WASHINGTON, DC  (American Life League) - The Obama administration's recent actions regarding mandatory contraceptive insurance coverage for employees of religious institutions-a so-called compromise by the administration-has elicited a great deal of hand wringing, and opining about religious freedom and government control.

This new "accommodation" for religious leaders is a distinction without a difference, according to Jill Stanek. She is correct. Militantly pro-abortion RH Reality Check explains, "Under this plan, every insurance company will be obligated to provide contraceptive coverage. Administration officials stated that a woman's insurance company "will be required to reach out directly and offer her contraceptive care free of charge. The religious institutions will not have to pay for it."

But amongst the thousands upon thousands of words and videos that have been issued by those opposing Obama's tactic, I have seen very few point out that one of the most tragic results of Obama's strong-arm "compromise" is the endangerment of literally millions of American women, both born and preborn.

As a female, I find this extremely disquieting. The Obama administration has expressed concern (albeit minimal) regarding the possibility that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Such a development could result in the loss of only God knows how many lives.

Yet right here in America, for more than 40 years, chemical warfare has been waged on women and their progeny. Even now, as Obama exudes personal anguish over the fact that many women do not have access to free birth control, sterilization, and abortion and therefore is determined to fix it, he fails to acknowledge the horrific results.

The president is poised to escalate his war on women under the guise of helping them, while the media is silent on the scientific facts-as are many even among those decrying the Obama mandate.

Here are the facts.

The birth control pill was ranked in 2005 by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer as a "group one" carcinogenic drug. Such a finding points to the real possibility that the pill can and does contribute to a number of cancers in women, including breast cancer. Yet,  this finding - and the data upon which it is based - have not been widely publicized and apparently have been willfully ignored by Obama in his quest to provide so-called health care for all women.

In political speak, the demand that all women have access to "free" contraception, sterilization, and abortion means controlling births regardless of the harmful effects of certain drugs and devices on the targeted females and their offspring.

Speaking at a 2010 conference, Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, a breast cancer surgeon and cofounder of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, shared with her audience "a wealth of statistical data from various sources to support a fact that is known by the medical community to be true yet is rarely acknowledged: use of the pill has been strongly linked to an increased risk of breast cancer. The pill is also believed to increase the risk of cervical cancer and liver cancer.

"This stuff is not new, it's not magic, it's in the literature," she said, linking pill use to the 660 percent rise in non-invasive breast cancer since 1973. "Women want to know, and women have a right to know, what researchers have known for over 20 years." She compared media treatment of the pill's cancer risk to that of hormone replacement therapy (HRT), which was found to be carcinogenic in 2002. Once word got out, 15 out of 30 million women in America taking HRT stopped; by 2007, invasive breast cancer in women over 50 for estrogen-receptive positive tumors dropped 11 percent. Meanwhile, she noted, hormonal contraception - essentially the same drug as HRT and with a similar cancer risk, about 25-30 percent - continues to be touted as harmless and even healthy."

In his book, Breast Cancer: Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill, Chris ...