The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation had noble beginnings, launched by Nancy Goodman Brinker in response to a promise she made to her dying sister, Susan Goodman Komen, to do all she could to eradicate breast cancer. Komen succumbed to the disease in 1980 at age 36. Nancy went on to contract the disease herself and is now a survivor....
SGK has a noble mission, "to save lives and end breast cancer forever."
But for years pro-lifers have opposed contributing to SGK because it not only denies that induced abortions may cause breast cancer, it also bestows financial grants to Planned Parenthood affiliates....
Three days ago a diligent pro-lifer in Washington state discovered on Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest's IRS 990 forms that it has held a 12.5 percent share in Metro Centre, a mall in Peoria, IL, since 2006.
PPGNW is Washington's largest abortion provider. (It is also currently under investigation for Medicaid fraud.)
Metro Centre is owned by Eric Brinker.
Eric Brinker is the son of Nancy Goodman Brinker, the founder of SGK. Eric also sits on SGK's board....
Continue reading my column, "Planned Parenthood deepens link to breast cancer group," at WorldNetDaily.com.
Shorter Jill Stanek:
The biggest breast cancer research fund in the world, SGK, refuses to accept the myth that abortion can cause breast cancer. But I say there is. Just because. Okay? Thanks. Bye.Posted by: Dhalgren at April 1, 2010 12:44 PM
It is NOT a myth. The evidence is very strong.
The biology is well established.
Stop denying reality.Posted by: Joe at April 1, 2010 1:04 PM
Planned Parenthood does a LOT more than "kill babies"
Do you have any idea how many lives they've saved by detecting HPV related cervical cancer???????
THEY SAVED MINE!!!!!!!!
Please show me where MEDICALLY it shows that abortions cause breast cancer then I will begin to believe you.Posted by: Allison at April 1, 2010 1:08 PM
What I find entirely amusing is that the argument about "God" being against killing children is completely refuted with evidence from the Bible. Just a few...for instances...food for thought.
1. God ordered Abraham to kill his son as a sacrifice.
2. Lot offered his daughters to the mob of people in Sodom and Gomorrah to be raped and horribly brutalized instead of the alleged "angels" he was harboring. (This one is arguably not God's decision, but I digress)
3. Moses was told by God to enter the land of Canaan and murder every man, woman, and child there.
4. And my personal favorite...one of the 10 plagues of Egypt was God's murder of the first born in Egypt as vengeance upon Pharaoh...and apparently the innocent citizens of Egypt.
Hmm..it would appear that God doesn't much care for children born or unborn since from Genesis to Revelation children are brutalized, enslaved, and slaughtered by the thousands. But, I'm sure you're correct in assuming He's completely horrified by Planned Parenthood and those evil abortionists.
Read your Bible again and figure out who your God really is...I think you'll be surprised by how little children matter to the Almighty.
With her fingers on the pulse of her rising blood pressure,
Proud Atheist and Friend of Science and Modern Medicine
So, if abortion causes breast cancer, do women who miscarry for completely natural reasons ALSO succumb to breast cancer?
Or is abortion, an act of choice, the catalyst for God to punish women for that choice?
Where exactly do those women whose pregnancies do not come to term fit? Are they on some other waiting list for cancer?
I think after you've finished scouring the Bible for proof that God loves babies and would never hurt them, you might want to look into genetic research and find out that our genes contain the predisposition for contracting cancer.
I'd laugh at you if it wasn't so sad that you believe this load of crap you're selling.
I suppose you can't blame a sheep for blindly and stupidly following the shepherd.Posted by: Holly at April 1, 2010 1:40 PM
Here is a year's worth of scientific references and the explanations about them:
Start reading and let's talk.Posted by: Gerard Nadal at April 1, 2010 1:47 PM
I have a comment being held for approval that contains multiple links. Can someone free it up? Thanks.Posted by: Gerard Nadal at April 1, 2010 1:49 PM
Welcome Holly. Thanks for your contributions.Posted by: Hal at April 1, 2010 1:54 PM
So....come here Holly and spout off tons of Bible passages taken out of context and then sign off as an atheist.
Ohmystars. I haven't laughed so much here in the last couple of days. HA!
Yes, you keep telling me what my God is like, babe.
Go, Hal!!Posted by: carla at April 1, 2010 2:36 PM
Posted by: Holly at April 1, 2010 1:29 PM
"With her fingers on the pulse of her rising blood pressure,
Proud Atheist and Friend of Science and Modern Medicine"
Since you are 'proud atheist' I disregard you theological commentary because to 'you' it is irrelvant in a discussion about anything.
I am curious why a dispassionate and logic based athiest's blood pressure would rise in response to a topic like 'god'.
It seems to me your emotions are overwhelming both your physical and mental 'beingness.'
When your mother was pregnant with what species of fetus/embryo was present in her uterus?
Pleas answer the question using only reason, logic, and science.
Take note of your emotional responses, but do not be influenced by them.
yor bro kenPosted by: kbhvac at April 1, 2010 2:47 PM
Posted by: Hal at April 1, 2010 1:54 PM
Welcome Holly. Thanks for your contributions.
I 'contribute' material to the waste stream every day.
When Holly is ready to have a reasoned and dispassoinate conversation about whatever topic I am sure some one on this site will engage her.
But she should drop the emotionally laden provocations and give us some data to support her contention.
If Holly wants to have a serious discussion about 'god', then I will be happy to indulge her.
Holly should pick one topic and then be willing to be led by the truth to the logical conclusion.
I am willing.
yor bro kenPosted by: kbhvac at April 1, 2010 2:58 PM
"Norman Roberts: A pro-life Catholic supports Komen"
This is the title of one of five PDF's on Susan G. Komen's web site that are purported to help "clear up any misconceptions" one might have about the Planned Parenthood/SGC connection.
My question - If the other four PDF's are convincing evidence (which I would assume they are), why would the Komen organization feel the need to include the opinion of ONE pro-life Catholic as another bit of "proof". Perhaps they (Komen) themselves are not totally convinced by the hard data they provide.Posted by: Janet at April 1, 2010 4:46 PM
Read between the lines.
The abortion issue generates passionate viewpoints in many people. And while breast cancer is the most common cancer among women, and the second leading cancer killer of women, the public is shortchanged by unsubstantiated conclusions.
ww5.komen.org/uploadedFiles/Content_Binaries/2008AbortionBreastCancerBackgrounder.pdfPosted by: Janet at April 1, 2010 4:51 PM
Here is the data analysis at the population level (not samples, the entire population). The trend analysis reveals that abortion rate is the single most reliable indicator for breast cancer in the population. More abortion means more breast cancer in the population. The purpose of the analysis was predicting the overall level of breast cancer in a population based on risk factors.Posted by: hippie at April 1, 2010 4:56 PM
Maybe this is an odd question... but do you know....Is the number of full term pregnancies a woman has a positive factor against the development of breast cancer? For example, all other things being equal, does a woman who has four full term pregnancies and one abortion have any less a chance of developing breast cancer than a woman who has two full term pregnancies and one abortion.
Posted by: Janet
at April 1, 2010 5:10 PM
According to the study, the biggest risk is for young women who have no prior full term pregnancy. Basically delaying the first pregnancy until age 20 or later increases risk. The longer the delay and the more hormonal manipulation from BC pills, abortion, HRT etc, the higher the risk. Lowest risk is first full term by age 20 and no hormonal manipulation. After the Women's Health Study showed that HRT caused breast cancer, usage dropped and like clockwork about 2 years later breast cancer at the population level dropped about 6% and has remained at the new lower level as doctors have changed their habits. This trend was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Here is a breast cancer risk calculator for individuals.Posted by: hippie at April 1, 2010 5:23 PM
For every study that suggests some link between abortion and breast cancer, there is at least one that finds no link. For example:
"Among this predominantly premenopausal population, neither induced nor spontaneous abortion was associated with the incidence of breast cancer." http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814
"Our findings suggest that an interrupted pregnancy does not impart the long-term protective effect of a full-term pregnancy attributable to terminal differentiation." http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112706451/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
"This study does not support the hypothesis that spontaneous or induced abortion appreciably Influences subsequent breast-cancer risk." http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112708080/abstract
"Overall, the findings provide further unbiased evidence of the lack of an adverse effect of induced abortion on breast cancer risk." http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112599217/abstract
Also, the WND column states that having children and breastfeeding reduce a woman's risk of breast cancer, the younger you and the more kids you have, the better -- but "abortion blocks all those preventative measures."
Having an abortion does not prevent women from having children. Abortion means that this particular pregnancy won't continue, but says nothing about future pregnancies. Many women -- a majority, if I remember correctly -- who have abortions already have children, thus already have the protective effects.
I wonder if the studies that found a link between abortion and breast cancer considered that there is a correlation in the data because women who had abortions did so to delay having children, and had fewer children overall, thus they were not exposed to as much of the protective effect of pregnancy and breastfeeding. This seems far more likely than any real connection between abortion and breast cancer.
Something that is very important to remember when looking at these studies: correlation is NOT causality. If infant mortality rates and Twinkie sales both rise at the same time, it does not mean that eating Twinkies kills babies.Posted by: Violet at April 1, 2010 5:26 PM
One other note: is it just me, or is there some subtext in this column, suggesting that rather than supporting Planned Parenthood's breast cancer screening programs, SGK should be urging women to start having kids as early as possible, and to have as many as they can, in order to reduce the risk of breast cancer?Posted by: Violet at April 1, 2010 5:29 PM
Posted by: Violet at April 1, 2010 5:29 PM
...is it just me...?
In a word:
yor bro ken
There is a definate link between abortion and breast cancer!!! If a pregnancy is abruptly interrupted, it causes cells in the breast to go haywire! Moreover, I know several women who had abortions in their 20's and died from breast cancer in their mid 40's.Posted by: heather at April 1, 2010 5:39 PM
If a pregnancy is abruptly interrupted, it causes cells in the breast to go haywire!
If that were the case, there would be a strong link between miscarriage and breast cancer, yet studies have failed to find one.
One study that you might find interesting is "Breast cancer and abortion: collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83?000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/15051280?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn) -- this study combined data from 53 studies and looked for links between abortion (both spontaneous -- i.e. miscarriage -- and induced), and concluded:
"Pregnancies that end as a spontaneous or induced abortion do not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer."
When there is a significant link between two factors, increasing the sample size should only clarify the link. Here, increasing the sample size showed that there was no link.
It's also notable that using Google scholar (searching the past 10 years), I found only two studies/articles suggesting a link between breast cancer and abortion out of about 30 that I looked at. So my earlier comment was incorrect -- for every study showing a link, there are fifteen that show there is no link.Posted by: Violet at April 1, 2010 5:49 PM
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Women could also lower incidence of abortion by postponing sexual activity until they are responsible enough to care for a baby.
The trend analysis reveals that abortion rate is the single most reliable indicator for breast cancer in the population. More abortion means more breast cancer in the population.
Abortion rate was the most reliable indicator of the ones that the study looked for.
Abortion is also an indicator of a population that has children later and has fewer children. Given all we know about the protective effect of pregnancy and breastfeeding, it thus follows that what we are seeing is that where the abortion rate is higher, there is less of that protective effect.
Again, correlation is NOT causality.Posted by: Violet at April 1, 2010 5:55 PM
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Women could also lower incidence of abortion by postponing sexual activity until they are responsible enough to care for a baby.
Of course. But don't forget that postponing sexual activity means postponing having your first child, which means increasing your risk of breast cancer. Women who have their first child before the age of 20 get the greatest protective effect -- and you will probably agree with me that most women under 20 are not yet responsible enough to raise a child. As far as breast cancer risk is concerned, waiting to have children until later in life equals greater risk. Not having them at all carries an even larger risk. If you really want to give women the best chance at avoiding breast cancer (and surviving if they do get it anyway), you should be encouraging all women to have a baby before they're 20, and to have as many kids as possible.Posted by: Violet at April 1, 2010 6:00 PM
Everything in life has risks. We choose which ones to take and which to avoid. I'm not going to tell a women when she must have a baby. Facts speak for themselves. If you don't want to believe them, don't. That's what choice is all about, right?
Janet: I couldn't agree more.Posted by: Violet at April 1, 2010 6:27 PM
Then you must also agree that knowledge is power. You must consider the facts that abortion can increase risk of BC and THEN decide. The links Gerard posted are a good place to start.
You are correct -- knowledge is power.
When examining things like this, I like to start with Google's Scholar search, which lets you search articles in scholarly journals, including many medical journals where studies are published. Websites frequently quote facts and figures from studies, and when I'm able to locate the original study or article, I frequently find that the website is misinterpreting or misrepresenting the information. Also, sites like the ones Gerard linked to have an obvious agenda, and it's hard to put the information in context -- you see only the data that supports their conclusion, and the studies that say differently are left out. Sticking to the journals means that I'm not limited to what one person or group feels are the important studies.
In this particular case, as far as my own analysis, it seems to me that there is far more evidence that says there is no link between abortion and breast cancer than there is supporting a link. It seems far more likely to me that women who have abortions tend to have fewer children and have them later, thus getting less of the protective effect of pregnancy/etc. Thus their risk of breast cancer would be higher than a group of similar women who had not had abortions, but the risk is due to not having the protective effect -- it is not a direct result of abortion.Posted by: Violet at April 1, 2010 7:02 PM
I believe the difference between a miscarriage and abortion is that the former is a result of natural processes. For example, when I miscarried my 5th child, my HCG and other hormone levels never rose to the levels of a healthy pregnancy (thus my miscarriage). With most abortions, a healthy progressing pregnancy is suddenly interrupted. Breast tissue, which is particularly sensitive to hormone changes in early pregnancy, then becomes vulnerable to cancer because the cells are not allowed to mature as in a full-term pregnancy.
As for SGK and PP, I think the association is unfortunate and I don't participate in any of their initiatives. Not only is PP responsible for abortions, it is also responsible for distributing oral contraceptives (to younger and younger girls) which is also associated with increased breast cancer risk. Heck, the WHO lists OCs as a "group 1 carcinogen."
Then there was the recent story of Louise Brinton, a National Cancer Institute researcher who reversed her earlier opinion that abortion and breast cancer were not linked. She now believes otherwise and concluded:
"said women under 40 years of age have a 40 percent chance of triple-negative breast cancer if a woman has had an abortion or has taken oral contraceptives."
It seems if we are genuinely concerned about women's health, we would avoid even potential risk factors as much as possible. Abortions and OCs are such factors.Posted by: Nerina at April 1, 2010 7:03 PM
Something that is very important to remember when looking at these studies: correlation is NOT causality. If infant mortality rates and Twinkie sales both rise at the same time, it does not mean that eating Twinkies kills babies.
Posted by: Violet at April 1, 2010 5:26 PM
Okay, if you have a correlation of substantial significance then that is the obvious place to look first. Your "twinkie" red herring is inane. Full term pregnancy is clearly related to breast cancer incidence. There are no studies that show anything else. It is not a coincidence like twinkie eating. That is just bull.
Since that causal relationship is well established. The actuary tried looking at other health conditions which have plausible connection and found an even stronger correlation to abortion. Now there is no absolute need to establish causation for the purpose of setting insurance rates because incidences from correlation cost the same as incidences from causation. Women who have abortions have a suicide rate 3x as high as the population and 5x as high as women who give birth and never have an abortion. No causal relationship need be established for the purpose of setting insurance rates. However, only an ass would then go research how many twinkies these women ate rather than the obvious correlation staring him in the face.Posted by: hippie at April 1, 2010 9:05 PM
Women who have their first child before the age of 20 get the greatest protective effect -- and you will probably agree with me that most women under 20 are not yet responsible enough to raise a child.
Posted by: Violet at April 1, 2010 6:00 PM
I can't speak for Janet but I emphatically disagree that women who are old enough to vote are too weak and feeble minded to have children. It is absurd on its face. Biological maturity is around 14 and certainly 4 years later at 18 women are not such idiots they can't be mothers. In fact most women are mothers by age 18. Your derision does not reduce their competence.
In our contemporary society, the derision of young mothers is so intense that most smart women prefer to spare themselves the brutal shaming they would have to endure by standing up for themselves and choosing marriage and family before pursuing the culturally revered college degree.
In the old days sluts were shamed. Now that most intense shaming is reserved for any bright woman who dares marry young.Posted by: hippie at April 1, 2010 9:16 PM
I got into blogging the science behind the pro-life contentions because it is:
1. Mainstream Data.
2. Overwhelmingly consistent.
3. Utterly compelling by virtue of its statistical significance.
Your assertion that for every study indicating a link between abortion and breast cancer there is one that finds against it. Many studies that find against the link are fatally flawed methodologically and/or statistically not significant.
I gave three links above that provide ample firepower to back this observation. I don't do so lightly.
The pro-life movement still suffers the stigma of some of its more strident and less sophisticated early members who made up in fidelity and love of God and Man what they might have lacked in data and elegance.
However, I've jumped in with both feet, putting the credibility of my hard-won Ph.D. on the line because the data are so overwhelmingly one-sided in the pro-life direction. Even Dr. Louise Brinton, head of epidemiology for the National Cancer Institute listed induced abortion as a "known risk factor" in a paper last year.
It IS well-established. Denial at this point simply condemns more women to needless suffering and premature death.
When God commands us not to do something, He does so not out of a desire to frustrate us, but because He knows all of the harmful consequences. That's why we have the moral norms that we do.
To liberate us from hideous diseases like breast cancer and cervical cancer (from HPV). It's been said that when science gets to the top of the mountain, it will find that God has been sitting there all along.
It's beginning to look that way from the lab.
God BlessPosted by: Gerard Nadal at April 1, 2010 11:02 PM
I recall you stating you position before. It's unfortunate that we as a society worry so much about what everyone else thinks instead of our just doing what is right for ourself.... I'm torn over the idea of a woman marrying before getting the college degree. I had a good friend who married after one year of college and she and her husband did fine (a baby did not figure into their decision to marry).... but, wow, their lives would have been much tougher had they had a baby during their time in college.
The potential problem I see is that a woman who has children but no degree or work experience has little to fall back on if her husband dies or can no longer provide for the family. I'd never advocate abortion as a remedy to a difficult situation, but have a hard time enthusiastically endorsing marriage for teens. Some women who have children and find themselves with no means to support her family can be tempted to marry a man for financial security and all sorts of problems can arise in that situation...
I have noticed that girls today are talking about marrying at an earlier age than their mothers did, after seeing the disadvantages of marrying later (lowered fertility, and less energy for child-rearing being two of the major ones). So maybe the shame of marrying younger that you describe will lessen in the future.Posted by: Janet at April 1, 2010 11:32 PM
Violet, you questioned whether pro-lifers advocate having kids young to avoid breast cancer.
According to your societal norm, this is ridiculous. This norm is: Sex is a normal human drive, so have it when you want to, don't wait until marriage; marriage is an antiquated practice anyway and may be unnecessary; if getting married wait until mid to late 20s at earliest so as to finish your education, start a career, and enjoy a life of freedom as a single; after getting married wait (contracept) at least a couple years before having kids to enjoy each other and your freedom as a couple.
The Biblical norm as near as I can determine it is that a two-parent (male/female) monogamous married couple bears children and raises them to be responsible, self-sufficient adults by the time they are mid- to late teenagers. (Mary was 15 or 16 when having Jesus.) The Biblical norm is to marry young. (I'm not saying at age 15 or 16; I'm just saying much earlier than we do); and start bearing children as biology and God determine. And forget contraception. There is no such thing as the concept of contraception in the Bible. Children are ALWAYS considered a blessing.
This norm would avoid the heartache and physical consequences of sex outside of marriage and of contraception, abortion, STDs, and many types of cancer, including many reasons for breast cancer and cervical cancer; it would avoid the damaged psyche of broken relationships; it would alleviate the stupidity and consequences of a wild, misspent youth.
So, to answer your question, lowering the risk of breast cancer would be a side-benefit of going back to the Biblical, healthy norm, which is also in line with when sexual urges of young men and women peak.
What I mean is, the Biblical norm is in all
ways healthy, and the current norm is in all ways unhealthy.
The problems we see now with young women who have children is that they are disproportionately lower functioning people to begin with. When all women married young, high functioning people did what they generally do, a good job. Now that early marriage and childbearing are heavily stigmatized, high functioning people, who by definition see themselves as competent, don't want to be branded losers. So, they go to college, not because they want to, but because of social pressure. That is why there are now more women in college than men. Now of course they are often in majors that are not remunerative, so there is minimal net gain from paying for the so-called education. Men are more interested in the bottom line and far more likely to go to college only if they are really qualified. Men's education is more often a real investment the cost of which is smaller than the increased earning power. Women more often just go to college because it is expected and women are more conformist than men are. Men who can't do well in a major that will pay well after graduation are more likely to quit and work rather than take Art history or English just so they can have a BA.
This may seem like rambling off topic, but these are the real choices facing smart young people that affect not only their careers, family but even health.
Low functioning people are less impacted because they cannot get social approval or high paying careers because of their personal limitations. So, their decisions to have families are less based on choice and more on chance.
Quote by Chris West in his book Good News about Sex and Marriage:
"Wise men and women have always recognized the power of the sexual urge to orient, or disorient, not only individuals but entire societies. But in the midst of chaos as we now are, it can be hard to see the forest for the trees.
What's the connection between contraception and the breakdown of marriage and society? I offer the following as a plausible, but admittedly simplified, explanation.
People are often tempted to do things they shouldn't do. Many deterrents within nature itself and within a society help to curb these temptations and maintain order. For example, what would happen to the crime rate in a given society if jail terms suddenly ceased? Let's apply the same logic to errant sexual behavior and see what happens?
Hmmm. . . What would happen if this natural deterrent were taken away through the widespread availability and cultural acceptance of contraception? Not in every marriage, of course, but in a given population, incidents of infidelity would be sure to rise. And what's one of the main causes of divorce? Adultery.
But let's continue with this scenario. Certainly throughout history young people have been tempted to have sex before marriage. Yet one of the main deterrents to succumbing to the temptation has been the fear of unwanted pregnancy. Once again, what would happen if this natural deterrent were taken away through contraception? Not in the case of every hormone-laden young person, but in a given population, incidents of premarital sex would be sure to rise. And premarital sex, as noted in chapter four, is also a key predictor of future divorce.
It gets worse. Since no method of contraception is ever 100% effective, an increase in adultery and premarital sex in a given population will inevitably lead to an increase in "unwanted pregnancies." Abortion logically follows.
Not everyone will resort to abortion, of course. Some will offer their children up for adoption. Other mothers will keep them. Hence the number of children who grow up without a father (which has already been increased by the rise in divorce) will be compounded.
As numerous studies (and common sense) indicate, the chances dramatically increase that these "fatherless" children will grow up in poverty; be abused; have emotional, psychological, and behavioral disorders; suffer poor health; drop out of school; engage in premarital sex; obtain obortions; do drugs; commit violent crimes; and end up in jail. All these social ills compound exponentially from generation to generation since "fatherless" children are also much more likely to have out-of-wedlock births and, if they marry at all, to divorce.
Welcome to the societal chaos in which we now live. It couldn't be more serious. As journalist Philip Lawler has observed: "The public consequences of 'private' sexual behavior now threaten to destroy American society. In the past thirty-five years the federal government has spent four trillion dollars on a variety of social programs designed to remedy ills which can be attributed directly or indirectly, to the misuse of human sexuality.
If nothing governs life at its source, then nothing governs life. A contracepting culture is a culture without a future. It's a culture, as T.S. Eliot and Theodore Rossevelt understood, that's committing suicide."
My parents were married young and still are happily married today. I was teaching 8th graders recently and I used the word 'elope'. None of them had even heard of the word. No reason to elope to get married, everything goes anyway -- even in 8th grade. ):
We need to re-teach young people to respect themselves and each other. Marriage at a young age is not a bad thing. We have fallen into the trap that everyone must have a college degree thereby making us believe that the more money we make, the happier our lives will be. Most college campuses are set up to make money off of young people and their parents, not to support young married couples.
Jill, hippie, Praxedes,
So many well-articulated comments!
Posted by: Janet
at April 2, 2010 10:52 AM
So Violet, How far should women be willing to go to ensure the good health of themselves and their children?
hippie, you make some great points. Also, let's take note that breast cancer rates are soaring in the African American population like never before!! Is it any wonder, as these women have the most abortions. It does not mean that every woman who has aborted will get breast cancer, but many do! How can we women just sit back and overlook it? This is serious! We need to pay attention. Even if there wasn't an ounce of research to support this, I'd still detect a link. Why? Because I personally know of many women who are dead from breat cancer- post abortion. ook at the famous women who have also aborted and been stricken with this illness. Suzanne Summers, Gloria Steinem, linda Ellerbie.Posted by: Heather at April 2, 2010 11:56 AM
hippie, you make some great points. Also, let's take note that breast cancer rates are soaring in the African American population like never before!! Is it any wonder, as these women have the most abortions. It does not mean that every woman who has aborted will get breast cancer, but many do! How can we women just sit back and overlook it? This is serious! We need to pay attention. Even if there wasn't an ounce of research to support this, I'd still detect a link. Why? Because I personally know of many women who are dead from breat cancer- post abortion. look at the famous women who have also aborted and been stricken with this illness. Suzanne Summers, Gloria Steinem, linda Ellerbie.Posted by: Heather at April 2, 2010 11:57 AM