Wednesday, February 06, 2008

The truth about abortion - from someone who's been there

Today's National Post features a letter by Denise Mountenay, who is founder of Canada Silent No More, a website dedicated to helping women who have experienced emotional trauma resulting from abortions:

I had abortions when I was younger. I was lied to about fetal development and told it was just a clump of tissue. As a young vibrant woman, independent and aloof, it was made to be a quick, easy out. I had no idea my babies had a beating heart by three weeks, arms, legs, fingers and toes by eight weeks. My so-called "safe and legal" abortion landed me with an infection, damaged cervix and badly scarred uterus. Doctors never told me about the 28 studies linking breast cancer to induced abortion. They never told me about the years of guilt, remorse and deep sorrow for having my own children killed...

This letter was written in response to Dr. Garson Romalis' op-ed about how heroic and altruistic he considers himself to be - Why I am an abortion doctor:

...I can take an anxious woman, who is in the biggest trouble she has ever experiences in her life, and by performing a five-minute operation, in comfort and dignity, I can give her back her life...


If you believe Denise Mountenay's account of her own experience, that woman's problems are just beginning.


* * * *
Great story here if you're looking for something upbeat - Daily Mail.

115 comments:

Anonymous said...

The arrogance to say that a pregnancy means 'the biggest trouble in life'!
Is this abortionist living in a perfect bubble world world?Does he have kids? Is he telling them that for every difficulty you face in life 'erase it'?
No coping skills, no sense of being responsible for one's behaviour, just 'cut and run.'
No wonder babies are being killed and deserted after birth...this so called doctor claims that having a baby is the most 'biggest trouble in life'

The women that I know who have faced pregnany and had their babies have come thru wiser and stronger simply because they took responsibility for their actions and grew from the experience.
For Denise's sake I hope this discussion is therapeutic in her road to healing.

maryT said...

There has been a great increase in breast cancer by women under 40. There have been 28 studies showing the connection to abortion and breast cancer. Have those young women with cancer ever been asked, Have you ever had an abortion, if so, at what stage of gestation.
From the moment of conception, a woman's body starts to change, even the breast.
There are facts out there that are not being told to young women.

Roy Eappen said...

The "prochoice" side like to ignore all this and dismiss any negative studies. They have a viewpoint and they don't care how many women and babies it hurts.
It is good that these women are speaking up.

Anonymous said...

God forbid we abort our children before the Catholics can get down to diddling them:

http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2008/02/nuns-can-be-pedophiles-too-girl-power.html

Speaking of abortion, how many responses have you had from women that had an abortion and were satisfied with their decision, as upsetting as it may have been? None? Well, that MUST IMPLY that there aren't any. Carry on.

Anonymous said...

Link above:

http://tinyurl.com/2c5k3y

Not that it matters. I'm quite sure my post will be censored out of existence.

But while I'm here, I will say this to Dr.Roy: even if they did increase the chance of breast cancer, people will still have them. What do you propose - that the state should control a woman's body? How should we punish transgressors?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I'm quite sure my post will be censored out of existence.

No, I won't delete your post, but I do wish you would show some intestinal fortitude by identifying yourself with some kind of nickname.

liberal supporter said...

Maybe anon gave up using a name for Lent.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

L.S. - lol! I don't usually bother debating with anonymous posters. I do tolerate the comments unless they're really-over-the-top because I think we can get some interesting perspectives.

Ti Christophe said...

there is NO breast cancer-abortion link.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/23/health/webmd/main2718947.shtml

here's the quote that matters:
"National Cancer Institute convened an expert panel to analyze these studies. It concluded that abortion did not affect breast cancer risk."

Anonymous said...

Anon@8:50, I think a more appropriate description of what women who get abortions (and the doctors who provide them) are doing is "cutting and running", not "cut and run"... slicing and dicing a child like they're a piece of meat, or an inconvinent tumor.

Disgusting.

Anonymous said...

Soooooo... what you're all saying is that the state SHOULD have control over women's bodies. Thanks for clearing that up.

So, to sum up, the state should control
- recreational drug use
- sexual orientation
- marriage
- women's bodies

But it should NOT control
- firearms
- access to health care
- education
- infrastructure

Do you guys just draw arbitrary lines in the sand, or is there a book out there that you're all following? Never mind, I know the answer to that.

SUZANNE said...

The state already controls our bodies. It controls what we ingest. It controls whether we wear a seatbelt or a helmet. It controls what we can or cannot wear outside.

There is a right to control a body if the result is a dead human being.

The whole "controlling women's bodies" meme is a strawman the purpose of which is to take away the focus of the humanity of the unborn child.

If it were an adult shrunken and injected into a uterus, nobody would argue that the woman had the right to kill him. The argument is about the status of the fetus, not the woman's body.

jj said...

Shorter SUZANNE: "Submit to the Nanny State!!!"

SUZANNE, I thought we already had this discussion at your place. There is absolutely no situation I can conceive of where it would be "okay" for the state to control our bodies.

The fact that we already have stupid laws that attempt to do this doesn't change that fact. It most certainly doesn't mean that we should be okay with even more stupid, intrusive laws.

liberal supporter said...

SUZANNE, when will you ever answer my question? I have asked you each and every time you have commented here on this topic in the past year.

You have never once responded. Perhaps you consider it beneath you to speak with "pro-death" people. I consider it the main question, since I suspect you are in fact pro-death.


Do you, or do you not, support or condone the tracking down and murdering of abortion doctors?


Yes or no?

I know your other blog identities. Let's get a definitive answer from you once and for all.

Yes?

or

No?

John M Reynolds said...

The state does and should have laws that dictate what we can do to other peoples' bodies. The argument above has to do with protecting the body of the person growing within the woman seeking an abortion. It also has to do with full disclosure, so an informed decision can be made.

Anonymous said...

The 'government control whine' is lame.
Are these whiners the same ones who have no control over their own body?There is only one way to get pregnant...control your urges over your body if you don't want a baby.

Jay said...

So a miscarriage should carry a fine and/or a murder charge against the mother for not being "fit enough" or not taking care of herself, right Mr. Reynolds?

If you grant personhood to a potential-human where does it stop?

And how would you go about punishing those that will continue to have abortions if you outlaw them? How will you police that?

Ti Christophe said...

"If you grant personhood to a potential-human where does it stop?"

i guess that would also apply to ovaries and sperm, as they, by extending the argument, represent "potential-humans".

ban masturbation and the period! after all, those are destruction of "potential humans" ...

NOTICE TO THE UNINFORMED (i'm talking to YOU, "pro-lifers"): women have been getting abortions since the dawn of humankind, for various reasons. outlawing it will NOT ever ever make it go away.

you cannot, and will not, control what a human does to their body.

umm, just to cause some fury and knashing of the teeth, how many of you "pro-lifers" are pro-death penalty? hmmm? (if any respond yes to that question, be it known you been labeled a hypocrite, and you know it).

John M Reynolds said...

Jay, you made a poor assumption.

To answer your questions, no, viable outside the womb, I wouldn't, and there is no need to.

The doctors are supposed to be giving all sides of the issue, so an informed consent can be made. That is their responsibility. Apparently that is not always being done.

John M Reynolds said...

"pro-lifers" are pro-death penalty?

You are comparing the obviously innocent with adults convicted of a crime that was brutal enough to possibly warrant a death penalty? Wow.

"you cannot, and will not, control what a human does to their body"

That is not the point. It is about controlling what a human (doctor) does with another human's body.

Jay said...

Wait a second, Mr. Reynolds, what assumption did I make that was wrong from your original post?

You claim the state has rights over peoples' bodies and that a fertilized egg is a "person" and has the same rights as a baby outside of the womb.

Taking your assumptions and going a bit further women can be held responsible for miscarriages. What then should be their punishment?

Ti Christophe said...

"You are comparing the obviously innocent with adults convicted of a crime that was brutal enough to possibly warrant a death penalty?"

no, i'm not exactly but i've frequently found that pro-life people also tend to be be pro-death penalty.

my point is that if you consider a fetus alive and that taking a life is wrong, then, logically , taking any life is wrong. no crime warrants the death penalty, imho, unless you're some old testament "eye-for-an-eye" loony.

"The doctors are supposed to be giving all sides of the issue, so an informed consent can be made. That is their responsibility. Apparently that is not always being done."

it is also the patient's responsibility to ASK questions and demand answers. the patient has to take responsibility on the issue too. from the article snippet it seems the patient just passively listened to the doctor.

if the doctor did NOT give the patient enough information to make an informed decision, then he is liable in my opinion. but that is a different discussion.....

"The state does and should have laws that dictate what we can do to other peoples' bodies. " yeh, sorry i misread that sentence. i agree with you on that. but it doesn't negate my other statements.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

It also has to do with full disclosure, so an informed decision can be made.

I would agree that this is more the intent of the letter to the editor.

Jay said...

So what is full disclosure to you? Telling women that there is a link to breast cancer when none has ever actually been found? That would be the same as lying. How about telling them that they "might" regret it later? You know, not all women that have had abortions regret it later. How about "this is a medical procedure and has certain risks"? That seems to be about the entire disclosure right there.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

if the doctor did NOT give the patient enough information to make an informed decision, then he is liable in my opinion. but that is a different discussion.....

It would be helpful to know just what the law is, if any, on disclosure requirements prior to an abortion.

All I know is when you go to get any surgery done these days you have to sign something saying that you acknowledge that even death is a rare possibility. One would assume there would have to be some kind of consent form.

Jay said...

So if there is a consent form this post is entirely a bunch of fetal worship? Congratulations for coming up with that conclusion yourself, Jojo, that actually shows a lot of maturity.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Jay, my question is - does a consent form have to be signed prior to an abortion, and if so exactly what warnings are detailed?

Is there a doctor in the house?

Ti Christophe said...

just cause i want to stir up trouble...er..spark a discussion, anyone want to take swing at the FALSE abortion-breast cancer link that some of you were so happy to proclaim?
ya know, please dispute the National Cancer Institute with you armchair medical degrees....

Jay said...

On a per state basis, look it up. In short order I found that Texas, Missouri and North Dakota have them.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Obviously some of you are from the States. Can you please enlighten us on the situation there? Here in Canada we have no laws at all regarding abortion. It's legal right up until the moment of birth.

Ti Christophe said...

yo joanne,

YES:
http://www.gynemed.org/1st_Tri_Consent_Form.pdf

also, from this website:
http://www.vshl.org/education/InformedConsent_Notification/A_Womans_Right_to_Know_6_1_5.shtml
"The United States Supreme Court has upheld as constitutional laws that protect the right of a woman to know the medical risks of abortion, its alternatives, and scientifically accurate medical facts about the development of her unborn child."

they quote the legal case which set made that the law:
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 2823-24 (1992)

yeh, i used this thing called the "internet" to find that in minutes...

Ti Christophe said...

btw, couldn't find any info on Canada...

Jay said...

Again, different per state, but in any medical procedure in the states a consent form that the dangers of the procedure have been adequately explained is given to every patient. Abortion is legal and appears to remain that way for a long time. Most informed consent laws are being struck down, many of the parental consent laws are being struck down and we pretty much stopped killing our doctors. So much better than Canada, evidently.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Abortion is legal and appears to remain that way for a long time.

No restrictions at all? Not in any State?

Jay said...

Up to third trimester unless the woman's life is at stake. Some of the states do have more onerous laws but they keep getting slapped down. Given a democratic majority and a future democratic court I expect all of the legal twists and turns will suddenly stop so as not to draw too much attention to their unConstitutional laws

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Up to third trimester unless the woman's life is at stake.

So what do you think about Canada's "no law" situation?

Jay said...

Preferable over the third-trimester laws as the "slippery slope" argument is much less likely to have the effect that it is having here. Third trimester laws are arbitrary but that doesn't stop the anti-choice crowd from trying to use some third-trimester metric to attack the freedom of choice.

Abortion should be legal, rare and safe has become a motto and will hopefully carry through.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

So Canada is actually 'more evolved' than the States in this matter, as you see it right?

Jay said...

Evolve is probably the wrong word to use, the paths getting to where each country is today are different and each reflect a different culture and legal process and analysis. The US has jumped through more hoops, had more trial and error (Supreme Court decisions) than Canada. I can respect Canada more for their stance given how easy it would be to give into the temptation of giving-in to religious nutjobs.

Just another area of life and politics where religion poisons everything it touches and creates more hardships than it ever realizes.

Canada Silent No More said...

Breast CANCER is linked to induced abortion, even though cancer societies deny the link...lets connect the dots!! It has to do with the estrogens factor. Abortion doubles the risk of breast cancer! see www.abortionbreastcancer for mountain of studies and evidence! It is time for this cover up to be revealed!

Women have a right to know that IF they choose to abort their first baby, they could be choosing Breast Cancer... depression, suicide, cervical cancer, substance abuse, premature births in subsequent pregnancies...sterility etc...

Abortion is a WRONG and not a Right...it killed my children, and hurts women!

Abortion doctors know its a baby, with a beating heart by 3 weeks, arms, legs, fingers and toes by 8 weeks...

Most women are pressured into abortion by boyfriends, husbands, parents and doctors...most are never informed about the deadly irreparable damages afterward.

Denise
www.canadasilentnomore.com

Suggested Reading
Suggested Reading:Breast Cancer: Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill
Author: Chris Kahlenborn, M.D.
Publisher: One More Soul www.OMSoul.com (1-800-307-7685)
It cannot be said that all women who have breast cancer have had abortions. Similarly, not all women who have had abortions will get breast cancer. Nevertheless, abortion is the most preventable risk factor for breast cancer.
Two Ways that Abortion Raises Breast Cancer Risk

Women have the right to know that two breast cancer risks are associated with abortion - a recognized risk and a debated risk.

THE RECOGNIZED BREAST CANCER RISK

All experts agree that the longer a woman waits to have her first full term pregnancy, the greater her breast cancer risk is. Delaying the birth of a first child significantly increases risk because the childless woman has immature, cancer-vulnerable breast tissue - Type 1 and 2 lobules where 95% of all breast cancers are known to develop. Her breast tissue does not mature into cancer-resistant tissue until the last months of a full term pregnancy. By the end of a 40-week pregnancy, 85% of her breast lobules are mature, cancer-resistant lobules known as Type 4 lobules.

A delayed first full term pregnancy increases her risk because it extends the length of time during which her breasts remain susceptible to carcinogens. Scientists define an early first full term pregnancy as one that takes place before age 24.

Although delaying the birth of a first child is a known cancer risk, few experts have the intellectual honesty or the political courage to admit that abortion contributes to the breast cancer epidemic by causing a countless number of women to delay their first full term pregnancies every year.

THE DEBATED BREAST CANCER RISK

Experts debate whether an abortion further increases risk by leaving the woman with more cancer-vulnerable breast tissue than she had before she became pregnant. This effect is known as the "independent link."

The breasts grow considerably during pregnancy while under the influence of high levels of the hormone estrogen, a known carcinogen. Estrogen causes the woman's normal and cancer-vulnerable breast lobules to multiply. If she has an abortion, she's left with more places for cancers to start in her breasts. If she has a baby, then other pregnancy hormones mature her breast lobules into cancer-resistant lobules during the last months of pregnancy. She's left with more cancer-resistant tisue than she had before she became pregnant.

Seventy-two epidemiological studies have been conducted since 1957; and 80% of these studies have shown that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer independently of the effect of delaying the birth of a first child. These epidemiological studies establish a correlation between abortion and increased breast cancer risk. Most of the recent epidemiological studies focus exclusively on the effect of the independent link, not the known risk of delaying the birth of a first child.

An independent link is also supported by:

1) Animal research [Russo & Russo Am J Pathology 1980];

2) The World Health Organization's acknowledgement that oral contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy containing estrogen and progestin are "Group 1 carcinogens." (Press Release #167, July 29, 2005);

3) The established risk showing that a premature birth before 32 weeks gestation more than doubles breast cancer risk. The hormonal changes to the breasts are the same whether the woman has an abortion or a premature birth before 32 weeks gestation. [Melbye et al. Br J Cancer 1999; Hsieh et al. Lancet 1999; Vatten et al. Br J Cancer 2002; Innes and Byers Int J Cancer 2004]

4) Plausible biological reasons why an abortion leaves a woman more susceptible to breast cancer.

Abortion is an "elective surgical procedure and a woman’s exposure to the hormones of early pregnancy -- if it is interrupted -- is so great, that just one interrupted pregnancy is enough to make a significant difference in her risk" [Professor Joel Brind, President, Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, Endeavour Forum Public Meeting, August 24, 1999, Malvern, Victoria, Australia].

Because American Women already face a high lifetime risk of developing breast cancer of about 12.5 percent, boosting that risk by even a small percentage through the procurement of a single induced abortion is comparable to the risk of lung cancer from long-term heavy smoking. Approximately 1 in 100 women procuring an abortion is expected to die as a result of abortion-induced breast cancer.

A Medical Text and Henderson Lecture Acknowledge ABC Link

An Authoritative Medical Text for doctors who specialize in breast diseases discusses the causes of breast cancer. It states that the exposure of the breasts to estrogen for long periods of time proportionately increases breast cancer risk, and it specifically identifies abortion as a risk factor. It says, "Long-term exposure to endogenous estrogens (early menarche; late menopause; late age at first full-term pregnancy; and being overweight, leading to increased aromatization of circulating androgens to estrogens) appears to increase cancer risk. Risk is decreased only with early menopause (natural or artificial) and childbearing. However, first-trimester abortion increases risk." empasis added [Robert B. Dickson, Ph.D., Marc E. Lippman, MD, "Growth Regulation of Normal and Maglignant Breast Epithelium," The Breast: Comprehensice Management of Benign and Malignant Diseases, edited by Kirby I. Bland MD and Edward M. Copeland III, MD; (1998) W.B. Saunders Company; 2nd edition; Vol 1, p.519.]

(Click here to see the Credentials for the authors and editors of the medical text.)

The Medical Text cited the Henderson lecture to support the statement that "first-trimester abortion increases risk." Henderson said, "Recently, we found that a first-trimester abortion, whether spontaneous or induced, before the first full-term pregnancy is actually associated with an increase in the risk of breast cancer." [Henderson, B.E., Ross R., Berstein, L.; "Estrogens as a cause of human cancer," The Richard and Hinda Rosenthal Foundation Award Lecture, University of Southern California School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California: Cancer Res 48:246-253, 1988]

The Henderson Lecture was published in 1988. The statement asserting that abortion is linked with increased breast cancer risk was based on only two studies, the first of which Henderson co-authored and was the first published American study. [Pike MC, Henderson BE, Casagrande JT, et al. "Oral contraceptive use and early abortion as risk factors for breast cancer in young women, " Br. J. Cancer (1981) 43:72-76; and Hadjimichael OC, Boyle CA, and Meigs JW, "Abortion before first live birth and risk of breast cancer," Br. J. Cancer (1986) 53:281-284.]

A discussion of the Pike Study was provided by Dr. Joel Brind during his 1999 lecture in Malvern, Victoria in Australia.

National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control

Scientists from the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control, Bruce Stadel and Phyllis Wingo, and two other prominent epidemiologists were convinced of a link in 1986. They co-authored a letter to the British journal, Lancet, and said, "Induced abortion before first term pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer." [Feb, 22, 1986, p. 436] They acknowledged the independent effect of an induced abortion on breast cancer risk at a time when there were only two American studies linking abortion with the disease. [Pike et al. (1981) Br J Cancer 43:72-6; and Brinton et al. (1983) Br J Cancer 47:757-62]

Why aren't women being told?

National Cancer Institute

Dr. Janet Daling, an abortion supporter, and her colleagues at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center were commissioned by the National Cancer Institute to conduct a study to determine if induced abortion raises breast cancer risk. The study found that, "among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women."

High Risk Groups

Daling identified 3 high risk groups and reported these findings:

1) Women under the age of 18 or over the age of 29 who obtained induced abortions have more than a twofold increase in risk.

2) Women with a family history of breast cancer who procured an abortion were found to have statistically significant risk increases of 80 percent.

3) Teenagers with a family history of the disease who procured abortions before the age of 18 were found to have incalculably high risk. All 12 women in Daling's study with this background were diagnosed with breast cancer by the age of 45. [Daling et al. (1994) J Natl Cancer Inst 86:505-14.]

An additional high risk group was identified by Dr. Amelia Laing of Howard University:

1. African American women had a 50% increased risk before the age of 40, a 180% increased risk between the ages 41 and 49 and a 370% increased risk after age 50 if they'd ever procured at least one abortion. [Laing et al. (1993) J Natl Med Assoc 85:931-9]

A subsequent study by this author comparing sisters, one of which had procured an abortion, reported a 144% increased risk. [Laing et al. (1994) Genet Epidemiology 11: A300]

Jane Orient, MD, a spokeswoman for the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, told World Net Daily that, “If you look at the number of studies that show a connection, they vastly outnumber the ones that don’t, and the ones that don’t have been criticized for serious methodological flaws.” She reported that the elevated risk is “substantial, particularly in women who abort their first pregnancy at a young age and who have a family history of breast cancer. It’s something like 800 percent.” She added, “I think (doctors) should inform patients about this,” and the information “should include the potential connection with breast cancer as well as the long-term psychological risk.” [John Dougherty, “Can doctors be sued over abortion? Those who don’t inform patients of breast cancer link could be targets,” World Net Daily,March 27, 2002]

American Cancer Society

The American Cancer Society has stated in its fact sheet that abortion "may be associated with increased breast cancer risk." [American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts & Figures -- 1996, at 12 (1996)] (An employee of the American Cancer Society with the Office of Corporation Counsel has asked us to remove the Society's 1996 statement from our web site. We have contacted the Society and asked them to inform us of the legal basis for their request, if any.)

Second Way Abortion Causes Breast Cancer

There is another way in which abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Medical experts universally agree that it is healthier for a married woman not to postpone her first full-term pregnancy. [MacMahon et al. (1970) Bull Wld Health Org 43:209-21]

One Harvard study reported that each year that a woman postpones her first full-term pregnancy increases her breast cancer risk by 3.5%. [Trichopolous D, Hsieh Cc, MacMahon B, Lin T, et al. Age at Any Birth and Breast Cancer Risk. International J Cancer (1983) 31:701-704]

An abortion causes a woman to forego the benefit of increased protection from breast cancer which she would have obtained from an earlier first full-term pregnancy. World Health Organization scientists in 1970 confirmed this saying that, "It is estimated that women having their first child when aged under 18 years have only about one-third the breast cancer risk of those whose first birth is delayed until the age of 35 years or more." In addition, this protective effect was not observed among women who'd had an incomplete first pregnancy. [MacMahon B, et al. Bull Wld Health Org. 1970; 43:209-21]

(Note: Our group advocates abstinence before marriage, but once a woman is married, we do not recommend postponement of a first full-term pregnancy. We believe women have a right to be fully informed about the adverse effects of delayed childbearing and induced abortion.)

The British journal, Lancet, published a large meta-analysis on the benefits of breastfeeding and childbearing in which data were collected from 47 epidemiological studies in 30 countries. It was found that the relative risk of breast cancer declined 4.3% for each 12 months of breastfeeding and 7.0% for every birth. It was concluded that the incidence of breast cancer in developed nations could be reduced by more than half if only women would bear more children and breastfeed for longer periods of time and that “the lack of or short lifetime duration of breastfeeding typical of women in developed countries makes a major contribution to the high incidence of breast cancer in these countries.” [Valerie Beral, (July 20, 2002) The Lancet, 360:187-95]

A woman can’t breastfeed a child who’s been aborted.

Graham Colditz, MD, a Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and a Professor of Epidemiology at the Harvard Medical School of Public Health, reported that one-half of the differences in the rates of breast cancer between the developed and undeveloped countries are attributable to childbearing patterns, including age at first birth, number of births and breast feeding. He said, "Comparing the reproductive patterns with six or more pregnancies with the typical pattern of two pregnancies in the developed world, we have shown that at least 50% of the international variation in breast cancer rates can be explained by these patterns of childbearing." [Graham Colditz, MD, "Relationship Between Estrogen Levels, Use of Hormone Replacement Therapy and Breast Cancer," JNCl (1998) 90:814-823.]

It is known that women, who start their families earlier in their reproductive years, have larger families and breast feed for long periods of time, have a reduced risk of breast cancer. It is not politically correct, however, to speak this truth to women.

If American breast cancer rates can be reduced by 50% through a cultural change in childbearing patterns, then it is incumbent on scientists to inform women of these facts and let us make the health decisions for ourselves. The alternative is to continue the status quo at the expense of women's health.

Why aren't women being told?

Considering the high incidence of breast cancer among American women, why are married women being encouraged to postpone their first full-term pregnancies and to reduce the size of their families? Why are abortifacients and abortions being foisted on women?

Breast cancer is the greatest cancer killer among American women between the ages of 20 and 59. The incidence of cancer climbed 40% in the last quarter of the 20th Century (since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States in 1973), while the incidence for all other cancers has either remained the same or declined. ["Breast Cancer Numbers Up, But US Cancer Deaths Drop," Reuters, June 5, 2001]

It is extraordinary that certain women's organizations, i.e. the National Organization for Women, champion what is euphemistically known as "reproductive rights," despite the fact that the medical community has long known that delayed first full-term pregnancy raises breast cancer risk.

Many corporations and wealthy individuals, including Bill Gates, the Rockefellers, Ted Turner and Warren Buffet, may be contributing to the rampant breast cancer rates in the United States and elsewhere in the world by donating to population control groups, including Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider and a distributor abortifacients. American taxpayers unknowingly contribute to the high incidence of this disease because their taxes subsidize Planned Parenthood and the United Nations Family Planning Agency (UNFPA).

It is especially appalling that even the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation which sponsors the Race for the Cure in many locations around the country gives a portion of its funds to Planned Parenthood. (See our July 18, 2001 press release regarding the Komen Foundation) Surely Komen's medical experts would agree that the delay of a first full-term pregnancy results in increased risk of breast cancer. No self-respecting medical expert would dare to disagree.

One of the difficulties with anti-cancer organizations is that radical feminists took up the breast cancer cause in the 1980's. They saw this as a means of championing women's rights, so it must have come as a surprise to them when they learned that their dominant concern -- abortion -- caused breast cancer. Once it became apparent that they had a conflict between abortion ideology and protecting women's health, abortion won hands down!

Updated 05/30/07.

Jay said...

And here comes the crazy. Thanks a lot Denise.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I invited Denise her here.

Thanks very much, Denise, for providing some information and facts.

I will have to delete comments that are not respectful. Calling another person 'crazy' because they do not adhere to your POV is not acceptable.


Use your brain and debate.

Jay said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Joanne (True Blue) said...

Try again Jay. You were doing so well before.

liberal supporter said...

Denise: Do you support or condone the tracking down and killing of abortion doctors?

Yes or no?

SUZANNE refuses to answer today, and has never answered despite repeated questioning. She claims everyone else who does not agree with her is "avoiding the question". Why does she avoid the question? Why does she never answer?


Will you answer?

Yes?

or

No?

Jay said...

Look Joanne, you were actually being somewhat sane for a moment there, asking actual questions. The stuff that Denise posted is ridiculous on its face alone and I could sit and destroy every bit of it if I had the inclination. There is absolutely zero studies in the last 10 years that positively link breast-cancer and abortion as having any higher risk than other lifestyles. Denise's entire post consists of "women should just have more babies, screw their own choices!".

It was a completely disrespectful post that didn't actually address the stance that recent studies don't find nearly as strong of a link between breast cancer and abortion as the studies out of the 70's and 80's did.

The largest, and probably the most reliable, single study of this topic was conducted during the 1990s in Denmark, a country with very detailed medical records on all its citizens. 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 information about their abortions and their breast cancer 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 done provides substantial evidence that induced abortion does not affect a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.

Jay said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Joanne (True Blue) said...

Jay, I'm simply asking that you debate the ideas in a rational manner, and refrain from disparaging other guests to this blog.

I'm trying to understand what Denise has to say, and it's distracting to have to monitor every comment. Thanks.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

It's unfortunate that this topic generates such emotion; to the point where nobody seems to be able to hear the other side. Sad really.

jj said...

A 12-year-old study said "maybe possibly perhaps"...

But a 4 year old study cited by the world's foremost breast cancer expert, Dr. Susan Love, says "No Way".

I think we're done here.

John M Reynolds said...

The date of a study like this does not matter as long as it was done properly.

Stating that no recent studies found this is pointless. What we need are recent studies that disprove the original studies.

Ti Christophe said...

that's a whole lot of noise signifying ... nothing.

The National Cancer Inst study was 2003. All the above studies pre-date that. To quote the NCI concerning the OLD studies: "Most of these studies, however, were flawed in a number of ways that can lead to unreliable results. "

What I can gather from that rather longggg post is: the younger you have babies, the less likely the risk to get get breast cancer.

The conclusion that abortions cause breast cancer based on that is ludicrous.

I'm not going to re-type somebody else's work. I'm just going to give you the links:
http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182,3172_600633685_430175_langId-en,00.html
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage

So, are they lying???? HUH? HUH?

(here are 2 more good ones that more or less summarize the NCI stuff: http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/abcancer.htm
http://www.abortion.org.au/breastcancer.htm)

(It is irresponsible, btw, to call estrogen a carcinogen. Estrogen has many function in the body, one of which can, in some, breast cancers promote the growth.)

jj said...

"The date of a study like this does not matter as long as it was done properly."

?

Look, the so-called "link" can't be disproved because it was never proven in the first place. A possible link was theorized, subsequent studies showed it did not exist. End of story.

If you don't agree with abortion, fine, but don't be a party to the spreading of disinformation just because it bolsters that POV.

Ti Christophe said...

Exactly, JJ.
The link has been DISPROVEN. Therefore it is disinformation and you are doing your argument no good by spreading it...our side on the other hand ....

Wayward Son said...

I have two textbooks on Cancer Biology, both printed within the last 18 months. They both say that a link between abortion and breast cancer is not backed up by evidence. I doubt that it is a political or social bias they are basing that on as they hit other groups - like environmentalists - pretty hard for their bogus, biased studies. They are basing that on large meta-studies and numerous poperly controlled studies. If there is a link large, properly controlled, legitimate studies have not found it.

The textbooks are "The Biology of Cancer" by Weinberg (june 06) and Cancer Biology by Ruddon (March 07).

Joanne (True Blue) said...

W.S. - Thanks. I think that's the closest to any scientific evidence that we've seen here so far today.

Of course that doesn't mean that abortion is totally without risks. The Pro-choice camp seems to minimize it in my opinion - especially emotional issues.

Ti Christophe said...

wha? c'mon gimme a break here, joanne! if you had followed the NCI and Cancer Canada links THEY had the scientific info there. regardless, good job of bringing those to light, WS.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I promise to check everything out carefully afterwards when I get a chance.

Ti Christophe said...

fair enough, joanne.

signing off ....

Anonymous said...

I'll admit i only skimmed denise's post, but here's a question (and apologies if it was mentioned in the post)

if abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, and this is due to the starting and stopping of pg hormones, then would you not see an increase of brest cancer cases in people who miscarry...even numerous times???

Joanne (True Blue) said...

then would you not see an increase of brest cancer cases in people who miscarry

That's what I was wondering.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

While I wading through all this, how do you all feel about gender selection being practiced in Canada - especially B.C.?

As you'll note in the article, one father took it to the extreme.

Anonymous said...

I held my prefectly formed and beautiful 28 week old premature identical twin sons in my arms before they died of complications from their early birth; one at one week and one at 5 weeks.

They would have been 35 years old last December. Nobody can tell me that they were not "people". They were my children. And, you can imagine how I feel when I know people are destroying children at this age and older because they are inconvenient. Your entire post and the comments Joanne have me in tears that so many just do not get it.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Your entire post and the comments Joanne have me in tears that so many just do not get it.

And you didn't see what I deleted.

But thanks so much for sharing your story, as sad as it is. Perhaps only people who have wanted their children but had them die would understand how utterly painful it is for someone else to toss away a life so callously.

liberal supporter said...

if abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, and this is due to the starting and stopping of pg hormones, then would you not see an increase of brest cancer cases in people who miscarry...even numerous times???
The highest breast cancer incidence is (or it was when I heard about it) among nuns and teachers. Nuns because most never get pregnant. Teachers because historically, they were fired when they married so those that were left never got pregnant.


So for public health, not only should pregnant women be forced to bear children whether they want to or not, all women should be forced to breed. There could be rape centres opened to achieve this important goal. Lebensborn anyone?

Wayward Son said...

"if abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, and this is due to the starting and stopping of pg hormones, then would you not see an increase of brest cancer cases in people who miscarry...even numerous times???"

The controversial studies (at least the ones I have seen referred to in a 5 volume genetics encyclopedia of which the name escapes my memory at the moment) actually don't say that it is due to starting and stopping pg hormones. There was the odd study which indicated that women who have their first child under the age 20 may have slightly less risk of breast cancer and some others which found no difference in risk. That is probably how we end up with these debates about abortion and breast cancer risk.

So assuming that those studies can be replicated in larger studies it would mean for instance someone who has never had an abortion and has their first child in their 20s has the same risk as someone who has had an abortion and has their first child in their 20s. Someone who had a child in their teens "may" have a slightly lower risk, but no lower than someone else who had both an abortion in their teens and a child in their teens.

It is not the abortion that increases the risk, afterall someone would still have that slightly lower risk (if it turns out to be true) if they had a child in their teens and then followed it up with a dozen abortions. So it is not a great argument for pro-lifers to make (as it actually says the exact opposite of abstenence only sexual education) and there are well known, established ways to reduce breast cancer risk significantly, whereas at best having a child in your teens may lower risk by the slightest amount.

DeniseCSNM said...

Hi, everyone! I do not believe that abortion doctors should be hunted down and killed, they are deceived. I do believe that they are killing innocent babies, and they do know they are babies with beating hearts, arms, legs, fingers and toes.

There is much blood on their hands. I hope that they will stop this bloodshed, this great crime against humanity and against women.

Many studies prove that abortion damages WOMEN big time... go to www.afterabortion.org for studies and stats.

60% said "part of me died."1
click here for share-able pdf version

The rhetoric of choice hides the reality of coercion.

It's often someone else’s “choice.” 64% of American women who have had abortions felt pressured by others.1

Her “choices” may involve losing her shelter, her family, her income or even her life. Coercion can escalate to violence. 2 Homicide is the leading killer of pregnant women.3

Coercion takes many forms, including undisclosed, deceptive or false information..4

Even though the majority felt rushed, 67% received no counseling; 79% were not told about alternatives.1

Abortion is often a woman’s last choice, but her abuser's first choice.2 America's teens are also at risk for coercion, health injury and suicide. 5

Many who pushed family or friends to abort were also deceived – by experts, authorities, even pastors – about fetal development, alternatives and risks.4, 6

The overall death rate of women rises 3.5 times after an abortion.7 Suicide rates are 6-7 times higher after an abortion.8

65% report symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder they attribute to their abortions.1

"We were maiming at least one woman a month." – Carol Everett, former abortion clinic operator9

It wasn’t safe. It wasn’t fair. It wasn’t about “choice.”




Citations



1. VM Rue et. al., “Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women,” Medical Science Monitor 10(10): SR5-16, 2004.

2. See the special report, Forced Abortion in America at www.unfairchoice.info/Coerced.htm.

3. I.L. Horton and D. Cheng, “Enhanced Surveillance for Pregnancy-Associated Mortality-Maryland, 1993-1998,” JAMA 285(11): 1455-1459 (2001). See also J. Mcfarlane et. al., "Abuse During Pregnancy and Femicide: Urgent Implications for Women's Health," Obstetrics & Gynecology 100: 27-36 (2002).

4. Melinda Tankard-Reist, Giving Sorrow Words (Springfield, IL: Acorn Books, 2007).

5. Sobie & Reardon, “A Generation at Risk: How Pro-Abortionists Manipulate Vulnerable Teens,” The Post-Abortion Review, Vol. 8, No. 1, Jan-Mar. 2000.

6. Carol Everett with Jack Shaw, Blood Money (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Books, 1992). See also Pamela Zekman and Pamela Warwick, “The Abortion Profiteers,” Chicago Sun Times special reprint, Dec. 3, 1978 (originally published Nov. 12, 1978), p. 2-3, 33.

6. M Gissler et. al., “Pregnancy Associated Deaths in Finland 1987-1994 -- definition problems and benefits of record linkage,” Acta Obsetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 76:651-657, 1997. See also, DC Reardon et. al., “Deaths Associated With Pregnancy Outcome: A Record Linkage Study of Low Income Women,” Southern Medical Journal 95(8):834-41, Aug. 2002.

7. M. Gissler et. al., “Injury deaths, suicides and homicides associated with pregnancy, Finland 1987-2000,” European J. Public Health 15(5):459‑63, 2005; and M. Gissler, et. al., “Methods for identifying pregnancy-associated deaths: population-based data from Finland 1987-2000,” Paediatric Perinatal Epidemiology 18(6): 44855, Nov. 2004.

8. VM Rue et. al., “Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women,” Medical Science Monitor 10(10): SR5-16, 2004.

9. From The Ex-Abortionists: Why They Quit, by Frank Joseph, MD (The Human Life Foundation, 215 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10016).

Denise CSNM said...

There is not one or two studies, but over 28 credible world wide studies linking Abortion to Breast Cancer! It has to do with the estrogens, that is why hormone replacement therapy is taboo, and birth control pills too...a young healthy woman who gets pregnant naturally has 2,000 times the estrogens pumped into her breasts in the first 4 months to become milk in a few months for the baby...an induced abortion artificially terminates the pregnancy and those cells never get to differenticate...and over time can become carcinogenic/cancerous...having a baby decreases bc risk...breastfeeding decreases risk see www.abortionbreastcancer.com for studies and ref. and rebuttals on the few studies that deny the link. They are greatly flawed...but studies proving link are MANY!

BTW..an Australian study showed that women who miscarry do have the same elevated rates of estrogens and not the same risk and women who abort their children.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks, Denise. Lots of material to go through here. Excellent.

Many readers here have disputed the breast cancer studies, but no one can dispute the fact that you had complications following your abortions, and that you had years of emotional pain to contend with afterwards.

We must keep this issue open.

DeniseCSNM said...

That Denmark study Jay was RIDICULOUSLY FLAWED!!! Here are the facts!

World Net Daily reported on Professor Joel Brind's latest paper in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons in an article by Ron Strom posted December 1, 2005. Strom said, "Ten studies touted by those who claim there is no link between abortion and breast cancer have been debunked in a new analysis being released today." Brind identified problems with the studies' methodology that make them "thoroughly unreliable."

Importantly, seven out of ten studies identify their funding sources. All seven were funded, at least in part, by governmental agencies, including the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) whose officials have exhibited an extreme hostility to evidence of an abortion-breast cancer link. [Brind J. The abortion-breast cancer connection. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly Summer 2005; p. 303-329.
www.AbortionBreastCancer.com

The NCI funds most of the cancer research in the U.S. Its bureaucrats can make or break a scientific career by either granting or denying a scientist the funds needed to do research. Governmental agencies clearly have an interest in suppressing evidence of an abortion-cancer link because the abortion-cancer link is a politically explosive issue. When women catch on that they've been duped, there will be a severe price to pay. The NCI and its bureaucrats who've participated in the suppression of the evidence should be criminally investigated. Their actions smack of totalitarianism.

Three authors are not pro-choice. They're radically pro-abortion. Polly A. Newcomb, Lynn Rosenberg and Julie Palmer, have testified on behalf of abortion providers who challenged parental notice and consent laws in various states. These are laws that an overwhelming majority of the American people say they want.

In a case in Alaska, Palmer admitted during her deposition that she had once been employed at an abortion clinic. She reveals in her paper, which reportedly examined the effect of the abortion-cancer link on African Americans, that she has "acted as a consultant to the Center for Reproductive Rights and the Cherry Hill Women's Center." [Palmer JR, Rosenberg L, Sowmya Rao R, et al. Induced and spontaneous abortion in relation to risk of breast cancer. Cancer Causes Control 1997;8:841-849]

Rosenberg, on the other hand, was forced to make an important admission under oath while testifying in a 1999 Florida case. She admitted the truth of this statement: ""A woman who finds herself pregnant at age 15 will have a higher breast cancer risk if she chooses to abort that pregnancy than if she carries the pregnancy to term, correct?" Her answer was, "Probably, yes." [Rosenberg (1999) NE FL Women's Health v. State of FL, FL Circuit Ct., 2nd circ., videotape deposition of 11/18/99, pp. 77-78]

Scientists tend to tell the truth when faced with the possibility of being charged with perjury.

Follow the link to the World Net Daily article in our headlines below.

Brind's review article is available at
www.jpands.org
Sincerely,
Karen Malec
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

ABORTION-BREAST CANCER NEWS HEADLINES

"Studies denying abortion-cancer link debunked / Professor's review of latest research upholds causal relationship"

By Ron Strom
World Net Daily
December 1, 2005

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47655


Study: Abortion Fueling Cancer Epidemic

Tuesday, December 4, 2007 6:48 PM

By: Sylvia Hubbard Article Font Size

Only three states — Texas, Minnesota and Mississippi — require doctors to tell women the possible link of abortion to breast cancer.








Having an abortion raises a woman’s risk of breast cancer by at least 30 percent, and is fueling an “epidemic” of the often fatal disease, according to British researchers.


According to a new study published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, young women who had an abortion before having a child are at the greatest risk for developing breast cancer.


The study’s lead author Patrick Carroll calls abortion the single “best predictor” of breast cancer trends.


“An abortion in a young woman who has never had a child has a carcinogenic effect because it leaves breast cells in a state of interrupted hormonal development in which they are more susceptible,” says Carroll, director of research at PAPRI (Pension and Population Research Institute) in London.


The study adds fuel to the already fiery debate between abortion-rights advocates who believe the option to terminate a pregnancy is a basic right, and abortion foes who believe the procedure is morally and ethically wrong.


Abortion-rights proponents argue Carroll’s findings are weak and deny there is a connection between the rise in breast cancer and an increase in abortions.


“This is an issue that opponents of [abortion] have been publicizing and making claims about for at least twenty years,” said Dr. Michael Thun, spokesperson for the American Cancer Society.


“This is an epidemiological study and is considered weak because it has no information on individual behavior, just national behavior,” he tells Newsmax.


For years, medical professionals have agreed that hormonal influences, including the use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT), have an effect on the development of breast cancer. But debate has raged over whether the hormonal changes caused by an abortion performed in a woman’s youth can affect her chances of developing cancer many years later.


Jane Orient, M.D., executive director of the Association of Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. and managing editor of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons agrees with Carroll’s findings.


“It makes a lot of biologic sense,” she tells Newsmax.


Carroll believes that abortions in many countries, including the U.S., tend to be underreported, so past studies examining the link between abortion and breast cancer may have inherent flaws.


In the past, developing reliable statistics has been difficult because of the illegality of abortion and because of the long lag time between the abortion – usually undergone before a woman reaches the age of thirty – and the development of breast cancer, which is most common in women over the age of sixty.


Carroll studied data from eight European countries that are believed to have extremely accurate, official abortion counts: England and Wales; Scotland; Northern Ireland; the Irish Republic; Sweden; the Czech Republic; Finland; and Denmark. He also used those countries’ national cancer registration data for female breast cancer.


Carroll’s predictions are huge and they are dire. He predicts that the incidence of breast cancer in England and Wales will increase by 51 percent by 2025 with abortion being the biggest risk factor.


Even more frightening is the fact that his past predictions, using the same type of data, have been extremely accurate. Using figures from 1997, Carroll predicted 100.5 percent of the cancers observed in the United Kingdom in 2003 and 97.5 percent of all cancers observed in 2004.


Carroll found that Ireland, which has the lowest breast cancer rates in the British Isles, also has the lowest abortion rates. The lower breast cancer rate couldn’t be explained solely by the fact that Irish women were protected by the fact they had more children because southeast England had more cases of breast cancer than average, even though their birth rates were the same as in the rest of the country.


One puzzling fact is that women from upper social classes and more highly paid women have higher rates of breast cancer. “Studies show that the more highly paid women get more breast cancer,” Carroll says. “It’s unexplained.”


Four countries whose statistics were studied by Carroll had already studied the connection between higher earnings and an increase in breast cancer.


“None could explain it without acknowledging abortion,” he says.


In all other cancers, lower classes of women have higher risks of developing cancer. But breast cancer alone is more common in upper class women and those with higher paying jobs. “This is the same group of women who have a greater preference for abortion when pregnant,” Carroll says.


Dr. Orient believes Carroll’s research is very powerful because he is an actuary and outside of the abortion controversy.


“He’s just looking at the math,” she says. “He’s just looking at the cold figures, and his livelihood depends on making accurate predictions of risk. He just wants to know what the risks are so the insurance industry can price their policies appropriately.


“Some doctors will ignore this study because it doesn’t link a particular woman with breast cancer,” she adds. “It’s an ecological study. But so is a lot of epidemiological evidence.


“Correlation doesn’t prove causality, but if you’ve got correlation over such a long period of time, and the correlation is that strong, and you have a plausible biological mechanism, it’s strong evidence. While it isn’t definite proof, it sure calls for an explanation. If abortion doesn’t explain it, then what does?”


Carroll says he’s merely doing his job as an actuary and has no political ax to grind in the debate.


“Actuaries have to anticipate trends,” he tells Newsmax. “If there’s more breast cancer in the pipeline, you need to know so you can anticipate the rates you need to charge for insurance in the future.


“Rightly or wrongly, we’ve had abortion for the past forty years, and now the time has come to look at the results,” says Carroll.


Dr. Orient is afraid that Carroll’s findings will be ignored by the major voices in the medical community. “I think this evidence will be swept aside by many because I don’t think a lot of doctors want to confront it,” she says.


“A majority of doctors are complicit in abortion – either they have referred a patient, or they have not spoken out against it, or they’ve failed to inform their patient of the risks,” she says. “They probably fear they could be held liable if it turns out that abortion is a strong risk factor for breast cancer.


“Doctors know that many of their patients who have abortions really don’t want to do it, but are looking at the immediate problem that’s disrupting their lives,” she adds. “It’s not right to deprive a patient of the information she might find important. Most women really want to know.”


Only three states — Texas, Minnesota and Mississippi — require doctors to tell women the possible link to breast cancer. Kansas, while not mandating that abortion providers inform their patients of the connection, provides information through their state publications and website.


“You certainly can’t say that abortion directly causes breast cancer, but it certainly increases the risk,” says Dr. Orient. “But if it increases the risk by 30 percent, that’s a lot for such a common disease.


The ACS’ Thun, however, believes at least some of the increase in breast cancer can be attributed to rising rates of obesity, not abortion.


“Post-menopausal obesity has been on the rise in the U.K. as well as in North America,” he says. “The main source of estrogen after menopause is fat tissue.” There’s a clear relationship, he says, between [Body Mass Index] and estradiol, the most potent from of estrogen produced by the body after menopause, and breast cancer.”


While both Orient and Carroll agree that obesity may contribute to the general rise in breast cancer, they disagree with Thun’s conclusion. They point out that the increase in breast cancer was higher in upper class women and those with higher incomes.


These women tend to be more body-conscious and watch their weight. Therefore, as a group, upper class women wouldn’t have higher amounts of body fat producing estrogen that could account for their higher rates of breast cancer.


Dr. Thun is adamant there is no connection between rising rates of breast cancer and an increase in abortion.


“A thorough review by the advisory committee of the National Cancer Institute concluded there was no evidence linking induced abortion to breast cancer,” says Dr. Thun. “This study provides no evidence to challenge that conclusion.”


Dr. Orient disagrees.


“Women need to know that the incidence of breast cancer is rising and it is paralleling the rise in induced abortion. The graphs are very, very clear. There are many strong reasons to believe abortion is a factor.”








© 2007 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

DeniseCSNM said...

Sorry...women who miscarry do NOT have the same levels of estrogens as women with healthy pregnancies...and therefore do not have same risks as women who abort healthy babies.

Also, liberal supporter, women can choose who to have sex with, so if they don't want a baby...then don't make one! Once conception takes place there is a perfect tiny baby alive and growing in her womb...it is her child. Adoption is the loving option...sadly abortion has become a violent form of birth control and is child sacrifice!

Sadly, most women were lied to and deceived about fetal development, and told it was a 'safe' procedure...but many of us have been made sterile because of abortion, got cancers, became depressed with the guilt, remorse and deep sorrow at the realization we had our children killed.

We can never bring them back, and want to warn teens and young women about the dangers of abortion...it is not a medical necessity but sadly, like the holocaust is killing the innocent, the unwanted.

Morgentaler's motto is "Every child a wanted child" so if you dont 'want' this child, come to us and we will exterminate it for you...and the Canadian govt. will cover the bill. How sad.

One day you pro abortionists will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

I was blind, but now I see. My fav song is Amazing Grace!

God bless you,
Denise

DeniseCSNM said...

About the woman's body-rhetoric...when a woman gets pregnant...she does not grow another head, two extra legs and arms...no it belongs to her baby!! The baby has his or her own blood type and it was the mother who chose to have sex.

Women need to be informed about the truth...a baby will never hurt them, an abortion will. Many women suffer greatly after abortion physically, emotionally and spiritually! You become the parent of a dead baby...it should be unthinkable that we would have our children killed. It is the greatest crime against humanity in our generation...so many people blinded and deceived by the rhetoric and lies.

If it is not a Baby, then she's not PREGNANT!!!
Abortion is not a black and white issue...it is blood red.

We want to reach out to women suffering in silence about their pain... and let them know there is hope and healing thru faith in Christ.

We know, we've been there, and want to be a voice for our children so they did not die in vain.

DeniseCSNM said...

Hey, I just made a BLOG...how do I advertise it?

It is not just a debate here...we are talking about changing hearts, minds, laws and history to save babies and warn women of the greatest deception of our times.

http://abortionpain.blogspot.com/

thanks,

Denise Mountenay
a voice for the voiceless

jj said...

Newsmax. I'm impressed.

I wish you people would stop citing that idiotic PAPRI study -- it, and the JPANDS, have ZERO credibility in the medical science field.

tori said...

denise,

i can tell you are passionate about this.

obviously, your experience is your truth, but just because it is your truth does not make it other people's truth.

There is a lot of judgement in your last posts. "Abortion is the loving option", for one. Women may choose that option, and that is their right. As is the right to carry the baby to term, and as is the right to terminate the pg.
I'm not about to judge their choices, as I'm not the one who will live with their decisions. What may be right for them may not be right for me.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

i can tell you are passionate about this.

obviously, your experience is your truth, but just because it is your truth does not make it other people's truth.


And that, my friends, is a perfect example of how to debate this issue with respect for another person's opinion and still make your point.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Tori!!!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Hey, I just made a BLOG...how do I advertise it?

You just did. ;)

Seriously, though, if you want some advice just email me at the addy on my profile off the main page at the right.

Ti Christophe said...

SO Carroll's 1 paper is the answer, heh? NO, this is his ONLY paper on this topic.

To hold this up to such high regard is scientifically irresponsible.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is anti-abortion and admit it. From THEIR website (http://www.aapsonline.org/resolutions/2003-2.htm):
"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons supports the right to life of human beings from the moment of conception to natural death."

Their journal is not considered reputable. It is not listed, for example, on Medline (the database of ALL reputable medical journal). Quackwatch.org certainly shares this view:
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/nonrecperiodicals.html

Using this as to support your argument is specious. There is a distinct conflict-of-interest between the organization, the journal, and the article. In the grown-up world of science & medicine (in which I actually work) this could not be taken seriously because of this alone!!

THEREFORE it is NOT a legitimate plank in you argument.

If the research was good, then it should be out in a legitimate journal, not in a hack, conservative, moonbat birdcage liner.

NEXT!!!

Jay said...

Brind is a hack and a liar:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_2_62/ai_83794478

But you'll conveniently find a way to ignore it as well, or you'll "put it off until later".

Denise and JoJo are self deluded individuals, they require that abortion be turned into an evil thing so they can be the heroines that rush in to save the day. They ignore the real science and accept any pseudo-science that supports their preconceptions.

Thats why this can never be a debate, but why it ends up resorting to name calling. Denise accuses people of wallowing in the blood of innocents without so much as a slight repercussion, while the word "ignorant" is censored out, even though the definition of ignorant applied very directly to the topic at hand.

I know you'll go ahead an pull this comment to, Jojo. It is too inconvenient, too critical of your bias and the biases of Roy and Denise. You'll ignore the article I posted above, you'll continue to claim that pro-choice people are mangling the science because we have some sort of motive. In essence you'll continue to be dishonest about this topic.

I'm a scientist, Joanne. I looked at the early data of the ABC link and I was concerned. I thought that maybe, just maybe that the link itself was important, but I never once thought that it could be used as a weapon against choice. So why do you? Why do you grasp at any emotional club to use to beat pro-choice people with?

I actually do think that you have the ability to break yourself away from those that are manipulating you, such as Dr. Roy and Denise. Are you strong enough? Are you intelligent enough?

jj said...

"We want to reach out to women suffering in silence about their pain"

Reach all you want, Denise. I myself did a happy dance as I left the clinic, haven't had a moment of regret ever since, and it wouldn't be going out on a limb to suggest that the vast majority of women who've had abortions feel the same way.

You are entitled to your opinion. But don't for one second think you can impose it on others, and especially not through the dissemination of propaganda that's quickly becoming known in medical science circles as the "reproductive Big Lie".

There is no abortion - breast cancer link. No matter how much you wish there were.

Ti Christophe said...

IN ADDITION: one should always follow the money ...

From Carroll's "article":
"Particular thanks are due to the charities LIFE and The
Medical Education Trust, which funded the research, "

The LIFE charity is a UK-based pro-life organization. Again, all together now, conflict-of-interest!!

Dr. Orient says:
"Dr. Orient believes Carroll’s research is very powerful because he is an actuary and outside of the abortion controversy."
WRONG! Both her and him are very much within the controversy of the validity of the research because of their conflict-of-interest.

The evidence:
1) the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not considered a reputable scientific publication.
2) The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is anti-abortion/pro-life.
3) the funding sources of the article are anti-abortion/pro-ife.

Conclusion:
Dismiss this as legitimate evidence.

You say there are 28 studies for your side? List them here.

Rosie said...

ok, so lengthy comment here. This stuff makes me boiling mad. I will attempt to keep it civil. I can appreciate the need for disclosure, but many women who seek abortion are vulnerable and afraid, and people are going to push their anti-choice agenda by using sensationalistic statistics that even THEY don't understand completely to try to push their agenda influencing the woman's decision.

Where I would understand "them" (establishment, the "eeeevil" government aka "STATE") denying a link is if its NOT obvious and clear. To AVOID sensationalistic hyperbole. Even a tiny relationship between induced abortion and breast cancer (which there is not enough evidence to support), does not outweigh the potential comorbidities associated with pregnancy and childbirth (especially an unwanted pregnancy) such as gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, hernias, uterine perforation, pinched nerves, scarring, ripped perineum, hemmorage, blood clots, incontinence, depression and....oh yah, DEATH. Pregnancy, can, of course not always, really DAMAGE your body. It can potentially KILL you. Now the risk of permanent damage to me is much more important than the tiny risk of breast cancer. How many women with abortion-induced breast (if it exists) cancer die? I'd like to see that number.

When I go in for my pregnancy test, do I sign a disclaimer/waiver that states the pregnancy might indeed kill me? If it does, who does my husband blame? Might I regret my pregnancy later in life, or might my husband if it kills me? Can we sue God? or the government for "tricking" me into wanting to add more Canadians to the global population (you know with that baby-making $1200/yr bonus they give)?

How can you accuse the scientists of being biased when ALL of your "data" comes from anti-abortion sites and catholic leagues and one such Paul Brind who is trying to get funded and further his own agenda? Find me one good study on pubmed (that wasn't conducted by Brind) that links abortion and breast cancer. I do not want any links to conservative websites, or pro-life websites, or religious websites. These people spend so much time with their noses up our hoohoos that I can't trust them to make any kind of unbiased opinions.

Here is a reference for a semi-recent meta-analysis. Volume 363, Issue 9414, 27 March 2004, Pages 1007-1016 (the lancet). If you need a copy, email me. It found that there is no link between breast cancer and induced abortion. It took the results from over 50 studies (excluding those that had flaws) with a total of 83,000 women.
Now, Denise, without going to and parroting a religion site or pro-life site, read the article carefully, and tell me why this meta-analysis is wrong. Tell me what statistics they should have used and how they should have stratified the data. This cohort of data from over 50 research teams and likely over 500 scientists with multiple degrees such as MD's, MScs and PhDs is wrong you say, so tell me why. From what I've read it’s sound scientific protocol. There are more recent studies with the same finding. In fact, in a very recent one GIVING BIRTH within 5 years of cancer onset was actually modestly associated with breast cancer. Let’s sue the government for not informing us on the risks of pregnancy!

It seems convenient for people to become anti-choice AFTER they've had abortions. So, you had your choice, realised it was the wrong one, and now you want to take that choice away from other people. How convenient for you. Sorry lady, this screams hypocrisy to me. And, on top of that, you used the plural form of abortion??????? I am sure there are cases where there is a need for women to get multiple abortions, so I would never want it restricted, but don't go getting more than one abortion and then try to take those rights away from other women, or lying to them to get them to go through an unwanted pregnancy with sensationalistic nonsense. You lost credibility at the "s".

Rosie said...

and BTW, I'm doing my PhD in a cancer related field. Not that I brag about how smart I am, but that I know how easy it is to manipulate data and for one such Brind to be of the few labs who DO find an association, so I don't doubt he was playing statistical gymnastics until he came to the result he desired. If I were to make an educated guess, I would say one guy manipulating his data vs hundreds of others not, I'd put my bets on the one guy. Sorry.

Denise said...

Dear JJ;

You danced out of the abortion clinic after sacrificing your baby's life? Sadly, you are still in denial, that you had your own child killed! It was your baby...how far along were you? Your baby already had a beating heart... Some people denied the holocaust happened, but it really did.

Do you have a family history of breast cancer?

One day your eyes will be opened, and I pray that you will get understanding, and repent and find healing and faith in a loving God who will forgive you, but first you must admit the truth, and that abortion killed your child. A baby will never hurt you.

If you choose to have sex, then you could be choosing preganancy. To take another human life should be unthinkable...not a form of birth control.

Denise said...

Hi Tori;

Adoption is the loving option, is not a judgement, it is a TRUTH! How can killing your baby for selfish reasons be loving your preborn baby?

Babies do NOT choose to be murdered. We all once had our time in our mothers womb...aren't you glad your mother let you live?

God will judge everyone...we make judgements every day...what to wear, where to go, who to be intimate with etc...but when it comes to taking another innocent life how can be right? Babies are victims...and most women do not want an abortion, but are pressured into it by others, and by not being informed about the truth on fetal development and all of the risk factors and irreparable damage to their bodies.

jj, do you work for planned barrenhood? you know all the rhetoric.

abortion stops a beating heart...doctors should be saving lives.
love,
Denise

Denise said...

Ti, here is the list of studies linking Breast Cancer to induced abortion; www.abortionbreastcancer.com/abc
Abortion/Breast Cancer Graphs

These bar graphs have been graciously provided by Chris Kahlenborn, M.D., author of the book, Breast Cancer: It's link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill. The graphs show how the government's denial of a link between abortion and breast cancer at the U.S. National Cancer Institute workshop in 2003 disagrees with the weight of the epidemiological evidence (not to mention the biological evidence). The vast majority of the studies showed risk increases for women who have abortions.

The graphs shown below identify the lead authors for each of the epidemiological studies that were published by the time of the government's workshop in 2003. The blue bars show the percent change for the studies reporting increased risk. The red bars show the percent change for the studies reporting decreased risk.



Tori, JJ, Jay and everyone please go to www.abortionbreastcancer.com/abc to see the mountain of studies linking breast cancer to abortion in the graphs!!
Abortion/Breast Cancer Graphs

These bar graphs have been graciously provided by Chris Kahlenborn, M.D., author of the book, Breast Cancer: It's link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill. The graphs show how the government's denial of a link between abortion and breast cancer at the U.S. National Cancer Institute workshop in 2003 disagrees with the weight of the epidemiological evidence (not to mention the biological evidence). The vast majority of the studies showed risk increases for women who have abortions.

The graphs shown below identify the lead authors for each of the epidemiological studies that were published by the time of the government's workshop in 2003. The blue bars show the percent change for the studies reporting increased risk. The red bars show the percent change for the studies reporting decreased risk.

Comments: A meta-analysis of 47 epidemiological studies conducted in 30 countries in which Beral reported that, "The relative risk of breast cancer decreased by 4.3% (95% CI 2.9-5.8; p<0.00001) for every 12 months of breastfeeding in addition to a decrease of 7.0% (5.0-9.0; p<0.0001) for each birth. The size of the decline in the relative risk of breast cancer associated with breastfeeding did not differ significantly for women in developed and developing countries, and did not vary significantly by age, menopausal status, ethnic origin, the number of births a woman had, her age when her first child was born, or any of nine other personal characteristics examined. It is estimated that the cumulative incidence of breast cancer in developed countries would be reduced by more than half, from 6.3 to 2.7 per 100 women by age 70, if women had the average number of births and lifetime duration of breastfeeding that had been prevalent in developing countries until recently. Breastfeeding could account for almost two-thirds of this estimated reduction in breast cancer incidence."

Interpretation: "The longer women breast feed the more they are protected against breast cancer. The lack of or short lifetime duration of breastfeeding typical of women in developed countries makes a major contribution to the high incidence of breast cancer in these countries."

"Beral V, Bull D, Doll R, Peto R, Reeves G. Collaborative Group of Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and abortion: collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83,000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries. Lancet 2004;363:1007-16.

Patrick Carroll, et al. (2001) "Abortion and Other Pregnancy Related Risk Factors in Female Breast Cancer," Pension and Population Research Institute, London.

"We believe (the incidence of breast cancer) can be better explained if abortion is recognized as a relevant risk factor alongside other pregnancy










Abortion Prior to First Full Term Pregnancy












Beral V (July 20, 2002) The Lancet, 360:187-95.

Comments: A meta-analysis of 47 epidemiological studies conducted in 30 countries in which Beral reported that, "The relative risk of breast cancer decreased by 4.3% (95% CI 2.9-5.8; p<0.00001) for every 12 months of breastfeeding in addition to a decrease of 7.0% (5.0-9.0; p<0.0001) for each birth. The size of the decline in the relative risk of breast cancer associated with breastfeeding did not differ significantly for women in developed and developing countries, and did not vary significantly by age, menopausal status, ethnic origin, the number of births a woman had, her age when her first child was born, or any of nine other personal characteristics examined. It is estimated that the cumulative incidence of breast cancer in developed countries would be reduced by more than half, from 6.3 to 2.7 per 100 women by age 70, if women had the average number of births and lifetime duration of breastfeeding that had been prevalent in developing countries until recently. Breastfeeding could account for almost two-thirds of this estimated reduction in breast cancer incidence."

Interpretation: "The longer women breast feed the more they are protected against breast cancer. The lack of or short lifetime duration of breastfeeding typical of women in developed countries makes a major contribution to the high incidence of breast cancer in these countries."

"Beral V, Bull D, Doll R, Peto R, Reeves G. Collaborative Group of Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and abortion: collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83,000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries. Lancet 2004;363:1007-16.

Patrick Carroll, et al. (2001) "Abortion and Other Pregnancy Related Risk Factors in Female Breast Cancer," Pension and Population Research Institute, London.

"We believe (the incidence of breast cancer) can be better explained if abortion is recognized as a relevant risk factor alongside other pregnancy

farmerboy said...

When a women elects to have an abortion and seeks to have it paid by public money then her decision becomes of interest to me; a taxpayer. Using my money for your personal preference eliminates your opportunity to claim that the mother has the sole input on the decision.

tori said...

denise,

not to gang up on you, but how come you dismiss jj's experience as "denial" and hoist yours up to be the truth? Is it entirely impossible that both your experiences/decisions/beliefs were right for EACH of you?

That is what being pro choice is about- understanding that what worked for you may not work for me. Just because you regret your decision does not mean that every woman will-or even should-regret it, too.

And I'm guessing (although i do not know jj) that no amount of judgement laden words are going to change her mind about the decision she made for herself.

Denise said...

Rosie, of course cancer societies who have billons of dollars in the pink money machine would lose billions once this cover up is exposed. Like when tobacco companies denied the link with smoking and lung cancer.

A LIST OF MAJOR PHYSICAL SEQUELAE RELATED TO
LEGAL ABORTION 1
DEATH: According to the best record based study of deaths following pregnancy and abortion, a 1997 government funded study in Finland, found women who abort are approximately four times more likely to die in the following year than women who carry their pregnancies to term. In addition, women who carry to term are only half as likely to die as women who were not pregnant.(16)
The Finland researchers found that compared to women who carried to term, women who aborted in the year prior to their deaths were 60 percent more likely to die of natural causes, seven times more likely to die of suicide, four times more likely to die of injuries related to accidents, and 14 times more likely to die from homicide. Researchers believe the higher rate of deaths related to accidents and homicide may be linked to higher rates of suicidal or risk-taking behavior.(16) (Click here for details on the latest research regarding abortion associated deaths.)
The leading causes of abortion related maternal deaths within a week of the surgery are hemorrhage, infection, embolism, anesthesia, and undiagnosed ectopic pregnancies. Legal abortion is reported as the fifth leading cause of maternal death in the United States, though in fact it is recognized that most abortion related deaths are not officially reported as such.(2) (Click here for more details on the underreporting of abortion related deaths in the U.S.)
BREAST CANCER:
The risk of breast cancer almost doubles after one abortion, and rises even further with two or more abortions.(3)
CERVICAL, OVARIAN, AND LIVER CANCER:
Women with one abortion face a 2.3 relative risk of cervical cancer, compared to non-aborted women, and women with two or more abortions face a 4.92 relative risk. Similar elevated risks of ovarian and liver cancer have also been linked to single and multiple abortions. These increased cancer rates for post-aborted women are apparently linked to the unnatural disruption of the hormonal changes which accompany pregnancy and untreated cervical damage.(4)
UTERINE PERFORATION:
Between 2 and 3% of all abortion patients may suffer perforation of their uterus, yet most of these injuries will remain undiagnosed and untreated unless laparoscopic visualization is performed.(5) Such an examination may be useful when beginning an abortion malpractice suit. The risk of uterine perforation is increased for women who have previously given birth and for those who receive general anesthesia at the time of the abortion.(6) Uterine damage may result in complications in later pregnancies and may eventually evolve into problems which require a hysterectomy, which itself may result in a number of additional complications and injuries including osteoporosis.
CERVICAL LACERATIONS:
Significant cervical lacerations requiring sutures occur in at least one percent of first trimester abortions. Lesser lacerations, or micro fractures, which would normally not be treated may also result in long term reproductive damage. Latent post-abortion cervical damage may result in subsequent cervical incompetence, premature delivery, and complications of labor. The risk of cervical damage is greater for teenagers, for second trimester abortions, and when practitioners fail to use laminaria for dilation of the cervix.(7)

PLACENTA PREVIA:
Abortion increases the risk of placenta previa in later pregnancies (a life threatening condition for both the mother and her wanted pregnancy) by seven to fifteen fold. Abnormal development of the placenta due to uterine damage increases the risk of fetal malformation, perinatal death, and excessive bleeding during labor.(8)
COMPLICATIONS OF LABOR: Women who had one, two, or more previous induced abortions are, respectively, 1.89, 2.66, or 2.03 times more likely to have a subsequent pre-term delivery, compared to women who carry to term. Prior induced abortion not only increased the risk of premature delivery, it also increased the risk of delayed delivery. Women who had one, two, or more induced abortions are, respectively, 1.89, 2.61, and 2.23 times more likely to have a post-term delivery (over 42 weeks).(17) Pre-term delivery increases the risk of neo-natal death and handicaps.
HANDICAPPED NEWBORNS IN LATER PREGNANCIES:
Abortion is associated with cervical and uterine damage which may increase the risk of premature delivery, complications of labor and abnormal development of the placenta in later pregnancies. These reproductive complications are the leading causes of handicaps among newborns.(9)
ECTOPIC PREGNANCY:
Abortion is significantly related to an increased risk of subsequent ectopic pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancies, in turn, are life threatening and may result in reduced fertility.(10)
PELVIC INFLAMMATORY DISEASE (PID):
PID is a potentially life threatening disease which can lead to an increased risk of ectopic pregnancy and reduced fertility. Of patients who have a chlamydia infection at the time of the abortion, 23% will develop PID within 4 weeks. Studies have found that 20 to 27% of patients seeking abortion have a chlamydia infection. Approximately 5% of patients who are not infected by chlamydia develop PID within 4 weeks after a first trimester abortion. It is therefore reasonable to expect that abortion providers should screen for and treat such infections prior to an abortion.(11)
ENDOMETRITIS:
Endometritis is a post-abortion risk for all women, but especially for teenagers, who are 2.5 times more likely than women 20-29 to acquire endometritis following abortion.(12)
IMMEDIATE COMPLICATIONS:
Approximately 10% of women undergoing elective abortion will suffer immediate complications, of which approximately one-fifth (2%) are considered life threatening. The nine most common major complications which can occur at the time of an abortion are: infection, excessive bleeding, embolism, ripping or perforation of the uterus, anesthesia complications, convulsions, hemorrhage, cervical injury, and endotoxic shock. The most common "minor" complications include: infection, bleeding, fever, second degree burns, chronic abdominal pain, vomiting, gastro-intestinal disturbances, and Rh sensitization.(13)
INCREASED RISKS FOR WOMEN SEEKING MULTIPLE ABORTIONS:
In general, most of the studies cited above reflect risk factors for women who undergo a single abortion. These same studies show that women who have multiple abortions face a much greater risk of experiencing these complications. This point is especially noteworthy since approximately 45% of all abortions are for repeat aborters.
LOWER GENERAL HEALTH:
In a survey of 1428 women researchers found that pregnancy loss, and particularly losses due to induced abortion, was significantly associated with an overall lower health. Multiple abortions correlated to an even lower evaluation of "present health." While miscarriage was detrimental to health, abortion was found to have a greater correlation to poor health. These findings support previous research which reported that during the year following an abortion women visited their family doctors 80% more for all reasons and 180% more for psychosocial reasons. The authors also found that "if a partner is present and not supportive, the miscarriage rate is more than double and the abortion rate is four times greater than if he is present and supportive. If the partner is absent the abortion rate is six times greater." (15)
This finding is supported by a 1984 study that examined the amount of health care sought by women during a year before and a year after their induced abortions. The researchers found that on average, there was an 80 percent increase in the number of doctor visits and a 180 percent increase in doctor visits for psychosocial reasons after abortion.(18)
INCREASED RISK FOR CONTRIBUTING HEALTH RISK FACTORS:
Abortion is significantly linked to behavioral changes such as promiscuity, smoking, drug abuse, and eating disorders which all contribute to increased risks of health problems. For example, promiscuity and abortion are each linked to increased rates of PID and ectopic pregnancies. Which contributes most is unclear, but apportionment may be irrelevant if the promiscuity is itself a reaction to post- abortion trauma or loss of self esteem.
INCREASED RISKS FOR TEENAGERS:
Teenagers, who account for about 30 percent of all abortions, are also at much high risk of suffering many abortion related complications. This is true of both immediate complications, and of long-term reproductive damage.(14)
NOTES
1. An excellent resource for any attorney involved in abortion malpractice is Thomas Strahan's Detrimental Effects of Abortion: An Annotated Bibliography with Commentary (Third Edition) This resource includes brief summaries of major finding drawn from medical and psychology journal articles, books, and related materials, divided into major categories of relevant injuries.
2. Kaunitz, "Causes of Maternal Mortality in the United States," Obstetrics and Gynecology, 65(5) May 1985.
3. H.L. Howe, et al., "Early Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk Among Women Under Age 40," International Journal of Epidemiology 18(2):300-304 (1989); L.I. Remennick, "Induced Abortion as A Cancer Risk Factor: A Review of Epidemiological Evidence," Journal of Epidemiological Community Health, (1990); M.C. Pike, "Oral Contraceptive Use and Early Abortion as Risk Factors for Breast Cancer in Young Women," British Journal of Cancer 43:72 (1981).
4. M-G, Le, et al., "Oral Contraceptive Use and Breast or Cervical Cancer: Preliminary Results of a French Case- Control Study, Hormones and Sexual Factors in Human Cancer Etiology, ed. JP Wolff, et al., Excerpta Medica: New York (1984) pp.139-147; F. Parazzini, et al., "Reproductive Factors and the Risk of Invasive and Intraepithelial Cervical Neoplasia," British Journal of Cancer, 59:805-809 (1989); H.L. Stewart, et al., "Epidemiology of Cancers of the Uterine Cervix and Corpus, Breast and Ovary in Israel and New York City," Journal of the National Cancer Institute 37(1):1-96; I. Fujimoto, et al., "Epidemiologic Study of Carcinoma in Situ of the Cervix," Journal of Reproductive Medicine 30(7):535 (July 1985); N. Weiss, "Events of Reproductive Life and the Incidence of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer," Am. J. of Epidemiology, 117(2):128-139 (1983); V. Beral, et al., "Does Pregnancy Protect Against Ovarian Cancer," The Lancet, May 20, 1978, pp. 1083-1087; C. LaVecchia, et al., "Reproductive Factors and the Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Women," International Journal of Cancer, 52:351, 1992.
5. S. Kaali, et al., "The Frequency and Management of Uterine Perforations During First-Trimester Abortions," Am. J. Obstetrics and Gynecology 161:406-408, August 1989; M. White, "A Case-Control Study of Uterine Perforations documented at Laparoscopy," Am. J. Obstetrics and Gynecology 129:623 (1977).
6. D. Grimes, et al., "Prevention of uterine perforation During Curettage Abortion," JAMA, 251:2108-2111 (1984); D. Grimes, et al.,"Local versus General Anesthesia: Which is Safer For Performing Suction Abortions?" Am. J. of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 135:1030 (1979).
7. K. Schulz, et al., "Measures to Prevent Cervical Injuries During Suction Curettage Abortion," The Lancet, May 28, 1983, pp 1182-1184; W. Cates, "The Risks Associated with Teenage Abortion," New England Journal of Medicine, 309(11):612-624; R. Castadot, "Pregnancy Termination: Techniques, Risks, and Complications and Their Management," Fertility and Sterility, 45(1):5-16 (1986).
8. Barrett, et al., "Induced Abortion: A Risk Factor for Placenta Previa", American Journal of Ob&Gyn. 141:7 (1981).
9. Hogue, Cates and Tietze, "Impact of Vacuum Aspiration Abortion on Future Childbearing: A Review", Family Planning Perspectives (May-June 1983),vol.15, no.3.
10. Daling,et.al., "Ectopic Pregnancy in Relation to Previous Induced Abortion", JAMA, 253(7):1005-1008 (Feb. 15, 1985); Levin, et.al., "Ectopic Pregnancy and Prior Induced Abortion", American Journal of Public Health (1982), vol.72,p253; C.S. Chung, "Induced Abortion and Ectopic Pregnancy in Subsequent Pregnancies," American Journal of Epidemiology 115(6):879-887 (1982)
11. T. Radberg, et al., "Chlamydia Trachomatis in Relation to Infections Following First Trimester Abortions," Acta Obstricia Gynoecological (Supp. 93), 54:478 (1980); L. Westergaard, "Significance of Cervical Chlamydia Trachomatis Infection in Post-abortal Pelvic Inflammatory Disease," Obstetrics and Gynecology, 60(3):322-325, (1982); M. Chacko, et al., "Chlamydia Trachomatosis Infection in Sexually Active Adolescents: Prevalence and Risk Factors," Pediatrics, 73(6), (1984); M. Barbacci, et al., "Post- Abortal Endometritis and Isolation of Chlamydia Trachomatis," Obstetrics and Gynecology 68(5):668-690, (1986); S. Duthrie, et al., "Morbidity After Termination of Pregnancy in First-Trimester," Genitourinary Medicine 63(3):182-187, (1987).
12. Burkman, et al., "Morbidity Risk Among Young Adolescents Undergoing Elective Abortion" Contraception, 30:99-105 (1984); "Post-Abortal Endometritis and Isolation of Chlamydia Trachomatis," Obstetrics and Gynecology 68(5):668- 690, (1986)
13. Frank, et.al., "Induced Abortion Operations and Their Early Sequelae", Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners (April 1985),35(73):175-180; Grimes and Cates, "Abortion: Methods and Complications", Human Reproduction, 2nd ed., 796-813; M.A. Freedman, "Comparison of complication rates in first trimester abortions performed by physician assistants and physicians," Am. J. Public Health, 76(5):550- 554 (1986).
14. Wadhera, "Legal Abortion Among Teens, 1974-1978", Canadian Medical Association Journal, 122:1386-1389,(June 1980).
15. Ney, et.al., "The Effects of Pregnancy Loss on Women's Health," Soc. Sci. Med. 48(9):1193-1200, 1994; Badgley, Caron, & Powell, Report of the Committee on the Abortion Law, Supply and Services, Ottawa, 1997: 319-321.
16. Gissler, M., et. al., "Pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland 1987-1994 -- definition problems and benefits of record linkage," Acta Obsetricia et Gynecolgica Scandinavica 76:651-657 (1997).
17. Zhou, Weijin, et. al., "Induced Abortion and Subsequent Pregnancy Duration," Obstetrics & Gynecology 94(6):948-953 (Dec. 1999).
18. D. Berkeley, P.L. Humphreys, and D. Davidson, "Demands Made on General Practice by Women Before and After an Abortion," J. R. Coll. Gen. Pract. 34:310-315, 1984.
________________________________________

Abortion Risks and Complications, copyright 1997, 2000 Elliot Institute. Compiled by David C. Reardon, Ph.D.

Nicol DuMoulin said...

What this says, regardless of perspective...is that this debate is not over.

Thanks for keeping the debate alive.

Denise said...

Many studies prove that abortion causes depression, anxiety disorders, women who abort are 6 TIMES more likely to commit suicide after, 5 times more likely to turn to alcohol and substance abuse after their abortions...besides the physical and spiritual damage done...YOU can believe whatever you want to. I have talked to hundreds of women who've aborted and have suffered tremendously as a result in many ways...Life is the NATURAL choice!

It is not normal for a woman to have her child or children killed. It is a wrong and not a right!

If you dont want a baby, don't make one, or give it up for adoption... I was dead wrong, I never knew the TRUTH like the majority of teens and young sexually active women. Now I have dedicated my life to proclaiming the TRUTH that abortion HURTS Womens Reproductive health, life and kills babies.

May GOD open the eyes of your understanding, may the blinders be removed.

God bless you,
Denise
Ps...my fav song is AMAZING GRACE!

Abortion Causes Mental Disorders: New Zealand Study May Require Doctors to Do Fewer Abortions
Pro-Choice Researcher Says Some Journals Rejected Politically Volatile Findings
Springfield, IL (Feb. 9, 2005) -- A study in New Zealand that tracked approximately 500 women from birth to 25 years of age has confirmed that young women who have abortions subsequently experience elevated rates of suicidal behaviors, depression, substance abuse, anxiety, and other mental problems.
Most significantly, the researchers – led by Professor David M. Fergusson, who is the director of the longitudinal Christchurch Health and Development Study – found that the higher rate of subsequent mental problems could not be explained by any pre-pregnancy differences in mental health, which had been regularly evaluated over the course of the 25-year study.

tori said...

"Adoption is the loving option, is not a judgement, it is a TRUTH!"

No, adoption is an option, just like carrying the pg to term is one, as is terminating the pg.

It is up to the INDIVIDUAL- not you, not the state, not relatives, or friends to decide which option is best for her. Adoption MAY be the best option for her, but it also may not be.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks for keeping the debate alive.

Obviously there is a lot of passion on both sides, Nicol.

For the most part, folks have been quite respectful. The few that haven't, have been deleted or banned.

Denise said...

Thanks Nicol, if one woman lets her baby live...it makes this ALL worth while!!

TRUTH is LOVE...now connect the dots jj, jay and all...cancer societies agree that delaying a first full term pregnancy increases risk of breast cancer right? Well most abortions are done on the FIRST pregnancy!!!

Not having babies increases a womans risk of BC...well abortion can cause fertility problems and sterility...

Hormone Replacement Therapy increases risk of BC...

WHO stated that long term use of birth control pills increases risk of bc...all to do with higher levels of estrogens...

again the fact that 2,000 times the estrogens are naturally pumped into the breasts of healthy pregnant woman in first trimester...an induced abortion artificially terminates the pregnancy and those cells never get to become the milk they were intended to be, and over time, can become carcinogenic...

Sadly, cancer societies do not even ask the question on how many abortions you have had before going for a mammogram...but they do ask, how many pregnancies, how many births, miscarriages and stillbirths...why not ask about abortions too?? They are afraid to let the cat out of the bag...its politically incorrect, and women will be outraged when they find out these studies have been there for YEARS!!! not one or two but over 2 DOZEN credible studies!!!
www.abortionbreastcancer.com common sense tells me there is a link.

Denise said...

Why is there a breast cancer epidemic now?? Women are getting older and the symptoms are manifesting...YES, lets ask women who are fighting bc, if they ever aborted when they were younger.... connect the dots! Follow the money.

love,
Denise

Denise said...

Tori...sorry, but you jj and jay just don't get it!! How can child sacrifice, having one's baby killed be okay with you?

So you all have NO problem with suicide bombers...they CHOOSE to blow up innocent people... it is their CHOICE!! Don't push your morals on them...it quite okay, and they should get away with murder...no problem...kill the unwanted hitler said...this is hitler thinking to believe its okay to kill innocent people no matter the race, religion or how small they are, or where they temporarily reside!

We all spent time in our mothers womb.

God help you understand.
love,
denise

Jay said...

Sorry Denise, but your willful ignorance about the false ABC link doesn't somehow make it true, so unfortunately you'll continue to try to get your lie out to pregnant women that are weighing their legal options. You latched onto this issue because you believe it strengthens your case, yet when enough evidence is compiled and placed in front of you, you willfully ignore it. If you want to stop abortion, then do so with the truth, not with flawed studied funded by religious institutions. Also, slandering institutions that are funding cancer cures is making for a pretty weak case, you might just want to try something different.

The cancer foundations fund the research through countless Universities as well as through their own research institutions. So in order for your conspiracy theory to be correct, tens of thousands of people around the world would have to be covering up the truth.

This issue is just like the anti-vaccination issue, full of emotional guilt trips and false claims that are impossible to unroot, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I can't make you understand the science, I can't change your mind, but I can educate other people to your lies, misinformation and your emotional garbage.

I think people that lie to women that are trying to make one of the most difficult decisions of their life is absolutely outrageous and there should be some repercussions for your actions. Maybe making you aware that a great part of the world thinks poorly of you and your actions is my little part of that.

Denise said...

Great POINT farmerboy!! Abortion is not a medical necessity...but the majority is used as birth control.

We should not be paying for this bloodshed...especially since huge shortages of doctors, nurses, teachers,etc...where have all the children gone??

We have not even replaced ourselves for 30 years since over 100,000 babies aborted every year in Canada...now we have aging, dying population...however we can look forward to huge muslim populations as they do not abort and most have huge families they want to mulitply for allah.

God bless them, God bless you.

Anonymous said...

"again the fact that 2,000 times the estrogens are naturally pumped into the breasts of healthy pregnant woman in first trimester...an induced abortion artificially terminates the pregnancy and those cells never get to become the milk they were intended to be, and over time, can become carcinogenic..."

and the difference between an abortion that is induced and a miscarriage is....?

Hormones are smart, but I'm guessing that they don't know the difference between an induced abortion and a miscarriage...either way, the woman is left with "cells (that) never got to become the milk they were intended to be".

We should see increases in breast cancer in this population, too. Do we?

From my relatively little knowledge, I'm guessing that there is more evidence toward an age of 1st pg/breast cancer correlation than there is to an abortion/breast cancer relationship. The idea that as the your age @ 1st pg increases, so too does your chance of breast cancer.

Of course, even that would not be fatalixtic, as there are many protective variables that may decrease the odds, such as lack of familial history, non smoking, good diet.

tori said...

"Tori...sorry, but you jj and jay just don't get it!! "

Denise,

I am respectfully trying to debate this with you, without resorting to personal attacks. I wish you would do the same. To say that "I don't get it" while I have been quite respectful of where you are coming from is a bit of a low blow.

Sorry, Jo....I am trying to be respectful...but I don't deserve that.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Sorry, Jo....I am trying to be respectful...but I don't deserve that.

Tori, that line bothered me too, but I let it pass. It's tough being a moderator in a topic like this.

I think there comes a point when people just have to agree to disagree because you realize you'll never change the other person's mind.

I respect your position on abortion, Tori, although I personally don't agree with it. But I do agree that we have to be very careful not to use disparaging remarks.

Rosie said...

Denise,

where did you find that review and how come all the references are from the early 80s and late 70s? There have been significant advances in epidemiology that have allowed greater tracking and better surveys that correct for some of the error that comes from retrospective reporting. In addition, there have been a number of prospective studies since then (that follow people along with a research question in mind instead of going back and making associations when many elements -like genetic risk and environmental factors-have not been taken into consideration because that wasn't what the study was originally designed for). LIke I said, show me one GOOD study that shows a link. The study must be recent (since the 90's) and not by Brind and PRIMARY research, as in not a literature review.

Again, show me another study that refutes the link and why it is wrong. You don't know the facts. You are parroting. Convince me. I'm pro-choice but if there was a significant link (that would outweigh the risk of carrying a to-term pregnancy) then I really would like to know about it so I could warn others. From what I've heard, its a bunch of religious zealot rhetoric and not helpful to anyone.

Another point is that PREGNANCY itself can result in many of these complications you list in this not very recent dated review from wherever you pulled it-liekly not peer-reviewed. You have to rule out the effect of being pregnant in the first place.

I am sorry for your abortions (several????????). If god forgives then i guess you got a "get-out-of-jail-free" card. Others, who have unwanted pregnancies and in the future may not be able to access abortion services will certainly not get that chance if people like you get your way. Convenient for you isn't it?

Ti Christophe said...

ok, I've had it here.

Just like all religious wingnuts, you continue to believe FALSEHOODS when you are faced with evidence that completely contradicts your POV.

You do not wish to even consider the evidence on the other side. I, on the other hand, would consider the evidence on the side IF it wasn't actually full of so much holes.

erghhhh.....

Admit, for your own reputation, that: YOU ARE WRONG ON THIS ISSUE.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

And just for the record, 'Religious wingnuts' is also an example of unacceptable name-calling and lack of respect. (For the benefit of someone who just left a comment which will stay in the hopper. Try again.)

Ti Christophe said...

apologies for calling people "wingnuts" ... just getting riled up over the lack of people of paying attention.

i paid attention to your facts and determined quite quickly that were false and misleading.

if you want to research this appropriately, then do a search on MedLine/PubMed where legitimate medical research can be found.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks, Ti Christophe. I appreciate the cleaned-up version.

I'm going to have to go out for a while, so everyone should just take a deep breath now. If you want to leave a comment that's fine, but it won't be moderated until later.

Go walk off some steam. ;)

jj said...

"Why is there a breast cancer epidemic now??
OMG, LOL.

Denise, there's more breast cancer being discovered because diagnostic tools have improved so much and are used more routinely. 30 years ago nobody got an annual mammogram.

Please, just stop. It's getting painful.

Anonymous said...

Joanne:

Why do you complain about someone using the phrase "religious wingnuts" while Denise gets away with describing women as "radical feminists?"

How about some consistency here?

Denise said...

Lawsuits will be coming against abortion doctors and possibly cancer societies for not informing women about ALL of the risk factors with abortion!

ABORTION-BREAST CANCER NEWS HEADLINES

"Oregon Judge Dale Koch dooms abortion industry to bankruptcy"
( Oregon follows Australia )
By Brent Rooney

The first private settlement (but there was no court ruling) ever of an ABC (Abortion Breast Cancer) claim occurred in County Court of Victoria, Australia (Medical Division) (Case No. 2000/06190) via mediation on 3 August 200l. I am informed that Australia's Endeavour Forum helped bring about the ABC claim.

In mid May 2001 in less than 20 minutes a 15-year-old Portland, Oregon teenager (F.B.) more than doubled her breast cancer risk in less than 20 minutes. This 'service' was delivered by a medical doctor at the All Women's Health Services clinic. In February 2004 F.B.'s lawyer, Jonathan Clark, filed legal claims against the clinic with one of the claims being risk of breast cancer:

"20. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' wrongful acts
and defendants' failure to fulfill their duty of care to
plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered an increased risk of breast
cancer, severe and debilitating emotional injury, pain and
suffering, physical and emotional trauma, and permanent
psychological damage." [F.B.'s first set of claims were filed
on 7 July 2003]








In January 2005 the defendant (AWHS) conceded the plaintiff's claims via an "Offer of Judgement". When the defendant clinic (AWHS) made its offer of judgment, the "Stipulated General Judgment" was signed by Judge Dale Koch on 24 January 2005 giving "F.B." her legal victory.

Why this victory seals the bankruptcy fate of the abortion industry

Dr. Janet Daling, who is 'pro-choice', was the lead author of a 1994 study that reported that women with a family history of breast cancer and who had an IA (Induced Abortion) under age 18 had an extremely high relative risk of developing breast cancer under the age of 45 years. (Daling JR, Maline KE, Voigt LF, White E, Weiss NS. Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: Relationship of Induced Abortion. JNCI 1994;86;1584-1592) Dr. Daling is and was a medical researcher at the prestigious Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington. There were twelve Washington State women in that study with a family history of BC (Breast Cancer) and who also had an IA before age 18. All dozen were in the BC group and none were in the cancer free control group; this was a statisticallysignificant result.

'F.B.' informed AWHS of her family history of BC before the IA procedure was performed. She won her suit for being put 'at elevated risk' of BC, but being only 18 in February 2001 she has not developed breast cancer. Her monetary settlement with AWHS would have been much larger if she had breast cancer when the law suit was filed.

There will be 'copy-cats' of 'F.B.' and some of them will actually have breast cancer. So, the ABC (Abortion Breast Cancer) lawsuits will 'snow ball'. Is it rare for a pregnant teenager to have a family history (mother, aunt, sister, or grandmother) with breast cancer? Hardly, since at least 15% of pregnant teenagers will have a family history of BC. As she gets older more of her close relatives could develop BC.

Bottom line

"A woman's right to choose .... abortion-quackery resulting in higher risk of breast cancer" will die in the liberal's favorite arena, the courtroom. Where to go for more information about the ABC risk:
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com
http://www.bcpinstitute.org

Can 'F.B.' file future lawsuits for her May 2001 abortion?

'F.B.' agreed to a private settlement with AWHS following her 25 January 2005 legal victory. Even if that agreement precludes future lawsuits by her against AWHS, any future F.B. offspring with birth defects are NOT precluded from suing AWHS for elevated risk of birth defects. One such birth defect is CEREBRAL PALSY. For background to the ABD (Abortion Birth Defects) risk, readers can visit:
http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf

The foremost researcher revealing the risk of extremely premature birth (gestation under 28 weeks) due to prior induced abortions is Judith Lumley of Australia. Health Minister Hon. Tony Abbott has been alerted to the premature birth risk of prior induced abortions.

Since there are about 1.3 million U.S. abortions yearly, about 260,000 teens are put at elevated risk of breast cancer yearly; about 39,000 will have a family history of breast cancer. These are ominous numbers for the medical malpractice insurance industry.







[F.B.'s attorney in her lawsuit against AWHS was Jonathan Clark, Esq. of Portland, Oregon; the second private settlement of an ABC legal claim was won by a Pennsylvania woman in Oct. 2003]

......................................................................

Brent Rooney
Reduce Preterm Risk Coalition
Vancouver, Canada
email: stopcancer@yahoo.com

See also:

http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/correspondence.pdf
http://www.jpands.org/vol10no3/correspondence.pdf

Texas warns about both Abortion-Cancer and Abortion-Birth-Defects
"Woman's Right to Know"
Texas Department of Health:
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/pdf/booklet.pdf


"Texas warns of abortion-cerebral palsy link / Becomes 1st state to tell women of procedure's connection to disease"
WorldNetDaily
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36363

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.

Tax-deductible, credit card donations can be made at http://www.AbortionBreastCancer.com. Donations can be mailed to: the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, P.O. Box 957133, Hoffman Estates, IL 60195. The IRS recognizes the coalition as a 501(c)3 organization.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
http://www.AbortionBreastCancer.com

Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
http://www.BCPInstitute.org

Polycarp Research Institute
http://www.polycarp.org

Ti Christophe said...

Denise,

To start with I want you to know that I do not belittle your experience, so I'm not personally attacking you. From what you have said, you seen to have had rough go of it , and that sucks for anybody. Even if I don't agree with you, that doesn't mean I hate
you or wish ill-will to you. And I'm an atheist!

The evidence, even on the ABC website, contradicts their and your claim.

1) Carroll's work is NOT independent. He is in huge conflict-of-interest, which in the scientific community means he will not be taken seriously.

2) the AASP journal is not a reputable or respected journal.

3) Beral et al 2002 has nothing to do with abortion.

4) Beral et al 2004 actually states that there is NOT the ABC link. I must conclude that the ABC page didn't even look at that article they decided to reference.

Simply put: you cannot use those references to support your claim. If you do not believe me, check out the links I left in previous posts. It is quite plain to see.

Please do not refer to them again as all they do is weaken your case, as well as make yourself seem unreasonable.

I looked at some of what you presented, so I would ask the same of you.

Ti Christophe said...

Denise,

please respond to whether you have looked at the info i provided concerning the validity of the references, and hence the foundation of a large part of your argument.

to restate:
1) Carroll's work is NOT independent. He is in huge conflict-of-interest, which in the scientific community means he will not be taken seriously.

2) the AASP journal is not a reputable or respected journal.

3) Beral et al 2002 has nothing to do with abortion.

4) Beral et al 2004 actually states that there is NOT the ABC link. I must conclude that the ABC page didn't even look at that article they decided to reference.

thank you

Ti Christophe said...

and don't just blatantly copy something from another website, actually respond to what stated.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I won't be allowing any more comments on this post, unless they're concise and without attacks of any kind.

Short, sweet and polite please.

Ti Christophe said...

"and don't just blatantly copy something from another website, actually respond to what stated."

is that an attack? seriously?

Joanne (True Blue) said...


is that an attack? seriously?


No. I was referring to a comment which I didn't allow through.