Planned Parenthood Chicago: Peyton Place
It never occurred to me before today that the shorthand we use for Planned Parenthood, “PP,” could also stand for Peyton Place.
Eric Scheidler has posted two juicy lawsuits against PP Chicago Area and its CEO Steve Trombley.
First there’s the one filed by former PPCA head abortionist Murray Pelta. According to the lawsuit, he started aborting for PPCA in 1992, was promoted to chief baby killer in 1997, and was fired by Trombley on February 28, 2007.
Here’s one bit of juice from the lawsuit, leading up to the reason for the complaint (click to enlarge; page break removed for flow)….
Eww.
Then the reason Pelton got fired (click to enlarge; page break removed for flow):
You can’t make this stuff up. What a seedy, pathetic world these people live in. Understandably.
Pelter also alleged in his complaint that Trombley pegged him as the fall guy after a successful lawsuit of a patient who claimed she was given “improper medical advice” from “non-licensed PPCA personnel, this after Pelter said he had warned Trombley this was bad form.
The second lawsuit was brought by RN Nicole Chesis against PPCA and associate medical director, Darryn Dunbar*. Dunbar fired Chesis on April 10, 2007. It would be a typical disgruntled employee lawsuit except it had to do with PP, which picqued my interest. Accusations flew, and mind you, these are by PP employees, not by pro-lifers:
“… changing dates on ultrasounds so that patients would have to pay a higher price for abortion servics….” “… failure to ensure the presence of an anesthesiologist, licensed physician or registered nurse in or around the recovery room when sedation patients are present….” “… unlicensed employees with no medical training, were performing improper ultrasounds and were making ultrasound diagnoses….” “… prescrib[ing] Depo-Provera to a patient with a history of depression” with the counter charge that “prescribing of Depo-Provera to patients with depressive orders is not prohibited….”
In that lawsuit Chesis mentioned the names of two other PPCA employees, and since I’m always interested in outting them, here they are: “Tina Boyer, the manager of the Near North Center” and “Rachel Bergstrom-Carlson, PP/CA’s Regional Manager.”
UPDATE, 11/5, 3p: *I have corrected Dunbar’s title.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I wonder why the PPCA board member wasn’t more proud of her choice.
Maybe PPCA needs to require its board members to go the sex ed classes they offer for teens so they can help reduce the number of abortions among the board members.
Didn’t someone say that better access to contraception and sex ed would help reduce abortions?
Didn’t someone imply that Phill Kline was wasting time because PP properly files paperwork?
At least on PP abortionist disagrees.
Today (Monday) marks Day 34 of the 40 days of harassment and thanks to you clients are still getting the health care and information they need to live and love the way that?s best for them. We couldn’t do it without our superhero client escorts! Our volunteer escorts continue to greet clients walking from the parking lots to the front doors of Planned Parenthood. They help clients feel safe, comfortable and make that short walk rather uneventful. A special thank you to new escorts who signed up to help after they were escorted in to our health centers. Here are messages from a few who visited our Fannin health center and volunteered to become one of our newest escorts:
I don?t think anyone should ever have to walk through harassment to get to a health clinic.
I know some clients may be intimidated from accessing Planned Parenthood’s many services because of zealous protestors. I can change that.
Thanks to people like these escorts who believe that every individual can truly make a difference, we continue with business as usual– helping women and men get health care so they can live healthy lives. As the largest breast and cervical cancer screener in the United States , Planned Parenthood is actively working to end cancer in our lifetime. That is why we are supporting Proposition 15 on the ballot this November. Prop. 15 will authorize $3 billion to create the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute to conduct invaluable cancer research that could help cure cancer in our lifetime. Cancer has taken it’s toll on Texans: 85,000 Texans are diagnosed with cancer and 35,000 die from it each year. Help cure cancer and vote yes on Prop 15 on November 6th.
Thanks to all of you who have already donated or volunteered your time! We?ve got 7 more days to go and hope you’ll become a superhero! You can be a part of helping women and men across Houston and southeast Texas continue to get health care and information without harassment! It’s not too late to volunteer or donate.
Join the Planned Parenthood superhero community!
33 days down, 7 to go. Still no match for 71 years of service.
PP sent me this e-mail today!
OOOOHHHH, I wanna be a superhero too!! LOL!
oh, GAG!! “Planned Parenthood …. curing cancer one dead baby at a time!”
MY HERO!!
*vomit*
….and one more thing …. explain to me how silent prayer = harrassment.
????
As the largest breast and cervical cancer screener in the United States , Planned Parenthood is actively working to end cancer in our lifetime.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That’s fabulous! It’s so good to be part of the cure. Makes me proud…
Kristi, seems they are contributing to the very disease they are causing.
….and one more thing …. explain to me how silent prayer = harrassment.
????
I’m participating in 40 days in Atlanta, and believe me — there is NO harrassment that’s happening there from the pro-lifers! However, I HAVE seen more than my fair share of middle-fingers and shouts of profanity by passersby while we pray! Last week some freak on a bicycle even spit on me!
PP isn’t the largest breast and cervical cancer screener in the US. All the OB/GYN doctors in the US are, they just aren’t affiliated with each other. Just another skewed statistic by PP.
“YOU TOO CAN BE A SUPERHERO!!!! Volunteer to be the forceps-holder who rips the limbs off an unborn baby! If you work hard and show dedication, we may promote you to official skull crusher!”
mmm-hmm. It’s the same superhero stuff comic books are made of.
PP isn’t the largest breast and cervical cancer screener in the US. All the OB/GYN doctors in the US are, they just aren’t affiliated with each other. Just another skewed statistic by PP.
Good point! And if PP would stop aborting babies, there would be a lot less breast cancer to screen for!!!
Abortion has nothing to do with breast cancer. Every reputable study and every major cancer research entity will tell you that.
Do try to keep up.
Kristi and Anon, put on your Superhero capes y’all! We will wear our red shirts with blue PP lettering across our chests! Up, up, and AWAY!
Heather,
regarding bond issue to fund cancer research.
http://prop15fact.org/prop15/are-cancer-bonds-worth-the-cost.html
“The marketing machine to convince you to grow government and spend more of your money is churning again
Sorry, Anon was me.
Abortion has nothing to do with breast cancer. Every reputable study and every major cancer research entity will tell you that.
Do try to keep up.
Posted by: Laura
Laura, that depends on which reputable study you are quoting. There have been conflicting studies that conclude both ways …. the bottom line is, it’s a link that deserves more consideration.
Do try and keep up.
Wait, not the 5:44 post. That wasn’t me.
spend $3 billion over 10 years to help look for a cure to cancer. Which cancer? What type? You know, um, cancer.
I was thinking that too when I read PP’s message!!! Just cancers that occur in women? Or men and women? Cervical cancer? Blood cancers? Tyroid cancer? Brain cancer? Lung cancer? Prostate cancer? etc/etc/etc…..
okay, I’m off to cook dinner.
~toodles~
Kristi, I wondered the same thing! PP will cure all cancer! dadadadada…CHARGE!
Laura,
http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf
Do try to keep up.
Laura,
http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf
Do try to keep up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is a schlocky “pay to publish” rag.
It’s the kind of place where non-medicos like Brind and Reardon pay to publish their “work,” as you don’t have to be neither a physician nor surgeon to get your “work” in print.
I’ll stick with the Harvard study and every major cancer research association.
Question for those denying abortion has anything to do with breast cancer: Do you acknowledge a full-term delivery protects against breast cancer?
Question for those denying abortion has anything to do with breast cancer: Do you acknowledge a full-term delivery protects against breast cancer?
Posted by: Jill Stanek at October 29, 2007 6:11 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes. I bet a late-term abortion would provide the same protection.
Actually, taking a low-estrogen birth control pill provides the same protection as it mimics pregnancy for years on end.
Breast Cancer risk calculator-
http://www.halls.md/breast/risk.htm
When you select longer pill usage your risk rises.
When you select first baby by age 19, your risk sinks.
Other risks also included.
http://www.divine.ca/en/breast-cancer-corner/breast-cancer-risk-calculator/c_244/
another risk calculator
also includes pill use as a risk.
“Trombley even occasionally asked Dr. Pelta for favors, such as discreet medical prescriptions for Trombley’s personal use…”
Gotta wonder what the drugs were for.
Wasn’t it Dr. Nathanson who said he had entered “the satanic world of abortion”?
It just kind of spirals out of control after awhile…
Back to this post…
The medical staff and board members of PP certainly seem to be real winners here. Board members asking for abortions (probably on the house), presidents asking for discreet prescriptions and then using unlicensed staff to perform testing.
This is good reason to alert teens and others to never to go there for anything — they are not professionals. No doctor or nurse anywhere near the top of his class would choose to join this outfit. Any ‘care’ they offer is questionable at best. If these lawsuits are any indication of how the staff is treated, imagine how patients are handled.
I really wonder how valid their ‘cancer screenings’ could be if they have no profit motive involved in the diagnosis. Are volunteers reviewing the test results or are there actual doctors involved? If they are willing to falsify ultrasounds to make more money — why not falsify other tests? Do they have offer any cancer treatment? I don’t think so…
No, abortion does not cause breast cancer. This is now definitively established. See for instance http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/140/8/620
RTLs are so funny. They reason: We WANT abortion to cause breast cancer, therefore it does.
From a recent speech by John Edwards:
“Recently, I was dismayed to see headlines in the Wall Street Journal stating that Senate Democrats were backing down to lobbyists for hedge funds who have opposed efforts to make millionaire and billionaire hedge fund managers pay the same tax rate as every hard-working American. Now, tax loopholes the wealthy hedge fund managers do not need or deserve are not going to be closed, all because Democrats — our party — wanted their campaign money.
Down one path, we trade corporate Democrats for corporate Republicans; our cronies for their cronies; one political dynasty for another dynasty; and all we are left with is a Democratic version of the Republican corruption machine.”
I really like John Edwards but I just can’t vote for a pro abortion guy.
Somg,
I am not sure what you thought you were posting but what you posted was not a breast cancer study, nor was it about breast cancer.
Somg,
that was me
It’s a primer on abortion for internists. And right in the abstract it says: “Of importance, no link exists between induced abortion and later breast cancer. ”
Jill,
“Question for those denying abortion has anything to do with breast cancer: Do you acknowledge a full-term delivery protects against breast cancer?”
Yes, I do acknowledge this but it is hardly a reason for someone to go out and have a baby. There are some protections that are simply not worth the cost.
Hippie, just to make you happy, go here: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/336/2/81
This also from the site Somg cited.
http://www.annals.org/cgi/eletters/140/8/620#1126
Abortion As Secondary Prevention 10 May 2004
Warren W. Furey,
M.D., M.A.C.P.
Mercy Hospital and Medical Center
Send rapid response to journal:
Re: Abortion As Secondary Prevention
Email Warren W. Furey
The review of Induced Abortion: An Overview for Internists, paints a very favorable picture of abortion. It is common, “43% of all women would have had one or more abortions during their reproductive years, more than 30 million U.S. women now share this experience”. Abortion is one of the “safest procedures in contemporary practice”, there are “no harmful sequelae” and “for most women abortion allows an overall improvement in quality of life”. Abortion is reasonably priced because “clinics have intentionally tried to keep the price within reach of women with limiteed means”. And now a “broader variety of physicians, including family practitioners, pediatricians and internists may be able to provide medical abortion”. “Induced abortion represents secondary prevention of pregnancy”.
Maybe the terminology is correct, but it fails to clearly state that this particular secondary prevention is done with the sacrifice of a living, totally dependent human fetus. I remember pre Roe vs. Wade septic problems that desperate women suffered at the hands of unskilled abortionists or at their own ill-conceived effort to be rid of a pregnancy. The abortion issue is impossible to discuss without arousing passionate opinions from opposite ends of the spectrum. I don’t know how many women really like the idea of abortion, but many people feel that the woman who is pregnant should be able to make a decision whether she will deliver the baby she has conceived. I do not agree with that position but they have a right to their opinion.
Many people, including many women and physicians, feel abortion is intrinsically wrong because it is the destruction of innocent life and much more than a “secondary prevention of pregnancy”. The tragedy is that such a large number, “one for every four live births”, result in abortion. Physicians should address the problems of unwanted pregnancy through education, primary prevention and adoption.
Also, Jill, the protective effect of having a kid is small.
Yes, Hippie, there’s a whole set of replies to the Grimes&Creinin article; one of them even quotes David C. Reardon, provoking laughter from G&C.
Somg,
from the NEJM article you posted.
Women without a history of induced abortion accounted for 25,850,000 person-years of follow-up. In this group, there were 8908 cases of breast cancer. In comparison, among women with a history of induced abortion, accounting for 2,697,000 person-years of follow-up, there were 1338 cases of breast cancer.
3,446 cases per million person years for women w/o induced abortion.
4,961 cases per million person years for women with induced abortion.
These are the actual numbers from the study.
For the math challenged, the abortion group had a little more than a 30% higher incidence of breast cancer according to the study that Somg posted.
Then why did they say in the abstract: “After adjustment for known risk factors, induced abortion was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (relative risk, 1.00”
???
I can only get the abstract.
SoMG,
The nejm article is ten years old. Here’s a new study on the ABC risk by Patrick S. Carroll, M.A. just published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Fall 2007.
http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf
Go back and read the full text.
They adjusted for age at time of first full term pregnancy, etc.
The biggest risk increases according to the study were among women aged 12-19 at time of abortion and among women who had abortions at greater gestational age of fetus.
Somg,
I got the full text by clicking on the FULL TEXT link from the page you posted.
Not really an INCREASE even in the “high-risk” category (youngest group, ages 12-19) because the 95% confidence interval includes 1.00. So technically you can’t call it an increase.
OK I registered with them, so now I can see the whole article.
Gabby, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not a good source–it’s a fake. Sorry.
Not really an INCREASE even in the “high-risk” category (youngest group, ages 12-19) because the 95% confidence interval includes 1.00. So technically you can’t call it an increase.
Posted by: SoMG at October 29, 2007 9:49 PM
The study authors called it an increase. I just repeated it.
Other interesting comments from the authors.
With each one-week increase in the gestational age of the fetus, however, there was a 3 percent increase in the risk of breast cancer.
The increased risk among women who had had second-trimester abortions finds biologic support in experiments in rats and is in line with the hypothesis of Russo and Russo.
Subjects’ CRS numbers were subsequently linked with the Danish Cancer Registry to identify the subjects with a diagnosis of invasive breast cancer.
I am not a breast cancer experts so I wonder if “invasive breast cancer” includes all diagnoses of breast cancer.
Does anyone know?
It was very interesting to see how upset the doctors were in responding to the article Somg posted.
http://www.annals.org/cgi/eletters/140/8/620#1126
Timing of The Abortion Reviw Article 4 May 2004
Ara apelia,
MD
Send rapid response to journal:
Re: Timing of The Abortion Reviw Article
Email Ara apelia
The timing of your review article on abortion coincided with the abortion parade in Washington DC.This raises quetions regarding the political motivation in publishing what seems to be a totally one sided account of the abortion issue.
As internists,whenever we treat a young woman in childbearing age,we go out of our way to assertain that the patient is not pregnant, before ordering X-rays, nuclear scans,or before prescribing potentially teratogenic medications to the prospective mother.We give nutrition advice, lifestyle councel to avoid harming the fetus.We keep the mother’s AND the fetus’s well being and best interest in mind.
It is disappointing to see that your authors totally disregarded the significant OTHER in pregnancy,namely the fetus!The unseen elephant in the room.
Even a toddler if presented with pictures of modern fetal ultrasounds in their “abortable age”,they will unmistakably identify them as human babies, full with life, movement and limbs.
When our children one day reflect on these pictures, and contemplate the 1973 Supreme Court decision, they certainly will recognise the intentional and ideological hemianopsia that has prevented the single minded proponents of abortion to notice the unseen truth, life before birth,which they have chosen to keep in the dark.
Here is another from Somg’s article post.
Gerald P. Bodey,
M.D.
Send rapid response to journal:
Re: this article
Email Gerald P. Bodey
I would take issue with the statement made by Grimes and Creinen in their review entitled,
Question for those denying abortion has anything to do with breast cancer: Do you acknowledge a full-term delivery protects against breast cancer?
Not necessarily, Jill.
Per the National Institutes of Health (aka our tax dollars at work):
http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report
# Breast cancer risk is transiently increased after a term pregnancy. (1)
# Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk. (1)
# Recognized spontaneous abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.
There are conflicting studies on the abortion/breast CA link. It doesn’t make the PCers link more true. Why can’t PCers admit that there is a possibility that the 2 are linked? I can even meet you 1/2 way and say “I’m not 100% sure about it myself.”
Risks & Side Effects
What Abortion Feels Like
Medication Abortion
For most women, medication abortion is like an early miscarriage. It is expected you will have bleeding and cramping. You might also
feel dizzy
feel strong cramps
feel nauseous or vomit
feel temporary abdominal pain
have diarrhea
have temporary mild fever or pains
Acetaminophen ? such as Tylenol? ? can reduce most of these symptoms. Painkillers such as ibuprofen ? for example, Motrin? or Advil? ? can also reduce symptoms. Do not take aspirin.
Vacuum Aspiration and D&E
Most women say they feel pain similar to strong menstrual cramps. For others, it is more uncomfortable. Local numbing medications are usually used. Some clinics use additional medicines that allow you to be awake but deeply relaxed. Others offer general anesthesia so you can sleep through the procedure. This, however, increases the medical risks and the time you must stay at the clinic.
Embryonic and Fetal Pain
We know that the embryo or fetus cannot feel pain before 20 weeks of pregnancy. Nearly all ? 99 percent ? of abortions are done before 20 weeks. It is even possible that a fetus is unable to perceive pain at any time during pregnancy. If, however, the ability to feel pain does develop before birth and consciousness, it is likely to happen only after the 28th week of pregnancy, when abortion is performed only for rare, unusual medical situations.
Feelings After an Abortion
Most women feel relief. Some women feel anger, regret, guilt, or sadness for a little while. Sudden hormonal changes may intensify these feelings.
Some people who oppose a woman’s right to make her own reproductive decisions claim that abortion often causes long-lasting emotional problems, or “post-abortion syndrome.” There is no scientific proof for these claims.
Emotional Problems After Abortion
Serious, long-term emotional problems after abortion are about as common as they are after childbirth. Such problems are more likely if
the pregnancy was wanted but the health of the fetus or the woman was in danger
having an abortion is related to serious problems in a relationship or other disturbing life events
a woman is depressed or has other emotional problems that predate her pregnancy
If you want to talk with someone after an abortion, abortion providers can talk with you or refer you to a counselor or to nonjudgemental support groups.
Health Risks of Abortion
First-trimester abortion is much safer for women than giving birth. But there are risks associated with any medical procedure. Your overall health may affect you risks of complications.
Medication Abortion
Possible risks include
incomplete abortion ? the embryo and other products of conception are not entirely expelled from the uterus
allergic reaction
infection
very heavy bleeding
undetected ectopic pregnancy, which can be fatal if left untreated
in extremely rare cases death is possible from very serious complications ? the risk of death from medication abortion is
about the same as it is from miscarriage
higher than it is from early vacuum aspiration abortion
lower than it is from carrying a pregnancy to term
Vacuum Aspiration and D&E
The risks associated with vacuum aspiration and D&E increase the longer you are pregnant and if sedation or general anesthesia is used. Possible risks include
incomplete abortion ? the embryo or fetus and other products of conception are not entirely removed from the uterus
allergic reaction
infection
very heavy bleeding
undetected ectopic pregnancy, which can be fatal if left untreated
blood clots in the uterus
injury to the cervix
organ injury
in extremely rare cases death is possible from very serious complications. In general, the risk of death from abortion increases the longer a woman has been pregnant. Overall, the risk of death from childbirth is 11 times greater than the risk of death from abortion up to 20 weeks of pregnancy. After 20 weeks, the risk of death from abortion is about the same as the risk of death from childbirth.
Future Pregnancies
Safe, uncomplicated abortion should not affect your ability to have a child in the future. In future pregnancies, it does not
cause birth defects
cause premature birth or low infant birth weight
make ectopic (not in the uterus) pregnancy more likely
make miscarriage more likely
make the risk of infant death more likely
Having more than one abortion also should not affect future pregnancies.
Seeing the Embryo or Fetus
Some women fear seeing the embryo or fetus during abortion.
Medication Abortion
Women who have medication abortion in the first 49 days of pregnancy are unlikely to see the embryo. Women who have medication abortion from 49 to 63 days of pregnancy are somewhat more likely to be able to identify the embryo or fetus.
Vacuum Aspiration and D&E
The clinician and other staff people who perform the procedure may see the embryo or fetus, as well as the other products of conception.
Breast Cancer
Abortion does not cause breast cancer or increase the risk of breast cancer.
——————————————————————————–
Here is an add for PP. Note: Abortion does not cause breast cancer…Why couldn’t they say that it possibly could? Why? Because they have to sell abortions.
They could even say that research is still pending.
My question was: “Question for those denying abortion has anything to do with breast cancer: Do you acknowledge a full-term delivery protects against breast cancer?”
Enigma, 8:24p, answered: “Yes, I do acknowledge this but it is hardly a reason for someone to go out and have a baby. There are some protections that are simply not worth the cost.”
I didn’t ask the question for that reason. I asked it to get to this point: If a full-term pregnancy decreases the risk of breast cancer, how can you say abortion has no impact on breast cancer? Even with NO other factors, stopping a woman from receiving the protection against bc by halting a full-term pregnancy has an impact, speaking purely on logic.
Heather,
The PP info continually asserts abortion is safer than childbirth.
Many groups are uncomfortable with the amount of unnecessary interventions that many low risk women experience during childbirth.
I found this interesting article on http://ourbodiesourblog.org/
http://www.childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck=10401
hippie, thank you for the links! Yes. The abortion industry just loves to say that abortion is safer than child birth. Ain’t nothin safe about leaving a clinic when you walk in pregnant, and you walk out as the mother of a dead baby.
You can’t make this stuff up.
Of course you can. In fact, that’s how most of the lawsuits against Planned Parenthood seem to start.
How convenient that there are no records to back up these claims. I’m sure that will go over well in court.
Is tp saying that an abortionist would lie?
Hippie, LOL!!!
tp, you have got to be kidding me! I can post proof!
Jill,
“If a full-term pregnancy decreases the risk of breast cancer, how can you say abortion has no impact on breast cancer? Even with NO other factors, stopping a woman from receiving the protection against bc by halting a full-term pregnancy has an impact, speaking purely on logic.”
The only effect that it will have is that the woman will not gain the additional protection against breast cancer provided by pregnancy. That does not, however, mean that the woman’s risk is increased from what it was before.
What is the presumed mechanism by which pregnancy would supposedly give increased protection against cancer?
Emotional Problems After Abortion
Serious, long-term emotional problems after abortion are about as common as they are after childbirth. Such problems are more likely if
the pregnancy was wanted but the health of the fetus or the woman was in danger
having an abortion is related to serious problems in a relationship or other disturbing life events
a woman is depressed or has other emotional problems that predate her pregnancy
Um, as far as I know, this just about covers every reason for a woman to have an abortion. So, be prepared for emotional suffering.
Doug,
“What is the presumed mechanism by which pregnancy would supposedly give increased protection against cancer?”
I think its provided by residual fetal cells within the woman, but medicine is not my area.
Thanks, Enigma. Interesting stuff.
Jill, there are many more factors involved in determining whether a woman gets breast cancer, regardless if she gives birth or not.
Example: Several of my great-aunts have breast cancer and they were all “good Catholics” who had many children. However, they all smoke like trains and drank like fish. So even giving birth to many children didn’t exactly help them become “immune to breast cancer”.
There are many more factors involved than whether a woman gives birth or not.
“drank like fish”
Sounds like mullet behavior to me!
MK, lol!
I think its provided by residual fetal cells within the woman, but medicine is not my area.
Posted by: Enigma at October 30, 2007 5:50 PM
No, it’s actually the hormones that are in the woman
Still isn’t gonna make me have a baby before I get out of school (not for at least another 6 years and I’m 19 right now). The thought of having a baby before I turn 23 just to “protect myself against breast cancer” is ridiculous. Not accusing anyone here of doing so, but I’ve seen some pro-lifers advocate all young women get married, forgo higher education, and pop out babies because of this preventative effect and the “ideal place for a woman is in the home, birthing and taking care of children”.
That makes me sad.
Great points Lyssie.
In society there are trends that come and go. The current trend is delaying childbearing or even having no kids. It is a free country and women deserve to plan their lives accordingly.
One problem with trends is that once there is a majority opinion, that majority considers itself “right.”
It is well documented throughout history that generally women had children early, like in their teens. They weren’t incompetent as parents and they weren’t losers. Likewise, although teen moms endure descrimination and derision just for being moms, they are not abnormal nor are they losers, but they are treated as though they are.
I think that we should be more tolerant of the normal variations within society such as teen parenthood.
Obesity, Estrogen Linked to Breast Cancer
Weight-Related Increases in Breast Cancer Risk Linked to Estrogen
By Jennifer Warner
WebMD Medical News
Reviewed by Brunilda Nazario, MD
Aug. 19, 2003 — Obese women may be more likely to develop breast cancer largely because their bodies produce more estrogen than thin women do.
New research suggests that the increase in breast cancer risk faced by obese postmenopausal women may largely be due to higher levels of estrogens circulating in their bodies. High levels of estrogen are known to stimulate certain types of breast cancer tumors to grow and develop.
The study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, shows that the average concentration of estrogens in obese women was between 50% and 219% higher than in thin women, and the risk of breast cancer increased by about 18% with each increase in body mass index (a measurement of weight and height used to indicate obesity).
Researchers say that previous studies have also shown that breast cancer risk among postmenopausal women increases with increasing BMI or obesity, but until now the reasons for the increase in health risk associated with obesity and breast cancer have not been clearly understood.
Obesity and Breast Cancer Risk
“The association between obesity and breast cancer risk is important because obesity may be the principal contributing factor for a substantial number of cases of breast cancer and because the prevalence of obesity is high and increasing,” write researcher Timothy J. Key, DPhil, of the Endogenous Hormones and Breast Cancer Collaborative Group, and colleagues.
For example, researchers say the prevalence of obesity in the U.S. among women 60-79 years old increased from 29% in 1988-1994 to 40% in 1999-2000.
In addition, obese women with breast cancer tend to fare worse than thin women.
For the study, researchers analyzed information on 624 postmenopausal women with breast cancer and 1,669 similar healthy women.
They found obese women with a BMI of 30 or above had estrogen concentrations between 60% and 219% higher than thin women, and the risk of breast cancer increased as BMI increased at an average rate of about 18% per 5-point increase in BMI.
Estrogens May Explain Risk
But when researchers adjusted for specific types of estrogen, such as one known as free estradiol, the additional breast cancer risk associated with each increase in BMI dropped from 19% to 2%.
Researchers say the finding strongly suggests that “the increased breast cancer risk in obese postmenopausal women is largely due to the associated increase in bioavailable [free] estradiol.”
Researchers say the results are important because obesity is a modifiable risk factor for breast cancer while several of the other known risk factors are either genetic or non-modifiable, such as the age at which menstruation began, number of pregnancies, age at pregnancies, and age at menopause.
My question was: “Question for those denying abortion has anything to do with breast cancer: Do you acknowledge a full-term delivery protects against breast cancer?”
Enigma, 8:24p, answered: “Yes, I do acknowledge this but it is hardly a reason for someone to go out and have a baby. There are some protections that are simply not worth the cost.”
I didn’t ask the question for that reason. I asked it to get to this point: If a full-term pregnancy decreases the risk of breast cancer, how can you say abortion has no impact on breast cancer? Even with NO other factors, stopping a woman from receiving the protection against bc by halting a full-term pregnancy has an impact, speaking purely on logic.
Posted by: Jill Stanek at October 30, 2007 6:47 AM
………….
You are pretending that your unsupported and borrowed theory that full term pregnancies magically decrease the chance of breast cancer is an actual fact. It is obviously not so. You serve no one by lying so. Full term pregnancies are not proven to decrease the risk of breast cancer, ovarian cancer, cervical cancer or anything else.
Women do not need ‘protection against bc’. They need religiously unpoluted scientific minds working on their health needs. Kinda leaves you out of any solutions.
It was very interesting to see how upset the doctors were in responding to the article Somg posted.
http://www.annals.org/cgi/eletters/140/8/620#1126
Timing of The Abortion Reviw Article 4 May 2004
Ara apelia,
MD
Send rapid response to journal:
Re: Timing of The Abortion Reviw Article
Email Ara apelia
The timing of your review article on abortion coincided with the abortion parade in Washington DC.This raises quetions regarding the political motivation in publishing what seems to be a totally one sided account of the abortion issue.
As internists,whenever we treat a young woman in childbearing age,we go out of our way to assertain that the patient is not pregnant, before ordering X-rays, nuclear scans,or before prescribing potentially teratogenic medications to the prospective mother.We give nutrition advice, lifestyle councel to avoid harming the fetus.We keep the mother’s AND the fetus’s well being and best interest in mind.
It is disappointing to see that your authors totally disregarded the significant OTHER in pregnancy,namely the fetus!The unseen elephant in the room.
Even a toddler if presented with pictures of modern fetal ultrasounds in their “abortable age”,they will unmistakably identify them as human babies, full with life, movement and limbs.
When our children one day reflect on these pictures, and contemplate the 1973 Supreme Court decision, they certainly will recognise the intentional and ideological hemianopsia that has prevented the single minded proponents of abortion to notice the unseen truth, life before birth,which they have chosen to keep in the dark.
Posted by: hippie at October 29, 2007 10:35 PM
………………
My kids are moving to Australia next year due to the popularity of religous, uneducated fools wishing to control the lives of others in this country.
Oooh ooh ooh! Unseen life? Oooh ooh ooh! Being kept in the dark! The silly dramas you folks come up with! Religionists weren’t in the least interested in my mother’s 9 pregnancies. And why would that be? Having a voice in her own experiences was not important……she was just a house wife. Her experience and well being were not important…..she is an evil woman.
I had my first baby at 23. But I also have a traditionally low risk for BC. No one in my known family has had it and while I did find a lump and had a mammogram they found nothing.
Wish I could say that about other cancers. We’ve had just about everything else, brain cancer, lymphoma, leukemia, pancreatic, lung (not from smoking but another environmental issue) etc. I’m pretty certain some kind of cancer is going to get me at some point.