Inserted and updated June 6, 2003

Excellent website www.canadasilentnomore.com information on Breast Cancer link and hurting after abortion.

Women have a right to know

Abortion-Breast Cancer Link, you are saying this as one word, what link or connection are you talking about?

March, 2000 the UK’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists became the first medical organization to warn its abortion practitioners, saying that Dr. Joel Brind’s review was methodologically sound and that the abortion-breast cancer link “could not be disregarded.”

Who is this Joel Brind?

Professor Joel Brind, an endocrinologist at the City University of New York, who is a world expert on the abortion-breast cancer link.  His studies cover 37 documented independent published articles, 28 of which show a casual connection, and of those 17 provide positive association that reach a statistical significance, suggesting with 95% certainty that this association is not due to chance, hence a link.

Getting back to your first statement why the UK declaring such a link or connection?

It seems that the US as well as many other western countries have been in denial, much like the scenario that ‘smoking causes cancer.’  How many years did that go on before that denial is now irrational?

Please tell me more about the UK study, but keep it brief.

Dr. Patrick Carroll’s, a doctor from Pension and Population Research Institute (PAPRI) studied several European countries and in particular the UK, demonstrated that abortion actually doubled the risk of cancer in women.   Yet the worse is yet to come.  The rate in the UK is expected to double over the next 25 years.  This is due largely, Dr. Carroll says, of the rate of nulliparous abortions, that is, of abortions performed on women who have never carried a child to term.

Has there been any successful litigation over this finding or previous studies?

Since Dr. Carroll’s study and shortly thereafter, news came that an abortion doctor in Australia had settled with a breast cancer victim.  The woman had sued the abortion doctor for not telling her about research findings linking abortion to breast cancer. 

Another case is going forward in New South Wales, for the same reason, plus additional failure of the doctor to explain the psychiatric reaction that may prevail after an abortion.  (Post-Abortion Syndrome)

Three California women are suing Planned Parenthood to force the nation’s largest provider of abortions failure to reveal scientific evidence of a substantial link between induced abortion and increased risk of breast cancer.

Another case is going forward in Fargo, North Dakota and is scheduled for September of this year. (2002)

Note. In 1997, Nova Scotia MLA’s were alerted to this information but it was denied in the press and by our own Department of Health to acknowledge such a link.  Campaign Life Coalition at that time supplied each and every MLA in the Province of Nova Scotia, an abortion booklet that is required reading for each woman wishing to have an abortion in the state of Louisiana, the booklet mentions the link.  Thus the state is off the hook for future litigation, so too it could have been in Nova Scotia.

Surely, because a woman has contracted breast cancer, doesn’t mean she has had an abortion?

Be sure that that not all women who have breast cancer have had abortions, and not all women who have had an abortion will get breast cancer.  Induced abortion is only one of the risk factors associated with breast cancer, and it is the most avoidable risk for this tragedy in our times according to these experts.

Why are you quoting U.K. material and not something more local, isn’t research being done here?

Yes but since North America has been in denial the UK study is significant to bring us out of denial. The history of the link goes back to a study in 1957, and the first published study in the US in 1981, which reported  “abortion appears to cause a substantial increase in risk of subsequent breast cancer.” [Pike MC, British Journal of Cancer (1981:43:72-61]

Many studies have been done since then (37 in all) and we CLC NS do have a number of them on file. The evidence was so overwhelming that the New England Journal of Medicine, admitted evidence of an abortion-breast cancer link in the text of an article written by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, in spite of having published a much criticized Melbye study three years earlier.  It went on to say, “Other risk factors have been less consistently associated with breast cancer (such as diet, use of oral contraceptives, lactation, and abortion).  [Armstrong K, et al., “Assessing the Risk of Breast Cancer,” NEJM (2000); 342:564-71].

More detailed information is available from our medical advisors and the noted 37 studies.  On the next page are things that are happening now as we present this information to you.

A "HEALTH CARE TIME-BOMB"

Dr. Weldon an American Congressman, sent a letter to all members of the U.S. House of Representatives in which he called abortion a “significant health risk” and a “health care time-bomb” in his letter.  And ask that physicians properly inform patients of the risk associated with surgical procedures.

A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO KNOW

News that the link between Breast Cancer and Abortion are slowly making progress into the news.


Subject:  Cancer Group Pulls Biased Web Page on Abortion-Breast Cancer

Source:   Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer; July 2, 2002

Cancer Group Pulls Biased Web Page on Abortion-Breast Cancer

Chicago, IL -- The president of a women's group, the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, reported today that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has taken down an inaccurate web page discussing the abortion-breast cancer research. 

The NCI's fact sheet has been heavily criticized in recent months by this women's group, a prominent scientist [1], at least three physicians and 28 members of Congress, including Rep. Dave Weldon, M.D. [2]  They've objected to the agency's misrepresentation of the research, reliance on erroneous studies, confusion of the effects of miscarriage and abortion, inclusion of false statements and refusal to acknowledge the deleterious effects of abortion on the confirmed breast cancer risk factor - postponement of first full term pregnancy.

Mrs. Karen Malec, president of the women's group, said, "We're delighted that the National Cancer Institute has pulled its web page discussing the abortion-breast cancer link.  The web page misinformed women about research paid for by U.S. taxpayers and even contained lies about the findings reported in the medical literature." [3]

Early last month, 28 members of Congress sent a letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson requesting a review of the NCI's fact sheet and calling its information "scientifically inaccurate and misleading to the public." They asked Secretary Thompson to check the web page "for accuracy and bias"and to take it down until after the conclusion of the review.

The congressional representatives scored the agency for having suggested that "women who have had either induced or spontaneous abortions have the same risk as other women for developing breast cancer," when in fact 28 out of 37 studies worldwide and 13 of 15 American studies report risk elevations. [Reference:  http://abortionbreastcancer.com/ABC_Research.htm] They condemned the NCI for depending on a single study, Melbye et al. 1997, to deny a relationship between abortion and the disease, "although that study contains many significant flaws."[4]

"In 1999, the agency was accused by a scientist of publishing an 'outright lie,'"reported Mrs. Malec, "because it said on its website that, 'The scientific rationale for an association between abortion and breast cancer is based on limited experimental data in rats and is not consistent with human data.'   However, the NCI had paid, at least in part, for most of the 13 American studies done by that date, and all but one of them had reported increased risk."

Mrs. Malec concluded, "We strongly encourage the NCI to come clean and to tell the truth.  Tell women how many studies report risk elevations.  Fully disclose the strong biological and epidemiological evidence which has been gathered since 1957 and which implicates abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer."

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.

References:

1. "Latest Web Page from the National Cancer Institute: A well cooked bowl of factoids,"by Joel Brind, Ph.D.; RFM News, March 23, 2002;

http://abortionbreastcancer.com/Public_Policy.htm

2. U.S. Representative Chris Smith, et al. (June 7, 2002) Letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson

3. Press Release, Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer; March 20, 2002.

4. Melbye et al. (1997) New Engl J Med 336:81-5.

**************************************************

Abortion-Breast Cancer Link
Source: Pro-Life Infonet; June 3, 2003

Medical Journal Article Denounces Bias Against Abortion-Breast
Cancer Link

Chicago, IL -- The president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast
Cancer, Karen Malec, announced the publication of her article
discussing the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link in the summer
issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, a
publication of the Tucson based Association of American
Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). The article is entitled, "The
Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: How Politics Trumped Science and
Informed Consent," is published on the AAPS Web site at
http://www.jpands.org/jpands0802.htm.

The article discusses the epidemiologic evidence of an ABC link;
the silence and denial of the National Cancer Institute, the
American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association and
women's groups; media bias; the bitter opposition of pro-abortion
politicians; the implications for patient care; and medical
malpractice issues.

The AAPS home page says it is "dedicated to the highest ethical
standards of the Oath of Hippocrates and to preserving the
sanctity of the patient-physician relationship and the practice
of private medicine." The group's motto, "omnia pro aegroto"
means "all for the patient."

Malec commented, "The AAPS advocates for patients' rights. It was
founded sixty years ago to defend private medicine, which demands
that physicians be responsible primarily to their patients.
Therefore, our opponents can't dismiss the AAPS and their efforts
to protect the health of women as pro-life scare tactics. The
article demonstrates that the ABC link is not a dead issue in the
medical community, despite the false-hearted efforts of the
National Cancer Institute's leaders to put it to rest.'"

Five medical groups recognize the evidence: the Catholic Medical
Association, the National Physicians Center for Family Resources,
the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, the Polycarp Research Institute, and the Breast
Cancer Prevention Institute.

*****************************************************************

The Age - February 17 2003
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/16/1045330466585.html
Breast cancer and abortion: the facts
It is not fear-mongering to give women the knowledge they need to make
informed choices, writes Angela Lanfranchi.

When I first heard of the link between abortion and breast cancer, in 1993,
I thought it was a pro-life fantasy. "That's crazy," was my initial
response. However, out of curiosity I changed the history form I used in my
work as a breast surgeon, asking each woman the order and outcome of all
pregnancies. The results surprised me. In the first six months I had two
patients in their 30s with breast cancer; one had had seven pregnancies and
six abortions, the other five pregnancies and three abortions. I continued
to see more and more young women with a history of abortion, developing
breast cancer. Of course, I may have been witnessing a statistical fluke.

But then, in 1996, City University of New York Professor Joel Brind
published his meta-analysis, which revealed 23 of 28 studies showing a link
between abortion and breast cancer. The uproar that study caused in Britain,
where it was published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health,
prompted the editor to write: "I believe that if you take a view (as I do)
which is pro-choice, you need at the same time to have a view which might be
called pro-information without excessive paternalistic censorship (or
interpretation) of the data." Paternalistic censorship is what I experience
every time I try to speak on the science supporting the abortion-breast
cancer link.

About 85% of cigarette smokers do not get lung cancer. Doctors who tell
their patients of the risk of lung cancer are not labelled fear-mongers.
Similarly, not all women who have had an abortion will get breast cancer;
only 5% will develop the disease. And 95% of breast cancer patients will not
have a history of abortion. But some women are at especially high risk. And
5% still adds up to a lot of women. The 1994 Daling study published in the
Journal of the National Cancer Institute showed that teenagers younger than
18 who had abortions between nine and 24 weeks had nearly a 30% chance of
getting breast cancer in their lifetimes. The US National Cancer Institute's
web page on reproductive risk informs women there are studies that show this
link.

Many people ask me about first trimester miscarriage. This is quite
different, in its effect on the woman's breasts, from induced abortion of a
normal pregnancy. Miscarriages do not increase breast cancer risk, since
they are associated with low oestrogen levels that do not cause breast
growth. However, when pregnancy is terminated before the breast cells reach
full maturity, a woman is left with more immature type 1 and 2 breast
lobules (milk glands) than before her pregnancy started, and therefore is at
increased risk. Her breasts never mature to type 3 and 4 lobules, which
would have occurred in the third trimester and would have lowered her risk.

Ideology should not prevent the dissemination of this information.
Australia's breast cancer organisations are not helping women exercise
informed consent when they deny them this knowledge. There are three legal
actions in the US by women who were not told of the link before having an
abortion.

As Dr Janet Daling, who identifies herself as being pro-choice, says: "If
politics gets involved in science, it will really hold back the progress we
make. I have three sisters with breast cancer, and I resent people messing
with the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or
pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between breast
cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is
accurate. It's not a matter of believing. It's a matter of what is."

Information only empowers women to make informed choices. Women who choose
abortions need to be aware that they are at higher risk, so they will have
mammograms earlier and more regularly. Cancers found on mammograms are more
likely to be stage 1 and curable. No woman should die of breast cancer
because she was not warned.

I watched my mother die of metastatic breast cancer. In my practice, I see
young women with small children die of breast cancer. If the information I
give patients can prevent a single death from a completely avoidable risk, I
will gladly pay the price of being labelled a fear-monger.

Dr Angela Lanfranchi is a breast cancer surgeon, a fellow of the American
College of Surgeons and clinical assistant professor of surgery at the
Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Jersey. She is on a speaking tour
of Australia, which is sponsored by, among others, several pro-life
organisations.