3,400 confidential and totally free groups to call and go to in the U.S...1,400 outside the U.S. . . . 98 of these in Canada.
Free, financial help given to women and families in need.More help given to women, families.
Helping with mortgage payments and more.More help.
The $1,950 need has been met!CPCs help women with groceries, clothing, cribs, "safe haven" places.
Help for those whose babies haveDown Syndrome and Other Birth Defects.
CALL 1-888-510-BABY or click on the picture on the left, if you gave birth or are about to and can't care for your baby, to give your baby to a worker at a nearby hospital (some states also include police stations or fire stations), NO QUESTIONS ASKED. YOU WON'T GET IN ANY TROUBLE or even have to tell your name; Safehaven people will help the baby be adopted and cared for.

Thursday, July 21, 2005

The 2000 China Abortion/Breast Cancer Study That
National Cancer Institute Funded But
Really, Truly Seems To Not Want Anyone To Know About …

[Please comment back at the original post, thanks]

…because it means that as many as 4,262,500 U.S. women (who had 3 or more abortions between 1983 and 2002) likely have increased our risk of postmenopausal breast cancer by about 60 to 70%…

…and of the 6,500,000 U.S. women who’ve had only two abortions in that same twenty year period , we have either a 60% increased breast cancer risk (if we had our second induced abortion [IA] under the age of 45), or a 70% increased BC risk (if we had the first of two IAs at or above age 35).

…and among the 13,850,000 U.S. women who’ve had only one abortion, of those having that abortion prior to our (last) live birth (FTP), we may have increased our BC risk by 40%. Including me personally.


It’s nothing new to some of us that major medical journals ignore many if not all of the studies that have shown increased risk of breast cancer from having had an abortion. And the NCI isn’t the only scientific  journal blacking out this kind of research: the UK’s Lancet and Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention are keeping NCI company in that endeavor.

But what if it’s a study for which the NCI itself granted funds? At the NCI, it appears that if it doesn’t completely exonerate abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer, even its own funded study gets the deep six.

I wasn’t even looking for this specific study, but it popped up in a Google search for something else I was researching over a week ago. I'd written it then, was just waiting some final vetting before publishing it.


It shows, on a "Grant Listing for Fiscal Year: 2000" that a proposal originated with a Dr. De-Kun K. Li, MD, PhD, MPH, (510) 891-3755 of Kaiser Foundation Research Institute of Oakland, California. He’s no Ivy Leaguer but doesn't appear to be a slouch either: medical training and Masters in Public Health at Shanghai Medical University, China; PhD Epidemiology from Seattle’s University of Washington. Research areas include "pregnancy outcomes, women's health, breast cancer" since 1984. And he’s an associate editor with American Journal of Epidemiology.

He proposed this:


(Adapted from the Applicant's Abstract): Induced abortion has been associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, but only a small number of well-conducted studies have reported on the relationship. A key challenge to the findings reported in those studies concerns the possible inaccuracy of self-reported information on induced abortion: Breast cancer cases may have been more willing than women without a life-threatening illness to report their history of abortion, resulting in spurious, positive findings. We propose a population-based case- control study to examine the relationship. To increase the accuracy of information on induced abortion, the study will be conducted in Shanghai, China, where induced abortion is not stigmatized and where family planning records document reproductive history. All women aged 54 years and younger, newly diagnosed with breast cancer during 1997 through mid-1999 and resident in Shanghai, will be identified through the population-based Shanghai Cancer Registry. The same number of age- matched controls will be randomly selected from the population of the geographic area. Approximately 1,470 cases and 1,470 controls will be interviewed to ascertain the number, timing, and outcome of all pregnancies; other reproductive, menstrual, and contraceptive characteristics; family history of breast cancer; and other risk factors for breast cancer. In addition, we will abstract the reproductive records dept for each participant by the Family Planning Committee. They contain a detailed history of each pregnancy and will be used to enhance the accuracy of the information on induced abortion. Medical records will be requested to obtain information on a history of benign breast disease and use of breast-cancer screening services. The association of induced and spontaneous abortion with breast cancer risk will be examined in relation to age at abortion, parity, and timing of the abortion (before and after first full-term pregnancy, interval to next full-term pregnancy, gestational age.) Should a relationship with induced abortion be found, it will be possible to provide women who are contemplating abortion better information on the possible risks of the procedure in relation to age, parity, and timing of the procedure. [Emphasis mine]
Of course, I couldn’t resist going hunting. Was it ever given grant money? Did it ever occur? If so, where—and what—were the results?


This shows that it did receive an NCI grant in 2000, under the heading "Complete Cancer Control Research Listing: Grants Funded in Fiscal Year 2000, Grants 301 to 400 of 728." The link on the study’s case number brings you to PubMed, all right, but not to the abstract of the study’s results or anything related to it.

That link does show that Dr. Li has published extensively: 6 pages are filled with just titles of his research studies, but not one of the 32 published since he proposed that study was this one on induced abortion and breast cancer.


I dug a little deeper. This NCI webpage says of the abstract and the alleged study:
"No Publications available. * Please note that not all grants have publications listed in PubMed, and the listing of publications in PubMed may not be complete."

NCI Screenshot-"No Publications available" Posted by Picasa

Yet Googling (with ""Li, De-Kun" "induced abortion" breast" as my search string) came up with it, the very last hit on three pages of hits, in this publication, accessed July 11, 2005, "ABSTRACTS of the Society for Epidemiologic Research," published by The American Journal of Epidemiology, and presented at The 36th Annual Meeting Of The Society For Epidemiologic Research in Atlanta, Georgia June 11–14, 2003.

Just a little over two years ago.

Now, in final-editing my report on July 21, the PDF of that Abstract Journal is no longer available online:
“Not Found. The requested URL /meeting_03/abstractbook.pdf was not found on this server."
The plot thickens.

Well, as of right this moment, 8:57 PM, July 21, 2005, it is available in HTML form here. Let’s see how much longer that lasts online.

Here’s the screenshot of it:

Dr. Li's Abstract from SER Annual Meeting Journal-2003 Posted by Picasa
UPDATE 7/26/05: on this DEEP SIXED article:
A woman named MaureenM commented over at Dawn Patrol blog on this and it is worth adding to the report. She has a Master of Public Health degree in Chronic Disease Epidemiology.

She apparently reviewed hardcopy journals and verified what I'd suspected: that Li's study, while published in the 2003 SER Meeting Abstract Journal, never made it to a peer-reviewed medical journal such as the AJE or the International Journal of Cancer. So NCI didn't lie with the "No Publications Available" webpage because that statement referred only to published medical journal publications, not to SER Meeting Abstract publications such as the one I found.

So I stand corrected on that. Another publication was available (the SER's study abstracts presented at the 2003 meeting), it just wasn't what NCI considers part of its published studies list.

[The government did fund that study for about five years, Maureen found, and why it didn't publish is a question on which she and I disagreed. That discussion and another intriguing discovery are posted here.]
Have we heard of Li's study? I sure hadn’t. Not even Dr. Li’s own AJE published it or put it on its online database, and now the PDF file of the Meeting Journal is gone from their website only 9 days later, and perhaps earlier than that?

UPDATE 7/23/05: Alert reader Macht at Prosthesis Blog made a great finding:
I found a copy of the missing pdf at the Internet Web Archive:
I don't know how long the Google cache stays, but the documents at the Archive aren't supposed to be deleted.
Macht | Homepage | 07.22.05 - 9:07 pm | #
I guess we shall see.

I'd checked Breast Cancer Prevention Institute’s site, headed by Drs. Joel Brind, Angela Lanfranchi, et. al. Checked Dr. David Reardon’s research site. Checked the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons website. Nothing.

That last group issued a press release, interestingly, two months after that AJE/SER annual conference, in which they cited an article by one of the AAPS researchers, saying,
The author found that the web pages of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and leading American and Canadian cancer organizations contain false statements, misrepresentation, and omissions in their discussions. Yet when pressured by scientists to post studies that show a 2.4 fold increase in breast cancer risk, pro-choice activist cried foul, accusing them of using "pro-life scare tactics." Equally astounding is the fact that most of the 15 American studies were funded at least in part by the NCI, and 13 of them found increased risk. [emphasis mine] For their efforts to inform women about the studies that the NCI forgot to mention, the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer was compared to the Taliban in a newspaper.
So the NCI won’t put this study, nor many others, on its websites. Why not?


The abstract of the obscure Shanghai study appears almost at the very end (page 107 of 111 in that PDF file), on a page titled "S102 SER Abstracts:"
INDUCED ABORTION (IA) AND BREAST CANCER RISK: A POPULATION-BASED STUDY IN CHINA. *D-K. Li, E. Gao, J. Wu, Z. Zhang, L. Liu, and L. Herrinton. (Division of Research, Kaiser Foundation Research Institute, Oakland, California 94612)

To determine whether IA increases breast cancer risk, the authors conducted a population-based case-control study in Shanghai, China where IA is not stigmatized and a history of IA can be verified through the family planning records. Cases with incident invasive epithelial breast cancer were identified from Shanghai Cancer Registry from 1999 – 2001. Controls were frequency-matched to cases on age from the Shanghai resident registry. We interviewed 1441 cases and 1573 controls with a participation rate of 94.1% among eligible cases and 88.5% among eligible controls. A self-reported history of IA was verified with family planning records with a 97% agreement. After adjustment for confounders, ever [sic] IA did not increase the breast cancer risk among women with at least one pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.0, 95% confidence interval: 0.8, 1.2). However, a slightly increased risk of breast cancer was associated with having two IAs and age at the first IA >= 35. These associations were stronger among women age < 45: aOR=1.6 (1.1, 2.2) for two IAs, and aOR = 1.7 (1.0, 3.0) for first IA at age >= 35. The timing of IA in relation to full-term pregnancy (FTP) was also associated with breast cancer risk: aOR = 1.4 (1.0, 1.9) for IA before the last FTP. This association was particular [sic] strong for women who also had the first IA at age >= 35: aOR = 6.3 (1.8, 21.9) although the number of subjects in this group was small. Our study suggests that overall IA does not increase the risk of breast cancer. However, certain characteristics of IA and its relation to FTP may increase the risk of breast cancer, especially among young women.
A hint: the Odds Ratio gives a measure of the direction (increased or decreased) and strength of the association between Induced Abortion (IA) and breast cancer risk. OR=1 means no association.


I find two things quite striking. The phrase "age >= 35" reads "age greater than or equal to 35," but the abstract's last sentence appears to contradict this, referring to increasing breast cancer risks "especially among young women." Follow closely: the results as reported do show increased risks for the spectrum of young and old ages in some criterion or another.

Secondly, the research groups do not discuss statistical significance of these numbers. If these numbers were statistically not significant, meaning relatively meaningless thus not proving that abortion increases breast cancer risk, they would have said so and would have published them as "proof" there is no link between abortion and breast cancer.

Without talking to the researchers or finding anything to clarify the following either way, it would seem that since they refer to "pregnancy" and then to "full-term pregnancy (FTP)", then this finding—"IA did not increase the breast cancer risk among women with at least one pregnancy"—means that if a woman had a FTP (i.e., gave birth to a live baby) sometime before but not after an induced abortion, then the prior childbirth may have significantly ameliorated any increase in risk the IA caused. The two events, IA and FTP very well may have "cancelled each other out."

Apparently, this is not news:
"[Dr. Joel] Brind identified two abortion-related breast cancer risks, one of which isn't disputed. Childbirth significantly reduces breast cancer risk, an effect universally recognized by experts and known for centuries. Only the independent link (whether abortion leaves women with more cancer-vulnerable lobules than they had before pregnancy) is debated."
Summarizing the study’s findings:

a) Among women aged 54 or younger, having one abortion after already having at least one baby did not increase breast cancer risk. Nor did it decrease it, apparently.

b) "a slightly increased risk of breast cancer was associated with having two IAs [with] age at the first IA >= 35" (i.e., 35 or older), but they do not give the adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) so we don’t know what percentage their risk is increased in this case. Dubious abstracting, in my book.

c) Breast cancer risk was increased 60% for women who had had their second IA under the age of 45 [aOR=1.6 (1.1, 2.2)]. If preferred, one can reword this to the synonymous, "A woman in this category is 60% more likely to develop breast cancer."

d) BC risk was increased 70% for those with two IAs if they had their first IA at or above age 35 [aOR = 1.7 (1.0, 3.0)].

e) BC risk was increased 40% in women having one IA prior to their (last) FTP [aOR = 1.4 (1.0, 1.9)].

f) and in women having more than one abortion, BC risk may have been increased by 730% if their first IA was: at or above age 35 AND preceded their first FTP ["This association was particular [sic] strong for women who also had the first IA at age >= 35: aOR = 6.3 (1.8, 21.9)"], although they admit the number of women in this subgroup was small.


I did strike some possible paydirt at the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer which shows that some other group from The University of South Carolina either re-reviewed this study’s results or tried to replicate it themselves, and apparently published their findings in the June 2000 American Journal of Epidemiology (although I could not find it online, not even at their website).

The numbers of subjects and control cases are similar but not the same (Li had 1441 cases and 1573 controls with 1355 cases and 1392 controls participating, vs. USC’s 1459 cases and 1556 controls with 1327 and 1400 participating respectively). And it doesn’t identify Dr. Li or Kaiser at all, which is highly irregular in the research world, as he takes full credit for his team for this study on his own website. I don’t know why any of this would be so similar and yet so cryptic... wants to hide from the public the true identity of the original team and their funding relationship with the NCI.

And the timeline is suspect: if the study actually was completed and published in mid-2000, why was it never made available online, and why was it only presented in the abstracts of the SER’s Annual Meeting in mid-2003?

This is what the USC team wrote in its abstract:
Abortion history and breast cancer risk:
Amer J Epidemiology, June 1, 2000;151 (11)
M Sanderson, XO Shu, F Jin, Q Dai, WQ Wen, Y Hui, YT Gao, W Zheng (University of South Carolina, SC, 29208)

Studies of the association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk have been inconsistent, perhaps due to suspected underreporting of abortions. Induced abortion is a well-accepted family control procedure in China, and women who have several induced abortions do not feel stigmatized. The authors used data from a population case-control study of breast cancer among women age 25 to 64 conducted between 1996 and 1998 in urban Shanghai to assess whether a history and number of induced abortions was related to breast cancer risk. In-person interviews were completed with 1459 incident breast cancer cases ascertained through a population-based cancer registry, and 1556 controls randomly selected from the general population in Shanghai (with respective response rates of 91% and 90%). After adjusting for confounding, there was no relation between ever having had an induced abortion and breast cancer (odds ratio [OR] 1.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.8-1.2). While women who had 3 or more induced abortions were not at increased risk of premenopausal breast cancer (OR 0.9; 95% CI 0.6-1.3) there was an elevated risk of postmenopausal breast cancer (OR 1.6, 95% CI 0.9-2.8). Among women whose first birth was at age 26 or older, the effect of having 3 or more abortions differed by menopausal status (premenopausal : OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.8; postmenopausal: OR 1.7, 95% CI 0.9-3.3). These results suggest that a history of several induced abortions may influence risk of premenopausal and postmenopausal breast cancer differently.
So this review found that women with only one IA didn’t significantly increase their breast cancer risk. But this contradicts Finding "e", above, in the original study.

The USC team also found that those with 3 or more IAs increased their risk of postmenopausal breast cancer by about 60% (OR 1.6, 95% CI 0.9-2.8). And among women giving birth for their very first time after age 25 who also had had three IAs, once they eventually reached menopause, they had a 70% increased breast cancer risk (OR 1.7, 95% CI 0.9-3.3).

By the way, there are many research studies on that Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer webpage; the colorful graphs are quick-read jaw-droppers. Go. Just look at those, if nothing else. The graphs show the A/BC link studies published at the time of the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s huge cancer workshop in 2003. The epidemiological evidence shows massive reporting of increased risk from abortion (blue bars), where red bars show studies reporting varying percentages of decreased risk.


The Shanghai results don’t really address the question left unanswered: Does abortion without having ANY prior or later childbirth significantly increase breast cancer risk, or not? It’s a huge question, for example, in my own case, where I had an IA and then 11 years later, had my only living child. Does that mean the increased risk associated with my IA had eleven years to take hold in me? I don’t know, but it certainly is a question in my mind.

Perhaps that wasn’t possible to determine in the scope of the study. Perhaps in China, with government-dictated and/or sanctioned forced abortions and the enormous desire to have a son, there were few if any women with only induced abortions and no children. Perhaps most have IAs after they’ve already had a child.

The original study seems to exonerate a single abortion’s effect on increasing breast cancer risk if one has already given birth to another child. The second "study" exonerates single-abortion risk entirely. Yet no one shouted these findings from the rooftops, put them readily available online or sent press releases to every Tom, Dan and Peter. If the findings were so true and showed that abortion is not associated with greater risk of breast cancer, they would have been mass-emailed to NARAL, Planned Parenthood, N.O.W., National Abortion Federation, FMF, MoveOn and most Democrats in elected office nationwide. Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy would have been high-fiving each other in the halls outside Senate chambers.

Comparing these reported results with The Allan Guttmacher Institute’s and CDC’s population and abortion statistics (discussed and linked below), maybe these are the reasons why that PR campaign didn't happen:
  1. As many as (or maybe many more than) 4,262,500 total U.S. women who have had 3 or more abortions between 1983 and 2002 have increased our risk of postmenopausal breast cancer by about 60 to 70%, according to that NCI-funded but secretive study.
  2. Of the 6,500,000 total women who’ve had two abortions each, those of us who were under 45 at the time of our second IA increased our breast cancer risk by 60%. Those who had our first of two IAs at or above age 35 increased BC risk 70%.
  3. Among the 13,850,000 U.S. women who’ve had one abortion, of those having that abortion prior to our (last) live birth (FTP), we increased our BC risk by 40%.
  4. Of the 10,762,500 of us who'd had more than one abortion, if we had the "first" (which presumably means "of more than one") abortion when we were 35 or older and then later gave birth, we may have increased our BC risk by a possible 730%. The population examined in that last data point was admittedly small, so that result should be taken with reservation and clearly warrants future research.

The only way to know exactly how many total women in the U.S. have had one, two or more abortions at any point, is to ask us all.

Instead, I applied the approximate percentages (from CDC and Allan Guttmacher Institute reports, discussed below) to the total number of U.S. women who have had legal abortions—typically believed to be about 25,000,000 as of 2003.

I'm not sure if this is fact or fiction, but this site writes that, according to "Gloria Alred...the famous (or infamous) feminist attorney best known for her advocacy of abortion-on-demand, tax-funded abortion, homosexual rights, and sexual harassment lawsuits: 'Just look at how many have had abortions themselves. It’s about thirty million'", but we'll stick with the 25 million for now.

Guttmacher doesn’t seem to want us to know since then we’d be able to be 100% certain about easy calculations like the following:
  1. 1,662,500 U.S. women in total (or ~6.65%, the average of 5.8% and 7.5%, see CDC lists below) have had four or more abortions.
  2. 2,600,000 (or 10.4%; average of 10% and 10.8%) have had three abortions.
  3. 6,500,000 (or 26%; average of 26.4% and 25.5%) have had two.
  4. 13,850,000 (or 55.4%; average of 56.2% and 54.6%) have had one.
According to the CDC reports, none of these groups is a subset of one of the others; they are distinct pools.


This CDC Abortion Surveillance Report- 1997 and the accompanying Table 12 are helpful for the percentages they give about repeat abortions for the year 1990. However this data is not sufficient to tell the whole story: the chart’s legend says, "All 36 states for which data are available, the District of Columbia, and New York City; excludes two states where number of unknown previous induced abortions is >15%."

According to the Washington Post, July 19, 2005 article on "Abortion: Just the Data," while AGI’s numbers aren’t hampered by the 36-state limitation of the CDC data, they still are quite inadequate as several states don’t supply their numbers to the totals: "California does not collect abortion data at all. Alaska and New Hampshire have not released statistics since 1998. Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey and the District of Columbia do not mandate abortion reporting."

This also does not take into account the 1989 "report" by Surgeon General Koop that "when compared with the number of abortions performed annually, 50 percent of women who have had an abortion apparently deny having had one when questioned." [Koop C: Letter to President Ronald Reagan concerning the health effects of abortion. Medical and Psychological Impact of Abortion. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989; 9: 68-71]

[Other Koop report posts worth reading here, here and here.]

According to what the CDC does have, then:
  • In 1990, of the states reporting, 26.4% of women having abortions had had one prior abortion.
  • 10% had had two prior abortions.
  • 5.8% had had three prior, or more.
  • 56.2% had had no prior abortions.
  • So of those reporting, 42.2% of those having abortions in 1990 had had at least one prior abortion.
The CDC’s Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2001 report and its Table 13 give us similar percentage data points for the year 2001:
  • In 2001, of the states reporting, 25.5% of women having abortions had had one prior abortion (a 3.4% drop since 1990).
  • 10.8% had had two prior abortions (an 8% increase since 1990).
  • 7.5% had had three prior, or more (a whopping 29.3% increase since 1990).
  • 54.6% had had no prior abortions (an almost 3% drop since 1990).
  • So 43.8% having abortions in 2001 had had at least one prior abortion (a 3.8% increase since 1990).

Adding two Allan Guttmacher Institute reports to the mix helped confirm current total picture and drill-down annual numbers of women with multiple abortions. In a June 2005 report called "An Overview of Abortion in the United States" it co-authored, AGI offers a graph called "Who Has Abortions: Prior Pregnancies" showing that, in 2002, 12% of women having abortions have had one prior at least, plus another 36% have had one prior abortion and one prior birth.

So in the single year 2002, a total of 48% of women having an abortion had had one already, or about 624,000 women that year. That's a one-year increase of 9.6% over 2001, and a 13.7% jump over 1990.

Then AGI’s "Trends in Abortion in the United States, 1973–2002, © January 2003" offers this chart on page 12, called "Many women obtaining abortions have had previous abortions, but the proportion has stabilized over time." The background AGI report is found here: 2001-2002: Finer LB and Henshaw SK, Estimates of U.S. abortion incidence in 2001 and 2002, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, 2005.

I would love to see who publishes their dictionary to look up the word "stabilize:"
  • The percentage of repeaters climbed 15.3%, from 39% to about 45% of women having abortions between 1983 and 2000.
  • The increase was even steeper from 1974 through 1983 (increasing from 18% repeaters to 39%, a 116% skyrocket).
  • The numbers rose steadily all the way from 1974 through 1997 with only two slight breaks.
  • Lastly, the first AGI 2005 chart linked to above showed that as of 2002, it increased to 48%.
A 13.7% increase over the most recent 12 years is "stabilized"? Nice spin, if you can get it, AGI.


For the numbers of women in a given year, I used the CDC’s stated percentages of prior abortions reported to compare with the AGI graph titled, "The annual number of legal abortions increased through the 1970s, leveled off in the 1980s and fell in the 1990s." This is found on page 2 of the above-linked "Trends in Abortion in the United States, 1973–2002, © January 2003" report. This graph shows total yearly legal abortion numbers from 1970 through 2002 (again, bearing in mind that huge abortion states like California are not accurately counted in these data). What follows are the results of multiplying the above percentages of women having had multiple abortions with the total numbers having an abortion in any given year from 1983 through 2002:
  1. 88,970 to 112,500 women a year reported this was their fourth or higher abortion (at or between 5.8% and 7.5% of total abortions each year).
  2. 130,000 to 161,000 (10% to 10.8%) women a year reported this was their third abortion.
  3. 328,000 to 425,000 (25.5% to 26.4%) women a year reported this was their second abortion.
Once again, these numbers maybe only represent half of the true figures, if reporting is only 50% accurate.


Keep in mind, this only summarizes the scant verbiage in the two abstracts available. It seems to me there is information missing from both.
  1. As many as (or maybe many more than) 4,262,500 U.S. women (2,600,000, or 10.4%, with 3 abortions; 1,662,500 or ~6.65%, with 4 or more in the 20 years between 1983 and 2002) have a 60% increased risk of postmenopausal breast cancer, or if we also had our very first birth after age 25, that risk was increased another 10%, to 70%.
  2. Of the 6,500,000 U.S. women who’ve had two abortions, we had either a 60% increased breast cancer risk (if we were under the age of 45 at the time of our second IA), or a 70% increased BC risk (if we had the first of two IAs at or above age 35).
  3. Among the 13,850,000 U.S. women who’ve had one abortion, of those having that abortion prior to our (last) live birth (FTP), we increased our BC risk by 40%.
  4. Of the 10,762,500 of us who'd had more than one abortion, if we had the "first" (which presumably means "of more than one") abortion when we were 35 or older and then later gave birth, we may have increased our BC risk by a possible 730%. The population examined in that last data point was admittedly small, so that result should be taken with reservation and clearly warrants future research.
Neither abstract gave any indication whether any of this was scientifically "significant" in the statistical sense, which is the key to any result’s viability. Still, had it been "not statistically significant," I am quite certain they would have said so, and published it widely.

Whether it's scientifically significant, do I think having increased my own personal breast cancer likelihood by 40% is "significant?" You bet.


And although we’re but small voices in the paltry, un-medical-schooled majority, I wonder if a short note to our friendly Associated Press, the local newspaper editor as well as to National Cancer Institute Director Andrew C. von Eschenbach, M.D., wouldn’t be in order. Nicely and respectfully worded, as always. Even if this cover-up didn’t start on his watch (he became Director in January 2002), he still was "president-elect of the American Cancer Society at the time of his appointment to the NCI." Now we know how the NCI can be so much "in agreement" with the ACS in their mutual fight to protect abortion and the $1.3 billion abortion industry in this country.

The NCI has a contact webform page, but I think I’ll also snailmail the good Doctor von Eschenbach.

Andrew C. von Eschenbach, M.D.
Director, National Cancer Institute
U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH)
9000 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, Maryland 20892

I’d really like to know how long they think they can get away with this parlor game of "Hide the Research."

UPDATE: Another intriguing discovery and more questions raised are posted here.]
0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Traducir todo esto en español, o cualquier otro idioma, copiar las palabras, y luego ir aquí y pegarlo en el cuadro en el lado izquierdo de la página, a continuación, haga clic en el idioma que desee en el lado derecho de la página y haga clic en el derecha botón azul para traducir.

NOTICES (Freedoms of Religion/Speech/Press, Copyrights, Fair Use) at bottom

NATIONAL REVIEW Online's The Corner ~ Kathryn Jean Lopez links to Ap blog, 1/22/07

Associated Press/San Francisco Chronicle: Banno On Boxer and the Illegal Abortion Deaths Urban Legend

San Diego Union Tribune: more Boxer Urban-Legend-Debunk coverage

Ellen Goodman retraction impetus: Aa blog initiates The Straight Dope coverage...and is listed in National Review Senior Editor Ramesh Ponnuru's book The Party of Death, p. 255, Chap. 3 Endnote #11,   4/2006

NY Daily News: "Atheist's Site Is All The Rave

"After Abortion, by Emily Peterson and Annie Banno, two women who had abortions in the 1970s, ...tries to avoid the political tug-of-war that tends to come with this turf. They concentrate instead on discussing the troubling personal effects of abortion on the mothers." ~ Eric Scheske, Godspy contributing editor, in NC Register's "Signs of Life in the Blogosphere", 2/2006

"Godbloggers could, in the best of worlds, become the new apologists...[including] laymen with day jobs: Emily Peterson and Annie Banno, for instance, at the blog After Abortion..."~ Jonathan V. Last, The Weekly Standard online editor, in First Things's "God on the Internet", 12/2005

Amy Welborn, at BeliefNet, links to AfterAbortion blog's Crime & Abortion Series

Catholic News Service: Silent counterprotest at the March For Choice

COMMENTING   Also see Harris Protocol. Correspondence is bloggable unless requested otherwise.
E-mail                Joy

Who We Are        Hiatus Interruptus
NOTICES (Freedoms of Religion/Speech/Press, Copyrights, Fair Use) at bottom

4,800 confidential groups helping now.

We are too. Here are folks who can help:

Feeling Really Bad?: Call
1-800-SUICIDE (784-2433)
& a friend, right now.

Suicide Hope Lines: U.S.A. (by state) or call 1-800-Suicide (784-2433)

Suicide Help - Canada: "If you can't find a crisis centre near you, any of the 24-hour tollfree numbers in your province will be able to help."

UK, ROI: 08457 90 90 90 ,

Suicide Helplines in over 40 other countries

George & Linda Zallie, Stacy's parents, "assisting women who made the difficult choice of ending their pregnancy in finding nonjudgmental help" for suicidal feelings.

For immediate help, call tollfree, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week: national, confidential, post-abortion-recovery hotlines:
1-877-HOPE-4-ME or
1-866-482-5433 or

...more help below...

"I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion...[many are] aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and [do] not doubt that it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace...You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child..."

Hope after Abortion
Ideas for Healing
Rachel's Vineyard Retreats
(non-Christians, even non-religious do attend; they also have interdenominational retreats designed expressly for people of any religion or no religion)
Abortion Recovery
"Entering Canaan" - a ministry of reverence for women and men who suffer following an abortion
Lumina - Hope & Healing After Abortion
Option Line
Books that help
(includes non-religious Post Abortion recovery books)
In Our Midst
For MEN - Resources List
     ** UPDATED 2015 **

Message boards, chat rooms &
   e-groups ** UPDATED 2015 **

Regional & local resources
         ** UPDATED 2015 **

Silent No More Awareness Campaign
After Abortion
Welcome! Our sidebar continues at great length, just below the "MORE HILLARY BACKPEDALS" section, with many links to helpful, respect-life folks of all shapes, sizes, minds & creeds, science, research, stories & just.plain.stuff. Just text-search or browse. But grab a cup of Joe first.

FULL-SEARCH AbortionPundit:

Powered by


"Do As We Say, Republicans, Not As We Do" - All 8 Parts

Why NOT Hillary?

  1. Abortion Rhetoric Backpedal
  2. Chicago Tribune: "Our hero: Hillary Clinton, the last truth bender"
  3. Rapper Timbaland's $800K and "Ho's" lyrics
  4. Criminal "fugitive", media-ignored Hsu
  5. $5K per Kid
  6. Criminal Berger
  7. "I remember landing under sniper fire...we just ran with our heads down."...
  8. ...and other false claims on her Foreign Policy "chops"

The sidebar continues...

(Below, 320-Links Sidebar Reorg In Progress: Thank You For Your Patience)



Obama On Abortion: A Summary 1990-2009

1) Obama Is 2nd-Highest-Paid Politician by Fannie Mae, Taking $126,346 in only 4 years as Senator; Now Derides GOP/Bush for Allowing Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac To Do Business, When It Was Democrat Presidents Bill Clinton & Jimmy Carter Who Passed The Law Requiring Fannie & Freddie To Give Out Bad Subprime Loans To Those Who Couldn't Afford Them, Which Caused The Entire Financial Meltdown … 2) Jim Johnson (Obama VEEP vetter and former Fannie Mae executive who made millions there) Backpedal … 3) Obama's hiring, connection, support of ACORN, which supported that very law and whose staff have been involved in voter fraud … 4) Rezko's Favor A "Boneheaded" Mistake … 5) Jeremiah Wright Backpedal … 6) Fr. Michael Fleger Backpedal … 7) NAFTA Backpedal … 8) Campaign Financing Backpedal … 9) Mr. "Negotiates-With-Terrorist-States" … 10) Bittergate … 11) Hamas' Chief Political Adviser Hopes BO Will Win Election … 12) Banning Handguns Backpedal … 13) Who Exactly Are "The Rich" He's Going to Sock it to? … 14) Flag Pin Backpedal … 15) Once Open to School Vouchers That Work, Now Deadset Against … 16) Now OK with residual force in Iraq...up to 50,000 troops. … 17) First voted against a law protecting babies who survive an abortion procedure, then lied saying he didn't, then finally forced to admit that he did vote to deny such born babies protection. 18) … "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country." ~ MO

Region-specific blogs of note: Washington, Midwest, California, Connecticut, Canada (adding as we get the time)


Atom Site Feed

Powered by Blogger

FREEDOM OF RELIGION, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS NOTICES: From its inception in 2005 forward, the postings on this site are the co-bloggers' own personal opinions, observations and research, do not reflect or represent the views of any employer(s), past, present or future, nor do/will they relate in any manner to said employer(s) or their businesses at any point in time. The writings expressed herein are protected expression by virtue of the First Amendment of the United States of America and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in particular Articles 18 and 19, signed by the U.S.A. in 1948:

1) The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

"The Free Exercise Clause reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. The wording in the free-exercise clauses of state constitutions that religious “[o]pinion, expression of opinion, and practice were all expressly protected” by the Free Exercise Clause.[1] The clause protects not just religious beliefs but actions made on behalf of those beliefs. More importantly, the wording of state constitutions suggest that “free exercise envisions religiously compelled exemptions from at least some generally applicable laws.”[2] The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons."

2) Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by the U.S.A. in 1948, states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

3) Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of the physical, emotional, social and spiritual negative effects of abortion on women, men and families, and to provide resources for help and information to anyone experiencing these effects or trying to help those who are. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.

"COPYRIGHT NOTICE: This weblog is Copyright © 2005 - 2021 - Annie Banno - All Rights Reserved. "Skews" Reporting ™ is a trademark of Annie Banno Copyright © 2004 - 2021. All Rights Reserved. All original content by the weblog author(s) is protected by copyright(s). This includes writings, artwork, photographs, and other forms of authorship protected by current U.S. Copyright Law, especially as described in Sections 102(a) and 103. PERMISSION GRANTED FOR UNLIMITED BUT NON-COMMERCIAL AND ONLY RESPECTING-ALL-HUMAN-LIFE USE. CREDIT REQUIRED. No rights in any copyrighted material, whether exclusive or non-exclusive, may be transferred in the absence of a written agreement that is the product of the parties' negotiations, fully approved by independent counsel retained by the author(s) and formally executed with manual signatures by all parties to the agreement pursuant to the statutory requirements of Section 204(a) of current U.S. Copyright Law, Federal Copyright Act of 1976, appendices and provisions."

Since 6/13/2005