Skip to comments.ABORTION-BREAST CANCER NEWS HEADLINES, Letter to the National Catholic Register
Posted on 07/24/2005 12:01:01 PM PDT by Coleus
Breast Cancer Walkers Uninformed about Abortion Link, Komen Foundation gives to Planned Parenthood
Freeper Press Conference(HAULING BIG ABORTION BACK TO COURT)
Abortion/breast cancer link can't be denied
Biography of Joel Brind
Joel Brind, Department of Natural Sciences, Baruch College
Biology Courses, Department of Natural Sciences, Baruch College
Faculty, Department of Natural Sciences, Baruch College
Best-selling author Michael Fumento reports: "Cancer Study Exposes the Media's Hypocrisy.
Abortion leaders, Democrats attack White House health decisions - (BP)
From the article:
"So, the true breast cancer risk is more accurately put at (approximately) 40% to 50% if both risks are included."
Shouldn't a more approriate title be:
'Dem Govts aid baby killing & breast cancer'
Remember, this is 40-50% higher than your normal chance of getting bc. Not that women who have had abortions have a 40-50% risk. Just like other risk factors, this is a multiple of your base risk, which for women 40-49 is about 1.5%
Ping me when you get an answer. I won't be holding my breath . . .
Smoking only put bad things in your lungs. Abortion is like running a car into a brick wall.
Once a young girl is pregnant, there are changes in the body, and hormones released. The breasts are pushed into development as a biological clock is started -- the child will need nourishment in 9 months.
The studies have proven the younger the girl, the effects are more devastating.
The running of a car into the brick wall is the sudden stoppage of the hormones and the development of the breast -- the effect of having an abortion.
The good news is that people who do not have a history of breast cancer in the family are fairly safe.
And the other good news is that if a very young girl goes ahead with giving birth to the child, subsequent pregnancies ending in abortion are not as likely to cause breast cancer (i.e., the breasts were developed as part of the first pregnancy fully).
As for lung cancer and throat cancer from smoking, some people do not have a problem unless there is a family history of cancer.
So there are variables.
A New Jersey breast surgeon became very alarmed with all the young women that came to her with breast cancer. She is now full time on the abortion-breast cancer link because she had too many victims enter her office (25 to 35 year old women).
At least when people smoked, they might get cancer in their 40's or 50's. It appears with the abortion-breast cancer link, that dying of breast cancer can happen when a woman is in her 20's -- especially if she had an abortion around the age of 10, 11, 12, or 13 years old -- which is not UNCOMMON in this day and age.
Here are some stats re: breast cancer/abortion link:
Abortion-Breast Cancer Link is Convincing
by Dr. Angela Lanfranchi
[Source: The Age (Australia); February 16, 2003]
[Pro-Life Infonet Note: Dr Angela Lanfranchi is a breast cancer surgeon, a fellow of the American College of Surgeons and clinical assistant professor of surgery at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Jersey.]
When I first heard of the link between abortion and breast cancer, in 1993, I thought it was a pro-life fantasy. "Thats crazy," was my initial response. However, out of curiosity I changed the history form I used in my work as a breast surgeon, asking each woman the order and outcome of all pregnancies. The results surprised me.
In the first six months I had two patients in their 30s with breast cancer; one had had seven pregnancies and six abortions, the other five pregnancies and three abortions. I continued to see more and more young women with a history of abortion, developing breast cancer. Of course, I may have been witnessing a statistical fluke.
But then, in 1996, City University of New York Professor Joel Brind published his meta-analysis, which revealed 23 of 28 studies showing a link between abortion and breast cancer. The uproar that study caused in Britain, where it was published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, prompted the editor to write: "I believe that if you take a view (as I do) which is pro-choice, you need at the same time to have a view which might be called pro-information without excessive paternalistic censorship (or interpretation) of the data."
Paternalistic censorship is what I experience every time I try to speak on the science supporting the abortion-breast cancer link.
About 85 per cent of cigarette smokers do not get lung cancer. Doctors who tell their patients of the risk of lung cancer are not labelled fear-mongers. Similarly, not all women who have had an abortion will get breast cancer; only 5 per cent will develop the disease. And 95 per cent of breast cancer patients will not have a history of abortion. But some women are at especially high risk. And 5 percent still adds up to a lot of women.
The 1994 Daling study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute showed that teenagers younger than 18 who had abortions between nine and 24 weeks had nearly a 30 per cent chance of getting breast cancer in their lifetimes. The US National Cancer Institutes web page on reproductive risk informs women there are studies that show this link.
Many people ask me about first trimester miscarriage. This is quite different, in its effect on the womans breasts, from induced abortion of a normal pregnancy. Miscarriages do not increase breast cancer risk, since they are associated with low oestrogen levels that do not cause breast growth. However, when pregnancy is terminated before the breast cells reach full maturity, a woman is left with more immature type 1 and 2 breast lobules (milk glands) than before her pregnancy started, and therefore is at increased risk. Her breasts never mature to type 3 and 4 lobules, which would have occurred in the third trimester and would have lowered her risk.
Ideology should not prevent the dissemination of this information. Australias breast cancer organisations are not helping women exercise informed consent when they deny them this knowledge. There are three legal actions in the US by women who were not told of the link before having an abortion.
As Dr Janet Daling, who identifies herself as being pro-choice, says: "If politics gets involved in science, it will really hold back the progress we make. I have three sisters with breast cancer, and I resent people messing with the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. Its not a matter of believing. Its a matter of what is."
Information only empowers women to make informed choices. Women who choose abortions need to be aware that they are at higher risk, so they will have mammograms earlier and more regularly. Cancers found on mammograms are more likely to be stage 1 and curable. No woman should die of breast cancer because she was not warned.
I watched my mother die of metastatic breast cancer. In my practice, I see young women with small children die of breast cancer. If the information I give patients can prevent a single death from a completely avoidable risk, I will gladly pay the price of being labelled a fear-monger.
These women have experience with this, and though one [Dr Janet Daling] identifies herself as pro-choice, both are interested in helping women.
I believe Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., has left the practice in New Jersey to try to make people aware of the link. It is too late to try to cure the patient when they already have breast cancer -- easier to make the facts known BEFORE women/girls have abortions. And Dr. Lanfranchi has testified before state legislatures about informed consent laws on abortion.
Everyone gets so worked up over these cancer studies. Your initial risk is so low that even a five to ten fold increase only raises your risk to 10-15%.
Eat, drink and be merry. We all have to go someday.
This is no bigger than drinking, or any other breast cancer risk. It only increases your risk by the given percentage. Unless you have a major family history, our risk is low.
Check yourself, have your mammograms and be happy. Optimism is great for your health.
We cannot get too worked up over all these cancer links. Goodness, you'd never go out of your house.
Why is this such a big deal?
"Eat, drink and be merry. We all have to go someday."
Yep, we all have to go some day, but none of us wants a premature death, and none of us wants a poor quality of life while we are alive, and none of us should want to have the blood of preborn kids on our hands when we face God.
Eat, drink and be merry, and CHOOSE LIFE, so preborn babies will be able to "Eat, drink and be merry" some day, too.
That's great, be pro life, but don't use the cancer link. It's disingenuous and looks like you are grasping, unless you are going to post about every cancer link to every human activity.
You should chose not to have an abortion because it is morally wrong.
The cancer risk is minimal.
Perhaps it is you who is being disingenous.
Are your pro-life, btw?
Yes I am pro life, but all this health hysteria makes me nuts.
And it makes us look like fools. This is not going to change any woman's mind but a paranoid one.
We cannot latch onto a poor argument just because we like the outcome.
For more info, check the web site, www.prolifetechology.org.
For Dr. Lanfranchi, I think the big deal is that because of politics, any sort of link between breast cancer and abortion is squashed -- because of political reasons.
She found out that her patients with histories of abortions were getting breast cancer. It is really for her to answer, not me, why she became such an activist...
Interesting. Your post led me to think about the drugs women get to dry up their milk ducts when they do not choose to breast feed. Wondering if there's been any studies done on that angle?
But women should be told the truth about this, don't you agree?
I am not even aware of the drug. In general, I believe what is natural is good, and unnatural is bad, ... for the body.
If all the folks here are just as worked up over all breast cancer risks, sure.
But would a study that found childbirth caused uterine cancer get as much play?
I don't like seeing science used for political purposes and I think folks in general get way too excited over cancer links.
As we saw in the news just the other day, lots of these health stories turn out not to have basis years down the road.
But even if the risk is four fold, or ten fold, which it is not--this article says 50%--A woman aged 45 with an abortion and no family history only has at most a 15% risk.
Using the 50% figure it's only 2.25%.
Family history is the single biggest factor in breast cancer.
Having a few drinks every week raises your risk more than an abortion.
You're right it is morally wrong--but you know what? Some women in this post Roe world would probably have that poor baby instead of taking ANY risk that they might lose their breasts. That is so sickening. The pro-life protesters ought to carry around signs shouting, "SAVE YOUR BREASTS!!!"
You bet your a## it would probably shut those aboruarys down for lack of busines. Vanity of vanities
Well, if the risk were really high, I might agree.
thanks for the link
later pingout for sure.
Moral Absolutes Ping.
The evidence that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer is pretty damning. What is also odious is that many in the media and gov't don't want people to know.
Abortion is, after all, the cornerstone of feminism, the left, the Democratic Party, and the rejection of sexual morality. Take away abortion, and the house of cards falls down. Think about it - all the above are based on the freedom to murder the most helpless of all.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.