Haha. Yeah, I came across this is in my morning news rounds. I didn't even bother to read the article when I saw that every story on the subject was from an anti-choice "news" group.

This sort of thing is so infuriating. We just had a discussion about this topic in my journalism class, about how those performing studies are influenced by the funding they've received in the past or obviously what they are receiving during the study. It makes me not want to trust any kind of study, really!

Anyone with half a brain could see that this study is deeply flawed - the "fact" that countries with more abortions have more cases with breast cancer is pretty meaningless. First off, it's a correlation, not a causation. Second, they didn't look at individual women, just the aggregate data, which proves nothing - nowhere did they find a direct link between individual women who had abortions and then developed breast cancer. I know, I know, trying to point out the utter lack of scientific method to these people is a useless exercise...but my rational self can't just let these idiotic, anti-choice studies stand without saying something.

Hey, LaurieAnne, say more about that. Something that I've always wondered about is how much training journalists get interpreting research. Is there a course that takes this on in j-school? Or a lecture? Or a discussion??

For example, there is a qualitative difference between research published but the Guttmacher Institute and that published by the Elliot Institute. But on the surface, both appear to be research institutions with a definite perspective. However, scratch just a little and you'll see that the experience and methodologies of researchers at each organization is dramatically different. Guttmacher's public health experts are highly trained and produce original research, while the director of the Elliot Institute has a degree from the unaccredited Pacific Western University. And his "research" involves manipulating others' data in a way that creates unsubstantiated findings. But if a reporter saw his paper in a journal, would she be able to recognize the flaws in his methodologies?

And is there a difference between research funded by the Packard Foundation and research funded by the oil industry, if they both produce sound science?

"The forecast predicted 100.5 percent of the cancers observed in 2003…�
At the very (very) high risk of sounding dumb (I never took stats) – isn’t there something wrong with this? Predicting more than the actual pool of available data? Of course, we don’t get the number of cases, nor her fabulous forecasting formula…

"The increase in breast cancer incident appears to be best explained by an increase in abortion rates, especially nulliparous abortions, and lower fertility."
Tisk, tisk – I better put these hips into good use and start popping out babies!

And just in case you didn’t see where this was going…

"But she said it's not hopeless for those who have had abortions. 'There are things women can do to bring down the risk,' she said, including having a child. 'Increased child bearing, starting at a younger age, this is the very best way to prevent breast cancer.'

I wonder how she would explain obstetric fistulas…

But she said it's not hopeless for those who have had abortions. 'There are things women can do to bring down the risk,' she said, including having a child. 'Increased child bearing, starting at a younger age, this is the very best way to prevent breast cancer.'

Oh that is *precious*. She might has well have recommended pledging virginity and finding Jesus too.

It shows, that among risk factors, abortion is the "best predictor of breast cancer." The results show that countries with higher abortions rates, such as England and Wales, higher breast cancer incidence is reported. "Where abortion rates are low (i.e. Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic) a smaller increase is expected," the study said.

I want to send these findings to my former Research Methods professor just to infuriate him. Probably the biggest flaw is that they failed to recognize a probable confounding variable: Socioeconimic status. Poor women are more likely to get abortions, more likely to smoke, and less likely to eat a healthy (i.e., cancer fighting) diet.

Other studies that show the same "link" made the mistake of asking women who had breast cancer if they've ever had an abortion. Well, lots of women have had abortions -- nearly half! The same link could be made if you asked women who had breast cancer if they've ever eaten spinach, visited New York City, or gone fishing. Studies that followed women who had abortions to track their health show no link between abortion and breast cancer.

But the idea is not totally unfounded. After an abortion, miscarriage, or birth, hormone levels increase, which puts women at a risk for breast cancer for as long as those hormone levels are increased. So if pro-life "scientists" are going to claim that abortion is bad because it increases the breast cancer risk, they should say the same about miscarriage and birth.

'Increased child bearing, starting at a younger age, this is the very best way to prevent breast cancer.

Oh, well, that's a good reason to have a kid. "Let's see...I really don't like children, don't want to become a mother, and don't have the resources to support myself and a kid in a decent way--but I hear it might prevent cancer! Well, what the hell, then! It's like eating a bran muffin! Thank goodness there are no actual risks to me from pregnancy and childbirth!"

"But she said it's not hopeless for those who have had abortions. 'There are things women can do to bring down the risk,' she said, including having a child. 'Increased child bearing, starting at a younger age, this is the very best way to prevent breast cancer.'

"I wonder how she would explain obstetric fistulas…"

Of course, she who dies of childbirth complications at 15 less likely to die of breast cancer than she who makes it to adulthood...

'But she said it's not hopeless for those who have had abortions.
"There are things women can do to bring down the risk," she said, including having a child. "Increased child bearing, starting at a younger age, this is the very best way to prevent breast cancer."'

hahaha...i am SO glad that this also caught everyone's attention...

i didn't see any ACTUAL evidence...am i missing something...i am no scientist...but shit...how do you run a control for that...ask a bunch of women who haven't had abortions if they have breast cancer? i am pretty sure that this same link can be found b/t breast cancer and BC, menopause, and normal childbirth...and since we know that the medical industry terms miscarriage and abortion as the same thing medically, i wonder how many of these women had "spontaneous" abortions, aka miscarriages. or how many of those women hit puberty at a young age, cuz hear that is a contributing factor as well...this is a garbage study. it ignores a lot of facts and seems to twist data...

i should have been warned when i noticed the article was in WND, since that is where this anti-choice blogger i read (b/c apparently i like torturing myself) to keep up w/ her crazy anti-logic writes her crap. i am sure that they didn't twist it at all...(/sarcasm)

The "abortion causes breast cancer" propaganda makes me go Rasheed. The anti-choice lies linking abortion and breast cancer is irresponsible journalism at its worst. I think it is time for Congress to issue a resolution condemning anyone who flat out lies about abortion increasing the risk of breast cancer.

How about anyone who flat out lies about abortion period? Pro-life organizations wouldn't exist if they didn't lie or seriously stretch the truth. They lie about health risks related to abortion and how abortions are performed. They have to make it like third-trimester "partial birth" abortions are the norm, because it's much easier to get someone against "sucking out the brain of babies;" no one who already doesn't think so is going to be convinced that a zygote is a person. Basically, pro-lifers are in the lie-making business. And if abortion is sooo bad, why lie about it?

They're STILL pushing that "abortion leads to breast cancer" crap? Sigh. The sad thing is that it is, sort of, true. The more months that you are not pregnant after menarche, the more likely that you will develop breast cancer, due to the higher levels of estrogen in your body. If you have an abortion, you're not pregnant any more and have added months to your total. But they could also say that "abstinence leads to breast cancer." Because it does--if you're abstinent, you're not going to get pregnant,and there will be more estrogen-filled months in your life, raising your risk of breast cancer. Funny how they don't say that part.

"They're STILL pushing that 'abortion leads to breast cancer' crap? Sigh. The sad thing is that it is, sort of, true. The more months that you are not pregnant after menarche, the more likely that you will develop breast cancer, due to the higher levels of estrogen in your body."

...and due to your still being alive. Nothing prevents dying of breast cancer like dying of something else first!

oh this INFURIATES me. as someone who has had breast cancer TWICE, i hate this subtle blaming the victim crap. one can't get breast cancer - one has to have done something WRONG to have gotten it...just like virtuous women are never raped... And OF COURSE abortions are always wrong because babymaking is our main function. (Never mind that MY cancer was presumed to have come 'back' due to a miscarriage.)

Furthermore if one is looking for crappy correlation, there is also a (fortunately singular) study (circa 1996 i think) that says that lesbians are more likely to have a mother or sister who have breast cancer.

So using these dubious studies they can say that either abortions or lesbians cause breast cancer.

i'm not making complete sense because i'm too busy seeing red...or rather seeing pink.

a clarification. i'm not saying that lesbians cause cancer. i'm saying that people can correlate all sorts of wacky things.

the only reason i even found said study is b/c my lesbian sister was teasing me by saying things like "great, get breast cancer and raise MY risk factor by 50%". (We have a sick sense of humor in my family.)

my husband the survey methodologist (really, phd and everything) got online and found the dubious study that i could cite back to her. she calls me 'breeder' (though i've had no kids) and i tell her that she's 'whipped'...

no harm meant to any and all

It never ceases to amaze me how these anti-choice folks will manipulate and/or use science for their benifit only. It's disturbing to say the least.

bailey_comus my sister's favorite term of endearment for me is "ho-bag" and I call her "buttface" - I don't think it's a "sick sense of humor thing" so much as a "very close sisters thing" ; )
ok, maybe we are a little twisted...twisted sisters..HA!

Hmm… I’m thinking her close number of abortions to breast cancer link had more to do with bigger populations (like London vs. N Ireland) and the fact that there are more boobies and uteruses to count in bigger populations. If you get two women in a room together vs. 30, its more likely that someone in the room of 30 will get breast cancer. Does that mean women shouldn’t be in the same room for too long And I LOVED how there were only percentages, no actual figures. Makes everything seem worse.

My statistics class has taught me a lot of shocking information about studies and percentages. Basically my professor said that ALL studies need to be looked at skeptically, and this posting only further proves her point. I am so upset that research is presented in such an unscientific, biased manner.