#73
INFORMATION MORATORIUM CONTINUES ON ABORTION/BREAST CANCER LINK
The present article is an update of a previous one, entitled "The Silent
Subject: Abortion Breast Cancer-Link," published in late 1997. Up until then,
30 separate peer-reviewed studies of the direct link between breast cancer and
abortion of a first baby had been published worldwide, with 24 showing a
significant association. I pointed out at the time that it is uncommon in
epidemiological literature to find a potential risk factor so obviously linked
to any disease as induced abortion is with breast cancer. Studies conducted
over the ensuing five years have only served to reinforce that link which is
now borne out by 29 out of 39 epidemiological studies.
The deafening silence still maintained on the subject further confirms the
dishonesty of major national health associations in both Canada and the U.S.,
which refuse to admit and publicize the truth for fear of incurring the wrath
of major women`s medical organizations. Indeed, when leaders in the field of
breast cancer are asked why they even now refuse to mention the clear
abortion/breast cancer link at their policy meetings, the answer is generally,
"It`s too political."
This fear of adopting a politically incorrect position on abortion would seem
to be substantiated by a June, 2003, testimony before the Massachusetts Joint
Health Care Committee. The witness, Angela Lanfranchi, cannot be accused of
pursuing an anti-Roe v. Wade agenda. A member of the American College of
Surgeons, she has for years held an appointment as Clinical Assistant
Professor of Surgery at Robert Wood Johnson University Medical School. She
teaches Family Practice residents surgery at her primary hospital, Somerset
Medical Center. Most importantly, she is a member of an Expert Advisory Panel
for the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners.
She has limited her surgery work over the past eight years to breast diseases,
notably, breast cancer. She annually advises some 1,300 women with breast
problems and carries out over 500 breast surgeries. In addition, she lectures
on breast problems to the Departments of Medicine and Family Practice at
Somerset Medical Center. Finally, this expert surgeon has also lectured to lay
and professional groups both nationally and internationally on breast cancer
risks and prevention and on the abortion breast cancer link.
In her testimony before the Massachusetts Joint Health Care Committee, she
made the compelling argument that the abortion/breast cancer link is now
acknowledged in authoritative textbooks used by breast cancer specialists. One
of those most favoured by oncologists is the 1998 edition of "The Breast," by
Bland and Copeland, which clearly states that "first trimester abortion
increases risk" of breast cancer.
When it comes to stifling knowledge of the lethal breast cancer risk
associated with abortion, the absolute worst offender within the women`s
medical organizations is the American Medical Women`s Association whose stated
mission is to provide and develop leadership to advance women in medicine and
improve women`s health. But, it all has to do with protecting the unrestricted
right of women to abortion on demand. The AMWA web site (www.amwa-doc.org),
insinuates that allowing the information that studies clearly show an increase
risk of breast cancer with abortion to be discussed at national meetings,
could presumably endanger this very right contained in the Roe v. Wade ruling.
Anybody daring to discuss studies proving the ABC link at these forums is
immediately characterized as a fearmonger, or summarily dismissed with the
contemptuous "anti-choicer" epithet.
The AMWA web site is something else. It not only deliberately conceals the
realities of breast cancer risks, but also opposes parental notification and
supports the barbaric partial-birth abortion procedure. Think of it, brother
Knights, these are women physicians - many of them mothers - who support
taking a 13-year-old child for a partial-birth abortion without their mother`s
consent or knowledge. Women who in fact fully realize that this is major
gynecologic surgery that could possibly result in permanent damage to a
child`s reproductive organs and lead to future fertility - not to mention her
death. Presumably rational women who would insist that children need their
mother`s support when having an appendectomy, but not for the infinitely more
serious surgery involved with a partial-birth abortion.
The medical world has shown some resistance in the past to publicize new
information. The rational for such secrecy has been that such information
would question the safety of practices physicians had long accepted as a
requirement of medical science. We are certainly faced here with a similar
problem. Today outright bias, rather than actual scientific knowledge,
explains the failure of the health service community - specifically
organizations such as the American Medical Women`s Association and American
Cancer Society - to inform its members and clients about the undisputable body
of evidence linking induced abortion with increased breast cancer risk.
Take the example, for instance, of the 19th century resistance to new medical
information concerning the necessity of hand washing before surgery. Medical
research, albeit primitive by modern day standards, established that death
rates were 10 times higher on maternity wards than midwives` wards where these
women washed their hands frequently.
Acceptance of the then revolutionary idea that the lack of hand washing by
doctors caused death would have meant a total repudiation of a universally
accepted medical practice. Medical authorities of the day offered all kinds of
other explanations for the overwhelming number of people dying in maternity
wards, e.g. overcrowding, harsh treatments and exams by interns and nurses,
etc. Instead of being honoured for his contribution to women`s health, the
physician involved with this important discovery was ridiculed and eventually
forced to leave his hospital. Only after his death did the medical world admit
he was correct.
If human rights mean anything, it certainly means that there is a critical
need for women at a higher risk of breast cancer after aborting to be informed
of it so that they can act accordingly through better and more frequent
screening. Such precautions would lead to earlier diagnoses and thus increase
their survival if they develop breast cancer.
As one who lost a sister to breast cancer, I take information on the breast
cancer/abortion link very seriously. Many of us Knights, as fathers of preteen
and adolescent children, in provinces and states with no parental notification
and consent laws, should all worry that a misguided, misinformed guidance
counselor could arrange for our daughters to have an abortion without our
knowledge - almost guaranteeing they will develop breast cancer by the age of
45. Mothers need this critical information to protect their children who may
react hastily and rashly to a crisis pregnancy, with no understanding of
future potentially lethal medical complications.
Health departments in Canada and the U.S. are morally bound to exercise their
fundamental mandate, which is to protect the health of the citizens. It is not
sufficient to admit to the "possibility" of an increased risk of breast cancer
among women who have had abortions. There should be no maybe about it!
Abortion DOES increase the risk of breast cancer, a fact conclusively borne
out by 29 out of 39 epidemiological studies done over the past 45 years, and
also clearly proclaimed in breast physiology textbooks used extensively by
medical schools, which state unequivocally that "first trimester abortion
increases risk" of breast cancer.
Thaddée Renault
New Brunswick, Canada
September 15, 2003