Critics Blow Smoke to Confuse the Public
Whenever the abortion-breast cancer research
receives a little press, the abortion industry and their supporters put
their media machines into gear and invariably create a smokescreen to
confuse the public and persuade women that abortion is, in fact, safe.
Some members of the press willingly cooperate in this deception.
Others do so unwittingly.
These detractors typically offer the following arguments to reassure women
of abortion's safety and to explain why more than four decades of research
is not deserving of recognition: 1) They maintain that retrospective
studies (interview based studies) are flawed because of an hypothetical
phenomenon called "recall bias" or "reporting bias;"
and 2) They assert that the 1997 Melbye study, also known as the Danish
study, was a large prospective study (one relying on medical records,
rather than interviews to collect data) which allegedly put to rest any
chance of an association between abortion and breast cancer. Its
researchers found no overall increased risk of breast cancer.  It
is irresponsible, however, to assert that a single, seriously flawed study
can be definitive, particularly when more than two dozen studies
demonstrating increased risk demand a different conclusion and 16 of them
are statistically significant.
Their arguments are disingenuous, at best. Each one has been
effectively shot down. Recall bias is a theory which says that
abortion is a stigmatized surgical procedure; and, for this reason,
healthy women underreport their abortions, but women with breast cancer
are more forthcoming. Critics say that this factor causes an
artificial increase in breast cancer risk to appear among patients who
have had abortions. The truth is that several teams of scientists
have tested for recall bias, but no one has ever found any credible
evidence that it exists. In spite of this, the abortion industry has
found this argument to be quite useful in muzzling the debate.
The Melbye study is a severely criticized study discredited by both the
Brind team and Senghas and Dolan.  Significantly, even Melbye
reported within the body of the study that: "[w]ith each one-week
increase in the gestational age of the fetus . . . there was a 3 percent
increase in the risk of breast cancer." Senghas and Dolan
criticized Melbye for including this statement under the
"Results" section of the study, instead of under the
"Conclusions" section. 
Ironically, Melbye's publisher, the New England Journal of Medicine,
quietly slipped an article into its publication in February of 2000 in
which abortion was identified as a possible "risk factor." 
Nevertheless, the abortion industry, the National Cancer Institute, the
World Health Organization and the American Cancer Society all find that
it's suitable for their purposes to continue pointing to Melbye's
conclusions denying a link between abortion and breast cancer.
It is remarkable that critics offer Melbye as final "proof" that
abortion does not cause breast cancer, considering the facts that
scientists already acknowledge to be true. For example, it is known
that estrogen is a secondary carcinogen which promotes the growth of both
normal and abnormal breast tissue during pregnancy. In fact,
estrogen replacement therapy (ERT) was added to the nation's list of known
carcinogens in 2001. ERT is largely the same chemical form of
estrogen to which women are exposed during pregnancy.
Secondly, a majority of the risk factors for breast cancer involve an
overexposure to estrogen. Third, estradiol levels (estrogen)
increase 2,000 percent by the end of the first trimester. This
estrogen overexposure is not terminated until the third trimester when
another process called differentiation takes place. Fourth, an
experimental rat study proved that post-abortive rats could be reliably
induced to develop breast tumors when exposed to a carcinogen at a much
greater rate than virgin and parous (those having offspring) rats. 
This animal study demonstrated a protective effect from a FIRST FULL TERM
PREGNANCY (FFTP), and its data suggested that abortions increase risk.
Fifth, scientists acknowledge that postponement of FFTP increases a
woman's lifetime risk of breast cancer.
Critics of the research demonstrating increased risk prefer to ignore the
only statistically significant prospective study to date: the 1989 Howe
study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology. Howe
found an increased risk of 90% among New York women who had procured
abortions.  A prospective study precludes the possibility of
recall bias because it relies on medical records, instead of interviews,
to obtain data.
Two additional tactics are employed by detractors to further cloud the
issue. The first one has to do with the accusation that all breast
cancer patients are stigmatized when a controversial risk factor, like
induced abortion, is associated with the disease. The truth is that
most women who have had breast cancer have NOT had abortions.
It can also be said that not all women who have had abortions will
ultimately develop breast cancer. However, because induced abortion
is largely a choice that women make, it is a PREVENTABLE risk factor for
this disease. Abortion-bound women have the right to make informed
choices, just as much as tobacco smokers have the right to be warned that
tobacco use is a risk factor for lung cancer. Furthermore, women who
have procured abortions have the right to know that they need to take
steps for early detection of possible tumors. Sadly, the abortion
industry and its supporters have a long history of censoring the research
while, at the same time, asserting that women are autonomous decision
The next tactic used by detractors is called "shoot the
messenger." Instead of discussing the scientific
evidence, detractors resort to labeling their opponents and disparagingly
call them "religious conservatives" or "pro-life,"
overlooking the fact that the first two studies linking abortion with
breast cancer were completed in 1957 and 1968 -- before the 1973 Roe v.
Wade decision legalized abortion in the United States and long before
anyone had ever heard the term, "pro-life group."  They
also overlook the fact that most of the studies were completed by abortion
supporters, Dr. Janet Daling being the most notable example. 
Detractors attempt to marginalize their opponents by attaching a negative
label to them in order to uproot the scientific research from the public
mind. Unfortunately, these same critics, many of whom are quick to
proclaim how much they care about women's health, do not recognize that
the abortion-breast cancer research is a women's health issue, not an
abortion issue. It is deplorable that these same individuals are
singularly indifferent about examining a far more meaningful question: Has
the existence of the studies demonstrating an association between abortion
and breast cancer been covered-up for 44 years because of abortion
politics and greed?
Information on the Cover-Up:
 Melbye et al. (1997) New Engl J Med 336:81-5.
 (1997) New England Journal of Medicine 336:1834.
 Ibid, p. 83.
 Armstrong (2000) NEJM 342:564-71.
 Russo J et al. (1980) Am J Pathol 100:497-512.
 Howe et al. (1989) Int J Epidemiol 18:300-4.
 Segi et al. (1957) GANN 48 (Suppl.):1-63; and Watanabe &
(1968) Nippon Rinsho 26:1853-9 (in Japanese).
 Daling et al. (1994) J Natl Cancer Inst 86:1584-92