Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 2602 ..

MRS DUNNE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to speak again.

Leave granted.

MRS DUNNE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to respond directly to the points raised by Ms Tucker, almost as a point of personal explanation. Ms Tucker said that I had a study, the implication being that I was quoting something out of context and that I was just hanging my hat on one thing. I would like to point out to Ms Tucker that there are many studies, and what I quoted from this morning was a meta-study. And if members don't know what a meta-analysis is, it's an analysis of a whole range of studies brought together in one place. The original meta-analysis was of 23 studies which looked at data about induced abortion and breast cancer, and that meta-analysis has now expanded to 30. And 24 of those 30 studies reflect an overall increased risk to women who have chosen to have an abortion.

In terms of the magnitude of the increased risk, the average of all the studies still centres around the highly significant figure of 30 per cent above the breast cancer rate for women who do not choose to have an abortion. Looking at some of the 30 studies in the meta-analysis, Janet Daling et al have found a significant overall 20 per cent increase in American women who have had an abortion. And a study in Japan of Japanese women-both Japanese-American women and Japanese women, and both women who have had abortions and women who have not had an abortion-over the period 1940 to 1979 showed a four-fold increase in the incidence of breast cancer.

Mr Quinlan: From what to what?

MRS DUNNE: You are 100 per cent more likely to get breast cancer. Any increase at that rate is a significant increase. I do not say these things, as Ms Tucker claimed, to scare people. I say them because it is time the community became aware of them, because for too long people have been trying to hide these figures.

MR PRATT: I seek leave to speak again.

Leave granted.

MR PRATT: The place is just brimming with positive vibes! I rise briefly just to focus on Ms Gallagher's bill. I want to table a letter-

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You are pre-empting the debate, Mr Pratt.

MR PRATT: Would you like me to sit down? With due respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought we were cognately addressing a number of bills.

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have agreed to a cognate debate, but be careful because you could only discuss the in-principle aspects. Please continue, if you can do that.

MR PRATT: Is your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we are not cognately addressing-

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: You can discuss cognate matters, but only the in-principle concept of the bills. Proceed.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .