American business leaders, especially insurance executives, public policymakers and consumers should sit bolt upright when they read about two new studies published in October – one concerning the breast cancer epidemic and the other on the rising costs of premature births.

The November issue of The Actuary, a magazine for insurance
professionals in the UK discussed what it called the “breast cancer epidemic” in England and Wales. American business leaders should take it seriously because it has serious implications for the U.S. health care and insurance industries.

In the article, Patrick Carroll of the Pension and Population Research Institute in London, predicts that by 2029 breast cancer rates will have increased by 50.9% in England and Wales. Carroll, a statistician and actuary, advised British insurance actuaries to adjust their insurance premiums and reserves accordingly, urging health care providers to “plan treatment facilities so that women diagnosed can be treated without delay.”

According to his research originally published in the fall issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, the “best predictor” of breast cancer trends among seven reproductive risk factors is abortion with fertility running second as a useful predictor.

By applying the data to a mathematical model, Carroll predicts 100.5% of the breast cancers reported in England and Wales in 2003 and 97.5% of the cancers reported in 2004. Of especial interest for the Fortune 500 companies which help fund Planned Parenthood and the health insurers that paid for abortions during the last 35 years.

Cynthia Dudek, an insurance agent based in Michigan, urged consumers to inform their state legislators about Carroll’s research “Consumers need to demand that policy makers address the economic implications of all abortion consequences….Insurance company rating practices are no longer valid, she says.

Soon after the publication of Carroll’s paper in the Journal of
American Physicians and Surgeons the abortion industry and its allies put their best “spin” on the bad news, declaring the research was

“politically motivated.” But there is no political rhetoric whatever in the statistics. Carroll showed that the increasing rates of abortion and breast cancer run parallel and are highly correlated. Some will correctly argue that a correlation does not necessarily mean there is a cause-effect relationship.

However considerable support for an independent link between abortion and breast cancer (apart from the known loss of protection from the disease that can be gained from having an early first full term pregnancy) can be found in the research.

Even critics admit that the basis for an abortion-breast cancer link
has scientific validity. Nearly all of the childless woman’s breast lobules consist of immature, cancer-susceptible Type 1 and 2 lobules.

Ninety-five percent of all breast cancers are known to arise in these lobules. The worst time in her life to be exposed to abortion or the birth control pill containing estrogen and progestin (an accepted risk factor for breast cancer) is before the birth of a first child.

When the woman carries a normal pregnancy (not most miscarriages), her lobules are overexposed to the hormone estrogen, which scientists classify as a carcinogen. Estrogen is responsible for making the breasts grow by causing the lobules to multiply. If she has an abortion in the first or second trimesters, she will be left with more places in her breasts for cancers to start.

If she gives birth at full term, phermones produced by the unborn
child – human chorionic gonadotropin and human placental lactogen – will play a role in maturing 85% of her lobules into fully cancer-resistant Type 4 lobules during the last months of pregnancy. She will be left with more cancer-resistant lobules than she had before her pregnancy began.

This explains why epidemiologists have found that women who have larger families, starting at a younger age, have a lower lifetime risk for the disease, but mothers who have premature births before 32 weeks of pregnancy (or abortions) increase their breast cancer risk.

And also why Carroll found that abortion before the birth of a
first child is “highly carcinogenic.” He predicted that the breast cancer epidemic will be “more serious” for the life insurance industry because the “incidence is greater among upper-class women” in the 45+ age group who are commanding higher salaries. Upper class and upwardly
mobile women have a preference for abortion before the birth of a first child. Abortion is perceived as a convenience that allows women to pursue higher educations and careers.

Dudek pointed out that life, health and disability insurers do not ask female consumers about their pregnancy and abortion histories on their insurance applications. This is negligent because those who’ve had abortions will incur greater health care costs. Insurers need to ask about reproductive history by inquiring into the age at first full term pregnancy, number of pregnancies, number and gestational age of live births and when abortions took place in order to better assess their risk exposure. Their failure to do so causes their rating practices to be invalid.

Obviously, the abortion-breast cancer link has serious implications for the medical malpractice insurance industry as well. Abortion doctors have been sued for failing to warn about the breast cancer risk in two liberal jurisdictions in the U.S. – Philadelphia and Portland – and in two cases in Australia. Large settlements have been awarded to the plaintiffs in these cases. The Journal of Reproductive Medicine last month showed that American society is saddled with a second costly consequence of abortion – premature birth, reporting that induced abortion increased the early preterm delivery rate by 31.5%, with a yearly increase in initial neonatal hospital costs related to induced abortion of greater than $1.2 billion. The yearly human cost includes 22,917 excess early preterm births (less than 32 weeks) and 1,096 excess cerebral palsy cases in very-low-birth-weight newborns, less than 1,500 grams.”

When women have abortions – especially if they are teenagers – they are endangering their health and that of their future children. The Institute of Medicine lists abortion as a risk factor for premature birth. Premature birth puts babies at risk for developing cerebral palsy.

When jurors see a small child with cerebral palsy, they find it difficult to resist awarding large judgments against those with deep pockets i.e. abortion doctors and clinics with medical malpractice insurance coverage.

Dudek argued that because abortion is a preventable risk factor for
breast cancer, premature birth and infertility, insurers must reconsider whether abortion should be included an “insurable risk.” After all, insurance is intended for unforeseen illnesses and accidental injuries, and it is placing an enormous economic burden on insurance consumers.

One way of coping with it is to do what Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Michigan did – give consumers a choice whether to include abortion on their policies and offer them reductions in their insurance premiums.

Dudek grimly warned that “U.S. stockholders who depend on their
investment returns to subsidize their income and to save for retirement need to encourage legislators to address the financing of these consequences. When Corporate America’s health care costs increase, they have less money to fund retirement obligations or to return to their shareholders in the form of dividends.”

The National Coalition on Health Care reports that health care costs

will reach $4 trillion (20% of GDP) by 2015. [8] A debate regarding the costs of abortion for American consumers and the victims of abortion is crucial, even though the mainstream media have instituted a blackout on this politically incorrect subject.

_____________________________-

Karen Malec is president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer located in Hoffman Estates.