Cancer Death Reductions Could Be Greater if Women Told Abortion Link

Life News ^ | 4/12/07 | Steven Ertelt

[wagglebee]

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A representative of a woman's group that educates people about the link between abortion and breast cancer says that news of a lowering the number of cancer deaths would be better if women had been told about the link. The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer says there would be fewer deaths to report.

The organization points to a new report from the American Cancer Society that cancer deaths declined slightly in 2003 and 2004.

But Karen Malec, the head of the Coalition, told LifeNews.com "There would be fewer cancer cases and deaths if women had been told the truth in the 1980s when conclusive evidence became available" about the abortion-breast cancer link.

She said studies at that time pointed to the association between breast cancer and abortion as well as hormone replacement therapy and oral contraceptives.

The new ACS report said it expects 40,460 female deaths due to breast cancer and 240,510 total breast cancer cases for 2007.

However, it continues to mislead women about the abortion-breast cancer link saying "Several studies have provided very strong data that induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer."

Yet, Malec points to a scientific review in 2005 that concluded the studies ACS mentions are seriously flawed and cannot be used to dismiss the larger body of evidence supporting an abortion-breast cancer link.

No scientist has challenged these conclusions, she told LifeNews.com in a statement.

She pointed to research from Baruch College professor Dr. Joel Brind, who is one of the leading scientists examining the data. Brind has found that having an induced abortion leaves a woman with a higher long-term risk of breast cancer, compared to carrying the pregnancy to term.

"We call on the Society and other cancer businesses to put their priorities in order," said Malec. "Women's lives and cancer prevention are more important than making money, doing cancer walks, and protecting the abortion and pharmaceutical industries."

She indicated that more abortions means more cancer cases and also condemned the Susan G. Komen Foundation for its donations of hundreds of thousands of dollars to Planned Parenthood, which is the nation's leading abortion business.

"It's unthinkable that groups that claim to want to eradicate the disease would help fund a cancer-causing organization, especially when the funds could be directed to legitimate health organizations," Malec said.

Related web sites:
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer - http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com

[wagglebee]

But Karen Malec, the head of the Coalition, told LifeNews.com "There would be fewer cancer cases and deaths if women had been told the truth in the 1980s when conclusive evidence became available" about the abortion-breast cancer link.

The left would far rather a woman have an abortion and breast cancer than neither.

[wagglebee]

Pro-Life Ping

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[Patton@Bastogne]

.

WaggleBee,

Do you really thnk the AMA-Corporation would let TWO (2) "incredible" Profit Centers (Abortion and Women's Cancer) go down in flames ?

Patton-at-Bastogne


.

[wagglebee]

Yeah, I suppose you have a point.

[Phantom Lord]

Hasn’t the “abortion causes breast cancer” crowd last repeated court cases and failed to prove their case?

[Phantom Lord]

last = lost in above post.

[wagglebee]

I’m not aware of any court cases or scientific evidence that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer.

[Nathan Zachary]

There would be far fewer breast cancer cases and deaths if they were told the birth conrol pill link as well.
Since the advent of the “miracle” bith control pill, breast cancer went from extremely low rates to becoming the #1 cancer killer in women in the USA, since the 70’s when long term use of “the pill” began to show this effect.

You can look up the shocking numbers at the American cancer society, or the CDC.
Strange how smoking, which doesn’t show any direct link to cancer gets so much attention, but the pill doesn’t cause any concern at all.

[wagglebee]

You’re absolutely right about the link between birth control pills and breast cancer.

[Phantom Lord]

The birth control pill causes cancer but smoking doesn't?

Where do you come up with such crazy ideas?

As they ask, what are you smoking?

[Nathan Zachary]

Newer studies show that Young girls who begin taking birth control are at an even higher risk of developing breast cancer before they reach 30.

Mothers who think that they are preventing their daughters from "accidental" (it's no accident) pregnancy are actually killing their daughters with good intentions.

The reason early breast cancer cases were rare at first, was because when the pill was first introduced, it was mostly older women over 18 and women not wanting any more children that were the majority of consumers. Thier breast cancers didn't show up until they were older, late 30's, 40's and on.

As it became more socially acceptable to put young girls on birth control, the incidences of early breast cancer cases increased in step at earlier ages.

[Phantom Lord]

My connection is exceptionally slow right now, so searching is causing me great problems. But the connection between abortion and breast cancer has been shot down in court several times, including by SCOTUS.

Just do some simple searching around here and google and you will find plenty of hits.

[Nathan Zachary]

By all means, show me the direct link and studies that prove smoking causes cancer. All you have is assumptions and suggestions.

As for birth control pills and any hormone therapy causing breast cancer, those studies are a matter of public record. look them up at ACS and CDC for yourself.

[wagglebee]

The Supreme Court ruled that Planned Parenthood could not be forced to disclose evidence of links between abortion and breast cancer. The Court DID NOT MAKE ANY RULING ON THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUIT.

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/041019/index.htm

[wagglebee]

Sorry, I meant to ping you to this.

[Nathan Zachary]

As far as breast cancer is concerned, here's what the ACS says about cigarette smoking and breast cancer, since your connection is too slow to look it up for yourself-

"Most studies have found no link between active cigarette smoking and breast cancer. Though both active smoking and secondhand smoke have been suggested to increase the risk of breast cancer in some studies, the issue remains controversial. The US Surgeon General is currently reviewing the evidence on this link, and a report is expected in late 2006."

[SuzyQue]

Wagglebee - there’s plenty of evidence out there if you were to look. I just pulled up the first four I came to using search: “breast cancer” abortion link.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage

http://www.breastcancer.org/research_abortion.html

http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/abcancer.htm

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp

[wagglebee]

I know that, Phantom Lord was the one who questioned the validity of post-abortion health risks.

[SuzyQue]

I agree with him. The science doesn’t support a link. Therefore, to say so is to be less than accurate.

[wagglebee]

At least two of these links are from women’s health groups that also support abortion.

[wagglebee]

One of you links was the “Feminist Women’s Health Center” which I would hardly call an “impartial” source. They also provide all sorts of abortion information.

http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/index.htm

[Phantom Lord]

Now your changing what you are saying. Underling and bold added by me.

You originally posted, "Strange how smoking, which doesn’t show any direct link to cancer gets so much attention,"

Now you change your statement/argument to the following.

"Most studies have found no link between active cigarette smoking and breast cancer."

So which is it? Is there NO link between smoking and cancer, or just smoking and breast cancer?

[SuzyQue]

Wagglebee, as you know, the website organizations did not do the research themselves. They are quoting from unrelated researchers.

I can’t speak to the veracity of each study - you said you were unaware of any studies refuting the link, and I gave you some that do so.

However, you are going to believe whatever you want in spite of not having good evidence to back up you opinion.

[Nathan Zachary]

Not only is there cause for concern over the effects of estrogen on breast tissue, it is also a concern for boys (men)

Scientists have determined that boys exposed to estrogen hormones in the abortifacient birth control pill while in utero are at a greater risk of developing prostate cancer and other urinary tract problems later in life.

Estrogen-like hormones deform the prostates in developing embryos, which can be a precursor to developing prostate cancer or bladder problems, according to research conducted by Frederick vom Saal of the University of Missouri in Columbia, Missouri. “These chemicals [mimic] extremely potent synthetic sex hormones, strong enough to completely control an adult women’s reproductive system,” vom Saal told New Scientist.com. “The developing fetus is extremely sensitive to chemical disturbance…so exposing a male baby to them is a very bad idea.”

Vom Saal and his team exposed mice to ethinylestradiol, the hormone found in the birth-control pill. He found that the prostate glands had an increase in the number and size of prostate ducts and a narrowing of the bladder neck. They compared the effect of the hormone to diethylstilbestrol (DES) – a known (banned) cancer-causing agent once used to treat women at risk for miscarriages.

As many as two million women become pregnant each year while taking the abortifacient birth-control pill, many of whom continue to take the drug for several months before realizing they are pregnant.

[Nathan Zachary]

I stand by the statement that there is no direct link showing that smoking causes cancer as well. Because there isn't any. Nicotine/tar isn't a carcinogen. ANYTHING can be said to increase your RISK FACTOR of developing cancer. A risk factor simply means lowering of your body's natural resistance to a known disease and/or it's cause. It is NOT however a CAUSE in itself.

[wagglebee]

Are you suggesting that abortion is “safe” for women and carries no health risks?

You should read some of the information from the link at the bottom of the story.

[Nathan Zachary]

For your info:

 

Oral contraceptives (OCs) first became available to American women in the early 1960s. The convenience, effectiveness, and reversibility of action of birth control pills (popularly known as “the pill”) have made them the most popular form of birth control in the United States. However, concerns have been raised about the role that the hormones in OCs might play in a number of cancers, and how hormone-based OCs contribute to their development. Sufficient time has elapsed since the introduction of OCs to allow investigators to study large numbers of women who took birth control pills for many years.

This fact sheet addresses only what is known about OC use and the risk of developing cancer. It does not deal with other serious side effects of OC use, such as the increased risk of cardiovascular disease for certain groups of women. Recently, alternative methods of delivering hormones for contraception have been developed, including a topical patch, vaginal ring, and intrauterine delivery system, but these products are too new to have been tested in clinical trials (research studies) for long-term safety and other effects (1). They also are not covered in this fact sheet.

 

1. What types of oral contraceptives are available in the United States ? Why do researchers believe that oral contraceptives may influence cancer risk?

   Currently, two types of OCs are available in the United States . The most commonly prescribed OC contains two man-made versions of natural female hormones (estrogen and progesterone) that are similar to the hormones the ovaries normally produce. This type of pill is often called a “combined oral contraceptive.” The second type of OC available in the United States is called the minipill. It contains only a type of progesterone.

   Estrogen stimulates the growth and development of the uterus at puberty, causes the endometrium (the inner lining of the uterus) to thicken during the first half of the menstrual cycle, and influences breast tissue throughout life, but particularly from puberty to menopause.

   Progesterone, which is produced during the last half of the menstrual cycle, prepares the endometrium to receive the egg. If the egg is fertilized, progesterone secretion continues, preventing release of additional eggs from the ovaries. For this reason, progesterone is called the “pregnancy-supporting” hormone, and scientists believe that it has valuable contraceptive effects. The man-made progesterone used in OCs is called progestogen or progestin.

   Because medical research suggests that some cancers depend on naturally occurring sex hormones for their development and growth, scientists have been investigating a possible link between OC use and cancer risk. Researchers have focused a great deal of attention on OC users over the past 40 years. This scrutiny has produced a wealth of data on OC use and the development of certain cancers, although results of these studies have not always been consistent. The risk of endometrial and ovarian cancers is reduced with the use of OCs, while the risk of breast and cervical cancers is increased (1). A summary of research results for each type of cancer is given in Questions 2–5.

2. How do oral contraceptives affect breast cancer risk?

   A woman’s risk of developing breast cancer depends on several factors, some of which are related to her natural hormones. Hormonal factors that increase the risk of breast cancer include conditions that may allow high levels of hormones to persist for long periods of time, such as beginning menstruation at an early age (before age 12), experiencing menopause at a late age (after age 55), having a first child after age 30, and not having children at all.

   A 1996 analysis of worldwide epidemiologic data conducted by the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer found that women who were current or recent users of birth control pills had a slightly elevated risk of developing breast cancer. The risk was highest for women who started using OCs as teenagers. However, 10 or more years after women stopped using OCs, their risk of developing breast cancer returned to the same level as if they had never used birth control pills, regardless of family history of breast cancer, reproductive history, geographic area of residence, ethnic background, differences in study design, dose and type of hormone, or duration of use. In addition, breast cancers diagnosed in women after 10 or more years of not using OCs were less advanced than breast cancers diagnosed in women who had never used OCs. To conduct this analysis, the researchers examined the results of 54 studies. The analysis involved 53,297 women with breast cancer and 100,239 women without breast cancer. More than 200 researchers participated in this combined analysis of their original studies, which represented about 90 percent of the epidemiological studies throughout the world that had investigated the possible relationship between OCs and breast cancer (2).

   The findings of the Women’s Contraceptive and Reproductive Experiences (Women’s CARE) study were in contrast to those described above. The Women’s CARE study examined the use of OCs as a risk factor for breast cancer in women ages 35 to 64. Researchers interviewed 4,575 women who were diagnosed with breast cancer between 1994 and 1998, and 4,682 women who did not have breast cancer. Investigators collected detailed information about the participants’ use of OCs, reproductive history, health, and family history. The results, which were published in 2002, indicated that current or former use of OCs did not significantly increase the risk of breast cancer. The findings were similar for white and black women. Factors such as longer periods of use, higher doses of estrogen, initiation of OC use before age 20, and OC use by women with a family history of breast cancer were not associated with an increased risk of the disease (3).

   In a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-sponsored study published in 2003, researchers examined risk factors for breast cancer among women ages 20 to 34 compared with women ages 35 to 54. Women diagnosed with breast cancer were asked whether they had used OCs for more than 6 months before diagnosis and, if so, whether the most recent use had been within 5 years, 5 to 10 years, or more than 10 years. The results indicated that the risk was highest for women who used OCs within 5 years prior to diagnosis, particularly in the younger group (4).

3. How do oral contraceptives affect ovarian and endometrial cancer risk?

   Studies have consistently shown that using OCs reduces the risk of ovarian cancer. In a 1992 analysis of 20 studies of OC use and ovarian cancer, researchers from Harvard Medical School found that the risk of ovarian cancer decreased with increasing duration of OC use. Results showed a 10 to 12 percent decrease in risk after 1 year of use, and approximately a 50 percent decrease after 5 years of use (5).

   Researchers have studied how the amount or type of hormones in OCs affects ovarian cancer risk reduction. One of the studies used in the Harvard analysis, the Cancer and Steroid Hormone Study (CASH), found that the reduction in ovarian cancer risk was the same regardless of the type or amount of estrogen or progestin in the pill (6). A more recent analysis of data from the CASH study, however, indicated that OC formulations with high levels of progestin reduced ovarian cancer risk more than preparations with low progestin levels (7). In another recent study, the Steroid Hormones and Reproductions (SHARE) study, researchers investigated new, lower-dose progestins that have varying androgenic properties (testosterone-like effects). They found no difference in ovarian cancer risk between androgenic and nonandrogenic pills (8).

   OC use in women at increased risk of ovarian cancer due to BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic mutations has been studied. One study showed a reduction in risk, but a more recent study showed no effect (9, 10).

   The use of OCs has been shown to significantly reduce the risk of endometrial cancer. This protective effect increases with the length of time OCs are used, and continues for many years after a woman stops using OCs (11).

4. How do oral contraceptives affect cervical cancer risk?

   Evidence shows that long-term use of OCs (5 or more years) may be associated with an increased risk of cancer of the cervix (the narrow, lower portion of the uterus) (12). Although OC use may increase the risk of cervical cancer, human papillomavirus (HPV) is recognized as the major cause of this disease. Approximately 14 types of HPV have been identified as having the potential to cause cancer, and HPVs have been found in 99 percent of cervical cancer biopsy specimens worldwide (12). More information about HPV and cancer is available in Human Papillomaviruses and Cancer: Questions and Answers at http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/risk/HPV on the Internet.

   A 2003 analysis by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) found an increased risk of cervical cancer with longer use of OCs. Researchers analyzed data from 28 studies that included 12,531 women with cervical cancer. The data suggested that the risk of cervical cancer may decrease after OC use stops (13). In another IARC report, data from eight studies were combined to assess the effect of OC use on cervical cancer risk in HPV-positive women. Researchers found a fourfold increase in risk among women who had used OCs for longer than 5 years. Risk was also increased among women who began using OCs before age 20 and women who had used OCs within the past 5 years (14). The IARC is planning a study to reanalyze all data related to OC use and cervical cancer risk (12).

5. How do oral contraceptives affect liver cancer risk?

   Several studies have found that OCs increase the risk of liver cancer in populations usually considered low risk, such as white women in the United States and Europe who do not have liver disease. In these studies, women who used OCs for longer periods of time were found to be at increased risk for liver cancer. However, OCs did not increase the risk of liver cancer in Asian and African women, who are considered high risk for this disease. Researchers believe this is because other risk factors, such as hepatitis infection, outweigh the effect of OCs (15).

6. What screening tests are available for the cancers described?

   Studies have found that regular breast cancer screening with mammograms reduces the number of deaths from breast cancer for women ages 40 to 69.  Women who are at increased risk for breast cancer should seek medical advice about when to begin having mammograms and how often to be screened. A high-quality mammogram, with a clinical breast exam (an exam done by a professional health care provider), is the most effective way to detect breast cancer early.

   Abnormal changes in the cervix can often be detected by a Pap test and treated before cancer develops. Women who have begun to have sexual intercourse or are age 21 should check with their doctor about having a Pap test. Researchers are working on developing screening tests for ovarian and endometrial cancer.

   Women who are concerned about their risk for cancer are encouraged to talk with their health care provider. More information is also available from the Cancer Information Service

[SuzyQue]

Where do you feel that I implied anything even close to that?

I just think it is rotten to use specious evidence to bolster a cause, no matter how noble the cause itself may be.

[retMD]

Strange how smoking, which doesn’t show any direct link to cancer gets so much attention, but the pill doesn’t cause any concern at all.

You're joking, right? If not, where did you get the idea that there is no direct link between cigarette smoking and cancer?

[Nathan Zachary]

By all means, tell me what the direct cancer causing agent in cigarette smoke is. After you FAIL to name it then you will know-

where I get my “idea” from.

[VeritatisSplendor]

I wish someone besides Brind would take this on. When I saw Brind 12 years ago he was very impressive. When I saw him 2 years ago he looked a bit unhinged. His Baruch College webpage lists no scientific paper published after 1996.

Mrs VS

[retMD]

I stand by the statement that there is no direct link showing that smoking causes cancer as well. Because there isn't any. Nicotine/tar isn't a carcinogen.

The CDC doesn't agree with you. And that's just the first site that came up on search. I'm sure I could give you several more, but it scarcely seems necessary.

To quote a sample from the link, "Cigarette smoking is a major cause of lung cancer, the leading cause of cancer death in both men and women in the United States. Worldwide, lung cancer kills over one million people each year.2 Tobacco smoke contains more than 60 cancer-causing chemicals (carcinogens).

[retMD]

From the same link above

“Tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) are a class of known carcinogens that are formed during the curing, processing, fermentation, and combustion of tobacco.4,5 They have been identified in cigarette tobacco,6 tobacco smoke,4 environmental tobacco smoke,7 smokeless tobacco8 and other tobacco products such as cigars and bidi cigarettes.9,10

There are seven known TSNAs. N’-nitrosonornicotine (NNN), (4-methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK), and N-nitrosoanatabine (NAT) generally occur in greater quantities in tobacco products than the others and NNN, NNK and N-oxide, 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl N-oxide)-1-butanol (NNAL), a metabolic product of NNK, are clearly the most carcinogenic.11 The TSNAs, NNN, and NNK are categorized as “reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens” by the National Toxicology Program.12 The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified NNN and NNK as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B).)13”

[Coleus]

The inconvenient truth about 'safe abortion'
How Abortion Hurts Women -- The Hard Proof

Cancer Death Reductions Could Be Greater if Women Told Abortion Link
First ever Abortion-Breast Cancer Settlement [ABORTION causes BREAST CANCER]

Politics and the Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

Abortion - Breast Cancer News Headlines

New Study: Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer Suppressed by Politics

The Science, Studies and Sociology of the Abortion Breast Cancer Link

New statistics show abortion-breast cancer link
Abortion, breast cancer linked in UK
British Researcher Says Abortion Increases U.K. Breast Cancer Rates

[Coleus]

smoking doesn’t cause cancer? How so?

[libravoter]

Since the advent of the “miracle” bith control pill, breast cancer went from extremely low rates to becoming the #1 cancer killer in women in the USA, since the 70’s when long term use of “the pill” began to show this effect.

The link you're trying to make is related to pregnancy ... but not the pill. Women who have baby(ies) late in life or never have a baby increase their likelihood of breast cancer.

So the pill and abortion DO increase your risk of breast cancer ... but so do miscarriage or never getting pregnant at all.

[8mmMauser]

Pinged from Terri Dailies

8mm

[SheLion]

How about the hundreds of miscarriages that women suffer every year?  Does this group lump this in as well?

[SheLion]

Strange how smoking, which doesn’t show any direct link to cancer gets so much attention, but the pill doesn’t cause any concern at all.

OMG Nathan! How could you make such a statement?  Smoking doesn't cause cancer in ALL smokers, but it's still a risky habit for anyone who is predisposed to "having and getting" cancer.

[Phantom Lord]

Anyone who holds a position and believes that smoking is not a cause of lung cancer should have their knowledge, intelligence, and commentary on all other subjects questioned. In fact, they should be placed into the same kook camp as the 9/11 truthers.

[ncblue01]

My opinion is coming from the scripture Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Now I am a female that believes that abortion is appropriate for women of rape,incest, and the mother’s health. However, I believe that God forgives anyone for what they do the gift of God a baby and Christ came to forgive. Women who are young need to be taught the consequences of sin. When we sin Romans 10:9,10 tells us we must confess with our mouth Jesus, and believe in our hearts & these beautiful women can be forgiven for their mistakes. God came to help us because noone is perfect. Now with saying all that we have to understand that all kinds of consequences can occur such as cancer. Like an eye for an eye and a life for a life. I’m not saying this as fact. I’m just using logic that karen might be on to something of truth. It would be smart to listen and consider this may be true. Only God, the person who gets cancer knows whether they feel the consequences of their abortion. However there is forgiveness through the cross. Advise others that are in this situation to ask God. Please use wisdom. Evaluate your life ask forgiveness and find eternal life with the comforter who will forgive and help. I see so many young women without this knowledge. I support Karen Malec.