bump

There is only one thing to do. Spend billions more in federal tax dollars on breast cancer research. Possible behavioral causes are irrelevant. Just ask the AIDS lobby.

Breast Cancer: It's Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill

That's interesting, but one would be hard pressed to put this into service for an argument that the state should use it's power to criminalize abortion. That's not to say there aren't other arguments. Unless you think the state should criminalize anything that's linked to cancer.

That's a very good question. Wonder if a study has been done on that.

It is all about hormones.

The layman's view I hold is tha when the body causes a natural miscarriages it compensates hormonally to the event - naturally. The entire thing is natural and the body can recover much more easily. When an abortion is induced artificially the body is caught in a situation that is not natural and to which it is not as able to adapt as well.

It only makes sense that artificial body trauma (an induced abortion) is harder for the body to address than a naturally occuring miscarriage.

What about a woman who has had multiple abortions (or miscarriages)??

From Abortion & Breast Cancer FAQ

Do miscarriages carry the same risk as induced abortion?

Women whose pregnancies end in miscarriage usually do not experience the same increase in estradiol and progesterone (the female sexual hormones) levels that a healthy pregnancy would result in. Therefore, when a woman experiences a miscarriage, there is a less dramatic shift in hormone levels and less of a "hormonal blow" to the breast. Studies have shown that miscarriages, in general, have less of a risk than induced abortions, however, several studies show that miscarriages before a full term birth may still carry a significant risk, e.g. Pike [138]: 140% increased risk; Brinton [101]: 90% increase; Hadjimichael [107]: 250% increase; Ewertz [106]: 163% increase; and Rookus [141]: 40% increase. Why would a woman who has an induced abortion before her firstborn child suffer an increased risk of breast cancer? A woman's breast is especially sensitive to carcinogenic (i.e., cancer producing) influence before she delivers her first child. When a woman becomes pregnant, a number of hormone levels increase dramatically in her body. Three especially notable ones are estradiol, progesterone (i.e., the female sexual hormones), and B-hCG (Beta-human Chorionic Gonadotropin). All of these hormones, especially the latter, serve to stimulate immature breast cells to mature into fully differentiated cells [145A]. If this process gets artificially interrupted, by way of an induced abortion, the hormone levels drop dramatically thereby suspending the natural process of maturation of many of the woman's breast cells. This is referred to as a "hormonal blow" by researchers. These cells are now "vulnerable" to carcinogens since they were left "in limbo": that is, they started the maturation process, but were never able to complete it. [Cells that have fully matured are less vulnerable to carcinogens than cells that are in the process of maturation].

Do any animal models support the claim that early abortions increase breast cancer risk?

Yes. Russo and Russo, in their classic work published in 1980 [144], studied several groups of rats which were given a specific carcinogen (cancer producing agent) called DMBA. They noted that 77% of rats who underwent an abortion developed breast cancer, while 0% [zero] of the rats who were allowed to complete their pregnancy developed cancer.

Could you tell me about the history of the abortion/breast cancer debate?

As early as 1957, Segi et al noted that women who had induced abortions had at least a two-fold risk in their rate of breast cancer [148]. In 1981, Pike et al published their notable work showing that young women (under age 32) who had experienced an abortion before their first live birth had a 140% increased risk of breast cancer. A number of studies followed but finally in 1994, Daling et al [103] published a large study which noted that women who had an abortion before first birth suffered a 40% increased risk, and that this increased to 150% if the abortion was before age 18.

Finally, in 1996, in what is openly regarded as the most meticulously comprehensive meta-analysis (i.e. a synthesis of all the major studies done in a particular field concluding in an overall risk for the pooled studies) of all the abortion/breast cancer research articles ever done, Brind et al [98] found that women who had an abortion before their first term child had a 50% increased of developing breast cancer while women who had an abortion after their first child sustained a 30% increased risk.

If Dr. Brind et al's study was so conclusive, then why is the subject still being debated?

That is a good question. Because of the controversy regarding abortion, Dr. Brind's study came under intense scrutiny, however, the results seemed irrefutable. Janet Daling -- a prominent epidemiologist (a researcher who studies trends in the medical field) -- was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as stating that Brind et al's results were "very objective and statistically beyond reproach." [104A] Then in early 1997, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEIM) published the results of a large prospective study by Melbye et al [128] which claimed to show that abortion did not increase the risk of breast cancer.

Was there any problem with the study by Melbye?

Yes. It is astonishing that the NEJM allowed it to be published in its submitted form. It had several glaring problems that have been pointed out in a follow up letter to the NEJM [128A]. The main ones include the following:

Melbye's data actually pointed to a 44% increased risk of breast cancer due to abortion, but they never printed this result;
The follow-up period for the "controls" was less than 10 years, while it was over 20 years for the "cases" (i.e. women who had an induced abortion). A follow-up period of less than ten years is not long enough to show the effect of an abortion;
Over 30,000 women in the study who had abortions were "misclassified" as not having them -- thus 30,000 women were counted as not having abortions, when in fact they really had abortions;
The study did note that women who had an abortion after the 12th week sustained a 38% increased risk of breast cancer, while women who had late term abortions (i.e. after 18 weeks) had a statistically significant increase of 89% -- both of these results received little media attention.

And what is your explanation if she suffers a miscarriage through some sort of ACCIDENTAL trauma, i.e., car accident, fall, etc??????

How about some public service announcements from the Bush admistration warning women about the dangers of abortion? It now appears that abortion is as dangerous as smoking - to both the mother and certainly for the baby.

That's interesting, but one would be hard pressed to put this into service for an argument that the state should use it's power to criminalize abortion.

Hmmmm, more cancer from abortions. More healthcare costs paid for by governments. Sic the trial lawyers on Planned Parenthood. Tell them that PP's doctors smoked during the abortions too!.

I see nothing on this page to suggest re-criminalizing abortion. It is about a massive cover up by the radical abortion-loving groups who do not want women to know any factual information about abortion. Any person who is familiarized with the medical facts of abortion (standard practice prior before any surgery except abortion) would consider it very risky. Many would choose to avoid such a risky procedure. But the abortion lobby wants keep any negative facts about abortion and the pill, etc. covered up. This is well-documented and the party line of the abortion lobby - hide any mention of risk because it will cut into our profits and harm our agenda.

Specifically, the risk is for women who aborted their first pregnancies. If the hormones associated with the beginning of the pregnancy are disrupted un-naturally, it affects the cells in the breast. If the pregnancy were allowed to continue to term, those hormones are instrumental in the creation of breast milk.

I believe additional studies have shown that women who miscarry NATURALLY for whatever reason DO NOT have the same risk, because the body has made the change all by itself. There were hormonal changes, most likely, which caused the miscarriage to happen in the first place.

An abortion is not a miscarriage. Any woman who has an abortion, or man who talks her into it, should be hung.

Women whose pregnancies end in miscarriage usually do not experience the same increase in estradiol and progesterone (the female sexual hormones) levels that a healthy pregnancy would result in. Therefore, when a woman experiences a miscarriage, there is a less dramatic shift in hormone levels and less of a "hormonal blow" to the breast. Studies have shown that miscarriages, in general, have less of a risk than induced abortions, however, several studies show that miscarriages before a full term birth may still carry a significant risk, e.g. Pike [138]: 140% increased risk; Brinton [101]: 90% increase; Hadjimichael [107]: 250% increase; Ewertz [106]: 163% increase; and Rookus [141]: 40% increase.

Why would a woman who has an induced abortion before her firstborn child suffer an increased risk of breast cancer?

A woman's breast is especially sensitive to carcinogenic (i.e., cancer producing) influence before she delivers her first child. When a woman becomes pregnant, a number of hormone levels increase dramatically in her body. Three especially notable ones are estradiol, progesterone (i.e., the female sexual hormones), and B-hCG (Beta-human Chorionic Gonadotropin). All of these hormones, especially the latter, serve to stimulate immature breast cells to mature into fully differentiated cells [145A]. If this process gets artificially interrupted, by way of an induced abortion, the hormone levels drop dramatically thereby suspending the natural process of maturation of many of the woman's breast cells. This is referred to as a "hormonal blow" by researchers. These cells are now "vulnerable" to carcinogens since they were left "in limbo": that is, they started the maturation process, but were never able to complete it. [Cells that have fully matured are less vulnerable to carcinogens than cells that are in the process of maturation].

Accidental trauma is obvisouly not natural and I would guess the likelihood of breast cancer would increase - just as it does for pther unnatural, induced abortion.
Why do you ask?

I guess my layman's guess in #9 above was right on the money!!!

No, the point is not that this should be used as a reason to criminalize abortion. The point is that this is not the first study to result in these same conclusions, and these results are being suppressed by the pro-abortion lobby. Women have a right to know that an elective procedure that they are choosing to undergo may very well cost them their life down the road. Having had an abortion is in fact one of the medical indicators of increased risk for breast cancer, and this information is being deliberately withheld from women for political purposes.

Always a Bitter Pill, Now the Risk of Breast Cancer Makes Oral Contraceptives Even Harder to Swallow

by Dr. Brian J. Kopp

Lay Witness Magazine, January 2002 edition

"It may not have rocked the ground like the 1945 detonation of the first atomic bomb. . . , but Enovid did more than just provide a technological tour de force. It transformed the very fabric of modern society. . ."

So reported "The Pill At 40", an article in the July-August 2000 "FDA Consumer" magazine, singing the praises of the Pill and celebrating the 40th anniversary of its approval by the Food and Drug Administration. On June 23, 1960, Enovid became the first oral contraceptive approved for sale in the USA, following several years of development and trials on third world women.

The article failed to mention the bitter legacy of the Pill over that same 40 years. Minor side effects abound, such as nausea, irregular bleeding, depression, weight gain, breast tenderness, and diminished libido. Some, however, are life threatening. Blood clots, pulmonary embolism, heart attack, and stroke have claimed the lives of many women taking the Pill since its introduction in 1960. Decreasing the dosages of the hormones in the Pill have lessened but not eliminated these deadly risks.

"Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent" was the first medical journal article to explain the mechanism by which the Pill prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the womb, its lining (or endometrium) improperly formed under the influence of the Pill's hormones. Published in the February 2000 Archives of Family Medicine, a journal of the American Medical Association, it proved for both the secular world and a divided pro-life movement that the Pill is not only a contraceptive but also a chemical abortifacient. The report concludes:

"The available evidence supports the hypothesis that when ovulation and fertilization occur in women taking OCs, postfertilization effects are operative on occasion to prevent clinically recognized pregnancy. Physicians should understand and respect the beliefs of patients who consider human life to be present and valuable from the moment of fertilization."

While litigation in the USA relative to the Pill has been limited to suits aimed at forcing insurance plans to cover the Pill, in Britain a class action lawsuit has begun addressing another aspect of informed consent. In January 2002, 122 women and/or their families will take three pharmaceutical companies before England's High Court, charging that the Pill has caused blood clots resulting in lifelong illnesses and even death, and that they were never informed of the severe risks. Ten percent of the 122 claims involve a fatality. Unfortunately, these side effects have been known for four decades, and the prospects of success for these victims are uncertain.

However, compelling data has emerged linking the Pill with the rapid increase of breast cancer in the US, with a potential of class action lawsuits that could eclipse those even of the tobacco industry. Evidence has been available for several decades linking oral contraceptives with breast cancer in certain lab animals. According to Chris Kahlenborn, MD, one of the nation's leading researchers on the breast cancer/ Pill connection, the evidence of a link in humans is incontrovertible. His book summarizing his research and findings, BREAST CANCER: Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill, was published recently by One More Soul (www.OMS.com.)

In the book he makes a compelling case for such a link. He began researching the issue after hearing a presentation in 1993 that described an increase in breast cancer risk due to abortion, apparently caused by hormonal changes in the woman's body, and began an exhaustive review of the research to ascertain whether contraceptive hormones in the Pill might have the same effect.

The bottom line, after 8 years of exhaustive research and study? Dr. Kahlenborn replied, "There is a 45% increased risk of developing breast cancer if a woman takes an oral contraceptive for four years before her first full term pregnancy. This number is statistically significant to the 99th percentile."

"Informed consent is MIA. Catholic OB/GYN's are doing a grave disservice in handing this out. Today's cigarette story [the tobacco class action lawsuits] could be tomorrow's Pill story. There is no informed consent. The breast cancer and the social effects cause such devastation to families!"

He compares the current state of denial among the American medical establishment to a similar episode that occurred several decades ago. "History is repeating itself. DES was taken in the 40's and 50's to prevent miscarriage. A 35% increased risk of breast cancer was found." At the time DES (diethylstilbestrol) was used, some were concerned of a potential risk of breast cancer, while the American medical establishment denied the possibility. Only after 25 years was it discovered that DES use carried a 35% increased breast cancer risk.

Currently, more than 175,000 U.S. women develop breast cancer and more than 43,000 die from it each year. One in eight women in the US will be diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime. Yet 50 years ago, breast cancer was relatively rare. When asked what other factors might account for such a rapid increase in the rates of breast cancer, Dr. Kahlenborn was blunt. "I don't know. Two other factors come into play: decreased family size and decreased breast feeding. Both come into play." Pregnancy and breast feeding have been known to protect against breast cancer for many years. Obviously, these factors cannot account for the fact that breast cancer is increasing more rapidly in western countries, countries with early Pill use before first full term pregnancy.

Medical research findings have been contradictory. In 1972 a series of animal research studies showed that an oral contraceptive appeared to cause metastatic breast cancer in rhesus monkeys, which rarely develop breast cancer. In 1989 Anderson et al published a paper that found that women who had never had children who took the Pill had a significantly higher rate of breast cell division than childless mothers who had never taken the Pill. In general, cells that divide more rapidly are more vulnerable to carcinogens and more likely to become cancerous. A study in 1981 found that women who took the Pill for 4 years prior to their first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) had a 125% increased risk of breast cancer before age 32. In 1993, the CASH study showed a 40% increased risk in women taking the Pill before FFTP. Later in England another large study revealed a 44% increased risk. The last large study in 1995 showed a 42% increased risk. A meta-analysis (a statistical analysis of many other research studies) in 1990 found that, overall, the studies up to that time confirmed an increased risk of breast cancer of 72% for women under age 45 who took oral contraceptive pills for 4 or more years before having a full-term pregnancy. Use of these contraceptives for longer periods appears to carry an even higher risk.

However, the Oxford study, the largest meta-analysis to date, concluded that:

"Women who are currently using [the Pill] or have used them in the past 10 years are at a slightly increased risk of having breast cancer diagnosed, although the additional cancers tend to be localized to the breast. There is no evidence of an increase in the risk of having breast cancer diagnosed 10 or more years after cessation of use..."

Dr. Kahlenborn sees severe weaknesses in the Oxford study. He states in his book:

"The main weakness was the failure to report any evidence of what the pooled risk of oral contraceptive use before a FFTP was in women under 45 years old. . . A woman's breast is especially sensitive to carcinogenic influence. . . before [FFTP] because the breast undergoes a maturing process throughout a woman's first pregnancy. By failing to measure the effect. . . before a. . . woman's [FFTP] the Oxford study failed to give data on the one group of women who are most likely to get breast cancer from oral contraceptives."

Currently Dr. Kahlenborn is working on another meta-analysis that he hopes will be published within one year. This analysis attempts to analyze the data of all the studies available from the 1980's and 1990's, in an effort to obtain a more accurate statistical analysis specifically of women taking the Pill for several years prior to their first full-term pregnancy.

The Food and Drug Administration's FDA consumer magazine maintained that Enovid may not have rocked the ground like the 1945 detonation of the first atomic bomb. Dr. Kahlenborn would be inclined to disagree. "Hormonal chemical contraceptives are the equivalent to a nuclear bomb in their devastation to the family." Sickness, cancer and death lies in the wake of this bitter Pill. Can massive product liability suits be far behind?

Until this (any!) study is replicated it's indistinguishable from junk science. Don't make too much of it too soon.

Already posted here.

Did you see #9 and #11 and others by proud2berc? Science merely supports the conclusions some of us have reached out of faith. Abortion is not only immoral, science tells us it is unhealthy and harmful to the mother.

This study has been done many times by many different medical and research organizations. The conclusions are always the same: abortion increases the breast cancer risk.

I didn't know there was a cover up. I'd think it medical malpractice if a women went to a doctor and asked "What are the risks associated with medication X or procedure Y?" and not get a reasonable and honest answer. FWIW: There are health risks bringing a baby to term. And please don't misconstrue that as an argument for abortion.

Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent" was the first medical journal article to explain the mechanism by which the Pill prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the womb, its lining (or endometrium) improperly formed under the influence of the Pill's hormones.

And a woman who *might* have a fertilized egg that implanted 2 hours ago *might* also cause a miscarriage by skiing, rock climbing, smoking, getting drunk at the office party, eating sushi, breathing too hard.

The answer is obvious. Lock up all women of childbearing age so there is no possible way they *might* hurt their *possible* fertilized eggs that *may* have occurred from the *possible* failure of the hormone in their BCPs.

Not to make something out of anyone who has cancer, but...

Would statistics show that more women die of brest cancer than second hand smoke? And if so, since second had smoke has been used for all sorts of invasive edicts by various smoking talibans, why not abortions being controled? At least untill one is an adult, like say 21? Why can the leftist, enviroweenies, health-Nazis use governmental force for their causes and not non-leftist? I am not supporting any of the acts or the political notion of increased governmental power, just asking.

Sounds like a good area for medical research: Hormone therapy.

--> "...up to 50 % of breast cancer cases in England and Wales over the next 26 years will be 'attributable to abortion'..."

--> "WOMEN who have had an abortion are nearly twice as likely to suffer from breast cancer"

I cannot believe that you yawn at the prospect that half of all breast cancer is caused by abortion and that a woman's chance of getting breast cancer doubles if she has had an abortion. I know dozens of women who have had the disease. You must not know any and do not realize how prevalent the disease is. Thus your apathy.

This has been replicated many times. The BIASed media don't report it because it does not fit their paradigm. Nor yours, apparently.

Wasn't there a Tabitha Soren on MTV?

Some of the articles posted right above are quite long, but you will find the statistic that 1 of every 8 women in the U.S. will have breast cancer at some point in her life. This is a significant risk, unlike the 1 in 300,000 or even 1 in 150,000 you suggested. A 50% increase in risk makes it even more significant. Breast cancer runs in my family--I've even had a 33yo cousin die from it. Anything that increases my risk is to be avoided--but I would have to be aware of it to make the conscious decision to avoid it. Most women aren't being informed of this risk, to be given the choice.

The answer is obvious. Lock up all women of childbearing age so there is no possible way they *might* hurt their *possible* fertilized eggs that *may* have occurred from the *possible* failure of the hormone in their BCPs.

You are pro-contraception because you don't want anything to infringe upon your right to have sex without consequences. Catholics don't seek to lock women up. We are anti-contraception because it dengrates the sacredness of sex to recreation, and human beings to mere playthings. We have more respect for human beings and life than that.

FReeper extraordinaire Saundra Duffy can tell you more about the FACT that the abortion factories do all they can to keep this info from the moms who are getting abortions. She is a plaintiff in a case against planned parenthood in which she is suing them for failing to inform moms who do come to the clinic about the increased risk of breast cancer. Go Saundra!!!!

The news gets worse doesn't it?

While Western Civilization aborts it's defenseless unborn, celebrates homosexuality, and institutionalizes moral relativism, Islamist populate like rats.

To further add salt to the wound, these behaviors foster deadly side effects like AIDS and Cancer.

Has the moral index in the West bottomed out, or will we totally destroy ourselves?

"Anything that increases my risk is to be avoided". There's a 1 in 75 chance you'll die in a car crash. Do you drive a Volvo?

Why do you ask?

OOOOPSIE!!!!

Didn't know I had to have a reason to ask a question.

She's a plaintiff? Has she contracted breast cancer? What are her damages?

How is this a moral issue? I mean, obviously there are moral issues concerning abortion, but these seem not to be the issue raided here. People here insist it's just a matter of getting information to people so they can make an informed choice about their prescription medications.

The story is about women who have been pregnant for at least two weeks. (A vast majority of abortions occur at the baby's 8th to 11th). This study does not suggest outlawing all abortion nor does it suggest that every single abortion causes cancer. It speaks for itself.

However, it does support through SCIENCE (and two dozen studies have shown a similar result) and purely rational arguments that MOST moms who abort their child will double their chance of getting breast cancer. A purely rational scientific analysis demonstrates that abortion is unhealthy medically - and it merely coincides with the moral objection I have to abortion since it is ALWAYS deadly for one of the abortionists patients.

"We are anti-contraception because it dengrates the sacredness of sex to recreation, and human beings to mere playthings." Can you explain that please? Suppose a husband and wife love each other very much but they cannot conceive a baby and they both know this. Would sex between them be recreational and therefore bad?

"That's interesting, but one would be hard pressed to put this into service for an argument that the state should use it's power to criminalize abortion. That's not to say there aren't other arguments. Unless you think the state should criminalize anything that's linked to cancer."

Abortions should be outlawed because it is murder. The people who have been advocating, funding and purpetrating them since Roe v. Wade should be put on trail and convicted of crimes against humanity and genocide.

Getting cancer as a result of an abortion may be Darwinism in action. A species so weak as to purposely killing itself in such a surgical and unnatural way cannot survive as a species.