Dear Friends:

I'd like to share with you my letter to the editor of the National Catholic Register addressing Patrick Novecosky's article (June 5-11, 2005) on the abortion-breast cancer research. Readers of our e-newsletter know that Novecosky's article last month discussed the publication of an eye-popping paper by Baruch College Professor Joel Brind.  Brind accused governmental agencies and others of using fraudulent research in an attempt to rub out the idea in the public mind that abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer.

My letter to the editor could be entitled, "How governmental agencies and cancer fundraising businesses easily deceived journalists about the abortion-breast cancer link."

With few exceptions, secular journalists have difficulties writing about this subject objectively.  There might be two reasons for this:

1) A number of journalists promoted abortion throughout their careers. Perhaps they feel responsible for the "walking wounded" cancer survivors and patients who appear at cancer walks every year.  Nevertheless, the greatest responsibility for surging breast cancer rates lies with the federal government and cancer fundraising businesses.

2) Some journalists undoubtedly lived their ideologies.  They might be fearful that they or their loved ones are at risk for the disease.

Is it more important to save face and protect one's psyche than to save women's lives?  How long will Americans tolerate being exploited by cancer fundraising businesses - cash cows that have no desire to either prevent breast cancer or blow the whistle on the government's 48-year cover-up of the abortion-breast cancer link?

Spread the word.

Karen Malec
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer


Letter to the National Catholic Register
How governmental agencies and cancer fundraising businesses easily deceived journalists about the abortion-breast cancer link.
By Karen Malec, June 14, 2005

Dear editors:

Thank you for Patrick Novecosky's article discussing Professor Joel Brind's landmark paper in the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly concerning the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) research.  Brind accused governmental agencies and others of using fraudulent research to persuade women that abortion is safe.

Few realize that abortion raises a woman's risk for breast cancer in two ways.  The first way isn't debated, but the second way is.  Scientists have known about the first risk for centuries.  They agree that childbearing protects women from breast cancer.  If having a baby reduces your risk for the disease, then choosing not to have that baby means you'll have a greater breast cancer risk.  Therefore, scientists agree that the woman who aborts has a higher risk than the woman who has a baby (assuming her pregnancy lasts at least 32 weeks).

Cancer fundraising businesses acknowledge that women who have few or no children or who delay the birth of a first child are at greater risk for breast cancer.  However, they're not intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that abortion contributes to the nation's breast cancer rates by depriving hundreds of thousands of women every year of the health benefits of childbearing.

The second risk is called the "independent link." It addresses this question: Does abortion leave women with an increase in cancer-vulnerable tissue?

Journalists mislead women by reporting that research shows no increase in risk for women who choose abortion.  Medical researcher Brent Rooney explained:

"Suppose you ask for an estimate of the cost to fix your car, but you're quoted the cost of parts only (labor excluded).  That's not terrible, if you know that labor is excluded.  The vast majority of ABC studies over the last 20 years exclude one of two risks - the loss of protection women receive from childbearing.  In other words, the risk figure quoted is not the total breast cancer risk.  Well-informed researchers know this, but many doctors and the public do not.  Specifically, the 30% higher breast cancer risk reported by Joel Brind excludes the loss of the protective effect.  So, the true breast cancer risk is more accurately put at (approximately) 40% to 50% if both risks are included."

If cancer fundraising businesses sincerely wanted to prevent the disease, they'd encourage women to have larger families, starting before age 24, and breastfeed them longer.  They would have pilloried Planned Parenthood years ago for depriving women of childbearing's protective effect. Research in the journal Lancet in 2002 established that breast cancer rates could be cut by over 50% if women would have larger families and breastfeed them longer.  For more information, see <>.

Karen Malec
Coalition on Abortion/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.

Tax-deductible, credit card donations can be made at Donations can be mailed to: the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, P.O. Box 957133, Hoffman Estates, IL 60195. The IRS recognizes the coalition as a 501(c)3 organization.


Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

Breast Cancer Prevention Institute

Polycarp Research Institute

Join the Mailing List
Enter your name and email address below:
Subscribe  Unsubscribe 

© 2005 The Coalition on Abortion Breast Cancer
P.O. Box 957133
Hoffman Estates, IL
60195-3051 USA
Toll Free: 877.803.0102
Local Calls: 847.421.4000