text:
Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis
The abortion–breast cancer hypothesis is a discredited hypothesis which posits that having an induced abortion increases the risk of getting breast cancer.[1] In early pregnancy, levels of estrogen increase, leading to breast growth in preparation for lactation. The hypothesis proposes that if this process is interrupted by an abortion—before full maturity in the third trimester—then more relatively vulnerable immature cells could be left than there were prior to the pregnancy, resulting in a greater potential risk of breast cancer over time. This mechanism was first proposed and explored in rat studies conducted in the 1980s.[2][3][4]
The abortion–breast cancer hypothesis has been the subject of extensive scientific inquiry, and the scientific community has concluded that abortion does not cause breast cancer. This consensus is supported by major medical bodies,[5] including the World Health Organization,[6] the U.S. National Cancer Institute,[7][8] the American Cancer Society,[9] the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,[10] and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.[11]
Pro-life activists have continued to advance a causal abortion–breast cancer link,[5] and in the United States they have sought legal action to present abortion as a cause of breast cancer when counseling women seeking abortion.[12] This political intervention culminated when the George W. Bush Administration altered the National Cancer Institute website to suggest that abortion might cause breast cancer.[13] In response to public concern over this intervention, the NCI convened a 2003 workshop bringing together over 100 experts on the issue. This workshop concluded that while some studies reported a statistical correlation between breast cancer and abortion,[14][15][16] the strongest scientific evidence[17] from large prospective cohort studies[18][19] demonstrates that abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk,[20] and the positive findings were considered to be due to response bias.[21]
The ongoing promotion of a link between abortion and breast cancer is seen by others as part of the pro-life "woman-centered" strategy against abortion.[22][23][24] Pro-life groups maintain they are providing legally necessary informed consent,[25] a concern shared by some politically conservative politicians.[26] The abortion–breast cancer issue remains the subject of political controversy.[5]
- 1 Views of medical organizations
- 2 Proponents
- 3 Proposed mechanism
- 4 Background
- 5 Epidemiological studies
- 5.1 Confounding factors
- 5.2 Cohorts
- 5.3 Meta-analysis
- 5.4 Interviews
- 5.5 Spontaneous abortion
- 6 Politicization
- 7 Criticism of media coverage
- 8 References
- 9 External links
Views of medical organizations[edit]
A number of major medical organizations such as the American Medical Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, World Health Organization, and the United States National Cancer Institute have analyzed larger studies regarding induced abortion and breast cancer. Their uniform conclusion is that there is no causative link between induced abortion and breast cancer.[6][10][11][20]
The American Cancer Society noted with concern that: "The issue of abortion generates passionate viewpoints in many people. Breast cancer is the most common cancer, and is the second leading cancer killer in women (lung cancer is the first). Still, the public is not well-served by false alarms. At this time, the scientific evidence does not support the notion that abortion of any kind raises the risk of breast cancer."[27]
Joel Brind is a professor of biology and endocrinology at Baruch College and is the primary advocate of an abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link. While Brind is pro-life and his goal to prove an ABC link, he has published papers in respected journals on other human hormone topics.[28] He has fought against the legalization of mifepristone—a drug used to terminate pregnancies of up to 7 weeks of gestation— testifying at a federal hearing that "thousands upon thousands" of women would develop breast cancer as a result of using the drug.[29]
In 1996, Brind published a meta-analysis in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (JECH) which was immediately criticized in a Journal of the National Cancer Institute editorial for concluding response bias was unlikely to have affected their results, "dismissal of the study's limitations, and their blurring of association with causation."[30] The amount of attention the study received prompted a cautionary editorial by a JECH editor.[31] After Brind's study failed to convince the scientific community of a causal relationship, Brind co-founded the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute (BCPI) in 1999 with Angela Lanfranchi,[32] a surgeon and pro-life advocate. In 2003, Brind was invited to the NCI workshop, where he was the only one to formally dissent.
Karen Malec, a former teacher and pro-life activist, started the Coalition on Abortion-Breast (CAB) in 1999 with help from Concerned Women for America,[5] a conservative Christian U.S. political action group which lobbies for legislation recognizing an abortion-breast cancer link.
Proposed mechanism[edit]
While research has shown the protective benefits of full-term pregnancy and lactation in reducing the risk of breast cancer, these benefits are only fully realized in the third trimester when differentiation of new breast growth takes place. The abortion-breast cancer hypothesis posits that if a pregnancy is aborted prior to differentiation it could have an adverse effect by creating and leaving behind more immature cells to be exposed to carcinogens and hormones over time.
Breast tissue contains many lobes (segments) and these contain lobules which are groups of breast cells. There are four types of lobules:
- Type 1 has 11 ductules (immature)
- Type 2 has 47 ductules (immature)
- Type 3 has 80 ductules (mature, fewer hormone receptors)
- Type 4 are fully matured (cancer resistant) and contain breast milk
During early pregnancy, type 1 lobules quickly become type 2 lobules because of changes in estrogen and progesterone levels. Maturing into type 3 and then reaching full differentiation as type 4 lobules requires an increase of human placental lactogen (hPL) which occurs in the last few months of pregnancy. According to the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis, if an abortion were to interrupt this sequence then it could leave a higher ratio of type 2 lobules than existed prior to the pregnancy.[33] Russo and Russo have shown that mature breast cells have more time for DNA repair with longer cell cycles[34] which would account for the reduced risk of parturition against the baseline risk for women who have never conceived and those who have conceived and terminated their pregnancies.[2]
Later on, Russo et al. found that placental human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) induces the synthesis of inhibin by the mammary epithelium.[35][36] Bernstein et al. independently observed a reduced breast cancer risk when women were injected with hCG for weight loss or infertility treatment.[37] Contrary to the ABC hypothesis, Michaels et al. hypothesize since hCG plays a role in cellular differentiation and may activate apoptosis, as levels of hCG increase early on in human pregnancy, "an incomplete pregnancy of short duration might impart the benefits of a full-term pregnancy and thus reduce the risk of breast cancer."[19]
The first study involving statistics on abortion and breast cancer was a broad study in 1957,[5] which examined common cancers in Japan. The researchers were cautious about drawing any conclusions from their unreliable methodologies. During the 1960s several studies by Brian MacMahon et al. in Europe and Asia touched on a correlation between abortion and breast cancer. Their 1973 paper published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute inaccurately[5] concluded that "where a relationship was observed, abortion was associated with increased, not decreased, risk."[38] Research relevant to the current ABC discussion focuses on more recent large cohort studies, a few meta-analyses, many case-control studies and several early experiments with rats.
Russo & Russo from the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia conducted a study in 1980 which examined the proposed correlation between abortion and breast cancer. While analysing the effects of the carcinogen 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene (DMBA) on the DNA labeling index (DNA-LI) in terminal end buds (TEBs), terminal ducts (TDs) and alveolar buds (ABs) of Sprague-Dawley rats in various stages of reproductive development, they found that rats who had interrupted pregnancies had no noticeable increase in risk for cancer.[2] However, they did find that pregnancy and lactation provided a protective measure against various forms of benign lesions, like hyperplastic alveolar nodules and cysts. While results did suggest that rats who had interrupted pregnancies might be subject to "similar or even higher incidence of benign lesions" than virgin rats, there was no evidence to suggest that abortion would result in a higher incidence of carcinogenesis. A more thorough examination of the phenomenon was conducted in 1982, which confirmed the results.[3] A later study in 1987 further explained their previous findings.[4] After differentiation of the mammary gland resulting from a full-term pregnancy of the rat, the rate of cell division decreases and the cell cycle length increases, allowing more time for DNA repair.[4][34]
Despite the fact that the Russos' studies found similar risk rates between virgin and pregnancy interrupted rats, their research would be used to support the contention that abortion created a greater risk of breast cancer for the next twenty years.[39] In a Discover article sidebar entitled Humans Are Not Rats, Gil Mor, the director of reproductive immunology at the Yale University School of Medicine, disagrees with Brind on the importance of the rat studies findings. Mor emphasizes that rat studies are ideal for understanding basic processes but because rats have neither breasts nor breast cancer, people like Brind are on "wobbly" terrain.[40]
Epidemiological studies[edit]
The majority of the results in epidemiology are calculated as a relative risk, where 1.0 is no risk; results above, like 1.21, is a 21% increased risk and results below, such as 0.8 is a 20% decreased risk. Relative risks are not necessarily significant. To help assess this a relative risk is followed by a confidence interval in brackets that shows the likelihood (with 95% confidence) that the relative risk is of significance. Any relative risk with a confidence interval that does not include a value of 1 could be considered significant. For example, the confidence intervals (0.3 – 0.9) and (1.5 – 7.8) are statistically significant, whereas the confidence intervals (0.89 – 7.34) or (0.5 – 1.1) are not.[41] With more data the confidence interval becomes smaller; making it an indicator of the result's statistical reliability.
When a relative risk result actually becomes significant is a difficult and contentious issue.[5] As a small result of 1.41 (1.1 – 1.6) even a significant confidence interval (outside 1.0) may be inaccurate because of response bias, incomplete data, missed confounding factors, imprecise controls or statistical analysis. If these possible flaws are accounted for they could change the result and/or the confidence interval impacting its statistical significance.
The number of (X/Y ABC cases/controls) gives X as women in the study who have had abortion(s) (induced and/or spontaneous) with breast cancer and Y is women with breast cancer and no abortion history. This dataset is used when calculating the relative risk and provides a way to compare the size of one study to another.
Confounding factors[edit]
There are many confounding factors for breast cancer. Genetics is a major factor that affects not only a woman's initial breast cancer risk[42] but also her hormonal sensitivity, which in turn affects her susceptibility to a long list of socioeconomic and environmental factors. As Western society has modernized, environmental carcinogens, delayed child rearing, less breastfeeding, hormone replacement therapy (HRT), hormonal contraception, early menarche and obesity have increased.
If unaccounted for these factors could obscure any individual variable. Scientific studies remove them using case-control methodology – a woman who has had an abortion (case) is matched with a very similar woman with no abortion history (control) – if this was not done a study could get a false positive or negative result because of another factor. Examining the ABC issue is all the more difficult because the number of women with an induced abortion history has increased along with other factors in recent decades.[43] Premature birth adds further complications since uncorroborated studies have indicated it is associated with a history of induced abortion[44] and higher breast cancer risk.[45] One of the most significant controllable factors for breast cancer is parity, or the number of children a woman has given birth to. With each full-term pregnancy (particularly the first) the breasts undergo growth and differentiation (in the third trimester); consequently, having no children can increase breast cancer risk.[46]
All of these confounding factors have an effect, directly or indirectly, on hormones which impact breast cancer risk, but they do not significantly affect the results of ABC studies that are properly conducted and take these factors into account with case-control matching. Hormones being a key factor for cancer risk is well established. Steroidal estrogen was added to the U.S. federal carcinogen list in December 2002. The American Cancer Society (ACS)[47] and the National Cancer Institute (NCI)[48] note reproductive hormones can elevate breast cancer risk.[49] In particular a Women's Health Initiative hormone replacement therapy study was cut short from an elevated breast cancer and heart risk using estrogen with progestin.[50]
The controversial nature of abortion may introduce response bias into interview studies, especially for studies done in decades past when abortion was less accepted;[30] however, the statistical significance of bias has yet to be confirmed. In the late 20th century there was some concern of an increase of breast cancer incidence. This was found to be partly due to longer lifespans, and the development of better detection methods capable of finding breast cancer earlier.[51]
The 1989 study by Holly Howe et al. at the New York State Department of Health examined young women with breast cancer in upstate New York (100/63 ABC cases/controls).[14] The results indicated an increased 1.9 (1.2 – 3.0) relative risk for induced abortion and 1.5 (0.7 – 3.7) for spontaneous abortion. Although the study had 1451 breast cancer cases the number of individuals with an abortion history was low; consequently the confidence interval is quite large.
The authors believed that the study was inconclusive as fertility patterns were changing dramatically as a result of legal abortion and increased use of contraceptives. Further they did not have a complete reproductive history of younger women who may still have children affecting the results going forward, but Howe et al. concluded it raised new questions for continuing research as women's recorded contraceptive histories grew. Newcomb and Michels point out it examined only very young women and did not account for some confounding factors such as family history of breast cancer.[52]
Another cohort study by Lindefors-Harris et al. (1989) was done looking at 49,000 women who had received abortions before the age of 30 in Sweden (65 ABC cases – compared with estimate of occurrence in the general population).[53] The relative risk for women who'd given birth previous to the abortion was 0.58 (0.38 – 0.84), whereas women with no births had a relative risk of 1.09 (0.71 – 1.56). The confidence intervals did not establish statistically significant associations between breast cancer and different stages of reproduction, including abortion. Overall, the relative risk was 0.77 (0.58 – 0.99), making for a 23% reduced risk in comparison to "contemporary Swedish population with due consideration to age."[53]
The study was funded by Family Health International,[53] a pro-choice NGO and although the study started with 49,000 women there were fewer than 5,000 still in the study after 11 years.[54] Lindefors-Harris made no adjustments for family history of breast cancer and the pill,[53] and provides no explanation for a lack of a control group or why the study was limited to women with an abortion before 30 years of age. Brind contends correcting for either of these removes the 23% "protective" effect; and that the study did not account for the difference of nulliparous women in the cohort 41% in comparison to 49% in the general population.[55] Possibly making the protective result about parity (childbearing) rather than abortion.
A large, highly regarded ABC study was published by Melbye et al. (1997) of the Statens Serum Institute in Copenhagen, which had 1.5 million Danish women in the study's database (1,338 ABC cases, no controls used).[18][56] Of those women, 280,965 of them had induced abortions recorded in the computerized registry, which was started in 1973 when having an induced abortion through 12 weeks was legal in Denmark. Although there was an observed increased ABC risk with "increasing gestational age of the fetus at the time of the most recent induced abortion";[18] the overall relative risk after statistical adjustment came to 1.00 (0.94 – 1.06), meaning zero breast cancer risk. This led to the conclusion that "induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer."[18] The Melbye study's conclusions have been used by many organizations, such as NCI, ACOG, ACS, RCOG and Planned Parenthood, as key scientific evidence of no ABC link.[13][57]
Brind and Chinchilli had concerns about the Melbye study database as women in the study were born from 1935 to 1978, but the computerized registry of induced abortions only started in 1973.[58] Melbye et al. responded that if the misclassified older women had their risk underestimated, it would be expected that the younger groups would have a higher risk. The statistically adjusted data indicated this was not the case.
However, the statistical adjustments made were another concern of Brind who argues that the Melbye study accidentally adjusted out induced abortion from the overall results. Instead of case-control matching, Melbye el al. decided to manually remove the many confounding factors that increased over time (e.g. smoking, late child bearing, etc.) and were raising breast cancer risk for younger women relative to older women (birth-cohorts). Brind believes finding exactly zero ABC risk was a consequence and red flag indicating ABC risk was removed along with the confounding factors.[58] Melbye et al. found the point to be self-contradictory, considering Brind wanted birth-cohort matching, then argued against "taking birth-cohort differences into account."[58] Brind has stated that he is against the use of just statistical adjustment and that standard case-control matching may more accurately account for birth-cohort differences.[59]
Another letter to the editor from Senghas and Dolan questioned why a statistically significant result for induced abortions done after 18 weeks gestation was not specifically addressed in the results section of the Melbye study abstract.[60] Melbye et al. explained even though they found the result "interesting and in line with the hypothesis of Russo and Russo, the small number of cases of cancer in women in this category of gestational age prompted us not to overstate the finding."[2][60] The first section of Table 1 in the Melbye study:[18]
|Week of gestation
|No. of Cancers
|Relative Risk (95% CI) *
|Multivariate Relative Risk (95% CI) †
|82 000
|0.81 (0.58–1.13)
|0.81 (0.58–1.13)
|1 012 000
|1.01 (0.89–1.14)
|1.01 (0.89–1.14)
|1 118 000
|422 000
|1.12 (0.95–1.31)
|1.12 (0.95–1.31)
|14 000
|1.13 (0.50–2.52)
|1.13 (0.51–2.53)
|35 000
|1.24 (0.76–2.01)
|1.23 (0.76–2.00)
|14 000
|1.92 (1.13–3.26)
|1.89 (1.11–3.22)
* The relative risks were calculated separately for each of the five variables, with adjustment for women's age, calendar period, parity, and age at delivery of a first child. CI denotes confidence interval.
† Values were adjusted for women's age, calendar period, parity, age at delivery of a first child, and the other variables shown in the table.
‡ The women with this characteristic served as the reference group.
Other sections listed age at induced abortion, number of induced abortions, time since induced abortion, and time of induced abortion and live-birth history. There was an indication of a relative risk of 1.29 (0.80–2.08) for 12–19-year olds (relative to 20–24 subcohort), and a protective effect 0.74 (0.41–1.33) for women with an induced abortion before and after their first live birth (relative to induced abortion after 1st live birth subcohort); both results were statistically insignificant.
A study by Michels et al. (2007) from the Harvard School of Public Health containing 105,716 women (233/1,225 ABC cases/controls) concluded with a relative risk of 1.01 (0.88 – 1.17) "after adjustment for established breast cancer risk factors."[19] Some of the results lead the authors to stipulate: "Although our data are not compatible with any substantial overall relation between induced abortion and breast cancer, we cannot exclude a modest association in subgroups defined by known breast cancer risk factors, timing of abortion, or parity." This modest association was mostly not statistically significant.
Further cohort studies[edit]
Several other recent prospective cohort studies have also found little evidence of a link between induced abortion and breast cancer. A study of 267,361 European women (746/2,908 ABC cases/controls), published in 2006, found no significant ABC risk.[61] Another 2006 study involving 267,400 women (872/771 ABC cases/controls) in Shanghai found no evidence of an ABC link. The Shanghai study also noted that women who had an abortion were at a significantly decreased risk of uterine cancer.[62]
In March 2004, Beral et al. published a study in The Lancet as a collaborative reanalysis on Breast cancer and abortion.[63] This meta-analysis of 53 epidemiologic studies of 83,000 women with breast cancer undertaken in 16 countries did not find evidence of a relationship between induced abortion and breast cancer, with a relative risk of 0.93 (0.89 – 0.96). Organizations and media outlets referenced the Beral study as the most comprehensive overview of the ABC evidence.[64][65]
Brind maintains that like meta-analysis this study is subject to selection bias, which he believes is reflected in the removal of 15 published, peer-reviewed studies with positive ABC results for "unscientific reasons"; and including 28 unpublished studies that outnumber the remaining 24 peer reviewed studies.[66] Beral refers to the Lindefors-Harris response bias study as an explanation for higher ABC risk found in interview based studies,[67] however Brind notes in 1998 that Lindefors-Harris conceded their initial conclusion may have been unsound.[68]
Brind et al. (1996) conducted a meta-analysis of 23 epidemiologic studies.[69] It calculated that there was on average a relative risk of 1.3 (1.2 – 1.4) increased risk of breast cancer. The meta-analysis was criticized for selection bias by using studies with widely varying results, using different types of studies, not working with the raw data from several studies, and including studies that have possible methodological weaknesses.[30]
The strong reaction to the study particularly in Britain and the United States prompted the editor-in-chief Stuart Donnan to write an editorial. In it he notes:
However, in the light of recent unease about appropriate but open communication of risks associated with oral contraceptive pills, it will surely be agreed that open discussion of risks is vital and must include the people – in this case the women – concerned. I believe that if you take a view (as I do), which is often called 'pro-choice', you need at the same time to have a view which might be called 'pro-information' without excessive paternalistic censorship (or interpretation) of the data.[31]
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) in March 2000 published evidence-based guidelines on women requesting induced abortion. The review of the available evidence at the time was "inconclusive" regarding the ABC link. They also noted "Brind's paper had no methodological shortcomings and could not be disregarded."[11] However, in 2003 the RCOG concluded that there was no link between abortion and breast cancer.[70]
In November 2013, Yubei Huang et al. published a meta-analysis of 36 studies (2 cohorts, 34 case-controls) in Cancer Causes & Control which found significant ABC correlation of 1.44 (1.29 – 1.59) for one, 1.76 (1.39 – 2.22) for two, and 1.89 (1.40 – 2.55) for at least three induced abortions.[71] However, Abby Ohlheiser said that this meta-analysis was flawed because it used some studies that may not be peer-reviewed, as well as case-control studies which are susceptible to response bias that can show an ABC association when none actually exists. Ohlheiser quoted Susan Gapstur as saying, "The findings of this meta-analysis should be viewed with caution."[72]
Interview (case-control) based studies have been inconsistent on the ABC hypothesis. With the small numbers involved in each individual study and the possibility that recall bias skewed the results, recent focus has switched to meta-analysis and record based studies which are typically much larger.[73] Included are a few interview studies of note.
Janet Daling from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center headed two studies on the ABC issue looking at women in Washington state. The 1994 study (845/961 ABC cases/controls) results indicated an associated relative risk of 1.5 (1.2 – 1.9) among women who had given birth before having an abortion.[74] This was reflected in higher risks for women younger than 18 or older than 30 years of age who have had abortions after 8 weeks' gestation. Their conclusion emphasized that although the evidence suggested the possibility of a correlative relationship, their findings were not consistent enough to establish one.
The second larger study Daling conducted in 1996 (1,302/1,180 ABC cases/controls) found that abortion was associated with a relative risk value of 1.2 (1.0 – 1.5).[16] The study also found a significant relative risk of 2.0 (1.2 – 3.3) for nulliparous women with an induced abortion at less than 8 weeks gestation. Daling et al. concluded that:
|There was no excess risk of breast cancer associated with induced abortion among parous women. These data support the hypothesis that there may be a small increase in the risk of breast cancer related to a history of induced abortion among young women of reproductive age. However, the data from this study and others do not permit a causal interpretation at this time; neither do the collective results of the studies suggest that there is a subgroup of women in whom the relative risk associated with induced abortion is unusually high.[16]
Daling et al. examined the possibility of response bias by comparing results from two recent studies on invasive cervical cancer and ovarian cancer. The results argued against significant response bias. However, Rookus (1996) study noted that patients with cervical cancer may report differently than breast cancer patients.[75]
Further interview studies[edit]
A 2001 study (1,459/1,556 ABC cases/controls) conducted in Shanghai, China by Sanderson et al. from the University of South Carolina and South Carolina Cancer Center at Columbia concluded that there was no ABC link and that multiple abortions did not put one at greater risk.[76] Since induced abortion is common, legal, and even mandated by the government in China, the recall bias was minimized. Brind has argued that the same factors that make the Chinese study ideal for reducing recall bias also makes them inappropriate for comparison to the West.[77] Specifically, with China's strict population control, the vast majority of the abortions in the Chinese study were done after the first full-term pregnancy.[76] This differs from North America.[43]
The Istanbul University Medical Faculty published a study in 2009 (742/930 ABC cases/controls) of outpatients from clinics, authored by Ozmen et al. it found a 1.31 (1.13 – 1.53) increased ABC risk. The authors point out various potential biases such as selection, information and even hospital admission bias may have impacted their results. They believe the large pool of patients available to them and the resulting large size of the study "provided reasonably stable risk estimates."[78]
Response bias[edit]
Response bias occurs when women intentionally "underreport" their abortion history, meaning that they deny having an abortion or claim to have fewer abortions than they actually had. This can happen because of the personal and controversial nature of abortion, which may cause women to not want to provide full disclosure. Women in control groups are less likely to have serious illnesses, and hence have less motivation to be truthful than those trying to diagnose their problem.[75] When this occurs, it artificially creates an ABC link where none exists. Three major studies have been published examining abortion response bias.
An editorial by Weed and Kramer focused on how Brind's meta-analysis dismissed bias as a factor. The editorial cites the Lindefors-Harris response bias study that used a "registry-based gold standard to show that healthy women consistently and widely underreport their history of abortion."[30][67] Weed and Kramer considered this compelling evidence there could be systematic bias within the studies included in the meta-analysis. However, subsequently the Lindefors-Harris conclusion was quietly retracted in 1998.[68] Weed and Kramer believed a causal conclusion was a "leap beyond the bounds of inference" and concluded:
Because bias impedes our vision and is subject to sound inquiry, we are far from reaching a scientific "limit". Indeed, after this excursion into the issue of abortion, bias, and breast cancer, it seems our future has as much to do with human behavior as with human biology.[30]
A review of ABC studies was conducted by Bartholomew in 1998. It concluded that if studies least susceptible to response bias are considered, they suggest there is no association between abortion and breast cancer.[79] Chris Kahlenborn, M.D., a pro-life researcher and specialist in internal medicine, observes in his book Breast Cancer: Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill that if report bias were a significant factor in interview-based studies, then:
... thousands of other studies in medicine might now be deemed 'worthless.' Every time one had a disease or 'effect' that was caused by a controversial risk factor (i.e., one of the causes), the study might be considered invalid based upon 'recall bias.'[80]
The Lindefors-Harris (1991) study (317/512 ABC cases/controls) was the first major study to examine response and recall bias.[67] It used the data of two independent Swedish induced abortion studies, and concluded there was a 1.5 (1.1 – 2.1) margin of error due to recall bias. However, eight women (seven cases, one control) included in this error margin apparently "overreported" their abortions, meaning the women reported having an abortion that was not reflected in the records. It was decided that for the purposes of the study, these women did not have abortions.[67]
The 1994 Daling study examined the findings on overreporting of the Lindefors-Harris study and found it "reasonable to assume that virtually no women who truly did not have an abortion would claim to have had one."[74] In 1998 the co-authors of the Lindefors-Harris study acknowledged this in a letter:[68]
We are not surprised to find some Swedish women confidentially reporting having had induced abortions during the period 1966–1974 that are not recorded as legally induced abortions. It is plausible that such induced abortions are more susceptible to recall bias than induced abortions performed within the legal context in Sweden.
With the eight alleged overreporting women removed, the error margin was reduced from 50% to 16% which severely limits its statistical significance. Brind believes the remaining 16% could have resulted from the Swedish fertility registry[81] – where women were interviewed as mothers – which could have increased their tendency to underreport, given that a mother might not want to appear unfit.[69]
The Rookus (1996) study (918 ABC cases/controls) compared two regions in the Netherlands to assess the effect of religion on ABC results based on interviews.[75] The secular (western) and conservative (southeastern) regions showed ABC relative risks of 1.3 (0.7 – 2.6) and 14.6 (1.8 – 120.0) respectively. Although this was a large variance, Brind et al. pointed out that it was attained with an extremely small sample size of 12 cases and 1 control.[82]
Rookus et al. supported their finding with an analysis of how much recall bias existed with oral contraceptive use that could be verified through records. It corroborated the bias, but Brind's et al. letter argues that it only indicated response bias between the two regions, not between case and control subjects within regions. Rookus et al. responded by noting that there was a 4.5-month underreporting difference between control and case subjects in the conservative Catholic region. This was indirect evidence for a reporting bias since women's comfort levels with reporting oral contraception are theoretically higher than induced abortion. Rookus et al. also acknowledged the weakness in the Lindefors-Harris response bias study,[67] but emphasized that more controls (16/59 = 27.1%) than case patients (5/24 = 20.8%) underreported registered induced abortions. They concluded that asserting a causal ABC link would be a disservice to the public and to epidemiological research when "bias has not been ruled out convincingly."[75]
A study by Tang et al. (2000) (225/303 ABC cases/controls) done in Washington State found controls were not more reluctant to report induced abortion than women with breast cancer.[83] Their results were that 14.0% of cases and 14.9% controls (a difference of −0.9%) did not accurately report their abortion history. They do note likely underreporting occurring in certain sub-groups of women; such as older women in a Newcomb study reporting abortions prior to legalization,[84] and a predominantly Roman Catholic population in the Rookus study.[75]
Spontaneous abortion[edit]
Studies of spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) have generally shown no increase in breast cancer risk,[85] although a study by Paoletti concluded there is a "suggestion of increased risk" 1.2 (0.92 – 1.56) after three or more pregnancy losses.[86] Some argue that this apparent lack of effect of miscarriages on breast cancer risk is evidence against the ABC hypothesis, and pro-choice advocates have claimed it is proof that neither early pregnancy loss nor abortion are risk factors for breast cancer.[24]
One of the problems with comparing miscarriage to abortion is the issue of hormone levels in early pregnancy, a key point because the ABC hypothesis rests on hormonal influence over breast tissue development. While it is true most miscarriages are not caused by low hormones, most miscarriages are characterized by low hormone levels.[87] Kunz & Keller (1976) showed that when progesterone is abnormally low a miscarriage occurs 89% of the time.[88] Advocates of the ABC hypothesis argue that, given the association of most first trimester miscarriages with low hormone levels, spontaneous abortion is not analogous to an induced abortion.
Pro-life organizations like National Right to Life turned to legal tactics that included lobbying against late-term abortions and RU-486. One of the other tactics adopted by the mainstream pro-life movement was promoting an alleged ABC link. During the height of a publicized "breast cancer epidemic" pro-life organizations began to emphasize preliminary positive ABC results in an effort to further restrict abortion and to discourage women from having abortions.[5] Currently, pro-life organizations lobby to increase obstacles to abortion, such as mandated counseling, waiting periods, and parental notification,[43] and some feel that pro-life advocates treat ABC as simply another tactic in their campaign against abortion.[24] There have been ongoing and incremental legal challenges to abortion in the United States by pro-life groups.[89] In 2005, a Canadian pro-life organization put up billboards in Alberta with large pink ribbons and the statement: "Stop the Cover-Up," in reference to the ABC hypothesis.[90] The Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation was concerned the billboards misrepresented the state of scientific knowledge on the subject.[63]
The continued focus on the ABC link by pro-life groups has created a confrontational political environment. Pro-choice advocates and scientists alike have responded with criticisms.[5][18][30] The claims by pro-life advocates are sometimes referred to as pseudoscience.[91][92] The extent with which politics has infused the ABC issue is illustrated by an editorial that quoted Daling as saying:
|If politics gets involved in science, it will really hold back the progress we make. I have three sisters with breast cancer, and I resent people messing with the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It's not a matter of believing. It's a matter of what is.[93][94]
During the late 1990s several United States congressmen became involved in the ABC issue. In 1998, congressman Tom Coburn questioned a National Cancer Institute (NCI) official on why the NCI website contained out of date information on the ABC issue.[95] Congressman Dave Weldon wrote a "Dear Colleague" letter to congress in 1999 shortly after the House debated FDA approval of the abortion drug Mifepristone; and partially as a result of John Kindley's law review on informed consent which was enclosed.[96] In it Weldon expressed concern that the majority of studies indicate a possible ABC link and the politicization of the ABC issue is "preventing vital information from being given to women."[26]
As of 2006, state law in Alaska, Mississippi, Texas, West Virginia, and Kansas requires warning women seeking abortions about a possible breast cancer risk, while Minnesota reflects the NCI workshop conclusion of no ABC link.[12] Similar legislation requiring notification has also been introduced, and was pending, in 14 other states.[97] An editor for the American Journal of Public Health expressed concern over how such legislative bills propose warnings that do not agree with established scientific findings.[98]
Bioethicist Jacob M. Appel argues that the mandatory disclosure statutes might be unconstitutional on "rational basis" grounds, because childbirth is significantly more dangerous than abortion, data that is not required in any disclosure law, but which is necessary for a meaningful understanding of risks. According to Appel, "If the roughly fifty million abortions that have occurred in the United States since Roe v. Wade had all ended in full-term deliveries, approximately five hundred additional women would have died during childbirth."[99]
National Cancer Institute[edit]
A report from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found that in November 2002, the Bush administration altered the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) website. The previous NCI analysis had concluded that while some question regarding an association between abortion and breast cancer existed prior to the mid-1990s, a number of large and well-regarded studies such as Melbye et al. (1997) had resolved the issue; and there was no link between abortion and breast cancer. The Bush administration removed this analysis and replaced it with the following:
|[T]he possible relationship between abortion and breast cancer has been examined in over thirty published studies since 1957. Some studies have reported statistically significant evidence of an increased risk of breast cancer in women who have had abortions, while others have merely suggested an increased risk. Other studies have found no increase in risk among women who have had an interrupted pregnancy.[13]
This alteration, which suggested that there was scientific uncertainty on the ABC issue, prompted an editorial in the New York Times describing it as an "egregious distortion" and a letter to the Secretary of Health and Human Services from members of Congress.[13] In response to the alteration the NCI convened a three-day consensus workshop entitled Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer on 24–26 February 2003. The workshop concluded that induced abortion does not increase a woman's risk of breast cancer, and that the evidence for this was well established.[20] Afterwards, the director of epidemiology research for the American Cancer Society said, "This issue has been resolved scientifically . . . . This is essentially a political debate."[13]
Brind was the only one to file a dissenting opinion as a minority report criticizing the NCI's and Melbye's conclusions.[100] Brind alleges the workshop evidence and findings were overly controlled by its organizers since Daling, who has published on the abortion-breast cancer issue, was asked to present on another topic. Further, Melbye submitted unpublished data during the workshop instead of allowing attendees to review it beforehand.[100][101] Preterm delivery was listed as an epidemiological "gap" even though there was preliminary evidence, by Melbye et al., of a correlation with higher breast cancer risk.[45]
Jasen notes: "A very public target of the anti-abortion movement has been the National Cancer Institute, not only for its dismissal of Daling's findings and uncritical support of Melbye's report, but also for the information supplied on its website, which potentially reaches millions of women around the world."[5] Lawrence R. Huntoon editor-in-chief for the conservative non-mainstream Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons notes in a Malec article that while the workshop had over 100 experts who voted on the findings the NCI website does not elaborate on the vote results.[102]
North Dakota lawsuit[edit]
One example of the politicization of science is the case of Kjolsrud v. MKB Management Corporation. In January 2000, Amy Jo Kjolsrud (née Mattson), a pro-life counselor, sued the Red River Women's Clinic in Fargo, North Dakota alleging false advertising.[103] The suit alleged the clinic was misleading women by distributing a brochure quoting a National Cancer Institute fact sheet on the ABC issue which stated:
- "Anti-abortion activists claim that having an abortion increases the risk of developing breast cancer and endangers future childbearing. None of these claims are supported by medical research or established medical organizations."[104] (emphasis in original)
The case was originally scheduled for 11 September 2001, but was delayed as a result of the terrorist attacks. On 25 March 2002, the trial started and after four days of testimony, Judge Michael McGuire ruled in favor of the clinic. In his decision, he said:
|It does appear that the clinic had the intent to put out correct information and that their information is not untrue or misleading in any way. They did exercise reasonable care... One thing is clear from the experts, and that is that there are inconsistencies. The issue seems to be in a state of flux.
The judge noted it was their "intent" to provide accurate information because the brochure used an outdated 1996 fact sheet that stated there was "no established link", instead of the 1999 fact sheet wording of "inconsistent" evidence for the ABC issue.[105][106] Linda Rosenthal, an attorney from the Center for Reproductive Rights characterized the decision thus: "The judge rejected the abortion-breast cancer scare tactic. This ruling should put to rest the unethical, anti-choice scare tactic of using pseudo-science to harass abortion clinics and scare women."[92] John Kindley, one of the lawyers representing Ms. Kjolsrud stated: "I think most citizens, whether they are pro-choice or pro-life, believe in an individual's right to self-determination. They believe people shouldn't be misled and should be told about [procedural] risks, even if there is controversy over those risks."[107] Kindley also wrote an article published in 1998 by the Wisconsin Law Review outlining the viability of medical malpractice lawsuits based upon not informing patients considering abortion about the evidence indicating an ABC link.[96]
The decision was appealed and on 23 September 2003, to the North Dakota Supreme Court which ruled the false advertising law should not have been used by Ms. Kjolsrud.[108] This was because she personally had suffered no injury and hence had no standing (according to North Dakota jurisprudence) to file the lawsuit on behalf of others. In the appeal, Ms. Kjolsrud "concedes she had not read the brochures before filing her action."[109] However, the appeal also noted that after the lawsuit was filed the abortion clinic updated their brochure to the following:
- "Some anti-abortion activists claim that having an abortion increases the risk of developing breast cancer. A substantial body of medical research indicates that there is no established link between abortion and breast cancer. In fact, the National Cancer Institute has stated, '[t]here is no evidence of a direct relationship between breast cancer and either induced or spontaneous abortion.'"
In the Fall of 2007, Patrick S. Carroll published a statistical analysis in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons,[110] a politically conservative journal with a pro-life stance.[111] The study claimed that, among seven risk factors, abortion was the "best predictor of breast cancer," and fertility was also a useful predictor. It forecasts, for the year 2025, higher breast cancer rates for Czech Republic, England and Sweden and lower for Finland and Denmark based on abortion trends. In a Guardian editorial, Libby Brooks criticized Carroll's study, alleging that the study's methodology was flawed, that the study was funded by an anti-abortion group, and that it was published in a "right wing" journal.[112]
Criticism of media coverage[edit]
In an article entitled "Blinded by Science" for the Columbia Journalism Review, Chris Mooney argues that "balanced" coverage by the media of the ABC hypothesis, among other scientific hypotheses championed by "the religious right", is an example of how the scientific fringe manipulates public opinion by insisting on the illusory notion of journalistic "balance" instead of scientific accuracy. In the article, Mooney criticizes John Carroll (former Editor-in-Chief of the Los Angeles Times) for a rebuke Carroll made regarding an article written by Scott Gold about the ABC hypothesis for the L.A. Times.[113] Gold's article covered the National Cancer Institute (NCI) workshop, and Carroll notes that when a scientific advocate (Joel Brind) for the ABC hypothesis is found:
It is not until the last three paragraphs of the story that we finally surface a professor of biology and endocrinology who believes the abortion/cancer connection is valid. But do we quote him as to why he believes this? No. We quote his political views.
Apparently the scientific argument for the anti-abortion side is so absurd that we don't need to waste our readers' time with it.[114]
Carroll's concern is that Gold's article provides fodder to critics who claim that the L.A. Times has a liberal bias. Mooney writes in defense of Gold that:
As a general rule, journalists should treat fringe scientific claims with considerable skepticism, and find out what major peer-reviewed papers or assessments have to say about them. Moreover, they should adhere to the principle that the more outlandish or dramatic the claim, the more skepticism it warrants. The Los Angeles Times's Carroll observes that "every good journalist has a bit of a contrarian in his soul," but it is precisely this impulse that can lead reporters astray. The fact is, nonscientist journalists can all too easily fall for scientific-sounding claims that they can't adequately evaluate on their own.[22]
Responding to criticism Carroll reiterated:
You have an obligation to find a scientist, and if the scientist has something to say, then you can subject the scientist's views to rigorous examination.[22]
- ^ Russo J, Russo I (1980). "Susceptibility of the mammary gland to carcinogenesis. II. Pregnancy interruption as a risk factor in tumor incidence". Am J Pathol 100 (2): 505–506. PMC 1903536. PMID 6773421. "In contrast, abortion is associated with increased risk of carcinomas of the breast. The explanation for these epidemiologic findings is not known, but the parallelism between the DMBA-induced rat mammary carcinoma model and the human situation is striking. [...] Abortion would interrupt this process, leaving in the gland undifferentiated structures like those observed in the rat mammary gland, which could render the gland again susceptible to carcinogenesis."
- ^ a b c d Russo J, Russo I (1980). "Susceptibility of the mammary gland to carcinogenesis. II. Pregnancy interruption as a risk factor in tumor incidence". Am J Pathol 100 (2): 497–512. PMC 1903536. PMID 6773421.
- ^ a b Russo J, Tay L, Russo I (1982). "Differentiation of the mammary gland and susceptibility to carcinogenesis". Breast Cancer Res Treat 2 (1): 5–73. doi:10.1007/BF01805718. PMID 6216933.
- ^ a b c Russo J, Russo I (1987). "Biological and molecular bases of mammary carcinogenesis". Lab Invest 57 (2): 112–37. PMID 3302534.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Jasen P (2005). "Breast cancer and the politics of abortion in the United States". Med Hist 49 (4): 423–44. doi:10.1017/S0025727300009145. PMC 1251638. PMID 16562329.
- ^ a b "WHO – Induced abortion does not increase breast cancer risk". who.int. Archived from the original on 13 January 2011. Retrieved 11 January 2011.
- ^ "Abortion, Miscarriage, and Breast Cancer Risk". National Cancer Institute. Archived from the original on 21 December 2010. Retrieved 11 January 2011.
- ^ "Politics & Science – Investigating the State of Science Under the Bush Administration". oversight.house.gov. Archived from the original on 27 March 2008. Retrieved 14 April 2008.
- ^ "Is Abortion Linked to Breast Cancer?". American Cancer Society. Archived from the original on 31 January 2011. Retrieved 11 January 2011.
- ^ a b Committee On Gynecologic, Practice (June 2009). "ACOG Committee Opinion No. 434: induced abortion and breast cancer risk". Obstetrics and Gynecology 113 (6): 1417–8. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181ac067d. PMID 19461458.
- ^ a b c "The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion" (PDF). Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. p. 9. Retrieved 29 June 2008. "Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk."
- ^ a b Guttmacher – Misinformed Consent
- ^ a b c d e "Politics & Science In the Bush Administration". oversight.house.gov. Archived from the original on 15 December 2012. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ a b Howe H, Senie R, Bzduch H, Herzfeld P (1989). "Early abortion and breast cancer risk among women under age 40". Int J Epidemiol 18 (2): 300–4. doi:10.1093/ije/18.2.300. PMID 2767842.
- ^ Daling JR, Malone KE, Voigt LF, White E, Weiss NS. (2 November 1994). "Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion". Journal of the National Cancer Institute 86 (21): 1584–92. doi:10.1093/jnci/86.21.1584. PMID 7932822.
- ^ a b c Daling JR, Brinton LA, Voigt LF et al. (1996). "Risk of breast cancer among white women following induced abortion". Am. J. Epidemiol. 144 (4): 373–80. PMID 8712194.
- ^ "Weird Science". Ms. Magazine. Retrieved 14 October 2008.
- ^ a b c d e f Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Olsen J, Frisch M, Westergaard T, Helweg-Larsen K, Andersen P (1997). "Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer". N Engl J Med 336 (2): 81–5. doi:10.1056/NEJM199701093360201. PMID 8988884.
- ^ a b c Michels KB, Xue F, Colditz GA, Willett WC (2007). "Induced and spontaneous abortion and incidence of breast cancer among young women: a prospective cohort study". Arch. Intern. Med. 167 (8): 814–20. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.8.814. PMID 17452545.
- ^ a b c "Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events Workshop – National Cancer Institute". cancer.gov. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ "Breast Cancer Prevention". National Cancer Institute. 15 July 2011. Archived from the original on 27 July 2011. Retrieved 20 August 2011.
- ^ a b c Chris Mooney (2004). "Research and Destroy". washingtonmonthly.com. Archived from the original on 4 April 2008. Retrieved 14 April 2008.
- ^ "Medical Groups Recognizing Link". abortionbreastcancer.com. Archived from the original on 9 April 2008. Retrieved 14 April 2008.
- ^ a b c "THE PRO-CHOICE ACTION NETWORK". prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org. Archived from the original on 11 October 2007. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ "Women's Health after Abortion". deveber.org. Archived from the original on 14 March 2008. Retrieved 14 April 2008.
- ^ a b "Weldon Letter". abortionbreastcancer.com. Archived from the original on 23 October 2007. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ "Is Abortion Linked to Breast Cancer?". American Cancer Society. Archived from the original on 14 March 2011. Retrieved 12 March 2011.
- ^ "Joel Brind, Department of Natural Sciences". Baruch College. Retrieved 29 June 2008.
- ^ "Concerned Women for America – Family Voice".
- ^ a b c d e f Weed DL, Kramer BS (1996). "Induced abortion, bias, and breast cancer: why epidemiology hasn't reached its limit". J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 88 (23): 1698–700. doi:10.1093/jnci/88.23.1698. PMID 8943995.
- ^ a b Donnan S (December 1996). "Abortion, breast cancer, and impact factors—in this number and the last". J Epidemiol Community Health 50 (6): 605. doi:10.1136/jech.50.6.605. PMC 1060372. PMID 9039374.
- ^ Breast Cancer Prevention Institute (BCPI)
- ^ "Reproductive Breast Cancer Risks Brochure". Archived from the original on 15 October 2007. Retrieved 20 October 2007.
- ^ a b "Adolescent Diet & Risk of Bca". annieappleseedproject.org. Archived from the original on 28 September 2007. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ Alvarado MV, Alvarado NE, Russo J, Russo IH (1994). "Human chorionic gonadotropin inhibits proliferation and induces expression of inhibin in human breast epithelial cells in vitro". In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Anim. 30A (1): 4–8. doi:10.1007/BF02631407. PMID 8193772.
- ^ Russo IH, Koszalka M, Russo J (1990). "Effect of human chorionic gonadotropin on mammary gland differentiation and carcinogenesis". Carcinogenesis 11 (10): 1849–55. doi:10.1093/carcin/11.10.1849. PMID 2119909.
- ^ Bernstein L, Hanisch R, Sullivan-Halley J, Ross RK (1995). "Treatment with human chorionic gonadotropin and risk of breast cancer". Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 4 (5): 437–40. PMID 7549796.
- ^ B MacMahon, P Cole, and J Brown (1973). "Etiology of human breast cancer: a review". J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 50 (21–42): 21–42. PMID 4571238.
- ^ Jasen, Patricia (1 October 2005). "Breast Cancer and the Politics of Abortion in the United States". Medical History 49 (4): 423–444. doi:10.1017/S0025727300009145. PMC 1251638. PMID 16562329. "Their study supported the theory that structural changes in breast tissue are responsible for the lasting, protective effect of full-term pregnancy. They observed that abortion left the rats highly susceptible to developing cancer, but that the aborted rats "were at the same risk as virgin animals treated with the carcinogen" (italics mine). Over the next two decades, however, their findings would be cited repeatedly as evidence that pregnancy begins a process of breast change which, when stopped by abortion, put female rats (and thus humans) at greater risk of cancer than those who had never been pregnant."
- ^ Yeoman, Barry. "Scientist Who Hated Abortion". Discover. Archived from the original on 28 September 2007. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ "Tools of the Trade: The Notion of Risk" (PDF). Retrieved 12 March 2011.
- ^ "Cancer Risk and Abnormal Breast Cancer Genes". Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ a b c "Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States". guttmacher.org. Archived from the original on 13 October 2007. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ Moreau C, Kaminski M, Ancel PY et al. (2005). "Previous induced abortions and the risk of very preterm delivery: results of the EPIPAGE study". BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 112 (4): 430–7. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00478.x. PMID 15777440.
- ^ a b Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Andersen AM, Westergaard T, Andersen PK (1999). "Preterm delivery and risk of breast cancer". Br. J. Cancer 80 (3–4): 609–13. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6690399. PMC 2362328. PMID 10408874.
- ^ "ACS :: What Are the Risk Factors for Breast Cancer?". cancer.org. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ "Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2001–2002" (PDF). Archived from the original on 29 September 2007. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ "Understanding Cancer Series: Estrogen Receptors/SERMs". National Cancer Institute. Archived from the original on 20 March 2011. Retrieved 12 March 2011.
- ^ "New Federal Report On Carcinogens Lists Estrogen Therapy, Ultraviolet, Wood Dust". Archived from the original on 30 September 2007. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ Chlebowski RT, Hendrix SL, Langer RD et al. (June 2003). "Influence of estrogen plus progestin on breast cancer and mammography in healthy postmenopausal women: the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Trial". JAMA 289 (24): 3243–53. doi:10.1001/jama.289.24.3243. PMID 12824205.
- ^ Feuer EJ, Wun LM, Boring CC, Flanders WD, Timmel MJ, Tong T (1993). "The lifetime risk of developing breast cancer". J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 85 (11): 892–7. doi:10.1093/jnci/85.11.892. PMID 8492317.
- ^ "Judge to Rule on Abortion, Breast Cancer Link". womensenews.org. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ a b c d Harris BM, Eklund G, Meirik O, Rutqvist LE, Wiklund K (1989). "Risk of cancer of the breast after legal abortion during first trimester: a Swedish register study". BMJ 299 (6713): 1430–2. doi:10.1136/bmj.299.6713.1430. PMC 1838310. PMID 2514825.
- ^ Chris Kahlenborn. "CHAPTER 6: BREAST CANCER AND ABORTION". lifeissues.net. Retrieved 23 January 2008.
- ^ Joel Brind. "lifeissues.net | Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer". lifeissues.net. Retrieved 23 January 2008.
- ^ Jane E. Brody (9 January 1997). "Big Study Finds No Link In Abortion and Cancer – New York Times". New York Times. Retrieved 3 July 2008.
- ^ "Planned Parenthood – Anti-Choice Claims About Abortion and Breast Cancer". plannedparenthood.org. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ a b c Brind J, Chinchilli VM (1997). "Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer". N. Engl. J. Med. 336 (25): 1834; author reply 1835. doi:10.1056/NEJM199706193362514. PMID 9190496.
- ^ Joel Brind. "ABC in the courts". abortionbreastcancer.com. Archived from the original on 10 April 2008. Retrieved 21 March 2008.
- ^ a b Senghas R, Dolan M (1997). "Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer". N Engl J Med 336 (25): 1834; author reply 1835. doi:10.1056/NEJM199706193362514. PMID 9190497.
- ^ Reeves G, Kan S, Key T, Tjønneland A, Olsen A, Overvad K, Peeters P, Clavel-Chapelon F, Paoletti X, Berrino F, Krogh V, Palli D, Tumino R, Panico S, Vineis P, Gonzalez C, Ardanaz E, Martinez C, Amiano P, Quiros J, Tormo M, Khaw K, Trichopoulou A, Psaltopoulou T, Kalapothaki V, Nagel G, Chang-Claude J, Boeing H, Lahmann P, Wirfält E, Kaaks R, Riboli E (2006). "Breast cancer risk in relation to abortion: Results from the EPIC study". Int. J. Cancer 119 (7): 1741–5. doi:10.1002/ijc.22001. PMID 16646050.
- ^ Rosenblatt K, Gao D, Ray R, Rowland M, Nelson Z, Wernli K, Li W, Thomas D (2006). "Induced abortions and the risk of all cancers combined and site-specific cancers in Shanghai". Cancer Causes Control 17 (10): 1275–80. doi:10.1007/s10552-006-0067-x. PMID 17111259.
- ^ a b Beral V, Bull D, Doll R, Peto R, Reeves G (2004). "Breast cancer and abortion: collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83?000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries". Lancet 363 (9414): 1007–16. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15835-2. PMID 15051280.
- ^ Shankar Vedantam (26 March 2004). "Abortion's Link to Breast Cancer Discounted". The Washington Post. Retrieved 14 April 2008.
- ^ Lawrence K. Altman (25 March 2004). "Abortions Do Not Raise Risk of Breast Cancer, Study Says". The New York Times. Retrieved 14 April 2008.
- ^ "Breast Cancer Prevention Institute Fact Sheets". Archived from the original on 15 October 2007. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ a b c d e Lindefors-Harris BM, Eklund G, Adami HO, Meirik O (1991). "Response bias in a case-control study: analysis utilizing comparative data concerning legal abortions from two independent Swedish studies". Am. J. Epidemiol. 134 (9): 1003–8. PMID 1951288.
- ^ a b c Meirik O, Adami HO, Eklund G (1998). "Relation between induced abortion and breast cancer". Journal of epidemiology and community health 52 (3): 209–11. doi:10.1136/jech.52.3.209. PMC 1756684. PMID 9616432.
- ^ a b Brind J, Chinchilli VM, Severs WB, Summy-Long J (1996). "Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis". Journal of epidemiology and community health 50 (5): 481–96. doi:10.1136/jech.50.5.481. PMC 1060338. PMID 8944853.
- ^ "The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion" (PDF). Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Archived from the original on 31 October 2007. Retrieved 7 November 2007.
- ^ Yubei Huang, Xiaoliang Zhang, Weiqin Li, Fengju Song, Hongji Dai, Jing Wang, Ying Gao, Xueou Liu, Chuan Chen, Ye Yan, Yaogang Wang, Kexin Chen (November 2013). "A meta-analysis of the association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk among Chinese females". Cancer Causes & Control (Springer Netherlands): 1–10. doi:10.1007/s10552-013-0325-7.
- ^ Ohlheiser, Abby (6 December 2013). "The Faulty Science of the Abortion-Breast Cancer Link". Thewire.com. Retrieved 12 December 2013.
- ^ "Is there a link between abortion and breast cancer? A balanced review". religioustolerance.org. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ a b Daling JR, Malone KE, Voigt LF, White E, Weiss NS (1994). "Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion". J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 86 (21): 1584–92. doi:10.1093/jnci/86.21.1584. PMID 7932822.
- ^ a b c d e Rookus MA, van Leeuwen FE (1996). "Induced abortion and risk for breast cancer: reporting (recall) bias in a Dutch case-control study". J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 88 (23): 1759–64. doi:10.1093/jnci/88.23.1759. PMID 8944006.
- ^ a b Sanderson M, Shu XO, Jin F et al. (2001). "Abortion history and breast cancer risk: results from the Shanghai Breast Cancer Study". Int. J. Cancer 92 (6): 899–905. doi:10.1002/ijc.1263. PMID 11351314.
- ^ Brind J, Chinchilli VM (2004). "Breast cancer and induced abortions in China". Br. J. Cancer 90 (11): 2244–5; author reply 2245–6. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6601853. PMC 2409512. PMID 15150586.
- ^ Ozmen, Vahit; Ozcinar, Beyza; Karanlik, Hasan; Cabioglu, Neslihan; Tukenmez, Mustafa; Disci, Rian; Ozmen, Tolga; Igci, Abdullah; Muslumanoglu, Mahmut; Kecer, Mustafa; Soran, Atilla (2009). "Breast cancer risk factors in Turkish women – a University Hospital based nested case control study". World Journal of Surgical Oncology 7 (37): 708–14. doi:10.1186/1477-7819-7-37.
- ^ Bartholomew LL, Grimes DA (1998). "The alleged association between induced abortion and risk of breast cancer: biology or bias?". Obstetrical & gynecological survey 53 (11): 708–14. doi:10.1097/00006254-199811000-00024. PMID 9812330.
- ^ Karen Malec. "Catholic Citizens". CatholicCitizens.org title. Archived from the original on 6 January 2008. Retrieved 21 January 2008.
- ^ Meirik O, Lund E, Adami HO, Bergström R, Christoffersen T, Bergsjö P (1986). "Oral contraceptive use and breast cancer in young women. A joint national case-control study in Sweden and Norway". Lancet 2 (8508): 650–4. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90166-2. PMID 2876135.
- ^ Brind J, Chinchilli VM, Severs WB, Summy-Long J (1997). "Re: Induced abortion and risk for breast cancer: reporting (recall) bias in a Dutch case-control study". J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 89 (8): 588–90. doi:10.1093/jnci/89.8.588. PMID 9106653.
- ^ Tang MT, Weiss NS, Daling JR, Malone KE (2000). "Case-control differences in the reliability of reporting a history of induced abortion". Am. J. Epidemiol. 151 (12): 1139–43. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a010163. PMID 10905525.
- ^ Newcomb PA, Storer BE, Longnecker MP, Mittendorf R, Greenberg ER, Willett WC (1996). "Pregnancy termination in relation to risk of breast cancer". JAMA 275 (4): 283–7. doi:10.1001/jama.275.4.283. PMID 8544267.
- ^ Brewster DH, Stockton DL, Dobbie R, Bull D, Beral V (2005). "Risk of breast cancer after miscarriage or induced abortion: a Scottish record linkage case-control study". Journal of epidemiology and community health 59 (4): 283–7. doi:10.1136/jech.2004.026393. PMC 1733063. PMID 15767381.
- ^ Paoletti X, Clavel-Chapelon F (2003). "Induced and spontaneous abortion and breast cancer risk: results from the E3N cohort study". Int. J. Cancer 106 (2): 270–6. doi:10.1002/ijc.11203. PMID 12800205.
- ^ "The Recurrent Miscarriage Clinic – What Causes Recurrent Miscarriage?". st-marys.nhs.uk. Archived from the original on 7 March 2005. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ Kunz J, Keller PJ (1976). "HCG, HPL, oestradiol, progesterone and AFP in serum in patients with threatened abortion". British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 83 (8): 640–4. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1976.tb00903.x. PMID 60125.
- ^ "The Last Abortion Clinic". PBS.org. Archived from the original on 23 October 2007. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ "Group angered by billboards linking breast cancer to abortion". Canada: CBC. 25 October 2005. Archived from the original on 18 December 2007. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ "Vote for the Golden Boob!". goldenboob.org. Archived from the original on 20 October 2007. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ a b "ARCHIVE| March 28, 2002 – Judge Rejects Abortion-Breast Cancer Scare Tactic". crlp.org. Archived from the original on 27 September 2007. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ Joe Gelman. "FINDINGS LINKING CANCER TO ABORTIONS A WELL-KEPT SECRET. – Free Online Library". L.A. Daily News. Retrieved 30 December 2007.
- ^ theage.com.au – Breast cancer and abortion: the facts
- ^ "Physicians For Life – Abstinence, Abortion, Birth Control – Need to Inform Patients of Abortion – Breast Cancer Link". physiciansforlife.org. Archived from the original on 27 September 2007. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ a b "John A. Kindley Law Office: The ABC Link". John Kindley. Retrieved 7 November 2007.
- ^ Meckler, Laura (10 November 2004). "Questions on states' abortion warnings". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ Chavkin W (1996). "Topics for our times: public health on the line—abortion and beyond". American journal of public health 86 (9): 1204–6. doi:10.2105/AJPH.86.9.1204. PMC 1380579. PMID 8806368.
- ^ Abortion: The Healthy Choice
- ^ a b "Breast Cancer Prevention Institute". bcpinstitute.org. Archived from the original on 15 October 2007. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ Rubin, Rita (3 March 2003). "USATODAY.com – No breast cancer-abortion link". USA TODAY. Retrieved 29 June 2008.
- ^ "The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: How Politics Trumped Science and Informed Consent" (PDF). Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Archived from the original on 27 February 2008. Retrieved 30 March 2008.
- ^ "Abortion Clinic of Fargo". redriverwomensclinic.com. Archived from the original on 9 October 2007. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ "Is there a link between abortion and breast cancer? A balanced review". religioustolerance.org. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ "Beyond Mainstream – alternative news, progressive politics, holistic healing, humor jokes, alternative media, alternative culture". Archived from the original on 7 June 2007. Retrieved 20 October 2007.
- ^ "Judge rules in favor of abortion clinic". WorldNetDaily.com. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ "Controversy over alleged breast cancer link lands abortion clinic in court". womenspress.com. Archived from the original on 28 September 2007. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ "CHAPTER 51-12 FALSE ADVERTISING" (PDF). legis.nd.gov. Archived from the original on 1 December 2007. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ "Amy Jo Kjolsrud v. MKB Management Corporation". Retrieved 4 November 2007.
- ^ Carroll PS (Fall 2007). "The Breast Cancer Epidemic: Modeling and Forecasts Based on Abortion and Other Risk Factors" (PDF). Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 12 (3): 72.
- ^ "2003 Resolution – Affirming the Sanctity of Human Life." A position statement from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, publisher of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Retrieved on 15 November 2007.
- ^ Brooks, Libby. "British women's right to choose is under covert attack." The Guardian. 12 October 2007. Retrieved on 19 November 2007.
- ^ Gold, Scott (22 May 2003). "THE NATION; Texas OKs Disputed Abortion Legislation". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 4 March 2008.
- ^ John Carroll. "L.A. Observed: John Carroll memo". laobserved.com. Archived from the original on 15 February 2008. Retrieved 4 March 2008.
External links[edit]
- Scientific community and mainstream media
- National Cancer Institute: Abortion, Miscarriage, and Breast Cancer Risk
- Induced abortion does not increase breast cancer risk, a fact sheet from the World Health Organization
- Is Abortion Linked to Breast Cancer? from the American Cancer Society
- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Finds No Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk
- Jasen P (October 2005). "Breast cancer and the politics of abortion in the United States". Med Hist 49 (4): 423–44. doi:10.1017/S0025727300009145. PMC 1251638. PMID 16562329.
- The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion, from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
- Discover Magazine: The Scientist Who Hated Abortion by Barry Yeoman
- Factors That Do Not Increase Risk from the Susan G. Komen Foundation
- Pro-choice
- Planned Parenthood: Anti-choice Claims About Abortion and Breast Cancer
- Center for Reproductive Rights: False Claims of Breast Cancer Risk
- National Abortion Federation: The Abortion and Breast Cancer Myth
- Pro-life


text:
Farmall Cub Forum -- Questions and answers to all of your Cub related issues.
Moderator: Team Cub
Forum rules
Notice: For sale and wanted posts are not allowed in this forum. Please use our free classifieds or one of our site sponsors for your tractor and parts needs.
10 posts • Page 1 of 1
My friend bought a I-H 222 sickle bar mower thinking it was a Cub mower however it resembles one it isn't , so we are wondering if anyone knows what it might be for it is belly mount and a lot of the parts look the same as a 22 mower.
Jim Turner
Jim, I'm not sure, but I imagine it will fit an A or Super A. Maybe even a 100 - 200 or similar series.
Jim Becker should be able to enlighten us.
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you've got an electrical problem.
My wife says I don't listen to her. - - - - - - - - Or something like that!
I just looked up all the mowers that are listed in the MR-5. Closest I could find would be the 200 series mowers and they are equipped with what appears to be a standard 540 PTO drive.
Does it have a similar setup?
The MR-5 also lists a 22 mower that is mounted on a 140... not sure if that helps either.
What length of cut does it have?
Confusion breeds Discussion which breeds Knowledge which breeds Confidence which breeds Friendship
I can't even find it in the IH Hay and Forage Catalog. Can you post a pic, it might help. Oh, can you get a part number off it anywhere?
222 just isn't coming up in any of my catalog's
Confusion breeds Discussion which breeds Knowledge which breeds Confidence which breeds Friendship
I was just on the yt tractor shed web page and saw a 185 Cub and it had listed with it a 222 sickle mower. I'll try and post the link
Cub 222
10 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: ricky racer and 4 guests

subset: commoncrawl


text:
This was the LOUDEST ship I've ever experienced. Anywhere with amplified sound had the volume cranked up all the way. I ended up wearing earplugs so that I could endure Blue Man Group. Trying to have a conversation on the pool deck results in one having to shout to be heard. NCL must own stock in a hearing aid company!
This was the smokiest ship I've ever been on. The central feature to the inside public spaces is the all-smoking casino. The result is that in order to get to the main dining room, one must walk through the casino. The casino is also adjacent to many extra cost dining options, to which end I declined to eat in any of them. I did not see any noticeable signage to define smoking and non-smoking areas, with the result that people smoked pretty well everywhere. One plus was that I avoided the inside public spaces and thus saved a bundle on gambling, a bar tab, and the extra cost dining venues.
My standard balcony cabin felt like a designer jail cell since I was sleeping next to the toilet. The toilet and shower are right in the room with you, behind translucent glass. The toilet flushes explosively, such that if your travelling companion gets up in the middle of the night and flushes it will raise the sound sleeper as well as the dead. Plus, any extra noises generated while using the toilet are audible throughout the cabin. And whomever put the sink on the counter in the cabin next to the TV was either a woman, someone who never shaves, or both. I ended up wrapping my pool towel around the sink to try to control the splashes onto the counter.
Whomever designs cruise ship cabins for NCL should be forced to build a prototype and then spend a week living in it.


text:
Find Discount Motels in Rhone
Expedia can help you find the best motel deals in Rhone. Filter by popularity, hotel star rating or motel name to find the ideal motel package in Rhone for you and your family.
1 Resorts Found
Alliance Hotel Lyon Villeurbanne
check rates
check rates
up to: % savings
130 Boulevard Du 11 Novembre 1918, Villeurbanne, Rhone
Situated in the city center, this hotel is close to Claude Bernard University, Musee d'Art Contemporain, and Tete d'Or Park. Also nearby are Espace Tete d'Or and City International Convention Center. read more
Special Offer
Jan 1st, 1970


text:
Mr. Squirrel
Anything that might not belong on the other message boards!
Moderator: Team Cub
Forum rules
1. Keep it clean.
2. Keep the discussion civil.
3. Name calling is not allowed.
Politics and religion are two topics that tend to degenerate into a violation of one of the three simple rules above.
The mods and the site admin reserve the right to "lock" or "delete" any discussion that in our opinion, is "heading in the wrong direction."
MOST of all, be respectful of your fellow Cubber's opinions. Don't expect to change someones belief system from a simple forum on the internet.
9 posts • Page 1 of 1
Mr. Squirrel
I have some questions for Mr. Squirrel :
Why did you climb under my hood?
What state did you come from, because in the past 3 days, I've been in Mass, RI, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, D.C., and Virginia?
What happened to your right side, an encounter with my fanbelt maybe?
You weren't there 3 days ago, last time I had the hood open !
REMEMBER: Keep it correct or you may face the
Re: Mr. Squirrel
He was probably trying to find a way to the nut behind the wheel!!
Screwstick #3934
FCub - LoBoy - Numbered Series Databases
Re: Mr. Squirrel
50 ,52,53,56,59 F Cubs, 55,55,57,63,63 fast hitch, 64 lo-boys, 71 154, 184 lo-boy,61 cadet original. IH spreader,IH corn grinder, Oli. OC3 ,AC D10 ,IH 444 , Potato digger, wagner ldr 3 power units.
Re: Mr. Squirrel
Ed, Ray lives 2000 miles away but I know where you live !!!
REMEMBER: Keep it correct or you may face the
Re: Mr. Squirrel
Man that is heavy. I don't see a problem, he is cooked already.
"Life's tough.It's even tougher if you're stupid."
- John Wayne
" We hang petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office."
- Aesop
Re: Mr. Squirrel
How do we know that wasn't photoshopped into that pic? Are you trying to make a squirrel statement?
Maybe the squirrel thinks it's an opossum!
It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.
- Franklin D. Roosevelt -
Barnyard Bash CubFest May 30th - May 31st, 2014
Click here for info http://www.barnyardbash.com
Re: Mr. Squirrel
I don't know how to prove that wasn't Photoshop, but nothing I ever Photoshopped made me jump like when I opened my hood today !
REMEMBER: Keep it correct or you may face the
Re: Mr. Squirrel
One chewed a vacuum line off in my new Ranger earlier this summer.
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government
to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the
government lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." Patrick Henry
Re: Mr. Squirrel
My guess is that squirrel climbed aboard while you were passing through Maryland, trying to escape. Sorry about that.
"Chance favors the prepared mind."
- Louis Pasteur
"In character, in manners, in style, in all things, the supreme excellence is simplicity."
- Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
9 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


text:
PEORIA, Ill. -- It was an All American kind of day in Peoria.
Classic cars.
Classic tunes.
And hometown pride.
"If I'm not mistaken Peoria is the only All-American City that you are going to be going to," said Mayor Jim Ardis.
It was part of the 30th year of the Great Race which made its second ever stop in the River-city.
The race which is more of a mental challenge than an actual race, scores participants on their accuracy to hit checkpoints along the way from Minnesota to Alabama.
"If they go through a checkpoint at exactly the right time," said race announcer Brian Goudge, "that would be called a zero or an ace."
And on a day of hometown pride, no one exemplified that never say die American spirit like hometowner Rich McKone, navigating the #36 car.
"I got up Wednesday at 7:00 AM," said McKone, "told my wife I was going to have my appendix taken out on the way up there. She thought I was joking."
"He was with us by Thursday evening," said Goudge, "hospital bands still on but he didn't want to miss his 20th year."
Mckone joined hundreds of others who flocked to the Riverfront to get a fleeting look at a slice of American history.
"I really appreciate it from my grandpa," said 5 year old Silas Harshbarger. "The way their style is."
Style that continues to stay in fashion throughout the years and from generation to generation.


text:
Most Read on Power Line
Our Favorites
- American Thinker
- Andrew Malcolm
- Armavirumque
- Belmont Club
- Big Government
- Big Hollywood
- Big Journalism
- Big Lizards
- Big Peace
- Breitbart
- Claremont Institute
- Dartblog
- Gateway Pundit
- Hot Air
- InstaPundit
- Iowahawk
- Library of Law and Liberty
- Lucianne
- Michelle Malkin
- Real Clear Politics
- Ricochet
- Roger L. Simon
- Tim Blair
- Urgent Agenda
The Northern Alliance
Subscribe to Power Line by Email
Find us on Facebook
"Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time." Winston Churchill
"Proclaim Liberty throughout All the land unto All the Inhabitants Thereof." Inscription on the Liberty Bell
Imminent Terror Warning: Is It Time For a Strategy Yet? [Updated]
It was revealed today that Islamic terrorist groups are operating in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, and that federal agencies have issued a warning of an "imminent terrorist attack on the border": Islamic terrorist groups are operating in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez and planning to attack the United States with car bombs or other vehicle born improvised explosive devices (VBIED). High-level federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources have »
From the land of sky blue waters
Sometimes it seems that Minnesota is ground zero in the war against terrorism. The problem is that we're on the wrong side. This week we learned that two men identified as Minnesotans had died fighting for the Islamic State in Syria and now is such a time. Reporting from ground zero, we pause to ask what is happening here? One of the two — Abdiraaman Muhumed — was a Somali »
Dear Dean Wippman
The University of Minnesota is another brick in the wall of the institutional left that holds Minnesota under its thumb. The university has done and continues to do some great things, but in many ways it remains an enemy of the ordinary citizen seeking to get on with his life. Its outré history faculty, to take just one example, is among the vanguard of anti-Israel, pro-Hamas supporters, and they're not »
Poll: Obama receives more than twice as much strong disapproval as strong approval
The latest Gallup poll on President Obama job performance is out. At the top line, things could be worse for the president and his party. 44 percent approve of his performance, while 53 percent disapprove. That's considerably worse than in the run-up to the 2010 election, and certainly cause for concern among Democrats. But Dems won't be surprised by this split which, as I said, could be worse. The intensity »
Rubio flips again on immigration
Sen. Marco Rubio says that if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid brought the immigration reform bill that Rubio sponsored last year to the floor for a vote now, he would vote against it. Rubio explained that passing his immigration bill wouldn't be productive, and thus the vote would only be for show. But if "unproductive" and "show votes" automatically deserved a "no," our solons would rarely vote "yes." If his »
Thoughts from the Ammo Line
Ammo Grrrll concludes her series on her high school reunion in a column she titles "50th Reunion, or, How Did I Get This Old?" She writes: You know those beautiful young ladies in high school back when you were a nerd who could never date them (if you were a boy) or BE them (if you were a girl)? Well, they are still beautiful! What kind of karmic fairness is »
Michael Brown: Too Burly for the New York Times
Michael Brown was a very large young man, 6'4″ and 292 (sometimes reported as 300) pounds. He used his size aggressively to rob a convenience store and shove aside a store clerk just ten minutes before his fatal encounter with a police officer. Brown's height and weight are obviously relevant to the police officer's claim of self-defense, which we assume will eventually be forthcoming. Yet these basic physical facts are »
American exceptionalism: we'd be damned fools not to believe in it
I wrote here about the College Board's effort to mandate that AP U.S. History be taught from a leftist perspective. That perspective is based, in part, on a critique of "American exceptionalism." In my post, borrowing from Stanley Kurtz, I took "American exceptionalism" to mean the view that celebrates America as a model, vindicator, and at times the chief defender of ordered liberty and self-government in the world. There are, »
A pro-Hamas left emerges
The historian Jeffrey Herf writes at the American Interest of the emergence of a pro-Hamas left: On July 31, 2014, a group of left-leaning historians called "Historians Against the War" posted an open letter to President Obama denouncing Israel's actions in the Gaza War and calling for a cut-off of American military assistance to Israel. On August 13, the letter was posted on the website of the History News Network. »
A Lump of Coal for the Climatistas
Yesterday the Wall Street Journal reported ("Germany's Expensive Gamble on Renewable Energy") on the high cost of the climate-related energy fanaticism of Germany's green shirts (why not?), which is now starting to take a tangible toll on the country's economic competitiveness: Average electricity prices for companies have jumped 60% over the past five years because of costs passed along as part of government subsidies of renewable energy producers. Prices are »
Across the Country, the Federal Government Fights For Muslim Worship Spaces [Updated]
The government of the United States is suing the town of St. Anthony, Minnesota, a Twin Cities suburb with a population a little over 8,000, to force the town to allow development of an Islamic center in an area reserved for industrial development. It is a minor news story, but one that sheds light on broader legal and cultural trends. The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports: The federal government on Wednesday »
Ninth Circuit considers Guam's racially discriminatory plebiscite registraton law
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument yesterday in the case of Davis v. Guam. The hearing occurred in Guam, the first time the Ninth Circuit has sat there since 2002. Mr. Davis, a resident of Guam, attempted to register to vote in a plebiscite on Guam's relationship to the United States. He was denied permission to register because he could not trace his »
Strategy? What Strategy?
President Obama gave a press conference today, in which the prime topic was ISIL. Obama's constant theme was that we don't have a strategy to deal with the terrorist organization that has been rampaging across Syria and Iraq for months. A transcript of the press conference is here: I'll be meeting with my National Security Council again this evening as we continue to develop that strategy. And I've been consulting »
Obama's animus
No surprise here, but I had overlooked what Peter Wehner has extracted from the Jerusalem Post: Speaking extensively on US relations with Jerusalem since the end of the latest round of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians last April, and throughout Operation Protective Edge, a candid [former US special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations Martin] Indyk said at times US President Barack Obama has become "enraged" at the Israeli government, »
Holder cuts left in on $17 billion Bank of America settlement
Radical Democrat activist groups stand to collect millions from Attorney General Eric Holder's record $17 billion deal to settle alleged mortgage abuse charges against Bank of America, Investors' Business Daily reports: Buried in the fine print of the deal, which includes $7 billion in soft-dollar consumer relief, are a raft of political payoffs to Obama constituency groups. In effect, the government has ordered the nation's largest bank to create a »
Critique of pure hippie
Visiting New York with my father in 1967 or 1968, I somehow persuaded him to take me to see the Fugs in one of their now legendary nightly performances at Greenwich Village's Players Theater. It was a memorable show with something close to the founding group of the Fugs including Ed Sanders, Tuli Kupferberg and two or three others. Thankfully, my dad fell asleep before the Fugs hit their scatological »
HuffPo Has a Scoop: Conservative Candidates Appreciate the Support of Conservative Donors!
Someone–possibly an attendee, possibly a member of the hotel staff–audio taped a Koch-sponsored conference that was held in California last June. This, I take it, was one of the twice-a-year seminars that Koch puts on, by invitation, for conservative donors and others. Three Republican Senate candidates, Joni Ernst, Tom Cotton and Cory Gardner, participated in a panel titled "The Senate: A Window of Policy Opportunity for Principled Leaders." Whoever recorded »


text:
I will forever be a Duke fan!
This offense suffered greatly with the loss of Ryan.
October can't get here soon enough!
Put your post-game thoughts here. Venting and or bashing posts will incur 5 point infractions resulting in immediate 48 hour suspension of your posting privileges.
Andre Dawkins: People ask me if I can still shoot, and I ask them if they can still breathe. Thats kind of the same thing.
I will forever be a Duke fan!
This offense suffered greatly with the loss of Ryan.
October can't get here soon enough!
I'm just really sorry it's over for these guys. The better team won today. Duke had a great season and unfortunately will likely be remembered more for the final game.
Those two kids, theyre champions, Krzyzewski said of his senior leaders. Theyre trying to teach the other kids how to become that, and its a long road to become that.
As I said before. I am disappointed, but thanks to Miles for four years of effort and commitment. It will take a while for this bitter taste to leave from the loss, but his career was one that showed great heart.
I had us losing 2nd round, so I was close.
Another season of overachieving with no gas left in the end. The better team won, no doubt. Congrats Lehigh.
I hope this season can be remembered by how we all thought it was a rebuilding year and then pretty much played our brains out during the regular season...
Wins against
we played our way into a high ranking and got hit by a phenomenal lehigh team that could take advantage of our weaknesses....they were quick....CJ is a great great player....and we struggled with people driving all year.
The loss of kelly made this team so much weaker, and it was unfortunate.
Never feels good to go out early, but Lehigh really worked for and earned the win. They could get another win Sunday.
Thanks for representing us all year team. I think if anything you over achieved for much of the season and injuries u fortunatly bite us again.
Frankly, we have not played well since the game in Tallahassee. Especially on offense. Tonight was difficult to watch and understand. Equal burden players and coaches?
I thought our rotation this year was more than enough to prevent fatigue, so I don't think that was the problem coming down the stretch of the season. Having said that, it was very unfortunate that both Dre and Seth hit shooting droughts in March. We just couldn't afford that to happen because the margin for error was too thin with this team. Not having Kelly hurt a lot. At least I believe it did. On to next year now.
Reading and posting at DBR for over 19 years and loving every... well, almost every minute of it!
Hopefully the guys who return will really take this in and use it to light the fire that seemed to be lacking at times this year. I am really curious to see what the team looks like next year.
Hate it for Miles, he started playing much better later in the season; tough way to end a career as the lone senior.
Worst loss in a big game in many many years.
With all of the offensive weapons this team has, it should be able to post 80s on Lehigh no problem. I'll grant you whatever deficiencies on defense you want, as good as this team was offensively all year, it could have been significantly better.
Won't be surprised if Austin decides to return. I hope Mason does as well. If Bazz comes, then we have the missing piece, if either Quinn or Seth can step up and be a top quality point guard (on both ends) next year.
is that Duke played better at the start of year rather than the end.
Coach K has been a great defensive coach but we were defensively challenged all year.
Losing Ryan hurt of course.
Lehigh played better than us and deserved to win.
Thanks to Miles for a great effort all four years.
Last edited by SoCalDukeFan; 03-16-2012 at 09:50 PM. Reason: forgot something
I guess we know the answer to question regarding how important Ryan really was to this team. Frustrating final two weeks to an otherwise very nice year. Plenty to be proud of and hopefully something solid to build on for next year.
Kelly's injury was one too many problems to overcome for a team that could have quit after the Miami loss but kept hope alive until the UNC blow out in Cameron
Always sorry to see the season end but this is hardly the equivalent of season ending debacles like losing to Indiana in 2002
K working with this team reminds me of a quote about the great Yankees manager Casey Stengel managing the early Mets - "an Edison working with rusty parts"
Last edited by JBDuke; 03-16-2012 at 09:51 PM. Reason: typo
Congratulations to Lehigh on a hard fought victory. I hated to see Miles Plumlee end his career with a 1st Round exit as he has been an integral part of the team for four years and I was hoping for a couple more victory celebrations before we had to say good bye to the big guy. The sun will rise tomorrow morning and I'll be wearing my Duke sweat shirt like normal.
Bob Green
United States Navy (Retired)
We were beat this game. This wasn't a mid-major team that got unbelievably hot and had lucky breaks, this was a team that out-hustled us and out-played us. It doesn't feel like we were upset; we just got beat. (Yes, US, even though we lost, and embarrassingly, this is still our team.)
The most telling stat is the rebound numbers; despite our big height advantage, we only out-rebounded Lehigh by 3. Credit to Lehigh's defensive scheme; they took us out of the game. For this game (and without Kelly) they were better than us.
Ultimately, this loss will be a great learning experience for our players next year. Right now, it's just gonna suck.
Can't wait to meet my two cousins who went to Lehigh LOL.
http://cornerplay.com - the Shane Battier of tech blogs
Good, but not great season. The record was stellar. We had some good wins. Saw some huge shots (Tyler's 3 against Kansas, Austin's shot against UNC). But we also saw a lot of uncharacteristic play (defense, foul shooting, poor shot selection) and too many close calls. That had to catch up to them sooner or later. Looks like it was sooner...
I'm just taking solace in knowing UNC won't be winning it all this year.


text:
Town Square
Feature story: Going 'carbon neutral'
Original post made on Jan 18, 2013
[Web Link What does 'carbon neutral' mean in Palo Alto?]
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, January 18, 2013, 8:48 AM
on Jan 18, 2013 at 12:48 pm
Good News re: electricity!
on Jan 18, 2013 at 2:42 pm
> "In some ways, you can say it's a small step for this city
> but a big step for our state and for our country and for
> our planet," Cook said.
> Councilman Larry Klein called climate change
> "the great moral issue of our time."
What a KROK! Has Larry Klein stopped driving his big car? Has he required all of this law firm's clients to use public transportation when they come to his office to consult on business matters? Has he promoted the idea that all City employees be required to use public transportation when coming/going to work?
The idea that Palo Alto (or Palo Altans) are going to stop global warming is ludicrous. And looking back at the big moral issues of our time, and looking to see what Palo Altans did to advance those causeswe only have to look into the 1970s when Palo Altans were opposed to fighting Communism in South East Asia. They had no problem at all with the tens upon tens of millions of people who were killed in Mao's China, or Pol Pot's Cambodia. No .. to a peep from Palo Altans ..
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
on Jan 18, 2013 at 3:22 pm
Every few months Palo Alto politician make environmental claims and proposals but it seems as if the City Government and Schools didn't get the message. Instead buying more electric power from "green" sources, how about using less of it through simple conservation or generating with Solar PV on your own buildings? And instead of stonewalling private renewable energy projects in Palo Alto, how about expediting them?
This stuff reads like politician moving their lips when you compare it to the actual results.


text:
Classic Texas Caviar Recipe
Becky Oliver of Fairplay, Colorado created this quick appetizer. Writes Becky, "I adapted this recipe from a cook book I received a long time ago, and now, I can't imagine a get-together at my house without it."
- 2 cans (15-1/2 ounces each) black-eyed peas, rinsed and drained
- 1 can (10 ounces) diced tomatoes and green chilies, drained
- 1 medium green pepper, finely chopped
- 1 small red onion, finely chopped
- 1/2 cup fat-free Italian salad dressing
- 2 tablespoons lime juice
- 1/4 teaspoon salt
- 1/4 teaspoon pepper
- 1 medium ripe avocado, peeled and cubed
- Tortilla chips
- In a large bowl, combine the peas, tomatoes, green pepper and onion. In a small bowl, whisk the dressing, lime juice, salt and pepper. Pour over black-eyed pea mixture and stir to coat. Cover and refrigerate for at least 1 hour.
- Stir in avocado just before serving. Serve with chips. Yield: 5 cups.
Originally published as Texas Caviar in Light & Tasty February/March 2007, p7
Sparkling Wine
Enjoy this recipe with a sparkling wine.
Reviews for Classic Texas Caviar
Please Log In or Join to add a rating and review.
Click stars to rate
Any changes to your rating or review will appear where you originally posted your review
Sort By :
Reviewed Jul. 10, 2012
Excellent! I leave out the avocado just because I don't like avocado...otherwise this recipe is quick and easy to make and its delicious! I have served it at a couple of different gatherings and always get compliments.
Reviewed May. 23, 2009
Love this recipe! And everyone who tries it loves it, too. And it's pretty healthy I think. Maybe not the chips though.
Similar Recipes
More Recipe Collections
- Appetizers >
- Avocado Salsa Recipes >
- Baby Shower Recipes >
- Black Eyed Pea Recipes >
- Bridal Shower Recipes >
- Cinco de Mayo Appetizers >
- Cinco de Mayo Recipes >
- Diabetic Appetizers >
- Dip Recipes >
- Father's Day Recipes >
- Finger Foods & Finger Food Recipes >
- Healthy Appetizers >
- Healthy Cooking Appetizers >
- Healthy Cooking Vegetarian Recipes >
- Healthy Finger Foods >
- Healthy Recipes >
- Low Fat Appetizers >
- Low Fat Recipes >
- Mexican Appetizers >
- Mexican Dip >


text:
Contamination levels are checked outside a sports stadium in Fukushima city, 60km from the site of the March 2011 triple meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.Fukushima City, Japan, October 17, 2012
© Jeremie Souteyrat / Greenpeace
49 - 60 of 5597 results.
Your full name
This field is required.
This is not a valid email adress. Please try again...
Select a country