Do women who kill their unborn babies, sign their own death warrant?

back to the abortion files   back to abortion and breast cancer page

Physician asks if medical providers have no shame... (reprinted with permission of the author)

by Dr Frank Joseph, MD
 

Is it all worth it? The emotional and mental problems that ensue after such a horrible act are devastating. It will torment women the rest of their lives. The evidence is overwhelming, that when you kill your unborn baby -- you may also be killing yourself.

One of the most powerful and prognosticating message s in the Bible is, "Man reaps what he sows." One of these days, people are going to finally wake up and believe it.

Having read everything that I could find on this subject, I must say, that it’s times like these, that I’m ashamed to be in the medical profession. Here are my findings and my comments

Breast cancer has risen dramatically in America by 50% since 1973 and is also increasing worldwide.

Recent studies, have pointed out a dramatic relationship between the rate of abortion and the rising incidence of breast cancer. In fact, as the rate of abortion rises in America, so does the rate of breast cancer, with those women who have aborted having significantly higher rates.

The American Cancer Society reports that one of every nine women in the United States will develop breast cancer by age 85. Breast cancer has become the second major cause of cancer death in women. Some of the risk factors are family history, weight, and diet. But one of the pro-abortion crowd's most closely guarded secrets is the connection between abortion and breast cancer.

The American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute claim that the studies done, that show a link, are inconclusive. Naturally, all of the Pro-abortion groups agree, or is it that the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute agree with the abortion groups. Sometimes it’s difficult to know, which group is running the show.

Ours is truly "THE CULTURE OF DEATH." Not only do we kill 1.4 million unborn babies a year, but now we’re withholding vital information that’s causing the death of thousands of women a year. Without question, every woman should be told of this risk before getting an abortion, even if the risk is only slight, which this is NOT. After all, it’s been ingrained in all of us, by the PCKU, (pro choice to kill the unborn) that a woman should have a free choice in deciding if she wants to kill her unborn baby. How about having a free choice to get all the facts, regarding the killing of oneself?

Why the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute ignore this evidence, is mind boggling. We all know why Planned Parenthood and all the other Pro abortion groups will not accept it. It would be a fatal blow to the lucrative abortion industry.

Women will kill their unborn babies to make their lives easier, but it’s another thing to kill yourself, so their self indulgence would cease, if there is a possibility that their own life is threatened. So it should surprise no one, that the abortion industry is working overtime to keep the truth from the public. And now it seems, that they have the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute, in their hip pockets.

Yet, we are told by the American Cancer Society and the ACI that smoking is linked to a higher risk of breast cancer, even though that direct link has not been found. Smoking affects overall health and increases the risk for many other cancers. They, as well as TV and newspapers tell us that certain foods may increase the risk of cancer. Products have been pulled from the shelves on much less evidence. NONE of these come close to the abortion risk of breast cancer. The abortion link affects the breast cells directly, as you will see later.

The other risks, though not nearly as great as the abortion link, are exposed because they are not political. They will not affect the abortion industry or the current administration's connection to all things that desanctify human life. This is sad -- to expose women to this kind of danger, when it could be easily avoided.

If a group of people, who have proven they have no regard for the sanctity of life, by accepting the proposition that a woman should have the choice to kill her unborn baby, then don’t be surprised when they turn a deaf ear to studies that will save other lives -- the lives of thousands of women who will die, because the medical profession would not tell them the truth of simple facts that anyone could understand.

Isn't the killing of 1.4 million unborn babies a year enough for these people? How do they sleep at night? They act as if there is no God. It’s so simple to tell women that there have been 31 separate studies of induced abortions published worldwide, with 25 showing an increased risk of cancer. Why should the truth be hidden? Let the women decide, after they have all the facts.

But don’t take my word for it, or the words of those who have established the link. You be the judge -- it’s not that complicated. But first, here are the basics, which you may already know. It is estrogen, which is produced in the ovaries, that transforms a young girl into a woman.

The Estrogen Surge

When pregnancy occurs, there is a SURGE of this hormone causing the breast cells to proliferate dramatically in the first trimester, in order to lay the foundation for the production of milk. These young growing cells are more prone to develop cancer. In the second half of pregnancy, the estrogen levels RECEDE under the influence of such hormones as human placental lactogen. The immature cells, then grow and differentiate rapidly into mature, specialized milk producing tissue. Once specialization has occurred, the cells are less likely to turn cancerous.

When the pregnancy is terminated by an induced abortion, these young growing cells (known as undifferentiated cells), and having undergone drastic changes are now in LIMBO. They are no longer normal breast cells, nor are they capable of producing milk.

In plain English, these insulted cells (traumatized) have been hung out to dry. They are between a rock and a hard place. Scientists have known for years that any cell in the human body that has been traumatized, whether by chemicals, radiation, micro-trauma, or any other reason would be especially vulnerable to cancer.

One must then surmise that what has been instilled in physicians heads from time immemorial, regarding the vulnerability of abnormal cells, is no longer valid. To suit their political agenda, they would have you believe that an abnormal cell is NO more prone to becoming cancerous than a normal cell. This defies all scientific knowledge, as well as common sense and shows the depths they will go, to keep the abortion industry flourishing. Human life means nothing to them, whether it be the killing of unborn babies, or women who may die from cancer after they kill their unborn babies.

It has also been long known that a pregnancy carried to term protects against breast cancer. However, if a woman has an induced abortion, this protection is terminated. The reason is because the proliferation of the undifferentiated, cancer-vulnerable cells, by the estrogen secreted early in the pregnancy, no longer has the protection that comes from hormones released later in pregnancy, since the pregnancy has been aborted.

The estrogen/breast cancer risk has been known by doctors for many years, thus their reluctance to prescribe estrogen for menopausal women, especially those with any family history of breast cancer.

Manufacturers of oral contraceptives alert the public as to the possible link between their product and breast cancer. The induced abortion risk is greater than the relative risk associated with oral contraceptives.

Women, who start their periods early and go through menopause late are exposed to more estrogen, because they have more periods. And women who have fewer or no children, are exposed to more surges of estrogen that come with more menstrual cycles. Women who breast feed their babies, also have fewer menstrual cycles, thereby lowering their risk.

Alcohol and foods high in animal fat can increase the blood estrogen level and thus increase the breast cancer risk. Leafy vegetables tend to help a woman, to rid her system of estrogen. As you can see, the estrogen factor is not just in the area of reproduction. We are warned of these risks by the top medical journals and the media. We are told what to eat and not to eat, but the biggest risk of all, the abortion/breast cancer link, they tell us NOTHING.

One common rebuttal offered by the PCKU, is to point out that most of the studies done, have relied on interviewing women and asking them if they have ever had an abortion and asking them if they have been diagnosed with breast cancer, and then comparing their answers. So, the PCKU say, probably women who have breast cancer are more likely to remember or admit that they have had abortions, whereas women who do not have breast cancer may not admit they had an abortion. They call this, "recall bias." I call it, "grasping for straws."

But when your back is to the wall, you’ll try anything, even accusing some women of lying. Women know how important these studies are. They’re not going to lie. It means life or death for thousands of women. After all, they don't have to take part in the study -- they can just refuse, rather than lie. Notice they don’t actually say they’re lying -- they say more likely to remember. As if someone would forget if they kill their unborn baby.

Experiment in Michigan clearly shows abortion - breast cancer link

An experiment done in Michigan in 1980 destroys this theory. According to a report in the American Journal of Pathology, August 1980, pp 497-511, cancer researchers injected a number of pregnant rats with DMBA, a cancer-causing substance. They then aborted half the rats; the other half were allowed to carry their pregnancies to term.

Among the aborted rats, 77% developed breast cancer. Among the term rats, only 5.5% developed breast cancer. Too bad they couldn't interview the rats -- they might have found recall bias.

With all of the above evidence, even without epidemiological data, and given the extremely high estrogen levels experienced by women in the first several weeks of normal pregnancy, which doctors have always known -- for the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute to say that the link is inconclusive is not only repugnant, but in my book, it’s CRIMINAL.

But we DO have epidemiological data to prove it. 10 of 11 studies in the United States have proven it and 31 out of 35 world wide.

Most doctors are so busy that their reading time is limited. They depend on a few journals. One that is widely read is the NEJM, (New England Journal Of Medicine.) As far as I know, they have not published any study that has shown the abortion/cancer link. And yet this journal publishes cancer links that DON'T come close to the ABC link. Certainly they can put their space to better use.

The other day, I called an Oncologist (one who specializes in the diagnosis and treatment and prevention of tumors.), I wanted to get his opinion on the abortion/cancer link. To my surprise, he said, he had never heard of it and referred me to another doctor. Needless to say, I didn’t call him, I had heard enough. If the most famous medical journal, the NEJM, will not publish this life saving information, then the doctors who only read this journal will not know of the abortion/cancer risk.

A 1996 study carried out in the Netherlands found almost a twofold increased risk for breast cancer after an induced abortion. However, the investigators suggested that this figure may have been influenced by reporting bias attributed to the underreporting of abortions by healthy control subjects in the largely Catholic southeastern region of the Netherlands. In the western regions of the country, the association between abortion and breast cancer was statistically insignificant. The authors concluded that their "study does not support an appreciably (whatever that means) increased risk for breast cancer after an induced abortion."

These people are constantly looking for excuses. Now, you can’t rely on this study because someone's religion is involved. Are they trying to say that Catholics are more liable to lie than Protestants? This is disgusting. Why didn’t the study involve the whole country, it's not that big and average it out? Because they wouldn’t like what they would find. I never knew that a certain section ofthe Netherlands had a largely Catholic region.

We must also believe that middle-aged black women, in particular, are incredible liars, as a study published in the Journal of the National Medical Association (December 1993) traced the breast cancer experience of about 1,000 black women (500 with breast cancer, 500 without) as they grew older. "Breast Cancer Risk Factors in African-American Women: The Howard University Tumor Registry Experience" confirmed that the risks of breast cancer increased much more for women who had aborted than for those who had not. This fine study found the same overall 50% increased risk factor for women under 40 who had aborted. But black women now in their 40s who had aborted experienced a 180% increased risk. The risk jumped to a whopping 370% for black women over 50 who had aborted

Well, this completes the cycle -- someone’s religion and now their race makes them liars. In the future, in order to save time and money, let’s not include Catholics and Blacks in any study, because we all know they are liars. We have been told so, by the studies that the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute endorse. So, that eliminates about 40% of the world’s population for all future studies.

In 1996-OCT, four US scientists announced the result of a statistical analysis of previous studies. They selected 23 studies which involved over 60,000 women. They combined all of their results using a process known as "meta-analysis." They found "overwhelming" evidence that women who terminate a pregnancy by an abortion have a 33% higher chance of contracting breast cancer later in life.

Now, read how this study was attacked by those who are conspiring to withhold the truth from the American people:

"This particular statistical method is fraught with hazard, because the results can easily be influenced by the method of selecting the studies to be included. Three of the four scientists in the 1996-OCT study are known to be vocal opponents of abortion. They might have been biased, consciously or unconsciously, in their selection processes."

That’s it -- the above statement proves nothing - it’s double talk. Three of the scientists are pro-life, so their study cannot be taken seriously. What about the other scientist, who was not pro-life? Now someone who believes that life is sacred is wasting his time, if he participates in any scientific studies.

Why didn't the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute and the NEJM do their own studies to disprove the link? Because they were afraid of the results. Instead they scanned the entire world, to look for a study that would match their political views. And sure enough, they found just what they were looking for -- a study that was done in little Denmark, which stated that there was no link. So they accepted it as the Gospel truth and published the Melbye/Danish Report. There was no mention, if those who conducted the Report were pro-choice.

Isn’t it odd that they couldn't find a study in the USA that they liked. 10 of 11 studies in the United States, showed the abortion/cancer link. Our country has the best scientists and researchers in the world. They didn’t publish these studies, because it wasn’t what they wanted to hear.

On another page, you will read where Dr. Joel Brind shreds this report to pieces, as well as his ,"Comprehensive Review and Meta Analysis" of the Abortion/cancer risk.

So now, if anyone who is involved in a study, is pro-life, then that study cannot be trusted. We we can add pro-lifers to the distrustful list along with Catholics and blacks. Now, we have about 70% of the world’s population on the list.

I guess the only people who are trustful and and do not lie, are the highly moral people, who kill their unborn baby, or condone the killing, even while they’re being born and suffer excruciating pain in the process. And we must not forget the trustful and honest people who publish only one side, (their side) of an issue, in their medical journals, strictly for political reasons.

It now appears that the only studies that the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute and the NEJM would even consider to publish are those conducted by those who hold their same political views. Soon there won’t be anyone left to study, except the PCKU. The PCKU backed studies will study the rest of the PCKU. It's absolutely ludicrous.

Dr. Clark Heath (Head of Epidemiology and Surveillance Research and somewhat of an icon with the American Cancer Society) on 20 February 1998, conceded to one aspect of the ABC link -- that an abortion delayed first birth increases breast cancer risk. If a woman is 20 years old when she has an induced abortion of her first pregnancy, then 8 years later, has her first child -- this 8 year delay increases her relative breast cancer risk by about 32%. Quite a concession, isn't it? So then, why aren’t women told of this one aspect, before they kill their first unborn baby and why don't we hear of this on TV, or read about it in the newspapers?

The only court decision, regarding the abortion/cancer risk that I am aware of -- is Christ's Bride Ministries (CBM) who wanted to put posters, warning of the ABC link, in public transit ares. They sued Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation (SEPTA) for denying them that right. After hearing both sides of the argument, the appellate court stated there WAS a link and ruled in favor of CBM. It didn't help their case when the SEPTA experts admitted that some studies showed a weak association between abortions and breast cancer. If the SEPTA experts would admit to a slight link, then you know, the link is much greater. They were paid by SEPTA.

Critics who formerly dismissed the possibility of a causal relationship between induced abortion and breast cancer are increasingly on the defensive, largely as a consequence of the findings of a fascinating study by Dr. Janet Daling and her colleagues at Seattle's Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. This study is on another page..

In summation, let's isolate the facts that are indisputable:

1. It's an indisputable fact that Estrogens are strong growth promoters of normal and most cancerous breast tissue.
   
    

2. It's an indisputable fact that most known risk factors for breast cancer are attributable to some form of estrogen overexposure.
   
    

3. It's an indisputable fact that maternal estradiol (estrogen) rises 20-fold (2,000%) during the first trimester of a normal pregnancy.
   
    

4. It's an indisputable fact that abnormal cells are more vulnerable to cancerous changes than normal cells.
   
    

5. It's an indisputable fact that pregnancies which abort spontaneously (miscarriage) usually generate subnormal amounts of estradiol; no increased risk of breast cancer is seen.
   
    

6. It's an indisputable fact that the incidence of breast cancer is dramatically increased in rats whose pregnancies are aborted.
   
    

Send articles regarding the Abortion/Cancer Risk to your local newspapers and TV stations and the Networks. Ask them -- why their silence on this vital issue?

To the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute -- HAVE YOU NO SHAME?

Article by Dr Frank Joseph, MD

Abortion Truths (Dr Joseph's website)