One must then surmise that what has been instilled in physicians' heads from time immemorial, regarding the vulnerability of abnormal cells, is no longer valid. To suit their political agenda, they would have you believe that an abnormal cell is NO more prone to becoming cancerous than a normal cell. This defies all scientific knowledge, as well as common sense and shows the depths to which they will go, to keep the abortion industry flourishing. Human life means nothing to them.

It has also been long known that a pregnancy carried to term protects against breast cancer. However, if a woman has an induced abortion, this protection is terminated.
The reason is because the proliferation of the undifferentiated, cancer vulnerable cells, by the estrogen secreted early in the pregnancy, no longer have the protection that comes from hormones released later in pregnancy, since the pregnancy has been aborted.

The estrogen/breast cancer risk has been known by doctors for many years, thus their reluctance to prescribe estrogen for menopausal women, especially those with any family history of breast cancer.
Manufacturers of oral contraceptives alert the public as to the possible link between their product and breast cancer. The induced abortion risk is greater than the relative risk associated with oral contraceptives.

Women, who start their periods early and go through menopause late, are exposed to more estrogen, because they have more periods. And women, who have fewer or no children, are exposed to more surges of estrogen that come with more menstrual cycles. Women, who breast feed their babies, also have fewer menstrual cycles, thereby lowering their risk.

Foods high in animal fat can increase the blood estrogen level and thus increase the breast cancer risk. Leafy vegetables tend to help a woman to rid her system of estrogen.

As you can see, the estrogen factor is not just in the area of reproduction. We are warned of these risks by the top medical journals and the media. We are told what to eat and not to eat, but of the biggest risk of all, the abortion/breast cancer link, they tell us NOTHING.

One common rebuttal offered by the NCI and the ACS and the abortion advocates, to dismiss the ABC link, is to point out that most of the studies done have relied on interviewing women and asking them if they have ever had an abortion and asking them if they have been diagnosed with breast cancer, and then comparing their answers.

So, those who fear the truth say, probably women who have breast cancer are more likely to remember or admit that they have had abortions, whereas women who do not have breast cancer may not admit they had an abortion. They call this, "recall bias." I call it, "grasping for straws."

But when your back is to the wall, you'll try anything, even accusing some women of lying. Women know how important these studies are. They're not going to lie. It means life or death for thousands of women. After all, they don't have to take part in the study. They can just refuse, rather than lie. Notice they don't actually say they're lying, they say more likely to remember. As if someone would forget if they had their unborn baby killed.

An experiment done in Michigan in 1980 destroys this theory. According to a report in the American Journal of Pathology, August 1980, pp 497-511, cancer researchers injected a number of pregnant rats with DMBA, a cancer-causing substance. They then aborted half the rats; the other half were allowed to carry their pregnancies to term.
Among the aborted rats, 77% developed breast cancer. Among the term rats, only 5.5% developed breast cancer.
Too bad they couldn't interview the rats; they might have found recall bias.

With all of the above evidence, even without epidemiological data, and given the extremely high estrogen levels experienced by women in the first several weeks of normal pregnancy, which doctors have always known, for the ACS to say that the link is inconclusive is not only repugnant, but in my book, it's downright CRIMINAL.

But we DO have epidemiological data to prove it. 13 of 15 studies in the United States have proven it and 27 out of 35 world wide.
A 1996 study carried out in the Netherlands found almost a twofold increased risk for breast cancer after an induced abortion. However, the investigators suggested that this figure may have been influenced by reporting bias attributed to the underreporting of abortions by healthy control subjects in the largely Catholic southeastern region of the Netherlands.

In the western regions of the country, the association between abortion and breast cancer was statistically insignificant. The authors concluded that their "study does not support an appreciably (whatever that means) increased risk for breast cancer after an induced abortion."

These people are constantly looking for excuses. Now, you can't rely on this study because someone's religion is involved. Are they trying to say that Catholics are more liable to lie than Protestants? This is disgusting.
Why didn't the study involve the whole country (it's not that big) and average it out? Because they wouldn't like what they would find.

We must also believe that middle-aged black women, in particular, are incredible liars, as a study published in the Journal of the National Medical Association (December 1993) traced the breast cancer experience of about 1,000 black women (500 with breast cancer, 500 without) as they grew older.

Breast Cancer Risk Factors in African-American Women.

The Howard University Tumor Registry Experience confirmed that the risks of breast cancer increased much more for women who had aborted than for those who had not. This fine study found the same overall 50% increased risk factor for women under 40 who had aborted. But black women now in their 40s who had aborted experienced a 180% increased risk. The risk jumped to a whopping 370% for black women over 50 who had aborted.

Well, this completes the cycle: someone's religion, and now her race makes her a liar. In the future, in order to save time and money, let's not include Catholics and Blacks in any study, because we all know they are liars. We have been told so, by the NCI and the ACS. So, that eliminates about 35% of the world's population for all future studies.

In October, 1996, four US scientists announced the result of a statistical analysis of previous studies. They selected 23 studies which involved over 60,000 women. They combined all of their results using a process known as "meta-analysis." They found "overwhelming" evidence that women who terminate a pregnancy by an abortion have a 33% higher chance of contracting breast cancer later in life.

Now, read how this study was attacked by those who are conspiring to withhold the truth from the American people, remembering, there has NEVER been a study done to confirm a "bias" theory.

"This particular statistical method is fraught with hazard, because the results can easily be influenced by the method of selecting the studies to be included. Three of the four scientists in the 1996-OCT study are known to be vocal opponents of abortion. They might have been biased, consciously or unconsciously, in their selection processes."

That's it. The above statement is double-talk, sour grapes. Three of the scientists are pro life, so their study cannot be taken seriously. What about the other scientist, who was pro-choice? This is too serious an issue to involve politics.
Does this mean that in the future, a scientist who is pro-life should not work on studies involving abortions; only pro-aborts should do the studies?

The NCI and the ACS scanned the entire world, to look for a study that would match their ideology and political views. And sure enough, they found just what they were looking for, a study that was done in little Denmark, which stated that the link was inconclusive. So they accepted it as the Gospel truth and published the Melbye/Danish Report.
There was no mention if those who conducted the report were pro-choice or pro-life.

Continued

Home