Pro-life advocates have argued for years that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer — due to hormonal changes during pregnancy which leave breasts more vulnerable to cancer. Despite their advocacy, the Department of Health and Human Services denies that there is any link.

On Monday the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer pointed to a new study which found a nearly 3-fold increase in the risk of breast cancer among Armenian women who had an abortion as yet another reason women should steer clear of the procedure.

The report, “Influence of Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 and Prolonged Estrogen Exposure on Risk of Breast Cancer Among Women in Armenia” published in Taylor & Francis was authored by Lilit Khachatryan of the Department of Public Health at the American University of Armenia. The study included researchers from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and the University of Pennsylvania.

The research found that induced abortions increased a woman’s risk of beast cancer 2.86 times — they claim however that “most evidence … points to no effect.”

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer contends that political correctness was the reason the researchers claimed there is no link.

Baruch College biology and endocrinology professor Joel Brind — an advocate of the breast cancer/abortion link — criticized the findings, explaining in a statement that the researchers “did not — and perhaps were not allowed to — characterize their findings honestly in the politically correct atmosphere of the U.S. and Europe. The good news is that they were able to report their findings in a prominent peer-reviewed journal at all.”

Karen Malec of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer pointed out that, though they deny a link, the researchers’ finding — that women who had an abortion were 2.68 times more likely to have breast cancer — was not a surprise as, according to Malec, 51 of 67 epidemiological studies since 1957 show a link.

The HHS’s National Cancer Institute, however, says that it is “well established” that “induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.”

When queried about the possible link between abortion and breast cancer NCI spokeswoman Aleea Farrakh Khan directed The Daily Caller to the NCI’s “Fact Sheet” regarding abortion and breast cancer risk.

According to the online document, NCI convened a 2003 workshop featuring “100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk.” The experts “concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.”

That workshop represents the basis on which NCI concluded that there is no link. NCI notes that it regularly considers new scientific findings but has not been swayed from its 2003 conclusion.

According to NCI, the factors that increase the chance of breast cancer are old age, family history of breast cancer, early age of first menstruation, late age of menopause, late age at the time of her first full term baby, and “certain breast conditions.” Obesity also represents a risk for postmenopausal women.

Despite the government’s assurance, the school of thought that continues to allege possible links is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.

NEW YORK – The results of the blood test revealed only a risk, but when she saw them, she still threw up. Now she had to find out for sure.

So she lay on her back at a doctor’s office, praying, comforted by her Christian faith and her mother at her side, while a needle was slipped into her belly.

Erin Witkowski of Port Jervis, N.Y., was going to find out if the baby she was carrying had Down syndrome.

This is the first of a two-part series on prenatal testing and the ethical issues raised by it.

For years, many women have gone through an experience like hers: a blood or ultrasound test that indicates a heightened risk of the syndrome, followed by a medical procedure to make a firm diagnosis by capturing DNA from the fetus.

Usually it’s the needle procedure Witkowski had, called amniocentesis, done almost four months or more into the pregnancy. Sometimes it’s an earlier test called CVS, or chorionic villus sampling, which collects a bit of tissue from the placenta. Both pose a tiny but real chance for miscarriage, and experts say highly skilled practitioners are not available everywhere.

But by this time next year there may be an alternative — one that offers accurate results as early as nine weeks into the pregnancy.

Companies are racing to market a more accurate blood test than those available now that could spare many women the need for an amnio or CVS. It would retrieve fetal DNA from the mother’s bloodstream. And the answer could come before the pregnancy is obvious to others. For some women, that might mean abortion is a more tenable choice. For others it could be a mixed blessing.

Down syndrome slows mental and physical development, and people with it usually show mild to moderate disability in intellect and skills for everyday living. Physically, they often have a flat face with a short neck and smaller hands and feet. They’re at risk for complications like heart defects and hearing problems. Life expectancy is about 60 years.

Most cases are diagnosed after birth now, but if the blood test is widely adopted it could become chiefly a prenatal event.

A diagnosis before birth can pose a difficult challenge for couples as they decide whether to continue the pregnancy. It’s not only about child-rearing, but also about what happens as the child grows into an older adult and may need care that the aging parents struggle to provide, says Dr. Mary Norton, a Stanford University professor of obstetrics and gynecology.

Dr. Brian Skotko, a Down syndrome specialist at Children’s Hospital Boston who has written a research paper for doctors on how to deliver a diagnosis, said “the vast majority of people with Down syndrome and families affirm that their contributions to their communities are significant, and their lives are very valuable.”

Current prenatal screening has already cut into the number of babies born with the syndrome, which now stands at about 6,000 each year in the United States, or about 1 in every 691 babies, says Skotko, who serves on the board of the National Down Syndrome Society. He cites one study that concludes the number of Down syndrome births in the nation dropped 11 percent between 1989 and 2006, a time when it would otherwise be expected to rise 42 percent.

Initially, doctors are expected to use the new blood test with women at risk for a Down syndrome pregnancy, such as those older than 35. A negative result would indicate a woman could skip the amnio or CVS; a positive result would suggest she get one done to be sure.

Eventually it might replace the routine screening tests offered to all pregnant women. Since the test sounds fewer false alarms than current tests, fewer women would be told they need the invasive follow-up procedures, experts say. And some suggest that with further fine-tuning, it could largely replace amnio and CVS. With no miscarriage risk, more women might be willing to take it, and so more women would find out they have a Down syndrome pregnancy.

Two California companies, Sequenom Inc. and Verinata Health Inc., hope to offer the test to doctors in the United States by next April. They say it could be done in the first trimester, with Sequenom aiming as early as 10 weeks, and Verinata as early as eight weeks. Results would be available 7 to 10 days later. In addition, LifeCodexx AG of Germany says it wants to start offering its test in Europe by the end of this year, to be performed at 12 to 14 weeks initially. None of the companies would discuss its cost.

“I would have definitely taken a noninvasive test over the struggle for deciding whether to do an amnio or not,” says Nancy McCrea Iannone of Sewell, N.J., who gave birth six years ago to a daughter with Down syndrome. She’d been alerted by screening results, but hesitated to get amniocentesis because of the risk of a miscarriage and the prospect of “a needle in my belly,” she recalls. Ultimately, she did have one.

Iannone now counsels women who plan to deliver babies with Down syndrome. Her charitable group, Down Syndrome Pregnancy Inc., lists several reasons for getting a diagnosis before birth, such as more time to adjust, grieve and learn about the condition, preparing friends and family, and checking on available medical care and insurance.

But detecting the condition earlier in a pregnancy through the new blood test would be a mixed blessing, Iannone said.

The time between diagnosis and birth is “an unnatural state,” she said, and “the longer that time period is, the harder it is.”

“All you know is that they have Down syndrome. You’re coping with that diagnosis in a vacuum, without a baby… It’s fear of the unknown, you haven’t met your baby yet. You spend a lot of time worrying.”

That might weigh heavily on women who haven’t decided whether to continue the pregnancy or not, she said.

Since the new blood test could deliver an answer so early — before a pregnancy is showing or the baby is kicking — it might make getting an abortion easier, several observers said. Women haven’t bonded so much, and “they wouldn’t have to explain to as many people,” said Christie Brooks, who moderates an online support group for women who’ve gotten abortions for medical reasons.

“No one needs to know you’re pregnant,” said Skotko. “Maybe you haven’t even told your husband.”

Skotko said he respects that a woman’s right to continue or terminate a pregnancy is a personal one for couples. But he’s concerned that in the case of Down syndrome, many women may be getting bad information about what having the baby would mean. And if the new test became routine it would only exacerbate that problem, he said.

Studies show medical students are poorly trained about people with disabilities and that some doctors who make a prenatal diagnosis emphasize negative information about the condition, he said.

“We have a fleet of physicians who are saying they’re untrained, unprepared and sometimes knowingly inserting their own personal bias,” he said. “How are women today able to make a truly informed decision?”

Others say the blood test could thrust some women into a choice they didn’t ask to make.

Hank Greely, a Stanford University law professor, said women sign forms for plenty of blood tests during prenatal care and often don’t focus on them. Many California women are surprised to learn they’d authorized the screening test for Down syndrome, he said.

If these tests are someday replaced by the new blood test, many women may be told out of the blue not simply that they’re at risk, but that in fact their baby almost surely has Down syndrome, Greely says.

“They’re going to jump directly to the final answer, which is not necessarily something they wanted to get,” Greely said. So the new test poses a challenge to the medical establishment about how to assure that women get adequate counseling to make an informed choice, he said.

Witkowski, who prayed as that needle was slipped into her swollen belly in 2009, got her answer: It was Down syndrome. As her doctor gave her the news, her baby kicked her and “I could see my belly move,” she recalled.

Her doctor started talking immediately about abortion, a step Witkowski rejected. She changed doctors and gave birth to Grady in February 2010.

“When they first gave him to me,” Witkowski said, “I saw tiny little hands, and he had the most beautiful eyes… He didn’t have `Down syndrome’ stamped on his forehead. He cried and he peed and he pooped. He was a baby.”

Husband Behind BirthOrNot Site Admits Abortion Vote a Hoax (Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com, 11/23/10) The husband behind the BirthOrNot web site that caused an international controversy over a vote on an abortion has now admitted the web site was a hoax.

Pete and Alisha Arnold put up the web site under the claim that they were conflicted over a decision about whether to have an abortion and take the live of their 17-week-old unborn child or give birth to the baby.

In new comments to CNN, Pete Arnold said his wife supports legalized abortion but he admitted the couple put the web site online knowing they never intended to seek an abortion.

Arnold also admitted what bloggers from both sides of the abortion debate revealed days ago — that he purchased the BirthOrNot.com web domain about four months ago — well before Alisha became pregnant.

“We chose our words very carefully,” Arnold told CNN about public statements saying the site was legitimate during the international press craze that followed the initial stories.

He said Arnolds, who live in Minnesota, wanted to put up a web site that would engage people on the issue of abortion because so many feel it’s a topic that doesn’t touch them personally.

“A lot of people elect representatives based on this issue alone, yet nothing happens, nothing comes of it, nothing changes.” he said, telling CNN the couple called the unborn child ”Baby Wiggles” to give people more to consider.

“My intent is not to deceive people, but at the same point, I do want people to talk about this. This seemed like a pretty good way to further the discussion, because people don’t ever seem to want to talk about it for real if there’s no name on it, no Baby Wiggles,” he said.

Before Arnold admitted the hoax, pro-life nurse and blogger Jill Stanek said she thought that was the case.

“Although the posts appeared plausible when I perused them, the concept had “scam” written all over it. So I didn’t buy in. My thought was the couple was trying to punk pro-lifers,” she wrote.

“The reaction has been most interesting. Pro-choicers think this is a scam against them. Now, while pro-lifers are becoming incensed and begging the couple not to abort, pro-choicers are becoming incensed and wanting the couple to be shot.”

Stanek said the detailed descriptions of the development of the unborn child and the couple’s posting of ultrasound pictures led

her to believe the couple is pro-life and using the web site and the attention to show the absurdity of abortion.

“I’ve come to agree this is a pro-life stunt. A pro-choicer, unless a real sicko, would not go into this sort of detail about the 16-week development of the baby she may abort,” Stanek said.

Blogger Amanda Marcotte, who is pro-abortion, noted the Arnolds purchased the domain name for the web site in May and, as pro-lifer Stanek says, “well before Alisha got pregnant, which I estimate was August 4, according to my handy dandy pregnancy wheel.”

The Arnolds told the web site Gawker, which broke the story last week, that they bought the domain during their second pregnancy, which ended in miscarriage and maintain the web site is legitimate because they planned to put that pregnancy up for a vote but waiting until they became pregnant again.

“The couple said they purchased their domain before miscarrying their second baby but actually bought it the month afterward – when not at all pregnant. In other words, they planned this,” Stanek concludes. “This corroborates that this is a publicity stunt of some sort. I wouldn’t get too emotionally involved. But I will be watching with interest to see how they play this out.”

Pro-abortion bloggers confirmed Pete Arnold had worked with a conservative radio talk show and frequently posted online as a conservative and had advocated the pro-life perspective.

Earlier this week, KSTP-TV reported that Alisha Arnold was fired from her job at Eagan, Minnesota-based software company TempWorks. KSTP obtained an internal memo showing the web site and press attention were deemed a “grave threat” to the reputation of the company.

Daily Iowan Paper Implies Catholic Doctors Uninformed on Abortion-Breast Cancer Link (Karen Malec,12/03/09) On two occasions early in November, The Daily Iowan’s opinion editor, Shawn Gude, invited a reader by the name of Rebecca Curtis to send him a 600-word rebuttal in response to a guest opinion written by University of Iowa law students, Amber Fricke and Amy Hirst, on October 27, 2009 that incorrectly stated that abortion does not increase breast cancer risk. [1]

Curtis sent The Daily Iowan a rebuttal, but Gude rejected it on November 5 and invited her to re-write it. She quickly responded by sending him a revised rebuttal, but on November 9, he rejected that too. Gude explained to Curtis, “While I appreciate your submission, I remain skeptical of some of your sources.”

Gude objected that Curtis had cited research published in The Linacre Quarterly, a publication of the Catholic Medical Association, and the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, a publication of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, even though both publications are peer-reviewed medical journals and the authors of the research papers in question are esteemed, international experts on the abortion-breast cancer link. [8,9] (The term “peer-reviewed” means that the scientific papers have been evaluated by an impartial panel of experts who recommend the papers for publication or rejection.)Full story at LifeNews.com