BY JOEL BRIND, PH.D

January 15, 2014 (NRLC) – Hot on the heels of the new systematic review and meta-analysis of the abortion-breast cancer (ABC link) in China published by Dr. Yubei Huang last November and reviewed in NRL News Today in December, comes yet another blockbuster study from the Asian subcontinent.

On Christmas Eve, a study by A.S. Bhadoria et al. of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences—“Reproductive factors and breast cancer: A case-control study in tertiary care hospital of North India”–appeared online in the “Indian Journal of Cancer.” These new Asian studies are changing the game in ABC link research

The Bhadoria study of 320 breast cancer patients and 320 age and socio-economic status-matched healthy control women reported a 403% increased risk of getting breast cancer among Indian women who have had any abortions. Not only is this increase much larger than what had been reported in the Huang meta-analysis (44%) and by my colleagues and I in our worldwide meta-analysis of 1996 (30%), but it closely matches the 538% among Indian women reported earlier in 2013 by Dr. Ramchandra Kamath et al.

Also in 2013, Dr. S. Jabeen and colleagues reported a risk increase of almost 2,000% among women in Bangladesh!

Taken collectively, the studies from Asia should completely abolish any lingering credibility of the US National Cancer Institute’s politically correct” dictum that there is no ABC link.

As explained in my December article (“Chinese Abortion-Breast Cancer bombshell: Meta-analysis of 36 Chinese studies shows abortion increases breast cancer risk by 44%”), the Huang meta-analysis reproduces and validates our findings from 1996. It also demonstrates what is called a “dose effect,” i.e., two abortions increase the risk more than one abortion (there is 76% risk increase with two or more abortions), and three abortions increase the risk even more (an 89% risk increase with three or more abortions).

Risk factors that show such a clear dose effect have more credibility.

I also previously described how the Huang “meta-analysis” (a study of studies) dispatched with the tired old canard used to discredit the ABC link, variously called the “response bias” or “recall bias” or “reporting bias” argument. The argument goes like this.

Due to social stigma that is attached to having an induced abortion, healthy women are more likely to deny prior abortions in their medical history study questionnaire than are women who’ve developed breast cancer. Hence, the argument goes, it would erroneously appear that abortion is more frequent among women who’ve had an abortion.

Although no credible evidence for this response bias hypothesis has ever been presented in ABC link research (and there is plenty of good evidence against it), the NCI and others have continually cited it as if it were a matter of fact in order to deny the reality of the ABC link. Huang et al. argued for the absence of response bias (abortion is very common in China and there is a lack of social stigma), but ABC-link detractors still cite response bias.

But the sub-continental studies really do put the final nail in the coffin of the response bias argument. Such response bias is only even plausible when the relative risk is relatively low, such as around 1.5 (i.e., a 50% risk increase).

But such bias becomes extremely implausible when the relative risk is strong—e.g., 5 or 6 (i.e., a 400-500% risk increase) or more. Thus, while one might attempt to explain how some women with breast cancer might be more or less inclined to report their history of abortion, the numbers from India and Bangladesh are just too overwhelming.  That’s why the percentage risk increases come out so high.

In the Bhadoria study, for example, the majority (61%) of the breast cancer patients had had at least one abortion, whereas only 16% of the control women were post-abortive. The data from the other two studies show similarly lopsided comparisons of cancer patients and controls. That’s why the risk increases come out so high.

It is important to note that these high relative risk numbers raise the question as to why, if abortion should have the same effect on women everywhere, there should be such a strong link on the Asian sub-continent. The answer is straightforward.

In India and Bangladesh, breast cancer is still relatively rare because a) early marriage and childbearing—the best known protection against breast cancer—is nearly universal; and b) breastfeeding (also a protective factor against breast cancer) is also nearly universal. Consequently, there’s not much in Bangladesh besides abortion to cause breast cancer, so it really stands out.

As noted in my earlier piece on the ABC link in China, the impact of abortion on a population of over a billion women—in India and China alone—means breast cancer cases exceeding 10 million for the current generation of women of childbearing age, and millions of them dying from it. And by the way, in contrast to the typical age of onset of breast cancer in the West, Asian women are stricken more often when in their 40′s.

Welcome to the real war on women.

Learn More: 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/evidence-of-abortion-breast-cancer-link-explodes-on-the-asian-subcontinent

BY LIFESITENEWS STAFF

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 16, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com)– A new paper released today by the Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI) compiles new evidence showing that emergency contraceptives can operate as abortion-inducing drugs. Author Susan E. Wills, JD, LLM, examines the latest scientific studies and explains how IUDs and so-called “morning after pills” have been shown to occasionally prevent newly created embryos from implanting in the uterine wall, therefore facilitating early abortion.

The report looks at the current state of the science regarding the three most common types of emergency contraception available in the United States: the Copper-T IUD (marketed as ParaGard® T 380A Intrauterine Copper Contraceptive), Ulipristal acetate (marketed as Ella® and ellaOne®), and levonorgestrel EC or LNG-EC (marketed as Plan B®, Plan B One-Step® and Next Choice®).

“As we await a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the HHS mandate, this timely research sheds light on the fundamental difference between abortion and the prevention of pregnancy.  These are simply not the same and we can only have a good outcome when the terms are properly understood,” said Chuck Donovan, president of the Charlotte Lozier Institute. “This review of the newest research confirms the Obamacare mandate as a blunt and sweeping assault on the freedom of conscience of those who oppose the killing of human embryos.”

“Given the dangers to the future of conscience rights posed by the Affordable Care Act, an honest debate over the ‘contraception mandate’ is a necessity,” concludes author Susan E. Wills, JD, LLM. “Numerous studies have shown that the most popular emergency contraceptives can cause the death of embryos. For the sake of full and accurate informed consent for patients and for the sake of the integrity of the medical profession and research community, this reality must be acknowledged.  Only then will we be able to make informed decisions about our personal healthcare and healthcare policy.”

In August 2011, Department of HHS Secretary Sebelius herself said that the mandate includes drugs that are “designed to prevent implantation” of embryos, causing abortion.

The Charlotte Lozier Institute was launched in 2011 as the education and research arm of Susan B. Anthony List.  The CLI is a hub for research and public policy analysis on some of the most pressing issues facing the United States and nations around the world.  The paper released today is a part of the Charlotte Lozier Institute’s American Reports Series which presents analysis of issues concerning life, science, and bioethics and that affect national policy.

Learn More: 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-study-proves-all-emergency-contraception-can-cause-early-abortion

BY MICHAEL NEW

Earlier this month, the journal Obstetrics and Gynecologypublished a study which has the media swooning. It analyzed over 15,000 abortion-minded women in California in 2011 — some of whom decided to view an ultrasound image of their unborn child. The study purportedly found that these ultrasound images did very little to dissuade women from obtaining an abortion. This study has received significant attention from a number of media outlets including Slate,Time magazine’s Health and Family blog, and RhRealityCheck. The spin is that this study debunks pro-life claims that ultrasound images are effective in persuading abortion-minded women to choose life for their unborn child.

However, a closer look at this study reveals some important limitations with the research. Most important, these ultrasounds were performed by a Planned Parenthood who had a vested financial interest in seeing that the women chose abortion. So there is a good chance the ultrasound images seen by these women were not particularly clear or vivid. Furthermore, the study did show that among women who were conflicted about how to proceed with their pregnancy, the ultrasound image made them statistically less likely to submit to an abortion. This finding held even when a variety of demographic and economic variables were held constant. As such, this study provides good evidence that for a significant subset of abortion-minded women, ultrasound images steer them toward life-affirming choices.

The coverage of this study provides yet another example of the mainstream media doing its best to portray pro-life efforts as ineffective. For instance, when reporting on declining abortion numbers, most media outlets give increased contraception use most of the credit. However, they fail to report that the unintended pregnancy rate has held constant over the years and that contraception use started to increase well before the abortion rate started to fall. Declines in teen sexual activity typically get little coverage. Similarly, the substantial body of  academic research demonstrating the effectiveness of both public-funding restrictions on abortion and pro-life parental-involvement laws receives scant attention from the mainstream media.

Learn More: 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/media-misleads-on-recent-ultrasound-study

BY KIRSTEN ANDERSEN

KANSAS CITY, January 15, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – “Sometimes things are not as they seem.”  That was the title given to a recent opinion piece by Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City, who urged readers of The Catholic Key diocesan newspaper to “work hard and speak out clearly for the protection of human life at all its moments.” The bishop was writing in response to the story of Jahi McMath, a 13-year-old Oakland, California girl who was declared “legally dead” by hospital and government officials even as she remained on a respirator with her heart beating on its own.

Oakland Children’s Hospital and the Alameda County Coroner declared that McMath was “brain dead” on Dec. 12 after she suffered unexpected complications from a tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy which led to cardiac arrest.  Afterward, her family fought a nearly month-long legal battle with the hospital to keep her on life support, ultimately settling with the hospital to secure her release to a Catholic care facility where she is now receiving treatment.

“Pray for Jahi and for this family,” Bishop Finn urged the Catholic faithful.

“[S]ometimes things are not as they seem, and Dr. [Paul] Byrne, who went to Oakland a few days after Christmas, doesn’t believe Jahi is dead,” wrote Bishop Finn.  “What moved me most was something I had not yet read in any media accounts: He told me that Jahi was not totally unresponsive – but rather, when touched or talked to by family members, she moves her arms and/or legs. I must say that this is not what I imagined in the case of someone who is dead.”

McMath’s heartbreaking case, as well as the case of Marlise Munoz, a pregnant woman who is being kept on life support over her husbands wishes, have spurred national debate over how death is defined in the United States, and whether family members or doctors should be the ultimate arbiters of when it is time to “let go” of a neurologically devastated patient. Munoz is being kept on life support due to a Texas state law that prohibits hospitals from removing life support from a woman who is pregnant before her baby is viable for delivery.

While all 50 states have passed laws defining “brain death” as the legal endpoint of life, the criteria for declaring a patient brain dead vary from state to state.  What passes for brain death in California may not qualify as death in another state, a discrepancy that has led critics of the “brain death” movement to accuse doctors of playing God – declaring living patients “legally dead” so that their healthy organs can be harvested, or worse yet, in order to limit hospital liability in cases like Jahi’s, where a routine procedure goes horribly wrong.

In his opinion piece on the subject, Bishop Finn said that while the Catholic Church allows families to withhold “extraordinary means” of care, such as a ventilator, from dying loved ones, “Catholic moral teaching would also support the extraordinary efforts required to keep the child alive, if that was the chosen path,” and noted that “no one entrusted with her guardianship is opposed to continuing Jahi’s life.”

Citing the work of Dr. Byrne, a pediatrician and medical school professor who has done extensive research on brain death, especially as it relates to children, the bishop argued that Jahi’s family is well within their rights to give the girl as much time as they feel is needed to offer her a chance at recovery. 

“’Brain death’ is established by a measure of brain activity (or loss of it),” Bishop Finn wrote. “Dr. Byrne would point out that brain waves are a measure of such activity in three parts of the brain: the cerebrum, the cerebellum, and the brain stem. He would hold, and has written in many talks and articles, that measuring activity within the deeper recesses of the brain is not yet possible, and therefore may still exist in a subject. He also believes that children have a higher rate of recoverability from brain injuries. Their brains are more ‘pliable’ and can heal in ways that often surprise the experts.”

Added Finn, “The observation of reactions (movement of arms or legs) like those reported to be seen in Jahi, lends credence to the possibility that, though there are no measurable brain waves, brain activity may still exist and life may still be present. Thus seems to be the conviction of the family of Jahi McMath.”

“Pray for Jahi and for this family,” the bishop urged the Catholic faithful. “Pray also that authentic moral principles will be upheld in the midst of a scientific endeavor which is always complicated, but which requires many, many prudential decisions. We must work hard and speak out clearly for the protection of human life at all its moments.”

Read More:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/kansas-city-bishop-pens-passionate-defense-of-life-in-response-to-jahi-mcma