Breast Cancer & Abortion
From:  PETER3290   5/31/2001 9:21 pm  
To:  ALL    
 
  51.1  
 
Why the Silence About Abortion and Breast Cancer 
by Dennis Byrne 
[Pro-Life Infonet Note: Dennis Byrne is a Chicago-area writer and public 
affairs consultant.] 

How long will this nation sit by as a powerful, well-funded industry 
continues to expose women to the No. 1 preventable risk of breast cancer? 

How long will the industry's political flunkies, who receive millions in 
campaign funds from this special interest, be allowed to turn a blind eye 
to a danger that kills thousands of women every year? 

How long will a biased media keep silent in the face of a hazard that 
directly imperils more than 1 million women a year? 

No, I'm not talking about the chemical industry, daily poisoning the 
environment with its toxins. Nor the producers of fatty food or alcohol, 
also factors suspected of increasing breast cancer. 

The industry I'm talking about is the abortion business--consisting of 
abortion "providers," their clinics, ideological supporters, grant-giving 
foundations and the rest of the political power structure that refuses to 
even admit that a scientific debate, let along scientific evidence, exists 
about the dangers of induced abortions. They--despite their claims of 
superior benevolence and compassion--are threatening thousands of women's 
lives with an unspeakably painful disease. 

Yet in the month of May, a time of renewal, promise, new life and marches 
throughout the country against breast cancer, millions of women are being 
deceived about this risk, or denied the knowledge of important studies. 

Twenty-seven out of 34 independent studies conducted throughout the world 
(including 13 out of 14 conducted in the United States) have linked 
abortion and breast cancer. Seventeen of these studies show a 
statistically significant relationship. Five show more than a two-fold 
elevation of risk. In turn, the abortion industry says all those studies 
are trumped by one study, whose methodology, critics say, is seriously 
flawed. 

The biological hypothesis is that during pregnancy, a woman's breasts 
begin developing a hormone that causes cells--both normal and 
pre-cancerous--to multiply dramatically. If the pregnancy is carried to 
term, those undifferentiated cells are shaped into milk ducts and a 
naturally occurring process shuts off the rapid cell multiplication. An 
induced abortion leaves a women with more undifferentiated cells, and so, 
more cancer-vulnerable cells. 

When I first wrote about this issue in 1997, the scorn and name-calling 
flowed in. Anti-choice fanatic. Ignorant bozo. Misogynist. Since then, 
much has happened. The United Kingdom's Royal College of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists became the first medical organization to warn its abortion 
practitioners that the abortion-breast cancer link "could not be 
disregarded." It said that the methodology of the principal ABC 
(abortion-breast cancer) researcher, Joel Brind, was sound. 

John Kindley, an attorney, warned in a 1999 Wisconsin Law Review article 
that physicians who do not inform their patients of the ABC link expose 
themselves to medical malpractice suits. He concluded that about 1 out of 
100 women who have had an induced abortion die from breast cancer 
attributable to the abortion. 

The American Cancer Society Web page lists induced abortions (along with 
pesticides, chemical exposures, weight gain and other factors) among 
elements that may be related to breast cancer, and that the relationship 
is being studied. 

Earlier, Dr. Janet Darling and colleagues at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer 
Research Center, in a study commissioned by the National Cancer Institute, 
found that "among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of 
breast cancer in those who had . . . an induced abortion was 50 percent 
higher than among other women." The risk of breast cancer for women under 
18 or over 29 who had induced abortions was more than twofold. Women who 
abort and have a family history of breast cancer increase their risk 80 
percent. The increased risk of women under 18 with that family history 
was incalculably high. 

Being pro-choice didn't shield Darling from the usual attacks. She fought 
back. "If politics gets involved in science," she then told the Los 
Angeles Daily News, "it will really hold back the progress that 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. It's not a matter of believing, it's a matter of what is." 

Yet the Web site of the Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization, sponsor 
of many marches, fails to mention even the possibility of the ABC 
connection in its list of risk factors. Not even under its list of fuzzy, 
not "clear-cut" factors. Not even the existence of a scientific debate 
over induced abortion is worth a mention. 

As if women had no right to know. 

For more information on the link between abortion and breast cancer, see 
the Abortion section of http://www.prolifeinfo.org 

Subject: Breast Cancer: Abortion's Hidden Peril in Australia 

Source: The Age (Australia); April 12, 2001 

Breast Cancer: Abortion's Hidden Peril in Australia 

By Babette Francis 

[Pro-Life Infonet Note: Babette Francis is the national and overseas 
coordinator of the pro-life organization Endeavour Forum Inc.] 

If 27 out of 34 mechanics had raised serious doubts about the safety of the 
brakes on your car, would you let your daughter drive the car?   
Twenty-seven out of 34 studies worldwide have shown a 30 per cent to 50 per 
cent increased risk of breast cancer after induced abortion. 

Does the Australian Reproductive Health Alliance, which complains about 
President George W. Bush's refusal to fund abortions through overseas aid, 
want to unleash the same increasing level of breast cancer in developing 
countries as is now evident in the developed world? 

The abortion-breast cancer hypothesis is now to be tested in a North Dakota 
court, where a woman is suing an abortion clinic for false advertising in a 
leaflet that claimed there was no link. 

Thirty years after the de facto legalisation of abortion in Australia with 
the Menhennitt (Victoria, 1969) and Levine (NSW, 1971) rulings, the 
appalling consequences are becoming evident, with a 40 per cent increase in 
the incidence of breast cancer between 1987 and 1997 - while other cancers 
have declined. Medical experts cannot explain the rise. Reluctance to 
imperil the status of abortion as a "safe" procedure is apparent,because 
the abortion industry is worth $1 billion a year. 

Women should ask whom they can trust: those who make money out of abortion 
or those who spend their own money on pregnancy support services. 

The only study on Australian women shows that abortion is a greater risk 
factor than a family history of breast cancer. This 1988 finding was 
concealed for seven years and is still not publicised. 

Federal Health Minister Michael Wooldridge and Victoria's Chief Health 
Officer, John Catford, are among those who claim that the evidence linking 
abortion and breast cancer is inconclusive - while failing to explain the 
rise in incidence. 

Typical is the handout to clinicians at Peter MacCallum hospital by Robert 
Burton, director of the Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria, which states: 
"Current epidemiological evidence does not allow any definitive statements 
on the association between breast cancer and spontaneous or induced 
abortion." The handout argues there is no plausible carcinogenesis in 
abortion. 

There is no carcinogenesis either in early puberty, late menopause, late 
first birth, obesity or being childless, but these are all accepted as risk 
factors for breast cancer. What all have in common is greater cumulative 
exposure to oestrogen. The same factor operates in pregnancy - breast cells 
multiply but do not stabilise into milk-producing cells until the last few 
weeks of a full-term pregnancy. After abortion, breast cells are left 
vulnerable to carcinogenesis. Oestrogen is a tumor promoter. Professor 
Burton has since acknowledged that second-trimester abortions and very 
premature births increase the risk of breast cancer. He wrote: "I regard 
the (Melbye) study as providing good, but obviously not perfect, data on a 
lack of risk for breast cancer and an induced first-trimester abortion. You 
will also note that I do not believe that this lack of risk extends to 
second-trimester abortions and very premature births." 

Acknowledging breast cancer risk in double negatives makes it obscure to 
the public. Professor Burton has also admitted that delayed first full-term 
pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer. 

This leaves health departments with the responsibility of telling pregnant 
teenagers, hustled off to abortion clinics by distraught parents or 
boyfriends, that while their pregnancy may be a social problem, it is not a 
biological one and, carried to term, gives substantial protection against a 
major killer. 

Women cannot give informed consent if they are not told about a risk that 
27 out of 34 studies shows does exist. Breast cancer is not a minor 
side-effect - it is potentially fatal and always mutilating. Several states 
in the US have mandatory warnings about the increased risk of breast cancer 
to women presenting for abortion. Australian women deserve no less. They 
could at least be warned that if they have had an abortion, they need to be 
extra vigilant about breast examinations and mammograms. Many risk factors 
are unavoidable, but women can avoid abortions. Sadly, many continue to 
suffer, and some die, unnecessarily, while anti-cancer organisations fail 
to give clear advice that women could reduce their breast cancer risk by 
carrying their babies to term and breastfeeding them. 

--

 
From:  PETER3290   6/1/2001 9:00 pm  
To:  ALL   (2 of 5)  
 
  51.2 in reply to 51.1  
 
These links may help 
http://www.abortioncancer.com/ 

http://www.dianedew.com/aborcanc.htm
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Wyild   6/1/2001 9:06 pm  
To:  PETER3290   (3 of 5)  
 
  51.3 in reply to 51.1  
 
The way I look at it... 
Women, (as are all people,) are able to think for themselves... If one choses to do something to or for herself that can potentially harm her, that's her choice, not one to be made by anybody else. That's her right.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  PETER3290   6/1/2001 9:38 pm  
To:  Wyild unread  (4 of 5)  
 
  51.4 in reply to 51.3  
 
That is why I put up this information, Play now Pay Later!! Heed the warning. 
It's her choice but what about her future husband and children, how will they feel to see their wife and mother suffer and die. Especially if she could have prevented it!! Yes have a choice, wait until your are married to have sex. Abstain or use birth control until you are ready emotionally and financially to have children.



 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  Rowan (POTIONS)    6/1/2001 10:14 pm  
To:  PETER3290   (5 of 5)  
 
  51.5 in reply to 51.2  
 
Following you theory, a natural abortion [aka miscarriage] should also cause breast cancer as it also is a sudden cessation of a pregnancy. 
Perhaps more research is needed? [ at least as far as those of us in the medical field see it--- and yes I copied your info to a medical Q & A center for Healthcare Personel] I think I will wait until all the results are in? 

As in most areas of the Healthcare world, you can find a reason to claim anything kills. One day it is harmless and the next??????? 



Contemplate the little things in life and then enjoy them all!..... Rowan





Many thanks to Valcali at Creative Signatures, who took my dream and made it real! 


Creative Signatures


For wonderful herbal products, please go to:


Medicine Song's Moon Lair

For you perfume or aroma items, please visit me at:


Common Scents Perfumes

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
