Archive for January, 2015

Birth Control Pill Linked to Increased Glioma Risk

Original article from: http://www.cancernetwork.com

A history of hormonal contraceptive use in younger women for 5 years or more was found to be associated with a possible increased risk of glioma, a rare type of brain tumor. The findings of the study were published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.

Prior studies have shown that female sex hormones, the active ingredients of hormonal contraceptives, may increase the risk of some cancers while reducing the risk of other cancers. This was the starting point of the study for author David Gaist, MD, PhD, of the Odense University Hospital in Southern Denmark, and colleagues.

Exposure to a hormonal contraceptive was categorized based on the hormone type: estrogen-progesterone or progesterone only, and by duration of use (less than 1 year, 1 year to 5 years, and more than 5 years).

Ever use of hormonal contraceptives was associated with a 50% relative increased risk of glioma, while those who used contraceptives for more than 5 years had a 90% relative increased risk. The women who used progesterone-only contraceptives had a greater risk compared with those on an estrogen-progesterone contraceptive. Those who were current hormonal contraceptive users had a 70% relative increased risk of glioma compared with past users, who had a 20% relative increased risk.

Analyzing the results by histological types of glioma, there was a slightly higher risk of glioblastoma multiforme.

Gaist and colleagues used data from Denmark’s national administrative and health registries. The authors identified women between the ages of 15 and 49 and a diagnosis of glioma between 2000 and 2009. Each of the 317 cases of glioma were compared with 2,126 age-matched women with no glioma diagnosis—8 for every case.

Of the 317 cases, 114 occurred in women between the ages of 15 and 34, 115 occurred in women between the ages of 35 and 44, and 88 occurred in women between 45 and 49 years of age.

Previous case-control and cohort studies either found no association, a weak inverse association, or an increased risk between glioma incidence and hormonal contraceptive use, but several of these studies only analyzed former hormone contraceptive users over the age of 50.

“In a population of women in the reproductive age, including those who use hormonal contraceptives, you would anticipate seeing 5 in 100,000 people develop a glioma annually, according to the nationwide Danish Cancer Registry,” said Gaist.

According to Gaist, tracking women who use contraceptives long term is needed to further assess the risk. The authors noted that there may be confounding factors such as the tendency of women who take contraceptives to get more regular checkups. Still, “considering the extensive use of hormonal contraceptives our finding merits further investigation,” stated the authors.

Is Brittany Maynard’s Husband Fighting the Wrong Battle?

by Jennifer Lahl, CBC President

The tagline of our film Eggsploitation is “The infertility industry has a dirty little secret.” In the film we seek to expose the many facets of the market for human eggs, which very few people are aware of. These dirty little secrets include:

Egg donors aren’t tracked over their lifetimes, so we have no idea what the long-term effects on young women’s health are.
No major peer-reviewed studies have been done on the long-term effects of super ovulation on this donor population.
Eggs aren’t tracked, so once they leave a human body it’s difficult to know where they end up, which sometimes literally means they can be halfway around the world.
Many of the drugs used with egg donors carry risks of cancers, and some drugs have never been safety approved for this sort of use.
Children born via egg donation often aren’t told of their conception story, and they often don’t have access to important information about their genetic mother.

Because of what might arguably be described as a cavalier attitude toward young women, their eggs, and their reproductive health, a great deal of important information is never recorded as part of their medical records. I often wonder how many women receiving a cancer diagnosis have in their history the fact they sold or donated their eggs. How many women struggling to conceive today were egg donors during college, for example? Since the egg donor is not considered a patient, often her primary care physician doesn’t know to ask or to include this information in her health history. Women may not even think that the fact that they donated their eggs is relevant to include in their medical histories and thus may not inform their physicians.

Take, for example, the recent case of Brittany Maynard. Brittany is remembered mostly because of her decision to take her own life after receiving a tragic diagnosis of terminal brain cancer, glioblastoma. What most people don’t know about Brittany’s medical history is that she was an egg “donor.” A year ago, a close family friend of Brittany’s, who has asked to remain anonymous, contacted me. This friend knew about my work exposing the risks to egg donors, and was worried, wondering if Brittany’s decision to sell her eggs and expose herself to potentially harmful fertility drugs might have any connection with her cancer diagnosis.

This important part of Brittany’s health profile does not appear to be part of her medical history, and it certainly was not part of the larger, very public conversation that followed once she made the decision to end her life.

As with many egg donors, it’s often a secret that only a few know. I’ve interviewed countless women who sold their eggs, and this is rarely on the top of their list of things to talk about. Often it is only when an egg donor suffers health-related problems that this information becomes known to others.

What do we know about glioblastomas, and might there be any connection with hormone use in egg donation? Glioblastomas are more common in men than women. This tumor is more common in older people than in younger people, primarily striking those between the ages of 45-70. One reason it is less common in women is because of the protective effect estrogen has for women. Some research suggests that there is evidence that hormonal factors might influence glioma risk. This clue initially came from the fact that women are significantly less likely to get such tumors. Then researchers discovered that exposure to estrogen due to early age at menarche may act to protect against DNA damage to glial cells. This is discussed in a prospective study by Silvera, et al., (2006:1322). In other words, estrogens appear to be neuroprotective.

Is it possible that, during the Lupron phase of egg donation when estrogen production is blocked and the woman is put into a medically induced menopause, the woman is exposed to risks from which she would otherwise be protected? What might the repeated effect of this be for women, like Brittany, who donated her eggs more than once?

I wonder about the children born from Brittany’s eggs who should know about their biological mother’s health history and diagnosis of glioblastoma. What, if anything, will they ever be told?

When will we will finally track and monitor women who donate and sell their eggs? When will we do the studies necessary to ensure their health is protected?

Of course, I wish that policies would change so that women wouldn’t be targeted for their eggs and that this practice would be stopped altogether.

But the bottom line in Brittany’s case is that she had repeated exposure to a medley of hormone altering substances during her young and all too short life.

As I was finalizing this piece for publication, Brittany’s husband, Dan Diaz, announced he is going to work to expand the legalization of assisted suicide. This effort is deeply mistaken on many levels.

My point here is this: eggsploitation is real. I will continue to work to expose the dirty little secrets of the practice. And I wish, for the sake of the health of egg donors like Brittany, that her husband would join me and put his efforts into protecting women like his wife.

Pope: Catholics Don’t Have to Breed ‘Like Rabbits’???

by Deacon Jim Russell

So, how do y’all like that Associated Press headline?

In case you might have missed it, Pope Francis’ recent return flight from his visit to the Philippines featured an in-flight press conference in which he was asked (according to a widely published translation):

A Filipino woman gives birth to an average of three children in her life, and the Catholic position concerning contraception seem to be one of the few questions on which a big number of people in the Philippines do not agree with the Church. What do you think about that?

This is Pope Francis’ reply:

I think the number of three children per family that you mentioned — it makes me suffer- I think it is the number experts say is important to keep the population going. Three per couple. When this decreases, the other extreme happens, like what is happening in Italy. I have heard, I do not know if it is true, that in 2024 there will be no money to pay pensioners because of the fall in population. Therefore, the key word, to give you an answer, and the one the Church uses all the time, and I do too, is responsible parenthood. How do we do this? With dialogue. Each person with his pastor seeks how to carry out responsible parenthood.

That example I mentioned shortly before about that woman who was expecting her eighth child and already had seven who were born with caesareans. That is an irresponsibility. That woman might say ‘No, I trust in God.’ But, look, God gives you means to be responsible. Some think that — excuse the language — that in order to be good Catholics, we have to be like rabbits. [NOTE: he never says “breed” here!] No. Responsible parenthood. This is clear and that is why in the Church there are marriage groups, there are experts in this matter, there are pastors, one can search; and I know so many ways that are licit and that have helped this. You did well to ask me this.

Purveyors of media hype, start your engines! As if to prove Pope Francis’ assertion that some observers of the Catholic Church actually think that Catholic couples are all supposed to “be like rabbits”—as in, have as many children as is humanly possible—worldwide reports made it sound like no one ever in the history of the Church had ever before thought of this notion of “responsible parenthood”!

Well, let’s just say that the secular surprise factor is about fifty years too late! That’s if your point of reference is the Second Vatican Council’s clearly stated teaching on “responsible parenthood” (see Gaudium et Spes, paragraph 50). But even fifty years is too recent when one traces the rise of contraception alongside the emergence of the art and science of “natural family planning” from its roots in the 1920s all the way to our contemporary 21st-Century approaches to it.

Suffice it to say that we Catholics have always embraced an authentically “responsible” approach to parenthood. We’ve never been taught otherwise by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. We’ve been very blessed to have understood that there is no imperative, as the Holy Father indicates, for parents to have as many babies as time allows (!). Rather, non-Catholic observers have, forever it seems, misunderstood the Church’s long-held (and still-held) emphasis on children as the “supreme gift” of marriage.

The truth is that the Catholic Church holds that the objective “primary purpose” of Matrimony is the “procreation and education of children.” While this isn’t the only “end” or “purpose” of marriage, it’s considered “primary” precisely because the “stable union” of the married couple functions as the fundamental cell of society, in which we realize God’s primordial command to “be fruitful and multiply.” God’s plan for us as married couples is to be utterly open to the transmission of human life (that means babies!). Pope Paul VI, in the very first sentence of his 1968 encyclical “Humanae Vitae,” calls this a most serious “mission” for the married couple.

Being utterly open to transmitting life, though, does not necessarily mean being relentlessly in pursuit of it! Married couples sometimes have tangible and just reasons for postponing pregnancy. Indeed, it’s this “old-school” reference to the primary end of “procreation and education” of children that makes it perfectly clear that parents often need to balance those two aspects of the primary end—being able to raise (educate) our born children alongside our openness to transmitting new life (procreate) in the “now” of married life.

It is this kind of discernment that Pope Francis has in mind when he picks up the phrase “responsible parenthood” from the teaching documents of the Church. Even so, the Holy Father also says something much less widely reported but vitally important about the abundant blessing of every child born into the family:

Another curious thing in relation to this is that for most poor people, a child is a treasure. It is true that you have to be prudent here too, but for them a child is a treasure. Some would say ‘God knows how to help me’ and perhaps some of them are not prudent, this is true. Responsible paternity, but let us also look at the generosity of that father and mother who see a treasure in every child.

So it’s clear that Pope Francis speaks from the heart of the Church on “responsible parenthood” and on the beautiful blessing of children. Had the secular media been on the ball both fifty years ago and on the plane to Rome this week, we’d all be breathing—and “breeding”—a little easier.

Pope Pius XII on Large Catholic Families

Below is an excerpt from an address given by Pope Pius XII to the Directors of the Associations for Large Families of Rome and Italy in January 20, 1958, the nineteenth (and final) year of his papacy. Throughout the address the Holy Father eloquently speaks of the joy, sacrifice and generosity so prevalent amongst those families who God has abundantly blessed with the gift of children.

“Large families are the most splendid flower-beds in the garden of the Church; happiness flowers in them and sanctity ripens in favorable soil. Every family group, even the smallest, was meant by God to be an oasis of spiritual peace. But there is a tremendous difference: where the number of children is not much more than one, that serene intimacy that gives value to life has a touch of melancholy or of pallor about it; it does not last as long, it may be more uncertain, it is often clouded by secret fears and remorse.”

Happiness in a large family

“It is very different from the serenity of spirit to be found in parents who are surrounded by a rich abundance of young lives. The joy that comes from the plentiful blessings of God breaks out in a thousand different ways and there is no fear that it will end. The brows of these fathers and mothers may be burdened with cares, but there is never a trace of that inner shadow that betrays anxiety of conscience or fear of an irreparable return to loneliness, Their youth never seems to fade away, as long as the sweet fragrance of a crib remains in the home, as long as the walls of the house echo to the silvery voices of children and grandchildren.

“Their heavy labors multiplied many times over, their redoubled sacrifices and their renunciation of costly amusements are generously rewarded even here below by the inexhaustible treasury of affection and tender hopes that dwell in their hearts without ever tiring them or bothering them.

“And the hopes soon become a reality when the eldest daughter begins to help her mother to take care of the baby and on the day the oldest son comes home with his face beaming with the first salary he has earned himself. That day will be a particularly happy one for parents, for it will make the spectre of an old age spent in misery disappear, and they will feel assured of a reward for their sacrifices.

“When there are many children, the youngsters are spared the boredom of loneliness and the discomfort of having to live in the midst of adults all the time. It is true that they may sometimes become so lively as to get on your nerves, and their disagreements may seem like small riots; but even their arguments play an effective role in the formation of character, as long as they are brief and superficial. Children in large families learn almost automatically to be careful of what they do and to assume responsibility for it, to have a respect for each other and help each other, to be open-hearted and generous. For them, the family is a little proving ground, before they move into the world outside, which will be harder on them and more demanding.”

Vocations

“All of these precious benefits will be more solid and permanent, more intense and more fruitful if the large family takes the supernatural spirit of the Gospel, which spiritualizes everything and makes it eternal, as its own particular guiding rule and basis. Experience shows that in these cases, God often goes beyond the ordinary gifts of Providence, such as joy and peace, to bestow on it a special call — a vocation to the priesthood, to the religious life, to the highest sanctity.

“With good reason, it has often been pointed out that large families have been in the forefront as the cradles of saints. We might cite, among others, the family of St. Louis, the King of France, made up of ten children, that of St. Catherine of Siena who came from a family of twenty-five, St. Robert Bellarmine from a family of twelve, and St. Pius X from a family of ten.

“Every vocation is a secret of Providence; but these cases prove that a large number of children does not prevent parents from giving them an outstanding and perfect upbringing; and they show that the number does not work out to the disadvantage of their quality, with regard to either physical or spiritual values.”

The Economics of Sex

MAN AWAKENS FROM 12 YEARS IN ‘VEGETATIVE STATE’

 

Martin Pistorius fell into a mysterious coma when he was a vibrant 12-year-old boy in the 1980s.

He found himself locked inside his own body – unable to speak, make eye contact or even move his own limbs.

Martin’s doctors told his parents, Rodney and Joan Pistorius, that the boy had cryptococci meningitis. They said Martin should be taken home to die in peace.

But Martin would live 12 years in that vegetative state.Joan said, “Martin just kept going, just kept going.”

According to NPR, Martin’s father would wake up every day at 5 a.m., dress the boy, put him in the car and drive him to a special care center.“Eight hours later, I’d pick him up, bathe him, feed him, put him in bed, set my alarm for two hours so that I’d wake up to turn him so that he didn’t get bedsores,” Rodney recalled. And during those 12 years, according to the Pistorius family, there was never any indication that Martin’s condition was improving.One day, Joan, in a state of hopelessness, told her son, “I hope you die.”She never imagined that Martin would have understood those dreadful words.

But by the time he was 14 or 15 years old, Martin began to awaken.“Yes, I was there, not from the very beginning, but about two years into my vegetative state, I began to wake up,” Martin recalls. “I was aware of everything, just like any normal person. Everyone was so used to me not being there that they didn’t notice when I began to be present again. The stark reality hit me that I was going to spend the rest of my life like that – totally alone.”Martin had even heard his mother’s cruel words.

“You don’t really think about anything,” he said. “You simply exist. It’s a very dark place to find yourself because, in a sense, you are allowing yourself to vanish.”Martin added, “As time passed, I gradually learned to understand my mother’s desperation. Every time she looked at me, she could see only a cruel parody of the once-healthy child she had loved so much.”At the care center every day, Martin’s caregivers played “Barney” reruns. They too believed he was a vegetable.He said, “I cannot even express to you how much I hated Barney.”

Now Martin, 39, is in full control of his body. He’s married and lives a normal life in Harlow, England.

In his book “Ghost Boy,” he writes, “My mind was trapped inside a useless body, my arms and legs weren’t mine to control and my voice was mute. I couldn’t make a sign or sounds to let anyone know I’d become aware again. I was invisible – the ghost boy.”

An aggressive stand against contraception: Turkish President declares its use as treason

LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) – During the wedding ceremony of the son of one of his close allies, Mustafa Kefeli, Erdogan stood up and addressed the bride and groom.

“One or two (children) is not enough. To make our nation stronger, we need a more dynamic and younger population. We need this to take Turkey above the level of modern civilizations,” exclaimed Erdogan.

Contraception risks causing a whole generation to dry up, according to Erdogan.

“Lineage is very important both economically and spiritually,” he said in comments reported by the Dogan news agency. “I have faith in you.”

Aside from lecturing on the dangers of contraception, Erdogan praised marriage saying, “Marriage is a long journey. There are good days and bad days. Good days become more frequent as we share them and bad days finally bring happiness if we are patient.”

“Marriage is more than a civil contract; it is a lifelong covenant of love between a man and a woman,” states the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops teachings on Married Love and the Gift of Life.

This love differs from any other kind in the world. Two people are joining together as one.

While couples share good and bad days, laughs and tears, “the power to create a new life with God is at the heart of what spouses share with each other.”

Erdogan has previously been criticized for his proposals against abortions, the morning-after pill and Caesarian sections, but declaring contraceptive use as treason appears to be his strongest attack.

The Catholic church teaches “suppressing fertility by using contraception denies part of the inherent meaning of married sexuality and does harm to the couple’s unity.”

Although contraceptive use may not entirely be treason, the Catholic church teaches it is against God’s will.

Many have found that living by this teaching contributes to a more intimate, open and honest marriage allowing for couples to feel truly fulfilled.

Breast Cancer Risk from Abortion

by Chris Kahlenborn, MD

How could abortion cause breast cancer?
At the beginning of pregnancy there are great increases in certain hormone levels (e.g., estrogen, progesterone, and hCG) that support pregnancy. In response to these changes, breast cells divide and mature into cells able to produce milk. Abortion causes an abrupt fall in hormone levels, leaving the breast cells in an immature state. These immature cells can more easily become cancer cells.1
Has this been proven?
Yes. Of 73 studies worldwide since 1957, 53 showed that women who experienced an induced abortion had an increased risk of breast cancer.2 In 1996 Joel Brind, PhD3, assembled the results of all the studies up to that time. Brind concluded that women who have an abortion before their first full-term pregnancy have a 50% increased risk of developing breast cancer while those who have an abortion after their first full-term pregnancy have a 30%
increased risk.
What does it mean to have “a 50% increased risk of developing breast cancer?”
A 50% increased risk means a 50% higher risk than someone would have otherwise. For example, if a person already had a 10% risk of developing breast cancer, then a 50% increase would bring the risk up to 15%.
How serious a problem is breast cancer?
Breast cancer is the worldwide leading cancer in women and is the most common cause of cancer death for U.S. women age 20 to 59. In the U.S. in the year 2011, 220,097 women were diagnosed with breast cancer and 40,931 women died from this disease.4 About one U.S. woman out of eight will develop breast cancer at some time in her
life and about one fourth of such women will die from this disease. Induced abortion, especially at a young age,
markedly increases a woman’s risk for developing breast cancer. This risk is increased even further by other breast
cancer risk factors such as synthetic hormones (including hormonal contraceptives like the birth control pill,
Norplant and Depo-Provera), family history of breast cancer, and others.5 The U.S. has one of the highest rates of induced abortion and hormonal contraceptive use in the world, especially for young women. The breast cancer rate in the U.S. is rising, and will likely rise even higher once the latent period (the time it takes for cancer to develop) for these women has passed. Calculations based on available studies indicate that induced abortion may result in over 46,800 additional cases of breast cancer in the U.S. annually.
Are some groups of women in greater danger?
Yes. Research shows that induced abortion increases the risk of breast cancer more for some groups of women than for others. Black women under 45 years, for example, have higher rates of breast cancer and tend to develop more aggressive cancers. There is also a greater risk in women who have had abortions if they were under age 18 at the time, if they do not have any more children after aborting, or if they have a family history of breast cancer.
Why would black women have more breast cancer?
Breast cancer in the U.S. is more prevalent in young black women than in white women of equivalent age, and is the second leading cause of cancer death (after lung cancer) among black women. This may be a consequence of more common hormonal contraceptive use and/or a greater frequency of abortion among young black women. Black women who develop breast cancer generally have more aggressive cancers resulting in a shortened life expectancy.
What is the risk for young women?
Janet Daling noted in 19946 that women younger than 18 who had an abortion experienced a 150% increased risk of developing breast cancer. This became an 800% increased risk if they had their abortions between the 9th and 24th
week of pregnancy.
What if there has been breast cancer in my family?
Women who have a family history of breast cancer and choose to have an abortion are at very high risk of developing breast cancer. Andrieu et al (1994)7 found that women who had a family history of breast cancer and had two or more induced abortions had a 600% increased risk of breast cancer as compared to the rest of the population. Daling et al (1994)6 noted that women who had an abortion prior to age 18 and had a positive family history of breast cancer had an infinitely increased risk of developing breast cancer compared to young women who had a family history of breast cancer and had not had an abortion. She also noted that women who were 30 or older at the time of their abortion and had breast cancer in their family history had a 270% increased risk.
But isn’t pregnancy and childbirth more dangerous than abortion?
No. The risk of breast cancer is increased by abortion; suicide risk is much higher after an abortion; and risk of ovarian cancer is decreased after a full-term pregnancy. Because of changes in these three risk factors, abortion is many times more hazardous in the long-run than carrying a child to term.
How can I protect myself?
Many of the known risk factors for breast cancer can be avoided: hormone exposure (including hormonal contraceptives), induced abortion, heavy alcohol use, obesity, and radiation exposure. In addition, there is a significant reduction of risk with each child a woman bears. Every month of breastfeeding reduces breast cancer risk, as does bearing a child at a younger age. Vitamins A and D8 and some commercial medications may offer some protection. Any woman, especially if she has one or more of the known risk factors, should consult a physician regularly and perform frequent self-breast exams.
If abortion and chemical contraceptives are so dangerous, what options do couples have?
Natural Family Planning (NFP) methods are available which use no chemicals or surgery and cause no increase in breast cancer risk. Not to be confused with the “rhythm method,” NFP is based on observations of a woman’s cervical mucus and (for some methods) other symptoms as well. One of the largest research studies of NFP (involving 19,843 women and performed in India by the World Health Organization) showed a pregnancy rate of 0.2 pregnancies per 100 women yearly.9
Natural Family Planning methods have been used to diagnose and treat a variety of female reproductive system disorders including infertility. Various medical problems (e.g., excessive menstrual cramping and bleeding) can be treated far more safely with less toxic means (e.g., magnesium/calcium supplements and/or ibuprofen products).

If a woman develops breast cancer during pregnancy, should she abort the baby?
Definitely not. A woman diagnosed with breast cancer while pregnant has a significantly longer life expectancy if she
gives birth rather than aborting. Clarck and Chua (1989)10 found that of the women in their study who had breast cancer while pregnant and had an abortion, none were alive after 11 years, while 20% of the women who had breast cancer and chose to deliver their babies were alive at 20 years.
How can I find out more about breast cancer risk from abortion?
The book Breast Cancer, Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill by Chris Kahlenborn, MD, is available from
One More Soul. Four of the seventeen chapters in this book deal with cancer risks from abortion. It contains an extensive bibliography of over 500 references on this and related topics. The material in this pamphlet is based upon Dr. Kahlenborn’s book.
Where can I find information about Natural Family Planning?
Natural Family Planning information is available from a number of national organizations:
Billings Ovulation Method Assn (USA)
(651) 699-8139 www.Boma-usa.org
The Couple to Couple League
(800) 745-8252 www.ccli.org
Family of the Americas Foundation
(800) 443-3395 www.familyplanning.net
FertilityCare Centers of America
(402) 390-6600, ext. 117 www.fertilitycare.org
Institute for Natural Family Planning
(414) 288-3854 www.mu.edu/nursing/NFP
Natural Family Planning International
(740) 457-9663 www.nfpandmore.org
Northwest Family Services
(503) 215-6377 www.nwfs.org/couples-a-singles/natural-family-planning.html
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
(202) 541-3070 www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/natural-family-planning/
One More Soul
(800) 307-7685 www.onemoresoul.com

 

For a directory of NFP-Only physicians and NFP teachers, please visit www.onemoresoul.com.
Many Catholic dioceses have NFP offices or family life offices which can supply NFP information. Local parishes and Catholic hospitals may also be good sources.

 

References
1. Lanfranchi A. Normal breast physiology: the reasons hormonal contraceptives and induced abortion increase breast-cancer risk. Issues Law Med. 2014
Spring; 29(1): 135-146.
2. Epidemiologic Studies: Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk, retrieved from http://www.bcpinstitute.org/PDF/BCPI-FactSheet-Epidemiolstudies_
11_2013.pdf December 9 2014.
3. Brind J, Chinchilli M, et al. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community
Health. 10/ 1996; 50: 481-496.
4. U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2011 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report. Atlanta (GA): Department
of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Cancer Institute; 2014.
5. Yankaskas BC. Epidemiology of breast cancer in young women. Breast Dis. 2005-2006; 23: 3-8.
6. Daling J, Malone K, et al. Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion. JNCI. 1994; 86: 1584-1592.
7. Andrieu N, et al. Familial risk of breast cancer and abortion. Cancer Detection and Prevention. 1994; 18: 51-55.
8. Ordonez Mena JM, Brenner H. Vitamin D and cancer: an overview on epidemiological studies. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2014; 810: 17-32.
9. Ryder RE. “Natural Family Planning”: Effective birth control supported by the Catholic Church. Br Med J. 1993; 307: 723-726.
10. Clarck RM, Chua T. Breast cancer and pregnancy: the ultimate challenge. Clinical Oncology. 1989; 1: 11-18.
Dr. Chris Kahlenborn is an internist in private practice in Altoona, PA. He is the author of Breast Cancer, Its Link to Abortion and the
Birth Control Pill on which this pamphlet is based.