A tale of two demons

by Mike Richmond
Copyright © 1997 by Mike Richmond

Historian Arnold Toynbee identifies Adolf Hitler as a monster of terrible genocides but claims never to have heard of Stalin. Movie maven Siskel knows about great comedian Stan Laurel but sincerely asks, "Who was Oliver Hardy?" Baseball announcer Vin Scully tells stories about Lou Gehrig but wants to know, "who this Babe Ruth was?" Is this a joke?

Surely, but these statements are no stranger that the delusion that there is only one breast cancer risk caused by induced abortion. Not so. There are two independent ways that an induced abortion can increase the risk of breast cancer. Surely researchers, most doctors and the media know this, right? Breast cancer researchers know about the two A-B-C (Abortion-Breast-Cancer) risks but most doctors and reporters do not.

What are the two risks?

The older a women is when she has her first full-term birth, the higher her BC risk. An induced abortion of a first pregnancy increases the age of first birth and thus, boosts a woman's BC risk. This 'delayed first birth' BC risk is an accepted medical fact and is considered uncontroversial so, even though this risk should be listed on abortion clinic consent forms it is not.

Interrupting the pregnancy (via induced abortion) also has the biological effect of rendering some breast cells more susceptible to cancer. This risk is very credible but, unlike the first, is considered controversial despite that seventeen studies are at least 95% confident that A-B-C is real.

What difference does it make?

So what, if there are two risks, not one? What difference does this make to the public? Some researchers, such as Patricia Hartge, claim that the second risk does not exist and thus, women have nothing to worry about. This contention is preposterous, since even if risk 2 does not exist, the delayed first birth breast cancer risk clearly remains.

Some commentators also say that any difference in risk between women who have had induced abortions and women without them is due to the delayed first birth (or fewer births). This is also false. Why? Since researchers are well aware that women with young first births (also women with 2 or more births) have lower BC risks, they make statistical adjustments if cases (women with BC) have more elevated ages of first birth than controls (women without BC). They do this because they are more interested in the new and controversial risk factor (interrupted pregnancy).

How many women will get A-B-C yearly? Perhaps, only a few hundred women yearly will contract breast cancer from a previous induced abortion, so why worry? A few hundred women are expendable, right? Even if population control types are willing to trash a few hundred women yearly, the toll will be much higher and will get much worse over the next 15-25 years.

The Abortion-Cancer time bomb

Supporters of life may be surprised that a mere 11,700 (see footnote 1 for details) U.S. women contract breast cancer yearly from previous induced abortions. Cancers can take decades to develop. About 80% of breast cancer cases occur after age 49. Some U.S. states legalized abortion between 1968 and 1973. The 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision opened the flood gates fully. The average age of aborting women is about 21 years old, so the bulk of the (induced) aborting women are under age 50. When the first Roe v. Wade group reaches age 90 (2040), the yearly A-B-C (Abortion-Breast-Cancer) incidence will be about 58,500. This utterly dwarfs the Red Cross tainted blood scandal (where there was also lack of informed consent).

But the A-B-C risk may fade after age 45 or 50. Some medical researchers have speculated that any A-B-C risk only applies to young (under 50 or 40) women. One study is hardly conclusive, but the one A-B-C study with a good sized group of women over age 49 is extremely disturbing. This was a study of BC risk factors for black American women (Breast Cancer Risk Factors in African American Women: The Howard University Tumor Registry Study, J of the National Medical Association, A Laing, et al., 1993;85:831-839). Results:

black women between ages 41 and 49 - induced abortion increases BC risk by 180% (confidence exceeding 90%)
black women older than age 49 - induced abortion increases BC risk by 370% [95% CI = 2.6-8.4]

If the true risks are even 1/2 of those found in this study, the estimates used in the article you are now reading will be dramatically too low!

True risk figures?

It is uncontroversial that each year a woman waits to have a first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) increases her relative BC risk. How much? About 3.53% (compounded) relative risk increase for each one year delay. Is this the cause of the breast cancer as measured by most A-B-C studies? No, since delayed FFTP is a known cause, the researchers, in effect, 'subtract out' this factor, so that they are only measuring the effect of the abortion procedure/drug (not delayed FFTP) on relative risk.

When Hershey/Brind reported that an abortion before a first term birth increases relative risk by 50%, is this a true total risk number? Joel Brind, Ph.D., makes it very clear that the answer is no, 50% is too low. Why? If an arsonist burned your house completely, would your only expense be rebuilding the house? No, not unless your house was totally empty when burned. The true risk factor that women face must include the delayed FFTP!

The estimates in this article assume an average delayed FFTP of 3 years (a conservative figure), which yields 2,100 BC cases which is part of the 11,700 estimate. A 17 year old woman who is abortion-sterilized without any term births has the ultimate delay. Women not abortion-sterilized may suffer infertility (i.e. take longer than 12 months to conceive, once they start trying to conceive).

Planned Parenthood hoists a white flag?

Do abortion clinic consent forms warn women without any births that each one year delay in FFTP increases BC risk? A one year delay in FFTP has a BC DEATH risk (90/100,000) nineteen times that of the death risk to mom from childbirth (4.7/100,000). The clinic consent form has no cancer warnings of any kind. Is this medical malpractice? Are circles round?

When I confronted Planned Parenthood with this and asked about the BC risk of delayed FFTP and offered to supply medical journal references to back them up, they stonewalled me. In a court of law, stonewalling is a white flag. We have the ammunition (medical journal facts) and Planned Parenthood is shooting blanks in return. How many abortions will a law-suit bankrupted clinic perform? The same number as the total of men who have personally given birth to triplets.

Footnotes

58,500 A-B-C cases yearly when first Roe V. Wade group reaches age 90. Computation:

800,000 FFTPs aborted yearly
12% Life time risk of a woman contracting BC
50% Relative BC risk increase from induced abortion before FFTP
6% (12% X 1.5) absolute increase in BC risk from induced abortion before FFTP
48,000 (800,000 X 6%) Number of A-B-C cases yearly (not including BC cases from delayed FFTPs)
3yr (ASSUMED average delay in FFTP from an induced abortion before an FFTP)
11% Relative BC risk increase from a 3 year delay in FFTP
1.32% ABSOLUTE BC risk increase from a 3 year delay in FFTP
10,560 (800,000 X 1.32%) BC cases yearly from an average 3 year FFTP delay

48,000
10,560
58,560 BC cases yearly from both delayed FFTP and the effect of the abortion procedure, once the first 'Roe v. Wade' group reaches age 90
11,712 A-B-C cases yearly (58,560 X 20%) in (1996)

Why are the estimates in this article higher than the Hershey/Brind estimates?

Hershey/Brind (see the first reference) by design does not include the FFTP risk.
Instead of using the 50% relative BC risk increase (induced abortion before FFTP) from combining seven studies that provided this particular data, H/B used 30%, the overall A-B-C risk figure for all cases. Joel Brind (PhD) tends to use the philosophy of honest but very conservative risk estimates. Perhaps, this wins plaudits in the academic community but the downside is that people may not be alarmed as they should be by a more realistic estimate.

References:

A Comparative Review and Meta-analysis of Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer, The Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Joel Brind, et al., 1996,50:481-496

Reproductive factors in the aetiology of breast cancer, L.A. Brinton, et al., British Journal of Cancer, 1983, 47:757-762

Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: Relationship to Induced Abortion, Janet R. Daling, et al., JNCI, 1994, 86:1584-1592

Risk of breast cancer in relation to reproductive factors in Denmark, M. Ewertz, S.W. Duffy, British Journal of Cancer, 1988, 55:99-104

Age of First Birth and Breast Cancer Risk, B. MacMahon, et al., Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 1970, 43:209-221

Age At Any Birth And Breast Cancer In Italy, A Decarli, et al., International J Cancer, 1996, 67:187-189

Age At Any Birth And Breast Cancer Risk, D Trichopouplos, et al., International J Cancer, 1983, 31:701-704

Home Boutique Directory Links Definitions Backlash Books

Email to the Editor -- If you don't want it published in the "Email to the Editor" column, say so. Otherwise, it may be published.

The Backlash! - January 1998

Organization News - Cancer Awareness Canada Vancouver, Canada