Runner, I will always support the rights of women not being forced to carry on with a pregnancy they don't want, but where on earth did you get the notion I am a 'staunch supporter of GW'?
Can you find evidence of that lie in any of my previous posts?

" So why would the AMA President treat with such contempt research which might help women know they are higher-risk and therefore needing closer screening?"

The AMA is a lobby group, whose motives are not necessarily driven by duty of care to women patients. If the truth be known, the majority of GPs are not members of the AMA. On this particular issue, the AMA speaks for members whose vested interest is the slaughter of unborn babies-- up to full term in some States.

Regrettably, the AMA is not renown for speaking for practitioners who wish to exercise freedom of conscience by refusing to perform abortions or refer women to abortionists -- the totalitarian abortion laws of Victoria and Tasmania are hostile to the exercising of such freedom of conscience.

Where did you get your facts from Raycom?
How do you know that the majority of GP's aren't with the AMA, or that some of those who are with the AMA do not support abortions?

In case you hadn't noticed, there are now almost equal numbers of female doctors in the profession out there, so they are hardly going to be against women's care are they?

NO doctor is ever forced to perform abortions Raycom, that's a lie.
If you are a doctor who does not believe women should be allowed abortions, then you wouldn't work in that area of medicine, obviously. Any of the religious based hospitals don't do abortions, so they could work there.

In fact, when you really examine the issue, it seems to me that it is mainly middle to old aged religious men who would prefer to see young women forced to carry on with a pregnancy and birth they don't want.
And they are the least likely people who should have any say in the abortion issue at all.

Maybe all you anti-choice boys could band together to campaign against vasectomies, given there may be a chance it is linked to prostate cancer?
The Billings Method of 'natural' contraception works well....most of the time.....

Suseonline
How about tabling the figures on the percentage of GPs who are members of the AMA -- then we will all know.

The ethics of doctors who are pro-abortion are open to question whether they are female or male -- they overlook the fact that abortion necessarily involves life termination of unborn babies, a practice which hardly qualifies as ethical behaviour.

You appear to acknowledge that discrimination against anti-abortion doctors is alive and well "in that area of medicine" in all public hospitals -- not something we should be proud of from a freedom of conscience point of view.

It is not a case of preferring to see young women forced to carry on with a pregnancy and birth they don't want, but the acknowledgement that the unborn baby has a right to life.

A few responses:

To David, top of page - yes, the increased rate of breast cancer in those who never have a child is well established. In fact it was first written up in the 1600s because communities of nuns were noted to have a higher rate! It is explained because the breast cells are never moved from the immature type 1 and 2 lobules (vulnerable to cancer) through to the mature and stable type 3.

To Mayan, second top: generally, early miscarriage is associated with low levels of pregnancy hormones and that means the breast cells are not stimulated into differentiation - and so there is no significant increase in beast cancer risk with such miscarriages. However, a late stillbirth, prior to 32 weeks (which is the point at which maturation of breast lobules is largely complete) is strongly associated with increased breast cancer risk.

The other comments don't seem to have read my article: I specify that this matter should not be a pro-abortion/ pro-life spat but left to dispassionate researchers. The problem is that the irrational denial of valid evidence by the 'progressives' who frame any discussion of the question as an "attack on women". The opposite is true: if this is indeed a risk factor for breast cancer, then to suppress knowledge of it is a violation of informed consent.

If people do want to look at the evidence, they can read dr Lanfranchi's peer-reviewed review article at http://www.bcpinstitute.org/papers/ILM_Vol%2029_No1_1-133.pdf

David, there are many known risk factors with having an abortion already, as you well know.

If the current possible risks, including perforation of the uterus, the usual anaesthetic risks, possible infertility, and uterine infections do not put off women from asking for abortions, why on earth would you think the maybe small risk they might develop breast cancer 30 years later or so would make the choice harder?

Given all the other possible reasons for developing breast cancer, like genetics, lifestyle choices such as exercise and diet problems, obesity, age of menstruation and menopause , not breast feeding etc, how would worrying about whether you had an abortion or not make much difference with the chances of getting breast cancer?

I think you protest too much about the possible link between abortion and breast cancer for me to not be suspicious of your motives.
Women have a choice about abortion in this country, and there is no way this will ever change.

I hope that abortions don't happen at all, but I would never force a woman to go through with a pregnancy and labour she doesn't want.
We all know what happens in countries that don't provide safe, legal abortions....