Points

After torturing our youngest cat with hugs and kisses this morning (adding a running patter of "That's nice! What a great kitty! I gave him a hug and a kiss! That's nice! I'm a nice boy!" while I lay groggily in bed thinking, "Kitty? Since when do we call them kitties?") Patrick climbed into bed with me.

"Can we read a story in bed?"

A hypothetical question because, look at that, he just happened to have a book already picked out, but I muttered yes anyway. We try to maintain the niceties. So Patrick pushed up the book and then he hoisted up Bear and then he scrambled in and we all snuggled under the covers and read... something, I don't know, it is always too early when Steve gets his first business call and Patrick comes in to wake me up.

Halfway though Patrick turned to me and said with ghoulish satisfaction, "A really big caterpillar is going to come in here and eat us all up." (No, no we weren't reading The Very Hungry Caterpillar, that would've made sense.) I looked down and saw that he was crossing his eyes and smacking his lips at me.

And I thought, if you sat next to me on a  bus I would change seats, you little weirdo, but I said, "Oh my! That's terrible! What will we do?"

"We'll call Daddy," Patrick said with confidence, uncrossing his eyes.

"And what will he do?" I asked, skeptical that Steve (in all his spider-fearing glory) would be capable of much when faced with man-eating insects of any kind.

"He'll eat up all the caterpillars and we'll say, 'Yay Daddy! Great job.'"

Of course.   

I just love love love little boys.

I am having an HSG this afternoon. A tune-up, really, to check for scar tissue. I couldn't decide whether my first period after the D&C was dangerously light or not, so I opted to freak and call my OB-Gyn just to be on the safe side of hysteria. It is merely coincidental that the local RE has refused to: a) see me for a follow-up appointment without an SHS, which is the HSG's little sister; b) schedule the SHS on Day 11 without being on the pill; c) check to see whether I had actually ovulated or not by Day 11 instead of putting it off until next month; d) have another RE at the practice do the SHS, at all, ever, without being on the pill; e) have my own doctor do either an HSG or an SHS this month and send them a report. Does that cover it? I think so. I know I did not write that very clearly but I believe the situation can be summed up with the phrase: the local RE's office is filled with partially educated, obscenely rigid, frighteningly unimaginative, difficult-as-hell fuckwits.   

Did I mention that we will just be doing another IVF cycle in DC in, um, four, five... six weeks?

Sure they have a habit of transferring abnormal embryos instead of normal ones but hey, we all have our quirks. And with rock-bottom pricing we would be fools NOT to go back. Ahem.

I don't know. I didn't have any other plans for July. Steve will kill me if it doesn't work, though, just so you know. He is, as the Americans say, not fully committed to this course of action yet. He is treating it as if I have decided to buy a Jaguar. I can do it, he supposes, but don't expect him to wash and wax it for me.

Comments

[Anita]

No link between D&C's and cancer. I don't have a handy dandy link with me, but I have heard it on NPR so it has to be the truth. ;-) If it was true, there there would be an enormous number of women who have had miscarriages who subsequently had cancer, and there would be a fierce debate about which was the "real" cause: miscarriages and cancer and D&C and cancer.

I could and would use this as an example in my classes on the problem of the "third variable" in making causal claims. Be-FUCKING-sides, the only way (i just remembered) you EVER say X causes Y is if you RANDOMLY ASSIGN PEOPLE TO GET X AND NOT X and see if Y happens. Thus, unless and until we RANDOMLY assign people to get a D&C or not a D&C (and for that matter, RANDOMLY ASSIGN people to get an abortion or not), YOU CANNOT MAKE A CAUSAL CLAIM that D&C (or abortion) leads to cancer. You cannot rule out some other cause unless you can use random assignment in your tests. Correlation does not imply causation.

So there. Anybody wanna argue with that? Bring it on!!! I don't know why that made me feel so fiesty.

[libby]

Julia, thank you for your eloquence, as usual.

And Dana? Please go read Cancer, Baby's blog entry today. That will tell you what *actually* causes cervical cancer, and another of the many the ways the religious right is trying to harm women.

[manogirl]

I'm not sure if it was my suggestion about the tinted eyelashes that spurred you into it, but who cares? Aren't they just the best ever? And just as a little extra piece of info--the longer you do it, the better it holds, and the better it looks.

I'm glad you love it!

[T]

Wahoo - I get IF, m/c, d&c AND cancer - how lucky!

Absolutely hilarious (Patrick) and wonderful (Dana retort) as always. Good luck today.

[susan]

I just can't take this right-wing bullshit anymore. I just posted some info on my site on more of their crazy nonsense. If they really wanted to stop abortion, they'd support birth control. But their intent is not to stop abortion, it's to punish women for autonymous decisions about our own sexuality and to treat us like children, controlling us through fear - like this cancer crap that woman laid on you.

Every time I get into a conversation with one of these people, they always start off with their religious view. And while I don't agree with it, at least I can respect their right to that opinion. However, if you talk to any of them long enough and question them with integrity, invariably it comes down to this: "Well, if they're going to play, they should pay." These people honestly feel that women should not ever have the pleasure of pre- or non-marital sex without being punished for it.

Fuck them. And fuck this woman who pretended to be your buddy for her back-handed cancer scare. Ignore her.

blah.

On a lighter note, I couldn't find anyone who did eyelash tinting in the US so I had it done with a vegetablel dye in London and I didn't look any different afterward. I still had to load up on the Mascara. Was yours veggie dye? Maybe that was why?

[B]

I think that the link between abortion (not D&C) and cancer is that in general, the more periods you have, the more likely you are to get cervical cancer. Thus, if you carry a baby to term you natually have 9+ less periods. The difference is miniscule and irrelevant considering how many more important, relevant, and likely concerns come up re: getting pg, having kids, having an abortion, etc. If this was their logic the logical solution to lower chances of cancer would be to be pg as often as possible, ideally for most of your menstral cycle, from ages 13-45. Wouldn't that be healthy!

Ug. I don't respect the anti-choice people very much. I am anti-abortion, pro-life, and PRO-CHOICE.

[Cory]

An underhanded approach on Dana's part - how incredibly irritating. Here are a few of the _many_ abstracts on this topic from PubMed:

1: Brewster DH, Stockton DL, Dobbie R, Bull D, Beral V.
Risk of breast cancer after miscarriage or induced abortion: a Scottish record
linkage case-control study.
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005 Apr;59(4):283-7.
PMID: 15767381 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

2. Grimes DA, Creinin MD.
Induced abortion: an overview for internists.
Ann Intern Med. 2004 Apr 20;140(8):620-6. Review.
PMID: 15096333 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

3: Parkins T.
Does abortion increase breast cancer risk?
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 Dec 15;85(24):1987-8.
PMID: 8246284 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Laura K.]

First of all, I went back and found Dana's comment, and I wanted to say to the other posters who thought she was trying to be insulting - I didn't see it that way. She'd had D&Cs herself and it sounded like she was genuinely wanting an opinion. Unless I read it the wrong way, I didn't really see the hidden insults. Too Pollyanna of me?

Anyway, I heard the same thing about abortion/breast cancer from someone I know when I was pregnant last summer and waiting for cvs results, and she cited a pro-life website. I thanked her politely but basically thought the article was a bunch of unsubstantiated crapola (I wish I still had the link) - I didn't think the article really proved too convincingly that there was a link, and there are soooo many skewed studies out there. I have been meaning to ask my dr. what she thinks of this - perhaps I will when I go in for my annual. It is very sad that there are studies out there for propaganda purposes, misleading people. Makes me mad! What makes me even more mad is how pro-life people refer to pro-choice as "Pro-Abortion," as if everyone who supports a woman's choice is out there all giddy for her and everyone around her to end pregnancies. Yes, that's exactly it. Grrr...

Patrick sounds absolutely adorable! It's hard to sztay groggy or bitter about getting up so early when they are just that stinkin' cute, isn't it? Hey, when are you going to post new pictures of him?

I'll be thinking of you in your upcoming IVF cycle. Let's hope they pick the right ones to transfer this time - yikes! Too bad there's not a money-back guarantee for screwups on their part. Seems like there should be.

Hope the HSG went well. I told you about my 'open up your knees like a butterfly' comment from my hsg dr, didn't I? Yeah, I knew I did, but it's still in my head every time I think about that. What a freakazoid!

Laura

[Alina]

Eyelash tinting is the best. If you have blue eyes, you should try the blue black color, if they have it where you get yours done. It doesn't look "blue" but it makes your eyes seem bluer and bigger. Just a thought.

[Casey]

Okay, the abortion-cancer link? Um, not really there.

In one of my epidemiology classes in grad school, the studies that showed a link between breast cancer and abortion were used as examples of how NOT to design a study. The problem wasn't that the authors made a causal claim when there was only a correlation, the problem was THERE WAS NEVER A REAL CORRELATION.

It was recall bias. Women who have had breast cancer are more likely to report having had an abortion. However, when you look at medical records, the abortion rate is statistically similar across both groups. The original studies did not control for recall bias, but for some reason the anti-choice people won't admit defeat.

As far as cervical cancer goes, studies suggest 98% of cases are caused by HPV. Reducing the number of periods you have, avoiding abortion, and avoiding tampons isn't going to protect you. Instead, you need condoms, condoms, condoms, and maybe someday a vaccine.

[Dana]

This is why I was a little hesitant to post. I've seen what has happened to people who post an opinion/question that people may not like. Everyone jumps all over them and then the bandwagon comes out.

Why are people jumping all over me, telling me to fuck off for a serious question I had? Did you even read my post? My reason for questioning was that I have HEARD reports linking cancer to d&c(s) - did not say for what reason the d&c was done. I was just asking if JULIA had heard any of this from her DOCTORS. (the idea that this was coming from pro-life propaganda DIDN'T EVEN CROSS MY MIND). I have also HEARD d&c(s) could cause cervical incompetence. Do I believe everything I hear, no - and that's why I ask questions. I've also questioned my doctors about this too but you can always ask for second opinions. Or maybe I can't on this blog??????

And btw - to assume that I'm some right-wing asshole who would come on here and make judgments about someone else's decision to have abortions/d&c(s) is totally stupid considering a - you don't know me and you wouldn't know that I'm totally pro-choice myself (+ I voted for Kerry) and b - i've had 2 miscarriages that resulted in d&c(s) (you would know that if you read my previous post) so how could i judge someone for doing the same thing I have done and c - if people want to write about their experiences for all the world to read, they should really be able to take some questions - if not, close the comments section.

And finally, I read a few blogs that are similar in topic - women trying to have babies, women who have children, etc. I like to read them b/c I feel like they talk about a lot of issues that I really agree with, NOT just about infertility, pregnancy or children. So you could say that we have similar ideologies. BUT the thing that I must say is that unfortunately I feel that the same things people frequently criticize the right-winger/pro-lifer for - they do themselves (and i'm not including everyone so EVERYONE doesn't have to write back to defend themselves) - they are being very judmental before they have all the facts.

i'm pissed but not really surprised.

[elisabeth]

Julia (and Dana), My understanding is that there is no direct relation between a d&c and increased cancer rates.

Dana, I think we tend to get defensive quickly because these sorts of arguments are often brought up by the anti-choicers as scare tactics. Unfortunately today our governor signed into law a bill that will give groups that spread these types of lies tax dollars to do their work, while other groups that are comprehensive AND accurate in their medical information will be losing money. Including 300,000 MNs who receive health care through the state. I think someone else pointed out that this isn't about preventing abortion OR pregnancy, it is about controlling womens sexuality. It is about guilt and shame and power.

I'm off to PCR to do major donor calling tonight. This conversation has made me realize again why I do this rather than stay home and play chess with my girls on a rainy evening. Julia, perhaps you'll be on my call list, wouldn't that be novel if we actually talked?

[Alice]

Cancer info to supplement Cody's links above: http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_75.htm It's the National Cancer Institute, and they found that "having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer."

Hadn't heard anything about cervical incompetence - my instinct would be that it wouldn't be more damaging than delivery would be, though.

Cancer's terrifying enough without false rumors about how your chances for it are increased - I'm sorry, Dana and Julia, that you had to wonder.

[Casey]

Dana,

I've heard the claim that multiple D&Cs contribute to cervical incompetence, but I've also heard this is a myth. I've never seen any research on it one way or another. I'll look around and see what I find.

[Casey]

Okay, here's what I found:

1. D&Cs following miscarriage are unlikely to cause lasting trauma to the cervix because the cervix has already begun to soften and dilate.

2. Elective abortion in the first trimester may increase the risk of cervical incompetence depending on how many procedures the woman has had and the degree of dilation used. No risk has been associated with 2 or fewer D&Cs. Three or more increases the risk by about 12%.

I found these on a British women's health wesite. I'll try to find the citations for these claims.

[libby]

Dana, allow me to apologize to you. Like Elisabeth said, "Dana, I think we tend to get defensive quickly because these sorts of arguments are often brought up by the anti-choicers as scare tactics." That was exactly what I did - get defensive, jump to conclusions, and basically exhibit the kind of intolerance I accuse the right wing of doing. Nice. I'm very sorry. Sorry for jumping on you, sorry for your miscarriages and D&Cs (something no one should have to go through), sorry for your fear of cancer and sorry for my intolerance.

Mea maxima culpa.

[bj]

Here's a 2004 review:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15051280

Lancet. 2004 Mar 27;363(9414):1007-16.

Breast cancer and abortion: collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83,000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries.

Beral V, Bull D, Doll R, Peto R, Reeves G; Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer.

INTERPRETATION: Pregnancies that end as a spontaneous or induced abortion do not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer. Collectively, the studies of breast cancer with retrospective recording of induced abortion yielded misleading results, possibly because women who had developed breast cancer were, on average, more likely than other women to disclose previous induced abortions.