An April 12, 2007, article by Stephanie Simon in the Los Angeles Times claimed that "national cancer experts" have found no link between abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer (ABC = "Abortion-Breast Cancer").
The truth:
- 29 out of 41 worldwide studies reveal an ABC link. (See "The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link" by Angela Lanfranchi, MD, FACS)
- "There are 17 statistically significant studies that show a link between abortion and breast cancer, 8 of which were conducted in the United States." ("Scientists must show with 95 percent certainty that the results in their studies could not have occurred by chance alone.") (emphasis mine) (From "The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link" by Angela Lanfranchi, MD, FACS. A list of the 17 studies are in Dr. Lanfranchi's footnotes.)
- "As of 2006, eight medical organizations recognize that abortion raises a woman's risk for breast cancer, independently of the risk of delaying the birth of a first child (a secondary effect that all experts already acknowledge). An additional medical organization, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, issued a statement in 2003 calling on doctors to inform patients about a 'highly plausible' relationship between abortion and breast cancer." (See AbortionBreastCancer.com) (emphasis mine)
- It is "estimated that upwards of 10,000 cases of breast cancer each year presently, and up to over 25,000 per year in twenty or thirty years hence, are or will be attributable to induced abortion." (emphasis mine) ("The Abortion–Breast Cancer Connection" by Joel Brind)
Many abortion defenders point to a 2003 "workshop" conducted by the National Cancer Institute that denied the ABC link. However, the NCI meeting has been tagged as a "scam." Rather than seeking the truth, it was perceived that "eradicating the ABC link was really the sole purpose of the meeting." (Source) (See also these important notes from the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute.) Recent studies that deny an ABC link have also been found to be seriously flawed and deficient. (See here and here.)
From Stephanie Simon's article in the Los Angeles Times (emphasis mine):
Minnesota is also among several states that compel doctors to inform women that abortion may be linked to breast cancer, though national cancer experts have found no such connection.
The Times clearly owes its readers a correction.
In addition, this is the second time in recent months that Ms. Simon has stated her claim, even though we addressed the issue in this February 2007 NewsBusters post.
[Correction, 4/17/07: I originally wrote above, 'Recent studies that assert an ABC link have also been found to be seriously flawed and deficient.' Hopefully, from the context of the article, you can see that I meant to write, 'Recent studies that deny an ABC link have also been found to be seriously flawed and deficient.' Thank you to a reader for pointing out the error to me.]
—Dave Pierre is the creator of TheMediaReport.com and a contributor to NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Never let facts get in the way of a crusade.
April 16, 2007 - 08:01 ET by c5thenThey don't care if women get breast cancer 20 or 30 years later. The ability to kill ones unborn baby MUST be protected at all costs.
It's MHO that they will find a link with breast cancer for all sudden pregnancy termination, purposful or not. When the hormones are not allowed to run their normal course and are suddenly interrupted, there has to be consequenses.
I had no idea about this link
April 16, 2007 - 08:22 ET by Gat New YorkI had no idea about this link but can understand why the MSM would not play this up.
I was sitting in a doctor's office waiting and looking through a coffee table book on actual photos of conception through child birth and descriptions of body parts as they were developing. When you look through this you realize how miraculous the reproduction of another human being is and how rapidly the process takes place.
While I don't believe that Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned I believe that the understanding of how horrific abortion is has become much more widely understood. If a woman seeking an abortion saw the same book I did I could not imagine them going through with one.
Gat I must protest your thoug
April 16, 2007 - 09:09 ET by Dan The Man 2Gat I must protest your thought "While I don't believe that Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned " because you must know taht 40 years ago a law like that would have been unthinkable. In fact it is still unthinkble as a law because there is not one, it is a defacto law in the form of a SCOTUS ruling.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
Realistically I don't think t
April 16, 2007 - 10:00 ET by Gat New YorkRealistically I don't think the action on Roe v. Wade will be at the federal level. I do think it is coming at the state level where states can prescribe ways to limit its use. But I do think that social pressure trumps legal case law. I think the RTL movement has taken this from something that was fashionable years ago to kids growing up with better values, makng better choices, and having more respect for life.
The mainstream media will not
April 24, 2007 - 13:12 ET by Chidi NwachukhuThe mainstream media will not play up the link because there is no link between the two things. Feel free to do some internet searches. You'll find the truth, assuming you want to read boring medical extracts.
This kind of thing shows th
April 16, 2007 - 10:01 ET by Dee BunkThis kind of thing shows their true colors - abortion rights are not about helping women at all - they are all about population control and men avoiding responsibility
do you really believe that?
April 16, 2007 - 10:33 ET by tumbler_2007Is it "all about" men ?
I know one sure cure for that. Make the procedure, aborting any living fetus-- what it was before in western nations: an offense punishable by law, with its own penalty.
The doctor convicted of this crime was sentenced to a prison term. Same for any midwife or amateur abortionist. The way it stands now, it's WOMEN who consult these physicians. Men impregnated them, but the women caused their babies' deaths.
tumbler - no it's not all a
April 16, 2007 - 10:47 ET by Dee Bunktumbler - no it's not all about men but it does have a lot to do with them. Many men support choice and think they are doing women a favor when all they are doing is absolving themselves from any culpability. If a women aborts - well it was her choice. I know pro- choice men who judge women for having abortions
Pro Choice men are not allowed to judge a woman for having an abortion because no one forced them to make the choice. Giving women the choice is horrible because most don't really want to and only do because they don't get enough assurance from the man that they will take care of them and the baby and they are too scared to do it on their own.
Men who give women the "choice" are only helping her towards the wrong one.
More about control
April 16, 2007 - 11:02 ET by sdbDee,
I agree that “abortion rights are not about helping women at all,” but men and women are both “avoiding responsibility” with that decision. And, consider this; the man doen’t get to make that decision. The only decision the man has is whether or not to have sex (protected or not makes no difference in this case, because there is always a chance of a pregnancy occuring). After that, ALL decisions are made by the woman. Whether she gets an abortion or not is entirely up to her. The man’s input only goes as far as she allows. If she brings the baby to term, whether she keeps or gives him away is up to her. Unless the woman chooses to give the baby to the father, or list him on the birth certificate, he will have to file for custody/adoption and actually risks losing (laws vary from state to state). If the woman decides to raise the baby, she also get to decide what kind of custody they will share. Perhaps they decide together that the man will have nothing to do with the child. She still has the option, even years later, of holding him financially responsible for the all the years the child has been alive and from then on until he is 18, without having to give him any visitation or custodial rights. (This all assumes the couple is not married.)
While abortion is a convienent way to rid oneself of the consequences of a bad decision for both men and women(1), it was and is more about control.
(1)Of course, you cannot rid yourself of consequences, you can only take actions that replace one set for another. The new set of consequences is almost always worse than the original; voluntary abortion to avoid pregnancy is only one example.
sdb - I agree with you that
April 16, 2007 - 11:40 ET by Dee Bunksdb - I agree with you that both are responsible and men don't get to have a choice. They are still financially responsible even if they don't want the child and that again makes it more likely that he would encourage or at least not discourage a woman from having an abortion. For men who are pro-life it's a travesty but for pro-choice men it's avoiding responsibility.
The only fair thing to both is to not have a choice. With that, the man should be financially responsible, but to a lesser degree if he gives up his rights - only because he didn't get to decide to give it up for adoption. If the women gives up rights and the man takes custody then the woman should pay support.
If there has to be abortion, both the mother and father should have to agree.
from monday's items:
April 17, 2007 - 15:18 ET by tumbler_2007With yesterday's uproar in VA, a crimp was put in this thread, dealing with a VERY important subject; Here's an excerpt.
It is "estimated that upwards of 10,000 cases of breast cancer each year presently, and up to over 25,000 per year in twenty or thirty years hence, are or will be attributable to induced abortion." --"The Abortion–Breast Cancer Connection" by Joel Brind)
April 16th
are feminists even interested ?
April 18, 2007 - 11:05 ET by tumbler_2007LA Times Staffer Wrong In Negating Abortion-Breast Cancer Link - Again
What the hell is it with the L A Times ?
Joel Brind's paper is based
April 24, 2007 - 12:16 ET by daberkmanJoel Brind's paper is based on Angela Lanfranchi's work, which has never been examined by the scientific community. Furthermore, her study is not large scale and not independently verified. She is a pro-life activist (nothing with wrong if her research is pure) and therefore can't really have her word taken at face value.
More conclusive studies show no link:
http://arstechnica.c...