BREAST CANCER AWARENESS

WARNING TO WOMEN

(For a 2010 update, see AmericanRTL.org/cancer.)

If the important Breast Cancer Awareness campaign is to succeed, it must alert women not only to risks related to the genes we inherit…but also to risks related to the choices we make.

It must also affirm that decisions about the significance of avoidable risks must be left, not to money-makers who (like the tobacco industry) sell deadly ‘products,’ but to those of us whose lives may ultimately be lost if we buy them.

Yet the researchers, cancer groups, and medical writers who report even unconvincing data about the carcinogenic potential of sleeping with an electric blanket refuse to publish persuasive worldwide evidence that induced abortion (a politically-correct ‘choice’) considerably increases breast-cancer risk.

Although researchers first noted a higher rate of abortion among breast-cancer patients in 1957, Malcolm Pike explicitly identified it as a risk factor in 1981. In subsequent years, almost a dozen other researchers reported the same.

The statistical association these scientists found is consistent with existing knowledge about biology, endocrinology, and oncology.

(In the first trimester of a normally-developing pregnancy, there is a 20-fold rise in maternal estradiol, which stimulates breast tissue growth. If the pregnancy is allowed to continue, other hormones will eventually cause the tissue to differentiate for milk production. But if the pregnancy is deliberately interrupted, that tissue is free to grow into abnormal, even cancerous, cells.)

Despite this evidence, most people knew nothing about the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link until 1994, when pro-choice researcher Janet Daling reported abortion raises breast-cancer risk by 50%.

Representatives of the abortion business, obviously more concerned about protecting their profits than their patients, tried to cover up Daling’s results.

According to the November 5, 1994, Time, Daling herself “buried the most provocative findings of her study in the fine print of a table,” saying she “didn’t want to alarm anyone” by revealing that breast cancer rose 800% for those who were under 18 and past their eighth week when they aborted.

(Daling also found that every one of the women who’d both aborted as a teen and had a family history of breast cancer ended up with the dread disease.)

Like Daling, other researchers have tried to downplay their own data.

1) When Lipworth’s Greek study revealed a 51% increase, she said it was due to the resulting delay in having children, even though she’d already subtracted out that risk factor. Lipworth also cited two studies which failed to identify an ABC link, yet both studies dealt almost exclusively with miscarriage (natural termination of an abnormal pregnancy), not abortion (unnatural termination of a normal pregnancy.)

2) When the Rookus study in Holland showed a 90% increase, the author attributed it to “reporting bias.” Yet researchers (Watanabe, Howe, Daling, etc.) who’ve specifically tested for such bias have ruled it out.

3) While the Melbye study in Denmark reported no ABC link, its authors had classified as non-aborters some 60,000 women who’d had legal ‘terminations’ from 1939 to 1973, thus factoring out all but the under-25 females who are typically too young to have contracted breast cancer.

Disturbed by such ‘doctored’ science, four professors of biostatistics, pharmacology, and endocrinology — who differ on abortion — decided to investigate all the available research on the issue.

They analyzed 30 prospective and retrospective studies conducted over four decades in 11 nations whose populations had “the widest imaginable differences in ethnicity, diet, socio-economic and lifestyle factors…” Of these 30 studies, 24 confirmed the ABC link, with an overall 30% elevation in relative risk which was independent of the resultant delay in first full-term pregnancy.

(NOTE: In the intervening years, the tally has increased. Currently 27 out of 33 studies around the world…including 13 out of 14 studies here in America…show increased risk of breast cancer with induced abortion.)

This kind of meta-analysis is surely the moral ‘property’ of the millions of American women who have aborted since ROE and of the countless more who will consider the elective operation in the future.

But rather than giving post-abortion women this crucial information and allowing pregnant women to take it into account, abortionists and their allies have unilaterally decided the increased risk is “insignificant.”

In fact, during Capitol Hill debate on the issue, Physician-Congressman Tom Coburn said he was “astounded” by the discrepancies between the National Cancer Institute ABC statement and the actual research.

Fortunately, however, the facts are coming to light, thanks to the Wisconsin Law Review’s ground breaking article about the liability of abortionists who fail to inform women about the ABC link…and the suit now being brought against a North Dakota clinic which publicly denied it existed.

Conclusion

‘Pro-choice’ people don’t want women to learn the breast-cancer danger they face because they know it may affect the pregnancy-related decisions they make.

But when those with a personal or vested interest in abortion deny women vital information about its aftermath, they gamble with life…and it is our mothers, sisters, and daughters who lose.