Posted on 10/23/2001 1:46:49 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy
I understand what you're doing, but what do the studies say about someone like me--I've had five miscarriages, one before the birth of my daughter and four afterwards. If the study says that there is a link between a terminated pregnancy by abortion, does that also apply to a pregnancy terminated by miscarriage?
You're taking on Goliath......but we know what happened to him!!!!
Prayers go with you!
BRITISH PHYSICIAN DOES ABOUT-FACE ON ABORTION-BREAST CANCER LINK
Abortion increases cancer risk
http://dianedew.com/aborcanc.htm
DIANE S. DEW © 1993
Reprinted from The Standard 4/6/93 Women who have had abortions have a greater risk of developing breast cancer, The Washington Times reported Friday, and because of the increase in breast cancer risk, women are 200 times more likely to die from aborting their first pregnancy than from carrying the fetus to term.
Delaying childbirth until later in life also increases one's risk, studies show.
Dr. Joel Brind, an endocrinologist and biologist now doing cancer research, was in Washington to bring his findings on breast cancer to the attention of the Congress. He met with both Senate and House staff members during his two-day visit, which was sponsored by the Ad Hoc Committee in Defense of Life, a Washington-based pro-life group.
He has cited 19 other sources [see sidebar], including a 1986 Lancet article which states that "induced abortion before first-term pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer."
"A woman who has a baby as a teenager has about a 7% lifetime risk of getting breast cancer, " he said, "but a woman who aborts her first pregnancy has about double that risk -- 15% or more."
"I've been trying to get this in the paper" for a long time, said Dr. Brind, professor of biology and endocrinology at Baruch College of the City University of New York.
Dr. Brind has been studying the abortion-breast cancer link since 1982. He is a Yale graduate with degrees in biology, chemistry and endocrinology from New York University.
"There is a clear relationship documented in medical journals showing that women aborting their first pregnancy are at a much higher risk of developing breast cancer than those who carry their pregnancy to term," he told an audience of "Beverly LaHaye Live" Monday afternoon.
Scientific studies have demonstrated these facts for the last 12 years, but the liberal media have been unwilling to publish the findings, he said. According to the Ad Hoc Committee in Defense of Life, only The Washington Times, Richmond Times-Dispatch and Chicago Sun-Times have run the story.
"This has been known for years now," Dr. Brind said, "But the abortion industry," along with the media, has squelched the facts.
Dr. Brind cited a number of unbiased studies, including:
a 1981 Los Angeles study which found a 2.4-fold higher incidence of breast cancer among women younger than 33 who had had an abortion before a live birth;
a New York study by Dr. Holly Howe that included all upstate and Long Island, New York women between 1976 and 1980 who developed breast cancer before age 40. The study showed a 90% increase among women who aborted their first pregnancy. All 10 women who had had two consecutive abortions developed breast cancer. a Russian 1978 study published by Larissa Remennick in 1990, indicating that women who had aborted one or two pregnancies had a 200% chance of developing breast cancer. Those with three or more tripled their risk, her study found.
numerous other studies in Denmark, Japan, Canada, Israel, France, and the US found the same link.
These studies, for years, have been published in such reputable publications as the Journal of Epidemiological Community Health, the International Journal of Epidemiology and the British Journal of Cancer.
But the American media, far from pro-woman on this one, have refused to tell the truth.
"The real risks -- over and above the known risks of postponing childbearing -- are abortion before full-term pregnancy and multiple abortions," Dr. Brind wrote in the British Columbia Report March 8.
"The range of increased risk due to abortion before first full-term pregnancy is about the same as the risk attributable to one's mother having the disease (40-100%), and the risk elevation due to multiple abortions (up to 300%) is similar to the range found for women whose mother and sister have been stricken with breast cancer (300-500%)," he said.
According to Dr. Brind's findings, any interruption in pregnancy, whether a spontaneous ("miscarriage") or induced abortion, increases the risk significantly. Abortions that occur earlier in pregnancy are more likely to cause cancer, he said.
"It's dangerous not to complete any pregnancy," said Dr. Brind. "Even if the baby is going to be a goner, for the sake of the mother, is far better to carry the baby to term."
The longer the woman carries the child, Brind explained, the less likely it is she will develop breast cancer, all other risks aside, because of the change in hormonal levels during the later stage of pregnancy.
"But I'm certainly not advocating third-trimester abortions," Brind added.
Breast cancer is caused by excess estrogen, the female sex hormone. Estrogen levels normally increase during puberty and pregnancy, when the breasts are increasing in size, Dr. Brind explained. Any interruption in that level is risky, he said, because the woman's body will lack the counterbalancing hormones produced at the end of pregnancy, whch bring the estrogen level back to normal.
If a woman has an abortion, her risk of developing breast cancer is worse than if she had never become pregnant, Dr. Brind said. The 16-year-old who gets an abortion is 200 times more likely to die from breast cancer, as a result of that abortion, than if she had carried the child to term, he said.
Current estimates on the number of women who will develop breast cancer have been increasing in recent years, from one in 11 just a few years ago, to one in 10, to one in nine, and now one in eight....
"These facts have been known since 1959 or 1960," he added, but "the abortion industry" has attempted to perpetuate public ignorance of the truth. Dr. Brind said "the abortion industry" has several falsehoods it seeks to maintain, for monetary reasons. Included among these, he said, are (1) the lie that it is safer to abort than to carry a child to term; and (2) the lie that there are not enough people to adopt.
"The fact that miscarriages, spontaneous abortions, also have the same effects upon the woman's body proves this is not a random finding," Dr. Brind said. "The effects are the same."
So RU-486, which also interrupts pregnancy, may not be as "safe" as feminists would have us believe. How can they call themselves "pro-woman"? Where have they been all these years, squelching the truth?
A tiny paragraph at the bottom of the page in the back section of the Adelaide Advertiser reported very briefly (25/1/96, p14) that a recent scientific study shows abortion or miscarriage can increase the risk of breast cancer. The news was, not carried in the national daily, The Australian.
It was remarkable that the news was reported at all. Since 1981 many studies have shown a link between abortion and breast cancer, but there has been a media cover-up. In 1993 US lawyer Scott Somerville summarised the findings of 24 studies worldwide in his report, Before you choose: the link between abortion and breast cancer from which this resource paper is extracted. His analysis was devastating - but has largely been ignored
In 1995 the Canberra-based National Health and Medical Research Council sponsored a review of abortion services in Australia. The NHMRC’s "Expert Panel", strongly pro-abortion in ideology, issued a draft report which included a brief acknowledgment of research linking abortion with breast cancer. However the report claimed that routinely to inform Australian women seeking abortions of the breast cancer risk would be "premature"1. Scott Somerville points out that this attitude, common among abortion providers, is causing unnecessary suffering and sometimes death
Cancer: one woman's true story
In November 1992, Dr Joel Brind, a Yale-educated breast cancer researcher, began to study whether abortions might cause breast cancer and quickly discovered some startling information. Three months later, Scott Somerville, a Harvard lawyer, began doing his own research in this area. But over a year earlier, "Jane Roe," a registered nurse, was asking the same question for much more personal reasons.
Jane had two abortions during the 1970s, and a miscarriage in 1990. Several months after the miscarriage, she noticed problems with clogged milk ducts. Jane’s doctor did a careful examination, and found some fibrous tissue in her breast. She did a thorough biopsy of this tissue, and diagnosed it as "hyperplasia" (lots of tissue) but not "hyperplasia atypia" (first stage of cancer). Jane and her doctor went over all the traditional risk factors for breast cancer together, but Jane had none. So the doctor gave Jane a clean bill of health.
In the summer of 1992, Jane heard a radio blurb about a study linking miscarriages to breast cancer. The announcer did not tell who had done the study, but as a nurse, Jane had access to the Medline computer network. Jane searched for studies that mentioned "cancer" and either "abortion" or "miscarriage." The computer churned out abstracts for 12 such studies. The abstracts did not spell out clearly whether there was a link. So Jane took them to her doctor. The doctor (a well-trained specialist in the field of breast cancer) looked over the abstracts, but said that she had never heard any discussion within the American medical community linking miscarriages to cancer.
In November 1992, Jane began to experience swelling, lumps, and peculiar periods. This was the same month in which Joel Brind announced his conclusions about abortion and breast cancer. The press chose not to report on Brind’s claims. Jane and her doctor checked her out again, but found nothing in particular. Busy at work, Jane decided to wait a few months for surgery. When she had surgery three months later, tumours were found. Within days, doctors removed both breasts and discovered 11 of 28 lymph nodes had been invaded by cancer. Her prognosis is grim.
Had Jane known about this research in 1990, she would have chosen more aggressive treatment. Had she known in November 1992, when Dr Brind first went public with his findings, Jane would not have waited until the following March for surgery. Jane Roe now says: I wish I had known the implications of terminating my pregnancies years ago. My children might be alive and I probably would not be in danger of losing my life.
Rapid rise in breast cancer
The rate of breast cancer is rising rapidly in the United States(2), and in many other countries around the world (3). The rate of breast cancer is also rising at an alarming rate among certain subgroups in America, such as young African-American women(4) and poor women in certain states(5). A fraction of this rise can be accounted for through known risk factors, but a full 60% of the increase has remained a mystery to scientists(6). The popular press has been filled with articles such as, "A Puzzling Plague: What is it about the American way of life that causes breast cancer?" (Time, 14/1/1991) and "In Pursuit of a Terrible Killer" (Newsweek, 10/12/1990).
What is the cause of this sudden surge in the breast cancer rate? Recent, reputable, and repeated medical research indicates that it may be abortion. Abortion of a first pregnancy interrupts the growth and hormonal changes which enable the breast to produce milk, which leaves the breast at a heightened risk of cancer. This risk, multiplied by the millions of induced abortions around the world, can account for the mysterious jump in the breast cancer rate. This report lists 24 published studies which document a link between a first pregnancy abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer, and concludes that women need to know about this risk before they make a choice about abortion.
The biological link
A woman’s first full pregnancy causes hormonal changes which permanently alter the structure of her breast. The completed process greatly reduces the risk of breast cancer7. A premature termination of a first pregnancy interrupts this process. Instead of protecting the breast from cancer, abortion leaves millions of breast cells suspended in transitional states. Studies in animals and in human tissue cultures indicate that cells in this state face exceptionally high risks of becoming cancerous.
Before a woman conceives for the first time, her breasts consist mostly of connective tissue surrounding a branching network of ducts, with relatively few milk-producing cells. When the first child is conceived, oestrogen and other hormones flood the mother’s system. The pregnant woman experiences this as morning sickness. Under the influence of these hormones, her breast cells undergo massive growth. The resulting tenderness of the breast is one of the earliest signs of pregnancy. The network of milk ducts begins to bud and branch, developing more ducts and new structures called "end buds." These end buds begin to form "alveolar buds" which will later develop into the actual milk-producing glands, called "acini". This period of rapid growth towards maturity is when breast cells are most likely to be affected by certain cancer-causing agents, or "carcinogens".8
Around the end of the first trimester of pregnancy, the hormone balance in the woman's body changes. Oestrogen levels drop, and the levels of other, different hormones begin to rise. The growth phase of the breast ends, and a new phase of differentiation and maturation begins and continues until the child is born.
Cell differentiation and maturation is the process by which cells become specialised. Most people know that all living creatures begin as a single cell, which divides and reproduces. By mechanisms still barely understood by man, these basic cells are directed to become different from one another. Eventually, they become highly specialised into the various organs and tissues of the body. Once cells become specialised, they are very unlikely to turn cancerous.
When the child is born, the breast is ready to produce milk to nourish the baby. The breast will never return to its earlier state, or be as vulnerable to cancer as it was in its immature state or during the growth phase of early pregnancy. The earlier the first birth occurs, the lower the risk of breast cancer. Women who give birth before age 18 have about one-third the cancer risk of women who have their first child after age 35.9
First-trimester abortions (whether spontaneous miscarriages or surgically induced) appear to interrupt the breast maturation process at the worst possible time. When cells are reproducing the fastest, the risk that there will be an error in reproduction is the highest. Cancer results from cells whose reproduction runs amok.
Test-tube studies on human breast cells indicate that human breast tissue is similar in many ways to that of rats. Rat studies clearly suggest that first trimester abortions could lead to breast cancer. For example, in rats10, breast tissue is most susceptible to cancer when the tissue is rapidly developing, which occurs in the early stages of pregnancy. Treating rats with carcinogens during this phase results in the greatest number of cancerous tumours. Most human abortions take place during early pregnancy, at a time when the breast tissue seems to be highly vulnerable to cancer.
The statistical link
The biology of the breast suggests that abortion could cause breast cancer. If this is true, one would expect to find that, as a group, women diagnosed with breast cancer would have had more short-term pregnancies than other women. A great deal of research has been done in this area, and repeatedly, reputable studies have found unusually high abortion rates among women with breast cancer. The increased risk of breast cancer associated with abortion exists even after one adjusts for other known risk factors, such as the protective effect of an early live birth.
In one study, for example, researchers did a long-term study of a group of 3,315 Connecticut mothers.11 They were able to identify how many of these women developed breast cancer over the years. Women with a miscarriage before their first live birth were more likely to get breast cancer. Such women had an increased risk of 350%, but some of this was due to the later age at first birth among women who miscarried. After adjusting for this and other known risk factors, there was still a 250% increase in risk attributable to the miscarriage alone.
An analysis of all reputable studies done to date suggests, as a conservative figure, that women who have miscarriages or abortions before the first live birth initially have a cancer risk 50% higher than women who do not. This risk appears to be strongly affected by the number of short-term pregnancies, and the presence of a live birth later in life. The Connecticut study (which is the only long-term follow-up study done to date) shows that the risk of breast cancer increases with time.
The abortion industry responds
Key individuals in the abortion industry have been aware of the evidence of the link between abortion and breast cancer since at least 19821212. Malcolm Pike explicitly identified abortion as a risk factor in breast cancer in 198113. A number of studies followed up his work. A close look at who knew what, and when, leads to the inescapable conclusion that the abortion industry has intentionally kept this information from its patients for the last 14 years.
The industry relies on one hypothesis to justify not telling women about their risk: the "recall bias" theory. According to this theory, women with breast cancer are more likely to remember or admit previous abortions than are other women.14
"Recall bias" can only explain away an abortion link if a study depends on the memory and honesty of women who now have cancer. Many studies cannot be affected by recall bias, yet they still show an increased risk of breast cancer1515 or more aggressive turnout types.16
One study, conducted by Holly Howe and other researchers at the New York State Department of Health, deals a devastating blow to the "recall bias" theory. This was a large, computer-based study, which found a 90% increased risk of breast cancer among women who had first pregnancy abortions. This study could not have been influenced by the "recall bias" theory, since it depended solely on official records made at the time of the abortion.
It took years for Howe’s research to be published. After several American journals refused to print her article, it finally appeared in 1989 in a respected British journal, the International Journal of Epidemiology1717. The Howe study was followed up, within months of publication, by a much hastier large-scale study in Sweden by Britt-Marie Lindefors-Harris, et al1818. This research was largely funded by "Family Health, International," a US group which specialises in "contraceptive and family planning research".
This large-scale study has been aptly dubbed the "Swedish Data Massage." Like the Howe study, the Swedish study was based on official computerised cancer and abortion records, but unlike Howe, the Swedish team made no effort to identify a control group, nor did they focus on women who aborted their first pregnancy. In Sweden, unlike America, most women who get legal abortions have already had one or more children, and thus most women in this study have the lower risk of breast cancer associated with the protective effect of the first full pregnancy. The Swedish study knowingly lumped women who have already had a child in with women who aborted their first pregnancy. The authors then compared the combined results to the total population (which included a high number of women who have had abortions) rather than to women who have not had abortions. Through the use of these transparent statistical devices, the Swedish researchers masked any possible link between first pregnancy abortion and breast cancer. They concluded that contrary to most earlier reports, this study did not indicate any overall increased risk of breast cancer after an induced abortion in the first trimester in young women.
Despite their apparently intentional effort to hide the relationship, even this Swedish study revealed some amazing statistics. Only one paragraph in the published study said anything about first pregnancy abortions. Women who had an abortion after a live birth had a breast cancer risk of only 58% of the "average" risk in the study. Women who had an abortion before a live birth had a risk of 109% of "average". Comparing these two numbers yields an increased risk factor of nearly 88%, almost exactly the 90% risk reported in Howe’s New York State study.
Tumours more deadly
Another problem with the "recall bias" theory is that it cannot explain why women who have had abortions seem to have deadlier breast cancers than women with breast cancer who have not had abortions.
One measure of the deadliness of cancer is its recurrence. In one study, women who developed breast cancer had a 10.5% rate of recurrence within three years if they had only live births. Those women who had one abortion were twice as likely (20.5%) to have a recurrence of cancer within that amount of time. Women with two or more abortions were three times as likely (32.3%) to have such a recurrence.1919
The "hard case"
Women sometimes develop breast cancer during pregnancy. This is known as "coincidental breast cancer," and it has been called "the ultimate challenge" for physicians, since it pits the mother’s needs (for aggressive radiation and/or chemotherapy) against the needs of the developing foetus. This is the hard case where abortion appears to be necessary to save the life of the mother. But if abortion actually causes breast cancer, it could be the worst possible treatment.
In the only study of coincidental breast cancer which examines abortion as a factor, induced abortion seems to yield disastrous results. Women who carried their pregnancy to term had a low survival rate - only 20% of such women lived more than 20 years after developing cancer. Women who had natural miscarriages were able to take advantage of more aggressive treatments, and had a survival rate more than twice that of the full-term pregnancies. But every single woman who chose to have an abortion died of cancer within eleven years.2020
The logical link
Sherlock Holmes said, "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be true." We are searching for a single cause for the worldwide increase in otherwise unexplained cases of breast cancer. As such, many of the potential culprits can be eliminated.
There are many possible causes of breast cancer, but we are looking for one plausible cause of the sudden, global surge in this disease. Genetics, diet, miscarriages and a number of other factors all seem to influence the rate of breast cancer. Unlike legalised abortion, however, most of these factors have always been at work, to some degree, and are probably responsible for a relatively stable base level of breast cancer. Unfortunately, in the last 40 years, the level of breast cancer has not been stable. Rather, it has been rising sharply around the world. A full 60% of this increase remains a mystery to American researchers. Some new factor must be responsible for the sudden change in the rate of breast cancer.
Aside from legalised abortion, the other prime suspect would be oral contraceptives (the "Pill"). The Pill became popular in the 1960s, some 10 to 20 years before the increase in breast cancer in the US first became evident. This might fit the latency period for cancer. Some studies do suggest a link between use of the Pill and breast cancer.45
Nancy Krieger, a breast cancer researcher, suggested in 1989 that the popularity of the Pill and/or abortion might account for the "crossover effect," the well-documented but highly troubling fact that young, African-American women have a higher breast cancer rate than do young, white women, while older black women face a lower risk. Krieger theorised that if this were true, one would expect to find higher breast cancer rates among young, upwardly mobile black women, because they use the Pill and have abortions more often than do women on welfare. Krieger followed up her thinking with a careful study of racial and economic patterns in the breast cancer rates of women in the San Francisco Bay area. She found a significant increased risk of breast cancer for young African-American women living in higher status neighbourhoods. This supported Krieger’s hypothesis that the Pill and/or abortion could be the cause of the crossover effect4646
The Pill could be partially responsible for breast cancer, but its use alone cannot account for the sudden worldwide jump. Women in the former Soviet Union have had little access to Western-style drugs, including the Pill or any other effective contraceptives. Yet the Soviets have had one of the world’s highest abortion rates. If the Pill were the sole cause of the sudden jump in breast cancer, one would expect no rise in breast cancer rates among women in Soviet countries. If abortion does cause breast cancer, however, one would expect a very sharp rise in the incidence of breast cancer among Soviet women. In fact, the incidence of breast cancer among Russian, Estonian, and Soviet Georgian women appears to have tripled between 1960 and 1987.4747
The tripling of Soviet cases makes it possible to rule out a number of other possible causes for the sudden worldwide increase. While young American women were experimenting with illegal drugs, Soviet women were not. Soviet women have also been spared most of the additives and preservatives commonly found in American foods. Abortion is one of the few influences which has been linked to breast cancer that has been present on both sides of the Iron Curtain.
There are other facts about the sudden rise in breast cancer which can only be explained by legalised abortion. Almost every early study on breast cancer which looks at socio-economic status notes that rich women have a higher rate of the disease than poor women.4848 Before 1969, a legal abortion in a hospital was likely to cost more than $500, which meant that women of high economic status were much more likely than other women to obtain abortions.4949 This would account for the historical link to socio-economic status.
Inexpensive and/or free abortions would change this pattern, and studies in states which provide free abortions indicate that the pattern has changed. Washington State has long had a liberal attitude towards abortion. The state legalised it in 1970, several years before the US Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade. As a result, rich women in Washington have had little trouble getting abortions. In the early 1970s, Washington began to publicly fund abortions for the poor. The results are striking. After the state started funding abortions, the breast cancer rate among poor women rose by 53% in the period from 1974 to 1984, while it actually dropped by 1% among wealthy women. Wealthy women, who supposedly have always had access to abortions, experienced no increase in the rate of breast cancer, while the rate among poor women skyrocketed. The most plausible explanation for this increase is the availability of free abortions in Washington State.
If you are at risk
Tragically, the information in this report is not just scientific evidence. It is terribly personal to many women. If you have had a first pregnancy miscarriage or abortion, you may need more than information. You may need help.
Medically, it is important to note that breast cancer can be one of the easiest cancers to treat – if it is detected in time. Most women are aware of the general risk of breast cancer, but many do not really believe it will affect them. Our goal in making this information available is to save lives by revealing the risk in time for women to act. For some women, this may simply mean regular self-examinations. For others, it may mean periodic mammograms, under your doctor’s supervision.
Legally, the abortion industry may be held liable for damages both to women who have contracted breast cancer and to those who are at increased risk due to having had an abortion. To hold an abortionist liable, a woman must be able to prove that she probably would not have had the abortion if she had known the full risk, and that her doctor failed to disclose information which he knew or should have known. Relatively few medical doctors have been aware of this research until recently. Some experts in the abortion industry have definitely known about this research for the last twelve years. They should have told women about the possibility of a link between abortion and breast cancer as soon as it became evident. Women seeking more information on their legal rights should contact a qualified legal professional.
24 published studies which show a link between abortion and breast cancer
Segi, et al., 1957: Reported a higher rate of both miscarriages and abortions among breast cancer patients; increased risk ranged from 100% to 400% among the different sub-groups in the study.2121
Stewart and Dunham, 1966: More Israeli breast cancer patients had pregnancies which terminated in the first trimester than did the control group.2222
Yuasa and MacMahon, 1970: "There was a significant excess of [cancer] eases reporting one or more abortions.2323
Lin, et al., 1971: Women with one or more abortions had a cancer risk 50% higher than that of women who did not; with two or more abortions, the risk rose to 100%.2424
Mirra, Cole and MacMahon, 1971: In a Brazilian study, more breast cancer patients reported having had abortions than did the control group.2525
Stavraky and Emmons, 1974: Thirty-seven percent of patients who developed breast cancer after menopause had had at least one abortion while only 27% of women with other cancers reported having had an abortion.2626
Soini, 1977: Rate of breast cancer among women in Finland increased with number of abortions.2727
Choi, et al., 1978: Women whose pregnancies lasted four months or less showed a statistically significant increase in breast cancer.2828
Dvoirin and Medvedev. 1978: Case-control study in the North Caucasus, Soviet Union, found an increased risk in women with three or more induced abortions of 240%. With one or two induced abortions, the increase in risk was 100%.2929
Kelsey, 1979: "Pregnancies of less than four to five month's duration may be associated with an increased risk.3030
Pike, et al., 1981: First trimester abortion of first pregnancy led to increased risk of 140% among women under 32.3131
Brinton, et al., 1983: Raw numbers in this study nearly duplicate Pike’s findings two years earlier.3232
Ownby, et al. 1983: Women with one abortion had twice as many recurrences of cancer. as those with none; women with two or more abortions had three times as many cases of cancer.3333
Hirohata, et al., 1985:A multiple logistic regression analysis, risk among women with any induced abortion was 52% higher than for women who had no abortions.3434
Hadjimichael, et al. , 1986: Abortion before first live birth, after adjusting for other known risk factors, increased risk by 250%.3535
La Vecchia, et al., 1987: Risk among Italian women with one or more legal abortions before first live birth was increased by 42%.3636
Ewertz and Duffy, 1988: Termination of first pregnancy before 28 weeks increased by 43%; two or more abortions before the first full pregnancy increased the risk by 73%; one induced abortion with no live births increased by 285%.3737
Yuan, Yu and Ross, 1988: Among Chinese women who developed breast cancer before the age of 40, abortion before first .full term pregnancy led to increased risk of 140%.3838
Clark and Chua, 1989: Among women who developed cancer while pregnant: those who carried pregnancy to term had a 20% survival rate; women who miscarried received more aggressive treatment and had a 42% survival rate, but every single woman who chose abortion died.3939
Howe, et al., 1989: Abortion of first pregnancy led to increased risk of 90%. Repeated abortions heightened risk by 300%.4040
Lindefors-Harris, et al., 1989: Women who had an abortion before a live birth hid an:88% greater risk of breast cancer than did women who had a live birth before an abortion.4141
Olsson, Ranstam et al., 1991: Abortion of first pregnancy led to more aggressive tumours.4242
Olsson, Borg, et al., 1991: Breast cancers of women who aborted their first pregnancy showed many times the normal rate of INT2, a specific gene associated with breast cancer.4343
Parazzini, et al., 1991: Legal abortions in Italy before first birth led to increased risk of 30%.4444 References
1. NHMRC draft report: Services for the Termination of Pregnancy in Australia: A Review, (September 1995) p26.
2. General Accounting Office, Breast Cancer, 1971-1991: Prevention, Treatment, and Research, Washington, D.C., GAO/PEMD-92-12 (1991).
3. Up 40% in Italy and Sweden, up 200% in the former Soviet Union. C. La Vecchia, A. Decarli, F. Parazzini, A. Gentile, E. Negri, G. Cecchetti and S. Franceschi, "General epidemiology of breast cancer in Northern Italy," Intl. J. Epidemiol 16: 347-355 (1987); National Board of Health and Welfare, Cancer incidence in Sweden 1971-1984, Stockholm: National Board of Health and Welfare (1987); L.I. Remennick, "Reproductive patterns and cancer incidence in women: A population-based correlation study in the USSR," Intl. J. Epidemiol. 18:498-510 (1989).
4. N. Krieger, "Social class and the black/white crossover in the age-specific incidence of breast cancer: a study linking census derived data to population-based registry records," Am. J. Epidemiol. 131: 804-814 (1990).
5. E. White, J. Daling, T.L. Norsted, J. Chu, "Rising incidence of breast cancer among young women in Washington State," J. Natl Cancer Inst. 79: 239-43 (1987); Krieger, 1990, supra.
6. E. Marshall, "Search for a killer: focus shifts from fat to hormones," Science 259:618-621 (1993).
7. M. Ewenz, and S .W. Duffy, "Risk of breast cancer in relation to reproductive factors in Denmark," Brit. J. Cancer 58: 99-104 (1988); J.L. Kelsey, D.B. Fischer, R.K. Holford, V.A. LiVoisi, E.D. Mostow, I.S. Goldenberg and C. White, "Exogenous oestrogens and other factors in the epidemiology of breast cancer," J. Natl Cancer Inst. 67:327-333 (1981); J.L. Kelsey, "A review of the epidemiology of human breast cancer," Epidemiol, Rev. 1:74-109 (1979) (citing 14 earlier studies).
8. S.C. Brooks and R.J. Pauley, Breast cancer biology, Encyclopaedia of Human Biology, R. Dulbecco, ed. (1991); see also J. Russo, L.K. Tay, and I.H. Russo, "Differentiation of the mammary gland and susceptibility to carcinogenesis," Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2: 5-73 (1982).
9. Kelsey, 1979, supra (citing 14 earlier studies).
10. Russo, Tay and Russo, 1982, supra.
11. O.C. Hadjimichael, C.A. Boyle, and J.W. Meigs, "Abortion before first live birth and risk of breast cancer," Brit. J. Cancer 53:281-284 (1986).
12. Eg W. Cates Jr, "Legal abortion: the public health record," Science 215:1586-1590 (March 1982).
13. Pike, et al, 1981, supra.
14. Cates, 1982, supra.
15. Stavraky and Emmons, 1974, supra.; Hadjimichael, et al, 1986, supra; Lindefors-Harris, et al, 1989, supra; LaVecchia, et al, 1987, supra; Parazzini, et al, 1991, supra.
16. Olsson, Ranstam, et al, 1991, supra.; Olsson, Borg., et al, 1991b, supra; Clark and Chua, 1989, supra; Ownby, et al, 1981 supra.
17. H.L. Howe, R.T. Senie, H. Bzduch, and P. Herzfeld, "Early abortion and breast-cancer risk among women under 40," Int. J. Epidemiol. 18: 300-304 (1989).
18. B.-M. Lindefors-Harris, G. Edlund, O. Meirik, L.E. Rutqvist, and K. Wiklund, "Risk of cancer of the breast after legal abortion during first trimester: a Swedish register study," Brit. Med. J, 299:1430-1432
19. Ownby, et al, 1983, supra
20. Clark and Chua, 1989, supra.
21. M. Segi, I. Fukushima, and M. Kurihara, "An epidemiological study of cancer in Japan," GANN 48 (Supp): 1 (1957).
22. H.L. Stewart and L.J. Dunham, "Epidemiology of cancer of the uterine cervix and corpus, breast and ovary in Israel and New York city," J. Natl Cancer Inst. 37:1~95 (1966),
23. S. Yuasa, and B. MacMahon "Lactation and re-productive histories of breast-cancer patients in Tokyo," Japan, Bull. WHO 42:195-204 (1970).
24. T.M. Lin, K.P. Chen, and B, MacMahon, "Epidemiologic characteristics of cancer of the breast in Taiwan," Cancer 27:1497-1504 (1970).
25. P. Mirra, P. Cole, and B, MacMahon, "Breast cancer in an area of high parity," Cancer Res. 31:77-83 (1971).
26. K. Slawsky, and S. Emmons, "Breast cancer in pre-menopausal and post-menopausal women," J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 53:647-654 (1974).
27. N.W. Choi, G.R. Howe, A.B. Miller, V. Matthews, R.W. Morgan, L, Munan, J.D. Burch, J. Feather, M. Jain, and A. Kelly, "An epidemiologic study of breast cancer," Amer J. Epidemiol 107:510-521 (1978).
28. I. Soini, Risk factors of breast cancer in Finland, Intl J. Epidemiol. 6:365-373 (1977).
29. V.V. Dvoirin, and A.B. Medvedev, "The role of reproductive history in breast cancer causation," Methods and results of studies of breast cancer epidemiology, 53-56. Tallinn, Estonia (in Russian) (1978).
30. Kelsey, 1979, supra.
31. M.C. Pike, B.E, Henderson, J.T. Casagrande, I. Rosario, and G.E. Gray, "Oral contraceptive use and early abortion as risk factors for breast cancer in young women," Brit. J. Cancer 43:72-76 (1981).
32. L.A. Brinton, R. Hoover, and J.F. Fraumeni, Jr., "Reproductive factors in the aetiology of breast cancer," Brit J. Cancer 47:757-782 (1983)
33. H.E. Ownby, S, Marline, L. D. Roi, L. Howard, J. Russo, S. Brooks, and M. J. Brennan, Interrupted pregnancy as one indicator of poor prognosis in T1, T2, No, Mo primary breast cancer, Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 3:339-344 (1983).
34. T Hirohata, T. Shigematsu, A.M.Y. Nomura, "Occurrence of breast cancer in relation to diet and reproductive history: a case-control study in Fukuoka, Japan," Natl Cancer Inst. Mono. 69:187 (1985).
35. Hadjimichael, et al., 1986, supra
36 C. La Vecchia, A. Decarli, F. Parazzini, A. Gentile, E. Negri, O. Cecchetti and S. Franceschi, "General epidemiology of breast cancer in Northern Italy," Intl. J. Epidemiol. 16:347-355 (1987).
37. Ewertz and Duffy, 1988, supra.
38. R.M. Clark and T Chua, "Breast cancer and pregnancy: the ultimate challenge," Clin. Oncol Royal Coll Radiol 1:11-18 (1989).
39. J.-M. Yuan, M.C. Yu, and R.K. Ross, "Risk factors for breast cancer in Chinese women in Shanghai," Cancer Res. 48:1949 (1988).
40. H.L. Howe, et al., supra.
41. B.-M. Lindefors-Harris, et al., supra.
42. H. Olsson, J. Ranstam, B. Baldetorp, S.-B. Ewers, M. Ferno, D. Killander, H. Sigurdsson, "Proliferation and DNA ploidy in malignant breast rumours in relation to early oral contraceptive use and early abortions," Cancer 67:1285-1290 (1991).
43. H. Olsson, A. Borg, M. Ferno, J. Ranstam, and H. Sigurdsson, "Her-2/neu and INT2 proto-oncogene amplification in malignant breast tumours in relation to reproductive factors and exposure to erogenous hormones," J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 83:1483-1487 (1991).
44. F Parazzini, C. La Vecchia, and E. Need, "Spontaneous and induced abortions and risk of breast cancer," Int. J. Cancer 48:816-820 (1991). Note, however, that illegal abortions account for a significant number of first pregnancy abortions in Italy. See I. Figa-Talamanca, M. E. Grandolfo, and A. Spinelli, "Epidemiology of legal abortion in Italy," International J. Epidemiol 15:343-351 (1986).
45. E Clavel, A.S.E. Benham, R. Sitruk-Ware, et al, "Breast cancer and oral contraceptives: a review," Contraception 32:553-69 (1985); B.V. Stadel, S. Lai, J.J. Schlesselman, et al, "Oral contraceptives and premenopausal breast cancer in nulliparous women," Contraception 38:287-99 (1988); D.R. Miller, L. Rosenberg, D.W. Kaufman, et al, "Breast cancer before age 45 and oral contraceptive use: new findings," Am. J. Epidemiol 129:269-80 (1989); C.R. Kay and P.C. Hannaford, "Breast cancer and the pill - a further report from the Royal College of General Practitioners' oral contraception study," Br. J. Cancer 58: 675-80 (1988).
46. Krieger, 1990, supra.
47. Remennick, 1989, supra.
48. See, eg Choi, et al, 1978, supra; S.S. Devesa, and E.L. Diamond, "Association of breast cancer and cervical cancer incidence with income and education among whites and blacks," J. Nat'l Cancer Inst. 65: 515-28 (1980); Kelsey, et al, 1981, supra, J.L. Kelsey, and N.G. Hildreth, Breast and gynaecological cancer epidemiology, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press (1985); C. Lowe and B. MacMahon. "Breast cancer and reproductive history of women in South Wales," Lancet 1: 153-156 (1970).
49. Cates. 1982, supra
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.