Women Wrongly Warned Cancer, Abortion Tied (government-issued brochures)

In several states, women considering abortion are given government-issued brochures warning that the procedure could increase their chance of developing breast cancer, despite scientific findings to the contrary.

More than a year ago, a panel of scientists convened by the National Cancer Institute reviewed available data and concluded there is no link. A scientific review in the Lancet, a British medical journal, came to the same conclusion, questioning the methodology in studies that suggested a link.

The cancer information is distributed to women during mandatory waiting periods before abortions. In some cases, the information is on the states' Web sites.

"We're going to continue to educate the public about this," said Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, an anti-abortion group. She dismissed the National Cancer Institute's findings as politically motivated and maintained that the link has been scientifically proven.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-abortion-cancer,0,4200544.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

By the same "logic"?

I think pregnancy raises the risk for breast cancer because of the hormones associated with it. Method or time of termination of pregnancy or birth doesn;t really affect that stats.

was to get pregnant before the age of 25. That's what doctors at the hospital where I work told me, anyway.

I have no belief abortions heightens cancer risk - and any and all scientific data approved by this administration must, by default, be considered suspect.

....and apologize for giving the impresion that I play one on DU.

You are likely correct.

I'm sure that if you were, you would have backed up your statement.

I am not a doctor either, so I am only reporting hearsay.

Anyway, I'm childless at 29, and the way my love life is these days, I'n not going to have any children soon. So I hope that his advice to me wasn't based on a relatively high increase in the risk for cancer in childless women.

And I specialize in breast cancer, so I'll try to clear this up.

Pregnancy protects from breast cancer over a woman's lifetime. Women who have multiple pregnancies and their first pregnancy at a younger age have a lower rate of breast cancer than women who have none or late life pregnancies. It is believed that the biologic changes that occur in the breast cells during lactation are in effect a maturation process making the cells less mutable.

If a woman has a breast cancer diagnosed DURING a pregnancy, it tends to progress more rapidly because of increased estrogen levels which stimulate breast cancer cells to grow. This is a real tragedy because in order to proceed with cancer therapies like chemotherapy and radiation, which are detrimental to the fetus, the woman must have an abortion (or die of cancer). I've seen many of these situations and it's heart breaking. It's one of the main reasons I don't believe the gawddam fundy white men from the gawddam red states should be looking down from their high horse telling me and my patients what to do with their health decisions.

The link between therapeutic abortion and breast cancer has been thoroughly refuted time and time again. It simply doesn't exist. The data supporting it is generated by pro-life institutes that use poor methodology to skew their results.

If therapeutic abortion increased breast cancer risk, then logically so would spontaneous abortions, which are far far more common, yet there is no link to them either.

created 5,238 years ago, Oct. 29, at 3:48 PM EST.

as does having children later in life (past age 30, I believe). They believe that the correlation lies in that when you become pregnant, your body stops producing estrogen for that 9 months. Increased exposure to estrogen (whether through hormones, or through not getting pregnant) increases risk of BrCa.

This study re: BrCa/Abortion is such bunk. I worked for over a year in breast & ovarian cancer research in one of the world's leading cancer research centers and whenever that study was brought up as a talking point (which sadly, was frequently), it was laughed right out of the conversation.

But then again, the people who spread this BrCa/Abortion LIE are the same ones who invented the non-existent Medical Procedure known as Partial Birth Abortion---you know, I've looked through all my medical textbooks, OB-GYN textbooks, and medical dictionaries and I've NEVER seen a procedure called "Late Term Abortion". The CORRECT term is "Intact Dilation/Extraction" or Intact D&X---but that doesn't have the PIZAZZ that LATE TERM ABORTION has. What woman would get worked up about Intact D&X? But ho ho! Bring out the LTA and whoop-de-doo...you got 6 year olds on the street corner in front of Planned Parenthood holding signs with pictures of still-born babies." :shrug:

I jess don't get it

Signed---
Heddi
Frustrated nursing student who's tired of the right bastardizing medical science and knowledge for their own evil plans.

Women who do not have children have more periods and have a higher risk for cancer, but I think it is cervical cancer (not sure).

Also, women who have shorter cycles (and more periods per year and in their lives) increase their chances for cancer.

So, having an abortion does not raise risks for cancer; having babies decreases the risk for cancer.

From what I think I know. I can't exlain the science behind the hormonal issue.. but the republican govt seized on the above premise, turned it upside down and around (as usual) to scare women.

The truth would be: have an abortion today and then have a baby later, and your risk are totally balanced.

This is one of the anti-choice people's typical tactics. They've been using it for years, and it is most likely loosely based on some junk science study funded by some far-rightist group-- if any science at all. It is probably meant to target women in their early first trimester who the gore and guilt don't seem to affect.

they are pregnant. Impossible to measure cancer in that group since it cannot be identified.

The govt. doesn't want to discuss the possibility that pollutants, etc, might be contributing to higher breast cancer rates.

Of course the fundies write LTTE and spout the garbage again. Someone from the American Cancer Society and other groups write in to refute it, but the fundies hold their course. What is problematic is that they've handing literature out at the high schools and junior high schools.

I just got finished reading this about five minutes ago:

Blinded By Science
How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality
by Chris Mooney


http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/6/mooney-science.asp


discusses how a reporter was bashed by his own paper for refusing to cave in on this issue:

"But what happened next illustrates one reason journalists have such a hard time calling it like they see it on science issues. In an internal memo exposed by the Web site LAobserved.com, the Times’s editor, John Carroll, singled out Gold’s story for harsh criticism, claiming it vindicated critics who accuse the paper of liberal bias."

Sex education is evil. Contraception is pre-abortion. Abstinence is everything. There must be no joy unless it's to the glory of that god guy.

These people are obeying a higher authority, so they may lie as they please.

If you have sex you'll lose the breasts that are there to make you attractive so men will want to have the sex you can't have; don't ever have sex, or you won't be pretty.

Why is there so much insanity?

This is a ruse to try to persuade women not to get abortions.

cancer and abortion/contraception always come out when Rethuglicans are in charge (or that's when they're the loudest/most prominent). I was just told by my ob-gyn that having been on birth control pills for years probably decreased the risk of any ovarian cancer. So there, Fundies.

just how it goes.

off the top of my head, here's how i'd see the abortion/breast cancer issue:

any link between abortion and breast cancer that they're pretending exists is likely explained by the *known* link between age at first full term pregnancy and breast cancer. except possibly for very late term abortions, you--in a sense--will be increasing your risk of breast cancer. but this is only because having a child reduces your future prospects of breast cancer, relative to waiting longer to have one.

a somewhat simplistic explanation is that your breast tissue isn't fully differentiated (or, at least, less fully differentiated) before you have your first child. this tissue seems to be at greater risk of developing mammary tumors. any increased risk of breast cancer associated with having abortions would almost certainly be accounted for by the fact that having an abortion often pushes back the age of a woman at her first full-term pregnancy (assuming a significant number of women who get abortions have not yet had children.) in other words, the risk is the same as it would have been had you never gotten pregnant in the first place.

most likely, they take their data from some bullshit study which, at the very least, didn't adequately control for all known breast cancer risk factors--especially age at first full-term pregnancy.

and he has never even been pregnant, let alone aborted.

And why do these people of anti-science use science to back up their claim? Isn't the answer to abortion and breast cancer in the bible?

Did you buy your breast cancer stamps today? I did.

180

If there are people willing to risk getting cancer by putting a packet of Nutrasweet in their morning coffee instead of the alternative, putting real sugar in their coffee and face a whole other set of risks like diabetes or even for something as trivial as trying not to consume those few extra calories so they can fit in their new pants, there's no way a woman will be deterred from getting an abortion for the so-called "risk" of getting cancer. Obviously, the alternative is more immediate, more than just a risk and closer to a gaurantee, and much worse.

a retraction if I'm not mistaken. As the Planned Parenthood said in recent days the goal of the anti abortion movement is to outlaw oral contraceptives even. They consider that as potentially an abortion. Next thing will be we all account for every egg and count the sperm. Guess that would mean sex for pro creation only.

Congress-critter from Indiana.
Visted by a group of breast cancer survivors, and he told them "If you hadn't killed your babies, you wouldn't have gotten Cancer..."

And this is the same guy who got charged with a MISDEMEANOR for trying to carry a loaded handgun onto an airliner. "Oh, I forgot. Wrong briefcase!"

And yes, he just got re-elected

woman who had an abortion at a young age, now suffering from cancer.

It really pisses me off. I'm waiting to see it again so I can get the name of the organization....