M
- Status
H
Holly3278
Guest
The Susan G. Komen foundation has donated to Planned Parenthood and should be boycotted. I would also encourage boycotting of any companies that donate to the Susan G. Komen Foundation. See my thread here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=190104
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=190104
P
Philothea53
Guest
The effect is not the same after miscarriage. The body has been part of the miscarriage process and takes care of things, so to speak. Abortion, on the other hand, is a radical change that confuses the breast cells.
M
MSParrott
Guest
Definitely not, I never would have known had I not read your post. THANK YOU for enlightening me!
H
Holly3278
Guest
Yep, even I didn’t know about this until I saw the pink ribbons at the store and had a weird feeling in my spirit telling me not to buy it and when I got home I researched it. I would not have known had I not researched it.Definitely not, I never would have known had I not read your post. THANK YOU for enlightening me!
K
KarenNC
Guest
Please link to the studies that support this.
For the rest of it:
cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage
In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer. A summary of their findings, titled Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop, can be found at cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report…
The relationship between induced and spontaneous abortion and breast cancer risk has been the subject of extensive research beginning in the late 1950s. Until the mid-1990s, the evidence was inconsistent. Findings from some studies suggested there was no increase in risk of breast cancer among women who had had an abortion, while findings from other studies suggested there was an increased risk. Most of these studies, however, were flawed in a number of ways that can lead to unreliable results. Only a small number of women were included in many of these studies, and for most, the data were collected only after breast cancer had been diagnosed, and women’s histories of miscarriage and abortion were based on their “self-report” rather than on their medical records. Since then, better-designed studies have been conducted. These newer studies examined large numbers of women, collected data before breast cancer was found, and gathered medical history information from medical records rather than simply from self-reports, thereby generating more reliable findings. The newer studies consistently showed no association between induced and spontaneous abortions and breast cancer risk.
Note that “spontaneous abortion” = miscarriage.
Fight abortion, but do so on the basis of credible, current research and accurate data. Otherwise you do nothing but hurt the credibility of your cause.
B
Brendan
Guest
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that the effects were identical, you are quite correct, miscarriage does not cause as large an increase as abortion, but the risk is still greater than a completed pregnancy.
B
Brendan
Guest
This study is rather flawed.
They based their study on ‘shot in time’ reports which included women who recently had abortions.
It’s rather like conducting a study on if smoking causes cancer and including people who just started smoking.
Since cancer takes time to develop, the inclusion of of such a sample set articifically lowers the reported risk.
The study they criticised was actually more scientifically correct in that set. The point this article criticised " that it was based on self reports’ is a red-herring.
Note what they criticised “and for most, the data were collected only after breast cancer had been diagnosed, and women’s histories of miscarriage and abortion were based on their “self-report” rather than on their medical records”
Well duh!!, if you are studing the long term cancer risk, you are going to use people who had abortions prior to it;s legalization. Those won’t be on the medical records ( another flaw in thier own study. women who had abortions prior to it’s legalization, and who later developed breast cancer would be tallied in the wrong column, their study would have marked them as no abortions and yes on breast cancer, which whould have skewed the statistics in favor of abortion having no link.
“Self Report” is most certainly a valid statistical tool.
B
Bennie_P
Guest
There have been many studies and they have been oppressed by the press and the pro-choice(abortion) proponents and the latest has just been reported.
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
October 05, 2007
Peter Carroll of London’s Pension and Population Research Institute reports in “The Breast Cancer Epidemic: Modeling and Forecasts Based on Abortion and Other Risk Factors” that countries with high abortion rates, such as England and Wales, can expect a substantial increase in the number of cases of breast cancer over the next few decades.
The study, which was published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons this week (Oct 2007), also said that “where abortion rates are low (e.g., Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic), a smaller increase is expected,” and in Denmark and Finland - where the rate of abortions is declining - a drop in breast cancer is anticipated.
**
Link to the study jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf
Abortion ‘Best Predictor of Breast Cancer,’ New Study Says
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
October 05, 2007
**
, because they fear the potential medical liability involved.
Peter Carroll of London’s Pension and Population Research Institute reports in “The Breast Cancer Epidemic: Modeling and Forecasts Based on Abortion and Other Risk Factors” that countries with high abortion rates, such as England and Wales, can expect a substantial increase in the number of cases of breast cancer over the next few decades.
The study, which was published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons this week (Oct 2007), also said that “where abortion rates are low (e.g., Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic), a smaller increase is expected,” and in Denmark and Finland - where the rate of abortions is declining - a drop in breast cancer is anticipated.
**
Link to the study jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf
K
KarenNC
Guest
The picture is not quite as rosy as you paint it for rural women, particularly on reservations.
rsna.org/rsna/media/pr2006-2/mobile_mammography-2.cfm
From the Radiological Society of North America
“Many rural American Indian women are not regularly screened for breast cancer because of poor access to mammography facilities. In addition, decreases in government funding to the IHS compromise the ability of the program to provide adequate screening and management of breast cancers.”
radiologytoday.net/archive/rt01292007p8.shtml
"The pilot project development was prompted by significant screening issues related to Native American women who reside in rural areas. Estimates suggest that only approximately 10% of Native American women over the age of 40 undergo an annual mammogram, at least partially due to limited access to mammography facilities. Mobile mammography units have helped alleviate this situation.
Another problem arises when women need to have additional images taken. How can women in these underserved areas obtain additional images after the mobile mammography unit drives away? “If a patient lives in an urban area, a call-back doesn’t pose that difficult of a problem,” Roubidoux says. “The woman may only need to drive about five miles down the road to an available facility.”
Conversely, call-backs for women in rural areas can be more problematic. By the time a woman learns that she needs additional images, the mobile mammography most likely has left her area to service other remote areas. “To undergo the additional screening, the patient may then have to drive anywhere from 100 to 200 miles to reach a facility,” Roubidoux says.
Too often, confronted with such inconvenience, a woman will forego the additional screening. However, the consequences can be critical. “The patients who need the additional screening are the ones who are most likely to have an abnormality that may turn out to be cancerous,” explains Roubidoux."
K
KarenNC
Guest
This is not a single study, it was a review of existing studies
“In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions.”
There is no indication that the findings were based only on “shot in time” studies or that women who were participants in all the studies reviewed had “just had abortions”.
The issue with studies done only on those who already have diagnosed breast cancer is that you do not have comparative data for those who did not develop it----you aren’t controlling for a single variable so you can’t show causation.
B
Bennie_P
Guest
This just goes to show that we need to create more alternative opportunities for women in rual America other then givng them to the hands of the butchers of PP. PP reachs into these areas of neglect in order to promote thier agenda of eugenics toward, as Margerat Sanger identified as the “unfit and dredges of society.” We as Christians need to support organizations that look out for women’s health first other then an agenda bent on controlling the population of the poor and of minorities. Thank you for the challenge Karen.
K
KarenNC
Guest
Great, wonderful, do absolutely everything you can to increase access to health care for the poor and those in rural communities.
I find it hard to see the relationship between funding additional health care and access to preventative health care equated to “eugenics”, however, or how increasing access to mammograms is “controlling the population of the poor and of minorities”. Looks like if that was one’s goal, one would do precisely the opposite.
B
Bennie_P
Guest
Then you don’t undestand the purpose behind Planned Parenthood and it’s founder. Study Sanger and pray for understanding, may you be enlighten. We have been fooled by the direct and in your face ways used by those such as Hitler and the Nazi’s in propagating thier ideas of eugenics that it makes us blinded to the subtle ways now used by many that bought into the idea that we can weed out the “unfit” of society, thus play God. When the hearts and minds of those you want to control feel at ease the rest is easy.Great, wonderful, do absolutely everything you can to increase access to health care for the poor and those in rural communities.
I find it hard to see the relationship between funding additional health care and access to preventative health care equated to “eugenics”, however, or how increasing access to mammograms is “controlling the population of the poor and of minorities”. Looks like if that was one’s goal, one would do precisely the opposite.
So far it it has cost the lives of 48,000 million unborn babies, in which minorities and the poor have been proportionally hardest hit and targeted. Seek the truth and it will set you free.
B
Brendan
Guest
Not true, in fact that is one of the techniques in determining the single variable.
You examine women who have had breast cancer, interview them to determine which ones have also had abortions, control for factors such as diet and compare the cancer rates to the publicly recorded cancer rates.
In addition, in 2005 the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons published an article criticising the methodolgy used by the NCI in their critiques.
Here is that article
jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf
( and, in what is excellent timing for this discussion the same journal just released a new study on the rates of breast cancer in variious countries. The study showed that where the number of abortions increase, the rate of breast cancer increases 5-7 years later, where the rate of abortions decrease, the same decrease in breast cancer occurs in subsequent years)
K
KarenNC
Guest
Bennie, simply put, a mammogram is not going to “weed out the ‘unfit’ of society”.Then you don’t undestand the purpose behind Planned Parenthood and it’s founder. Study Sanger and pray for understanding, may you be enlighten. We have been fooled by the direct and in your face ways used by those such as Hitler and the Nazi’s in propagating thier ideas of eugenics that it makes us blinded to the subtle ways now used by many that bought into the idea that we can weed out the “unfit” of society, thus play God. When the hearts and minds of those you want to control feel at ease the rest is easy.
The reasons women choose abortion are very complex, much more complex than “oh, I’m here for a mammogram, why not get an abortion while I’m at it” or “look, a health clinic, let’s go get an abortion”.
guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html
Addressing the reasons women choose to have abortions is a key to reducing the number of abortions.
K
KarenNC
Guest
To show evidence for correlation, but not for causation. Correlation and causation are not equivalent. You have to do additional studies to be sure that there is not some additional factor or factors common to those that makes them at a higher risk for breast cancer.
Again, correlation is not causation. You have to control for all the variables except the one being researched to have a hope of proving causation solely from that variable.
Then the rate of breast cancer should have been decreasing in this country for years as the rate, number and ratio of abortions have all been falling for decades.
cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm
Overall, the annual number of legal induced abortions in the United States increased gradually from 1973 to 1990 (peak point) and then generally declined thereafter (Figure 1). In 2003, a total of 848,163 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC by 49 reporting areas. This change represents a 0.7% decline from 2002, for which 49 areas reported 854,122 legal induced abortions (Tables 1 and 2).
The national legal induced abortion ratio increased from 196 per 1,000 live births in 1973 (the first year that 52 areas reported) to 358 per 1,000 in 1979 and remained nearly stable through 1981 (Figure 1, Table 2). The ratio peaked at 364 per 1,000 in 1984 and since then has demonstrated a generally steady decline. In 2003, the abortion ratio was 241 per 1,000 in 49 reporting areas and 243 for the same 47 reporting areas for which data were available since 1998 (Table 2).
The national legal induced abortion rate increased from 14 per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years in 1973 to 25 per 1,000 in 1980. The rate remained stable at 23–24 per 1,000 during the 1980s and early 1990s and at 20–21 per 1,000 during 1994–1997. The abortion rate remained unchanged at 17 per 1,000 during 1998–1999 and at 16 per 1,000 during 2000–2002, both overall and in the same 47 reporting areas. In 2003, the abortion rate remained unchanged overall at 16 per 1,000 and decreased to 15 per 1,000 in the 47 reporting areas. "
Take a look at Figure 1 for a graphic representation of this.
cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm#fig1
B
Bennie_P
Guest
The issue isn’t just a mammogram, but the organization which is providing the services. It is just a coy way of legitimating the organization as a trusted source for women health care. You put things in neat little boxes, which in our specializing society makes it easy to disassociates ourselves from the core aims of an organization, in this case PP. Planned Parenthood’s main business is preventing birth and ending preganancies, and from the beginning it has been aimed toward minorities, immigants and the 'unfit". The hungry unemployed German of the 1920’s didn’t go eat soup at a Nazi soup kitchen and all of sudden decide that Euroean Jews should be exterminated, but come election time they were more willing to vote for Nazi candidates, and the rest is documented history. The reason women get abortions is because it has been presented as the “perfect” solution to thier problems and the organization for providing that “perfect” solution is PP.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Please show a single example at a rural indian reservation where PP has enhanced access to screenings. Despite talk of cuts in IHS, the problem in the low screenings is symptomatic of a general failure of native americans to practice basic good health practices.
R
Rosalinda
Guest
A lot of whitewashing!This breast cancer surgeon, Angela Lanfranchi, has boldly faced the facts, whether she wanted to or not, and has changed her practice in light of this new information. After all, she had an increasing number of younger women coming in who had no family history of breast cancer yet had had a history of abortion.
She made an historical parallel which is extremely pertinent.
[sign]
It amounts to child abuse to take a teenager in a crisis pregnancy for an abortion. At best, it will give her a 30% risk of breast cancer in her lifetime. At worst, if she also has a family history of breast cancer, it will nearly guarantee this… Medical professionals have an unfortunate history of continuing to harm women if it means admitting that they have injured or killed them with their treatments.
This is best illustrated through the well-known story of Ignaz Semmelweis, MD. He was an obstetrician-gynecologist in the 1840s who proved that hand washing would reduce mortality rates from childbed fever from 30% to 2% on maternity wards. His reward for this was ridicule from his professors and loss of his hospital appointments. Women continued to die needlessly for another 30 years until the germ theory proved Semmelweiss was correct. [/sign]
abortionbreastcancer.com/angelalanfranchi.htm
Her book Breast Cancer Risks and Prevention available here:
bcpinstitute.org/home.htm
- Status