Joel Brind and colleagues in their 2018 paper estimate that at
least 2.5 million women now alive in the Indian Subcontinent
(termed South Asia in the study) will die due to breast cancer
caused by induced abortion history.
Breast Cancer Bottom Line -
For HONEST breast cancer researchers it is now confirmed
medical fact that there are three (3) independent ways that induced abortions raise breast cancer risk:
- Induced abortions make for more OLDER ROOKIE MOMS
Older age at first full-term delivery = higher B.C. risk.[2-4]
- Women with full-term pregnancies behind them increase their
breast cancer risk by having an induced abortion
- IA history makes a very premature delivery (under 32 weeks’
gestation) more likely and such early deliveries about double
a woman’s breast cancer risk. [For more about this third ABC
This press release is 100% Brent Rooney’s responsibility and no
one else’s. CLINCHER: all 5 ISC studies that addressed
‘dose-response’ found that more than one prior induced abortion
raises breast cancer risk more than exactly one prior abortion. This is termed DOSE-RESPONSE.
* The 2018 Joel Brind et al. paper provides strong evidence, that
if spontaneous abortion (aka miscarriages) history does raise breast cancer risk, it is by considerably less than by solely
induced abortion history. When 15 ISC studies that include both
spontaneous abortion and induced abortion within the category
‘abortion’ are added to the 5 breast cancer studies for induced
abortion only, the breast risk drops from 3.91 (+291%) to ‘only’
2.51 (+151%). There are 2 mechanisms via which spontaneous
abortion credibly raise a woman’s breast cancer risk:
- A miscarriage for a CHILDLESS woman (med jargon:
nulliparous) means that she will be an older rookie mom
when she does have a First Full-Term Pregnancy (FFTP)
- A miscarriage increases a woman’s risk of a future
very premature delivery (under 32 weeks’ gestation).
Such very short gestations about double the mom’s breast
No ‘study of studies’ (Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis)
have ever been published finding that miscarriage history
significantly raises future lifetime risk of breast cancer.
Brent Rooney (MSc)
Research Director, Reduce Preterm Risk Coalition
3456 Dunbar St. (Suite 146)
Vancouver, Canada V6S 2C2
2 Trichopoulos D, Hsien D-C, MacMahon B, Lin T-M, Lowe RC,
et al. Age at any birth and breast cancer risk. Intl J Cancer
1983;31:701-704 [ Abstract: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.2910310604/abstract ]
3 Wohlfahrt J, Melbye M. Age at Any Birth is Associated with
Breast Cancer Risk. Epidemiology 2001;12(1):68-73 [ URL:
4 Kelsy JL, Gammon MD, John EM. Reproductive factors and breast
cancer. Epidemiological Reviews 1993;15(1):36-47
5 Huang Y, Zhang X, Li W, et al. A meta-analysis of the association
between induced abortion and breast cancer risk among Chinese
females. Cancer Causes & Control 24 November 2013
6 Innes KE, Byers TE. First pregnancy characteristics and
subsequent breast cancer risk among young women. International Journal of Cancer 2004;112(2):306-311 [ URL:
7 Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Andersen A-MN, Andersen PK. Preterm
delivery and risk of breast cancer. British Journal of Cancer
1999;80(3/4):609-613 [ URL:
Brind J, Condly SJ, Lanfranchi A, Rooney B. Induced Abortion as
an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Studies of South Asian Women. Issues in Law and Medicine Spring 2018
Objective: South Asia, a historically low-incidence region for
breast cancer, has produced many recent studies examining
reproductive factors. We compiled these studies to confirm the
reality of the significant association reported in the first, 1996
review of induced abortion as a risk factor, independent of
abortion’s known effect in abrogating the protection afforded
by full-term pregnancy.
Methods: We searched the medical literature for English
language studies on breast cancer incidence in women in South
Asia published from 1 January 2000 through 30 June 2017,
using Pubmed, Scholar-Google, and bibliographic searches.
Studies were included which reported overall data on induced
abortion and/or abortion non-specifically. All 20 eligible
studies were of retrospective, case-control design. Data
from individual studies were combined using random effects
modeling, following the determination of significant heterogeneity.
Results: Cumulative OR for all 20 studies was 2.51 (95%CI:
1.67-3.75) and 3.91 (95%CI: 1.02-14.97) for the five studies
which reported specific data on induced abortion. Significant
dose-dependence was observed among all 5 studies which
stratified by number of abortions. Meta-regression of OR v.
abortion prevalence among controls was statistically significant,
as observed in a 2013 meta-analysis in China.
Conclusion: The moderately strong association identified
between abortion and breast cancer explains in part the spread
of the breast cancer epidemic to South Asia as it has become
Westernized. Continuing denial of the abortion-breast cancer
association can only ensure that the acknowledged worldwide
breast cancer epidemic will continue to worsen, costing many
millions of women their lives over the next several decades.
Spanish translation of the Joel Brind et al
abstract performed by Sofía de Köhler (email:
Brind J, Condly SJ, Lanfranchi A, Rooney B. Induced Abortion as
an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review
and Meta-analysis of Studies of South Asian Women. Issues in
Law and Medicine Spring 2018 [Aborto provocado como un
factor de riesgo independiente de cáncer de mama:
una revisión sistemática y metaanálisis de estudios de mujeres
del Asia del Sur].
Objetivo: Asia del Sur, una región con una histórica baja
incidencia de cáncer de mama, ha producido muchos estudios
recientes que examinan factores reproductivos. Compilamos
estos estudios para confirmar la existencia real de la significativa
relación que se informó en la primera revisión (1996) sobre
el aborto provocado como factor de riesgo,
independientemente del conocido efecto del aborto de anular la
protección que proporciona un embarazo a término.
Métodos: Buscamos en la literatura médica estudios en idioma i
nglés sobre la incidencia del cáncer de mama en Asía del Sur,
publicados del 1 de enero de 2000 hasta el 30 de junio de 2017,
mediante Pubmed, Scholar-Google y búsquedas bibliográficas.
Se incluyeron estudios que informaban datos en general sobre
aborto provocado y/o aborto no específico. Todos los 20 estudios
elegibles eran de diseño retrospectivo de casos y controles. Los
datos de estudios individuales se combinaron usando modelo
de efectos aleatorios, después de la determinación de
Resultados: La razón de posibilidades (odds ratio, OR) acumulada
para la totalidad de los 20 estudios fue 2.51 (IC del 95%:
1.67-3.75) y 3.91 (IC del 95%: 1.02-14.97) para los cinco
estudios que informaron datos específicos sobre aborto
provocado. Se observó significativa dosis dependencia entre
todos los 5 estudios que estratificaron por cantidad de
abortos. La metaregresión de la razón de posibilidades
versus prevalencia de aborto entre controles fue
estadísticamente significativa, según se observó en un
metaanálisis de 2013 en China.
Conclusión: La relación moderadamente fuerte que se
identificó entre aborto y cáncer de mama explica, en parte, la
propagación de la epidemia de cáncer de mama hacia Asía del
Sur, al irse ésta occidentalizando. Seguir negando la relación
entre aborto y cáncer de mama puede solo asegurar que la
mundialmente reconocida epidemia de cáncer de mama
continuará empeorando, cobrando la vida de muchos millones
de mujeres durante varias próximas décadas.
[End of Breast Cancer Debacle in India & China article]
Chapter 3: Debunking Abortion-Preemie Denial by
Grimes et al.
How is Abortion-Preemie Denial Possible?
On 16 January 2006 (10:15 A.M.) the Editor-in-Chief of
the British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Dr. Philip
Steer, conceded that the evidence supporting the raised risk
of preterm labour due to prior abortions ('TOPs'
(Terminations Of Pregnancies)) is, his own word,
“overwhelming”. [A copy of Dr. Steer's email admission
to me at <firstname.lastname@example.org> on 16 Jan. 2006 is an
attachment to a Brent Rooney affidavit sworn on 28 May
2007] Dr. Steer's admission was 3 years before the first 2
ever systematic reviews of the abortion-preemie risk were
published in 2009, both 'study of studies' validating this
very serious risk.[A1, Shah; A2, Swingle] So, as of October
2009 the abortion-preemie risk rose a step or 2 above
“overwhelming” to become SETTLED SCIENCE. Systematic
reviews, according to Harvard University professors Dr.
Robert Fletcher and Dr. Suzanne Fletcher provide the highest
confidence, pro or con, about a purported risk factor.[A3,
Fletcher] The 'Shah' & 'Swingle' 'study of studies' confirmed
the 2007 Institute of Medicine (IoM) finding that one of 14
“Immutable Medical Risk Factors Associated with Preterm
Birth” is “Prior first trimester induced abortion”; URL:
The June 2015 Huffington Post article by David A. Grimes
warmed over his main argument against any abortion-preemie
risk: women with prior induced abortions (IAs) are more likely
to have other 'preemie' risks than women without prior IAs.
[A5, Grimes] Grimes implies that premature birth researchers
are not smart enough to adjust for these other 'preemie' risks
purportedly more common among women with previous IAs.
Consider the 1992 Margaret T. Mandelson et al. study of
Low-Birth-Weight (under 2,500 grams), a surrogate risk of
preterm delivery. 'Mandelson' adjusted for higher smoking
risk for women with prior IAs. Despite this and other
adjustments, 'Mandelson' found that women with one or more
IAs before a first delivery increased their babies' LBW risk by
“20% to 60%” (ie. roughly 40% higher risk of Low-Birth-
Weight on average).[A6, Mandelson]
In his June 2015 Huffington Post article David Grimes
never even suggests the possibility that abortion-preemie
studies are OVER adjusted, meaning that they make
unjustified adjustments, thus producing risk numbers lower
than they should be. On average, women with prior IAs (&
especially multiple prior IAs) have higher maternal ages at
delivery than women with zero prior IAs. So, in abortion-
preemie studies there should absolutely NOT be any
adjustment of risk numbers for women with IAs having higher
maternal age. But 'Mandelson' et al., while they acknowledged
that women with previous abortions had higher average
maternal age, still went ahead and made the clearly
unscientific adjustment for higher maternal age for women
with prior induced abortions.[A6, Mandelson]
One more point about the 'Mandelson' 1992 study.
Margaret Mandelson & colleagues never considered in their
study that induced abortions could be a risk factor to make
women more likely to start smoking or to increase the
number of cigarettes smoked daily. Substance abuse is
a risk factor for premature delivery and Cerebral Palsy.
The study David A. Grimes most fears to mention
What is 'Incompetent CErvix ('ICE') and why is it
important? The cervix is the neck-like lower portion of the
womb. If the cervix has been mechanically damaged, it is
very likely to open up too early in a woman's pregnancy,
thus leading to a preterm delivery. In a 2010 study in medical
journal Human Reproduction [A7, Anum] it was revealed that
the more prior IAs a woman has, the higher her 'ICE' risk:
IAs 1 2 3 4+
O.R. 2.49 4.66 8.07 12.36
95% CI (2.23-2.77) (4.07-5.33) (6.77-9.61) (10.19-15.00)
These risk numbers, starting at nearly 2 1/2 times the 'ICE' risk
for one prior IA to over 12 times the 'ICE' risk for more than
3 prior IAs can not be explained away by David A Grimes
or anyone else. So, they will NOT be addressed by Grimes and
'Pro-Choice' Judith Lumley (PhD) smashes David Grimes'
Judith Lumley (PhD) is a top level premature birth expert
with her studies published in well regarded medical journals
and she often spouted 'pro-choice' rhetoric when interviewed
by newspapers. Contrast Judith Lumley (PhD) with Dr. David
Grimes who has zero premature birth studies published in
peer-reviewed medical journals. In a 1993 published study
Lumley addressed the 'other factors' issue (medical jargon for
this is termed “confounding”) relative to the abortion-preemie
risk. Although extremely preterm newborns (under 28 weeks'
gestation) represent only about 6 out of every U.S. 1,000
births, this group is important, since they have 129 times the
CP (Cerebral Palsy) risk as full-term newborns. According to
Judith Lumley (PhD), when a woman has 2, 3, or more prior
IAs, her risk of a later extremely preterm delivery is so high
that “the [preterm birth] association is most unlikely to be
explained by confounding factors of a sociodemographic
kind.”[A8, Lumley] [* see the note below for the FULL
Lumley quote] Thus, 'pro-choice' Judith Lumley trumps
David A. Grimes who has no numbers to support his rants.
Still waiting for Grimes to publish a 'preemie' study in a
peer-reviewed medical journal.
The BURDEN of PROOF is on David A. Grimes
No published study in a peer-reviewed medical journal
has ever demonstrated beyond doubt the prior induced
abortions do not raise future risk of premature deliveries. It
is very unlikely that Grimes can present very strong evidence
that previous abortion do not raise 'preemie' risk. Grimes has
not even demonstrated that he should be considered an expert
in the premature birth risk field. A real 'preemie' expert
convinced that there is no abortion-preemie risk needs to
explain away an astounding risk revealed by Judith Lumley
(PhD) in a 1998 study.[A9, Lumley] Australian Lumley found
that Australian women with more than 3 prior IAs have NINE
9 times the risk of an extremely preterm delivery as Australian
women with zero previous IAs.[A9, Lumley] Ie. more than
3 prior IAs boost relative risk of a future delivery under 28
weeks' gestation by 800%. This extremely challenging
number from 'pro-choice' Judith Lumley (PhD) will not be
addressed by APB deniers any time soon.
67 Million to One
If you tossed an 'honest' coin (heads on one side & tails
on the reverse side) 26 times in a row, what are the odds that
each & every toss of 26 results in heads? Answer: 67 million
to one against this unbelievable sequence. So what? For
just a minute or 2 assume that prior IAs neither significantly
increase nor significantly decrease a woman's risk of a later
very preterm birth (between 28.0 & 32.0 weeks' gestation).
However, just by an unlucky data sample a study can still
find that a 'non-risk-factor' appears to be a significant risk
factor (this is NOT a rare occurrence in medical studies) or a
significant risk reducer. For the abortion-VERY-preterm-birth
risk there are 26 studies that achieved statistical significance.
Is there an approximate even division of the 26, with 13
reporting higher VPB risk and 13 finding lower VPB risk?
No!! 100% of these 26 statistically significant studies
reported higher VPB risk or higher VLBW risk. If IAs are
NOT a VPB (Very-Preterm-Birth) risk, or its surrogate,
Very-Low-Birth-Weight (under 1,500 grams) risk, the odds
of 100% of 26 significant studies finding higher risk is 67
million to one against it. So the temporary assumption that
prior IAs have no affect on future VPB risk or future VLBW
risk must be tossed into the 'assumption trash can'.
Please do not mention: Informed Medical Consent
In the June 2015 Grimes' H.P. article the topic of Informed
Medical Consent is never raised. Within the ranks of the
[British] Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists
are many abortion doctors. Despite this in 2011 the Royal
College admitted that women should be informed about
“Women should be informed that induced abortion is
associated with a small increase in the risk of subsequent
preterm birth, which increases with the number of abortions.
However, there is insufficient evidence to imply causality.”
[A10, Royal College]
Nowhere in Grimes' H.P. article does he write that women
should be informed of any risk association. Additionally, since
prior abortions have never been demonstrated NOT to boost
future preterm birth risk, the Burden of Proof remains on abortion
providers to show that prior IAs do NOT raise future preterm
“It ain't bragging, if you've done it”
James Dines uses the expression “a cat in gloves catches no
mice”. So I'll 'put on my gloves' and say that in contrast to
Dr. David A. Grimes, with zero medical journal premature birth
studies to his credit, Brent Rooney (MSc) has the following
credits in the premature birth risk field:
- Lead author of two (2) premature birth studies.[A11, A12]
The 2008 study (A11) was the first ever to show that
100% of 'suction' abortions violate principle 3 of the 1947
Nuremberg Code and was also the first ever to demonstrate
that a major cause of the very high Black-American
preterm birth rate was an induced abortion rate more
than 4 times that of non-Black women.
- Co-author of a third premature birth study.[A13]
- A world's first: in the 2nd quarter of 2001 via a 'letter to
the editor' B.R. demonstrated that prior induced abortions
were a credible risk for a woman to have a future premature
baby with Cerebral Palsy.[A14]
Quote from the 1993 Judith Lumley (PhD) study:
“The associations are different in the three gestation
categories (20-27, 28-31, and 32-36 weeks), being particularly
striking for births before 28 weeks. In this category, there is
also evidence for the does-response relationship between number
of prior lost pregnancies and the prevalence of preterm birth:
relative risks of 1.66 and 1.55 for one spontaneous or induced
abortion, of 2.94 and 2.46 for two, and of 5.89 and 5.58 for three
or more. These last four relative risks are substantially greater
than those associated with maternal age, marital status, parity or
socio-economic status: that is, the association is most unlikely
to be explained by confounding factors of a sociodemographic
kind.” [A8, Lumley]
A1 Shah PS, Zao J. Induced termination of pregnancy and low
birthweight and preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-
analysis. BJOG 2009;116:1425-1442. [URL:
A2 Swingle HM, Colaizy TT, Zimmerman MB, et al Abortion
and the risk of subsequent preterm birth: a systematic review
and meta-analysis. J Reproductive Med 2009;54:95-108.
A3 [Book:] Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Clinical Epidemiology
The Essentials [Fourth Edition]. Lippincott Williams &
Wilkens, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2005
A4 Behrman RS, Butler AS, Alexandar GR. Preterm Birth:
Causes, Consequences, and Prevention. National Academy
Press, Washington DC (2007)
A5 David A Grimes: Abortion and Prematurity: A False Alarm.
Huffington Post 10 June 2016 [URL:
A6 June 2015 article by David Grimes in the Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-a-grimes/abortion-and-prematurity-a-false-alarm_b_7511084.html
Human Reproduction Advance Access [Abstract URL:
A8 Lumley J. The epidemiology of preterm birth. Bailliere's
Clinical Obstetrics Gynecology 1993;7(3):477-498
A9 Lumley J. The association between prior spontaneous abortion,
prior induced abortion and preterm birth in first singleton births.
Prenatal Neonatal Medicine 1998;3:21-24.
A10 Royal College of Obstitricians & Gynaecologists' abortion
A11 Rooney B, Calhoun BC, Roche L. Does induced
abortion account for racial disparity in preterm births,
and violate the Nuremberg Code? J Am Phys Surg 2008;
13:102-104. [ URL:
A12 Rooney B, Calhoun BC. Induced Abortion and Risk of
Later Premature Birth. Journal American Physicians Surgeons
2003;8(2):46-49 [http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf ]
A13 Calhoun BC, Shadigian E, Rooney B. Cost consequences
of induced abortion as an attributable risk for preterm birth
and informed consent. J Reprod Med 2007;52:929-939.
A14 Rooney B. Elective surgery boosts cerebral palsy risk.
European Journal Obstetrics Gynecology Reproductive
[ End of Dr. Grimes debunked article]
No. Prior IAs Odds of a VPB (i.e. delivery under 32.0 weeks' gestation)
1 2.5 (relative odds boosted by 150%)
2 5.2 (relative odds increased by 420%)
3 or more 8.0 (relative odds elevated by 700%)
Notice that 1, 2, or more prior IAs all exceed the doubling risk threshold and there is
what medical researchers term 'dose-response' (i.e. the more prior IAs the higher the
risk). As explained in Chapter 2 of this briefing paper some judges have bought into
the 'cult of 2.0'; i.e. unless a 'stressor' at least doubles a risk, it should be considered
such a doubtful 'stressor' (risk factor) that it should be totally discounted. For such
'doubting Thomases', multiple prior IAs may be required to convince a specific
court of a preterm and CP risk. Most APB ( Abortion Preterm Birth) studies lack
enough subjects to justify computing the PTB risk of multiple prior IAs. However,
a clear majority of the APB studies with enough subjects and that do report PTB
risk for 2 or more IAs, do report dose-response (i.e. the more prior IAs, the higher the
B2. As in case A, plaintiff Helen Galson attempts to shift the BoP (Burden of Proof)
onto defendant Dr. Irwin Ivers by showing that the IAs performed on her mother
Greta Galson, who was under 17 when her first “suction” abortion was performed,
put Greta Galson at increased breast cancer risk via an elective medical procedure.
B3. Going into the trial it is a must for Helen Galson's lawyer to have a copy of the con-
sent forms that mom Greta Galson signed on two occasions. If adverse risk 'xyz'
is not listed on a consent form, that means either 'Dr. Ivers' claims that the surgical
procedure does not boost the odds of 'xyz', or the risk is so extremely remote as to
be unworthy of listing. For an ELECTIVE procedure, some courts may consider
a risk of a serious side-effect as low as 1 chance in 10,000 requires that the patient
be warned of the possible side-effect before the procedure is performed; some may
insist on a threshold of 1 in 40,000 or 1 in 100,000 for an elective procedure. Re-
gardless, the consent forms that Galson signed failed to list maternal risk of breast
cancer and higher future odds of a preterm and handicapped newborn.
B5. Defense lawyers have a very wide assortments of arguments that can counter the
statement of claim by 'Greta Galson'. Chapter 2 of this document lists many possi-
ble arguments why there may not be any such thing as APB (Abortion Preterm Birth
) risk. Defense lawyers may claim that Galson's claim was filed too late. If the court
accepts that APB risk does exist, it can be claimed that Galson's lifestyle (e.g.s. drug
abuse, over weight, smoker, single mom, over stressed) was the real cause of her
preterm delivery of Helen Galson. Professor Barbara Luke's 1995 book lists sixty
PTB risks. A good defense lawyer can pose many dozens of reason why his client is
innocent. If mom 'Greta Galson' had waited many years after her first abortion to
deliver daughter 'Helen Galson', a court may well believe that other risk factors over
those many years could have caused Helen's premature delivery.
B6. If the law suit actually goes to trial, it is to the advantage of Helen Galson to have
expert medical witnesses who can convince the court that “suction” abortions ele-
vate premature birth risk and that preterm birth raises the risk of a newborn having
CP. Defense witnesses, for example, may claim that a 'cerebral palsy condition'
causes preterm births (not the other way around). It can like wise be argued that a
genetic predisposition to lung cancer also causes those individuals to start cigarette
[end of Case B; do not accept any specific fact or specific concept in this document
unless your competent and trusted lawyer agrees with it]
C. Jane Jacs v Dr. Lawrence Lugar [main claim: mental retardation and autism injury]:
Theoretical Statement of Claim filed on 9 August 2012
1. Dr. Lawrence Lugar performed an elective D & C abortion on childless Kathy
Jacs on 7 July 2006. At the time of the Dilation & Curettage abortion Kathy Jacs
was age 16 years old.
2. Dr. Lugar's consent form listed various potential side-effects for the D & C pro-
cedure including the risk of infection. The consent form did not list the associated
infection risk of higher odds of a future preterm delivery. The consent form did
not list the risk of uterine adhesions (i.e. scar tissue). The consent form also did
not inform Kathy Jacs that a D & C procedure increases the risk of cervical
insufficiency which elevates the risk of premature delivery in a later pregnancy.
3. Dr. Lugar's consent form did not list increased risk of breast cancer for women
under 18 undergoing an induced abortion procedure.
4. Dr. Lugar performed a vacuum aspiration abortion on 17 year old Kathy Jacs on
September 5, 2007. This was the second abortion for Kathy Jacs performed by
Dr. Lawrence Lugar.
5. Dr. Lugar's consent form for the 5 September 2007 abortion did not list higher
future risk of preterm delivery or breast cancer.
6. Kathy Jacs delivered Jane Jacs on 9 October 2008 with a gestation length of 25
weeks and a birth weight of 975 grams.
7. Jane Jacs within minutes after delivery was taken to the NICU where she was
treated for 8 weeks and was taken home by mom Kathy Jacs.
8. On 10 November 2011 Jane Jacs was diagnosed as mentally retarded & as having
autism by Dr. Manfred Miller.
9. Dr. Lugar's D & C consent form did not mention that there are zero published
animal studies of D & C and subsequent risk of premature delivery.
10. Dr. Lugar violated RICO (Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organization Act)
via fraudulently presenting D & C and “suction” abortions as relatively safe pro-
cedures, when neither procedure had been safety validated via animal studies.
11. Dr. Lugar's vacuum aspiration abortion consent form did not mention that there
are zero published animals studies of VAA and subsequent preterm birth risk.
12. Neither of Dr. Lugar's consent forms mentioned that induced abortions raise
maternal risk of cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular mortality.
13. At no time either verbally or in writing did Dr. Lugar inform Kathy Jacs that a
a full-term delivery carried a lower 'all-cause mortality' risk in the year following
the end of pregnancy than did an induced abortion.
14. On 1 August 2012 Dr. Manfred Miller measured Jane Jacs' I.Q. as 65. Jane Jacs
has been treated for autism since 17 November 2011.
15. At no time did Dr. Lugar inform Kathy Jacs that prior surgical abortions elevate
her future risk of miscarriage, suicide, and drug abuse, all risks that are raised by
16. Each elective abortion performed by Dr. Lugar on Kathy Jacs was a severely con-
traindicated procedure because of elevated risks of breast cancer, suicide, and
miscarriage. Thus, Dr. Lugar should have withheld both abortions from Kathy
[End of theoretical statement of claim by Jane Jacs, Case C]
Comments about theoretical statement of claim by Jane Jacs, Case C
C1. Jane Jacs' first IA was a D & C (Dilation and Curettage). Very well regarded repro-
ductive health expert Prof. Barbara Luke asserted in her 1995 book that D & Cs
inflict a higher future premature birth risk than first trimester abortions (which are
usually “suction” abortions).( Book: Every Pregnant Woman's Guide to Preventing
Premature Birth) There is much support for D & C as a preterm birth risk in medi-
cal journal articles.
C2. It may be critically important for a court decide in an ABD law suit that a first tri-
mester ELECTIVE induced abortion is very much contraindicated for a childless
young woman because of the increased risk of breast cancer. It is beyond question
that each one year a young childless woman delays her first full-term delivery raises
her breast cancer risk.[ Tricholopoulos, 1 ] Harvard researchers led by Dr. Dimitrios
Tricholopoulos and the truly great Dr. Brian MacMahon reported that each one year
delay in a woman's first full-term delivery elevated relative breast cancer risk by
3.5% (COMPOUNDED);i.e. a five year delay yields a 19% increased relative breast
cancer risk and a 10 year delay yields a 41% risk boost.[Trichopoulos, 1] A COLOR
GRAPH showing the risk in breast cancer risk for each one year delay in FFTP (
First Full-Term Pregnancy) may be effective (the area from age 18 to 25 is GREEN
under the curve, YELLOW from age 25 to 30, and RED from age 30 to 40).
C3. There is a second INDEPENDENT ABC (Abortion Breast Cancer) risk that applies
to both childless & parous (i.e. have had at least one delivery of a newborn) women.
A 1996 meta-analysis (i.e. a study that combines data from many prior studies) by
Joel Brind et al. reported that this 2nd independent ABC risk increases a woman's
BC odds by 30%; the researchers were at least 95% confident of increased breast
risk for women with prior IAs; i.e. Brind's study achieved statistical significance.
[Brind, 7] No one in a peer-reviewed article has been able to identify a serious flaw
in the 'Brind' meta-analysis. Bottom Line: induced abortion inflicts 2 independent
breast cancer risks on childless young women (i.e. the two risks are added). How-
ever the 'Postponed FFTP' breast cancer is MUCH easier to defend that the second
ABC (Abortion Breast Cancer) risk exposed by Brind et al.
C4. Pointing out the obvious can have benefits in a court room. When challenging the
defendant to produce citations of published animal studies showing that prior D &
Cs and prior “suction” abortion do not raise the risk of preterm delivery, the plain-
tiff's lawyer can identify surgeries and drugs developed in the 1950s that were tested
on animals. Virtually all drugs were animal tested and all MAJOR new surgeries
& MAJOR changes to existing surgeries should be animal tested to comply with the
third principle of the 1947 Nuremberg Code. The public strongly dislikes making
women 'Guinea pigs' for surgeries (and drugs) not safety validated via published
animal studies. On 12 February 2008 the research arm of the Canadian Parliament,
the Library of Parliament, informed Member of Parliament (MP) Maurice Vellacott
(email: Vellacott.M@parl.gc.ca ) that there were apparently no studies for “suction”
abortion. The BURDEN of PROOF is on the DEFENTDANT to show such animal
studies exist and thus, the BoP is NOT on the PLAINTIFF to show that there are no
such animal studies.
C5. 'Jane Jacs' claimed that Dr. Lugar has violated RICO statutes. For over 36 years
U.S. abortion doctors have told women that induced abortions carry less health risk
to them than a term delivery. The plaintiff's lawyer can ask the defendant to cite just
one study published in a peer-reviewed medical journal showing that women who
have an induced abortion have a lower TOTAL (medical jargon: all-cause mortality)
death risk than women who carry to term in the 12 months (or more) after 'the end
of pregnancy'. The defense may cite a study (e.g. the 1982 Dr. David Grimes article
in JAMA) that appears to show women with abortions have a much lower death risk
than women who deliver. However, closer examination will show that women who
delivered were not followed for 12 months after 'pregnancy end', but for a mere six
weeks after 'pregnancy end'. Clearly, abortion providers have conspired to keep
women in the dark about serious induced abortion risks. In 1997 Dr. Mika Gissler et
al. in the top medical journal in the obstetrics and gynecology field in Scandinavia
reported that Finnish women with induced abortions had 3.5 times the total death
risk as women who delivered in the 12 months 'after the end of pregnancy'.[Gissler,
8] Finland has a national induced abortion registry & this allows a study such as the
1997 'Gissler' study to accurately determine a woman's prior induced abortion history.
'Gissler' reported that women with induced abortions had 6.5 times the risk of suicide
& 14 times the risk of being a homicide victim in the 12 months 'after' as women
who delivered. And here is the stunner: a third group of women, those who were not
pregnant had a lower 'all-cause' mortality risk than women with abortions, but had
double the 'all-cause' mortality risk as women who delivered.[Gissler, 8] The best
evidence is that induced abortion does not decrease a woman's total short term (one
year) death risk but actually increases it. A least a decade after the 'Gissler' study many
abortion clinics were still informing women that induced abortion was safer than
delivery of a baby. A RICO claim by a woman claiming medical negligence by an
abortion doctor will be novel and thus, the plaintiff should not put too much reliance
on winning a RICO claim.
[End of THEORETICAL Case C. ('Jane Jacs' v Dr. Lawrence Lugar)]
D. Paula Polsen v. Dr. Samuel Striker (CP law suit by a woman born POSTTERM)
Statement of Claim filed on 13 November 2011
1. On 5 December 2006 Dr. Samuel Striker performed an elective first trimester
induced abortion (i.e. vacuum aspiration abortion) on my mother Sarah Q. Polsen,
who was 19 years old on that date. This was Sarah Q. Polsen's first pregnancy.
2. Very near the end of the abortion Sarah fell considerable pain and complained to Dr.
Striker who quickly completed the abortion.
3. After the “suction” abortion Dr. Striker ordered no post-abortion tests on Sarah to be
4. Dr. Samuel Striker never informed Sarah Q. Polsen (hereafter referred to as Sarah)
that her uterine wall (i.e. the myometrium) had been scarred & weakened as a result
of Sarah's 5 Dec. 2006 abortion.
5. At home before Paula's delivery at the hospital Sarah suffered sharp and deep pain in
her abdominal area.
6. Sarah was brought quickly to the hospital and Paula was delivered via Cesarean
section. Paula was born post term (43 weeks and 1 day gestation) on 6 January 2005.
This was Sarah's second pregnancy.
7. Sarah's obstetrician, Dr. Alan Able, informed Sarah that upon opening her uterus
he noted that her uterus had previously been punctured and this, in all probability,
was the source of her pain that prompted her transport to the hospital.
8. At birth Paula's apgar score was 4 and she was in the NICU (Neonatal Intensive
Care Unit) for seven (7) weeks before Sarah took Paula home.
9. Paula has never walked and was diagnosed by Dr. Tom Truman on 16 January
2011 as having Cerebral Palsy.
10. Sarah has always maintained good health habits, including:
i - never: smoked, drank more than 2 beers per week, consumed hard drugs
ii - from age 15 to now Sarah (5' 5” tall) has maintained a body weight between 110
and 120 pounds
iii - swims at least 25 laps (25 meters/lap) 4-6 times per week since age 15
iv - drinks purified water, avoids junk food, gets 7 ½ – 9 hours sleep daily
v - since age 15 daily consumed a good multivitamin tablet and a multimineral
11. Dr. Tom Truman has expressed in writing that Sarah's perforated uterus is the most
likely reason Paula was born with Cerebral Palsy.
12. The following increased risks of a first trimester induced abortion were not listed on
the consent form signed by Sarah (3 December 2006) before her 5 December 2006
i Breast Cancer
ii Substance Abuse
iv Later Preterm Delivery
v Uterine Adhesions (i.e. scar tissue)
vi Incompetent Cervix (aka Cervical Insufficiency)
13. A doctor has legal duty of continuing care. At no time after Sarah's 5 December
2006 abortion did Dr. Samuel Striker inform Sarah of any of the risks listed in
'point 12' directly above.
14. Since the increased risk of breast cancer, by itself, made the 5 December 2003
abortion a very contraindicated surgery, Dr. Samuel Striker should have withheld
the vacuum aspiration procedure. Dr. Striker did not so withhold the procedure.
15. At no time before the 5 Dec. 2006 abortion did Dr. Samuel Striker inform Sarah
that the surgery he would perform (vacuum aspiration abortion) has zero animal
studies to validate its safety.
16. At no time did Dr. Samuel Striker inform Sarah that the following potential side-
effects of a “suction” abortion elevated Sarah's future risk of a premature delivery:
(a.) Infection (b.) Uterine Adhesions (scar tissue) (c.) Incompetent Cervix
17. At no time did Dr. Samuel Striker inform Sarah that if the side-effects of her
“suction” abortion led to a future delivery under 32.0 weeks' gestation, that would
double Sarah's lifetime risk of breast cancer and elevate Sarah's risk of dying from
cardiovascular disease.[Melbye, 10; Innes, 11]
18. At no time did Dr. Samuel Striker inform Sarah that a term delivery was much safer
for Sarah's health than an elective first trimester “suction” abortion.
[End of hypothetical statement of claims in the 'Paula Polsen v. Dr. Samuel Striker' case]
Comments about theoretical case of 'Paula Polsen v. Dr. Striker' statement of claim
D1. Has there ever been a legal case even slightly resembling this theoretical one? In a
word, YES! The case was tried in 'kangaroo land' (i.e. Australia); 'Bruce v Kaye':
was born POST-TERM in 1989, has CP, is bound to a wheelchair and is unable to
walk or talk. Kristy Bruce did NOT sue the doctors who had performed abortions
on her mother, Sharon Chevelle. Kristy sued the obstetrician who delivered her,
Dr. Alan Kaye, claiming medical negligence on his part. Dr. Alan Kaye's lawyer
and expert witnesses argued that prior induced abortion(s) so weakened Sharon
Chevelle's womb wall (i.e. myometrium) that it broke during Sarah's pregnancy
carrying Kristy Bruce. Sarah's punctured uterus was the cause of Kristy Bruce's
Cerebral Palsy. On 8 April 2008 NSW, Australia judge Michael Grove rendered
his verdict that Dr. Alan Kaye was not guilty of medical negligence causing
Kristy Bruce's CP. There were one hundred 'points' in judge Grove's decision. An
extract from 'point' 91:
“As a matter of hindsight, considerable suspicion must be directed to the very
recent termination which Ms. Chevelle [K. Bruce's mother] underwent just prior
to becoming pregnant with the plaintiff [Kristy Bruce].” Following are the final 2
'points' in judge Michael Grove's decision:
“99 No one could fail to be moved by Kristy's plight nor fail to acknowledge the
devotion of her mother and family to her care. But Kristy's plight was not a conse-
quence of breach of duty of care by the defendant. In short, he took reasonable care
in the relevant management of Ms. Chevelle's pregnancy in all the circumstances,
and in treating her he exercised the care and skill to be expected of a competent
100 I conclude that there must be judgment for the defendant [Dr. Alan Kaye].”
In effect, judge Grove implied to plaintiff Kristy Bruce and her family that, 'instead
of suing obstetrician Dr. Alan Kay, you should have considered suing the abortion
doctors that likely caused Kristy Bruce's Cerebral Palsy'.
D2. In all the hypothetical cases presented in Chapter 3 the abortions were performed
on childless women. A elective abortion performed on a childless woman increases
her breast cancer risk by assuring that the woman will be an older 'rookie' mom
when she does have her first full-term delivery.[Trichopoulos, 1] To raise a woman's
lifetime risk of breast cancer via an ELECTIVE surgery is severly contraindicated
& thus, a surgeon is ethically and legally required to withhold such surgery. A smart
and honest court should accept this logic. If a specific court does accept this logic
and the rest of the plaintiff's case is sound and well presented, the odds of a plain- 15
tiff win are improved. But can one be really confident that increasing a woman's age
at FFTP ( First Full-Term Pregnancy ) elevates her lifetime breast cancer risk? If
true, the converse would be 'the earlier a woman's FFTP, the lower her breast cancer
risk'. Medical researcher Nancy Krieger wrote, “Conversely, early age at FFTP con-
sistently has emerged as the strongest [breast cancer] protective factor.”[Krieger,
12] As of February 2009 Nancy Krieger is a Harvard University Professor and one
would be objective in portraying her position as 'pro-choice' (i.e. comfortable with
induced abortion). In making that statement above Nancy Krieger cited eight (8)
references to support her position, but she could have, if desired, cited dozens more.
D3. Can “suction” abortions risk damaging the uterine wall (myometrium)? Dr. Steven
Kaali was a practicing abortion doctor and was the lead author of a 1989 published
study.[Kaali, 9] There was no 'guess work' in this study about whether a woman
who had very recently undergone an abortion had a perforated uterus or not. Dr.
Kaali et al. used a laparscope to clearly see whether a woman subject's uterus was
punctured or not.[Kaali, 9] In the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Dr. Steven Kaali et al. reported that an average of 1 woman in 50 who had a first
trimester induced abortion had a perforated womb.[Kaali, 9] A perforated uterus
is surely a more serious condition that a weakened uterine wall (myometrium);
if the curette tip is strong enough to perforate the myometrium, it can also weaken
without perforating the myometrium. An expert witness would need to confirm
this. 'Sarah' had a weakened myometrium that punctured during per pregnancy.
D4. The active surgical element in a “suction” abortion is termed a “suction curette”; it
is a tube (cannula) with a sharp tip (curette) at the end. After the gestating baby has
been 'terminated' (i.e. killed) and vacuumed out of the womb & the woman's body,
loose tissue in the womb must be removed to sharply reduce the woman's risk of a
uterine infection. The abortion doctor in a 'blind' fashion (i.e. he/she can not see
what his suction curette is doing) scrapes the “womb wall” (endometrium) and
vacuums out the loose tissue. As pointed out in point D3 there is about one chance
in 50 that the abortion surgeon will perforate the womb. Even if a perforation does
not occur, the surgeon may WEAKEN the womb's wall (myometrium) at several
points. Thus, in a future pregnancy, if a enough pressure is applied to one of these
these weakened points, the womb will be perforated. If the abortion doctor uses
sonographic equipment, he/she is not operating 'blind' and the risk of a perforation
or uterine adhesions (i.e. scar tissue) is less than if he/she is not using sonographic
D5. Paula has claimed a 2nd mechanism increasing breast cancer risk for mother Sarah,
a delivery under 32.0 weeks' gestation. Two statistically significant studies report a
doubling of breast cancer risk for women who deliver a newborn under 32 weeks'
gestation.[Melbye, 10; Innes, 11] Yes, there are only two such studies, but opposing
those 2 significant studies are zero significant studies reporting the reverse (lower
breast cancer risk for women who deliver under 32 weeks' gestation).
[End of comments about the case of 'Paula Polsen v. Dr. Samuel Striker']
verify facts used from this document. Law suits, especially medical negligence law
suits, can be very expensive in dollar terms AND emotional terms. Thus, it is very reason-
able that one should not launch a medical negligence law suit suit without a top quality
lawyer, the facts and the law on one's side, and in a judicial venue known for integrity.
4 Martius JA, Steck T, Oehler MK, et al. Risk factors associated with preterm (<37+0
weeks) and early preterm (<32+0 weeks): Univariate and multivariate analysis of 106,
345 singleton births from 1994 statewide perinatal survey of Bavaria. European J Ob-
stetrics Gynecology Reproductive Biology 1998;80:183-189 [URL:
4 Smith GCS, Pell JB, Walsh D. Pregnancy complications and maternal risk of ischaemic heart
disease; a retrospective cohort study of 129 290 births. Lancet 2001;357;2002-2006 [ URL:
5 Smith GD, Whitley E, Gissler M, Hemminki E. Birth dimensions of offspring, premature 17
birth, and mortality of mothers. Lancet 2000;356:2066-2067 [ URL:
6 Catov JM, Newman AB, Roberts JM, Kelsey SF, Sutton-Tyrrell K, et al. Preterm Delivery
and Later Maternal Cardiovascular Disease Risk. Annals Epidemiology 2007;18(6):733-739
7 Brind J, Chinchilli VM, Severs WB, Summy-Long J. Induced abortion as an
independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-
analysis. J Epidemiology Community Health 1996;50(10):481-496 [ URL:
8 Gissler M, Kaufpila R, Merilainen J, Taukomaa H, Hemminki E. Pregnancy-associated deaths
in Finland 1987-1994 – definition problems and benefits of record linkage. Acta Obstet
Gynecol Scand 1997;76:651-767 [ abstract URL:
9 Kaali SE, Szigetuari IA, Bartfan GS. The frequency and management of uterine perforations
during first-trimester abortions. American J Obstetrics and Gynecology 1989;161(2):406-
408 [Abstract URL: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=6584960]
10 Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Andersen A-MN, Westergaard T, Andersen PK. Preterm Delivery
and risk of breast cancer. Brit J Cancer 1999;80(3/4):609-613
11 Innes KE, Byers TE. First pregnancy characteristics and subsequent breast cancer risk among
young women. Intl J Cancer 2004;112(2):306-311
12 Krieger N. Exposure, susceptibility, and breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Treatment