Chapter 3

You Can Sue 31 January 2019

Chapter 3: 3 INDEPENDENT ABC RISKS

(ABC = Abortion-Breast-Cancer)

Brent Rooney (MSc, email: youcansue@gmail.com)

Chapter 3 address: http://www.top-sue.org/chapter-3

Summary

BIG BREAST CANCER ‘Secret’ (hidden from the general

public): Undeniable ABC risk: women made older rookie (first

time) moms increase their lifetime breast cancer risk. A woman

who postpones her first delivery of a baby (full-term) via

abortion by 5 years increases her relative breast cancer risk by

19% and a 10 year delay increases relative B.C. (Breast Cancer)

risk by 41%. As a general rule abortion consent forms do not

address warnings to childless women for any adverse abortion risk

(including breast cancer). Even if a pregnant woman delivers her

first baby (full-term), there is very strong evidence that an abortion

of a later pregnancy increases her B.C. risk. There is a third

independent way IA (Induced Abortion) history raises B.C. risk.

IA history raises a woman’s risk of delivering a baby VERY

PREMATURELY (under 32 weeks’ gestation) and such short

pregnancies double her breast cancer risk. Do not pursue a legal

breast cancer claim against an abortion doctor or clinic, unless

your trusted lawyer agrees that such a law suit has a very good

chance of success.

.....----------------------------------------------------------------------...

Introduction

Harvard University professor Nancy Krieger (PhD),

being very ‘pro-choice’, can not be accused of pro-life bias.

In a highly regarded medical journal dedicated to breast

cancer risks a peer-reviewed study by Harvard professor

Nancy Krieger (PhD) included this quote about breast cancer:

“Conversely, early age at FFTP [First Full-Term

Pregnancy] has emerged as the strongest protective

factor [citing 8 published studies].”[1, Krieger]

One very obvious implication of professor Krieger’s statement

of fact is that any medical intervention that makes a young

woman older at her first delivery of a baby (full-term) increases

her lifetime breast cancer risk. Dr. Brian MacMahon, Harvard

University’s Dean of the Department of Epidemiology for 19

years, is considered one of the great B.C. (Breast Cancer)

researchers of the 20th century. Dr. MacMahon is a co-author

of a study with fellow Harvard University researchers that

quantified the boost in B.C. risk for each one year delay in FFTP.

[2, Trichopoulos] Each year a young woman [in an advanced

country] postpones delivery of her first baby (full-term) boosts

her relative B.C. risk by 3.5% (compounded). 3.5% appears

to be a small raised risk, but here is how 3.5% compounds by

the number of years delayed first delivery of a baby (full-term):

Delay Boost in Relative

in FFTP Breast Cancer risk

1 year +3.5%

5 years +19% [3.5% compounded 5 times]

10 years +41% [3.5% compounded 10 times]

15 years +68%

20 years +99% [Almost doubled breast cancer risk]

.....________________________________________________...

As a general rule (rarely violated) abortion consent forms do

not have the phrase “breast cancer” in them. Obviously,

abortion consent forms should at least include a warning along

the following lines for the undeniable ABC risk:

“If you are a childless pregnant woman, a delivery of your

baby currently (full-term) will result in lower lifetime breast

cancer risk compared to waiting to deliver your first baby

(full-term) in a subsequent pregnancy when you are older.”

About 1/2 of Canadian and U.S. women undergoing elective

abortions are childless women.

Non-Denial Denial

Have not well known cancer ‘authorities’, such as the

National Cancer Institute (NCI), ‘assured’ the public that

IA (Induced Abortion) history poses no raised breast cancer

risk? Read the ‘fine print’ in these ‘assurances’. Nowhere

does the NCI assure CHILDLESS women made older rookie

(first time) moms via IA history that they face no raised B.C.

risk compared to having carried their first pregnancy to full-term

(i.e. well into their third trimester). Why no such assurance?

Such a NCI statement would expose the authors of such an

‘assurance’ of no raised B.C. risk for woman made older

rookie moms due to abortion history as medical ignoramuses.

‘Score’ for the three (3) INDEPENDENT ABC risks

‘Score’

Older Rookie Mom Effect Undeniable B.C. Risk (‘R-ABC’)

Moms with a later abortion Very Probable B.C. Risk (‘M-ABC’)

Very Preterm Birth Due to A Likely B.C. Risk (P-ABC)

IA history

Joel Brind (PhD) and Dr. Angela Lanfranchi

Virtually the entire ABC controversy over the last 30+ years

has been about the second independent ABC risk (call it M-ABC).

The top researchers revealing this independent ABC risk are

professor Joel Brind (PhD) and highly regarded breast cancer

surgeon Dr. Angela Lanfranchi. Those truly interested in the

independent M-ABC risk must explore this via the Breast Cancer

Prevention Institute (BCPI) website: http://www.bcpinstitute.org/ .

Joel Brind (PhD) is a professor of endocrinology at Baruch College

(City University of New York). ProfessorJoel Brind (PhD) is the

lead author of 2 SRMAs (Systematic Reviews with Meta-Analysis)

of the ABC risk, one in 1996 [3] and the latest in March 2018 [4].

(Brent Rooney is a co-author of the 2018 SRMA). A SRMA

(assuming it is competently & honestly performed) provides the

strongest evidence, pro or con, about a suspected adverse medical

risk factor. In addition to the two (2) Joel Brind SRMAs supporting

ABC risk a third SRMA, with women in China as study subjects,

supporting ABC risk was published in 2013.[5, Huang] In

addition to the 3 ABC SRMAs there are 3 META-ANALYSES

that support significant ABC risk.[6-8]

Successful ABC Lawsuit In Oregon

A young woman, one “F.S.” (so identified in her law suit against

a Portland, Oregon abortion clinic), sued for being put at increased

breast cancer risk without informed consent. As of late January

2005 “F.S.” (then a 19 year-old woman) had never been diagnosed

as having breast cancer. Cancer normally takes decades to manifest,

so U.S. & Canadian courts can not and do not demand that patients

wait decades for cancer to be diagnosed before a legal claim can be

made and adjudicated. “F.S.” filed many legal claims (including a

~~‘put at increased breast cancer risk’ claim) and the Portland clinic

legally contested zero of her many claims. “F.S.” thus won on all

her claims on 24 January 2005; prior to that date “F.S.” reached a

private monetary settlement with the Portland, Oregon abortion

clinic. Judge Dale R. Koch in his legal decision (“Stipulated General

Judgment”) granting a complete victory to “F.S.” set the interest rate

(9% per annum) to be paid on the unpaid balance owed to “F.S.”.

(“F.S.’s” lawyer was Jonathan Clark; case # for “F.S.”’s statement

of claims case: 0307-07422 in Multnomah County, Oregon).

Why was her (“F.S.”) ABC claim very credible?

Since zero of her legal claims were contested by the Portland,

Oregon abortion clinic, there was no need for testimony, for or

against, any of her legal claims, including her ABC claim. If the

clinic had contested her ABC claim, Joel Brind (PhD) stood ready

to testify in support of her ABC claim. Yes, first time pregnant

“F.S.” had her lifetime B.C. risk raised by assuring that she would

be an older rookie mom (compared to carrying her first pregnancy

to full-term). But what made her ABC claim especially strong

was a combination of 2 B.C. risk factors:

Abortion under age 18 AND having a family history of B.C.

A 1994 peer-reviewed study with lead author Dr. Janet Daling

found that these two (2) factors when combined put a woman at

very high risk of breast cancer under age 45 years.[9, Daling]

Dr. Daling, a researcher at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research

Center (Seattle, Washington), is self-described as ‘pro-choice’.

In the 1994 ‘Daling’ study there were twelve (12) women with

this deadly B.C. combination and 100% of the 12 were in the

case group (ie. diagnosed with breast cancer) and zero of the

12 were ‘controls’ (no B.C. diagnosis before age 45 years).

This finding of raised B.C. was statistically significant (lower

confidence interval: 1.8; any time the lower ‘confidence

interval’ exceeds 1.0, the finding has achieved statistical

significance for increased risk). “F.S.” (born 19 January 1986)

was 15 years old when she had her induced abortion in May

2001 and she did have a family history of breast cancer before

her IA performed by All Women’s Health Services (Portland,

Oregon) in May 2001. The wording of the “F.S.” ABC claim

was: “The abortion procedure defendants provided caused

plaintiff to suffer an increased risk of breast cancer, severe and

debilitating emotional injury, pain and suffering, physical and

emotional trauma, and permanent psychological damage.”

Third INDEPENDENT ABC Risk: Very Premature Delivery

If a woman deliveries a baby VERY prematurely (under 32

weeks’ gestation), she doubles her breast cancer risk.[10, 11]

Thus, those ‘authorities’ that imply that a pregnancy of any

length reduces mom’s breast cancer risk had better find SRMA

studies (both honest & competent) that support their position.

Zero such SRMAs exist as of January 2019. In January 1973

the great breast cancer researcher Dr. Brian MacMahon (along

with his co-authors) in a published peer-reviewed study alerted

the medical community that only pregnancies that are full-term

reduce breast cancer risk [12, MacMahon]:

“[Breast Cancer] Protection is exerted only by a full-term

pregnancy. Abortion and breast cancer were not associated

in all study areas; where a relationship was observed,

abortion was associated with increased, not decreased risk...”

As of December 2018 there has been a grand total of four (4)

SRMAs for the preterm birth risk of induced abortion history.

[13-16] All 4 of these SRMAs found that IA history

significantly increases a woman’s risk of a premature delivery

of a baby. Two of the 4 SRMAs provided risk estimates for the

very premature delivery risk due to IA history.[14, 15] Both the

‘Swingle’ SRMA (14) and the ‘Lemmers’ SRMA reported that

IA history significantly raises a woman’s risk of a very

premature delivery of a baby. Thus, prior induced abortion history,

via its significantly raised odds of a very preterm delivery, is a

likely or very likely third independent way abortion history boosts

a woman’s breast cancer risk.

What is “full-term”?

From a newborn baby’s health perspective full-term

delivery is at least 37 weeks’ gestation; those newborn under

37 weeks’ gestation face raised risk for cerebral palsy, autism,

epilepsy, mental retardation, etc. But from a mom’s breast

cancer perspective what is full-term? When Dr. Brian

MacMahon and colleagues in 1973 referred to full-term,

certainly they meant well into the third trimester (over 26

weeks’ gestation), but what exact number did they attach to

“full-term” (34, 35, 36, or 37 weeks’ gestation)? The January

1973 Dr. MacMahon et al. study did not provide an exact

number. In October 2018, Danish researchers with a study

population of 2.3 million Danish women, provided the gestation

length that provides statistically significant reduced risk of

breast cancer: 34 weeks’ gestation.[17, Husby] From the

abstract of this study: “Using a cohort of 2.3 million Danish

women, we found the reduction in breast cancer risk was not

observed for pregnancies lasting 33 weeks or less, but restricted

to pregnancies lasting 34 weeks or longer.” At least 99% of

elective abortions occur in the first or second trimester (upper

limit of 26 weeks’ gestation). 100% of first and second trimester

abortions fall at least 8 weeks short of 34 weeks’ gestation (34

minus 26 = 8). Thus, ‘34 Opens the Door to Lower Breast

Cancer Risk’. If the defendant doctor and clinic want to argue

that 26 = 34, they are welcome to try. Only a (competent)

SRMA (‘study of studies’) can trump the medical fact that

only pregnancies that are at least very near full-term for

women under age 30 years reduce breast cancer risk.

? ‘Only’ 3 Independent ABC Risks ?

There are at least 2 other independent ways that IA history

boosts the odds of raised lifetime risk of breast cancer. I will

simply mention them here, but with little elaboration:

- reduced total duration of breast feeding

(an obvious example is a woman who has one pregnancy

in her life, which was ended via an IA and thus her lifetime

duration of breast feeding = zero months + zero weeks +

zero days).

- raised risk of substance abuse

(e.g. IA history boosts a woman’s odds of being a cigarette

smoker and cigarette smoking is a credible breast cancer

risk factor).

Expert Witnesses Working with Lawyers

If a young woman postpones her first delivery of a baby, does it

really boost her lifetime breast cancer risk? In 1999 this was indeed

conceded by an expert witness testifying for a ‘pro-choice’ group,

North Florida Women (NFW). NFW was the plaintiff in a law

suite against the state of Florida and one technical point NFW

wanted to make in their court presentation was that induced abortion

does NOT increase a woman’s lifetime breast cancer risk. NFW’s

witness for this contention was epidemiologist Lynn Rosenberg

(ScD). The ABC questions put to Rosenberg in cross examination

were provided to him by the top ABC expert Professor Joel Brind

(PhD, Baruch College (City University of New York)). Here is an

exact excerpt from cross examination of Lynn Rosenberg (ScD) in

1999:

“Q. And a woman who had her first pregnancy, say, at age 15

but aborted it, but then had her first child at age 35, would have

a risk of breast cancer no lower, all other things being equal,

than a woman whose first pregnancy carried to term was at age

35?
A. Yes
Q. So, in other words, a woman who finds herself pregnant at

age 15 will have higher breast cancer risk if she chooses to abort

that pregnancy than if she carries to term, correct?
A. Probably, yes.
Q. Looking at that another way, let's compare two women.

Let's say both got pregnant at age 15 – one terminates the

pregnancy, but the other carries the pregnancy to term. And

both women go on to get married and have two children,

say, at age 30 and age 35. Is the risk of breast cancer higher

for the woman who had an abortion at age 15 or the woman

who had a baby at age 15, all other things being equal?

A. It's probably higher for the one who had an abortion at age 15”

[End of testimony extract; text provided by CondenseIT]

Conclusion: An exact repeat of the beginning Summary