LifeNews.com is a pretty cool website, at least for the people who say “pro-life” instead of “anti-abortion.” It brings together all the news that makes abortion look like it is not only killing full-grown toddlers, but their mothers and families and probably priests too. It’s the go-to place to see the abortion narratives in the media challenged, at least whenever the narrative happens to make abortion look awful. So when we saw the headline “Abortion Helps Cause 90% Increase in Breast Cancers in 33 Years,” we were all like, oooooooh and whoaaa, and we totally clicked on that shit. What was this news?! This study gives a potent new weapon to abortion opponents!
HA! Just kidding! It is exactly the opposite.
Again, keep in mind that the headline is “Abortion Helps Cause 90% Increase in Breast Cancers in 33 Years.” Concerns about grammar and AP style aside, let’s look at the first paragraph:
A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on February 27 finds researchers noting an increase in advanced cases of breast cancer over the last 33 years. However, the authors essentially ignore how abortion plays a great role in that increase.
Well, that would make it seem like the headline is totally wrong? What else ya got, LifeNewser?
Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, told LifeNews today she is disappointed the authors did not factor in the increased risk of breast cancer associated with an induced abortion.
No kidding! The person who runs a coalition based on a MEDICAL FICTION is upset people aren’t publishing studies that prop up her boobspiracy theory? We should definitely listen to this person.
“It’s peculiar, but not surprising, that the authors offered no hypotheses in their paper explaining the increased incidence in advanced cancers among young women,” Malec added. “Abortion and use of hormonal contraceptive steroids among teenagers are the elephants in the living room that the medical establishment ignores.”
Yes! Finally a logical explanation! All these abortion elephants are created by the medical establishment, in order to give 30-year-olds cancer.
But, REMARKABLY, that might not be true either! Because the medical establishment hasn’t ignored this made-up phenomenon — it has, as they say in med school, “dismissed it as nonsense.” Let’s see what the National Cancer Institute has to say on the issue. (And no, the “National Cancer Institute” is not like the other real-sounding “institutes” that are actually staffed by the people screaming obscenities at women in front of clinics. They’re at the National Institutes of Health.)
NCI regularly reviews and analyzes the scientific literature on many topics, including various risk factors for breast cancer. Considering the body of literature that has been published since 2003, when NCI held this extensive workshop on early reproductive events and cancer, the evidence overall still does not support early termination of pregnancy as a cause of breast cancer.
Yeah yeah, but that’s just some dude reading a medical journal in between YouTube videos. What about OTHER EXPERTS, smart guy?
In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.
The largest, and probably the most reliable, study on this topic was done during the 1990s in Denmark, a country with very detailed medical records on all its citizens. In this study, all Danish women born between 1935 and 1978 (a total of 1.5 million women) were linked with the National Registry of Induced Abortions and with the Danish Cancer Registry.
That sounds nice. Also, yum, danishes.
After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found that induced abortion(s) had no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer.
Shazam! We could also quote their explanation of why other studies are full of recall bias and probably not particularly accurate, but a 2,000-word blockquote is generally regarded as distasteful, even when “women’s health” movements are just making shit up because they don’t like a 40-year-old Supreme Court decision.
If you’re not convinced by the NIH, the American Cancer Society, and a Danish database, here’s a British study that says the same damn thing. Because, no matter what the headline says, the breast cancer argument is still just wrong.