Illinois Federation for Right to Life: Anti-Lifers Rip Latest Study - by their own people

Anti-Lifers Rip Latest Study - by their own people - on Abortion/Breast Cancer Link

As expected, pro-aborts did not take well to my WorldNetDaily.com column this week, "Top scientist finally admits abortion-breast cancer link."

In "The truth about breast cancer and abortion," RH Reality Check's managing editor Amie Newman relied heavily on one of the researchers publishing the study - to dispute the results of her own study:

According to one of the researchers and authors of the report, Kathi Malone (pictured above), "There are no new findings related to induced abortion in this paper because the results of these women were published previously."...

Dr. Brinton's co-researcher and co-author, Kathi Malone, is clear about what this and all peer-reviewed studies show thus far on the link between abortion and breast cancer: "The weight of scientific evidence to date strongly indicates that abortion doesn't increase the risk of breast cancer."...

As an aside, Louise Brinton's name is key in all this because she's the National Cancer Institute researcher who chaired the infamous 2003 panel of experts that concluded there was no abortion/breast cancer link.

Both are indeed listed as authors the study about which Newman is disputing, and importantly, Brinton identified herself with the NCI...

Newman wrote about Brinton...

But what is not true is that Dr. Louise Brinton has "changed" her position on the link between abortion and breast cancer, at least publicly, because there is no new information on this link.

So the first obvious question is, are Malone and Brinton calling the study bearing their name erroneous? (Read study pdf here. http://www.jillstanek.com/Abortion%20Breast%20Cancer%20Epid%20Bio%20Prev%202009.pdf) Are they denying these words from their own study, from the bottom of page 1160 and top of page 1161?

...and this, bottom of page 1162 and top of page 1163, from her own study?

Note this statement not only confirms that breast cancer is linked to abortion in the current study, it agrees with previous studies that came to the same conclusion.

Newman reiterated over and over that this study concluded nothing new as far as the ABC link was concerned, even quoting Malone, as I mentioned above, which leads me to wonder if Malone even read her own study. Newman wrote, for instance (italic emphasis hers)...

The only problem with reporting on this as if anything were new is that, well, nothing is new.

This paper simply took older information....

In fact, the only reason abortion was included at all was because it was a factor in the old studies....

Again, the study results released last year, on which Dr. Brinton was a researcher, do not include any new information on the overall risk of breast cancer among women who have had abortions....

[T]here is no new information....

Extremist, religious anti-choice web sites are using old data from an old study as proof of a cause and effect relationship even while the NCI and one of the study's own authors clearly state that over the course of years of research, including those old studies, overall evidence indicates no connection between the 2....

Newman is simply wrong.

Triple-negative breast cancer was only first described in published papers in 2007. It is an extremely aggressive form of breast cancer with a poor prognosis. It strikes women under 45, often African-American.

For this study researchers tested 897 saved cancerous breast tissue from 1,286 previously studied cases for triple-negative breast cancer. (See also the "Results" blurb above.) One reason? To assess "reproductive history" as it may relate...

The results concluded abortion raises the risk of triple-negative breast cancer by a ratio of 1.4, or 40%, the same as other breast cancers. This makes sense, given the etiology of breast cancer due to abortion...

A huge new finding of this study was that oral contraceptives are highly suspect as causers of triple-negative breast cancer. Newman noted in her close that this study "lay[s] the groundwork for... a possible connection between oral contraceptives and triple negative breast cancer."

This is absolutely true.

So a few questions.

Why did Newman so readily accept this study's conclusions on the contraceptive-breast cancer link but not the abortion-breast cancer link?

And where in the world has the National Cancer Institute been in the 9 months since this bombshell study was published on the contraceptive/cancer link? Is it again being held hostage by feminist ideologues?

Newman blamed "[e]xtremist, religious anti-choice web sites" as fanning the flames by broadcasting this study.

But Newman's problem isn't with us. Her problem is with the NCI, Brinton, Malone, and liberal feminists.

Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: jillstanek.com
Publish Date: January 15, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.