The Abortion and Breast Cancer Controversy

Scientific journals are reluctant to publish what they see as 'contentious' articles that show a link between abortion and breast cancer. Other journals, bowing to political pressure, continue to publish flawed studies
  • Breast cancer researchers believe the connection between breast cancer and induced abortion is being actively suppressed.
  • Abortion advocates consider it to be a ploy of opponents as only 'pro-life' publications will publish most studies.
  • Abortions before a first full-term pregnancy are the best indicator of British breast cancer trends.
  • Upper class British women are more likely to develop breast cancer and die from it.
  • Upper class women are more likely to abort a pregnancy in order to postpone the birth of a first child.
On the AbortionBreastCancer.com website it says: "Telling women their abortions are related to increased breast cancer risk is clearly not good for cancer fundraising businesses, the abortion industry and the pharmaceutical industry.

Medical groups whose doctors do not perform abortions, or refer women for abortions, will be among the first to recognize that abortion raises a woman's breast cancer risk."

This could be an explanation why medical journals persistently deny a link between abortion and breast cancer. According to Dr Joel Brind, of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, several editorials and opinion pieces on the ABC link published in scientific journals expressed the opinion that there is no ABC link.

Letters published in medical journals documenting serious flaws in studies showing no ABC link have, however, been ignored by some researchers and editors. See more here Breast Cancer Prevention Institute

Pregnancy and cancer
Brind, a biochemist, originally became involved in breast cancer research in 1982. He wasn't particularly interested in abortion but had adopted the basic 'pro-choice' mentality that was part of the surrounding culture. Late in October 1992, he came across an article in Science News which he realised was misleading.

In an interview for Physician magazine he said:

"The feature story, "Pregnancy and Cancer," detailed how pregnancy lowered the risk of breast cancer and told that a group of researchers, headed by Malcolm Pike of the University of Southern California, were developing a hormonal cocktail to simulate pregnancy's protective effect. But something was wrong with the article: It never mentioned the word "term." 
"I remembered that in order to lower the risk of subsequent breast cancer, pregnancy had to go to full term."


"Harking back to my literature review in 1982, I recalled a 1970 World Health Organization study in which data were gathered on women from seven countries around the world. I remembered that in order to lower the risk of subsequent breast cancer, pregnancy had to go to full term. I went to the library to verify my recollections and found that memory had served me well.

"What's more, in reviewing the literature on reproductive risk factors for breast cancer, which I had last done a decade earlier, I became convinced of three things: 1) induced abortion (as opposed to spontaneous abortion) is indeed a risk factor for breast cancer; 2) the connection between induced abortion and breast cancer was being actively suppressed, and 3) bringing this life-saving knowledge into public awareness was my job."

Much to his surprise, Science News wouldn't print a polite, corrective letter about the need for a pregnancy to be full term in order to protect against breast cancer, although they'd printed other letters of his on different topics. Brind remarked:
"To my surprise, the story aroused only a smattering of interest from some pro-life groups."

"I also sent press releases about the abortion/breast-cancer (ABC) link to hundreds of media outlets. To my surprise, the story aroused only a smattering of interest from some pro-life groups. I did get a one-minute interview on 'Family News in Focus', but such brief bits of real news are easily swamped by a mainstream wall of silence."

British Cancer Research
The British Journal of Cancer reported on a presentation given at a large cancer research conference in Manchester in 2004 entitled "Trends and Risk Factors in English Breast Cancers."

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer provided a press release with a set of three graphs showing the trends in English breast cancers.

Karen Malec has been the president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer since 1999.

She authored an article for the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, "The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: How Politics Trumped Science and Informed Consent," and delivered a speech to them in Sept. 2003, concerning the government's cover-up of the abortion-breast cancer link. Her speech was entitled, "Perversion of Science by Politics: Case Study - Informed Consent."

She authored, organized and developed most of the coalition's Web site, www.AbortionBreastCancer.com, which has been described as, "THE clearinghouse for up-to-date information on scientific, medical, political and legal fronts." She has given lectures on the abortion-breast cancer research at U.S. and European conferences and has testified twice before the Illinois Senate Executive Committee in support of task force to investigate abortion-breast cancer.
In general, the best predictor of breast cancer among
British women is legal induced abortion.

Abortion leading predictor of beast cancer
At the British Cancer Research Meeting 2004 in Manchester, Patrick Carroll, director of research for the Pension and Population Research Institute in London, demonstrated that, in general, the best predictor of breast cancer among British women is legal induced abortion.

More specifically abortions before first full term pregnancy, which occur with greater frequency among upper class women, were the best predictor of English breast cancer trends. Although upper class women have better access to health care than do lower class women, English upper class women are more likely to develop breast cancer and to die of their breast cancers than lower class women.

Upper class women typically choose to pursue their careers and their educations before starting their families. They're more likely to choose to abort a pregnancy in order to postpone the birth of a first child.

Carroll calls nulliparous abortions "highly carcinogenic." English upper class women are having their abortions during the most carcinogenic time in a woman's life - the time between the onset of her menstrual periods and her first full term pregnancy.
English upper class women are having their abortions during the most carcinogenic time in a woman's life.

This is supported by biological evidence and the rationale for the abortion-breast cancer link. Russo and Russo have shown in their research that breast tissue maturity influences the development of breast cancer.

Nulliparous abortions (before a first full-term pregnancy) are highly carcinogenic. The period between menarche and and a first full term pregnancy is a critical time in a woman's life when she is most susceptible to carcinogens.

Doctors compound the problem when they prescribe oral contraceptives to women before their first full term pregnancies, or after an abortion. Like hormone replacement therapy, oral contraceptives contain steroidal estrogens. Steroidal estrogens are on the list of known carcinogens.

The incidence of breast cancer varies in different parts of the British isles, with the highest incidence of breast cancer in the regions where abortion rates are highest. The lowest incidence of breast cancer in the regions studied by Carroll was in Ireland, where abortion remains illegal.

The rates of breast cancer rose by a spectacular 70 percent rate between 1971 and 2002, as abortion become more common. Over the years, the occurrence of breast cancer among women aged 50-54 varied with the incidence of abortion among those women.

Source: Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer www.AbortionBreastCancer.com

Read also Abortion and Breast Cancer -The Estrogen Connection and The ABC Link