Memo to teens: get pregnant, prevent breast cancer

I am eagerly awaiting the new “right to life” campaign aimed at high school girls, tentative slogan: “Sleep with your boyfriend, get pregnant, stop breast cancer!”
Well, truth be told, I don’t really know if that’s going to be their next campaign but it would be the next logical step in their pious crusade to protect the health of women. To hear the “right to life” folks tell it, an ongoing conspiracy has prevented women from learning about the association of breast cancer to abortion. Indeed the Coalition on Abortion Breast Cancer (ABC) was formed for no other purpose than to disseminate this momentous news.
Of course, the consensus among cancer experts, epidemiologists and public health officials is that abortion does not cause breast cancer, but no matter. ABC has embarked on a campaign to highlight this putative link. Not surprisingly self identified antiabortion physicians and scientists have been enthusiastic participants.
Joel Brind, PhD, professor of biology at Baruch College has thoughtfully provided the ABC folks with an analysis of a “bombshell” paper by Jessica Dolle (Risk Factors for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in Women Under the Age of 45 Years) published in the April 2009 issue of Cancer Epidemiology. As Prof. Brind explains:
The Dolle study is based on a population of 897 cancer patients diagnosed under age 45 and 1,569 controls with a similar age distribution, all from the greater Seattle, WA area. The subjects were all subjects of earlier studies published by the Daling group during the 1990’s … for whom breast tumor tissue specimens were still available to do complete analyses for 3 prognostic tumor markers, namely, estrogen receptors (ER), progesterone receptors (PR) and HER2 receptors. The present study divides the patients thus examined into two groups: Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), i.e., those negative for all 3 markers (187 cases) and all other combinations (710 cases; referred to as non-TNBC).
The study was specifically designed to look at the association between breast cancer and use of oral contraceptives. As part of the study, though, the authors looked at confounding factors that might impact the incidence of breast cancer. What excited the antiabortion crowd was the following table.

The bottom entry in the table looks at the impact of abortion history on subsequent development of breast cancer. The relative risk is 1.4 meaning that women who had had an abortion were 40% more likely to develop breast cancer than those who had never had an abortion.
The results were not statistically significant, but no matter. The “right to life” folks are not bothered by such trivial details. Because of their profound commitment to the health of women they want to do everything possible to prevent death from the scourge of breast cancer.
But wait! There’s more information in the table, and it is statistically significant. The best way to lower your risk of breast cancer is to have a baby before age 20. Another equally sound strategy is to have 4 or more children. Just imagine how far a girl could lower her breast cancer risk if she had 4 children before age 20!
This is important news. And since they are so concerned about preventing breast cancer, surely the folks at ABC will soon be embarking on a campaign to promote teen pregnancy. Not only should teens get pregnant, they should get pregnant over and over again. That’s the best way to reduce the risk of developing breast cancer in the future and the folks at ABC feel that preventing breast cancer is their most important priority.
But wait! I can find no mention on the ABC website, or on any antiabortion website of the protective effect of teen pregnancy on developing breast cancer. What could that mean? Could it be that their pious concern for the health of women is nothing more than a bald faced and cynical attempt to prevent women from having abortions? Could it be that they really don’t care about the future health of women at all? It could be, and that would force us to a very sad realization. Indeed, there’s really no way to avoid the conclusion that the antiabortion folks who promote a link between abortion and breast cancer are nothing more than hypocrites, who don’t care about breast cancer (since they don’t mention the protective effect of teen pregnancy).
In fact, we may be forced to conclude that they don’t care about the health of women at all. They never mention at all the most important health effect of abortion: even if it were true that abortion raised a woman’s risk of breast cancer by 40%, it doesn’t change the fact that carrying a pregnancy to term raises her risk of death by 1500%!


Salon.com
Comments
They are really anti-woman - it's all about denial of pleasure, especially sexual pleasure, so that men can always be sure who their children are.
As I think your recent posts also support, I don't think it's a coincidence that states that trend religious-right have a high rate of teen pregnancy. And I think, deep down, that many don't perceive that as a problem. That's one girl who isn't going to be exposed to the sinful world but will be tied down breeding.
Sorry to put it so crudely, and I know I'm generalizing, but I don't think abstinence-only advocates EVER believed it was going to work (as a form of preventing pregnancy.) That was just the window-dressing to make it acceptable - and funding-ready.
I'm not sure they even thought about it. They just wanted to get their religious values into the schools any way they could.
Because a pro-life/anti-abortion organization highlights one risk of abortion (however minute), they have to then promote every other women's health tip or they're liars who don't really care about women?
Abortion causes more problems than the one life that it kills.
Sure, and other methods work, too. You can't talk counsel a woman about one method without incurring the ethical obligation of mentioning the others.
No, they merely have to be honest.
1. Only THEY think that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. There are many studies on the subject showing the opposite and the scientific consensus among doctors, epidemiologists and public health professionals is that abortion does NOT increase the risk of breast cancer.
2. Counseling patients involves telling them ALL the risks, not simply the risks that you feel like telling them. Therefore, if the concern is to reduce the risk of developing breast cancer, they must counsel women (particularly young women) that deliberately getting during the teenage years and having 4 or more children before age 20 is even more effective at reducing the risk.
3. If the concern is health, and they feel it is necessary to counsel women on a possible increased risk of developing breast cancer in the future, they must counsel women that continuing the pregnancy dramatically increases the risk of DEATH in the next 7 months or so.
4. Of course if the only concern is to prevent abortions regardless of any risk to the mother's life, it makes perfect sense to promote a putative link to breast cancer and ignore the real risk to the life of the mother. They just shouldn't cynically lie and claim their motivation is to protect women's health.
The New York Times had an article in the past week noting a 3 percent increase in the teen pregnancy rate in 2005-2006, following a decade-long decline. Some have speculated this is the result of increased federal spending for abstinence-only sex education programs during the Bush Administration.
Absolutely. Indeed, there is a lot of bad "science" behind conservative Republican claims of all kinds, including creationism, denial of global warming, etc.
It's seems bizarre that religious conservatives appear unconcerned about whether their initiative is effective. Often they seem more enthusiastic to SPREAD their religious values than to make sure their efforts actually accomplish their stated objectives.
And what about surgery? The surgeon--or more likely one of the nurses--must counsel the patient regarding risks. But they don't go over every single potentially adverse event of the procedure + every potentially adverse effect of each medication used during anesthesia + every potentially adverse effect of each medication used after surgery + every potentially adverse effect of each medical device used before, after and during surgery + how each could potentially adversely affect the patient with regard to each of their medical conditions and each of their medications. If they did, surgical procedures would be backed up for decades.
Anyone with an axe to grind can manipulate facts to their advantage, and groups with particular and vehement positions can and usually do, from both angles. These particular pro-lifers are reporting the facts with their own twist, just as you are doing, from yours.
I don't believe that abstinence should be the only form of sex education. I think we all need to accept that in this day and age, the more we try to pretend that something isn't a possibility, the more our kids will show us that it is. They do need good information about contraception, STD prevention (I don't really care what the current abbreviation is now, if they keep changing it no one will know what you're talking about anyway) and most particularly, a good education regarding how a child affects one socially and financially. I think those dolls that are programmed to behave (electronically) like babies and record the care given are an EXCELLENT idea, and I think that funding to put these in every school should be granted ASAP. I think that any mention of abortion should be limited, should come with thorough discussion of potentially adverse effects on current and future mental health, should not be presented as an easy solution to an unwanted pregnancy, and should not ever be presented as part of a discussion on birth control. More detailed information--such as where to find help in the event of pregnancy--should be referred to the school nurse, guidance counselor or health teacher, who should counsel them only AFTER the child has been encouraged to discuss the situation with parents.
I do think that condoms should be free and available to students in a discreet location, beginning in middle school. Years ago, I knew of several 12 y/o kids who casually had sex with any number of other kids; small towns, with virtually no recreational facilities for kids. They would steal condoms because they were too scared/embarrassed/poor to purchase them. God only knows how many got pregnant because they couldn't obtain them.
I think all you've really managed to do in this post is underscore the fact that the best strategy to break even is to not get pregnant in the first place...so it seems that abstinence is best, after all.
Why is it so difficult to locate current statistics regarding abortion from a reputable (unbiased)source?
Obstetrician/Gynecologists
Salon.com, Boston
E-mail: Message Box
August 1, 2010
Re: “Memo to teens: get pregnant, prevent breast cancer,” Salon.com, August 1, 2010
Dear Doctor Amy:
I strongly believe that you are not right in your “suggestion” and justification to teenage girls to get pregnant and prevent breast cancer. I have been researching in the field of breast cancer and primary prevention of breast cancer as an epidemic disease. My only recommendation to girls and other young girls (and brides) is to terminate by all means condomization of their sexuality in order to prevent breast cancer and other accompanying tumors / diseases / phenomena of their reproductive system. The issue has been suppressed and is already overdue. The main point is the information about breaking the biological barriers in woman-man intimate environment.
I have recently written about the issue of breast cancer prevention in following studies:
Gjorgov AN Reproductive Health of Women: An Attempt to Define Breast Cancer Prevention. Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences, 2010; Jun. 15, 3(2): 169-179. Web:
http://www.mjms.ukim.edu.mk/Online/MJMS_2010_3_2/MJMS.1857-5773.2010-0104v.pdf
Gjorgov AN 2009. Breast cancer risk assessment to barrier contraception exposure. New Approach. Contributions Soc Biol Med Sci MASA, XXX, 1, 217-233. (Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts), Web: http://e20.manu.edu.mk/prilozi/16ag.pdf
Gjorgov AN Anorexia and Bulimia Nervosa in Young Female Patients and Barrier Contraception Practice. Asklepios, International Annual of History and Philosophy of Medicine (Sofia) 2009; Vol. III (Vol. XXII, Old series): pp. 97-108. (Not in digital format; a pre-print is available from the author.)
Sincerely,
Arne N. Gjorgov, M.D., Ph.D. (UNC-SPH, Epidemiology, Chapel Hill, NC)
Author of “Barrier Contraception and Breast Cancer,” 1980: x+164
E-mail: arne.gjorgov@yahoo.com