Getting the Facts Straight
The media and other Pink Money organizations often dismiss or misrepresent Abortion-Breast Cancer information.
on the Abortion-Breast Cancer Link
The following dialog dispells A-BC research myths and provides the verified, reputable facts on the A-BC Research data.
Get more details and information at: The Coalition on Abortion-Breast Cancer
A Dialog With Karen Malec, President of the Coalition on Abortion-Breast Cancer
Karen, your organization has compiled research details the world needs to know when the media and other societal pro-abortion organizations attempt to hide the real facts about the Abortion-Breast Cancer Link. What are the most frequently dismissed or misrepresented facts about the A-BC Link?
1. The National Cancer Institute denied the
tobacco-cancer link in 1954, although epidemiological
research dating from 1929 supported such a link. The
American Cancer Society and the U.S. Surgeon General's
Office did not recognize the link until the early
1960's. It is customary for experts to publicly
disagree with one another about a medical risk for a
period of time before the medical establishment as a
whole recognizes that risk.
There is a medical consensus on one of two breast cancer risks associated
with abortion: the loss of the risk-reducing effect
of childbearing. The NCI acknowledges that
childbearing and breast-feeding reduce risk, but
illogically denies that abortion has anything to do
with the loss of the protective effect of
childbearing. The NCI also denies the second
(debated) risk of abortion - that abortion
independently raises risk, i.e.. that it leaves women
with more cancer vulnerable breast lobules than they
had before pregnancy.
2. The 1980 animal research study
by Russo and Russo has never been
refuted. (See number 7 below).
3. Seventy epidemiological studies have been
conducted, and approximately 80% report risk increases
for women who have abortions. Biological evidence and
animal research supports this link. Scientists also
have a sound biological explanation for the
abortion-breast cancer connection, and no scientist has ever
challenged or refuted it.
4. All experts concede the risk-reducing effect of
childbearing. This is the recognized breast cancer
risk of abortion. Only one risk of abortion is
debated - whether an abortion increases risk by
leaving women with more cancer-vulnerable breast
tissue than they had before they became pregnant.
5. It is true that some epidemiological studies report
little or no increase in risk after an abortion.
However, most of these studies were shown to be
seriously flawed. Professor Joel Brind authored a
scientific review of 10 prospective studies that was
subsequently published in the Journal of American
Physicians and Surgeons. Keep in mind that these 10
studies are prospective, and they are therefore
free of the recall bias problem that are often mentioned. [Brind J. Induced abortion as an
independent risk factor for breast cancer: A critical
review of recent studies based on prospective data. J
Am Phys Surg Vol. 10, No. 4 (Winter 2005) 105-110.
Available at: http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf
Dr. Brind reported that the 10 studies contain "frank
violations of the scientific method" and that they "do
not invalidate the large body of research" that
supports an abortion-cancer link. The authors of the
flawed studies have never responded by addressing
6. Patricia Jasen is a social scientist, in her paper
discussing the history of the abortion-cancer link,
Jasen never denied that abortion raises risk.
7. Russo and Russo conducted additional studies after
1980 (see number 2 above) that provide biological support for an
Russo J, Russo IH. Susceptibility of the mammary gland
to carcinogenesis. Am J Pathol 1980;100: 497-512.
- Russo J, Reina D, Frederick J, et al. Expression of
phenotypical changes by human breast epithelial cells
treated with carcinogens in vitro. Cancer Res
Russo J, Russo IH. Development of the human mammary
gland. In Neville MD, Daniel C (ed). The Mammary
Gland, Plenum, NY 1987:67-93.
8. Some abortion proponents incorrectly state that:
"The Russo study concluded that rats that experience a full-term pregnancy are less likely to get breast cancer, the study also concluded that rats that never became pregnant had an equivalent increase in cancer risk as those that experienced induced abortions." (Media Matters)
A table in the study shows that 77.7% of the rats that
were given abortions and then exposed to a carcinogen
(DMBA) developed breast cancer. By contrast, 66.7% of the
virgin rats exposed to the same carcinogen developed
breast cancer, and 0% of the rats with puppies
developed breast cancer. (p. 504) There is an eleven
percent difference between the breast cancer rates of
the aborted rats vs. the virgin rats.
Russo and Russo concluded:
"We show here that, in order to be protective, the
development of the (mammary) gland must be complete.
Pregnant or lactating rats treated with chemical
carcinogens respond with a significant reduction in
mammary tumor incidence, while pregnancy interruption
gives no protection at all....In women, pregnancy is
protective when it occurs before age 24. In contrast,
abortion is associated with increased risk of
carcinomas of the breast. The explanation for these
epidemiologic findings is not known, but the
[parallel] between the DMBA-induced rat mammary
carcinoma model and the human situation is striking.
It has been shown that in women during gestation,
prolactin from the pituitary and placenta, as well as
the secretion of estrogen and progesterone, increase,
and they act synergistically to promote breast growth
and differentiation. Abortion would interrupt this
process, leaving in the gland undifferentiated
structures like those observed in the rat mammary
gland which could render the gland again susceptible
to carcinogens." (p. 503-506)
9. Irma Russo's interview with Newsday in 1994: Her
description of the biology supports an abortion-cancer
10. The National Cancer Institute's 2003 workshop: "Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer."
NCI's leaders claimed to have
conducted a "comprehensive review" of the
abortion-cancer link and to have invited experts from
both sides of the debate to present their arguments.
The NCI videotaped the entire workshop. Anyone with
the slightest interest in the workshop can view the
video and would find that a comprehensive review was
never conducted and that only one side of the debate
was presented - that abortion does not raise breast
cancer risk. The entire workshop was a political
charade. Most of the 100 scientists invited to the
workshop have never studied the abortion-cancer link.
11. The federal government (through the auspices of
the NCI) is the largest funder of cancer research in
the U.S. Dr. Brind, the only scientist at the
workshop who voiced his dissent, said that a number of
scientists whose work showed risk increases for women
who have abortions, privately complained that they
feared the loss of their federal funding if they
acknowledged a link publicly.
12. Then there is that same, tired
argument that recall bias or report bias is a factor
that results in flawed research. As we have said many
times, there are currently no scientists who claim to
have found evidence supporting this argument - that
breast cancer patients are more likely to accurately
report their abortion histories than are healthy
women. The only group of scientists who have made
this claim (Lindefors-Harris et al. 1991) subsequently
withdrew their claim in a 1998 letter to the editor
after Dr. Brind proved in a medical journal that they
covered up an abortion-breast cancer link among
Swedish women. You can read more about it here:
13. A review
study in the British journal Lancet by Valerie Beral
et al. published in 2004. [Beral V, Bull D, Doll R,
Peto R, Reeves G. Collaborative Group of Hormonal
Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and abortion:
collaborative reanalysis of data from 53
epidemiological studies, including 83,000 women with
breast cancer from 16 countries. Lancet
The study Beral et al. 2004 was criticized for its
flaws in five papers by four authors (independently of
one another). One critic, Ed Furton, used harsh
terminology to describe this "piece of work." He
called it "shoddy research". (A majority of the
studies reviewed by Beral et al. include studies with
unpublished abortion data. Anyone with the slightest
interest can confirm this.)
The five papers are:
Schlafly A. Legal implications of a link between
abortion and breast cancer . J Am Phys Surgeons
2005;10:11-14. Available at:
Brind J. The abortion-breast cancer connection .
National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly Summer 2005; p.
303-329. Available at:
Lanfranchi A. The abortion-breast cancer link
revisited . Ethics and Medics (November 2004) Vol. 29,
No. 11, p. 1-4.
Furton E. The corruption of science by ideology .
Ethics and Medics (Dec. 2004) Vol. 29, No. 12, p. 1-2.
Brind J. Induced abortion as an independent risk
factor for breast cancer: A critical review of recent
studies based on prospective data . J Am Phys Surg Vol.
10, No. 4 (Winter 2005) 105-110. Available at: <
14. The American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists' doctors do abortions. It's not
surprising that they deny the risk. They also promote
the use of combined (estrogen plus progestin) oral
contraceptives which the World Health Organization has
labeled "carcinogenic to humans" (July, 2005), along with combined
hormone replacement therapy. ACOG does not tell women
that combined oral contraceptives and combined hormone
replacement therapy contain the same drugs, or that
combined oral contraceptives contain an even larger
15. The naysayers neglect to mention that the Royal
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
acknowledged the findings of the 1996 "Comprehensive
review and meta-analysis" by Dr. Joel Brind of Baruch
College and his Penn State authors. Brind et al.
reported a 30% increased risk for women who have
abortions after the birth of a first child and a 50%
increased risk for women who have abortions before the
birth of a first child. The RCOG's guidelines warned
its abortion doctors that, "the Brind paper had no
major methodological shortcomings and could not be
When the British press got wind of the RCOG's warning
in 2000, the RCOG quietly removed the warning from its
press release. It shows what the RCOG is willing to
say when its doctors feel its politically safe to do
In its latest
conclusions on abortion-cancer research, the RCOG
cited a review paper published in 2003 whose authors
support a woman's right to be told about the known
breast cancer risk of abortion - the loss of the
protective effect of a full term pregnancy. The
review paper is:
Thorp JM, Hartmann KE, Shadigian EM. Long-term
physical and psychological health consequences of
induced abortion: A review of the evidence. Obstet &
Gynecol Survey 2003;58:1.
16. Those against A-BC link information complain that the decision to have an
abortion is a difficult one, but it would not be a
difficult decision if women were given accurate,
unbiased information. The problem is that there are
far too many people who are more
interested in protecting abortion ideology than
protecting women's health. If the federal government
and the cancer establishment had wanted women to know
about the abortion-cancer link, they would have told
us about the existence of a large body of research
dating from 1957.
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
Learn the facts about
THE ABORTION-BREAST CANCER LINK:
ALREADY, EIGHT MEDICAL GROUPS ACKNOWLEDGE THE FATAL LINK BETWEEN ABORTION AND BREAST CANCER
COALITION ON ABORTION-BREAST CANCER
Coalition President and National Speaker Karen Malec provides up to date abortion-breast cancer news and facts
STOP ABORTION LINKED BREAST CANCER
THE BREAST CANCER PREVENTION INSTITUTE
Dr. Joel Brind Ph. D. world's foremost authority on The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link, President
Dr. Angela Lanfranchi M. D. breast cancer surgeon, and fellow of the American College of Surgeons, clinical assistant professor of surgery, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School of New Jersey, Vice-President
- CLEAR RESEARCH
Clear analysis and critical interpretation of research priorities affecting breast cancer control eliminating breast health disparities
Back to Stop Abortion Breast Cancer