive Choice of Massachusetts. Rev. Fowler said clergy of different churches affirm that abortion is often a responsible, highly moral decision.

Melissa Kogut of Massachusetts National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League voiced opposition to a bill regulating abortion based on viability testing.

Under the bill, the viability, that is, the fetus’ ability to survive on its own, of any pregnancy passing the 16 week mark must be determined by two doctors.

Ms. Kogut said the bill places unnecessary obstacles before women seeking abortion. Viability, she added, can easily be determined by one doctor.

Professor Patrick Flood, Professor Hadley Arkes and Dr. Mildred Jefferson spoke in support of the viability bill. According to the panel, many fetuses aborted after the 20-week mark would probably be able to survive outside of the womb using present medical technology.

As a result, these fetuses could not be aborted under guidelines set by the Roe vs. Wade ruling, the panel said.