Posted on 04/24/2002 8:27:48 AM PDT by Saundra Duffy
New Study Finds Abortion Risks Higher Than Expected
Toronto, CA -- Abortion complications are seriously underreported, leaving women who undergo abortion largely unaware of the range of physical and psychological risks they face, according to a new study by a Canadian bioethics institute.
Breast cancer, pelvic infection, infertility, life-threatening ectopic pregnancy, and subsequent premature births - with higher rates of children born with cerebral palsy - were found to be associated with abortion in a comprehensive review of the world medical literature. Abortion complications were not limited to physical health. While abortion is often regarded as a cure for the depression and stress of a crisis pregnancy, the study found that women are more likely to commit suicide after abortion than after giving birth to a child.
Current abortion rates of 114,000 in Canada and 1.4 million in the U.S. underscore the magnitude of this potential public health issue.
"In the absence of this knowledge, how can a woman give her informed consent to an abortion?" asks Ian Gentles, history professor at York University in Toronto, and one of the authors of the study entitled Women's Health after Abortion: The Medical and Psychological Evidence, published by the deVeber Institute, a nonprofit bioethics and social research group based in Toronto. Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Emory University professor of humanities and women's studies, calls the findings "compelling", and says the study "makes overwhelmingly clear [that] women who seek abortions in the United States and Canada are not even told of the risks they are running."
The study calls for a more accountable system of risk assessment where research data accurately reflect the true risks of abortion to their future health and fertility.
Key abortion risks
An extensive review of the world medical literature reveals abortion is associated with:
* Suicide risk
A woman's risk of suicide is up to 6 times higher after abortion than after giving birth to a child, according to three large worldwide studies.
Gissler M et al. Suicides after pregnancy in Finland 1987-94: register linkage study. British Medical Journal 1996 Dec. 7;313(7070):1431-4.
* Breast cancer
27 worldwide studies, including 13 U.S. studies, show the risk caused by the unprotected internal estrogen exposure a woman receives after an abortion. A young woman who aborts her first pregnancy nearly doubles her lifetime risk of developing breast cancer.
Daling JR et al. Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1994 Nov(2);86(21):1584-92.
* Immediate complications
Pain, bleeding, infection, perforated uterus, and occasional death occur at rates higher than usually reported. True rates are often underestimated by inadequate hospital diagnostic coding.
Heisterberg L, Kringelbach M. Early complications after induced first-trimester abortion. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandanavica,1987;66(3):201-4.
* Infertility, prematurity, cerebral palsy
P> Subsequent infertility, life-threatening ectopic pregnancy, and premature delivery of subsequent children - which increases the risk of cerebral palsy 38 times in the earliest premature babies.
Escobar GJ et al. Outcome among surviving very low birthweight infants: a meta-analysis. Archives of Disease in Childhood 1991;66:204-211.
To order the study from the deVeber Institute visit the website: http://deveber.org/publications2.html#launch
The Pro-Life Infonet is a daily compilation of pro-life news and information. To subscribe, send the message "subscribe" to: infonet-request@prolifeinfo.org. Infonet is sponsored by Women and Children First (http://www.womenandchildrenfirst.org). For more pro-life info visit http://www.prolifeinfo.org and for questions or additional information email ertelt@prolifeinfo.org
I see one side offer 30 + Studies including US lead studies. I see the other side offer one or two studies from a socialist state done in '97!
I would rather not stake my life on one study from a socialist state whose advancements in anything leave much to be desired.
You obviously have no idea of whom you speak of when you degrade these 30+ studies. You have an ax to grind and you went off half cocked. At least find out what you are talking about before you give us your reasoned and well thought out debate!
The very good news is that your forgiveness is not needed. And the One from whom it is needed will grant it with great abundance!
Subject: Feminists for Life President Draws Mixed Crowd at Berkeley Rally
Source: The Daily Californian; April 22, 2002
Berkeley, CA -- UC Berkeley students gathered on Sproul Plaza Friday afternoon to debate the highly controversial issue of abortion, as a leader of the pro-life movement stirred both shouts of support and criticism from the crowd. Organized by Berkeley Students for Life, the rally featured Feminists for Life President Serrin Foster and inspired heated discussion among students and opposing groups.
Foster championed the need for an increase in services for pregnant women and more supportive counseling, explaining that the American social structure is apathetic to young pregnant women.
If the social structure, which currently does not provide enough emotional support to women, were "holistically changed," less women would have abortions, Foster said.
"Abortion is a reflection that we have failed women in America," she said. "Every woman in America deserves better than an abortion."
Some students from the National Organization for Women and other abortion supporters reacted passionately to Foster's suggestions and engaged in debate with Foster and members of the pro-life student group.
A number of students decried that being "pro-choice" is not equivalent to being pro-abortion, but rather supporting a women's right to make decisions about her own body.
"There is a lot that goes into pregnancy," said UC Berkeley freshman Amanda Matteis. "I don't think anyone should tell anyone what they can (or can't) do with their body." Matteis pointed out that unwanted pregnancies frequently occur, sometimes as a result of failed contraception or date rape, and said women need to have options in these unfortunate situations.
Part of Feminists for Life's position is derived from the idea that the pro-life movement follows the spirit of the early women's rights movement. Some of the most well known women's rights leaders, such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony and Mary Wollstonecraft, were pro-life.
The legalization of abortion goes against the doctrine of feminism, Foster said. It allows more men to abandon their wives or girlfriends, because with the legalization of abortion, they can say, "It's your problem."
But Walter Rader, a UC Berkeley student and member of the National Organization of Women disagreed with Foster, pointing to a different solution to the problem of men deserting the women they impregnate. "I don't think that criminalizing abortion is the answer," he said. "We need to make men responsible." Enforcing the payment of child support from biological fathers is a step in the right direction, Rader added.
While pro-life and abortion supporters remained firmly resolute in their beliefs, students from both ends of the spectrum agreed that UC Berkeley needs to improve its support structure for pregnant women.
Day care services, better counseling, improved housing options and maternity insurance should be more available to college women, Foster said.
"I completely agree we need more options for women, and the services that Foster talked about are necessary," Rader said.
Despite the lone consensus among opposing viewpoints, some said the event illustrated the limited exchange of ideas at the university.
"On the Berkeley campus, we advocate free speech," said Berkeley Students for Life Vice President Elizabeth Maier. "But often times, we are only willing to listen to one side of it."
Feminists for Life is a nonpartisan organization that opposes all forms of abortion and is also against assisted suicide, capital punishment and the exploitation of women and children.
You can help women make positive, life-affirming choices when confronting an unexpected pregnancy. Please provide a link on your web site to Pregnancy Centers Online at http://www.pregnancycenters.org
Subject: Grecian Abortion Rate Has Left 150K Couples Unable to Have Children
Source: Thessaloniki; April 22, 2002
Thessaloniki, Greece -- The first position in abortions, comparatively speaking, both in relation to European countries and to the US, is held by Greece. The large number of abortions, which take place both before and during a marriage, and which can cause serious complications are the main reason for the high percentage of under-fertility in Greece.
According to specialists, abortions are responsible for a 40% decrease in a woman's fertility. It is estimated that 150,000 couples in Greece cannot have children, because they have at least one abortion in their past.
More than 250,000 abortions take place every year in Greece, of which 40,000 are on underage girls younger that 16. Also, a third of them are performed on married women who would avoid them if they could afford a larger family.
This information was announced by Gynecology Professor of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Ioannis Bodis, speaking at the 2nd day of the 17th Northern Greece Medical Conference, organized by the Thessaloniki Medical Company.
In the 1980-1999 period, stressed Mr. Bodis, Greece exhibited a decrease of 41% in fertility, twice as much (in percentage) as in the rest of Europe, while the US showed an increase in the fertility factor of 14%.
The Pro-Life Infonet is a daily compilation of pro-life news and information. To subscribe, send the message "subscribe" to: infonet-request@prolifeinfo.org. Infonet is sponsored by Women and Children First (http://www.womenandchildrenfirst.org). For more pro-life info visit http://www.prolifeinfo.org and for questions or additional information email ertelt@prolifeinfo.org
Rates are 'so many per 1000'.
Just let her go into ANY American hospital and request that her right arm be removed. When they say, "Sure, come right on in and we'll lop it off for you." THEN come back and tell me, "It's her own body!"
There are times when I feel as B4Ranch, and you make some good points. I would just have to say that I would feel his way when it comes to the women who live their whole lives never regretting their infanticides and brag about what a wonderful thing it was in killing the child. They say that asking for forgiveness is one of the hardest things to do; giving forgiveness is also hard.
Eugenia E. Calle, PhD; Director of Analytic Epidemiology with the American Cancer Society
Q: Can having an abortion cause or contribute to breast cancer?
Dr. Calle: The short answer to the question is: no. Of course, as with any answer based on scientific studies, there are nuances that need to be explained in order to give a complete answer.
Induced abortion (probably what most people consider "abortion," in that a woman chooses to end a pregnancy) and spontaneous abortion, or miscarriage, both cause the interruption of hormones which has been hypothesized to increase ones’ risk of developing breast cancer. Stillborn births, in which the fetus dies after five months gestation while still in the uterus, may cause hormonal fluctuations in the mother that are abnormal when compared to a normal, full-term pregnancy. All of these situations have been studied as to what effect they may have on the woman’s risk of developing breast cancer later in life. There is no suggestion of a link between breast cancer and miscarriage or stillbirths. Until recently, the research has not been quite so clear with induced abortions and breast cancer.
Prior to 1973, induced abortions were illegal in the United States, with the exception of some states. Therefore, when researchers inquire about a woman’s reproductive past, women may be unwilling to disclose the fact that they have had an illegal abortion. Even after abortion was legalized, it is still a very personal, private matter that many women are hesitant to disclose. In fact, studies have shown that healthy women significantly underreport their histories of induced abortions. In contrast, women with breast cancer are more likely to accurately report their reproductive histories because they are literally searching their memories for anything that may have contributed to their disease.
The likelihood that women who have breast cancer will give a more complete account of their abortions than women who do not have breast cancer is called "recall bias" and it can seriously undermine the accuracy of study results. Most early studies of abortion and breast cancer employed a study design that is very prone to recall bias. In such studies, women with and without breast cancer were asked to report past abortions. The frequency of abortions in women with breast cancer and the disease-free controls was compared. It is likely that the small increases in breast cancer risk observed in many of these studies were not authentic findings due to recall bias.
A study design that is less prone to bias is a prospective study, in which a population of women who are cancer-free are asked about their past abortions and then followed for the occurrence of new cancer. In this type of study, there is no opportunity for the disease process itself to influence one’s memory of past abortions or willingness to report past abortions.
Some prospective studies have solved the problem of recall bias by using innovative ways to document induced abortions. A recent study used birth certificates of children born to women with breast cancer to count those women who had had induced abortions (the number of previous pregnancies and their outcomes were listed on these birth certificates). This study found no increase in breast cancer risk in women whose abortion was eventually followed by a live birth.
The largest, and probably the most reliable, study of this topic was conducted recently in Denmark. In that study, all Danish women born between 1935 and 1978 (1.5 million women) were linked with The National Registry of Induced Abortions and with the Danish Cancer Registry. So, all of the information about their abortions and their breast cancer that came from registries was very complete and was not influenced by recall bias. After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found that induced abortion(s) had no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer. The size of this study and the manner in which it was conducted provides substantial evidence that induced abortion does not affect a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer.
There are other, smaller studies pointing to the fact that abortion does not cause, nor contribute to breast cancer.
At the present time, the scientific evidence does not support a causal association between induced abortion and breast cancer.
After 25 years, neither can my wife or my daughters some of the time. Their retort is, "Cowboys think differently than city folk and their hard to train". I don't know who said it first but they all say it now.
Which peer review found those flaws?
Just so you know...I'm a former post abortion counselor. I've seen and heard it all in the world of post abortion. I know the wonderful and miraculous power of forgiveness and the repentance...true repentance...of women in such circumstances.
..and not just for abortion.
Plus, a LARGE segment of society needs YOUR money, money that the Gov't took from you, to exist, so THEY are going to be fighting to keep their largess.
When someone takes another life there is no correction possible. Only God can make a life, we have the power to take it. If the woman could restore the child's life then proper retribution would be made. If I kill a mother is there any woman on the face of this earth who could fully love the mothers child the way she did. NO! Adoption is wonderful but it is not quite the same as having a child grow inside you from a speck to birth. A woman who adopts a child is lucky, a woman who gives birth to a child witnesses a miracle.
When I read this joke I smile because this woman is turning an accident into a miracle.
COURT DOCKET - CASE OF THE PREGNANT LADY
A lady about eight months pregnant got on a bus. She noticed the man opposite her was smiling at her. She immediately moved to another seat.
This time the smile turned into a grin, so she moved again. The man seemed more amused. When, on the fourth move, the man burst out laughing, she complained to the driver and he had the man arrested.
The case came up in court. The judge asked the man (about 20 years old) what he had to say for himself. The man replied, "Well your Honour, it was like this.. When the lady got on the bus, I couldn't help but notice her condition. She sat under a sign that said, "The Double Mint Twins are coming" and I grinned. Then she moved and sat under a sign that said, "Slogan's Liniment will reduce the swelling", and I had to smile. Then she placed herself under a sign that said, "William's Big Stick Did the Trick", and I could hardly contain myself. BUT your Honour, when she moved the fourth time and sat under a sign that said, "Goodyear Rubber could have prevented this Accident"... I just lost it.
Especially during those times! LOL
The joke was funny. Sending it on to my hubby and others. :o)
Best I can discern, O'Reilly is one of those "personally opposed" types who is essentially pro-abortion in his politics. Hannity is strongly pro-life, but he and Colmunist don't talk about it often. Don't know what Greta (reportedly a Scientologist) thinks about abortion.
Loved it when Hannity, a year or so ago, did had an abortionist on the show. He called the guest "mister" rather than "doctor." The abortionist huffed and insisted that Hannity refer to him as "doctor." The very next sentence, Hannity called him "mister" anyway. Great moment.
Anyway, thanks for an enlightening post and for helping spread the word. I wonder when the American Medical Association will weigh in on the risks of abortion?
You has produce a few bias and questionable studies and you expect us to just forget the pain and suffering of women around the world? I will not stand by while even just one women is hurt, all the while killing humans in the process.
BTW - Which other sections of the population do you propose we kill? The Old, the Sick or the mentally disabled. Killing off anyone of these groups or sections of these groups would bring benefits to society as a whole. That what it is about right? Killing one human to benefit another.
What is the "clear agenda" of the American Cancer Society, other than the prevention of or treatement of cancer in its various forms?
Not to mention the fact they leave out whole sections of the population of women, the ones that may give them a undesired outcome.
Do mention them. Be specific. Cite the facts.
You has produce a few bias and questionable studies
As far as I can tell, the only basis you have for claiming them to be "biased" is because they disagree with your expected outcome.
I will not stand by while even just one women is hurt
Eight times as many women die due to live birth than to induced abortions. Spare us your faux concern.
That what it is about right? Killing one human to benefit another.
It is only a particular religious belief that a single (fertilized) cell is a human being in any meaningful sense.
Location: Arden Hills, Minnesota
One of those darn Libertarians. Oh, yeah, an atheist too. Makes me real popular around here, ehy? ha ha. Well, just don't try to jam secular or religious socialism down my throat (via the state) and we'll get along just fine. :-) The j in jlogajan is for John. Last name, Logajan, is apparently the Ellis Island phonetic spelling of a Rumanian name. Meaning?
____________________________________________________________________________________
Answer enough?
The sentence for premeditated murder is "Life in prison or Death".
There is no forgiveness mentioned anywhere for premeditated murder.
NIV 2 Samuel 12:12-13
12. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.'"
13. Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." Nathan replied, "The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die.
That is one out of every three pregnancies.
Imagine, one out of every three babies in the womb, are slaughtered and offered up to satan as a blood sacrifice by their mothers and the high priest of satan, the abortionist.
Alas
On this we agree entirely! As a counselor I never offered the forgiveness only the Father could. And did. Many times.
This organization presently represses research that contradicts it's own findings or would change it's course of action. In Brain Cancer alone the American Cancer Society has lambasted doctors who do research outside the organizations "approved" approach to cancer. Even though these "quacks" have stop the growth of Cancer in a large portion of their patience. Many significant changes in the treatment of or view of Cancer come from outside this organization; usually by researchers that it has minimized in the past. This is mostly due to arrogance and partnerships with pharmaceutical companies. I "believe" that many in leadership positions of this organization are at minimum satisfied with the status quo and at worst have clear political agendas. This is not unlike the mis-information given by the various AIDS organizations.
Do mention them. Be specific. Cite the facts.
"....in which a population of women who are cancer-free are asked about their past abortions and then followed for the occurrence of new cancer. In this type of study, there is no opportunity for the disease process itself to influence one’s memory of past abortions or willingness to report past abortions." Why, might you ask would they leave out the very ones who may show the most evidence in the here and now? "...women with breast cancer are more likely to accurately report their reproductive histories because they are literally searching their memories for anything that may have contributed to their disease." Because they will be accurate??? Instead of studying only Beast Cancer Patients they study only Cancer Free Patients. This affects the Age grouping, study time table and removes all know cases of Cancer. They just wait to see if Cancer Free Women who may have had an abortion get Cancer later on. This kind of study might work if it lasted at a minimum of 40 years to allow for complete life cycles of Women who have had abortions. However, You cannot cite this type of study after 5 or 10 years as cancer has been shown not to appear for up to 40 + years after the cause.
As far as I can tell, the only basis you have for claiming them to be "biased" is because they disagree with your expected outcome.
Again you have provide two studies; one from a Socialist state that left out sections of population and one from......where? You have been provided with 30+ studies that you have yet to refute. I am against Abortion because it Kills Innocent Humans not just because it may cause cancer or other health problems with women. Why are you FOR Abortion?
Spare us your faux concern
Are you so arrogant that you feel you have the right to judge my level of concern? I would never presume to know how you "feel". If this is how you approach situations and dealings in life how are we to judge any of your statements?
is only a particular religious belief that a single (fertilized) cell is a human being in any meaningful sense.
Abortion does not end a Fertilized cells life. The Fetus stop being a "Fertilized cell" in the first few hours. It is a fact that most abortions happen long after the Brain, Spinal Cord and heart have developed and started working. Brain Waves can be Measured and the Baby can feel pain after as few as three to four weeks. This is Before most women even know they are pregnant, let alone make and act on the decision to abort.
Why, might you ask would they leave out the very ones who may show the most evidence in the here and now? "...women with breast cancer are more likely to accurately report their reproductive histories because they are literally searching their memories for anything that may have contributed to their disease." Because they will be accurate??? Instead of studying only Beast Cancer Patients they study only Cancer Free Patients.
Umm, you have completely misunderstood what they were saying. They were explaining "recall bias." Nowhere did they say they left out of the statistics woman who actually did have breast cancer (that would be silly anyhow.)
What they are saying is that they STARTED studying cancer-free women and then followed up on them for years and measured NEW cancers against their previous answers.
Then if a breast cancer victim suddenly changed her story and admitted an abortion, they could compare it to her previous answers when she was cancer free.
Of course they didn't eliminate women with breast cancer, they just eliminated the possibility of recall bias by pre-screening future breast cancer women.
Is there something about that you don't understand???
Re-read your Study. They are refuting the Studies that include current Cancer because of re-call-bias. Still, like I said. Using this type of study, with the controls being no current cases of Cancer, can be effective. IF and Only IF you follow the pathology of the disease (among other things). This study cannot be used until the entire case group has completed the Cycle. Because current Cancer can be caused by many different things and as far back as 40 + years this study cannot be complete until most or all the women involved die. They chose a long term, un-completed study to prove a point they do not have.
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.