[GovernmentShrinker]

And here's some more junk science on stuff causing breast cancer:

Research Raises Cancer Concerns Over Deodorants
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1056305/posts

Quick! Let's pass some laws mandating counseling about breast cancer risk for anyone trying to purchase underarm deodorant!

[Land of the Free 04]

more junk science

Where's the evidence that the abortion-breast cancer link is "junk science"?

[hocndoc]

It is well known that women who do not have babies are at higher risk of having breast cancer than women who have even one child. Women who have their first child in their early 20's - or by 21 years old according to the books I read back in the 1970's - have more protection than women who have children later. Each child born and each child nursed, as well as increased months of nursing, both for each child and total, decreases the risk of breast cancer for any individual woman.

All of these factors are independent of any abortion history.

However, elective abortions are the intentional, active and purposeful removal of a pregnancy that could offer the woman who has the abortion some protection. Don't you believe that women should at the very least, be notified of these facts?

In addition, there is evidence that there is at least some increased risk for individuals who have interventional abortions, and that the risk is increased when the abortion is under 20 years old and over 30 years old. Should women and girls not be made aware of these facts?

I'm afraid that groups such as the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute show the bias of their spokesmen by saying that women aren't likely to be honest about prior abortions (self-reporter bias has been proven wrong by repeated studies), by ignoring Daling's studies of 1994 and 1996, and, possibly most significantly, by mixing "causal" and "risk."