Abortion Breast Cancer Link – Analysis of NCI Fact Sheet

National Cancer Institute Fact Sheet Analysis
The Abortion – Breast Cancer Connection (ABC Link)

National Physicians Center for Family Resources (NPC)
April, 2002


• Overall tone of denial of abc link: “…it appears that there is no overall association between spontaneous or induced abortion and breast cancer risk, …”, even though, to date, 28 out of 37 studies worldwide and 13 out of 15 in the US report a positive association.

• Confusion of induced and spontaneous abortion: These two terms appear together repeatedly, as if they are equivalent. Never is the proper equation of spontaneous abortion and miscarriage made; in fact, the word miscarriage never appears. Yet paradoxically, the “inability to separate induced from spontaneous abortions” is offered as a criticism of earlier studies on the abc link.

• Misrepresentation of the published medical literature on the abc link: a) A key study on American women which relied on prospective medical records (Howe et al., 1989), and which found a significant abc link (overall RR = 1.9), is not cited at all, even though much more weight is given to data “from studies that collected data on abortion history before the breast cancers occurred”, and even though it is presented as a weakness that “Most of the early studies relied on self-reports of induced abortion”.b) 

The study specifically funded by the NCI to examine the abc link (Daling et al., 1994), which study reported a significant overall link (RR = 1.5) and much higher risks for teenagers (RR = 2.5) and actually reported “RR = ∞” for teenagers with any family history of breast cancer, is not cited at all.c) The only comprehensive review and meta-analysis on the abc link (Brind et al., 1996), which reported a positive association in 18 out of 23 studies worldwide (9 out of 10 in the US), is not cited at all.

• Reliance on flawed studies which do not show an ABC link, merely because they are based on prospective data, namely:
a) the study by Melbye et al., 1997, even though it misclassified 60,000 abortion-positive women as abortion negative, used breast cancer records which antedated abortion records, and included over 350,000 women under age 25, among other flaws;
b) the study by Goldacre et al., 2001, even though it misclassified over 90% of the abortion-positive women in the study as abortion-negative;
c) the null studies by Newcomb and Mandelson (2000) and Lazovich (2000),  even though both are so small (23 and 26 patients with induced abortion, respectively) and of such low statistical power that neither could even detect a RR as low as 1.5 with statistical significance.

• Inclusion of inaccurate statements, i.e.:
a) “In three of the (four) studies, information was based on medical records rather than on the woman’s self-report;”. In fact, this is true of only two (i.e., Goldacre and Newcomb & Mandelson) of the four studies referred to.
b) “The strength of this study (Melbye 1997) include … the ability to account for breast cancer risk factors that may differ between those women who have had abortions and those who have not,”.  In fact, the lack of such data on potential confounders was a weakness of the Melbye study, which only adjusted for age and age at first term pregnancy. Most studies also adjust for age at menarche, age at menopause, etc.
c) “Most of the early studies necessarily relied on self-reports of induced abortion, which have been shown to differ between breast cancer patients and other women.” In fact, the opposite is true. Even the only study cited on the fact sheet which examined this question reported: “The authors’ data do not suggest that controls are more reluctant to report a history of induced abortion than are women with breast cancer.”

• Disguising the established breast cancer risk factor that is directly affected by abortion in a substantial proportion of abortion patients, i.e.: “Well established breast cancer risk factors include … a late age at the time of the first birth of a full-term baby”. Abortion, which, in childless girls and women, necessarily delays the first full-term pregnancy, is not mentioned at all in this context.

EC/MAP Legislative Information

Legislative Info “Emergency Contraception” Education

Background: In 2003, measures called Emergency Contraception Education Acts (H.R. 1812, S. 896) were introduced in both the House and Senate. These bills authorize $10 million for each of the Fiscal Years 2004 through 2008 for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to promote education on emergency contraception in the public and private sectors. Entities involved include nonprofit organizations, consumer groups, institutions of higher education, Federal, State, or local agencies, clinics, the media, and health care providers. “Emergency contraception” is defined as a drug or device (as specified in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) or a drug regimen that is used after sexual relations and “prevents pregnancy, by preventing ovulation, fertilization of an egg, or implantation of an egg in a uterus (emphasis added).”

In the statement of findings, this definition is phrased as follows: “Emergency contraception, also known as post-coital contraception, is a responsible means of preventing pregnancy that works like other hormonal contraception to delay ovulation, prevent fertilization or prevent implantation (emphasis added).” The language in the main section of the bill and in the preliminary findings concedes in fact that “emergency contraceptives” are sometimes abortifacient. Attempting to obscure this meaning, the findings also state: “Emergency contraception does not cause abortion and will not affect an established pregnancy.” In this way, the bill asserts that only an established pregnancy can be aborted. The destruction of human life from conception to the time of implantation is not considered to be abortifacient. The bill bolsters this erroneous notion by referring to the “implantation of an egg in a uterus” (emphasis added), avoiding the biological fact that at conception the egg and sperm join and generate a new human life neither egg nor sperm. Similar bills were introduced in the 107th Congress. No further action was taken.  House: On April 11, 2003, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) introduced H.R. 1812; the measure has 91 cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.  It will be carried over to 2004.  Senate: On April 11, 2003, Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) introduced S. 896; the measure has nine cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.  It will be carried over to 2004.

On June 19, 2003, Rep. Jim Greenwood (R-PA) introduced the Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act (H.R. 2527). The measure has 73 cosponsors and was referred to the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and to the Committee on Ways and Means. A similar measure was introduced in the 107th Congress.  H.R. 2527 will be carried over to 2004. H.R. 2527 provides that federal funds may not be made available to a hospital unless the hospital (1) promptly gives sexual assault victims written and oral information about emergency contraception, including information that “emergency contraception does not cause an abortion,” (2) promptly offers emergency contraception and promptly provides it on the victim’s request, (3) the information is provided in language that is easily understood, and (4) these services are not denied because of inability to pay. “Sexual assault” means coitus in which the woman does not consent or lacks the legal capacity to consent. “Emergency contraception” is defined as “a drug, drug regimen, or device that is (A) used postcoitally; (B) prevents pregnancy by delaying ovulation, preventing fertilization of an egg, or preventing implantation of an egg in a uterus; and (C) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration.” As with the Emergency Contraception Education Act, this measure recognizes as fact that emergency contraception can act by preventing implantation, but falsely asserts that this action is not abortifacient. The bill claims it is an egg, and not a newly conceived human being resulting from union of egg and sperm, [approximately 100 cells in size, termed a blastocyst] that is implanted. All hospitals receiving federal funds would be required to convey erroneous information as fact and to act on this erroneous information. [NCHLA, 8Mar04]

Plan B / Morning-After Pill (MAP/EC): Its Domestic & International Links

"The near-simultaneous emergence of this hot political topic [the morning-after pill] in several…countries is 'certainly not by chance,' says Carlos Polo, a representative of the Population Research Institute in south America. According to Polo: "'There is a similar pattern used to introduce the "morning-after pill" in the countries of the region. First, a government decree is passed to include the drug in public health programs — thus avoiding the debate in Congress. Then its abortifacient effect is blatantly denied. And finally the whole concept of abortion is redefined to move the country one step closer to its legalization.'" [Alejandro Bermudez, "Girded for Battle", CWN, 8/04]

“The efforts to pressure the U.S. Food and Drug Admin (FDA) into approving the morning-after pill (MAP) for over-the-counter (OTC) distribution are inextricably linked to the int’l abortion industry.

"The founder of Women's Capital Corp [applicant for FDA approval of OTC/MAP] organized the first efforts to promote MAP globally. U.S. taxpayers should not be surprised that the US Agency for Int’l Dev’t (USAID) has been actively involved in promoting and distributing morning-after pills (MAP) to poor women and girls in developing nations, long before the probable abortion-inducing chemical ever became well-known in America…

"Norplant, a chemical with the same active ingredient as MAP, has been discontinued in the U.S., but USAID continues to flood developing nations with Norplant. Long before the FDA approved MAP by prescription only, USAID was routinely funding events designed to expand global access to MAP, and groups which actively import the dangerous drug.(1)

"In Uganda, USAID initiated "new Commercial Market Strategies project (CMS)" to introduce MAPs into the general population. With the help of Population Services Int’l (PSI), and Pathfinder Int’l, social marketing campaigns were launched. PSI led focus groups among African women to increase MAP use.(2)

"Ignoring serious risks, USAID distributed a Fact Sheet to all of its overseas missions declaring that morning-after pills are safe and effective, do not cause abortion, and "constitute an integral part of the voluntary service delivery mix that USAID supports."(3)

"USAID promotion of MAPs persisted despite it being illegal to do so according to the laws of foreign nations. In Peru, for example, a USAID official lobbied for the legalization of MAP, despite Peru's pro-life laws which prohibit MAP.(4) USAID's support of MAP use in Peru continued. USAID-funded groups actively took part in efforts to "overthrow" Peru's pro-life Health Minister, Dr. Carbone, because of his efforts to oppose MAPs.

"USAID-funded Family Health Int’l, despite El Salvadorian law which defines life as beginning at fertilization, launched massive efforts to promote MAP to girls as young as 10 years of age.(5) 

"USAID's pro-MAP ideology comes directly from the U.N and the World Health Organization (WHO), and not from the FDA. In fact, USAID claims to be able to distribute abortion-inducing chemicals and contraceptives overseas, even when they are not FDA approved, by following WHO policies.

"On the heels of the 1994 UN Int’l Conference on Population and Dev’t in Cairo, the pro-abortion int’l community convened in 1995 in Italy to discuss and promote MAPs under the auspices of women's health and rights.

"Abortion supporters sought ways to incorporate MAPs into international population control programs. Dr. Sharon Camp, the founder of FDA applicant for OTC/MAP, Women's Capital Corporation, was "volunteer coordinator" for ongoing working groups charged with global MAP promotion. Each region of the world was designated with its own working group, to promote MAPs. Regions collaborated by sharing challenges and success stories via the int’l consortium.(6)

"A consensus statement was drafted, calling for increasing worldwide awareness of and demand for MAPs, and increasing worldwide access to MAPs among women and teens. Directives to target adolescent populations were specifically given.(7)

"Less than one year later, an International Consortium at which USAID participated succeeded in securing the manufacture of MAP for social marketing worldwide. In 1996, USAID began to promote MAPs full-force, through its favored non-governmental organization Family Health International (FHI), which published a plan of action for changing attitudes of women and teens towards MAPs. Studies targeted adolescents, in order to promote MAPs as a solution to rape.(8)

"A year later, in 1997, armed largely with data secured through international field studies undertaken outside the view of U.S. public scrutiny, the American Society for Emergency Contraception (ASEC) began efforts to promote MAPs for domestic use under the same guise as a solution to rape.(9)

"The same year, in collaboration with five Planned Parenthood affiliates, Dr. Sharon Camp -who was key at the Bellagio, Italy, conference in efforts to promote MAPs to teens globally- founded Women's Capital Corporation (WCC), a privately-held for-profit corporation whose shareholders are mainly private foundations. WCC's corporate mission is to purchase existing or orphaned contraceptive technology avoided by mainstream pharmaceuticals due to fears of bad publicity.(10)

"Through WCC, the ideologies of special-interest groups were masked and MAP-related issues were framed as science, medicine and women's health issues. The same year, FDA declared MAPs to be safe and effective, without an application from the drug's manufacturer. This move was regarded as highly unusual, even by some in the international abortion-camp, because the FDA rarely sanctions a drug's use for new medical indications without an application from the drug's manufacturer.(11)

"In 1999, FDA approved Plan B for prescription.(12)  In 2002, during a new Bush Administration, the FDA issued a Warning Letter to FDA applicant for Women's Capital Corporation concerning its unproven advertising and marketing claims designed to generate public support for and use of MAP.(13)

"One year later, Women's Capital Corporation filed for OTC status with FDA for Plan B.(14)

<
p> "Very recently, WCC Founder Dr. Sharon Camp became Chief Executive Officer of Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), after negotiating sale of Women's Capital Corporation to Barr Laboratories for $24 million.(15) AGI promotes abortion globally.

"FDA's current consideration of the OTC/MAP application represents the final step in a worldwide campaign launched by international abortion advocacy/population control organizations a decade ago. Dr. Camp, and the pro-abortion industry of which she is part, has millions more to gain.

"USAID's heavy-handed tactics around the world are being mimicked by the FDA here at home.  The unwanted abortion-inducing chemicals previously foisted upon developing nations have undergone an image-makeover for U.S. consumption. 

"It is time to end the FDA's charade that it is acting in the interests of women and girls. The FDA must refuse to promote the ideological special interests of abortion advocacy and int’l population control organizations.

"American women have everything to lose." 

 

1. "Expanding Global Access to Emergency Contraception: A Collaborative Approach to Meeting Women's Needs;" www.cecinfo.org/files/ see link titled Expanding-Global-Access-toEC.rtf
2.Emergency Contraceptive Newsletter, Spring 1999, Vol. 4, No. 1.

3. Emergency Contraception Update Highlights: October, 1996 to October 1997; "USAID Promotes 'Vital Choice for Women'."

4. May 17, 2002 letter to Peruvian Minister of Health F. Carbone, from 21 pro-abortion activists, including signature of Maria Angelica Borneck of USAID/Peru.
5.USAID El Salvador, "Family Planning Guidelines," July 1999.

6. http://www.cecinfo.org/html/ab-unique-approach.htm. The original 7 int’l abortion advocacy/population control groups were:  The Concept Foundation; International Planned Parenthood Federation; Pacific Institute for Women's Health; Pathfinder International; PATH (Program for Appropriate Technology in Health); Population Council; World Health Organization's Special Programme of Research, Dev’t and Research Training in Human Reproduction. Membership was later expanded but remains comprised predominantly of abortion advocacy and population control groups.

7. "Consensus Statement on Emergency Contraception," Contraception, 1996; 52:211-212. The Consensus Statement (in an incomplete version): www.path.org/outlook/html/13_3.htm.
8. "OCs Provide Emergency Contraception Option," Family Health Int’l, Network, Summer ‘96, V.16 #4. 
www.reproline.jhu.edu/english/6read/6issues/6network/v164/nt1645.html
9. American Society for Emergency Contraception. http://www.emergencycontraception.org/ase/

10."Daily Reproductive Health Report:  Contraception and Family Planning, Barr Laboratories Acquires Emergency Contraceptive Plan B," Kaiser Daily Network Reports. 6Oct03. www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_id=20191.

11. Int’l Consortium for Emergency Contraception, "Emergency Contraception Highlights Update:  10/96 to 10/97."  Available at:
www.cecinfo.org/files/ecupdateHilights-96-97.rtf. ICEC stated," "On February 25, 1997, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration pronounced six U.S. brands of combined oral contraceptives safe and effective for use as emergency contraceptives and urged the pharmaceutical industry to apply for approval of new dedicated products."

12. Transcript, Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee in Joint Session with Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs Meeting, FDA, 16Dec03, P. 21.   www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/transcripts/4015T1.pdf.

13.Copy of Warning Letter: http://www.pharmcast.com/WarningLetters/Yr2002/November2002/WomensCapital120302.htm.

14.Women's Capital Corporation.  http://www.go2planb.com/section/newsroom/in_the_news/.

15. Press Release, Alan Guttmacher Inst. www.guttmacher.org/pipermail/agi/2003-July/000080.html 

[Mosher, PRI Weekly Briefing > 2Apr04 Vol. 6 / No. 13]

 

Abstinence Programs Reduce Teen Pregnancy by 40% (4/04)

A study released 4/04 by the Heritage Foundation in Washington D.C. found that programs which promote abstinence reduce the rate of unwed teen pregnancies by at least 40% and are 12 times more likely to be virgins when they marry.

These findings concur with those of nine other research projects on the effects of abstinence pledges on teenage sexual practices.

The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health found that abstinence pledges affected teens years later.

Those who made an abstinence commitment were more likely to marry than to initiate out-of-wedlock sex.

The Heritage Foundation study notes that the long-term effects of abstinence pledges are “substantial and almost impossible to erase” and that they work because they initiate an “identity movement” or “moral community” that provides peer support for teens. [LifeWay Press Release, 04/16/04; 21APR04, Abstinence Clearinghouse E-mail Update]

Abortion and Breast Cancer: "Reanalysis" Critiqued (4/04)

ABORTION AND BREAST CANCER: ONLY FUZZY MATH CAN MAKE THE ABC LINK DISAPPEAR [Joel Brind, Ph.D.  8Apr04] A supposedly definitive study of immense statistical power, published in a top medical journal, has once again [tried to prove] the abortion-breast cancer link (ABC link) nonexistent.

 

This time [25Mar04] it was "a collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83,000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries". It was authored by a prestigious group of Oxford researchers, and published in the Lancet, one of the most prominent medical journals in the world…To say that the Beral study is seriously flawed and that its conclusions do not stand up to close scrutiny is to understate seriously the magnitude of what is really going on here. For starters, the claim that this is a "full analysis" is flatly false. Let's just do the simple math. We start with 41 studies which showed data on induced abortion and breast cancer, dating as far back as 1957. Then how do we get to 53 studies? (Actually, the total is 52 studies.) We add 11 studies worth of unpublished data, right? That might be okay, but it wasn't what was done.

What Beral et al. actually did was:

**Throw out 2 studies for the scientifically appropriate reason that "specific information on whether pregnancies ended as spontaneous or induced abortions had not been recorded systematically for women with breast cancer and a comparison group." Specifically, one such study from Sweden in 1989 used general population statistics for comparison, instead of a control group, and one US study from 1993 ascertained abortions only indirectly, by subtracting the number of children from the number of pregnancies.**Throw out 11 more perfectly good studies for reasons such as: "Principal investigators … could not be traced" (We can't find Professor Einstein, either. Does that mean we throw out relativity?); "original data could not be retrieved by the principal investigators", "researchers declined to take part in the collaboration", or investigators "judged their own information on induced abortion to be unreliable" (even though it had been published in a prominent medical journal).**Finally, 4 studies' worth of data (one on French women, one on Chinese women, One on Russian women, and one on African-American women) were simply not even mentioned, even though they had been previously published as abstracts or included in other reviews.**That brings the total down from 41 to only 24 studies. Now we add 28 studies worth of unpublished data, and we have 52 studies.

The fact that the majority of studies have not stood the test of peer review is troubling enough. But a closer look at the excluded studies is even more revealing. Of the 41 studies which have been previously published, 29 actually show increased risk of breast cancer among women who have chosen abortion. (Epidemiologists call this a "positive association".) 16 of these are statistically significant, which means there is at least a 95% certainty that the results cannot be explained by chance. Getting back to Beral's "full analysis", 10 of 16 significantly positive studies in the literature were excluded for one of the unscientific reasons cited above.

In fact, if we average all of the 15 studies Beral excluded for unscientific reasons, they show an average breast cancer risk increase of 80% among women who had chosen abortion. So if we just add up all the studies Beral's group decided selectively to include, we get no significant effect of abortion on breast cancer risk.

But we haven't even gotten to Beral's main argument yet. She actually divided the included studies into two types; those which used retrospective methods of data collection (i.e., interviews of breast cancer patients v. control subjects), and those which used prospective methods (i.e., medical records taken long before breast cancer diagnosis). The retrospective data-based studies are thought to be less reliable, because, as Beral told the Washington Post, women with breast cancer "are more likely than healthy women to reveal they had an abortion, leading to the conclusion that there are more abortions among this group".

Readers may recognize this "reporting bias" or "response bias" argument, used for over a decade now to dismiss the overwhelming majority of studies (which are retrospective data-based) which reveal an abc link. It is actually a hypothesis worthy of testing.

The trouble is, tests for such bias have proven negative over and over and over again in the published literature, in studies as far flung as Japan, the US and Greece. In fact, Beral still reaches back to a 1991 Swedish study, which was the only one ever to claim direct evidence of such "reporting bias". However, that study's conclusion depended upon the assumption -since publicly retracted by the original authors- that breast cancer patients had "overreported" abortions (i.e., reported abortions that had never taken place.)

That brings up another serious flaw in the Beral study, specifically, the exclusion of any published critiques of studies she found acceptable. She included uncritically, for example, data from a 1990 study on Norwegian women which study had found no link. However, in 1998 our own group published a rigorous, mathematical proof that those data were incorrectly compiled, and had actually indicated increase
d risk among Norwegian women.

Getting back to the reporting bias argument, Beral separately compiled all the studies that used prospective methodology (13 studies) and those that used retrospective methods (39 studies), and found the results to be significantly different. Specifically, the former showed a significant overall 7% decrease in risk with abortion, while the latter showed a significant overall 11% increase in risk. Beral's conclusion? "We have demonstrated that a certain group of studies (the ones with retrospective data) are unreliable and can't be trusted,", she told the Washington Post."

There are only two things wrong with that conclusion.  First, it is completely illogical to leap to the conclusion that, just because there is a difference in the overall results reached by the two types of studies, that the difference is caused by reporting bias. This is especially true in light of the fact that such bias has been repeatedly demonstrated NOT to exist. 

Second, at least three of the prospective data-based studies are so seriously flawed themselves as to merit exclusion from the Beral study on the basis of information on abortions having "not been recorded systematically" (see above.)

Specifically, these studies included the 1997 Melbye study from Denmark, in which ALL the data on legal abortions before 1973 were missing (only 80,000 abortions on 60,000 women!). A 2001 study in the UK (an Oxford University study, no less), in which over 90% of the abortions in the study population were unrecorded and a 2003 Swedish study, in which data on all abortions after the most recent childbirth were missing. (In Sweden, where abortion is used predominantly to limit family size, that means most of the abortion records for women in the study were missing.) We have published detailed critiques of these studies but, as noted above, these critiques are not cited in Beral's "full analysis". 

Another telling aspect of the Beral paper is the graphic depicting the compilation of studies. As noted above, most of the studies which showed significant elevations in risk with induced abortion were inappropriately excluded from the analysis.

Then, by combining certain groups of studies and graphing them as "other", it is made to look AS IF NO STUDY EVER FOUND A RELATIVE RISK HIGHER THAN 1.4! In fact, 6 studies (two on Japanese women, two on African-American women, one on Chinese women and one on Australian women) have reported overall relative risks greater than 2.0 (i.e., more than a 100% risk increase with abortion.

Finally, I believe an editorial note is in order, because the knee-jerk reaction of so many is to put credence in studies that come from such high places as the Lancet or the New England Journal of Medicine or the National Cancer Institute. As one who has been doing battle on the ABC link in medical and scientific journals and in other public fora for over a decade, nothing has been more obvious to me than the systematic denial of the link from organized science and medicine.

In fact, the first study which was specifically designed to "reassure" the public about the safety of abortion vis-à-vis breast cancer was published way back in 1982, and originated from the same cancer research epidemiology unit at Oxford's Radcliffe Infirmary as Beral's "full analysis". 

But if the reader would remain skeptical of this writer's observations and conclusions, consider this. It is undisputed -even by Beral herself- that a full-term pregnancy lowers a woman's long term risk of breast cancer, and that this protection is not afforded by a pregnancy that ends in induced abortion. Yet Beral and most of mainstream science and medicine would refuse to say that abortion is therefore a risk factor.

In fact, the studious avoidance of characterizing abortion in this way is obvious in the very caption of Beral's summary chart: "Relative risk of breast cancer, comparing the effects of having had a pregnancy that ended as an induced abortion versus effects of never having had that pregnancy."

If the same convoluted standard were used in characterizing hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for postmenopausal women, it would also not show up as a risk factor.

Specifically, using the same standard would mean comparing postmenopausal women using HRT to premenopausal women of the same age. The conclusion of such a study would be that women using HRT have no greater risk of breast cancer, compared to not having gone into menopause. Instead (and this is no more clearly stated than in Beral's own "Million Woman Study" on HRT and breast cancer, published last year), the study is restricted to postmenopausal women, with those taking HRT thus compared to women who get virtually no estrogen and progesterone at all, from inside or outside. So of course HRT shows up as a risk factor-as well it should. 

Everyone knows -including Beral- that a woman who chooses abortion will end up with a higher long term risk of breast cancer than would result from the childbirth choice. Still, unethical and outrageous as it is, it is politically incorrect to inform women seeking abortion of this undeniable truth.  [15Apr04 Pro-Life E-News, Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer www.AbortionBreastCancer.com; Breast Cancer Prevention Institute www.BCPInstitute.org an>; Polycarp Research Institute www.Polycarp.org]

Komen Awards Grants to Planned Parenthood

KOMEN AWARDS GRANTS TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD – Susan B. Komen Fdn in 2002 helped fund a grant of $25,491 to PP of Southwestern OH; in 2003, “it gave $18,627 for the same program and similar grants were awarded from local Komen affiliates to PP affiliates across the country.” This is “especially ironic, since PP is the country’s primary abortion provider and the medical evidence for abortion as a cause of breast cancer is well established”.

Cincinnati Right to Life urges pro-lifers to “contribute specifically to [breast cancer institutions] more supportive of women’s health”. Komen events include Golf for the Cure, Breast Cancer 3-Day walk, Virtual Race for the Cure, Sing for the Cure, Lee National Denim Day, and Race for the Cure. [Cincinnati Rt to Life, 4/04]

Abortionist Performs Abortions Without Medical License

ABORTIONIST PERFORMS ABORTIONS WITHOUT MEDICAL LICENSE The PA Health Dept is investigating whether a notorious abortion center operator is guilty of “regulatory violations” for allowing a doctor to perform abortions at his facilities without a valid medical license.

Harvey W. Brookman is only permitted to treat himself and his family because he holds an “active-retired” medical license. However, Brookman, who has been sued for malpractice, has been performing abortions at State College Medical Services and at American Women’s Services in Erie. The abortion facilities are owned by S. Brigham, who was forced to give up his own medical license in PA [questionable medical practices]. Brigham owns a chain of Eastern seaboard abortion centers under the name American Women’s Services. [Harrisbury PA; http://www.lifenews.com/state538.html]

Physicians Series Brochure: Safe Sex

You may also view this brochure in Adobe Reader.

 

PHYSICIANS SERIES:

SAFE SEX

You’ve probably heard a lot of talk about “safe sex” and it may sound great!

Here are some medical facts about condoms and “safe sex.”

You decide…

According to a report issued in July 2001 by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), there is NO scientific evidence that condoms prevent the transmission of 98% of eight major sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Condoms were NOT found to provide universal protection against HIV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, chancroid, trichomoniasis, genital Herpes or Human Papilloma Virus (HPV).

Researchers found only two areas of limited condom effectiveness: heterosexual transmission of HIV (only 0.03% of all annual STD cases), and female-to-male transmission of gonorrhea (this amounts to 2% of all STDs occurring annually in the US). [Gonorrhea is a curable, bacterial disease.] Note that the Executive Panel concluded that condoms “could reduce the risk of gonorrhea,” but only “for men.”

The Panel and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) also recognize
that condoms do not stop HPV infection. An estimated 20 million Americans are currently infected with genital HPV (warts). HPV is a major cause of almost all Cervical Cancer, and has also been linked to penile, prostate, anal and oral cancer.

While not everyone infected with HPV will develop cancer, every year 15,000 cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed and 5,000 U.S. women die from the disease. Hundreds of thousands of other U.S. women will be diagnosed and treated for pre-cancerous conditions.

If these “real people” were questioned, it may very well be found that they could provide evidence of the inadequacies of condoms in their “real situations”…

For the remaining five diseases, the Panel noted that “the absence
of definitive conclusions reflected inadequacies of the evidence available and should not be interpreted as the proof of the…inadequacy of the condom to reduce the risk.” This report was delayed for more than one year before being made public; one wonders why. After more than twenty years of research, one must also wonder if there are no “definitive conclusions” and “inadequacies of the evidence available” simply because condoms do not work.
[“Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention,” co-sponsored by NIH, FDA, CDC, and USAID]

Once a person has one STD, they usually get more STDs, and this
greatly increases the risk of HIV.

Even with the use of condoms, 10 to 30 percent of women become
pregnant within one year, even though a woman can be impregnated only three to six days each month. Yet, any man and any woman can acquire Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), such as AIDS, any day of the year.
It only takes ONE act of sex to become pregnant, to get an STD, or to die from AIDS…

Would you start your car if you knew there was a 30-percent chance the car would explode and you would die?
What about a 10-percent chance?

The AIDS virus is 450 times smaller than a sperm. C.M. Roland, Editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology, notes, “The AIDS virus is only 0.1 micron in size, 50 times smaller than the voids (holes) in rubber. The virus can readily pass through the condom.” [The Washington Times, 4/92]

If 10 to 30 percent of women become pregnant during 36 to 72 days
of the year because of condom failure, and if AIDS can be transmitted 365 days of the year, and if the AIDS virus is 450 times smaller than a
sperm — these are scientifically proven facts — “someone isn’t telling the truth about sex, disease, and safety.”
[Anne Marie Collopy, “The Safe Sex Lie,” ALL About Issues, Spring, 1991.]

There are 15 million new STD cases each year in the US [18.9 million in year 2000], and 65 million Americans have STDs, most of which are viral and lifelong. At least three million teens are infected each year. How can this be, if “safe sex” is so safe?

Teens, and even some adults, have the idea that “it won’t happen to
me.” Dr. Brian Scully, Professor of Clinical Medicine of Columbia
University, wrote: “Condoms reduce, but in no way eliminate, the risk of transmission through sexual intercourse of the HIV virus, which causes AIDS. It is likely that a sexually active HIV-infected person who uses condoms will infect partners at some point whether after five, 10 or 100 acts of intercourse. It should be remembered that AIDS carries a 100-percent mortality [death] rate. To advise patients that they may be sexually active so long as they engage in so-called ‘safe sex’ is
preposterous and irresponsible.”
[The New York Times, 1/93]

AIDS cases among teens and young adults increased 77 percent from
1990 to 1992; 9000 cases of AIDS have been reported among 13- to
24-year-olds with thousands more already infected with HIV. A report by the House Committee on Children, Youth and Families states that “millions more are at risk.”
[USA Today, 4/13/92]

45 million Americans have Herpes (Herpes Simplex II Virus, or “HSV”).
Studies show that Herpes increases the risk of getting HIV. HIV then
increases Herpes outbreaks, and each outbreak speeds the progression of AIDS.

The Jefferson County Medical Society published the following
“Physician’s View” article: “Is there really such a thing as safe sex?”
     “…Safe sex, defined by those who would like us to believe in it, is
wearing a condom and asking the person you are about to have sex with if he or she is monogamous and free of disease. This…is no guarantee. Condoms do leak, foams are not foolproof and, most important, humans are the ones who use them. When it comes to whether an individual is going to have sex, can you trust his or her answer to your question of monogamy in the relationship with you?
     “Sex can be made safe, not by wearing a condom, or having a random list of questions to ask your partner, but by having it in the context of a longstanding monogamous [marriage] relationship.
     “Abstinence is the best policy when it comes to sex outside of a
longstanding [marriage] relationship.” [emphasis added] FONT>[Birmingham
Post-Herald
, 12/19/91]

“Abstinence is the only true comprehensive sex education; only
abstinence provides 100 percent protection physically, emotionally, and psychologically.”
[“Quick Facts on Safe-Sex”]

Planned Parenthood reports that the number-one reason teens begin
sexual activity is peer pressure. So-called “safe sex” programs increase
peer pressure.

A Louis Harris poll found that 90 percent of teens admitted they had become promiscuous simply because of perceived peer pressure. [American Teens Speak, Harris & Associates]

Poll after poll is finding that the most important question for many teens is how to say “no” to sex without hurting his/her feelings. Most teens are not comfortable with premarital sex.

Despite what you hear, everybody is not “doing it”! According to
the CDC, about 20 percent of high school students are “sexually active.” However, the CDC considers a person sexually active if he/she had sex even once during the three months prior to the survey. For some of these teens, it may have been the first time, the only time, or the last time!
 
In another study, 14 percent of the so-called “sexually active” teens studied had only had intercourse once. [Family Planning Perspective, 1/92]

Many teens have never heard of “secondary virginity” because “safe
sex” promoters don’t think it’s possible for teens to stop having sex. If you’re traveling down a road and realize you’re going the wrong way, do you just keep going? Or, do you use your common sense, stop, turn around, and come back to find the right way? That’s what secondary virginity is all about. Many teens are coming back to secondary virginity every day.

People who promote “safe sex” believe that teens are not capable of
“saying no” to sex. They don’t believe you have the strength, the courage, or the sense to practice chastity — sexual self-control.

The Alabama Physicians for Life know that you are capable of saying “no”; we believe in you! It’s not easy to say “no,” but nothing worthwhile in life comes easy.

People are starting to realize that “safe sex” is not safe at all — just deadly. Condoms don’t protect a broken heart. The emotional consequences of premarital sexual activity are many, including worry about pregnancy and AIDS, regret, guilt, loss of self-respect and self-esteem, corruption of character, fear of commitment, rage over betrayal, depression…even suicide.

“The pill” and “the shot” provide NO PROTECTION against STDs.

Approximately 18 percent of teens using “the pill” will still get pregnant within one year (almost 1 in 5). The Condom “Failure” Rate (pregnancy) during the first two months of use among unmarried (not cohabitating) teen females is as high as 22.5% (more than 1 in 5 get pregnant). [Fu, et al, “Contraceptive Failure Rates….”, FPP, v. 3, no. 2, Mar-Apr 99]

It is also sobering to note that fifty-eight percent (58%) of women who underwent abortion in 1994/95 reported that they were currently using contraception the month they conceived. Approximately 1,300,000 abortions occur each year in the U.S. This amounts to ~ 754,000 contracepting women who used abortion as back-up birth control. [CDC MMWR, 12/08/00, vol. 49] It is noteworthy that birth control (condoms, pill, etc.) “failed” for 58% of the women who aborted their offspring during that survey period. Obviously, birth control “failed” for many other women who decided instead to give birth to their offspring. If birth control methods fail to stop pregnancy this often, what about STDs? How often are they transmitted?

Condoms reduce the risk of heterosexual HIV by about 85 percent — only if they are used “consistently and correctly.” Willard Cates, Jr., M.D. noted in his study that, “Clearly sexual abstinence will eliminate all risks.” [Cates, M.D., Medical Bulletin, International Planned Parenthood, 2/97; NIH Report, 7/01]

Some STDs are spread by skin-to-skin contact, not by fluids caught
in a condom. “Condoms are useless in preventing HPV transmission, because the virus is spread by cells that are shed on the scrotum, which then comes in contact with the vulvar skin.”
[Michael Campion, M.D., Director of Gynecologic Endoscopy at Graduate Hospital, Philadelphia; MISH Sexual Health Update, 4/94]

In one trial, 14.6 percent of latex condoms either broke or slipped
off the penis during intercourse or withdrawal. “These rates indicate a
sobering level of exposure to the risks of pregnancy and of infection with HIV or other STDs, even among those who consistently use condoms.”
[W. Archer, M.D., OBG, Prevention in Focus, 2/93; Trussell, Warner, Hatcher, “Condom Performance During Vaginal Intercourse,” Contraception, Jan. 1992, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 11-19]

Two thirds of STD cases occur in persons under 25 years of age. [CDC]

One in three of our teens who has sex will graduate from high school with a sexually transmitted disease. As many as 60 percent of school populations have serious infectious sexual diseases including chlamydia and Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). Only the common cold virus is more common.

“When infected with one of these diseases the risk of HIV transmission
increases by as much as 100 times.”
[W.R. Archer, M.D.]

An international study found that only 13 percent of Americans polled said they use a condom every time. The CDC notes that condoms used inconsistently offer little more protection than not using them at all. [NCAE News Release, Jan. 98]

“Abstinence until marriage, and sex with one mutually faithful uninfected partner
in that marriage, is the only total effective prevention strategy… condoms give a false sense of security and having sex is dangerous. Reducing the risk is not the same as eliminating the risk…Doctors can’t fix most of the things you can catch out there. There’s no cure for AIDS. There’s no cure for herpes or genital warts…There is no safe sex. Condoms aren’t going to make a dent in the sexual epidemics that we are facing. If the condom breaks, you may die.”
[Robert C. Noble, MD, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, “There is No Safe Sex,” AFA Journal, May 1991]

“Reducing the risk is not the same as eliminating the risk”

Relative Condom Risk
STD (not using condoms) (using condoms)
Herpes II 1.0                      .61 to .80
Gonorhea 1.0                     .66 to .87
HPV 1.0                             No protection
Chlamydia 1.0                    .97
[Cates & Stone, “Family Planning, STDs, and Contraceptive Choice,” FPP, v.24, no.2, Mar-Apr 92]
Explanation: “If, for example, the risk of contracting Herpes II without a condom is 1.0, then the risk of contracting Herpes II when using a condom is .61 to .80. This means that condoms reduce the risk of contracting Herpes II by 20% to 39% compared to having sex without using condoms.”
[Take Twelve, FoF, 2001]

Is this “safe sex” or “sexual Russian Roulette”?

Well, what do you think?

Now that you know some medical facts about “safe sex,” it doesn’t seem quite so safe and easy, does it?

Is “safe sex” worth the risk??

It’s your health; it’s your life…

You decide.

“Safe sex” is a deadly game.
“Saved sex” is the healthy choice of the Thinking Generation!


© 2003 Alabama Physicians For Life, Inc.

Substance Abuse and Abortion (ASB,1986,1993)

A study based on a national, random sample of 700 women participating in a reproductive history survey, found that of the women surveyed, those who aborted their first pregnancy were 3.9 times more likely to engage in subsequent drug or alcohol abuse than those who have never had an abortion. Women who engaged in substance abuse prior to their first pregnancy were excluded from the study.

These findings had a high degree of statistical significance, p<.0001, which means that there is less than 1 chance in 10,000 that these finding could have occurred due to chance. 

Numerous other studies on substance abuse have also reported a correlation with abortion. For example, a 1981 random study found that women who admitted a history of induced abortion were more than twice as likely to be heavy drinkers (13%) compared to women in general (6%) (A. Klassen, “Sexual Experience and Drinking Among Women in a U.S. National Survey,” Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15(5):363, 1986)

The Elliot Institute study found that for all the women surveyed who were pregnant prior to a history of substance abuse, the rate of post-pregnancy substance abuse rose from 3.8% for women who did not abort, to 14.6% for women who did abort their first pregnancy. 

These findings are of special concern because abortion related substance abuse can have a profound impact on other areas of a woman’s life, including relationship problems, job-related difficulties, health problems, and increased risk of auto accidents resulting in injuries to themselves and others. [The Post-Abortion Review, Fall 1993]