| Press Release: NATIONAL BREAST
CANCER
COALITION CHIDED COALITION ON ABORTION/BREAST CANCER
P.O. Box 152,
Palos Heights, IL 60463
Toll Free 1-877-803-0102
Local Calls 1-630-226-9336
An International Women’s Organization
www.AbortionBreastCancer.com
response@abortionbreastcancer.com
NEWS Contact: Karen Malec
For Immediate Release Date: August 21,
2002
NATIONAL BREAST CANCER COALITION CHIDED FOR
POLITICIZING ABORTION-BREAST CANCER RESEARCH
Attempts to Intimidate U.S. Rep. Hostettler
The head of an international women’s group today criticized
the National Breast Cancer Coalition (NBCC) for denying overwhelming
biological and epidemiological evidence implicating abortion as
a risk factor for breast cancer. The Evansville Courier and Press
reported in a series of articles since August 16 that 11 NBCC activists
met with U.S. Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.) to lobby for federal
funding of breast cancer research and five of the eleven were offended
by his suggestion that women should be informed about research linking
abortion with the disease. He was falsely accused of implying they’d
had
abortions, although he assured the newspaper he hadn’t. The
other six activists were unnamed, but Rep. Hostettler said he received
a letter of apology from one expressing her dismay that the others
had behaved so
badly.
“We’d like to publicly thank Rep.
Hostettler for his political courage,” said Karen Malec, president
of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast
Cancer. “We blame the NBCC for failing to properly educate
their activists that breast cancer is a multi-factorial disease.
Just as tobacco isn’t the only risk factor for lung cancer,
abortion isn’t the only risk factor
for breast cancer. Would these five petulant activists rather have
thousands of women suffer and die because the truth has been covered-up?
"This attempt to politicize the research
and intimidate Rep. Hostettler into silence because he dared discuss
life-saving information is reprehensible, and these women should
be deeply ashamed of themselves.
One would have thought women claiming to be cancer survivors would
want to spare other women their suffering.”
Mrs. Malec added that “The NBCC’s
web page discussing the research is grossly inaccurate.” It
omits all but one of the 28 out of 37 studies reporting increased
risk (Reference
<www.AbortionBreastCancer.com>).
It omits the only comprehensive review and meta-analysis of the
research [1], the only study specifically commissioned by the National
Cancer Institute [2], the only statistically
significant prospective study conducted on American women [3] and
a rat study showing that aborted rats can be reliably induced to
develop tumors when exposed to a carcinogen, but not rats having
full term pregnancies
[4]. The NBCC omits the biological explanation for the link which,
by the way, no scientists challenge. The NBCC favors the severely
criticized Danish study, Melbye et al. 1997 [5] , in order to dismiss
the 28 studies finding increased risk, despite these facts: 1) Even
Melbye reported a statistically significant 89% increased risk among
women who choose
abortion after 18 weeks gestation; 2) Ewertz and Duffy found a more
than twofold elevation in risk among Danish women (cited even in
NBCC references) [6]; and 3) The Danish abortion rate was shown
to parallel its
breast cancer rate during a 50 year period in the 20th Century.
The NBCC ’s web page cites several studies in support of its
position of denial of a link. [7] Yet McCredie et al. 1998 didn’t
report any data on induced abortion. Calle et al. 1995 only examined
the effect of spontaneous abortions. Palmer and Rosenberg have each
done their own studies finding
risk elevations. [8,9] In fact, Palmer et al. 1997 found a borderline
significant connection. Dr. Grimes is an abortion provider. Wingo
et al. 1997 revealed increased risk, but refused to acknowledge
it in the study’s conclusions. The NBCC uses recall bias theory
to excuse its dismissal of the research, although no scientists
today claim to have found credible
evidence of this phenomenon. It mixes up induced abortions with
miscarriages and treats these two very different biological events
as if
their effects on breast cancer risk were identical. They’re
not. In the former, there is elevated risk because in normal pregnancies
women are overexposed to estrogen, a known tumor promoter. In the
latter, women are
not generally overexposed to estrogen, so most miscarriages do not
usually result in increased risk.
“Why is there such a cozy relationship
between the NBCC and individuals responsible for driving up breast
cancer rates?”
asked Mrs. Malec.
The NBCC has invited to its fundraisers former
President Bill Clinton, a staunch abortion advocate; Ann Lewis,
his White House counselor and a former vice president for Planned
Parenthood Federation of America; and U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi who,
while arguing in support of marketing the abortifacient drug cocktail,
RU 486, during the June 1999 abortion-breast cancer debate in the
House, hypocritically told her colleagues, “Medical research
thrives, (when) we have free and open inquiry.”
Last month, the Lancet published a meta-analysis
of 47 epidemiological studies in 30 countries in which it was concluded
that
breast cancer rates in developed countries could be reduced by more
than half if only women would have more children and breastfeed
for longer durations. [10]
“It is a certainty that abortion contributes
to the incidence of the disease significantly in this way,”
reasoned Mrs. Malec. “If NBCC is really serious about its
stated goal of eradicating the disease, then its officials will
tell women the politically incorrect truth: that abortion has contributed
to the steep climb in breast cancer cases since legalization in
1973. If NBCC’s officers lack the political courage needed
to tell us the truth and insist on writing works of fiction about
this research on the organization’s web page, then they have
no right to demand millions of dollars for further research from
taxpayers and donors.”
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is
an international women’s organization founded to protect the
health and save the lives of
women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk
factor for breast cancer.
References
1. Brind et al. (1996) J Epidemiol
Community Health 50:481-96.
2. Daling et al. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994 Nov
2;86(21):1584-92.
3. Howe et al. Int J Epidemiol 1989 Jun;18(2):300-4.
4. Russo et al. Am J Pathol 1980 Aug;100(2):497-512.
5. Melbye et al. N Engl J
Med 1997 Jan 9; 336(2):81-5.
6. Ewertz & Duffy (1988) Br J Cancer
68:99-104.
7. McCredie M, Paul C, Skegg DC, Williams
S. Reproductive factors and breast cancer in New Zealand. Int J
Cancer 1998;76(2):182-8. Palmer JR, Rosenberg L, Rao RS, et al.
Induced and spontaneous abortion in relation to risk of breast cancer
(United States). Cancer Causes Control 1997;8(6):841-9. Melbye M,
Wohlfahrt J, Olsen JH, et al. Induced abortion and the risk of breast
cancer. N Engl J Med 1997;336(2):81-5. Calle EE, Mervis CA, Wingo
PA, et al. Spontaneous abortion and risk of fatal breast cancer
in a prospective cohort of United States women. Cancer Causes Control
1995;6(5):460-8. Bartholomew LL, Grimes DA. The alleged association
between induced abortion and risk of breast cancer: biology or bias?
Obstet Gynecol Surv 1998;53(11):708-14. Wingo PA, Newsome K, Marks
JS, et al. The risk of breast cancer following spontaneous or induced
abortion. Cancer Causes Control 1997;8(1):93- 108.
8. Palmer et al. (1997) Cancer Causes Control
8:841-9.
9. Rosenburg et al. (1988) Am J Epidemiology
127:981-9.
10. Beral V (July 20, 2002) The Lancet, Vol.
360, No. 9328.
|
How
Did They Vote?
