Sunday, February 26, 2012

The Last of a Generation

The Passing of Daniel Dube

Danny's 103rd Birthday Portrait

My Great Uncle, Danny passed away Thursday night.  He was 103 years young!  He was an amazing man with a warm smile, a kind heart, a great sense of humor but not a great sense of direction.  We love him and will miss him dearly.

Danny was my Grandmother, Judy's (my mother's mother) brother.  Danny’s father, my great-grandfather Newman Dube, came to America in 1888 at the age of 20 from Russia.  He peddled pots and pans in Wisconsin, and even became involved in boy’s suit manufacturing.  He married and settled in the Boro Park section of Brooklyn.  After Newman's daughter, Lillian, Danny's sister, died from the Spanish flu, Newman gathered his friends and told them that the neighborhood needed a hospital.  They founded Israel Zion Hospital.  Newman was its first president.  Israel Zion is now a 700-bed teaching hospital, Maimonides Medical Center. 

Danny, Newman, Joe and Herbert (in front)

In addition, Newman started a family business, Park Surgical a medical supply and orthopedic fitting business.  His second-to-youngest son, Daniel was there from the beginning.  Oldest son Joseph also joined the business a couple of years later.  During WWII, youngest son Herbert enlisted in the army and Daniel was drafted.  Newman and Joseph kept the business going during the war.  Dan rejoined Park Surgical, bringing with him his experience fitting corsets and prosthetics, which he acquired during the war at Fort Sam Houston. Herbert’s 2 sons Jim and Peter run the business and Jims children and Peter’s wife also work there.  

Peter, Danny and Jimmy clowning around at Danny's 103rd Birthday Party

Up until a few days ago Daniel Dube at 103 years old still walked to work every day at Park Surgical and still fit prosthesis.  “I’ve never been married, I take a tablespoon of cod liver oil daily and I eat lots of wheat bran” is what Daniel Dube attributed his longevity to.  His father, Newman, lived to be 105 years old.  Uncle Danny was never married and had no children, but he had a ton of family who loved him and who will miss him.  He was the last of that generation.

Danny's 103rd Birthday Party with the family

New York Times Obituary:
DUBE--Daniel L., died February 23, 2012 at the age of 103. Son of Newman and Jennie. Brother of Judith Seakwood, Joseph, Irving, Lillian and Herbert Dube. Uncle Dan was the uncle to scores of family members and friends. Dan and his father founded Park Surgical Company of Brooklyn, NY where he worked until the end of his life. He was at the first meeting of Israel Zion Hospital (as a child) which became Maimonides Medical Center of Brooklyn. His father was the founding president. Counselor at Camp Winadu in its inaugural year, trustee of Temple Emanu-el of Boro Park and president of the Boro Park YM-YWHA. Truly the end of an era. He will be sorely missed by everyone who ever met him. Dan was absolutely one of a kind.






Wednesday, February 22, 2012

I Pray Government Gets Out of the Marriage Business

It is unfortunate that the government feels the need to interfere with the sacred religious practice of marriage.  Government should not be involved in religion in any way shape or form.  It is for each religion to decide what their faith believes and what practices they follow.  The government uses the term “marriage” to describe a union of two people for legal purposes, and there are many states who are now trying to define, or I should say re-define that which has had a clear definition for centuries.  The term “marriage” has been used as a Judeo-Christian faith based on scripture, handed down by God, as one man and one woman. 

While interpretation of the Torah/Old Testament does vary between religions as seen here:
 

Torah: This is why a man is to leave his father and mother and stick with his wife, and they are to be one flesh. ~ Genesis 2:24 ~ You are not to go to bed with man as with a woman; it is an abomination ~ Leviticus 18:22 ~ Torah Leviticus 18:22

New LIving Translation: This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one. ~ Genesis 2:24 ~ Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.
~ New Living Translation Leviticus 18:22
Genesis



The meaning of Genesis 2:24 and Leviticus 18:22: is consistant across all translations, marriage is one man and one woman.
  
Being that the government seems intent on intruding upon religious freedoms and rights, it should be made clear that a union based on faith is not the same as a union for government use. Government needs to leave the term "marriage" alone and take the term out of all government documents.

The term should be used solely for the union between a man and a woman as based in the Judeo-Christian religions. It is not term that should be used to describe a bond or commitment to a person of the same sex, or for non-traditional Judeo-Christian unions.





You would not use the term “receive communion” to describe every time you eat some sort of wafer or cracker. You would not use the term “Bar Mitzvah” every time you said the word God. It is just not the same. It is improper usage and it diminishes the religion and the practices of that religion. Why, then, would you use the term “marriage” to describe other than that which the word was intended? Marriage is between a man and a woman.

The government, however, has backed themselves into a corner. They have gotten into the marriage game and created laws to not only define marriage, but laws which utilize marriage, such as marriage licenses and tax breaks. Some companies, such as insurance, use the legal definitions to define and/or limit coverage.

So here’s the rub. The government has taken the term marriage out of the religious organizations, where it belongs and plopped it smack down in general society. Not only did they insert this religious practice into mainstream society, which includes pagans, atheists and non-traditional Judeo-Christian religions, they have made marriage non-religious. This is an abomination.

I have no problem with non-traditional Judeo-Christian religions using the term “marriage,” nor do I have a problem with other religions using the term “marriage.” What I do have a problem with is government intruding on marriage. Being that the practice of marriage is a religious practice, government needs to stay out of the practice of marriage.

Back to the corner the government has backed itself into. The obvious solution would be to eliminate all references to marriage and all benefits and restrictions based on marriage. The simple fact is that once laws are written and, terminology used, it is difficult to change. What is happening now is that state governments are now scrambling to re-define marriage because people want non-traditional unions to be governmentally recognized in order to receive the perks and be governmentally blessed as “married.”




The government should not be in the business of giving their blessing to a union and dictating what is and is not a “marriage.” Religions should be free to determine for themselves what they consider a “marriage” and perform marriages based on their religious beliefs.

Government intrusion into marriage is a clear breech of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. By re-defining marriage, the government is dictating to religious organizations what they legally must accept as the definition of marriage thereby restricing their free exercise there of.



The use of the term "marriage," by the government and approved by congress, should be unconstitutional.

Though the goal should be for government to eliminate all references to marriage, is not practical to change all legal documentation, tax breaks, requirements for marriage licenses, etc., all at once. What the government can do to remedy the situation is to take the term “marriage” out of government references and replace it with the, non-religious term “civil union.”

“Civil union” could be used to describe the legal union of two people based on governmental legalities and a “civil union” license issued entitling the couple to all the legal “perks.” This “civil union” license would entitle any couple, be they man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, interfaith, interracial, atheist etc., legal rights that are encompassed by the state laws.



This would put marriage back into the hands of each religious organizations, where it belongs. This would allow religious organizations to perform marriages based on their religion and faith without government interference. Faith based marriage would then be separate from the government sanctioned civil union.

Though it would not be a terribly difficult thing to do, to change the legal term “marriage” to “civil union”, it might be difficult for people to change their way of thinking since the term “marriage” has been used in government so long. It is doubtful that any state would be willing to make a change now and change all legal unions to “civil unions” versus “marriages” since they are not looking to change the terminology of the laws but rather keep trying to define the term “marriage.” As long as government continues, unconstitutionally to use the term “marriage” there will always be conflicts with religious organizations.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Outrageous and Dangerous Disregard of Parental Rights by NC School & State Agency

An outrageous act of disregard parental rights by The Division of Child Development and Early Education of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services also violates the US and North Carolina Constitutions and may also be a deadly practice.


RAEFORD — A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because a state employee told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.
The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day.



The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — including in-home day care centers — to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.
When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones.
-       Sara Burrows associate editor of Carolina Journal.
Full Story

A second mother has come forward to say her child's lunch, at the same school, was replaced.

Disregard of Parental Rights:
The DHHS and the school blatantly violated parent's rights.  When did it become okay to disregard the rights and wishes of the parents in the care of their own children?  It is not alright to take the parent completely out of the equation.  Parents have rights.

While the Hoke County school board does not address parental rights when it comes to food selection, they do recognize the importance of parental involvement in their child’s education.
School board policy: 1310/4002 The board recognizes the critical role of parents in the education of their children and in the schools.
http://www.hcs.k12.nc.us/search

the Hoke county school board and the DHHS do not have the right to indiscriminately bypass the wishes of the parent in order to force their own agenda.  Parents should have the right to feed their own children whatever they want.  How can they pass and enforce guidelines that exclude the parent in the decision making for their own children?  Parents should have the right to feed their children what they wish.  A better alternative would be for the school and the DHHS to educate the parents who they believe are not providing a healthy diet to their children so that the parents can make an informed decision.  It is not their place to force what they believe is healthy eating habits upon other people’s children.

In addition to tramping on parental rights, this policy could also be illegal, it is certainly unconstitutional and has the potential to harmful to children's health and potentially lethal.


The Hoke school board states in policy code 3515 that The United States Constitution and North Carolina Constitution protect the right of an individual to choose his or her own religious or non-religious beliefs and prohibit any governmental action that may advance or inhibit such beliefs. This policy is intended to protect the religious rights of students and school personnel, to preserve the separation of church and state, and to provide guidance to students and personnel about religion in the public schools.

North Carolina constitution Article 1 Sec. 19. 
Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools, libraries, and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.  No person shall be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the land.  No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be subjected to discrimination by the State because of race, color, religion, or national origin.

In addition, the US Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Guidelines, that the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services follows specifically states:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program.  “In accordance with Federal law and U.S. Department of Agriculture policy, this institution is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, political beliefs, or disability.


Providing students with food that goes against the child’s religious belief would clearly be in violation of the US Constitution, the North Carolina Constitution and the policies of both the US Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Guidelines and the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services guidelines.



The policy also is contrary to what we know of childhood development.  Most pediatricians and child psychologists and psychiatrists agree that children go through food phases.  Children will go through periods where they may only eat few or even one type of food.  While they all state that a balanced diet is best (and some would even disagree as to what constitutes a balanced diet), they generally agree that children, when going through these phases should be encouraged to eat a variety of foods, but not forced.  This policy goes against this by trying to force the child to eat foods they deem acceptable in place of the food the child would actually eat.    In the case of the story above, the child ate only 3 chicken nuggets (which are probably highly processed) instead of the turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice that the parent provided. 

This policy can also be dangerous, even lethal if the child is on a special diet due to health concerns or allergies.


There are many diseases where a child’s body may not be able to process certain foods.  In addition, some children have food allergies, some severe enough to produce hives or anaphylaxis, a life threatening condition.  The school would be held responsible for providing a child food that caused a negative reaction in the child. 

Many parents also follow special diets for health or religious reasons.  The DHHS thinks that their way is the absolute best way for all students and that all students are required to follow their guidelines, religion be damned! 

How can a school and the DHHS tell parents that their children cannot keep Kosher?  They can’t. This is NOT KOSHER!!  The USDA guidelines state that lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.  One serving of meat and one serving of milk, that goes against Kosher dietary laws right there.  Most schools do not prepare Kosher meals.  Providing anything from the kitchen to the child would go against that family’s religious beliefs. 


What if the child is lactose intolerant or has a milk allergy.  One serving of grain, not good for those who are gluten intolerant.  Not to mention, what specifically the school is serving on any given day may have ingredients that the child is intolerant or allergic to.  Chicken nuggets, while the main ingredient is chicken, has fillers and breading which would detrimental to the health of a child who is gluten intolerant.

What if the family is vegetarian or prescribes to another kind of diet the precludes certain foods?  Not allowed according to the food dictators.


Let parents be the parents and take responsibility for their own children.  Let parents decide what their children can/cannot, should/should not eat.


Wednesday, February 8, 2012

The Defense of Religious Freedom

I am not a Catholic, but I am appalled that Obama and his administration have the audacity to insist that it is their duty to trample upon the religious rights of Catholics and the people of this country.  Our country was founded on religious freedom.  Our forefathers were religious men and it was clearly their intent to preserve and protect the religious freedoms of the people of the United States of America.  So important to them was this, that when writing the Bill of Rights, it was number one on their list of things to add to the Constitution as evidenced by the fact that it is the first sentence of the First Amendment.

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That rumble you heard was our forefathers collectively rolling over in their graves.

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise (of religion).  This administration is bound and determined to undermine the Constitution and prohibit the free exercise of religion.  Today it is the Catholic church, who will be the target tomorrow?

There have been references made to Pastor Martin Niemöller’s statement:

“In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

--Martin Niemöller, 1945

Obama may stand up and say he is a Christian, say he supports Christianity, say he is not anti-religion, but his actions say otherwise.  We cannot stand by and allow this administration to run roughshod over religion.  Where will it end?  How can anyone agree with what they are doing?

The Catholic Church does not believe in the use of contraceptives.  I, personally, do not agree with that belief.  What I do believe, however, is that the Catholic Church has the right to believe that.  I do not believe that the Catholic Church, and their businesses, even if they are hospitals, should be required to provide contraception, it goes against its belief.

I keep hearing from those who support this measure that the measure is needed so that everyone who wants contraceptives has access to contraceptives and that this measure is the only way to guarantee it.  This is where I cry Bull Sh*t! 

Let me lay it out for you:

1.    Those who work for a Catholic organization are aware it is a Catholic organization that follows Catholic beliefs when they were hired. If you don’t like it, work for someone else.  I worked for a Seventh-Day-Adventist hospital, and I knew that every day I would hear the daily prayer over-head, it was a given.  If you agree to work for a religious organization, you agree to work under guidelines set forth by the beliefs of that religion.

2.    Your job is not the only place to receive contraception.

3.    Patients have options too, mostly the same as the employees, go somewhere else.

I don’t care where you live; you cannot tell me that a Catholic Hospital or organization is the only means to receiving contraception.  It’s not. 

As for those with an aversion to Catholic hospital services, if there was such a great demand non-Catholic hospital services, there would be non-Catholic hospital services.  If so many people disagreed with and would not go to a Catholic run hospital, the hospital would close or be bought out.  Trust me, hospitals change hands every day.  There is a hospital in my area that has been owned by 3 different organizations in the last 20 years. 

Let me tell you about my Great Grandfather Newman Dube. 

My mother’s mother, my grandmother, Judy, was Newman Dube’s daughter. My mother was very close to her grandfather Newman and grandmother Jenny and even lived with them for a while.  My grandmother had 4 brothers and 1 sister.  My grandmother's sister died at the age of 16 from the Spanish flu. Great-grandpa Newman didn’t sit back and complain that the government should have provided a hospital for her he said, there needs to be a nearby hospital.  He gathered up his friends and founded Israel Zion Hospital of Boro Park in Brooklyn, New York.  Great-grandpa Newman was the first president. His son, Daniel, my 103 year old great-uncle, still is involved with what is now Maimonides hospital.

For more on my Great-grandpa Newman Dube

Now, Great-grandpa Newman didn’t complain that others didn’t provide for him and his daughter, he saw a problem and he fixed it.  You want contraception, go get it. 

We must stop Obama here and now, for who knows how far it will go?  Will it stop at contraception?  Will Cedars-Sinai hospital be required to serve pork?  Will it then move outside the hospital setting?  Will kosher delis be required to serve bacon on Saturday morning, or Southern Baptist Churches required serving beer at the Friday fish fry or Jehovah’s Witness’ required to celebrate their birthdays?  Will there then become a national religion, the religion of Obama? 

It is unconstitutional!  It should never have gotten approved in the first place.  Let’s stop it now.

Marco Rubio has introduced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012 and in a statement today said:

This is very straight forward. This is about whether the government of the United States should have the power to go in and tell a faith-based organization that they have to pay for something that they teach their members shouldn’t be doing. It’s that simple, and if the answer is yes, then this government can reach all kinds of other absurd results.

I think the vast majority of Americans, whether on the left or the right, will tell you that the government of the United States should not have the power to be able to go in and tell a church based organization that they must pay for something that that faith teaches their members not to do. And that is what this issue is about, and that is why you have commentators on both the left and the right saying that this is wrong. That is why I think you have people in the White House uncomfortable with it.

So here is the solution in my mind. The solution is for the President to come back and say ‘You know what, maybe we over reached. Maybe we went too far. We’ve heard from a lot of people, we are going to reconsider this decision.’ There is nothing wrong with that.

“We have plenty of other issues to argue with this President about. We have plenty of other issues to take to the American people throughout the year and in the next November election. This does not have to be one of them. And all the President has to do is basically reconsider the decision they made and acknowledge that maybe they went too far and maybe they did not think about it all the way when they made it. And I hope that is what will happen. If it doesn’t, then I hope that this Senate and that House will act on it, as well, because the American people are asking us to, and I think that’s an important issue.

http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=f11959a9-0a60-4c5b-bb6c-bf0372224de8


Rubio is giving Obama an out and perhaps too much credit.  Obama went way over the line, the war on religion in his attempt to make this a socialist nation. While Obama was able to sway the people into electing him President of the United States, he is losing his hypnotic ability.  While there are those who still believe the great words spewed forth by Obama, there are even more who once believed who do not.  This also may have pushed those who were on the fence firmly to side against Obama.  This is because Obama made a crucial mistake, he deiced to go against something that is so ingrained in the thoughts of the people that he will not sway them.  Our country was founded on religious freedom, it is what the founding father's believed in and it is clearly stated in the first amendment.  It is the belief of religious freedom that is ingrained in every American's psyche.  Even Atheists and those who claim no religion, believe in the principle that the government should not dictate religious beliefs.  This is why Obama will ultimately fail. 

I defend religious freedom.

Friday, February 3, 2012

Depoliticizing the Abortion/Breast Cancer Link

Read the studies, look at the facts, keep an open mind, do not base your opinion on your beliefs about abortion and determine for yourself: Is there a link between abortions and breast cancer? What is your opinion? All comments welcome. Also, if anyone has links to other, independent studies, I'd be interested in seeing them.


The recent events of the Susan G. Koman foundation pulling and then renewing support for Planned Parenthood has brought up, once again, the issue of “does Abortion increase the risk of breast cancer?”

As a nurse, I was interested to know the facts.  It seems that there are a lot of studies out there with differing viewpoints.  Both sides use the studies that support their views as “proof” one way or the other.  The interpretation of the studies has been so politicized, that it is difficult to determine if there is a connection or not.

This topic is coming up again is because of the Koman foundation’s monetary support of planned parenthood.  It is an issue because, if there is a connection between abortion and breast cancer then how could the Koman foundation, who's main goal is eradication of breast cancer, support an organization, planned parenthood, who’s main focus is abortion, if there is a link?  Both organizations have stated that they believe there is no link between abortions and breast cancer.

But why should the Koman foundation be funding planned parenthood, what does planned parenthood have to do with breast cancer.  According to both the Koman foundation and Planned Parenthood, the funding is for breast cancer screenings.  In my opinion, I believe that Planned Parenthood is not the best use of this money and that the Koman foundation would be better able to provide breast screenings more cost effectively if they remove the middle man, Planned Parenthood.  This opinion has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood’s abortions, but rather, it makes better business sense.  It seems that the Koman foundation is bending over backward to accommodate Planned Parenthood and I find their connection suspect.  It seems, to me, there must be something more going on.  In order to do justice to the topic, I am eliminating both the Koman foundation and Planned Parenthood from the discussion.

Back to the topic of abortion and breast cancer.I have looked over many studies.There are studies to support both sides. 

First, let me start by saying that I am pro-life.I do not believe in abortion and I believe that abortion is the killing of a baby. In conversations, I have never used the alleged abortion/breast cancer link to support my belief. I do not need there to be a link between abortion and breast cancer for me to be pro-life. To me, the killing of an unborn baby is wrong, plain and simple. I have approached the topic with an open mind and have tried to present both sides fairly.

Those who support the “no-connection” theory, and that it has been proven debunked will show you this from The National Cancer Institute based on a 2004 report from a 2003 workshop:

This includes the results from a wide variety of studies and it has been determined to be definitive proof by those who believe there is no connection.  I have found that almost all of those who support the "no-connection" theory reference either this fact sheet or the conference that reported the study that this fact sheet is based on. 


This also links back to the above information from the National Cancer Institute report and they make the conclusion:

"At this time, the scientific evidence does not support the notion that abortion of any kind raises the risk of breast cancer or any other type of cancer."

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynocologists  (ACOG) also refers to the 2003 workshop and the above information.  They however preface the information with the following statement:

"This document reflects emerging clinical and scientific advances as of the date issued and is subject to change. The information should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of treatment or procedure to be followed."

On the other side of the debate is Dr. Joel Brind who counters in this 2005 article in the “Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons” that there was reporting bias in the 2003 workshop and subsequent 2004 report.

 Dr. Brind has also mentioned that during the 2004 seminar, conflicting viewpoints were not allowed to be presented.  In essence he is saying that, instead of investigation all data and letting the data dictate if the theory is true, they found data to support their theory and disregarded the rest.  In some cases they  may have even manipulated the studies to fit the theory.

Dr. Brind:


This video of Dr. Brind is from the “Life Matters” program, again politicizing the issue.

It is difficult to look at all of these and not say they are biased.  Each side has an agenda.  On one side are the pro-abortionists wanting to prove that there is no increased risk of abortion and breast cancer and the pro-life side that wants to use the link as additional ammunition against abortion.

I do need to point out that the video’s that feature Dr. Brind give logical thought as to WHY there is a risk whereas the other studies simply say there is no link, end of story.
I also need to point out that Dr. Brind, while not the only one supporting the connection, he is the most vocal.
 
 
Again, this list is published by abortion/breast cancer coalition

So who do you believe?

I have done some research and came across this article from 2010, that is peer reviewed, but that no one has, of yet, used as a weapon in this abortion/breast cancer link war entitled:

 
  The conclusion of this study is that “Based on the researches done for the purposes of this project, we concluded that artificial interruption of pregnancy is one of the numerous causes (factors) of breast cancer arising.”
This study does not appear to have any bias and does not seem to have been sponsored by any group. 

In addtion, the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute believes there is a link between abortion and breast cancer.

A pamphlet from the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute:
Abortion & Breast Cancer: Is there a Link? What is the Truth Behind the Controversy

In it they state that abortion is a factor which increases breast cancer risk:
Induced abortion leaves increased number of immature breast lobules and increases risk of premature births.  It also increases estrogen exposure.

How Does the Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer Work?
 
 
Two principles account for the link:

1. Estrogen Exposure
2. Breast Lobule Formation
Estrogen Exposure

As soon as conception occurs and even before implantation in the uterus, the embryo secretes a hormone, hCG (Human chorianic gonadotropin), which causes the mother’s ovaries to produce more estrogen and progesterone. This causes the mother’s breasts to become sore and tender.

In a viable pregnancy, estrogen levels increase 2,000% by the end of the 1st trimester. This surge in hormones causes the breasts to grow by making more Type 1 & 2 lobules where cancers can start. The breast doubles in volume by 20 weeks.

Breast Lobule Formation
  • After 32 weeks of pregnancy, the Type 1 and 2 lobules mature into Type 3 and 4 lobules in preparation for breast feeding.
  • If the pregnancy ends by elective abortion, the increase in numbers of Type 1 and 2 lobules formed in the first two trimesters provide more places for cancers to start, increasing risk.
  • Women who never carry a pregnancy beyond 32 weeks never fully mature their breast tissue and have increased risk.
  • Women who delay full-term pregnancy past age 30 have a 90% higher risk of breast cancer than those who carry a pregnancy to term by age 20.

A Woman’s Choice

A woman who chooses induced abortion of her first pregnancy:
  • Denies herself the risk reduction of a full-term pregnancy.
  • May never have children—a risk for breast cancer.
  • Or, delay a full-term pregnancy which increases her risk of premenopausal breast cancer by 5% per year delayed after age 20.
A woman who chooses induced abortion after she has had a child:
  • Denies herself a further 10% reduction in risk by another full-term pregnancy.
  • Will have increased the number of Type 1 & Type 2 lobules where cancers start in her breast.
Here is a video that explains why it is believed that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer but it also has a segment where Dr. Brind’s explains about studies and how they should be done. This video is put out by an organization that supports the abortion/breast cancer link.


The 2007 study that is mention in the video: (which comes after the 2004 report that supposedly “debunks” the theory) supports the abortion/breast cancer connection.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Research Analysis, My Opinion:

Being that there are such conflicting reports, I cannot state for certain that there is not an abortion/breast cancer link. If you compare the evidence from one side or the other, the side supporting the link has presented a much better case with better references. The National Cancer Institute's fact sheet that everyone else seems to reference is lacking the information department. They make a list of findings, "studies show," but really no reference to the studies upon which those findings are based. 
   
The breast cancer prevention institute, on the other hand seems to believe there is a connection as addressed in their pamphlet.


In addition, if you remove all of the previous studies that have been biasedly used and focus on the independent study of 2010, there seems to be more proof that there is a link than there is not. If there is a link and there is a cover up, would those involved in the cover up be guilty of negligence? Would they not be criminally liable for withholding pertinent information from those receiving abortions? It is unlikely there will be a conclusion to this debate anytime in the near future. Though in my mind it seems there is, indeed, a connection between abortion and an increased risk for breast cancer.