The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month—an occasion to promote knowledge about the disease and commemorate those who have battled it. But in the hoopla of pink ribbons and 5k runs, a vital medical fact has gone unnoticed by the mainstream media: Abortion is an independent risk factor for breast cancer.

To the great detriment of women, this fact is little known. Radical feminists have successfully hijacked breast cancer awareness month as a time to spur their liberal propaganda, and have bullied a handful of breast cancer organizations into doing the same.

However, the biology of the breast confirms that induced abortion is indeed a risk factor for breast cancer. In developmental biology a lobule, or a unit of breast tissue, can undergo four stages. An infant is born with Type 1 lobules. After puberty, the number of Type 1 lobules increases, and some Type 1 lobules become Type 2 lobules.  Both Type 1 lobules and Type 2 lobules are vulnerable to cancer. During the first half of pregnancy, the number of Type 1 and Type 2 lobules greatly increases. However, around 20 weeks after conception, these cancer vulnerable cells mature into cancer-resistant Type 4 lobules. After 32 weeks of pregnancy, sufficient Type 4 lobules have developed that a mother is protected against breast cancer, and she begins to incrementally gain the benefit of risk reduction that will maximize at 40 weeks. By the end of a normal pregnancy, 70 to 90 percent of the mother’s breast is composed of cancer-resistant Type 4 lobules. After birth and after a mother has lactated and breastfed, Type 4 lobules regress to Type 3 lobules, which retain the epigenetic changes that protect against the development of cancer. With each additional pregnancy subsequent to her first, a woman’s risk of breast cancer will decrease another 10 percent.

Therefore, disruption to a pregnancy—and the corresponding termination of lobule development—can leave a woman with an excessive amount of Type 1 and Type 2 cancer-vulnerable lobules that have not yet maturated.  As a result, an induced abortion (presumably prior to 32 weeks) as well as a miscarriage in the second trimester increase the risk of breast cancer.

In the case of an induced abortion, the woman’s breasts contain an increased number of cancer-vulnerable Type 1 and Type 2 lobules, but hav not yet developed cancer-resistant Type 4 lobules. The longer a woman is pregnant before an induced abortion, the more cancer-vulnerable Type 1 and Type 2 lobules she will develop.

A miscarriage (also known as spontaneous abortion) may increase a woman’s risk factor for breast cancer, depending on when the miscarriage occurs. First trimester miscarriages do not increase the risk factor for breast cancer. First trimester miscarriages generally occur because a woman has not produced enough estrogen and progesterone to sustain the pregnancy. These low levels of estrogen and progesterone are also insufficient to stimulate breast development (ie. increase the number of Type 1 and Type 2 lobules). However, a second trimester miscarriage does increase a woman’s risk factor for breast cancer. These miscarriages generally occur due to physical abnormalities. Therefore, the breasts have an increased number of Type 1 and Type 2 lobules that have not yet matured into Type 4 lobules. Sadly, the same applies to premature deliveries prior to 32 weeks.

Because radical feminists distort this information, millions of women have been deprived of basic knowledge of medical care. However, the Marriage and Religion Research Institute is committed to empowering women by providing the facts and statistics for them to make their own informed decisions. Therefore, we have composed two easily accessible reports on the abortion breast cancer link: first, “Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer (Short version)” summarizes the most important biological facts about the link; second, “Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer” delves into specific scientific explanations. Both reports include easy-to-read diagrams, and explain why studies claiming to debunk the abortion-breast cancer link are fatally flawed.

What do NFL Abusers Have in Common?

Media outlets have been ringing with stories of domestic violence in the NFL: Greg Hardy, Rod Smith, Anthony Ray Jefferson, and, most recently, Ray Rice. But in its obsession with the NFL’s response to its players, the media has overlooked one growing root cause of abuse in these cases: cohabitation. Cohabitation is a breeding ground for domestic abuse against both women and children alike. And, not surprisingly, each NFL player was or had been cohabiting with the woman he beat.

This is, of course, not to blame any of these women for their abuse.  Rather, the link between cohabitation and domestic violence highlights the massive attitudinal differences between what it takes to cohabit and what it takes to marry. If the NFL wants to reduce domestic violence it will become a booster for marriage and it could do well by distributing these charts to all its NFL players and fans.

Social science data confirms this claim. One study found that cohabiting couples were more likely to face difficulties with adultery, drugs, and alcohol than couples who did not cohabit. Likewise, those couples who lived together prior to marring were more likely to exhibit marital issues like permissive sexual relationships and drug problems. Not surprisingly, therefore, cohabiting couples tend to have lower relationship quality, less stability, and more frequent and more extreme disagreements.

The frequency of abuse among cohabiting couples is especially alarming. The rate of violence among cohabiting couples is double the rate for married couples, and the rate for severe violence is almost five times as high. Cohabiters are more likely than married couple to be aggressive, and are more likely to hit, push, or throw things at their partner.

Having unmarried, cohabiting parents also poses a number of risk factors for children. Data shows that children of divorced or never-married mothers are six to 30 times more likely to suffer from serious child abuse than are children raised by their married biological parents. As the British data shows, children whose biological mother cohabits are 73 percent more likely to die from abuse than are children whose biological parents are married. We do not have analogous US data on fatalities, but we have very good federal data on rates of abuse as the other three charts show.

Many support cohabitation as a means to “test drive” a potential marriage. However, far from strengthening future marriages, cohabitation produces risk factors for a slew of marital problems like drinking, fighting, and violence. It’d be best if people stick to watching NFL players for their football skills, and take relationship advice from the experts.

Radical Feminists and Fathers

“Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”

“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.

Disconcerting? Yes. Unordinary? Not at all. Mallory Millet recalls this exchange as a typical chanting ritual among her sister, Kate Millet, and similarly minded feminist activists. The breakdown of the family following the sexual revolution was no coincidence; it was its very goal.

Feminists have largely succeeded in debilitating and eradicating fatherhood. Today, 1 in 3 children in the United States live in a fatherless home, and by age 17 only 46 percent are living with both their mother and father. This fatherless family is the root cause of the majority of social ills. Children deprived of a father are robbed of physical, emotional, intellectual, and economic benefits throughout their lifetime.

For example, children without a father are less likely to have stable relationships. Studies show that adolescents who live without their father are more likely to engage in greater and earlier sexual activity, are more likely to become pregnant as a teenager, and are more likely to have a child outside of marriage. Boys that are close with their fathers have better attitudes about intimacy and the prospect of their own married lives than boys who do not feel close to their fathers. A girl whose father leaves before she is five years old is eight times more likely to have an adolescent pregnancy than a girl whose father remains in her home.

This trend extends into other deviant behaviors. Boys and girls who live without their fathers are less likely to be able to delay gratification, have poor impulse control over anger and sexual gratification, and have a weaker sense of right and wrong. Correspondingly, children who live without their fathers are, on average, more likely to choose deviant peers, have trouble getting along with other children, be at higher risk for peer problems, and be more aggressive.

The importance of a father to children is also evident in school. Children who live without their fathers are more likely to have decreased school performance, and children who do not live with their father are more likely to experience behavioral problems at school. Furthermore, 71 percent of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.

Children also reap great economic benefits from having a father at home. Intact married families have the largest annual income of all family structures with children under 18. In contrast, children raised in single-mother families, intact cohabiting families, and (biological father or mother) cohabiting stepfamilies are significantly more likely than children from married families to receive most forms of welfare, including TANF, food stamps, and Medicaid.

Every child has a fundamental right to a married mother and father. However, radical feminists have forced their neo-Marxist ideology into society’s most vulnerable and far-reaching unit: the family.  They have ripped children apart from their fathers and persecuted women who remain faithful to their husbands. The repercussions of replacing the devout father with the welfare state are rapidly compounding, and are hurling society into a bottomless pit. What is the appropriate  response today: Why are we here today?  To make revolution. What kind of revolution? The Cultural Revolution. And how do we make Cultural Revolution? By rebuilding the American patriarchal family! By reuniting fathers with their spouses and their children!

The Deconstructionist’s War on Girls: An AG who Protects the Predators Not the Victim

Sexual abuse of adolescent girls inflicts enduring wounds on the victim’s heart, mind, body, and soul. Young girls seduced into an early sexual debut—generally victimized by their partners—exhibit these consequences over their lifetime. Disconcertingly, about 60 percent of sexual abuse cases are never reported to authorities; the majority of these are young females.

However, in a backdoor attempt to facilitate the abortion industry, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring relaxed reporting rules for healthcare providers.  This decision issues implicit support for sexual licentiousness and statutory rape. Most unnerving, the repercussions for young women have been grossly ignored by political pundits and the mainstream media. 

An early sexual debut is likely to bring about negative physical, mental, social, and economic outcomes. These effects are frequently permanent because the earlier a woman begins sexual activity, the more sexual partners she is likely to have over her lifetime. For example, girls who began sexual activity at age 13 are twice as likely to become infected by an STD as girls who started sexual activity at age 21. Correspondingly, early sexual intercourse is negatively linked to happiness. This parallels the finding that early intercourse leads to an increased likelihood of forcing a partner to have sex, having sex while drunk or high, unstable relationships, and having an unplanned pregnancy. Not surprisingly, this life pattern increases abortions. While 30 percent of girls who started sexual activity at ages 13 or 14 have had an abortion, some 12 percent of girls who began sexual activity in their early 20s have had an abortion. This figure is especially alarming given the biological link between abortion and breast cancer.

Early sexual debut also has economic ramifications. Women who became sexually active at ages 13 or 14 are more than three times as likely to become single parents than are women who initiate sexual activity in their early 20s. This contributes to maternal poverty. One study found that 27 percent of mothers who began sexual activity at ages 13 or 14 were living in poverty, whereas 11.7 percent of mothers who began sexual activity in their early 20s were poor.

Herring’s ruling is an abomination to the parents of young girls. He is in essence saying:  I will not protect your young adolescent girls from older predators.  Where are the feminists on this?  On his side!  Promoting abortion and the radical sexualization and  “dysfunctionalization” of young adolescent girls. Protector he is not.  Who now guards the guardians?  Who guards this rogue guardian?

Promoting women’s well-being mandates widespread support for the intact married family. It is within this environment that girls are most protected from sexual abuse, and it is within this environment that young women are most likely to cultivate a healthy sexual relationship with her husband before God.  Herring seems bent on the agenda to wreck the future family life of these young girls. But that is the price he and his allies are willing to pay. This is war on the family of that girl, her present family and her own future family.

Passing the Half Emptier Mark

Marriage was once seen as a permanent bond intended to promote monogamous love, spousal devotion, and childrearing. Today, however, many view marriage, or rather its deliberate avoidance, as a means of defying tradition, asserting feminist ideologies, and/ or avoiding commitment. Perhaps most alarming, the mainstream public is supportive but ignorant of the consequences of this shift. 

A Pew Study released Wednesday reveals that 50 percent of adults believe that society is just as well off if people have priorities other than marriage and children, whereas only 46 percent believe society is better off if people make marriage and having children a priority. However, social science data suggests otherwise. In marriage are contained the five basic institutions—the basic tasks—of society: family, church, school, marketplace and government. MARRI research has emphasized the multitude of benefits the intact, married family confers on children as they learn to value and perform these five fundamental tasks. A few of these advantages are highlighted below.

Family

Families with either biological or adoptive parents present have the highest quality of parent-child relationships, perhaps because marriage enhances an adult’s ability to parent. Married people are more likely to give and receive support with their parents and are more likely to consider their parents as means for possible support in case of an emergency.

Furthermore, those who marry experience increased commitment and stability. Men raised in married families have more open, affectionate, and cooperative relationships with the women to whom they are attracted than do those from divorced families. Correspondingly, married mothers report more love and intimacy in their romantic/spousal relationships than cohabiting or single mothers.

Church

A larger fraction of adults who grew up in an intact married family than from non-intact family structures attend religious services at least monthly. Those from married families are less likely to see religion decline in importance in their lives, less likely to begin attending church less frequently, and less likely to disassociate themselves from their religious affiliation.

School       

Children of married parents are more engaged in school than children from all other family structures. Individuals from intact families completed, on average, more years of schooling and were more likely to graduate from high school and college than were their peers raised in non-intact families. High school students in intact families have GPAs 11 percent higher than those from divorced families.

Marketplace

Intact married families have the largest annual income and  the highest net worth of all families with children (widowed families excepted).  Married couples file less than half of all income-tax returns, but pay nearly three-quarters of all income taxes. Marriage increases the income of single African-American women by 81 percent and single white women by 45 percent; African-American men also see an increase in income after marriage.

Government

Crime. Adolescents from intact families are less delinquent and commit fewer violent acts of delinquency. Likewise, a lower fraction of adults and youths raised in intact families are picked up by police than those from non-intact families.

Violence and Abuse. Marriage is associated with lower rates of domestic violence and abuse, in comparison to cohabitation. Correspondingly, Children in intact married families suffer less child abuse than children from any other family structure. Compared to teenagers from intact families, teenagers from divorced families are more verbally aggressive and violent toward their romantic partners.

Health. Married men and women are also more likely to have health insurance. A lower fraction of married than widowed, divorced or separated, never-married, or cohabiting persons have fair to poor health.  Married people are least likely to have mental disorders, and have higher levels of emotional and psychological well-being than those who are single, divorced, or cohabiting.

This data indicates that, contrary to popular opinion, society will not be “just as well off” if marriage and childrearing is neglected or even rejected. Marriage is the foundational relationship for all of society, and a prerequisite for a prosperous nation.

Thinking otherwise, half of Americans are out of touch with reality.

(For full citations, please see the MARRI’s synthesis paper “164 Reasons to Marry”)