Does Abortion Increase Breast
Cancer? The Debate Heats Up By J.C. Willke, MD
All of a sudden, the relation of abortion to breast cancer is back in the limelight.
After a number of years of slowly increasing acceptance of the relationship of
induced abortion to breast cancer, the American Cancer Institute has, in effect,
thrown down the gauntlet. On its website, it had admitted that there might be
a relationship but, in late February, a major meeting of "scientists"
denied this. Until recently, the National Cancer Institute's website had said
that there was no evidence linking abortion and breast cancer. In late November,
however, it revised its website to say, "the evidence is inconclusive."
Then came this workshop. By a vote of 99 to 1, the attendees claimed that scientific
evidence does not support the notion that having an abortion increases a woman's
risk of breast cancer later in life.
The
Evidence Had Accumulated In brief, biological evidence and
28 out of 37 international studies, done since 1957, have demonstrated a relationship
of induced abortion with breast cancer. Thirteen of 15 studies in the US have
confirmed such a link. It is interesting that many of these studies were funded
by the National Cancer Institute. Let's look at two landmark studies, the first
by Dr. H. Howe in 1999. Using New York state official Health Department records,
he found that aborting a woman's first pregnancy was associated with a 1.7 times
increased risk of breast cancer under age 40. If she aborted her second or third
pregnancy, her risk was increased four fold. Worldwide attention was focused on
the second study in 1994 by Dr. Janet Daling. She has a reputation, worldwide,
as an accomplished and highly respected epidemiologist. She found that an induced
abortion increased the risk of breast cancer before age 45 by 50%. If done before
age 18, it increased by 150%. If done after age 30, it increased by 110%. If she
had a family member with breast cancer and aborted after age 30, her risk was
increased by 270%. All 12 women in her study with such a family member, who aborted
before age 18, got breast cancer before age 45.
It seemed that the issue was all but settled after Dr. Joel Brind published
a meta analysis in 1996 of the 28 legitimate studies available. His conclusion
was that there was a significant independent risk for breast cancer associated
with induced abortion. The reaction to these and other studies has been convincing
to many people, including legislators who, in several states, have passed laws
to require the abortionist to warn the prospective abortive client that this will
increase her risk of breast cancer.
National
Cancer Institute This federally funded national institute has
had an obvious reluctance to admit that there could be any relationship. This
culminated in a recent seminar, which was publicized to be an open, interdisciplinary
investigation, discussion and debate of both sides of the issue. Sadly, this did
not happen. The invitations were carefully selected and a committed pro-abortion
staff chaired the conference. There was essentially no discussion and no debate.
Finally, there was a prearranged conclusion, which was voted on soon after the
meeting began and overwhelmingly passed.
Dr. Joel Brind has become internationally
known for his critical investigation and evaluation of various epidemiologic studies
in this field. He has written and lectured extensively and authored the meta analysis
above. Clearly, he was the authority, quite capable and willing to represent the
side advocating a link. He was not invited to this conference. Notified by government
officials, he appealed this, and an invitation was extended. He was not, however,
given any platform time to present the likely association viewpoint. His only
opportunity to speak was from the floor when he was recognized several times.
Dr. Janet Daling, the toweringly authoritative researcher, was also not asked
to speak.
The make up of those invited was interesting – one-third
of them were clinical practitioners, a second-third were research scientists,
but neither of these two groups brought skilled knowledge of this field. Of the
one-third who were epidemiologists, only half had been involved in research on
breast cancer. Therefore, of the hundred, 16 were knowledgeable. This included
a number of researchers who had done studies that clearly showed an abortion/breast
cancer connection. None of them spoke up to defend Dr. Brind's position. I and
others have asked why. The answer is one that they would not give publicly. The
fact of the matter is that epidemiologic researchers exist professionally by virtue
of the monetary grants they get for their research. Pro-abortion people have almost
total control of such grants. Several of these researchers have, in the past,
spoken up in defending the abortion/breast cancer link. Sadly, as everyone within
that fraternity knows, they have been burned and have received no more grants.
This appears to be the real reason why none of them spoke up to defend this obvious
link, even though their published studies have shown it.
Let's remember,
the Bush appointees at the very top, who are favorable toward open discussion,
thought a fair meeting had been arranged. Sadly, it was not. There are only one-and-a-half
years left of President Bush's term – not much time in which to request and
secure a grant. If he's not reelected and a pro-abortion Democrat is our next
president, we will see a total reversal of today's administration policies back
to an aggressive pro-abortion stand. Any hope for research funding for those who
have spoken up with Dr. Brind would then be gone.
The
Danish Study Mention must be made of a study by Melbye, et
al, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997. In it, Professor
Melbye claimed that an extensive investigation done in Denmark showed no connection
between induced abortion and breast cancer. Melbye was one of the chief speakers
at this meeting and maintained this position. However, the Melbye study was fatally
flawed. It listed abortion being legalized in Denmark in 1973. Actually, abortion
was legalized in 1939. Between those 34 years, 60,000 women were aborted. But,
in his study, all women before 1973 were listed as non-aborters. Further, one-fourth
of women in his study were younger than 25 years and were too young to have cancer.
However, even with this gross imbalance, his study showed an increased relative
risk of almost 50%, but he did not report this in his conclusions.
Some
Good News Everyone in the meeting agreed that pregnancy was
"protective" against breast cancer. They agreed that early pregnancy
was more protective than late pregnancy. That was a given. Even if this was all
that was admitted, it should be evident that a partial pregnancy, i.e. aborted
at three months, means that she is pregnant fewer months in her lifetime and,
therefore, would have less protection against breast cancer than if she were pregnant
for a full nine months. The basic physiologic fact that the breast cells producing
milk do not fully mature until late pregnancy, and that when mature they are more
resistant to cancer, was completely ignored at the conference. Finally, the program
had assigned a fairly lengthy time at the end for open discussion. The meeting,
however, was abruptly recessed, eliminating that opportunity. The National Cancer
Institute promptly issued its report claiming no connection. They did not ask
for, but in the end grudgingly accepted a minority report publicly offered by
Dr. Joel Brind. Dr. Brind's report is available on our web site, www.lifeissues.org
(click here
to view the report) or by contacting our office.
Those who are concerned
about the breast cancer/abortion link have spoken out repeatedly on this issue.
They are the Coalition on Abortion & Breast Cancer. Its president, Karen Malec,
has accused the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of suppressing the truth about
research exploring the link. "The NCI is conducting a shameless campaign
to conceal the truth about research, paid for by US taxpayers. This is not the
first time that the NCI has lied to women," she said. "Its website,
three years ago, stated that only animal research had provided a basis for this
relationship, although, at the time, 26 of 32 studies conducted on human women
internationally had clearly reported risk elevations by then." Congressman
Tom Coburn publicly stated that the agency has deceived the public about research
and that its website fact sheet "was not scientifically valid – rather,
it was a political statement." Other voices were also accusatory. Sandy Rios,
President of Concerned Women for America, stated, "The NCI has decided that
protecting women's health is less important than avoiding politically sensitive
topics. They should be ashamed. What was supposed to be a colloquium among scientists
about the link, turned into a whitewash. The NCI panelists dismissed the best
research on the subject, including research commissioned by the NCI itself. They
did this on the patronizing claim that women cannot be expected to tell the truth
about their own medical history." This type of reliance on "recall bias"
had been thoroughly discounted by a number of studies. "The patent dishonesty
of the NCI's report on this
subject raises real doubts about the institute's credibility," Rios concluded.
"The NCI should be above politics, not a factory for junk science."
I have practiced medicine and obstetrics for forty years and have made it
a point to keep abreast of this subject. I have read all of the papers noted above
and have published and lectured on this subject. I bow to the authority of Dr.
Brind, whose professional ability and integrity I admire, but I also feel that
I have an ability to judge this issue. Allow me to suggest that this almost frantic
effort by the pro-abortion industry will not close the door on this issue. The
previously published scientific studies speak for themselves, political statements
to the contrary. To those pro-lifers who read this, do not be discouraged. There
is a link and it is proven. It is obvious that women should be warned about this.
Shame on those professionals who disregard the health and well being of women
in order to curry favor with political patrons and get research grants. The truth
will win out.
For more information on the link between abortion
and breast cancer, go to www.lifeissues.org. Click on Abortion/Breast
Cancer.
Dr. Willke has written a brochure, “The
Deadly After-Effect of Abortion: Breast Cancer,” documenting this link. It
is available from Hayes Publishing, 6304 Hamilton Ave., Cincinnati, OH 45224.
Phone 513.681.7559. E-mail hayespub@aol.com.
Life
Issues Today with J. C.
Willke, M.D.
Lives
Saved, One Heart at a Time
Let me tell you
about a pretty, young teenager whom I delivered 16 years earlier. She had gotten
pregnant and gone to our city's Planned Parenthood abortion chamber. They told
her yes, she was pregnant and made an appointment for her to come back for an
abortion. In a classic Freudian slip, she left the appointment card lying on the
dining room table at home. Her mother found it just as her father came through
the door. Everything happened. Her mother cried. Her father said a few things
he probably shouldn't have, and she stamped out of the house. She wouldn't have
them telling her what to do. When she did come back later, they talked and talked.
Her parents opposed the abortion, but she was bound and determined to have one.
Finally they settled on a compromise.
If Mary Lou would go to see Dr.
Willke – she had never known another doctor – and let me talk to her,
then her parents would accept her decision. A couple of days later, after I had
been duly forewarned by her parents, Mary Lou came to my office. Her jaw was set
as she sat there, literally daring me to try to change her mind. First, I did
a pelvic examination and confirmed that she was pregnant, about 10 or 11 weeks
along. There sat a very defiant young lady. I said, "Mary Lou, did they tell
you what you are carrying, what is inside you?" "Yes, they had a model
of a uterus and they showed me how they would gently suck out the pregnancy tissue."
Well, I had one of those models and showed it to her. Yes, that was it. I
often wondered why they use the one with an empty womb. I then picked up
my photo album which contains ten 5 by 7 inch full-color photos of developing
babies. Underneath each picture, each on separate pages, are listed the facts
of development and function at that age. I gently said, "Mary Lou, I think
you'll later be able to live much more at peace with yourself if you know beforehand
what is inside of you. Will you look at these pictures?"
Ever so
reluctantly she took the album and opened it. Six weeks: A tiny little developing
baby held up in a teardrop sack. She turned the page. Eight weeks: A very recognizable
baby in a little bubble. Eleven weeks: (that's where she was) a tiny little baby
in the palm of a doctor's hand, the baby still sucking his thumb. She turned the
other page and then came back to the eleven-week baby. She looked at it and finally,
ever so slowly, closed the album, laid it in her lap and then dissolved in a heap
of hysterical tears. Finally she looked up at me and said "Dr. Willke, they
didn't tell me it was a baby. I can't kill my baby."
Goodbye
From the Microphone To all of you dear and faithful listening
friends, I've just recorded my last 5-minute program of Life Issues. I've
been privileged now for over 18 years to daily share thoughts with you –
in fact, almost 5,000 different times.
But the time has come for me to
cut back. I'm 78 years old and healthy, but my dearest wife, Barbara, who has
walked with me for 55 years, will be glad to have me at home more. We've been
generously blessed with 20 grandchildren and both of us want to spend more time
with them.
Our six children, of whom I'm immensely proud, have been badgering
me for years to slow down and maybe write the history of the pro-life movement.
My answer has always been that we are too busy still making history to stop and
write it.
I'll not be completely off the air as my timeless, one-minute
Life Jewels, in English and Spanish will still be heard in the US and in
over 800 locations in South America in Spanish and Portuguese. Furthermore, I'll
still be the publisher of Life Issues Connector and the editor of the Cincinnati
Right to Life and International Right to Life newsletters.
Our new book,
Abortion: Questions and Answers, Love Them Both, has just been published,
so there will be enough speaking engagements to keep my honey and me busy. The
transfer from my five-minute program to my partner Brad Mattes' one-minute program
on current events should be a major positive step. Instead of my more in depth
commentary on happenings that have occurred days or weeks ago, he will bring you
a daily one-minute report on that very day's events. Our new state of the art
satellite capabilities make this possible.
So you are not losing Dr.
Willke, you are gaining Brad Mattes, and you'll be getting the same value-laden
information. My freed-up time will enable me to expand my outreach more internationally,
which involves traveling, lecturing, writing, and I'll still join Brad from time
to time when needed.
This parting is bittersweet. I'll be glad to be
relieved of this daily duty, but sad at not being able to continue to share my
thoughts with you. However, seasons change and my autumn moves on progressively.
So it is with real sadness that I write to all of you dear and faithful listeners.
Goodbye from the microphone, and may almighty God bless each one of you abundantly.
Dramatic Breakthroughs Using Adult Stem
Cells By Bradley Mattes
If you begin to hear less about the miraculous potential for healing mankind through
embryonic stem cell treatment, there is good reason. To date, there have been
no scientific breakthroughs in embryonic stem cell research providing even one
practical application to helping humans. Adult stem cell research, on the other
hand, has experienced considerable success. Here are two dramatic examples that
could very likely have a profound impact on the treatment of injured and sick
individuals.
16-year-old Dimitri Bonnville was severely injured on a
construction job. A coworker accidentally pierced his chest and heart with a nail
gun. Surgeons closed the wound, but Dimitri suffered a serious heart attack, which
killed part of the heart tissue. The ejection-fraction, or the normal amount of
blood pumped out of his left ventricle, dropped from the normal 65% or more to
only 25%.
Doctors extracted and isolated Dimitri's own stem cells from
his blood. They were then injected into the artery going into his heart. Days
later, his eject-fraction had increased to 35%. His physicians estimate that it
will be three months before they know the full extent to which this groundbreaking
treatment has been successful. However, early indications are very encouraging.
Dennis Turner, a California man, suffers from Parkinson's disease. Surgeons
removed a small sample of Dennis' brain tissue. They extracted and isolated the
stem cells, and then grew millions of them in the laboratory. The new cells were
injected into Dennis' brain. After a year, the patient's Parkinson's symptoms
decreased by 80%. Without this new treatment, he would likely be in a wheelchair
and heavily medicated by now. Dennis is on minimal medication and only suffers
mild symptoms when he is either tired or stressed.
More and more adult
stem cell successes are reinforcing the obvious fact that the United States and
other countries should direct all of their available resources into potential
treatment with stem cells that don't have the deadly side effect of killing human
embryos in the process.
Adult stem cell breakthroughs are making converts
in unexpected places. James Kelly is a paraplegic as a result of an automobile
accident. He was an outspoken advocate of embryonic stem cell research, which
he believed would be his best hope to regain the use of his legs.
James
then did his own extensive research into this medical field. Once educated, he
realized that adult stem cell research was far more promising to the future of
patients like him. He has even testified before Congress, advocating what he believes
to be a proven approach.
If you'd like to know more about the successes
of adult stem cell research, go to our web site, www.lifeissues.org, and click
on the link to "Cloning/Stem
Cells.".
"Choose Life" License Plate Catching
On By Russ Amerling
When one man decided to create a Choose Life specialty license plate for Florida,
he didn't know it would catch on in such a big way. In 1996, Randy Harris, County
Commissioner in Marion County, Ocala, FL saw the need for funds to help pregnant
women. He wanted to give assistance to those desiring to place their baby with
an adoptive family, instead of aborting the child. The Choose Life license plate
idea was born. Now, seven years later, the idea is catching on in states around
the country.
Specialty
plates, on a wide variety of issues from environment to alma maters, generate
money for that organization every time a plate is ordered by one of the state's
drivers. State legislation is needed to allow for a particular license plate to
be made available. It will then generate money to that organization. In this case,
the money goes to those organizations that offer adoption but don't perform or
refer for abortions.
The Choose Life license plate is law in Florida,
Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Hawaii.
The plates have been produced and are available through the motor vehicles departments
of all but one of these states. In South Carolina, a Planned Parenthood injunction
is currently being appealed to the 4th Circuit. Arkansas' Governor, Mike Huckabee,
signed the law March 10, 2003 stating, "We believed it was a great opportunity
to assist in the adoption process and at the same time make a statement about
the sanctity of life."
Florida, the first state to make the plates
available on August 11, 2000, leads the way with over 36,000 plates on vehicles
across the state. This has generated $1.5 million for the adoption efforts of
Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Maternity Homes and certain non-profit adoption agencies.
Five additional states began selling the plates and generating funds last year:
Alabama $59,688.75, Hawaii $4,900, Louisiana $25,000, Mississippi $54,168 and
Oklahoma $2,900.
Some opposition to the pro-life plates has arisen in
legislatures, but most of it comes from pro-abortion groups through the courts.
Of five suits filed, only one is currently holding up sales in South Carolina.
They usually go down to defeat when they reach the appellate level, as happened
most recently in a Federal Court in Florida. The opposition was tutored on constitutional
law by the judges who said, "The First Amendment protects the right to speak.
It does not give Appellants the right to stop others with opposing viewpoints
from speaking."
If you are interested in making Choose Life license
plates available in your state, contact Russ Amerling toll free 877-454-1203 or
go to www.choose-life.org.
Russ
Amerling is the National Publicity Coordinator for the Choose Life license plate.
Stay
Informed... More informed than you've ever been.
Join
Brad Mattes, host of an all-new LIFE ISSUES daily radio program, airing timely
pro-life information – sometimes hours after it happens. This one-minute
daily commentary, available to radio stations by satellite delivery only, begins
April 21, 2003.
Is
Dr. Willke retiring? No way! This change enables him to dedicate more time to
global travel, lecturing, writing and continuing his role as the "Father
of the Pro-Life Movement." Further, his timeless one-minute Life Jewels will
still be heard in English, Spanish and Portuguese.
"I
firmly believe that the best way to keep you and others informed is to go
into the studio as news is breaking and record it. These are exciting days
ahead and we invite you to join us!" –Dr. Willke
Contact
our radio representative, John Williamson, at Ambassador Advertising to learn
how you can approach stations in your community to air this life-saving broadcast!
Phone 714-738-1501 ext. 227 or email John at jowilliamson@AmbassadorAdvertising.com.
He'll be happy to help you!
From
The Executive Director Bradley Mattes
Good
Versus Evil
Since you're reading this
newsletter, you are most likely a fellow pro-lifer, deeply concerned about the
well being of innocent human life. Your heart breaks when you remember that every
day abortionists kill over 3,600 unborn babies. You are sensitive to the immense
pain and anguish often felt by the mothers and fathers of aborted babies.
As a pro-lifer, you are also aware of the obstructionist history of pro-abortion
Democrats who used to control the Senate. Senator Tom Daschle and gang bottled
up almost every pro-life bill designed to protect these babies and their mothers.
Furthermore, they treated President Bush's judicial nominees in the same way the
Clinton administration approached honesty and virtue - with public disdain.
The Democrats’ strategy of obstruction was a major factor in losing
control of the Senate to the Republicans. After such a devastating and humiliating
defeat, one would think that Senator Daschle, et al., would have at least curtailed
their liberal elitism in hope of some day regaining power. It's often said, "
With age comes wisdom." But in Senator Daschle's case, I think age arrived
alone. His attitude against an open and honest debate on the Senate floor has
shown no sign of waning. The harsh lesson of the recent past has not made him
wiser.
The Democrats' filibuster against judicial nominee, Miguel Estrada,
is beneath contempt and smacks of racism against Hispanics. While in the majority,
the Democrats could easily torpedo President Bush's nomination in committee, or
let them die a slow, painful death by neglect. Now, in the minority, they are
using a filibuster to deny their colleagues the opportunity to vote yes or no.
These "pro-choice" senators are true to their label – "pro-choice
if it's my choice."
The Partial Birth Abortion (PBA) Ban recently
passed the Senate with considerable media attention. It is expected that the House
will approve the ban and the president has promised to sign it into law. Last
year, the House passed the PBA Ban first, but then Senate Majority leader, Tom
Daschle, wouldn't even allow it to come up for a vote.
During this year's
Senate debate on PBA, Mr. Daschle and other pro-abortion senators supported an
amendment that would have gutted the bill, rendering it useless. When it became
obvious that the PBA Ban would pass intact, Mr. Daschle and other political opportunists
jumped aboard a moving train and voted to support the bill.
Usually,
when villains plague a situation, you also have the white hats who ride in and
work to save the day. Congress has some exceptional "White Hats".
Senator Rick Santorum, (R) PA, has long been at the forefront, protecting
babies and their mothers from Partial Birth Abortion. His tireless efforts and
genuine personal conviction deserve our utmost appreciation and gratitude. He
is a true leader.
Congressman Henry Hyde, (R) IL, has, for many years,
been affectionately called the "Patron Saint" of unborn babies. Eloquence
is an understatement when describing his speeches on the floor of the House of
Representatives. We would be hard-pressed to find a more gentle and caring spirit.
Congressman Chris Smith, (R) NJ, can best be summed up in one word, "Passion".
It's an obvious driving force behind everything he does for the babies. Whether
in his earlier days as the Executive Director of New Jersey Right to Life, or
in the present as a seasoned member of the House, he passionately advances pro-life
legislation and works to protect the United Nations from radical pro-abortion
thugs.
Congressman Steve Chabot, (R) OH, has a solid reputation as a
defender of life. He is usually on the ground floor, introducing pro-life legislation.
Steve is carrying the banner in the House to promote the PBA Ban and is most frequently
referred to as "One of Us".
Space doesn't permit me to list
the other noble pro-life members of Congress who generously give of themselves
to protect life. As a pro-lifer, you know standing up for life can be a lonely
and thankless job. Please take a moment to contact these "White Hats"
and let them know how much you appreciate their courage. Here's how to reach them.
Rep.
Henry Hyde 50 E Oak St. Suite 200 Addison, IL 60101 630.832.5950
Fax 832.5969 E-Mail go to: www.house.gov/hyde
Rep.
Chris Smith 1540 Kuser Rd. Suite A-9 Hamilton, NJ 08619 609.585.7878
Fax 585.9155 E-mail go to: www.house.gov/chrissmith
Rep.
Steve Chabot 3003
Carew Tower 441 Vine St. Cincinnati, OH 45202 513.684.2723 Fax
421.8722 E-mail go to: www.house.gov/chabot
STATES EXCHANGE Silent No
More, a Powerful Message
A powerful new element
was added to this year's observance of Roe v. Wade. Women across the nation,
representing various ages and backgrounds, made a public statement that abortion
hurts women. Silent No More is a new collaboration of a handful of pro-life
organizations that is having an emotive effect on the abortion controversy.
From January 17-25, over 800 women in 46 states gathered to publicly express
their regret for a previous abortion(s). The events were totally void of any political
presence. The message was simple, yet very clear and impacting. Each woman carried
a sign that read, "I regret my abortion." These women courageously testified,
by their presence, that abortion is not a healthy choice.
Actress
and model, Jennifer O'Neill, the national spokesperson for the group, said, "To
have the opportunity to encourage and comfort the hearts of millions of women
who have suffered is humbling, and making the whole truth known about abortion
is absolutely necessary."
Silent No More's goal is to break
the silence that surrounds the pain of abortion, and to convey the message that
there is help and hope. Their website, www.HelpAfterAbortion.com
and toll-free phone, 1.800.395.HELP, will connect hurting women and men to a local
support group.
The January event was only the beginning. Another is slated
for May 10. Healing services are being organized to reach out to women and raise
awareness among clergy that they need to address this problem from the pulpit.
In addition, October memorial services for the unborn are being scheduled.
Silent No More breaks through political, religious and social boundaries
and reaches women where they are with a message of compassion and hope. Participants
in Washington, DC witnessed the response of pro-abortion activists to this message.
They reacted with shock, at first, and then were totally at a loss of how to respond.
The pro-woman, pro-life theme has demonstrated that it is an effective public
relations tool. Please call 1.800.707.6635 for more information if you or someone
you know would like to participate in the Silent No More campaign.
Specialty
plates, on a wide variety of issues from environment to alma maters, generate
money for that organization every time a plate is ordered by one of the state's
drivers. State legislation is needed to allow for a particular license plate to
be made available. It will then generate money to that organization. In this case,
the money goes to those organizations that offer adoption but don't perform or
refer for abortions.
3003
Carew Tower
Actress
and model, Jennifer O'Neill, the national spokesperson for the group, said, "To
have the opportunity to encourage and comfort the hearts of millions of women
who have suffered is humbling, and making the whole truth known about abortion
is absolutely necessary."