Just as Tobacco Industry Denied Scientific Evidence for Decades, So Now the Abortion/Pharmaceutical Industries Deny Mounting Breast Cancer Link
Readers of our newsletter know that use of oral contraceptives (the birth control pill) has been implicated as a risk factor for breast cancer by: 1) the World Health Organization; 2) a 2006 meta-analysis in the journal, Mayo Clinic Proceedings; and 3) a 2009 study in the journal, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, which linked the pill with the deadly triple-negative breast cancer [1-4]
Our readers are also aware that National Cancer Institute branch chief Dr. Louise Brinton was a co-author in that 2009 study and that she and her colleagues had included in their study both abortion and the pill as "known and suspected risk factors" for the disease.  They concluded in unambiguous terms that abortion and [so-called] oral "contraceptives" were associated with the disease and that their results "were consistent with the effects observed in previous studies on younger women." Approximately four dozen epidemiological studies, biological evidence and animal research implicate abortion as a risk factor for the disease. [4-15]
Planned Parenthood, nevertheless, remains steadfast in its denial of these cancer risks.
It is behaving in much the same way that the anti-science tobacco industry did during the last half of the 20th century.
The Dayton Daily News reported yesterday that a panel of three physicians told an audience at a conference on November 13, 2010 in Oakwood, Ohio that the pill puts women at risk for breast cancer. Lou Grieco, a reporter for that newspaper, quoted Becki Brenner, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Southwest Ohio. She called the breast cancer risks of the pill and induced abortion "scientifically baseless."
Brenner's denial of the scientific facts in the face of staggering evidence to the contrary reminds us of Monty Python's Dead Parrot skit. Actor John Cleese made repeated, frustrated efforts to persuade an indifferent pet shop owner that a parrot he had purchased was undeniably deceased until, finally, an exasperated Cleese declared,
"Look, matey…. This parrot has passed on. This parrot is no more. It has ceased to be. It has expired and gone to meet its Maker. This is a late parrot. It's a stiff, bereft of life. It rests in peace. If you hadn't nailed it to a perch, it would be pushing up daisies…. It's joined the choir invisible. This is an ex-parrot!"
The pill and induced abortion are clearly risk factors for breast cancer, but the risk of massive medical malpractice lawsuits may be motivating Planned Parenthood and others in the medical establishment to adopt an anti-science position of denying the evidence. Even worse, Planned Parenthood is damaging the health of thousands of women.
To read the story in the Dayton Daily News, click on the link below in our Abortion-Breast Cancer News Headlines.
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
ABORTION-BREAST CANCER NEWS HEADLINES
"Doctors link contraceptives, breast cancer / Planned Parenthood chief says the claim is a 'distortion of science'"
By Lou Grieco
Dayton Daily News
November 15, 2010
1. Cogliano V, Grosse Y, Baan R, Secretan B, El Ghissassi F. Carcinogenicity of combined oestrogen-progestagen contraceptives and menopausal treatment. Lancet Oncology 2005;6:552-553.
2. Press Release No. 167, "IARC Monographs Programme Finds Combined Estrogen-Progestogen Contraceptives (the "pill") and Menopausal Therapy Are Carcinogenic to Humans," World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer, July 29, 2005.
3. Kahlenborn C, Modugno F. Potter D, Severs W. Oral contraceptive use as a risk factor for premenopausal breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2006;81(10):1290-1302. Available at: <http://www.polycarp.org>.
4. Dolle J, Daling J, White E, Brinton L, Doody D, et al. Risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(4)1157-1166. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Abortion_Breast_Cancer_Epid_Bio_Prev_2009.pdf
5. Brind J, Chinchilli V, Severs W, Summy-Long J. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health 1996;50:481-496.
6. Brind J. The abortion-breast cancer connection. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly Summer 2005; p. 303-329. <http://www.AbortionBreastCancer.com/Brind_NCBQ.PDF>.
7. Brind J. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: A critical review of recent studies based on prospective data. J Am Phys Surg Vol. 10, No. 4 (Winter 2005) 105-110. Available at: <http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf>.
8. 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. Available at: <http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf>.
9. Naieni KH, Ardalan A, Mahmoodi M, Motevalian A, Yahyapoor Y, et al. Risk factors of breast cancer in North of Iran: A case-control in Mazandaran Province. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention 2007;8;395-398. Available at: http://www.apocp.org/cancer_download/Volume8_No3/395-398%20c_Naieni%204.pdf
10. Ozmen V, Ozcinar B, Karanlik H, Cabioglu N, Tukenmez M, et al. Breast cancer risk factors in Turkish women – a University Hospital based nested case control study. World J of Surg Oncol 2009;7:37. Available at: http://wjso.com/content/7/1/37.
11. Xing P, Li J, Jin F. A case-control study of reproductive factors associated with subtypes of breast cancer in Northeast China. Medical Oncology, e-publication online September 2009. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19771534.
12. Dolle J, Daling J, White E, Brinton L, Doody D, et al. Risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(4)1157-1166. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Abortion_Breast_Cancer_Epid_Bio_Prev_2009.pdf
13. De Silva M, Senarath U, Gunatilake M, Lokuhetty D. Prolonged breastfeeding reduces risk of breast cancer in Sri Lankan women: a case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol 2010;34(3):267-73. Abstract available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20338838
14. Lanfranchi, A. Normal breast physiology: The reasons hormonal contraceptives and induced abortion increase breast cancer risk. The Linacre Quarterly 2009;76:236-249. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/LQ_76_3_2_Lanfranchi.pdf
15. Russo J, Tay TK, Russo IH. Differentiation of the mammary gland and susceptibility to carcinogenesis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1982;2:5-73.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer — http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/
Breast Cancer Prevention Institute — http://www.bcpinstitute.org/
Polycarp Research Institute — http://www.polycarp.org/
This newsletter can be viewed online by clicking here — http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/news/101116.htm
Coalition on Abortion Breast Cancer <mail
[Dayton Daily News: "Doctors link contraceptives, breast cancer" November 16, 2010]
Abortion Linked to Preterm Birth, But Why Aren't Women Being Told?
November is Prematurity Awareness Month, dedicated by activists to highlighting the risks of and impact created by preterm birth.
According to the March of Dimes, more than half a million babies are born prematurely in the United States alone each year. Yet most people — including women at risk of abortion and their loved ones — are unaware that abortion has been linked to an increased risk of preterm birth among subsequently born babies.
[ED. Why doesn't the March of Dimes inform women of this obvious link?]
In a paper published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in 2009, a Canadian research team examined data from 37 studies and found that having a prior abortion increased the risk of subsequent preterm birth by 35 percent, while having more than one prior abortion increased the risk by 93 percent.1
(Preterm birth is defined as a birth that takes place before 37 weeks gestation.)
In other words, children whose mothers had a previous abortion were more likely to be born prematurely, putting them at greater risk for problems such as low-birth weight (which has been linked to physical and developmental problems), epilepsy, autism, mental retardation2 and cerebral palsy.
A research team looking at data from 2002 estimated that prior abortions led to 1,096 cases of cerebral palsy among babies born prematurely that year.3
There are risks to the mother with preterm birth as well, as other studies have found that women who give birth at less than 32 weeks double their lifetime risk of breast cancer.4
Evidence linking abortion and preterm birth continues to pile up, researchers and advocates say. Another paper published in 2009 found that found that having a previous abortion raised a woman's relative odds of having a subsequent birth at less than 32 weeks by 64 percent.5
Further, as far back as 2006 the Institute of Medicine included "prior first trimester abortion" on a list of risk factors associated with premature birth.6
However, as Brent Rooney, Director of Research for the Reduce Preterm Birth Coalition, has pointed out, abortions continue to be performed despite the strong evidence of risks—and in the absence of any evidence showing the procedure to be harmless.
"In the 'Court of Medicine' a 'defendant' new surgery or new drug is presumed guilty of serious adverse side effects until by strong evidence it is demonstrated to be innocent," Rooney noted. Yet 50 years after the development of the suction abortion procedure, he said, there has never been a "'study of studies' or systematic review" that has proven that abortion does not cause premature birth. Instead, the evidence seems to be pointing in the opposite direction.
And even as the evidence linking abortion and preterm birth continues to pile up, women and their loved ones are not being told of the risks. The result is that women and girls will end up undergoing abortions without having the information needed to make a decision–which is a form of coercion. And it puts the mothers, their unborn children and any future children they may have at risk.
Learn more: Access the world's most extensive online library of studies on the physical and psychological effects of abortion at www.AbortionRisks.org
LifeNews.com Note: Amy Sobie is the editor of The Post-Abortion Review, a quarterly publication of the Elliot Institute. The organization is a widely respected leader in research and analysis of medical, mental health and other complications resulting from abortions.
1. P.S. Shah and J. Zao, "Induced termination of pregnancy and low birthweight and preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis," BJOG 116(11): 1425-1442 (2009).
2. Barbara Kay, "The abortion issue we're ignoring," National Post, June 10, 2009.
3. B.C. Calhoun, E. Shadigan and B. Rooney, "Cost Consequences of Induced Abortion as an Attributable Risk for Preterm Brith and Informed Consent," Journal of Reproductive Medicine 52(10): 929-937 (2007).
4. M. Melbye et. al., "Preterm Delivery and risk of breast cancer," British Journal of Cancer, 80(3-4): 609-613 (1999); and K.E. Innes and T.E. Byers, "First pregnancy characteristics and subsequent breast cancer risk among young women," International Journal of Cancer, 112(2): 306-311 (2004).
5. H.M. Swingle et. al., " Abortion and the Risk of Subsequent Preterm Birth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," Journal of Reproductive Medicine 54:95-108 (2009).
6. R.E. Behrman et. al., Preterm Birth: Causes, Consequences and Prevention (Washington, D.C., National Academies Press, 2007).
[Nov. 23, 2010, www.theunchoice.com, Springfield, IL, http://www.theunchoice.com/articles/pretermbirth.htm]
[25 Nov 2010, Amy Sobie, Springfield, IL, http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/25/opi-1020/]