Abortion, breast cancer, and the Susan Komen Foundation

Here's a great billboard ad currently on display in Waco, TX, provided by pro-lifer John PIsciotta:

abc.jpg

The Susan G. Komen Foundation is the best known organization raising money for the cure. But Komen gives money to Planned Parenthood, the U.S.'s largest abortion provider, and abortion causes breast cancer.

Komen, pro-aborts, and all liberal groups also vehemently deny the abortion-breast cancer connection.

For those 2 reasons, pro-lifers do not donate to Komen....

Let's skip an in-depth discussion of the physiological reason for the abc connection, which is that abortion abruptly stops estrogen messaging to maternal breast tissue, causing developing lactation cells to go haywire.

Yes, let's skip the overwhelming volume of worldwide studies proving the link.

Let's discuss common sense. If nothing else, abortion should be included in Komen's list of behavioral risk factors.

Komen acknowledges delayed child-bearing as a risk factor. Pregnancy provides a "protective benefit," according to Komen.

Komen also acknowledges not breast feeding as a risk factor. Breastfeeding "offer[s] protection against both estrogen receptor-positive and estrogen receptor-negative tumors," states Komen.

Does not abortion delay child-bearing? Does not abortion make breast-feeding impossible?

Therefore, should not abortion logically be considered a risk factor?

[HT: reader Leslie]


Comments:

This is how we know Jill Stanek is a liar.

Jill knows perfectly well that induced abortion does not cause subsequent breast cancer. She knows the evidence against such a link. She knows that this question was settled by the Melbye study which followed more than a million women over twenty-eight years. She knows that the AMA, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Cancer Society deny such a link. These are mainstream, authoritative organizations which report based on the data.

Jill, you embarrass the right-to-life side by posting this bs

Posted by: SoGM at March 25, 2008 4:22 PM


Jill, you embarrass the right-to-life side by posting this bullshit.

Posted by: SoGM at March 25, 2008 4:22 PM
*************************
Thank you.

Posted by: TexasRed at March 25, 2008 4:51 PM


http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp


Can Having an Abortion Cause or Contribute to Breast Cancer?

Abortion and breast cancer are both topics that can bring out strong emotions in people. The issue of abortion generates passionate personal and political viewpoints, regardless of a possible disease connection. Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women. It can be a life-threatening disease--one that that many women fear.
Linking these 2 topics understandably creates a great deal of emotion, as well as controversy. Research studies, however, have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer.

Background

A woman's risk of developing breast cancer is related to hormone levels in the body. Breast cells normally grow and divide in response to the levels of certain hormones, such as estrogen, progesterone, and prolactin. Levels of these hormones change throughout a woman's life, but can change a great deal during pregnancy. When a woman is pregnant, her body begins to prepare for breast-feeding by altering the levels of these hormones. This causes changes in the breast tissue.

Concern about a possible link between abortion and breast cancer has been raised because abortion is thought to interrupt the normal cycle of hormones during pregnancy. This interruption is believed by some to increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.

There are different types of abortion:


Spontaneous abortion, which most people refer to as a miscarriage, is the loss of a fetus before 5 months' (20 weeks') gestation. It is often caused by problems with the fetus or with the maternal environment in which it is growing.
Stillborn birth (stillbirth) is usually considered to be the death of a fetus after 5 months' gestation while still in the uterus (womb).
Induced abortion is probably what most people consider "abortion." This refers to a woman's choice to end a pregnancy through a medical procedure.

All of these situations have been studied to see what effect they may have on a woman's risk of developing breast cancer later in life.

Research on Abortion and Breast Cancer

Research Study Problems

Many studies have looked at a possible link between abortions and an increased risk of breast cancer. But because of the nature of the topic, these studies have been difficult to conduct. This may help explain why some have reached different conclusions.

Before 1973, induced abortions were illegal in much of the United States. Therefore, when researchers asked about a woman's reproductive past, women may not have been comfortable disclosing the fact that they had an illegal abortion. Even though abortion is now legal, it is still a very personal, private matter that many women are hesitant to talk about.

Studies have shown that healthy women are less likely to report their histories of induced abortions. In contrast, women with breast cancer are more likely to accurately report their reproductive histories because they are searching their memories for anything that may have contributed to their disease.

The likelihood that women who have breast cancer will give a more complete account of their abortions than women who do not have breast cancer is called "recall bias," and it can seriously undermine the accuracy of study results.

Research Study Design

Most early studies of abortion and breast cancer used a case-control study design, one that is very prone to recall bias. In these studies, women with and without breast cancer were asked to report past abortions. The researchers then compared the frequency of abortions in women with breast cancer (the "cases") to those in women without breast cancer (the "controls"). It is likely that the higher rates of reported abortions in breast cancer cases (vs. controls) observed in many of these studies were not true findings because of recall bias.

A prospective (cohort) study design is stronger and less prone to bias. In this type of study, a group of women who are cancer-free are asked about their past abortions and then are observed over a period of time to see if a new cancer occurs. In this type of study all of the women are cancer-free at the start, so there is no chance that having the disease will influence their memory of past abortions or willingness to report past abortions.

Some prospective studies have addressed the problem of recall bias by using innovative ways to document induced abortions. For example, a recent study used birth certificates of children born to women with breast cancer to identify women who had had induced abortions. (The number of previous abortions was listed on these birth certificates.) This study found no increase in breast cancer risk in women whose abortion is followed by a live birth.

Recent research has confirmed that the type of study likely plays a role in what is found. A review of the previous studies on this issue, covering tens of thousands of women, showed that women followed in prospective studies (which are less prone to bias) had no increased breast cancer risk if they had had an abortion. Retrospective (case-control) studies, on the other hand, pointed to a slight increase in risk.

Research Study Results

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.

Another large, prospective study was reported on by Harvard researchers in 2007. This study included more than 100,000 women who were between the ages of 29 and 46 at the start of the study in 1993. These women were followed until 2003. Again, because they were asked about their reproductive history at the start of the study, recall bias was unlikely to be a problem. After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found no link between either spontaneous or induced abortions and breast cancer.

What the Experts Say

In February 2003, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) held a workshop of more than 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed existing human and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. Among their conclusions were:


Breast cancer risk is temporarily increased after a term pregnancy (that is, a pregnancy that results in the birth of a living child).
Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.
Recognized spontaneous abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.
The level of scientific evidence for these conclusions was considered to be "well established" (the highest level).

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Committee on Gynecologic Practice reviewed the available evidence as well and published its findings in August 2003. The committee concluded that "early studies of the relationship between prior induced abortion and breast cancer risk have been inconsistent and are difficult to interpret because of methodologic considerations. More rigorous recent studies argue against a causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk."

The Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, based out of Oxford University in England, recently put together the results from 53 separate studies conducted in 16 different countries. These studies included about 83,000 women with breast cancer. After combining and reviewing the results from these studies, the researchers concluded that "the totality of worldwide epidemiological evidence indicates that pregnancies ending as either spontaneous or induced abortions do not have adverse effects on women's subsequent risk of developing breast cancer."

Conclusion

The topic of abortion and breast cancer highlights many of the most challenging aspects of studies of human populations and how those studies do or do not translate into public health guidelines. The issue of abortion generates passionate viewpoints among many people. Breast cancer is the most common cancer, and is the second leading cancer killer in women. Still, the public is not well-served by false alarms and at the present time, the scientific evidence does not support a causal association between induced abortion and breast cancer.

References

ACOG Committee on Gynecologic Practice. ACOG Committee Opinion. Number 285, August 2003: Induced abortion and breast cancer risk. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102:433-435.

Beral V, Bull D, Doll R, et al. Collaborative Group on 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;363:1007-1016.

Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Olsen JH, et al. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:81-85.

Michels KB, Xue F, Colditz GA, Willett WC. Induced and spontaneous abortion and incidence of breast cancer among young women. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:814-820.

National Cancer Institute. Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop. Available at: www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report. Accessed May 8, 2007.


Revised: 08/06/2007


Posted by: TexasRed at March 25, 2008 4:53 PM


SOMG and TR,

I am certain both of you will wholeheartedly agree that women have a right to know of the research done on both sides of this issue and you would be the first to encourage women to thoroghly research both sides of this controversy before arriving at any conclusions.
If this is such a fallacy, women will see this instantly and you will have no cause for concern, right?
And of course women should not take into consideration the fact that the abortion industry would have everything to lose, and much to answer for, if a link is indeed established.

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2008 5:28 PM


SOMG and TR,

I am certain both of you will wholeheartedly agree that women have a right to know of the research done on both sides of this issue and you would be the first to encourage women to thoroghly research both sides of this controversy before arriving at any conclusions.
If this is such a fallacy, women will see this instantly and you will have no cause for concern, right?
And of course women should not take into consideration the fact that the abortion industry would have everything to lose, and much to answer for, if a link is indeed established.


Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2008 5:28 PM
*******************
What would they have to 'lose'? Do you really imagine a 2% higher 'possibility' of breast cancer is going to keep a woman from having an abortion? And no, most women are not well enough educated to do the research necessary to find out that antichoicers lie to them about the *dangers* of abortion. And antichoicers are fully aware of this and bank on it.

Posted by: TexasRed at March 25, 2008 5:33 PM


www.abortionbreastcancer.com

Posted by: lesforlife at March 25, 2008 5:33 PM


Texas Red 5:33PM

Excuse me, most women are not educated enough to do their own research? Can we say "patronizing"?
We need enlightened souls like you and SOMG to inform us of what we're apparently too ignorant to research for ourselves?
If a woman can read, and I don't know any who can't, she can research.
Again I ask, what does a woman have to lose by thoroughly researching both sides of this issue?

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2008 5:42 PM


Mary you wrote: "I am certain both of you will wholeheartedly agree that women have a right to know of the research done on both sides of this issue and you would be the first to encourage women to thoroghly research both sides of this controversy before arriving at any conclusions."

That's usually what they pay medical professionals to do FOR them.

But if a patient wanted to research the issue herself, I would definitely warn her that there are people on the net who think it's their mission in life to scare you out of having an abortion and some of them post (essentially) fake research.

I would encourage her to trust serious professional societies such as the AMA, ACOG, and ACS, and not to trust poor propagandists like Jill Stanek.

Posted by: SoMG at March 25, 2008 5:53 PM


SOMG,

I don't know about you but I don't pay anyone to do my research for me.
Why would you warn a woman about people on the net supposedly out to scare her? Certainly when she had done her research she will come to that conclusion herself, right? I mean if the research just isn't there to support the argument of an abortion/breast cancer link, women will see this for themselves. Or do you, like Texas Red, consider women just a little too stupid to figure any of this out for themselves?

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2008 6:04 PM


SoMG -

You may know this, and it is a serious question. In the studies you have read is ethnic background listed?

I'll tell you up front why I am asking.

Both the CDC and the ACS say that black women have a slightly lower incidence of breast cancer than white women, however black women are more likely to die from it than white women. The reason for this, as stated by both organizations, is because of lack of testing. The women who do not do testing are usually the low to no income women with no or limited health insurance. When these women are diagnosed do the doctors get a detailed reproductive history of the woman? Usually she will be at a hospital that is government funded - meaning little money with a doctor to patient ratio that is almost off the charts.

Like I said - I am being honest here in my question - there is no hidden agenda, I'm just curious.

Posted by: valerie at March 25, 2008 6:07 PM


BREAST CANCER PREVENTION INSTITUTE
DR. JOEL BRIND, Ph.D. AND DR. ANGELA LANFRANCHI, M.D.

http://www.bcpinstitute.org


Posted by: lesforlife at March 25, 2008 6:16 PM


Valerie,

I recently read an article that stated black women have a higher incidence of breast cancer in proportion to their numbers in the population than do white women. Black women also have a higher incidence of abortions in proportion to their numbers in the population as well.

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2008 6:24 PM


Mary -

Yes, that is what I have read as well.

Posted by: valerie at March 25, 2008 6:36 PM


SUSAN G. KOMEN BREAST CANCER FOUNDATION TO WOMEN: DON'T CONFUSE US
WITH THE FACTS

DENVER, Colorado, October 3, 2007
Contact: Leslie Hanks 720-394-8946, Lolita Hanks, RN, BSN, FNP 720-218-5050

Colorado Right to Life is challenging the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation to stop touting breast cancer awareness, while keeping women in the dark about the real causes of breast cancer. The latest study reporting an abortion-breast cancer link published just yesterday in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is entitled, "The Breast Cancer Epidemic." Among seven identified risk factors, abortion was found to be the "best predictor of breast cancer," with fertility listed as another useful predictor. (Carroll, P. The breast cancer epidemic: modeling and forecasts based on abortion and other risk factors." J Am Phys Surg Vol. 12, No. 3 (Fall 2007) 72-78. download the study at:
http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf).

This study by Patrick Carroll of PAPRI in London showed that countries with higher abortion rates, such as England & Wales, expect a substantial increase in breast cancer incidence. Where abortion rates are low (i.e., Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic) a smaller increase is expected. In countries that report a decline in abortion, (i.e., Denmark and Finland) a decline in breast cancer is anticipated.

During a meeting last October with Komen officials in Denver, Komen media consultant, DanaBrandorff, told Colorado Right to Life leaders and former national Komen advisory board member, Eve Sanchez Silver that they weren't interested in telling women the truth about the well documented abortion - breast cancer link.

Ms. Silver was appalled at the stunning lack of information the Komen representatives had about basic breast physiology. When challenged about their refusal to stop
giving funds to America's largest abortion provider and to inform women that abortion of a first
pregnancy greatly increases exposure to future risk of breast cancer, the Komen officials made
this ridiculous assertion:

"We aren't so much about the prevention, we are all about the cure,"
noted Brandorff.

Raising the hopes of desperate women and their families while refusing to acknowledge the abc link,(www.abortionbreastcancer.com) is
dishonest. Beyond that irresponsible approach to treating women as if they can't handle the truth, the whole Race for the Cure premise is steeped in fraud.

"Even the tobacco industry wouldn't have had the nerve to try to
defraud smokers about the risk of using their products with the same audacity," said CRTL V.P., Leslie Hanks.

"Komen perpetuates breast cancer by giving funds to Planned
Parenthood. They claim the funds are for breast screening but we know that breast screening is down 15% at Planned Parenthood and abortions are
up 23%."

"Colorado women deserve the truth that abortion of a first pregnancy is linked with a doubling of the risk of future breast cancer. Raising millions to cure a disease that is largely avoidable is despicable," said Hanks.

Posted by: lesforlife at March 25, 2008 6:44 PM


Here's a second CRTL Press Release that has more fascinating info...

For Immediate Release
Oct. 4, 2006

Colorado Right to Life
To Join the Race for the Cure Protest

A meeting last Friday between Komen Breast Cancer Foundation’s Denver officials, CRTL board members, and scientific and medical experts led the pro-life organization to decide to join an annual protest to warn women at the Komen Foundation's Race for the Cure of the link between abortion and breast cancer.

Former Komen medical research analyst Eve Sanchez Silver explained to the Komen officials that she resigned from Komen two years ago because the organization denies the scientific studies showing the link between abortion and breast cancer, and it provides funding to abortion provider Planned Parenthood. Professor Joel Brind, PhD endocrinologist from Baruch College in New York City attended the meeting after saying on Denver radio that, “the 2003 conference of the National Cancer Institute which denied abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer refused to allow attending scientists to present the opposing position of the scientific research establishing the link, showing that abortion was declassified as a cancer risk for political and not scientific reasons.”

Further, "The NCI's own statistics show that breast cancer has increased, and only in women who were of child-bearing age when abortion was legalized in 1973, so much so that nationally, cancer would have steadily declined, except it has held steady at the expense of women getting breast cancer," said Dr. Brind.

Komen Denver board member and chairman of the grants committee, J.P. Pedinielli, and public relations representative, Dana Brandorff, attempted to dissuade CRTL from protesting at the Race arguing that "Planned Parenthood is not a current grantee" of Komen's Denver chapter, and when challenged, added that Planned Parenthood, "might have been a previous grantee." CRTL vice president Leslie Hanks then documented the continued local funding of the abortion provider throughout this decade. Eve Silver showed from Komen documentation that the national organization has given as much as $475,000 in a single year to abortion-provider Planned Parenthood.

"Even if abortion proved beneficial to a woman's health," said Hanks, "government should still prohibit the killing of an innocent human being, because abortion is always wrong."

Prof. Brind corrects a factual error on the Komen.org website, that "the breast is mature after puberty," stating that "Third trimester pregnancy hormones begin the final maturation process and the differentiation of mammary gland cells. Abortion prevents this, leaving the woman with more undifferentiated cells vulnerable to carcinogens, increasing her risk of breast cancer."

As transcribed from a recording of the meeting, CRTL asked, "Why aren't women being told about the most preventable risk factor?" to which Komen's Brandorff answered, "We tend to focus on the cure… we're focusing our energies on that, rather than the preventative."

Contact: Colorado Right To Life V.P. Leslie Hanks 303 753-9394

Posted by: Bob Enyart at March 25, 2008 6:53 PM


Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is a well=known pay-to-publish rag. Your use of it as a supporting source damages your credibility.

Mary, you wrote: "I don't know about you but I don't pay anyone to do my research for me. "

Really? So you'd tell your surgeon what to do? How much bowel to take out, if you had bowel cancer? What margins to leave? I pay the surgeon to do the research and make these decisions for me with my best interests in mind.

Most people pay medical professionals for doing the research and deciding what to do FOR the patients.

But as I say, I'd definitely advise the patient about to start researching the abortion-breast-cancer "link" that there are some very rich people out there who think it's their mission in life to scare you out of having an abortion, and some of them post (essentially) fake research on the net. I agree that if she did her research thoroughly she'd probably figure it out for herself, but it would be part of my job to tell the patient the facts.

Posted by: SoMG at March 25, 2008 7:00 PM


Many abortion vulnerable women are lied to about the development of their baby, led to believe its "just a blood clot" or "just a piece of tissue" and are convinced they aren't aborting a human being. Its not until later when they do their own research they find they were lied to.

Why aren't ALL the facts presented to women?

BTW, I believe there was even a pro abortion woman researcher who FOUND the link and was unable to deny it after she found it.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 25, 2008 7:48 PM


hmmm...

Notice how SOMG ignores the information that wasn't from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Oh - and the American Physicians and Surgeons Association isn't a pay to publish rag; it is a conservative organization that is made up of over 4,000 physicians, medical professionals and students along with some patients. A notable member is Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is a graduate of Duke University School of Medicine. His residence research into the causes of pregnancy toxemia was published in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology.

But he just must be a nutcase who knows nothing since he is a Republican.

Posted by: valerie at March 25, 2008 7:51 PM


OH Jill,
You really touched a sensitive spot with SoMG! Touche!!

SoMG, it must true if you are so vehemently opposed to this research.lol

Any woman can tell you that their breasts are very different after a natural full term pregnancy and lactation. Any woman in touch with her body knows this research confirms what she knows and what she experiences.


Posted by: Patricia at March 25, 2008 7:54 PM


We need more billboards like this. I hope they put them up in Ohio!

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 8:01 PM


SOMG,

Research, ok? When one researches one looks at the studies on both sides of an issue and draws their own conclusion based on that research.
No SOMG, I do not feel anyone should blindly follow the advise of a medical professional or anyone else. I have even advised people on this blog to do their own research on issues such as vaccinations, global warming, and mental illness and to not follow blindly what one side or another tells them.
Rich people with a mission to scare women? SOMG, its the abortion industry that rakes in the money and has everything to lose if a link between breast cancer and abortion is established. Tell me about the vast sums of money the pro-life movement rakes in by pointing out a possible breast cancer/abortion link.

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2008 8:03 PM


Breast cancer used to be an old women's disease, it’s not any longer. Go to the Race for the Cure and see for yourself. So many young women are wearing shirts that say they survived cancer. Coincidently, the statistics show that breast cancer rates rose in proportion to abortion rates. It’s sad, women and their baby are dying and we choose to be ignorant.

Posted by: Jo Scott at March 25, 2008 8:18 PM


Breast cancer used to be an old women's disease, it’s not any longer. Go to the Race for the Cure and see for yourself. So many young women are wearing shirts that say they survived cancer. Coincidently, the statistics show that breast cancer rates rose in proportion to abortion rates. It’s sad, women and their baby are dying and we choose to be ignorant.

Posted by: Jo at March 25, 2008 8:20 PM


This is how we know Jill Stanek is a liar.

Jill knows perfectly well that induced abortion does not cause subsequent breast cancer. She knows the evidence against such a link. She knows that this question was settled by the Melbye study which followed more than a million women over twenty-eight years. She knows that the AMA, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Cancer Society deny such a link. These are mainstream, authoritative organizations which report based on the data.

Jill, you embarrass the right-to-life side by posting this bullshit.

Posted by: SoGM at March 25, 2008 4:22 PM

I think that you may be suffering from Liberal Mania.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12945

Posted by: Bismarck at March 25, 2008 8:23 PM


Bismarck, perhaps we can direct SoMG to this article:
http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/28523.shtml

"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind,...."

Posted by: Patricia at March 25, 2008 8:30 PM


Jo Scott, are you the wife of the crazy terrorist Kenneth Scott?

Just wondering.....

Posted by: SoMG at March 25, 2008 8:35 PM


jo, You're right. The women are younger and younger.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 8:35 PM


In addition to that, I once worked with 2 white women. They both passed away from breast cancer in their 40s. They both had abortions when they were in their 20s.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 8:38 PM


Bismarck, perhaps we can direct SoMG to this article:

http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/28523.shtml
"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind,...."

Posted by: Patricia at March 25, 2008 8:30 PM

I read that article a while back. However, this one in The American Spectator cites specific recent examples that may be recognized by SoGM and perhaps encourage some serious introspection.

Posted by: Bismarck at March 25, 2008 8:40 PM


Heather, today somewhere in the USA, someone had a heart attack while praying. We should outlaw prayer to protect people from heart attacks.

Posted by: SoMG at March 25, 2008 8:44 PM


Somg, you seem a little confused tonight.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 8:46 PM


Actually, you always seem confused.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 8:47 PM


Well it makes as much sense as your argument.

Posted by: SoMG at March 25, 2008 8:47 PM


How so?

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 8:49 PM


Praying is not surgery.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 8:50 PM


That's like saying that someone died from choking today because of eating. Should we all stop eating?

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 8:52 PM


It makes just as much sense as reaching a conclusion about breast cancer from your personal experience of two women.

Posted by: SoMG at March 25, 2008 8:54 PM


I was simply stating a fact. Were their early deaths from breast CA d/t their past abortions? I don't know, but it's worth further study.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 8:57 PM


Is Jo Scott the wife of crazy terrorist Kenneth Scott?

Posted by: SoMG at March 25, 2008 8:58 PM


40 is kind of young to die from breast CA.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 8:58 PM


The research though SoMG isn't based on the experience of two women.
SoMG you need to bring yourself up to snuff on all the research being done with regards to women's health after abortion.
Of course, you don't want to know because you don't care.
You just blow everyone off!

Posted by: Patricia at March 25, 2008 8:59 PM


My Mom's friend had two children and no abortions. She died of breast cancer.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 8:59 PM


I don't know. Why don't you look it up? Scott is a common last name.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 8:59 PM


She died young too.

Also eating meat greatly increases your risk of many types of cancer including breast. Seriously.

Running decreases your risk for many types of cancer, including breast.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:01 PM


Karen Malec discusses the relationship between Abortion/Contraception and Breast Cancer in a 55 minute online interview (see post#4)...

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=78841

------

Topics covered are...

It's a 55 minute talk. So if you don't have the time to listen to all of it, I will let you know the important parts to listen. Here they are...

IMPORTANT SEGMENTS

10:00 (minutes into the program) Biology Explaining the Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer.

45:50 (minutes into the program) Please Explain the Biology on How Contraception Contributes to Breast Cancer?

-----

OTHER SEGMENTS

2:30 (minutes into the program) Studies Showing A Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer.

22:45 (minutes into the program) Information on the Relationship Between Oral Contraceptives & Breast Cancer.

27:30 (minutes into the program) Why Does the Susan G Komen Foundation Never Tell Women About the Link Between Abortion/Contraceptives & Breast Cancer?

36:30 (minutes into the program) Studies about Breast Cancer Risk/Who Should You Believe About Whether or Not There's A Link Between Abortion & Breast Cancer?

----

If you are Pro-Life and want to stop Breast Cancer, you can give funds to ...

1. Breast Cancer Institute
2. Polycarp Institute
3. AbortionBreastCancer.com

Mike


Posted by: Mike at March 25, 2008 9:02 PM


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3149062.stm

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:06 PM


Jess, I'm not saying that women who don't abort don't get breast cancer, but if abortion might increase their risk of getting it, don't you think that women ought to be informed?

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 9:07 PM


According to the World Health Organization, up to 40 percent of all cancers are preventable, and one-third of all cancer deaths in the U.S. can be attributed to nutritional factors, according the American Cancer Society (ACS).
http://www.goveg.com/cancer.asp

Yes heather and people should be informed eating meat cause numerous types of cancer. So if you feed your family meat your signing them up for cancer too.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:09 PM


http://www.center4research.org/wmnshlth/2006/meat-cancer.html

Eating meat causes breast cancer.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:10 PM


http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=4191

Eating meat causes life threatening diseases.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:12 PM


Jess, thanks for the heads up. I eat meat in moderation. I'm not too concerned. However, if there really is an abortion/breast CA link, and a woman still wants an abortion, then I suppose the ball is in her court.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 9:12 PM


"Jess, I'm not saying that women who don't abort don't get breast cancer, but if abortion might increase their risk of getting it, don't you think that women ought to be informed?"

No, they don't Heather, it doesn't fit into their leftist agenda. Abortion is a power-trip for the feminists, the power to kill unborn children.

Posted by: jasper at March 25, 2008 9:13 PM


http://www.peta.org/feat/meat/meat.asp

Meat has arsenic. So feeding your children meat is feeding them poison.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:13 PM


Let's just make sure she gets the proper information. Just like you are posting to me.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 9:14 PM


Jess,

If research suggests that eating red meat increases cancer risk then I would agree the public has every right to know this. Just as I would agree that if research suggests abortion may increase breast cancer risk, the public has every right to know this as well.

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2008 9:15 PM


So jasper, why doesn't Texas allow billboards that show eating meat gives you cancer?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22199057/

Meat causes lung cancer too.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:15 PM


hello, jasper!

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 9:15 PM


Read all the research Mary.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/90952.php

Feeding your kids meat is like forcing them to smoke.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:17 PM


Mary, thank you for the e-mail. I'll get back to you ASAP. Mary, I agree with your post to Jess.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 9:17 PM


I'm not referring to the typical woman who is duped by the feminist, I'm referring to the radical feminist who gave us legal abortion.

Jess, thats a stretch, arsenic may be in many things we eat (at very low, insignificant levels).

Posted by: jasper at March 25, 2008 9:17 PM


Hi Heather, Jessica and Mary...hope your doing well

Posted by: jasper at March 25, 2008 9:18 PM


No jasper most chickens live in their own feces which contain arsenic and develop arsenic burns.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/13/AR2006111300824.html

"The study of more than 90,000 women found that the more red meat the women consumed in their 20s, 30s and 40s, the greater their risk for developing breast cancer fueled by hormones in the next 12 years. Those who consumed the most red meat had nearly twice the risk of those who ate red meat infrequently."

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:18 PM


Jess, I agree. Get the message out. Even a cigarette pack has warnings about lung cancer.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 9:19 PM


http://goveg.com/factoryFarming_chickens.asp

Chicken is filled with arsenic. Giving your kids chicken is feeding them poison.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:19 PM


http://www.universal-tao.com/article/curse.html

Even the Bible tells us eating meat is a sin and will give you cancer.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:21 PM


http://www.universal-tao.com/article/curse.html

Meat causes - Rheumatism, Arthritis and Gout (uric acid buildup)
Meat causes - cancer - (liver & kidney breakdown from too much protein)
Meat causes - homosexuality in males. (Excessive testosterone over several generations)
(Meat causes masculine homosexual)
Meat causes - masculinity in women - hair on their arms and legs, deeper voice.
Destroys their true feminists and makes them bossy and stubborn. Many women from the back look like boys.
Meat causes - high blood pressure breaks down the blood vessel's.
Meat causes - heart problems
Meat causes Colitis - meat contains ……. Factitive bacteria
Meat causes excessive uric acid which leads to arthritis, kidney stones gallstones.
Meat causes headaches & far-sightedness, meat together with excess sugar and too much close work cause nearsightedness.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:22 PM


Meat has arsenic. So feeding your children meat is feeding them poison.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:13 PM
------------------------------------------------------- Well, we ain't dead yet.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 9:22 PM


Ok Jess, point taken. so do you deny the abortion breast cancer link?

Posted by: jasper at March 25, 2008 9:23 PM


http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5437

The “evidence on red meat and processed meat [as a cause of cancer] is stronger than in the mid-1990s”;
“The evidence that red meats and processed meats are a cause of colorectal cancer is convincing”;
There is “limited evidence” that red meat alone is a cause of various types of cancers (esophageal, lung, pancreatic, and endometrium);
For processed meat, there is little evidence it is a cause of cancers of the esophagus, lung, stomach, and prostate; foods that are grilled, barbecued, and smoked are not a likely cause of stomach cancer; and
Because of the high content of animal fats (and calcium) in most dairy products, milk and cheese can contribute to the risk of different cancers, such as colon and prostate cancer.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:23 PM


Right. Let's get back on topic.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 9:24 PM


For many, many years the cigarette companies and doctors fooled the people into believing that smoking was cool and safe. Later they started selling light, low tar cigarettes to make it 'safer'. We accepted every study they presented as people died.

The abortion industry is following their playbook to the letter. Babies are being murdered and women are dying. When will we wake up?

Posted by: philothea50 at March 25, 2008 9:25 PM


Abortion/breast cancer.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 9:25 PM


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17122667

Every day more cancers are shown to be caused by meat.

"Well, we ain't dead yet."
Not yet but soon if you keep it up.

And even if abortion does contribute to the cause of breast cancer it's minimal compared to all the cancers meat causes.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:26 PM


And if a woman, a year or two after having an abortion doesn't get breast cancer that means there isn;t a link?

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:26 PM


philothea, right!

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 9:27 PM


"When will we wake up?"

It's tough when the MSM is filled with pro-aborts. Thats why we'll never hear about it on the nightly news.

Posted by: jasper at March 25, 2008 9:27 PM


Jess, do you have proof that it's minimal?

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 9:28 PM


http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/nov/01/health

Also animals who are killed for meat are horrifically tortured for days, months even years.

I mean compared to the whole five minutes abortion lasts. I would be aborted rather then spend a day at one of those farms any day.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:28 PM


Jess, I dunno. Look at all of the young women in the breast cancer walk for life. Some of those women look like they are in their 20s to me.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 9:30 PM


Ok Jess, we get the point, now do you deny the abortion/breast cancer link?

Posted by: jasper at March 25, 2008 9:30 PM


If any of you cared about preventing breast cancer, or any type of cancer, you would first look to turning vegetarian, and helping others become vegetarians.

But no meat is delicious and I don't need an abortion right now so let's blame the skanks!!! Get with it.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:32 PM


"Jess, I dunno. Look at all of the young women in the breast cancer walk for life. Some of those women look like they are in their 20s to me."

Do they all have breast cancer? And I bet all of them eat meat.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:33 PM


Jess, with all due respect, I could go to a PETA site for this. The topic is abortion. However, I kindly thank you anyway.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 9:33 PM


I've eaten meat for almost all of my 29 years and haven't died yet.

Maybe I should just eat grilled cheese and tomato soup for the rest of my life instead? Or is there arsenic in bread and cheese, too?


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 25, 2008 9:33 PM


Why don't you meet your meat?

http://goveg.com/factoryFarming_pigs.asp

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:34 PM


http://goveg.com/factoryFarming_cows.asp

Watch the video.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:34 PM


Jess, They sure look like they are suffering from cancer to me.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 9:35 PM


Hey Liz my Aunt had an abortion about 30 years ago and she doesn't have breast cancer so looks like it's bs!!!

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:35 PM


http://goveg.com/factoryFarming_chickens.asp

Here's your chicken diner, swimming in it's own feces.

And heather are you saying they all had abortions? I'm saying more women who have breast cancer eat meat then have abortions.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:36 PM


Pork is nasty anyway...

Posted by: Rae at March 25, 2008 9:37 PM


And I know of 2 former dead co-workers who did have abortions. So, I cannot dismiss it as BS.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 9:37 PM



I'm a meat eater. This means that people claiming there is a meat/cancer link are all liars and the research is a lot of hooey. You are all an embarassment to vegetarians. This is a plot by very rich people who are determined to lie to me and make me stop eating meat.
There is no meat/cancer link, period!

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2008 9:38 PM


Back to the topic at hand - induced abortion causing
a dramatic increase in breast cancer rates and why
Susan G Komen likes to keep women in the dark and marching, so
the $$$ keep flowing.

Posted by: lesforlife at March 25, 2008 9:38 PM


"Maybe I should just eat grilled cheese and tomato soup"

Yeah cause grilled cheese and tomato soup are totally the only meat-less options. Um... ever heard of FRUIT? Tofu? Soy?

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:38 PM


One woman had 2 abortions in her 20s. The other lady had 1. They both passed away from breast CA in their 40s.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 9:40 PM


I have more proof that meat causes cancer then you have that abortion may increase your risk of having breast cancer Mary.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:40 PM


Mary, lol!

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 9:41 PM


And they both ate meat didn't they heather?

You all just want to blame abortion because it's easy while meat is the real cause but you're too lazy and just want your tasty meat.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:41 PM


If any of you cared about preventing breast cancer, or any type of cancer, you would first look to turning vegetarian, and helping others become vegetarians.

But no meat is delicious and I don't need an abortion right now so let's blame the skanks!!! Get with it.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:32 PM

Every sane and decent person cares about preventing all disease. The primary objective of the pro-life movement is to end abortion. The possible breast cancer link is another reason for women to avoid the procedure.

Posted by: Bismarck at March 25, 2008 9:42 PM


Did they eat meat? I don't know. I can't ask them.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 9:42 PM


it's probably the meat that did it.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:43 PM


Jess, you are doing what a typical pro choicer does. It's called diversion. I've seen it done many times, but they usually tend to switch the topic to priests and dentists. I haven't a clue as to why.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 9:46 PM


Jill makes a valid point about the Komen Foundations real loyalites. They couldn't be very interested in preventing breast cancer if they are supporting an institution that offers the means to increase breast cancer. Especially when leaders of the organization say they aren't interested in prevention.

It seems like a waste of time dealing with all these troll posts from the usual suspects.

Posted by: Anon at March 25, 2008 9:47 PM


Why? Because you're trying to tell us abortion causes breast cancer. Like if people avoid abortions they won't get breast cancer. I'm telling people the real cause of breast cancer. I'm helping people. And this is the perfect place to do it. The perfect place to save a person is anywhere. If one person becomes a vegetarian because of me I will be happy. One life saved.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:49 PM


That barbecue held outside of the Weitz CEO's house by pro-lifers was really killing everyone there, yes even the children.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:50 PM


Why? Because you're trying to tell us abortion causes breast cancer. Like if people avoid abortions they won't get breast cancer. I'm telling people the real cause of breast cancer. I'm helping people. And this is the perfect place to do it. The perfect place to save a person is anywhere. If one person becomes a vegetarian because of me I will be happy. One life saved.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:49 PM

Every abortion is one life lost.

Posted by: Bismarck at March 25, 2008 9:51 PM


"It seems like a waste of time dealing with all these troll posts from the usual suspects."

It's not a waste of time to save people. People who are actually walking around right now. People and their children. Why have the baby just to kill it with diseased cancer causing meat?

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:52 PM


Jess --

Why don't you head to the Tofu boards -- this is a pro-Life board.

I get it, you hate people eating animals -- but its good to kill babies. Is it then okay to kill animals, as long as you don't eat them?

You really make a lot of sense.....

Posted by: Anon at March 25, 2008 9:52 PM


Jess, 9:40PM

There's more than enough research on www.abortionbreastcancer.com indicating a possible link between breast cancer and abortion. I was being facetious, using the same arguments as those who go ballistic over any possible abortion/breast cancer link. Unlike them, I am more than willing to look at and consider the research suggesting a meat/cancer link, and not be as likely to dismiss it.

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2008 9:52 PM


Well, I also know a woman who had a hysterectomy after her 7th abortion. Her 7th "choice." Doctors told her that the damage was from all of her repeat abortions. Should we blame that on her being a meat eater too?

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 9:53 PM


pro-life? More like a pro-let's blame all our problems on abortion when it's really eating meat board.

heather we are talking about breast cancer.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:55 PM


Maybe she wouldn't have had so many abortions if she ate a vegetarian diet which promotes good self-image and general happenings.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:57 PM


yoy!

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 9:57 PM


Jess --

Over 95% of Nobel prize winners and Rhodes Scholars are/were meat eaters. So I guess that means that eating meat causes intelligence.

It might not hurt you to have a bite or two every once in a while. :)

Posted by: Anon at March 25, 2008 9:57 PM


Maybe she wouldn't have had 7 abortions if she had been responsible about her sex life.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 9:58 PM


show me your source.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 9:58 PM


This is kind of annoying to me.

People shouldn't NOT have abortions because it could cause them to get breast cancer.

People shouldn't have abortions because they're killing a life.

End.of.story.

I wouldn't have an abortion..but NOT because it could cause me to have breast cancer..cause, I, uh, don't wanna kill my babies!

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 25, 2008 10:00 PM


See Elizabeth gets it.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 10:00 PM


oops, my above post should have included that her hysterectomy was mandatory. Doctors told her that her uterus was severely damaged due to her 7 abortions.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 10:01 PM


Jess, Mary posted a link above.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 10:02 PM


Maybe no one would have an abortion if we were all vegetarians and respected life instead of torturing and eating it.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 10:03 PM


Jess, you don't get it.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 10:03 PM


Maybe no one would have an abortion if we were all vegetarians and respected life instead of torturing and eating it.

Lol...but Jess, you know eating even veggies destroys life...cause plants are alive. You can't win for losing.

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 25, 2008 10:04 PM


Why are you harping on this meat tangent?

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 10:05 PM


veggies can't look at you.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 10:06 PM


Elizabeth, good point.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 10:06 PM


They can wave in the wind.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 10:07 PM


Yeah but when you rip them out of the ground, that must be horrible for them! eeeek...don't eat me! lol.

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 25, 2008 10:07 PM


Actually there are over 750 Risks Caused from Abortion Referenced in Medical Literature...

http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10117

To find out more about the over 750 risks contact...

Rutherford Institute
P.O. Box 7482
Charlottesville, VA 22906-7482
1-804-978-3888
and request "Major Articles and Books Concerning the Detrimental Effects of Abortion."

Posted by: Mike at March 25, 2008 10:08 PM


" wouldn't have an abortion..but NOT because it could cause me to have breast cancer..cause, I, uh, don't wanna kill my babies!"

Elizabeth, I think Jill is trying to expose the double standard of the Susan Komen Foundation

Posted by: jasper at March 25, 2008 10:08 PM


They can't show any signs of distress. they can't love or feel pain. They don't have brains. or a central nervous system.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 10:08 PM


Mike, Thanks for the link.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 10:10 PM


Maybe this will be the longest topic EVER on this site!

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 10:11 PM


But Jess, if you read a biology book, that is not how "life" is determined.

And Jasper, I know. I just really think it's silly though because the decision to or not to have an abortion shouldn't be based off of your risk for cancer..it should be based off of the humanity of the baby growing inside of the mother.

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 25, 2008 10:11 PM


fine i'll just have water from now on.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 10:12 PM


"it should be based off of the humanity of the baby growing inside of the mother."

Yes, I agree Elizabeth.

Posted by: jasper at March 25, 2008 10:12 PM


Elizabeth, you're right. I think this should be a mandatory part of pre abortion counseling {{if any exists]] I think the goal is to prevent abortion, or at least try to decrease it.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 10:17 PM


Well then it looks like my job is done here.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 10:17 PM


Even if the abortion industry wants to keep women in the dark, we won't.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 10:18 PM



Vegetarians have a shorter life span than meat eaters. Also, millions of our furry friends are killed by the combines used on farms to harvest vegetables.
These facts were pointed out by Dr. William Douglass who is an avid meat eater and has spent years debunking medical myths. I am an avid fan of his. Because of this, I also drink raw milk, eat at least two eggs a day, eat butter, limit starch and sugar, and eat some veggies and fruits. And yes, I eat meat, chicken, and fish big time! I'm careful of the fish and where it is obtained from. Dr. Douglass also gives a source for meat that is organic and free of additives and pesticides.
I also take nutritional supplements to keep my broken down old body going strong.

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2008 10:21 PM


Mary,

What do you mean by raw milk? As in unpasteurized?

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 25, 2008 10:25 PM


Dr. Douglass was probably some crazy drunk from 200 years ago who probably thought women who enjoyed sex would spontaneously combust.

Posted by: Jess at March 25, 2008 10:26 PM


Mary, If I'm not mistaken, I believe that Linda McCartney, former wife of Paul, was a vegetarian. She died of breast cancer.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 10:27 PM


Elizabeth,

Exactly, right off the farm. When I asked the clerk at the health food store for such a farmer, you would have thought I was asking for the name of a heroin dealer, it was that secretive. If anyone ever asks, the milk is for my cat. Also, I would recommend grandma's oldtime remedy of a tablespoon of cod liver oil every day.

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2008 10:29 PM


They probably donate to PP because PP offers reduced health services for women so that they can go in for early detection. I know a lot of women that can't afford most clinics in the area and PP is the only one willing to work with their low incomes.

OH MY GOD, PP DOES MORE THAN ABORTION SERVICES? YOU'RE KIDDING, RIGHT?

You know how persons of color have higher incidences of breast cancer? A lot of that is due to the economic gap and the subsequent lack of health care. PP has been one of the most outspoken, out there clinics advertising reduced health services so that women can get diagnosed early on, instead of too late.

When you find me another large-scale organization doing the same thing to help women receive health care when other organizations won't, let me know.

Posted by: Edyt at March 25, 2008 10:29 PM


Life is the leading cause of all deaths. Vegie or meat-eater something will do us in.

The fact that the abortion death-dealers don't care to share information about the risks -- is only par for the course. They are interested in $$$ only. Death is their business; every abortion is 100% fatal for one of the participants.

Posted by: Anon at March 25, 2008 10:30 PM


Oops, I meant reduced-price*

Sorry about that.

Posted by: Edyt at March 25, 2008 10:31 PM


Heather, 10:27PM

I understand she also turned her cat into a vegetarian, if you can imagine. Have you ever heard of anything so stupid?

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2008 10:32 PM


Linda McCartney
On April 17th, 1998 Linda McCartney died of breast cancer at the age of 56. Her husband, Paul McCartney, made no public display of strength. He was heartbroken that his wife of 29 years -- a wife he still referred to as "his girlfriend" -- was no longer by his side.

Linda's sweet nature and easy smile were an unlikely complement to the ferocity and passion she brought to animal rights and the issue of vegetarianism. PETA awarded her a Lifetime Achievement Award. Today, we can still enjoy the delicious legacy of her culinary experiments with vegetarian recipes. Thanks, Linda.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 10:32 PM


Therefore, should not abortion logically be considered a risk factor?

:: laughing ::

Well hell's bells yes - the same as continuing pregnancies and giving birth should be considered risk factors, (and of course having an abortion is some 10, 15, 30, 100, times safer than continuing a pregnancy and giving birth), since the risk isn't zero.

Posted by: Doug at March 25, 2008 10:32 PM


Here we go. So, shall we now argue that vegetarians die from breast cancer? Mary, that is ridiculous! lol!

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 10:34 PM


Mary,

Ewwww...yucky...I mean maybe it's good for you..but I just couldn't do it. Sorry.

Edyt,

Spare us all the "PP does more than abortions" rhetoric. It's old and tired.

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 25, 2008 10:34 PM


Anon, right!

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 10:37 PM


Jess 10:26PM

He in fact has a fairly young wife and is still going strong at his age, which I believe is close to 80. He advises men, and women as well, on what supplements they can take to enhance what he calls the "midnight mambo".
He is certainly no "drunk" but does encourage the moderate use of alcohol as being very beneficial healthwise.

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2008 10:38 PM


Mary, hahahaha!!

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 10:39 PM


@Mary: Are you a sushi fan? Just wondering because I too love fish. ^_^

Salmon is delicious.

And by the way, things are going well. I've been pretty happy as of late, my medications have continued to work really well. :)

Posted by: Rae at March 25, 2008 10:42 PM


Elizabeth, 10:34PM

That's how I initially viewed it. I'll drink water instead. I know it sounds strange but the fact is I can't drink store bought milk anymore. Skim milk is nothing but totally nutritionless sugar water, and 1% and 2% are little better.

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2008 10:43 PM


Rae,

I have never tried sushi. Also be careful of the fish you buy. Avoid salmon or any fish from fish farms. You can check with your local health food store where they often have canned tuna, salmon, etc. or can advise you on the safest kind to buy. I special order my tuna and make certain my salmon are fished from the Atlantic.

Also, thank you for the update. I think of you often and am pleased to hear when things are going well for you. I hope you stay the course:)

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2008 10:48 PM


Elizabeth,

I meant to say I will drink water rather than store bought milk, that's how much I've lost my taste for it.

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2008 10:49 PM



Oh, and the water I drink is filtered by an osmosis machine at my grocery store and I buy it from the store in jugs that continually refill :)
I only use tap water to clean my floors and flush the toilet.

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2008 10:57 PM


@Mary: I usually don't eat fish because it is really expensive, but I do love it when I get the opportunity (I typically eat walleye as I'm from Minnesota- Land of the Walleye, lol).

I'm a big fan of Japanese food, tempura is probably one of the best foods ever made. :) Nigiri salmon rolls are delicious, I do recommend them if you have the opportunity (ditto with tuna rolls).

Posted by: Rae at March 25, 2008 10:59 PM


Haha, Mary, you sure do go through a lot just to eat and drink.

It must be exhausting...I got tired just thinking about it!

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 25, 2008 11:04 PM


Rae, 10:59PM

Thank you. Sounds delicious and I will give them a try. Especially the tuna rolls! We have some excellent Japanese restaurants here in town though those flying knives make me a little nervous!

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2008 11:04 PM


@Mary: Yup, no problem. It's one of the greatest things about living in Minneapolis...lots of Japanese restaurants. Though the stuff you're talking about is called "Teppanyaki" and it's not at every Japanese restaurant. :)

Sushi-grade fish is different from fish they typically sell in grocery stores, it's higher quality.

I think I know waaaaaaaaaay too much about sushi...lol.

Posted by: Rae at March 25, 2008 11:09 PM


Elizabeth, 11:04PM

LOL. Actually its easier than it sounds. I get several gallons of milk at once and freeze them and since my husband refuses to drink it, its all the more for me. I also stock up on the water. Believe me, I have NO problem eating and will indulge in foods I shouldn't more often than I should I'm not as fanatical as I sound:)

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2008 11:09 PM


Elizabeth,

Then spare us the "abortions causes breast cancer" argument. There is no solid proof abortions cause breast cancer, nor do any major cancer organizations support that belief.

If abortions caused breast cancer, wouldn't miscarriages also lead to breast cancer?

Correlation =/= causation.

The majority of studies that support the breast cancer myth were funded by or conducted by pro-life persons. Who is to say personal bias didn't factor into those studies? That data wasn't misinterpreted just to get a certain conclusion?

Posted by: Edyt at March 25, 2008 11:14 PM


Haha, Mary...I just try to eat what tastes good..and I try to eat veggies, especially the green ones that promote brain health. I also take omega-3 fatty acid supplements..which from what I hear, help reduce cortisol (stress hormone) and promote heart and brain health.

I admit that I'm a sucker for the quick and easy over what's good for me sometimes. I can't help it...2-year old, going to school full-time, laundry, cleaning, etc,etc.

I love to cook but it's a LOT of work!

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 25, 2008 11:17 PM


Then spare us the "abortions causes breast cancer" argument. There is no solid proof abortions cause breast cancer, nor do any major cancer organizations support that belief.

Edyt,

Did you read ANY of my comments on this post?

Here's one for you..

Elizabeth 10:00 PM

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 25, 2008 11:23 PM


What? Not having an abortion drastically increases my risk of dying, versus continuing a pregnancy and giving birth?

There it is.

Posted by: Doug at March 25, 2008 11:34 PM


Elizabeth, you could cook for me anyting.

Now, that sounds sort of sexist or something, doesn't it?

I'd cook for you anytime.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at March 25, 2008 11:36 PM


Haha, Oh Doug, a man who can cook...what will I do with myself?

:blushes:

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 25, 2008 11:40 PM


Does not abortion delay child-bearing? Does not abortion make breast-feeding impossible?

Therefore, should not abortion logically be considered a risk factor?

For once I am going to take you at face value, Jill, but you are not going to like the result. By your own logic as quoted above, abstinence is every bit as much a risk factor as abortion.

NEWS FLASH: PRO-LIFE BLOGGER INFERS THAT ABSTINENCE CAUSES BREAST CANCER!

Posted by: Ray at March 26, 2008 12:27 AM


It seems to me, that when you abort, you most likely throw your hormonal system into a tail-spin.

Here is a womans body, going through this gargantuan chemical and hormonal change to support the incubation of a new life, and to prepare the breasts for their specific design: to feed the newborn baby.

Then, you deliberately terminate the pregnancy UNNATURALLY, either by chemical or instrumental physical means. This HAS to take it's toll on the endocrine system...how could it NOT ?

You can't possibly expect me to believe that doing so doesn't in some way, put a strain, or stress or whatever, on the hormone system by interrupting it when it's working overtime to do what it was designed to do in the first place, and not expect there to be adverse effects like breast cancer.

Abortion is probably the one thing that can screw up a woman's anatomy more than anything because it is completely contrary to the natural order and design of the female body, because you are invading the reproductive system against it's "will".

To not expect negative side effects of such, is pretty naive for a logical thinking person. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure this out. If you are a woman and knows basic female anatomy and what your body goes through when you're pregnant, (epsecially in the year 2008 with all the technology available) you've got to be some kind of moron to not think that aborting a pregnancy is going to mess you up in some way, like getting breast cancer.

For every action, there is a RE-action.
Cause and effect.

Why take the risk?

Posted by: Mike at March 26, 2008 12:47 AM


Mike said: Abortion is probably the one thing that can screw up a woman's anatomy more than anything because it is completely contrary to the natural order and design of the female body, because you are invading the reproductive system against it's "will".

BINGO, Mike!! That's it exactly. And the reason why a miscarriage is not considered a "risk" factor as abortion is, is for this very reason.

Dr. Joel Brind wrote that "'pregnancies destined to abort spontaneously (i.e., end in miscarriage) during the first trimester usually do not generate estradiol in quantities exceeding non-pregnant levels.' He explains that estradiol, which causes the breasts to grow during pregnancy makes for more undifferentiated cells - the same cells which are vulnerable to cancer - and thus with induced abortions, as opposed to miscarriage, there is a greater vulnerability to breast cancer."
(from PhysiciansforLife.org)

Posted by: Kel at March 26, 2008 1:22 AM


I beleive that there is a connection between abortion and breast cancer.

I can't believe that God created and designed women to abort their babies, therefore, in the infinitely complex system of the female human body, there must be a connection betweem something as violent to the human body as an intentional abortion and breast cancer. I'm not saying He would be punishing women but just that something so foreign to God's nature and design philosophy would have some negative effect. I mean we all know what happens when sugar is put in the gas tank of a car. And a womnen's body is infinitely more complex than a Chevy.

SoMG:

You are one arrogant person who pretends to know all about biological processes, their affects, causes and relationships. You can't tell me that there's at least a possibility of a connection between abortion and breast cancer.....logic dictates it. And if there's at least a chance that there's a connection, then it should be thouroughly studied and the possibility disclosed to all prosepctive abortion candidates.

Perhaps lawyers can find a way to hold abortion clinics and doctors who may now know of the connection between abortion and breast cancer and withheld the information from their patients who have had and will have abortions, and have had, have, and will contract breast cancer.

Have I got your attention now SoMG? I know lawyers especially scare the pants off your type because to your type of doctor it's about the money.

Posted by: HisMan at March 26, 2008 1:47 AM


It just occured to me what it will take to prove once and for all that abortion causes breast cancer: (The answer has been there all along, it just never hit me til just now.)

One of the many brilliant, HIGHLY EDUCATED, and well respected Hollyweird Celebrities will reveal to mankind that abortion causes breast cancer...because she got it through having an abortion.

The bigger question though, is WHICH ONE it will be ?!? Brittney? Madonna? Jessica? JOY BEHAR??(now THAT'S funny !!!) It might even be Tommy Cruise ! You think I'm kidding? Trust me. People in this country hold these idiots in such high regard that they'll believe anything these fools say.

But alas, the primary point of such a profound revelation will be "save your boobies...not your babies".

Posted by: Mike at March 26, 2008 3:05 AM


Mike, lol! Another thing. How about the increased risk of miscarriage? Ever see an abortion perfomed?..It's very brutal.

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 6:29 AM


Joy and Whoopi Grill Ron Paul Over Abortion
By Justin McCarthy | December 4, 2007 - 16:35 ET

Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul’s December 4 appearance on "The View" did not lead to the predictable agreement between Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg on Iraq, but a very strong disagreement over abortion. Whoopi Goldberg, who previously boasted about marching in a NARAL rally with Katie Couric, alluded to her confrontation with Elisabeth Hasselbeck asserted without doubt that "nobody makes this decision lightly."

Co-host Joy Behar occupied most of the segment attacking Paul’s abortion position. Though Behar admitted she believes killing a child immediately before birth is "murder" she asked "what about the first month?" and about the "mental state" or "health" line that many partial birth abortion apologists use.

Ron Paul then asked Behar if she would be okay with a law "that says abortion should be done no later than at six weeks gestation." Behar avoided the question claiming she is "not happy with abortion, period."

The transcript of the exchange is below.

BEHAR: I have to hit you with my first question because we discussed it in the in "Hot Topics." I’ve read all of your stuff and I know that you want limited government. Get government out of my life. Right?


REPRESENTATIVE RON PAUL (R-TX): Good idea!


BEHAR: What about Roe v. Wade? I don’t want the government telling me what to do with my body. How do you justify that?


PAUL: Well, I think the question is whether a baby that is unborn, that weighs eight pounds, seventh, eighth month of gestation has any rights. Is it a person?


BEHAR: But what about the first month or when you usually get an abortion?


PAUL: You’re not for all abortion.


BEHAR: I don’t know. It would have to come up in a specific case.


PAUL: So you, so you don’t want me to do an abortion on somebody that is an eight pound, normal baby.


BEHAR: No, of course not. But if-


PAUL: So you’re not for abortion really.


BEHAR: No wait a minute. But if the woman wants to abort a ch- a baby at eight months, something’s wrong either with her mental state or her health, so that-


PAUL: But the law, the law says they can do that.


BEHAR: Yeah, but the law should. It should-


PAUL: The mother, if it’s her body, why can’t she do it?


BEHAR: Shouldn’t it be between the doctor and the woman?


GOLDBERG: That’s, that’s not exactly true sir. That’s not exactly true. There is a limit as to when you can have an abortion. I believe that’s the truth.


PAUL: All the way through the third trimester.


GOLDBERG: I don’t think, I don’t think so anymore.


PAUL: Roe versus Wade allows it in a third trimester. It dictates to the doctor what he can do in the first trimester, second trimester, and third trimester. So it is the law of the land.


BEHAR: So are you not against, just you like Roe v. Wade, except to a point. Is that what your position is?


PAUL: No, I don’t like the Federal government doing anything.


BEHAR: Okay.


PAUL: So, I want the states to deal with it.


BEHAR: But what’s the- if you’re against abortion what’s the difference who’s doing it, the states or the government?


PAUL: Well, there’s a big difference because the Constitution does given them- the states deal with murder and violence and manslaughter.


BEHAR: Okay, so it’s not a moral position. It’s more of a particular position.


PAUL: It’s a legal position.


SHEPHERD: The states deal with it.


PAUL: It’s a legal position because I honor and respect the rights of the mother, but your home too, your home is your castle. I don’t want any government in your home, no searches without warrant-


BEHAR: Right.


PAUL: -no cameras. But you can’t kill your baby in your home.


BEHAR: Well, no, but that’s murder. That’s different.


PAUL: Yeah, okay, but somebody sees this- I have, as a physician, I’ve been trained to bring life into the world. And if I do harm to the baby, I get sued. So the baby is alive and has rights, right?


GOLDBERG: Well, let me ask you this: so what about-


BEHAR: Well, yes but that’s very unusual. What an unusual situation. We’re talking about girls who are in trouble and they want to have an abortion the first month.


PAUL: Would you be okay with a law that says abortion should be done no later than at six weeks gestation?


BEHAR: Look, I’m not happy with abortion period, you know?


PAUL: Well, nobody is.


BEHAR: Nobody is, but that’s not the point.


GOLDBERG: Well, that’s, that’s the idea. But here’s my question: If you make a decision that this is where you need to go, because I said to somebody else earlier on this show, no one makes this decision lightly. This is not someone somebody says "oh I think I’ll go get this." This is not a fun thing to go do. So someone has come to that place to make that decision is because it really needs to be there. Now, I think you should be able to get some help if you’re reaching out for somebody like that. What bothers me is that there is no one who says "here’s what we can do" because, you know, we have all of these children. What are we going to do with them? If everybody has the kids. Nobody, the churches don’t want to take them. Nobody wants to put them in the thing- no I want to finish the thing, period.


BEHAR: Alright, answer.


PAUL: Well, the question is whether abortion should be done on demand and who controls it. What you’re saying is a very difficult problem that we can deal with. And the more difficult a problem that we have, the more you want it to be held locally. Before Roe versus Wade, before it was legalized across the board, on demand, states did, I saw it happening, abortions were done on rare circumstances and it was done with caution.. There was a recognition , there was a recognition that life was valuable. And I don’t think anybody is going to win this. You’re not even for abortion, for anybody, anytime, a minute before birth. You don’t want to abort these normal babies.


BEHAR: No, that’s murder.


PAUL: At the same time, I don’t think we’ll ever reach the stage where there will be no abortions. But I want, I want to sort this out-


BEHAR: Okay.


PAUL: -the way the Constitution mandates and that is at the local level.


—Justin McCarthy is a news analyst at Media Research Center.


Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 6:43 AM


Mike, I thought you might enjoy this. Whoopi and Joy get confused.

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 6:48 AM


BEHAR: No, that’s murder.
----------------------- Hey, maybe there's hope for Joy.

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 6:57 AM


That's interesting Heather, when Behar is confronted directly, she doesn't want to answer the question.

Posted by: jasper at March 26, 2008 7:18 AM


jasper, They all twist in the wind. It's hard to keep a lie straight.

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 7:19 AM


Edyt 10:29PM

You're going on the assumption that women of color are for the most part in a lower income group. The article I mentioned in a previous post stated that these women had equal access to early detection and treatment, but still died at a higher rate for reasons not known.
Also even if breast cancer is detected at PP, an oncologist and surgeon will likely have to be found for follow up, longer term care, so there must be doctors outside PP willing to take and care for these patients and PP is not the only hope for these women.

Edyt 11:14PM

All that is being said is that research exists pointing to an abortion/breast cancer link and every woman has a right to know this. All women should be strongly encouraged to research arguments on both sides, and draw her own conclusions. I have often urged people on this site to do the same when it comes to vaccinations and their own personal health issues.
How do you know for a fact most research is conducted by pro-life people? The vast number of studies I have read at www.abortion/breastcancer.com say nothing at all as to where the researchers stand on this issue. Do you honestly think PC side is totally unbiased?
Keep in mind that the abortion industry, like the tobacco industry 50 years ago, has everything to lose if a link is established. They are certainly not anxious to have any link exposed.
Also miscarriage, unlike abortion, is a natural process where the body makes hormonal adjustments, the cervix dilatates, and the uterus contracts. It is not the abrupt interruption of a natural body process that the body has not prepared for.

Posted by: Mary at March 26, 2008 7:41 AM


Hi Jess,
Your passion for animals is evident. I admire that. I have the same passion for humans, especially the unborn.
You said
"Also animals who are killed for meat are horrifically tortured for days, months, years. I mean compared to the whole five minutes abortion lasts. I would be aborted rather then spend a day at one of those farms any day."

The abortion procedure may take 5 minutes or less but the effects of that procedure last a lifetime.
Please don't trivialize it or try to equate it to animals. A baby is a baby. Unborn babies are tortured and killed through abortion.

Posted by: Carla at March 26, 2008 8:42 AM


Carla,

I too admire Jess' passion for her cause. The research she presented showing a meat/cancer link is interesting and informative and I would be the first to encourage people to look at studies on both sides of the meat eating issue and draw their own conclusions, as Jess has drawn hers.
Has anyone gone ballistic insisting this is all hooey, as has been done over the suggestion of a breast cancer abortion link? Do people get defensive and angry, accusing Jess of being full of BS? No.
Jess presents the studies and we all have the option to consider these and other studies that show no such link, and draw our own conclusions. No one gets defensive or angry, no one is adamant that a link cannot possibly exist, no one claims this is some plot by rich vegetable farmers and vegetarians, no one claims the researchers all oppose meat eating.
What a contrast to what happens when pro-life people point out the existence of studies showing a breast cancer/abortion link and support women being advised of this and encouraged to research both sides of the issue.

Posted by: Mary at March 26, 2008 9:04 AM


Mary, right. I also thank Jess for the info. No offense taken.

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 9:06 AM


I beleive that there is a connection between abortion and breast cancer.

I believe in the tooth fairy.

Believing doesn't make it so.

Posted by: Ray at March 26, 2008 9:26 AM


Mary,
Exactly.

Ray,
I am anxiously awaiting your research and findings on the tooth fairy!! Cite those sources, man!!

Posted by: Carla at March 26, 2008 9:33 AM


Ray,

True, believing doesn't make anything "so". Not believing something doesn't make it non-existent either.
Objectively researching both sides of an issue and drawing your own conclusions is the best way and what I advise everyone concerning any issue.

Posted by: Mary at March 26, 2008 9:44 AM


Ray, I don't think you believe in the tooth fairy.

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 10:06 AM


Ray, I don't think you believe in the tooth fairy.

Why would you think that, heather?

I am anxiously awaiting your research and findings on the tooth fairy!!

I can only cite my own personal experience, Carla, as I am not aware of any "scientific" research on the subject. When I was a kid, I put several teeth under my pillow on separate occasions, and each and every time there was at least a quarter (this was a long time ago) in its place the next morning. By my observation, the Tooth Fairy performed as reputed 100% of the time! This being so long ago, I am afraid I no longer have the actual quarters as physical evidence.

Posted by: Ray at March 26, 2008 11:38 AM


Mary you wrote: "I am certain both of you will wholeheartedly agree that women have a right to know of the research done on both sides of this issue and you would be the first to encourage women to thoroghly research both sides of this controversy before arriving at any conclusions."

That's usually what they pay medical professionals to do FOR them.

But if a patient wanted to research the issue herself, I would definitely warn her that there are people on the net who think it's their mission in life to scare you out of having an abortion and some of them post (essentially) fake research.

I would encourage her to trust serious professional societies such as the AMA, ACOG, and ACS, and not to trust poor propagandists like Jill Stanek.


Posted by: SoMG at March 25, 2008 5:53 PM
******************************
Thank you.
And Ive seen first hand the inability of most individuals to do adequate research on any subject, to comprehend the difference between propaganda and factual information, and to grasp what an objective source of information actually is. They also are not able to really understand what statistics and research really mean. There is nothing 'patronizing' about it. Antichociers bank on women being poorly educated, poorly informed, and susceptible to antichoice propaganda and never knowing the difference.

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 11:50 AM


www.abortionbreastcancer.com

***************
I looked it up -
Catholic Medical Association
American Association of Pro Life OB/GYNs
Polycarp Research - who 'will not promote methods ... inconsistant with the ethical andmoral guidelines of the Catholic Church
I looked up some of the doctors mentioned from the other organizations - there seems to be a definite tendency to be affiliated with ultra conservative organizations and publications

This is your idea of objective research?

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 12:12 PM


I don't know about you but I don't pay anyone to do my research for me.
Why would you warn a woman about people on the net supposedly out to scare her? Certainly when she had done her research she will come to that conclusion herself, right? I mean if the research just isn't there to support the argument of an abortion/breast cancer link, women will see this for themselves. Or do you, like Texas Red, consider women just a little too stupid to figure any of this out for themselves?


Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2008 6:04 PM
**********************
I dont consider women stupid. But I do recognize the fact that a typical American will not be able to recognize the difference between propaganda and information from objective sources and will not be able to understand most of what statistics are really saying. This is a matter of education. And antichoicers bank on women being uninformed enough to believe what antichoicers tell them and rely on them not doing the research needed to realize what they are being presented is misinformation and propaganda.

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 12:15 PM


In addition to that, I once worked with 2 white women. They both passed away from breast cancer in their 40s. They both had abortions when they were in their 20s.

Posted by: heather at March 25, 2008 8:38 PM
************
yeah, heather - sure that happened

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 12:17 PM


Ray,
Maybe it's time for a little conversation with your folks. :)

Posted by: Carla at March 26, 2008 12:18 PM


TR, it did.

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 12:20 PM


There is no one 'cause' for any kind of cancer. There are things which increase the probability of developing cancer. Lots of non smokers die of lung cancer. Lots of smokers never develop lung cancer. Genetics play a role. Diet can play a role. Exposure to toxins can play a role. And you cant be sure *one* factor was the *cause* and not some other factor. But what is dishonest is trying to pretend that having abortions are 'dangerous'. Even when you read the studies you find the statistical increase is small and there is a serious problem in duplicating these studies. The touch stone of any research is when you conduct study after study after study and they all show the same tendencies and results. We are not seeing that with these studies.

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 12:25 PM


Why take the risk?

Posted by: Mike at March 26, 2008 12:47 AM
****************************
No one can be this simple minded.
Do you really think a woman dealing with an unwanted pregnancy is going to be deterred from having an abortion because she MIGHT POSSIBLY face a 2% higher risk of having breast cancer?
Do you want to look at all the risks associated with gestation and birth?

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 12:27 PM


Do you really think a woman dealing with an unwanted pregnancy is going to be deterred from having an abortion because she MIGHT POSSIBLY face a 2% higher risk of having breast cancer?

Indeed, Iva.

Posted by: Doug at March 26, 2008 12:30 PM


Texas Red, if she still wants to abort after the facts are given, that's her problem. Don't come back after your double mastectomy and say no one ever told you.

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 12:35 PM


Somehow I don't think trivializing the A/BC link research by equating it to the "tooth fairy" is going to help ANYONE.

Again, it's just a way for you to mock something that you don't agree with. Breast cancer is a very serious issue, which takes so many lives.

We're told all the time that we don't "care" about women because we don't want them to abort, but then we're mocked when we say "there is strong evidence to support a link, so please consider this health risk before you obtain an abortion."

It will never matter what the research says, because blindness to truth is epidemic. After all, we still have Holocaust deniers today, even with all the photographic and historical evidence.

Posted by: Kel at March 26, 2008 12:47 PM


Texas Red, if she still wants to abort after the facts are given, that's her problem. Don't come back after your double mastectomy and say no one ever told you.

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 12:35 PM
****************************
Why dont you tell us all where you got the "information" that I've had an abortion?

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 12:49 PM


Just FYI - the incidence of 'exotic' internal parasites has gone up since eating raw fish became popular.

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 12:50 PM


Mike, lol! Another thing. How about the increased risk of miscarriage? Ever see an abortion perfomed?..It's very brutal.

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 6:29 AM
*******************
There is nothing 'brutal' about a suction curettage or a RU486 abortion and those make up about 97% of abortions performed in the US.

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 12:52 PM


I see proof of the 'typical Americans' inability to deal with the difference between objective research and propaganda, and the inability to grasp what constitutes valid research every time I read these boards.

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 12:55 PM


Somehow I don't think trivializing the A/BC link research by equating it to the "tooth fairy" is going to help ANYONE.

Again, it's just a way for you to mock something that you don't agree with. Breast cancer is a very serious issue, which takes so many lives.

I am not trivialing the alleged A/BC link, I am trivializing someone saying that they "believe" in it. Science doesn't care what you believe, and believing things doesn't make them true.

BC is a very serious issue, but I have yet to see any evidence presented by an objective source that demonstrates a link to A.

Back to Jill's original logic, the risk factors she names are also present in abstinence. So why aren't you all warning women about the A/BC link where A=abstinence?

Posted by: Ray at March 26, 2008 1:02 PM


Why dont you tell us all where you got the "information" that I've had an abortion?

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 12:49 PM-------------------------------------------------------------- I'm just assuming based on the way you act. Your anger is evident. It gives you away.

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 1:02 PM


I am not trivialing the alleged A/BC link, I am trivializing someone saying that they "believe" in it. Science doesn't care what you believe, and believing things doesn't make them true.

----------------------------------------------------- Yes. Let's tell smokers that lung cancer is in NO WAY a possible consequence.

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 1:05 PM


Why dont you tell us all where you got the "information" that I've had an abortion?

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 12:49 PM-------------------------------------------------------------- I'm just assuming based on the way you act. Your anger is evident. It gives you away.

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 1:02 PM
*******************
Heather, you invent lies that suit your own agenda. The truth doesnt matter to you. Thats why your hatred of women who are not 'just like you' is so obvious - the lies you have to tell about them - the lies you have to tell about abortion - the lies you have to tell about 'those people' who perform abortion. The list goes on and on. Youre not capable of coping with reality. Im not 'angry' and Ive never had an abortion. I've never even been in a situation where I needed to consider abortion.

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 1:07 PM


...emphysema can be caused from smoking?....NO WAY!

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 1:07 PM


Texas Red, then why do you support it?

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 1:10 PM


A friends son lost a tooth but he didnt tell anyone. He hid it under his pillow and waited. Three days later he announced he had proof there was no Tooth Fairy, that it was one of his parents who put money under his pillow, and explained how he'd reached that conclusion. The kid is in the 2nd grade and he came up with that.

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 1:10 PM


What a funny question -- who does the Komen foundation give money to Planned Parenthood?

The answer: so they can provide life-saving mammograms to poor women.

Oh, but saving women's lives isn't important to the "pro-life" movement, is it now? Of course not.

Posted by: reality at March 26, 2008 1:10 PM


What a funny question -- why does the Komen foundation give money to Planned Parenthood?

The answer: so they can provide life-saving mammograms to poor women.

Oh, but saving women's lives isn't important to the "pro-life" movement, is it now? Of course not.

Posted by: reality at March 26, 2008 1:11 PM


TR 11:50am and 12:15PM

Obviously you have trouble saying "patronizing".

Posted by: Mary at March 26, 2008 1:13 PM


Texas Red, then why do you support it?

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 1:10 PM
*************
No one can really be this stupid.
I support a womans right to choose because Im not arrogant enough to think Im in a position to tell someone else what she 'should' do if she is the one pregnant. If she says she is not in a position to continue a pregnancy then Im not arrogant enough to try to contradict her and pretend I know more about her life and what she can deal with than she knows herself. And if she says she wants to continue her pregnancy then Im not going to criticize her for that either. I support women being shown respect for their decision making skills and their judgment whether they choose to end a pregnancy or continue it. Respect women - thats something youre not capable of doing.

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 1:15 PM


Yes. Let's tell smokers that lung cancer is in NO WAY a possible consequence.

Why would we do that? There is reams of data out there demonstrating a link, and there has been for decades. The Surgeon General has even mandated a warning on all cigarette packages. Now YOU are trivializing lung cancer by mingling it with your alleged A/BC link for which, again, I have yet to see evidence presented by an objective source.

Posted by: Ray at March 26, 2008 1:19 PM


Obviously you have trouble saying "patronizing".

Posted by: Mary at March 26, 2008 1:13 PM
**************
Obviously you are not capable of dealing with the truth. I have gotten more than adequate proof of my position just from the posts on this board today. The antichoicers posting here have proven how right I am.

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 1:20 PM


Ray, there is evidence coming out about an abortion/breast CA link. Why hide it?

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 1:26 PM


In 1986, government scientists wrote a letter to the British journal Lancet and acknowledged that abortion is a cause of breast cancer. They wrote, "Induced abortion before first term pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer." (Lancet, 2/22/86, p. 436)








As of 2006, eight medical organizations recognize that abortion raises a woman's risk for breast cancer, independently of the risk of delaying the birth of a first child (a secondary effect that all experts already acknowledge). An additional medical organization, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, issued a statement in 2003 calling on doctors to inform patients about a "highly plausible" relationship between abortion and breast cancer. General counsel for that medical group wrote an article for its journal warning doctors that three women (two Americans, one Australian) successfully sued their abortion providers for neglecting to disclose the risks of breast cancer and emotional harm, although none of the women had developed the disease. Click here for more.








Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 1:30 PM


Rae, there you are.

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 1:32 PM


meant RAY

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 1:33 PM


Where is SOMG. This is his favorite journal.

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 1:38 PM


Ray,

Data concerning an abortion/breast cancer link goes back decades as well. Why is this such an issue to you? If the research is out there, then women have a right to know, research both sides of the controversy, and draw their own conclusions. Contrary to what TR thinks, women do have the intelligence to do this. I've heard smoking, overeating, alcohol, and high fat diets linked to breast cancer as well. Show me the research and I'll draw my own conclusions. I'm certainly not going to be adamant that somebody is just making this up. If the evidence is or isn't there, I'll determine that for myself.


Posted by: Mary at March 26, 2008 1:44 PM


Heather, I said objective sources, not a bunch of conservative cranks like AAPS, who openly oppose abortion and over-the-counter access to emergency contraception. No conflict of interest there! (Note to all of you from several weeks ago: that last sentence is how sarcasm is done)

Would you care to be more specific about your "government scientists" and your "eight medical organizations?" And as for your successful lawsuits, court decisions don't make scientific facts.

I am not hiding anything, Heather, but I have yet to see your evidence.

Posted by: Ray at March 26, 2008 1:47 PM


Data concerning an abortion/breast cancer link goes back decades as well.

Where is it, Mary? Why can't anyone point me to it?

Posted by: Ray at March 26, 2008 1:49 PM


Ray, I'd also like to know why this is such an issue for you. What would you care if it changed a woman's mind about having an abortion? Cigarette packs and alcohol bottles come with WARNING labels. I have the ability to read them for myself and choose from there.

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 1:50 PM


Ray, just run breast cancer/abortion through your search engine. Numerous study results pop up.

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 1:53 PM


Also, if you go to a PC site, they will tell you that there is no such finding. It would cost them big bucks.

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 1:55 PM


Ray,

If you will just go to www.abortionbreastcancer.com you will find all kinds of info, studies, sources, and articles written by credentialled scientists who can hardly be brushed off as "conservative cranks".
Also, don't be so certain that the PC side maintains only the most sterling objectivity on this subject.

Posted by: Mary at March 26, 2008 2:03 PM


This is an issue for me because it is a canard that you antis have used for years to try to scare women out of having an abortion, with no scientific evidence to back it up. How very Christian of you all to LIE in an attempt to convince women not to do something, as a secondary tactic, because you haven't had success in getting in legally banned.

I would care if, on false pretenses, it affected the decision of a woman who did not want to carry a fetus to term, because I am PRO-CHOICE and PRO-FAMILY. I believe that individuals, families, and society are all better off when women bear children that are wanted, not because they couldn't obtain an abortion or someone scared them away from having one with a falsehood.

Posted by: Ray at March 26, 2008 2:04 PM


Ray, You seem to keep on missing the point.

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 2:13 PM


A simple click of the mouse would have shown abortion activist SoMG that Komen gives funds to Planned Parenthood. Komen's website provides a list of grants state-by-state.

Few people realize that three breast cancer risks are associated with induced abortion. I've listed each risk under headings shown below.

LOSS OF THE PROTECTIVE EFFECT OF CHILDBEARING
(Loss of an opportunity to mature 85% of the breast lobules from cancer-susceptible lobules into fully cancer-resistant lobules at a younger age.)

Even anti-information cancer fundraising groups admit that increased childbearing, starting before age 24, and increased duration of breastfeeding reduce breast cancer risk significantly. Experts agree that the younger a woman is when she has her first full term pregnancy, the lower her breast cancer risk is.

Cancer groups contradict themselves by denying that abortion is related to increased breast cancer risk.

Why does childbearing help protect women against the disease, but childlessness, delayed first full term pregnancy and small family size raise risk?

Research by Irma and Jose Russo (Fox Chase Cancer Center) during the last quarter century shows that the childless woman's breast lobules (tissue containing milk ducts with milk producing glands) are highly immature and cancer-susceptible Type 1 and 2 lobules where 95% of all breast cancers are known to arise. During every monthly menstrual cycle, the lobules are stimulated by estrogen, a hormone and a known carcinogen (cancer causing agent). It is only during the last months of a first full term pregnancy that pheromones hCG and hPL (produced by the unborn child) play a role in maturing 85% of the mother's lobules into fully cancer-resistant Type 4 lobules. With every subsequent full term pregnancy, the mother acquires more cancer-resistant lobules and an additional 10% reduction in breast cancer risk.

A woman doesn't need to have a Ph.D. to recognize who has a higher risk - the (childless) woman who aborts her pregnancy or the one who has a baby (all other variables are alike). It's clear that the one who has an abortion has the greater risk because she lost the benefit of an early first full term pregnancy (forever if she remains childless for the rest of her life). She lost the benefit of maturing her breast lobules into cancer-resistant lobules at a younger age.

THE INDEPENDENT LINK
(Abortion leaves women with more places in their breasts for cancers to start.)

The only breast cancer risk associated with abortion that scientists challenge (and the only breast cancer risk that most studies in the last 2 decades have explored) is known as "the independent link." Such a link would mean that abortion leaves women with more places for breast cancers to start, i.e. more Type 1 and 2 lobules.

Any woman who has ever been pregnant knows that, if she is carrying a NORMAL pregnancy, then her breasts start growing considerably starting early in her pregnancy. What causes the breast growth? It's the hormone estrogen. Estrogen increases 2000% by the end of the first trimester. It stimulates the mother's Type 1 and 2 lobules to multiply. In other words, mom develops more places for cancers to start.

However, if mom chooses to carry her pregnancy to term instead of aborting, then during the last months of her full term pregnancy, baby produces pheromones that help mature 85% of her breast lobules into fully cancer-resistant Type 4 lobules.

If mom can carry her pregnancy to at least 32 weeks gestation, then she acquires 90% of the protective effect of a full term pregnancy. If, on the other hand, she has a premature birth or an abortion before 32 weeks gestation, then research shows that her breast cancer risk is increased.

(The Danish study, Melbye et al. 1997, that abortion activist SoGM is so fond of says that the longer a woman is pregnant before she has an abortion, the greater her breast cancer risk is. That's due to the effect of cancer-susceptible Type 1 and 2 lobules being overexposed to estrogen week after week. I will talk about that study later.)

THE LINK BETWEEN PREMATURE BIRTH AND BREAST CANCER
(Abortion increases the risk of having a premature birth, and premature birth before 32 weeks gestation more than doubles breast cancer risk.)

The third breast cancer risk of abortion is a recognized risk. The Institute of Medicine (an organization of the National Academies of Sciences) lists abortion as a risk factor for premature birth. That means that women who abort put themselves at higher risk for having premature babies in subsequent pregnancies. Premature births have climbed in the U.S. by more than 40% since 1980. Abortion is a primary reason for the increase.

Premature before 37 weeks gestation birth is an accepted risk factor for cerebral palsy. That means that a premature baby is at risk for cerebral palsy. Research shows that if mom has a premature birth before 32 weeks gestation, she more than doubles her breast cancer risk.

No scientists debate the link beteween having a premature birth and an increased risk of breast cancer. Even though a premature birth is biologically the same event as having an abortion (and the hormonal changes to the breasts are the same), scientists do not question it or challenge it.

But, when the research shows an independent link between abortion and breast cancer, researchers challenge it. Why the difference? Because we're talking about the sacrament of abortion and abortion must be protected at all costs - even if it means that at least 2,000 American women yearly will die of breast cancer because of their abortions.

In addition, the federal government funds most cancer research in the U.S. Scientists have privately said that they fear the lost of their government grants if they admit that abortion raises breast cancer risk.

A third reason is the fear of massive medical malpractice lawsuits. Hence, the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists respond to evidence of an abortion-breast cancer link in much the same way that a vampire responds to the sight of a crucifix.

Like it or not, research that shows a link between premature birth and breast cancer helps provide additional evidence supporting an independent link between abortion and breast cancer.

THE DANISH STUDY, MELBYE ET AL. 1997

Abortion activist SoGM used the Danish study, Melbye et al. 1997, to discount a large body of research that supports abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer (apart from the protective effect of childbearing).

It is not likely that SoGM has ever read Melbye et al. because, in the Results section of the study, the authors said they found that the longer a woman is pregnant before she has an abortion, the greater her breast cancer risk is. They wrote that:

"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 relative risk increased from 0.81 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.58 to 1.13) among women whose most recent induced abortion was at less than 7 weeks of gestation to 1.38 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.00 to 1.90) among women whose most recent abortion was at more than 12 weeks of gestation. We acknowledge the small number of cases in the group with abortions later than 12 weeks, but we evaluated this period further and found the following relative risks: weeks 13 to 14, 1.13 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.51 to 2.53); weeks 15 to 18, 1.23 (0.76 to 2.00); weeks>18, 1.89 (1.11 to 3.22) (P for trend=0.016, Table 1).

A relative risk of 1.89 at 18 weeks gestation means an increased risk of 89% for women who have abortions at 18 weeks of pregnancy.

Posted by: Karen Malec at March 26, 2008 2:15 PM


Ray,

Listen to yourself. You don't like what we're saying so you lash out with anger and insults. Certainly if you could back your claim that there is no cancer risk to women, you wouldn't be doing this, right? You would calmly and intelligently present your case.
Instead you accuse us of being liars, just out to scare women, and that we lack scientific evidence even though both Heather and I have told you where to look.
We lie? No Ray, we say the evidence is out there and women have every right to know this. Just as you have a right to know when there's evidence that anything might be a cancer causing agent.
As I said, don't be so certain that the PC side maintains only the most sterling objectivity on this subject and maybe you should question their studies as well. They're the ones with plenty to lose financially.

Posted by: Mary at March 26, 2008 2:16 PM


Karen Malec,

Welcome and thank you for an excellent post.

Posted by: Mary at March 26, 2008 2:20 PM


This is an issue for me because it is a canard that you antis have used for years to try to scare women out of having an abortion, with no scientific evidence to back it up.

Hmm, it's funny that you think we can scare women out of having an abortion. I thought that women were strong and knew how to make their own decisions. It's funny that you think they're only weak and impressionable once WE start talking to them. Please.

I don't think any woman has ever had or not had an abortion based on anything related to breast cancer. Also, I don't really think it's a valid reason to or not to have an abortion. Sure as hell didn't matter to me.

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 26, 2008 2:21 PM


Oh please, Karen Malec? (the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer woman) Even SHE doesn't have links to legitimate studies. But she does have an openly anti-abortion agenda.

I don't know which of the internets you are using, but every time I google abortion breast cancer, I see things like:

having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer - National Cancer Institute @ www.cancer.gov

Research studies have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer - American Cancer Society @ www.cancer.org

The only links I see parroting the canard are blatantly anti-abortion sites or organizations. This is not science, it is a boogeyman.

Posted by: Ray at March 26, 2008 2:21 PM


Karen, thank you for the post!

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 2:22 PM


Ray, it almost sounds like you are an abortion pusher.

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 2:27 PM


Ray, you're a man. Why would you even concern yourself with it?

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 2:29 PM


Hi Karen! I see you have chimed in! Allow me to refer you to your friend, Orac:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/10/abortion_and_breast_cancer_the_chicago_t.php

Posted by: Ray at March 26, 2008 2:30 PM


Ray, If I went to NOW or Naral's web site and provided a link that said that there was NO abortion/breast CA link, would that make you happy?

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 2:32 PM


Ray, is the smoke coming out of your ears yet?

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 2:34 PM


Heather,

Now those are two totally unbiased websites if there ever were any!

Posted by: Mary at March 26, 2008 2:48 PM


Mary, ROFL! I think Ray left.

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 2:54 PM


Can someone please explain to me the difference between biased and unbiased sources?

Proabortion-unbiased
Prolife-biased

Wait, think I figured it out myself.

Posted by: Carla at March 26, 2008 3:07 PM


Can someone please explain to me the difference between biased and unbiased sources?

Proabortion-unbiased
Prolife-biased

Wait, think I figured it out myself.

Posted by: Carla at March 26, 2008 3:07 PM
********************
Youre proving you dont know what objective means either.

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 3:11 PM


I am so tired of you TR.
You are on every thread of every post. Do us all a favor and take a nap. Please.

Posted by: Carla at March 26, 2008 3:13 PM


I am so tired of you TR.
You are on every thread of every post. Do us all a favor and take a nap. Please.

Posted by: Carla at March 26, 2008 3:13 PM
*****************
why dont you throw yourself on the floor, drum your heels on the carpet, thrash your head around a bit screaming 'I dont like it!' and hold your breath until your face turns blue?
If youre 'tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiired' then dont read my posts. Why do antichoicers always come across as such self centered egotistical little control freak brats?

Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 3:35 PM


I took your advice. My 2 year old gave a funny look but I feel much better now. Thanks.

Posted by: Carla at March 26, 2008 3:44 PM


Why do antichoicers always come across as such self centered egotistical little control freak brats?


I find when people use the word "always" they're generally proved wrong. Make a mental note of that next time. We don't...that is of course, unless you're insecure. Which would make sense with all the name-calling. The bullies in school were usually the ones who felt the worst about themselves. Funny how elementary school mirrors life.

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 26, 2008 3:51 PM


Ray,
You cannot possibly be prochoice and profamily.
A prochoice person believes that abortion is permissable in whatever circumstances are necessary. That means that a baby in or out of a family can be destroyed at the whim of the mother (and father).
A profamily person would never accept this situation - they would loving accept any child conceived or if they couldn't due to circumstances, would at the very least, give birth and find a loving home for him/her.
The two are incompatible and irrational.

The basic problem with abortion research is that many researcher's results find some sort of medical sequelae to abortion, however, in their conclusions they either downplay or discard their results.
Gentles and Ring-Cassidy state therefore, that anyone reading published abortion research must read the results section very carefully because it often contradicts what the paper concludes! It is not politically safe nor expedient to publish accurate conclusions.

Also, many abortion researchers are also abortion providers and therefore have a vested interest in hiding or disclaiming the results of their studies.
YOu would think that if abortion providers are genuinely concerned about the health of women they would halt abortions so that a more complete study could be undertaken.
Because they have a vested interest in seeing abortion continue, this is one fattened calf they just can't slaughter.

Posted by: Patricia at March 26, 2008 4:39 PM


1. Ray, you quote the Nat'l Cancer Institute's denial of a link to abortion. Were the leading anti-cancer organizations early or late to warn smokers about a link?

2. I ate an extra animal today in celebration of this thread!

3. Professor Joel Brind, PhD endocrinologist from Baruch College in NYC is the dissenting voice in the Nat'l Cancer Institute's report on breast cancer, and he stated, “the 2003 conference of the NCI which denied abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer refused to allow attending scientists to present the opposing position of the scientific research establishing the link, showing that abortion was declassified as a cancer risk for political and not scientific reasons.”

4. Please see #1.

Posted by: Bob Enyart at March 26, 2008 5:57 PM


"HisMan", you wrote: "You can't tell me that there's at least a possibility of a connection between abortion and breast cancer"

Yes I can.

.....logic dictates it.

But the data consistantly come out against it.

"And if there's at least a chance that there's a connection, then it should be thouroughly studied"

Already has been.

" and the possibility disclosed to all prosepctive abortion candidates."

The fact that induced abortion does not cause subsequent breast cancer is routinely disclosed to those patients who ask about it.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 26, 2008 6:01 PM


Karen Malec,

Thanks for visiting the website!

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 26, 2008 7:19 PM


Patricia,

A prochoice person believes that abortion is permissable in whatever circumstances are necessary. That means that a baby in or out of a family can be destroyed at the whim of the mother (and father).
A profamily person would never accept this situation - they would loving accept any child conceived or if they couldn't due to circumstances, would at the very least, give birth and find a loving home for him/her.
The two are incompatible and irrational.

I disagree. Check out this blog about some of the women that have chosen to have abortions and why they did it. Read back for a few pages.

You'll see that many of them did it for the good of their families.

Posted by: Edyt at March 26, 2008 7:29 PM


I think the Abortion Industry covering up Breast cancer is the same as the Tabacco Industry covering up Lung Cancer for so long. They are using the same playbook. I have seen it first hand working for the Tabacco Industry for 10 years.

It's time for Pro-Aborts to smell the coffee. There is truely a link between Abortion/Contraception and Breast Cancer.

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 26, 2008 7:30 PM


I think the Abortion Industry covering up Breast cancer is the same as the Tabacco Industry covering up Lung Cancer for so long.

I think that the moon is made of cheese. Thinking doesn't make it so.

They are using the same playbook.

So you think.

I have seen it first hand working for the Tabacco Industry for 10 years.

Too bad you haven't worked in the cancer research industry for 10 years, where your experience might actually be relevant here.

Posted by: Ray at March 26, 2008 8:33 PM


Mike, I'd think that working in the tobacco industry for 10 years, you'd know how to spell it. I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but I've been smoking for only 2 years and I'm pretty sure that one of the first things I learned after I started was how to spell tobacco.

Posted by: Erin at March 26, 2008 11:49 PM


Erin, I smoke in moderation. At least I know the dangers of it.

Posted by: heather at March 27, 2008 6:54 AM


Ray, spare me. You are NOT pro family. You are pro Ray. Whatever YOU decide. The facts were put out there, and you chose to dismiss them. Why do I get the feeling that you've pressured someone into an abortion at some point? Just a feeling.

Posted by: heather at March 27, 2008 7:33 AM


Bob Enyart 5:57PM

An excellent and informative post. It should come as no surprise to anyone that this is politically motivated. Have you ever seen people get so ballistic and defensive and so ready to renounce any studies showing a possible cause and effect relationship concerning cancer?
Imagine if the same evidence existed against breast implants that exists showing an abortion/breast cancer link? The media and feminists would go wild and all kinds of women would be found to testify their implants caused cancer. There would be massive lawsuits.
We know this since this is exactly what happened several years ago with virtually no evidence, other than anecdotal, against breast implants.
Concern for the safety of women is politically motivated? Nahhhhhhh!

Posted by: Mary at March 27, 2008 8:10 AM


A friends son lost a tooth but he didnt tell anyone. He hid it under his pillow and waited. Three days later he announced he had proof there was no Tooth Fairy, that it was one of his parents who put money under his pillow, and explained how he'd reached that conclusion. The kid is in the 2nd grade and he came up with that.

Sweet, Iva, I love it.

My one neighbor didn't mention the Tooth Fairy, but after losing a tooth, he did mention a "Toof Fairy"....

Posted by: Doug at March 27, 2008 8:49 AM


There IS a tooth fairy. It's mom and dad.

Posted by: heather at March 27, 2008 8:51 AM


Erin, I smoke in moderation

Heather, I can see you, furiously pounding the keys, overflowing ashtrays and empty beer bottles all around..... (heh heh heh).

Just kidding; love you, kid.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at March 27, 2008 8:51 AM


Thanks Doug:] *wink* Actually, I can make a pack of smokes last for a month and a half.

Posted by: heather at March 27, 2008 8:57 AM


One of my younger sister's once told my grandmother, "Nanna...stop trying to fool the tooth fairy by putting your fake teeth on the night stand...he's no that DUMB".

Posted by: Mike at March 27, 2008 10:18 AM


The facts were put out there, and you chose to dismiss them.

Where are your so-called facts? I have still not seen an objective source or study, that is to say one that does not have an anti-abortion agenda, that demonstrates an A/BC link.

Why do I get the feeling that you've pressured someone into an abortion at some point? Just a feeling.

You certainly get a lot of "feelings" about people, don't you, heather? From what I have seen here, though, you don't seem to have a very good track record with them. I guess you wouldn't do very well as a storefront psychic. In fact, while I know women who have had abortions before I met them, I have never personally known a woman while she was having one. My mission is not to promote abortion, but to make certain it is available as an option for women who decide to have one. SAFE, LEGAL, AND RARE remains the goal.

Posted by: Ray at March 27, 2008 11:39 AM


Ray,

Did you read Bob Enyart's 3/26 5:57PM post? If you're so concerned about bias, you might question the action of the National Cancer Institute. Why was the NCI determined to silence these opposing scientists. Similar efforts have been made to silence scientists who oppose the notion of manmade global warming.
Are you so absolutely certain that all those who were involved in establishing a smoking/lung cancer link were totally unbiased people? Would it make a difference in the research either way?

Posted by: Mary at March 27, 2008 12:29 PM


Ray, okay. Don't believe it then.

Posted by: heather at March 27, 2008 1:13 PM


Bob, Mary, and heather, you will find some interesting reading about anti-abortionist Dr. Joel Brind here:

http://www.abortion.org.au/breastcancer.htm

Why do only anti-abortion researchers find a link, when neutral researchers and major cancer research organizations don't? Could it be that the anti-abortion researchers have an agenda that goes beyond preventing breast cancer and is instead focused on scaring women from having abortions?

Posted by: Ray Koltys at March 27, 2008 2:34 PM


I find when people use the word "always" they're generally proved wrong. Make a mental note of that next time. We don't...that is of course, unless you're insecure. Which would make sense with all the name-calling. The bullies in school were usually the ones who felt the worst about themselves. Funny how elementary school mirrors life.

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 26, 2008 3:51 PM
************************
More amusing how you feel compelled to invent lies to make yourself feel better ...

Posted by: TexasRed at March 27, 2008 2:37 PM


Ray,

If you will just go to www.abortionbreastcancer.com you will find all kinds of info, studies, sources, and articles written by credentialled scientists who can hardly be brushed off as "conservative cranks".
Also, don't be so certain that the PC side maintains only the most sterling objectivity on this subject.


Posted by: Mary at March 26, 2008 2:03 PM
*************************
And he'll also see that most of those referenced organizations are anti abortion.

Posted by: TexasRed at March 27, 2008 2:40 PM


A relative risk of 1.89 at 18 weeks gestation means an increased risk of 89% for women who have abortions at 18 weeks of pregnancy.

Posted by: Karen Malec at March 26, 2008 2:15 PM
************************
Have these findings been duplicated in other studies?

Posted by: TexasRed at March 27, 2008 2:42 PM


I took your advice. My 2 year old gave a funny look but I feel much better now. Thanks.

Posted by: Carla at March 26, 2008 3:44 PM
************************************
Be glad I didnt tell you to do the first thing I thought of ... it might have traumatized her

Posted by: TexasRed at March 27, 2008 2:45 PM


Ray Koltys,

Just show me proof that Brind lied when he said NCI scientists refused to allow opposing scientists from presenting evidence supporting an ABC link.
Also, your link does not call Brind's credentials into question nor does it disprove anything he says, only disputes it. Of course your source is totally lacking in bias.
Do your research Ray. How do you know for an absolute fact all the researchers finding an ABC link are pro-life? Have you examined the names and backgrounds of all of them? There was one PC researcher, maybe Karen Malec could help me with her name, who set out to prove there is no link, only to have to admit, much to her chagrin, that there was. So much for pro-life plots.

You think the PC side are models of objectivity? Maybe you should question why they are so defensive and the NCI found it necessary to silence certain scientists. Perhaps the possibility of millions of dollars being at stake if a link is indeed proved to exist?

Posted by: Mary at March 27, 2008 3:03 PM


TR,

Please refer to my post to Ray Koltys.

Posted by: Mary at March 27, 2008 3:05 PM


Mary, it gets really old debating this stuff with you folks. You keep providing the same old links that refer back the same old discredited studies and biased researchers. Every time you provide a new source, it turns out to refer to one of the biased or discredited ones. And then you wail about conspiracies at the major cancer research organizations, government and otherwise. This is going nowhere.

I mean, seriously, what could the NCI, a government agency in a conservative, anti-abortion Republican administration, possibly have to gain by suppressing credible evidence of an A/BC link?

To turn things around a bit, why does it bother you all so much that I won't drink your kool-aid?

Posted by: Ray at March 27, 2008 3:21 PM


Ray,

I don't recall "wailing" about anything Ray. As I recall its been your side that gets a little ballistic on this issue.
As for conspiracies, I believe its your side Ray that maintains this is some pro-life plot. Perhaps you should equally question why abortion advocates so vehemently deny a link and don't want women advised of the research that exists and let them check it out for themselves. Oh, I forgot, PC poster TexasRed has pointed out women just don't have the intelligence to do this.

I have no idea why the NCI would not admit these opposing scientists. I can only suggest that you either prove Dr.Brind a liar or ask the NCI yourself.

As for the Kool-aid. I don't give a rat's patoot what you do or don't drink Ray.

Posted by: Mary at March 27, 2008 3:38 PM


I just received an email from abortionbreastcancer.com

++++++++++++

Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer Update Dear Friends:

Kudos to John Pisciotta and his colleagues in Waco, Texas for putting up a billboard that informs women that the breast cancer group Susan G. Komen for the Cure, defeats its mission to eradicate breast cancer by giving funds to Planned Parenthood. A link to a photograph of the billboard is provided at the end of this message.

Kudos also to Jill Stanek. On Tuesday, March 25, 2008, she reported on the Waco billboard in her blog at: http://www.jillstanek.com.

The Waco billboard clearly struck a nerve with abortion enthusiasts at the Waco Tribune-Herald. Its journalists were so displeased with Pisciotta's group's attempt to save women's lives by warning about the cancer risk that they published an editorial on March 23, 2008 entitled, "Specious links."

The editorial basically told women not to pay any attention to the billboard because the American Cancer Society "calls the claim false." Perhaps these journalists don't know that it took the Society 32 years after the publication of the first study on the tobacco-cancer link before it came out in full recognition of cigarette smoking as the primary cause of lung cancer.

The newspaper did not inform women about a paper in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons earlier this month that accused federal agencies, academicians and cancer groups of suppressing evidence of two breast cancer risks - oral contraceptives and abortion. [Lanfranchi, A. (Spring 2008). Available at:
]

But journalists are capable of recognizing one simple, but undeniable truth. If as the Society says, a first full term pregnancy at an early age provides a considerable reduction in breast cancer risk, then the logical conclusion is that the childless woman who aborts her pregnancy has a greater breast cancer risk than does the one who has a baby.

Why does the woman who aborts have a higher risk? The longer she delays a first full term pregnancy, the longer she delays the maturation of 85% of her breast lobules from cancer-susceptible Type 1 and 2 lobules to cancer-resistant Type 4 lobules. Maturation does not take place until the last months of full term pregnancy.

Remarkably, the editorial goes on to suggest that it is untrue that the Komen-Planned Parenthood relationship is about giving money for abortion. They claim that Komen's gifts go toward breast cancer screenings. How would they know the money isn't being used for abortion without conducting an audit? Corporations that give to Planned Parenthood have been using that phony excuse for decades.

It is irrelevant what purpose the money has. What is relevant is that Planned Parenthood is an abortion provider, and its employees have no respect for human life. If an individual does not care about the child's life, he or she is not likely to care about the mother's life either. As a seller of abortion and hormonal contraceptives, Planned Parenthood is THE cause of the breast cancer epidemic. For these two reasons, Komen should be called upon to withdraw its support for the abortion provider.

There is just one question remaining. Why didn't the Waco Herald Tribune inform women about research published last year showing that abortion is the "best predictor" of future breast cancer rates in eight European nations? [Carroll, P. The breast cancer epidemic: modeling and forecasts based on abortion and other risk factors." Jrnl American Phys Surg Vol. 12, No. 3 (Fall 2007) 72-78. Available at:
]

You will note that the billboard advertises the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer's website. You can find the billboard at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/news/080327/Billboard.gif

Please spread the word to friends and family.

Sincerely,
Karen Malec
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

Posted by: PajamaMama at March 27, 2008 4:04 PM


Ray:

Did the National Cancer Institute tell the public the truth about the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer in 1954? Why do you believe the NCI now?

According to The New York Times (April 14, 1954, p. 51), Dr. W.C. Heuper of the NCI said,

"It may be concluded that the existing evidence neither proves nor strongly indicates that tobacco smoking and especially cigarette smoking represent a major or even predominating causal factor in the production of cancers of the respiratory tract and are the main reason for the phenomenal increase of pulmonary tumors during recent decades. If excessive smoking actually plays a role in the production of lung cancer, it seems to be a minor one, if judged from the evidence on hand."

Keep in mind that the first study was published in 1928 showing a link. The Tobacco Industry Research Committee published a list of "quotations and statements authorized by thirty-six distinguished cancer authorities" denying that there was any "proof" establishing a link.

Does that call for proof sound familiar to you? Like the call for proof from Planned Parenthood? Proof can't be established without doing unethical experiments on humans. It's a high bar to set when discussing a deadly risk.

Keep in mind that doctors were appearing in advertisements for cigarette companies in 1954, despite 16 years of research on the tobacco-cancer link!

Did the National Cancer Institute tell the truth about the risk of exposure to radioactive fallout from atomic bomb testing in Nevada in the 1950s and 1960s? Why do you believe the NCI now?

At the time, the NCI and other experts denied a cancer risk. According to experts from the University of Illinois and the American Public Health Association who wrote a commentary for the Los Angeles Times (8/31/03), the NCI belatedly released in 1997:

"longstanding evidence predicting up to 210,000 thyroid cancers from exposure to radioactive fallout following atomic bomb tests in Nevada in the 1950s. These cancers could have been prevented by thyroid medication had the NCI warned the public in time. The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, in a 1999 hearing charged that the NCI investigation was 'plagued by lack of public participation and openness' and characterized the NCI's failure to release this information to the public in a timely fashion as a 'travesty.'"

According to the Institute of Medicine, "Approximately 160 million people living throughout the United States during the bomb tests might have been exposed to varying levels of iodine-131 for about two months following each test."

That's what the feds are willing to do to citizens!

Did the NCI (and cancer fundraising businesses) tell women the truth about the risks of using combined (estrogen and progestin) oral contraceptives (i.e. the pill) and combined hormone replacement therapy when the evidence became available in the 1980s? Why do you believe the NCI now?

Read an article in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons which charges that federal agencies, cancer groups and academicians suppressed evidence of heightened breast cancer risks due to oral contraceptive use and abortion. The article cites a study in the British journal Nature in 2005 that shows evidence of widespread fraud in connection with National Institutes of Health-funded research. The article is available at:

Posted by: Karen Malec at March 27, 2008 4:23 PM


The article is available at jpands.org

Posted by: Karen Malec at March 27, 2008 4:26 PM


Karen,

Would you be able to give me the name of the pro-choice female researcher who had to acknowledge an ABC link despite her efforts to disprove it.
Thank you.

Posted by: Mary at March 27, 2008 4:29 PM


Karen et al, why would I give credence to any article published in jpands, the publication of an avowed anti-abortion organization of conservative cranks, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons? You are taking us around in circles again!

If you are all so convinced that the NIH and NCI are conspiring to bury the "truth," do you also expect us to believe that the American Cancer Society and American Medical Association are in on it?

Finally, for the umpteenth time, the Carroll study is eviscerated here, with references:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/10/abortion_and_breast_cancer_the_chicago_t.php

AND once again, if delayed pregnancy is a risk factor in breast cancer, then I will point out that ABSTINENCE is every bit as risky as abortion. But I don't see any of you out there warning women of that!

Posted by: Ray at March 27, 2008 4:57 PM


Ray:

You can say whatever you please to falsely persuade women of the safety of abortion and cause as many women as possible to die of breast cancer, but the fact of the matter is that if the experts that please you aren't willing to undergo the rigors of peer review AND identify themselves as in the case of the person who calls himself "Orac", they're not willing to put their reputations on the line. If they're not willing to challenge Patrick Carroll by writing a letter to a medical journal, then they don't have much confidence in their own work. Moreover, his research remains officially un-challenged!

You and your colleagues in the abortion industry argue that "if delayed pregnancy is a risk factor in breast cancer, then I will point out that ABSTINENCE is every bit as risky as abortion."

The simple difference is that both doctors and Planned Parenthood have a LEGAL OBLIGATION to secure informed consent from patients by warning of all risks before they perform surgical procedures or prescribe drugs. There is no such legal obligation with respect to abstinence.

Delaying a first birth by using abortion can increase risk in THREE ways, Ray. Not true for abstinence. Abortion not only raises risk through the delay of a first birth (thereby leaving the mother with the lost opportunity to mature her breast tissue into cancer-resistant tissue at an earlier age), but also by leaving her with more places for cancers to start. That also puts her at risk for a subsequent premature birth (which, if it takes place before the birth of a first child) also leaves her with more places to cancers to start.

When did you last hear of an abortion provider warning women about the risk of delayed first full term pregnancy?

Additionally, there is a difference between scientific facts and public policy. Our job at the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is to report scientific facts.

Posted by: Karen Malec at March 27, 2008 5:39 PM


Karen, your job at the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is to promote your anti-abortion agenda, using the canard of a fictional A/BC link as a scare tactic. Your scientific "facts" are unverified by any major serious scientific organization. JPANDS is about as highly regarded as a supermarket tabloid. Writing a letter to challenge an article in it would be like writing to the Sun to challenge an article asserting that aliens have visited the White House.

Posted by: Ray at March 27, 2008 5:52 PM


In response to posts like this; "Jill knows perfectly well that induced abortion does not cause subsequent breast cancer." What, you are the gene police in everyone's body? and "Jill, you embarrass the right-to-life side by posting this bullshit." What, you think Jill Stanek is whincing at your vulgarity? and "...most women are not well enough educated to do the research necessary to find out that antichoicers lie to them about the *dangers* of abortion." Yes, and most women are not well enough educated to do the research necessary to find out that baby killers will lie to them about the dangers of abortion, especially the fatal end of the child on which they commit homicide.

Posted by: GODISNOWHERE at March 27, 2008 11:16 PM


In response to Mary who stated..."...women have a right to know of the research done on both sides of this issue and you would be the first to encourage women to thoroghly research both sides of this controversy before arriving at any conclusions. And of course women should not take into consideration the fact that the abortion industry would have everything to lose, and much to answer for, if a link is indeed established."
Now there's really something about Mary! Thanks for taking the rational high road!


Posted by: GODISNOWHERE at March 27, 2008 11:19 PM


Mary:

Dr. Janet Daling is the researcher from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center who described herself as an abortion supporter. She and her colleagues were specifically commissioned by the National Cancer Institute to study the abortion-breast cancer link in 1994. She wrote:

"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...Highest risks (more than double) were observed when the abortion was done at ages younger than 18 years...or at least 30 years of age or older." (Jrnl Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:1584-1592]

She told the Los Angeles Daily News that:

"I have three sisters with breast cancer and I resent people messing with the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid and our data is accurate." [L.A. Daily News, Sept., 1997]

Daling backed down from speaking out about the abortion-breast cancer link because she said she was "tired of having rocks thrown at her."

Ray:

Honorable men choose to give up their lives rather than permit women and children to die. They are the kind of men that in another day would have been called "gentlemen." Dishonorable men would rather see women and children die than lose their own lives.

As an abortion enthusiast, your own life is not even at risk, but you are working to mislead women in a way that will cause women and children's deaths. It is shameful.

Posted by: Karen Malec at March 27, 2008 11:49 PM


TR,

Please refer to my post to Ray Koltys.

Posted by: Mary at March 27, 2008 3:05 PM
******************
DID you pay attention to how many antichoice organizations are affiliated with the web site you offered? Please dont try to pretend they can be expected to be objective.

Posted by: TexasRed at March 28, 2008 11:18 AM


TR,

Did you pay attention to what Karen Malec said in her post about Dr. Janet Daling? I suppose organizations that support abortion can be counted on to be models of the most sterling objectivity and lack of bias.

Posted by: Mary at March 28, 2008 2:47 PM


Karen.

Thank you for the name and info on Janet Daling.

Posted by: Mary at March 28, 2008 3:43 PM


I find it interesting that we constantly hear about some insignificant study that links anything and everything to cancer based on one or two studies, but suddenly the particular question of whether abortion increases the risk for breast cancer must pass some beyond-reproach litmus test for perfect reliability.

Here is a great article about how the National Cancer Institute selectively puts aside the insurmountable scientific standards of probability in order to advance their agenda. Apparently acceptable scientific standards and study methods are suddenly not "good enough" when they're used to support the ABC link.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210350,00.html

Posted by: PajamaMama at March 28, 2008 5:34 PM


Following are a list of Statistical Health Associations that have less or equal probability to the statistical probability of the link between abortion and breast cancer. We've all heard most of these touted on MSM as gospel and practically "beyond question", and have been given the opportunity to choose to change our behavior accordingly...all EXCEPT the ABC link. That one is taboo for some reason...

(NOTE: the higher the number after each association, the more likely that those two conditions are linked in some way. And keep in mind that these are the statistics that are widely accepted by the groups who are adament that there is no ABC link.)

Environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer 1.19

Consuming olive oil and breast cancer 1.25

Vasectomy and prostate cancer 1.3

Obesity in women and premature death 1.3

Sedentary job and colon cancer 1.3

3 cups of coffee per week and premature death 1.3

Birth weight of 8+ pounds and breast cancer 1.3

Baldness in men under 55 and heart attack 1.4

Eating margarine everyday and heart disease 1.5

Drinking tap water and miscarriage 1.5

Regular use of mouthwash and mouth cancer 1.5

Abortion and breast cancer 1.5

http://www.junkscience.com/news/sws/sws-chapter2.html

So, if you've bought into any of the associations that appear BEFORE abortion/breast cancer, then you must ask yourself WHY are you open to them but not to the possibility of an ABC link?

Don't be a kool-aid drinker. Question your world and what you've been fed.

Posted by: PajamaMama at March 28, 2008 5:50 PM


Still another example of selective acceptance of statistical analysis based on whether the conclusion is politically correct.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,46829,00.html

Posted by: PajamaMama at March 28, 2008 5:53 PM


Here is a great post I found on the wider implications of the selective acceptance of epidemiological study statistics.

I wasn't able to find the name of this poster, but I'll give the link at the end if you'd like to read it more in the context of the article he was commenting on.
___

"OK, so in looking for bad stuff about this “Data Quality Act,” I find this Chris Mooney article. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.mooney.html

Here’s why I’m not impressed with his almost entirely ad hominem approach (“Bad guys want this; therefore this is bad and I don’t even need to consider the merits”):

One of tobacco’s strategies was to advocate standards for “good epidemiology” that would have made it almost impossible to conclude that secondhand smoke was dangerous. These standards insisted that unless secondhand smoke doubled your risk of getting cancer, it should be ignored—a standard, notes tobacco researcher Stanton Glantz of the University of California-San Francisco, that would bar regulation of nearly any environmental toxin.

Hmm. It’s actually pretty common for statisticians to say that a relative risk of less than 2 in epidemiological studies can be very unreliable. The National Cancer Institute, for example, once pointed out that “[i]n epidemiologic research, relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret.” Notably, it made this statement as part of a determination that studies linking abortion and breast cancer were not reliable.

Mooney and his ilk should pick their poison. Do you want to allow massive regulation of every small relative risk? Then you also have to be willing to regulate abortion because of a small relative risk of breast cancer. Or do you want to throw out the abortion/breast cancer research because the relative risk is too insignificant? Then you have to be willing to apply that same standard to environmental regulation as well.

What’s not cool is when people accuse Republicans of being “anti-science” both for promoting the abortion/breast cancer link (“Relative risk is too small! That’s anti-science!”) and for wanting a higher relative risk as to tobacco studies (“Wanting a higher relative risk is anti-science! We’d have to throw out all environmental law if we demanded a higher relative risk!”). Sure, many Republicans are inconsistent partisan hacks, but you’re just proving that you’re a partisan hack yourself if you take equally self-contradictory positions just so that you can oppose Republicans on every front."

FROM: http://crookedtimber.org/2008/01/31/the-monkey-and-the-organgrinder/

Posted by: PajamaMama at March 28, 2008 6:44 PM


"What’s not cool is when people accuse Republicans of being “anti-science”

*****

True, they aren't all against science, and thank goodness.

It's just too bad that a nutcase like Huckabee can give Republicans a bad name in the area.

Posted by: Pap Taylor Gang at March 31, 2008 5:43 PM


Pajama Mama:

It is well worth noting here that the increased risk of using combined (estrogen and progestin) hormone replacement therapy is 26%. Yes, scientists call it a "small" risk, but what's important here is the background risk. When you have 178,000 new cases of breast cancer in the U.S. yearly, that means that breast cancer is a very common disease. When you increase a high lifetime risk by just a small percentage, then thousands more women will develop the disease who would not have otherwise have developed it simply by using combined hormone replacement therapy.

The increase in risk for abortion for the general population (not counting high risk groups, like teenagers or women with a family history of the disease), is greater - 50% for an abortion before the birth of a first child and 30% for an abortion after the birth of a first child.

Posted by: Karen Malec at April 1, 2008 11:12 PM


very different I could not be easy to neglect her wishes now http://idisk.mac.com/beverlylynnelesbianv/Public/0/jamie-lynn-and-lesbian-and-ftv-and-movies.html >jamie lynn and lesbian and ftv and movies was flowing through it it had a master for my part, I liked it kuyftjupzqk

Posted by: Jackie at April 22, 2008 2:35 AM


very different I could not be easy to neglect her wishes now http://idisk.mac.com/beverlylynnelesbianv/Public/0/jamie-lynn-and-lesbian-and-ftv-and-movies.html >jamie lynn and lesbian and ftv and movies was flowing through it it had a master for my part, I liked it kuyftjupzqk

Posted by: Jackie at April 22, 2008 2:35 AM