Cancer & Abortion - Startling Facts......

John A. Quayle blueoval at SGI.NET
Sun Nov 14 17:33:21 MST 1999


    Why are 'pro-choice' Doctors scaring women about breast cancer?
                (article in the Public Domain)

        Are 'pro-choice' medical doctors telling women that NOT having an
induced abortion will increase their BC risk? No, the opposite, that
undergoing an induced abortion will INCREASE breast cancer risk. Are
these obscure medical doctors that no one has ever heard of? Dr. Samuel  S.
 Epstein is an internationally recognized cancer expert. In 1997 Dr.
Epstein  co-authored the outstanding book: The Breast Cancer Prevention
Program.  Dr. Epstein is a professor at the University of  Illinois, a
friend of Ralph Nader, and 'pro-choice'.

Dr. Epstein wrote:

      "For example, if you were to have an abortion at the age of 25,
      your risk of developing breast cancer at the age of 60 would
      increase from 1 in 24 to about 1 in 18, especially if you
      have more than one abortion before your first full-term
      pregnancy." (The Breast Cancer Prevention Program, Dr. Samuel
      S. Epstein et al, 1997, pp. 36-37). What would be Dr. Epstein's
      motive for conjuring up a breast cancer risk that does not exist?

Is there solid medical research to support Dr. Epstein's assertion?

        In medical studies, findings that are 'statistically significant'
carry much more intellectual 'weight' than studies that are not
'significant'. What does 'statistically significant' mean? It means that
the researchers  are at least 95% confident that a specific risk factor
(e.g. high salt diet) actually increases the odds of a person contracting a
specific disease (e.g. hypertension). In the field of 'ABC'
(Abortion-Breast-Cancer ) eighteen studies  have achieved 'statistical
significance', with the results:

     1. ONE study (Burany, 1979) reported that induced abortion
        DECREASED BC risk; (being 95% confident of decreased risk
        is also 'statistical significance').

     2. SEVENTEEN studies reported that induced abortion INCREASED
        BC risk.

        I.E. 94% of the 'significant' reports found that induced abortion
increased BC risk.

Perhaps, the Researchers are a bunch of pro-lifers -

     The Journal of the National Cancer Institute is a very prestigious
medical journal. In the November 1994 issue it published the results of an
'ABC' study on 'young' (under age 45) women. Results:

     1. women with an induced abortion before age 18 increased their
        breast cancer risk by 150% (95% CI =1.1-5.7)

     2. women who had their first induced abortion after age 29
        increased their BC risk by 110% (95% CI=1.2-3.5)

     3. overall (for all women who had  ever  been pregnant) induced
        abortion increased BC risk by 50% (95% CI=1.2-1.9)

(Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1994;86:1584-1592). [a 95%
confidence interval  (CI)  of  '1.2-1.9'  means  the  researchers are
95% confident that the risk  increase  is  somewhere between +20% and
+90%].

Dr. Janet Daling was  one  of  the  authors of this 'JNCI' report and
acknowledges  that  she  was and remains 'pro-choice'.  For reporting
what she believes to be  the truth, she is considered to be a traitor
by many 'pro-choicers'.

Are researchers telling women the TOTAL 'ABC' risk?
     When 'Daling et al'  report  an  overall  50%  increase  in breast
cancer risk from induced abortion, then 50% is the total risk increase,
right?  Absolutely NOT!  Breast cancer  researchers  have  known  since
before 1980 that the earlier a woman has a  first  full-term birth, the
lower her BC risk. So it is obvious, that MEDICAL delay of a first birth
via abortion increases BC risk for a childless woman. From the 'Daling'
study: "The RR [Relative Risk] was also 1.5 [i.e. 50% increase in risk]
(95% CI=1.2-2.0) in women who had give birth at  least  once, adjusting
for age at first full-term pregnancy."  What does the phrase "adjusting
for age at first full-term pregnancy" mean?  It means that the  medical
researchers are 'subtracting out' (i.e. not including) a  known  breast
cancer risk in the their risk estimate.  This first risk (delayed first
full-term pregnancy) is well-known and they want to report on  a second
breast cancer risk (interrupted pregnancy). The  cases  (women with BC)
will on average have an older age at first birth  than  controls (women
without  breast cancer)  and  the  'adjustment'  'subtracts  out'  this
higher risk.

So what is the total risk increase?
     Consider 4 childless women who have induced abortions at age 20
(Ann, Barbara, Carol, and Diane).  Here are their TOTAL BC risks:

         TOTAL     Age at First    Years First    Relative Risk Increase
         increase  Term Birth      Birth Delayed  caused by Delay of
      in Relative                                 first Birth
         BC risk

   Ann     53.5%         21              1             3.5%
   Barbara 61%           23              3            11%
   Carol   69%           25              5            19%
   Diane   91%           30             10            41%

(every  year  a  woman  delays  her first full-term pregnancy increases
her  relative  breast  cancer  risk  by 3.5% compounded, (International
Journal  of  Cancer, Dimitrios  Trichopoulos  et  al, 1983;31:701-704))

Are there other 'pro-choice' professionals warning about 'ABC'?

        Dr. Susan M. Love is a very high profile surgeon, author of best
sellers in  the health field, and a vocal feminist who is 'pro-choice'. Dr.
Love has issued a subtle warning to women: "And the younger you are when
you  have your first child, the lower your your [BC] risk." (Dr. Susan
Love's Breast  Book, Dr. Susan M. Love, 1995, p. 242). This book sold in
the hundreds of  thousands. No rational person denies that a young
childless woman will MEDICALLY delay her first term birth, if she has an
induced abortion. Because this delay involves the medical profession, the
concept of informed
medical consent comes 'into play'.

        But women are consenting to this BC risk when they sign the consent form,
right? No, the consent form does not have the word CANCER anywhere. Is this
malpractice? Is a circle round in shape? If induced abortion was
predominantly a life-saving (i.e. non-elective) procedure, the breast
cancer warning would have to appear on the consent form. But induced
abortion is pre-dominantly elective surgery (according to abortion doctors),
which means the standard of informed consent is higher than for a
non-elective procedure! This lack of a breast cancer warning is one of the
worst examples of misinformed consent ever. A medical doctor has a legal
duty to protect a woman's health. Elective induced abortion is a legal
violation of that duty, since breast cancer risk is a threat to a woman's
health, not a cure or a protection of her health.

        In this article three 'pro-choice' professionals have demonstrated
that they believe the 'ABC' threat is real and they believe in WRTK
(Women's Right To Know) the breast cancer risk:

     1. Dr. Samuel S. Epstein
     2. Dr. Janet Daling
     3. Dr. Susan M. Love


                               WRTK (Women's Right To Know) NOW!!!,
                               Mike Richmond
                       email:  newscan at vcn.bc.ca

P.S.

        The [U.S.] National Cancer Institute is a very prestigious
        organization and their main journal, The Journal of the National
        Cancer Institute is a very prestigious journal. "Scientists
        agree that a full-term pregnancy at a young age protects against
        breast cancer." (Troy Parkins (NCI employee), JNCI, 1993;85:
        1987).



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list