Minnesota Health Department LYING about abortion/breast cancer link

[Godless Dave]

Minnesota passed a "women's right to know" abortion law this year. It requires a 24-hour waiting period before getting an abortion, and requires doctors to give out some information about the health risks of abortion to be reviewed in that 24-hour period. Many of us in the pro-choice community were concerned about the accuracy of the required information, but we breathed a sigh of relief in July when the informational pamphlet was published on the Health Dept. web site: it mentioned breast cancer, but went on to say that no link has been found between abortion and breast cancer.

But it turns out that publication was just draft. The final one was released today, and it says:

Findings from some studies suggest there is an increased risk of breast cancer among women who had an abortion, while findings from other studies suggest there is no increased risk. This issue may need further study.

Women who have a strong family history of breast cancer or who have clinical findings of breast disease should seek medical advice from their physician irrespective of their decision to become pregnant or have an abortion.

Not only are they lying bastards, but they are requiring doctors to give out inaccurate information.

Pioneer Press article (http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/6957060.htm)

[simian]

The Pioneer Press also had an article on the MN science stardards/Yecke and why the wrong version was put onto the web site. Does the Pioneer Press actively pursue such stories - doing what I see as the job for journalists, or were these just flukes? It would be nice to think there is some actual reporting going on in a city newspaper...

Simian

[ps418]

What the National Cancer Institute says is that the best and largest epidemiological studies consistently show a lack of association between breast cance and abortion.

The relationship between induced and spontaneous abortion and breast cancer risk has been the subject of extensive research beginning in the late 1950s. Until the mid-1990s, the evidence was inconsistent. Findings from some studies suggested there was no increase in risk of breast cancer among women who had had an abortion, while findings from other studies suggested there was an increased risk. Most of these studies, however, were flawed in a number of ways that can lead to unreliable results. Only a small number of women were included in many of these studies, and for most, the data were collected only after breast cancer had been diagnosed, and women’s histories of miscarriage and abortion were based on their “self-report” rather than on their medical records. Since then, better-designed studies have been conducted. These newer studies examined large numbers of women, collected data before breast cancer was found, and gathered medical history information from medical records rather than simply from self-reports, thereby generating more reliable findings. The newer studies consistently showed no association between induced and spontaneous abortions and breast cancer risk.
Abortion, Miscarriage, and Breast Cancer Risk (http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_75.htm)

Patrick

[Godless Dave]

Can any of the doctor-type people on this board tell me what they would do if they were required by state law to distribute a pamphlet to certain patients that you knew contained inaccurate or misleading information?

[ps418]

Findings from some studies suggest there is an increased risk of breast cancer among women who had an abortion, while findings from other studies suggest there is no increased risk. This issue may need further study.

Strictly speaking, the sentence is true. Its only misleading in the sense that the concensus as of feb 2003 is that abortion does not increase risk of breast cancer. If I were you, and felt strongly about it, I'd just add the NCI Fact Sheet as an appendix.

Patrick

[Roland98]

I agree with ps; unfortunately, they're covering their ass because the sentence is technically true--nevermind that the larger and better designed studies show no link, as the NCI notes. Unfortunately, the "see your doctor" part allows for docs to bring their own opinion into the debate; those who are anti-choice may emphasize the older studies suggesting a link, and scare women into making an ill-informed choice. Very unfortunate, IMO; they should have just went with the NCI consensus.

Godless Dave, do you know who in the MN DoH was in charge of the pamphlet? Did they do this under some kind of political pressure, or do you simply have a lot of anti-choicers running the place?

[Godless Dave]

Originally posted by Roland98
... or do you simply have a lot of anti-choicers running the place?

The latter. There has been a big anti-abortion lobby in Minnesota for as long as I have lived here, and they pretty much run the state Republican party now.

[simian]

This is the result of the "Women are stupid" bill (at least I think it was passed and signed by Pawlenty). Er, I mean the "Women's right to know" bill. Basically lying for Jesus in order to prevent abortions.

Simian