Posted on 10/18/2005 6:27:07 PM PDT by Coleus
(Charleston-AP) October 18, 2005 -
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Charleston and Bishop England High School have broken ties to Saturday's Race for the Cure.
They made the decision because the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Research Foundation gives money to Planned Parenthood in other cities.
The race is expected to attract about six thousand people in Charleston this year.
Race organizers say some students from the Bishop England High School will participate on their own, but will no longer receive community service credit for their efforts.
Proceeds from the race are required to go toward breast cancer screenings for poor women. But Komen affiliates in other parts of the country give money to Planned Parenthood chapters.
Planned Parenthood also provides abortion services.
Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer
June 1, 1997
Position Statement
The Canadian Breast Cancer Network (CBCN) is the national network and voice of breast cancer survivors in Canada. Our goals, at the national level, are:
to communicate with, support and inform organizations and individuals who are concerned about breast cancer,
to promote education and awareness,
and to act as the voice of Canadians affected by breast cancer to ensure that their concerns influence decisions of research and health care policy.
This position statement is an attempt to inform our members and supporters of the facts and of the CBCN's position and recommendations.
Recently, the issue of a possible link between breast cancer and induced abortions has received attention. An estimated 80 studies investigating abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer have been completed since 1957, many of which have not been published. Some studies show a modest increase in breast cancer risk in women who have had abortions, while others show no relationship. Due to the many biological relationships involved in breast cancer, such contradictory research findings are not unusual. In this case, research bias and political motives may also have played a part in the findings.
In 1981, Pike (1) reported that, when a pregnancy ended in the first trimester and before a first full-term pregnancy, an induced abortion increased the risk of breast cancer 2.4 times. Another study, in 1994, by Daling (2)found an increased risk of 1.5 times from induced abortion (risk was greater for women who had an abortion before 18 or after 30). A widely-publicised 1996 study by Newcomb (3)found that induced abortion and miscarriage increased the risk of breast cancer very slightly, by 1.1 times (a relationship of 1.0 means no link was observed).
Other studies have found no statistically significant increases in risk. For example, in a large 1983 study, Brinton (4)found no increased risk (except where there were multiple miscarriages, in which case a slight increase was observed). In 1988, Rosenberg (5)compared 3200 women who had breast cancer to 4844 women with non-malignant conditions and found that neither spontaneous nor induced abortions were linked to breast cancer. Parazzini (6) in 1991 then compared 2394 women with breast cancer to 2218 controls and also found no difference in risk.
Recent opinion indicates that research over the past 40 years has not demonstrated a consistent link between breast cancer and abortion. The Canadian Cancer Society believes that "no credible information exists to demonstrate a link between abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer(7)." After reviewing the studies from 1980 through 1994, renowned University of Toronto Epidemiologist Dr. Anthony B. Miller concluded that "pending further research, we do not know whether induced abortions materially increase the risk of breast cancer(8)". In 1996, a panel, appointed by the U.S. National Cancer Institute, judged that the evidence does not allow for a conclusion. Meanwhile, Joel Brind, a professor of biology and endocrinology in the U.S., reviewed studies since 1957 and believes that an increased risk is indicated(9).
Such positive results, however, are almost certainly the result of recall bias(10). For example, most studies ask women to recall their medical history, including abortions. Those who have had breast cancer may be motivated by interest in vigilant research to be more accurate in this regard, while the control population may under-report, causing data to be skewed in favour of a link. Secondly, few studies control for confounding factors such as the protective effect of an early pregnancy or the increased risk associated with delayed pregnancy.
Finally, a very credible,definitive study of over 250,000 women in Denmark (11), free of the problem of recall bias, found no increase in the risk of breast cancer for women who had had an induced abortion compared with those who had not. A subsequent Editorial (12) notes that "[i]n short, a woman need not worry about the risk of breast cancer when facing the difficult decision of whether to terminate a pregnancy". This study presents substantial evidence that induced abortions do not affect a woman's risk of having breast cancer.
Women who have had an abortion should remember that breast cancer is a disease with no single predominating causal factor. Even if a link were demonstrated, most women who have had abortions do not develop breast cancer and many women who have not had abortions do develop breast cancer.
Great? It is an advocacy site pushing the abortion/cancer link.
The prudent thing would be to publicize the fact that dueling experts have found different conclusions.
hmm. And the site you sent me too puts out both sides in an impartial way. hrrmmp.
Please show me ONE reputable site that links breast cancer and abortions.
http://health.bsd.uchicago.edu/people/pubs/Abortion_Breast_JECH.pdf.
Abortion and breast cancer: a case-control recordlinkage studyM J Goldacre, L M Kurina, V Seagroatt, D YeatesThere is controversy about whether interrup-tion of pregnancy, particularly if it is inducedrather than spontaneous, increases the risk ofbreast cancer. Individual studies, and reviewssummarising them, have given conflictingresults.1 2Recent guidelines from the UK RoyalCollege of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists(http://www.rcog.org.uk) state that the evi-dence is inconclusive but that, when only thosestudies least susceptible to bias are considered,induced abortion does not seem to increaserisk.
Most studies of this association have been case-control interview studies. An important and much discussed consideration is whether such studies are inherently subject to reporting bias—that women with breast cancer may bemore likely than control women to tell the interviewer if they have had an induced abortion when questioned about their repro-ductive history. If there are systematic reporting biases in interview studies, neither pooling of data across studies in meta-analysisnor further similar studies will eliminate theireVects. The overall odds ratio calculated inBrind’s meta-analysis relied exclusively on data from 21 case-control studies.
This is really dumb. The are not even giving money to PP this cycle! The Church has really lost it.
The first study I cited was from a site pushing the abortion/cancer link!
But, the case is clear, you cannot find a single reputable link that shows there is a link. You only show your biased side. You hide the fact that the study you cited is flawed and bias to your point of view.
Flawed analysis. No un-biased study has shown a link. PERIOD.
The first link was to a site that was pro-abortion/cancer link. The second was a reputable site. Yours was from an extreme-advocacy site. Now for balance you need to cite at least one credible site.
It's interesting that to "debunk" Dr. Brind's analysis, you merely say "flawed analysis" because of supposed recall variances among the women interviewed. Another view--again, if you even care to explore it--is that recall bias was factored into Dr. Brind's study.
They are not inserted. If you knew anything, you would know that depending on where you copy from, you do not allways get a WYSIWYG copy. What I pasted is what was copied from the site.
And I haven't even gotten to the Beral analysis.
Excellent news! Well done, Bishop Baker!
I DO think that PP gives breast examinations but the good they do doesn't begin to make up for the harm they have caused.
It is not an after fact (also) that they provide infantacide, its their primary goal these days.
"To pay for breast cancer screenings for poor women. Planned Parenthood does over a million breast cancer screenings a year.
Great. And the Church of Scientology does charity work. Would you give money to them?"
The Bush administration just ruled yesterday that faith based organizations could get government grants and loans to help hurricane Katrina victims so (indirectly) I probably am giving them money.
But no, I would not personally write a check to the church of Scientology but I also would not wage war against another charity that gave money to the church to provide food for the hungry or some other specific job I approved of.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.