Press Release
Contact: Karen Malec
For Immediate Release
Date: December 1, 2005

Medical Journal: Research Used to Deny Abortion-Cancer Link Is Seriously Flawed / Doesn't Invalidate Much Larger Body of Research Supporting the Link

According to a scientific review of 10 prospective studies published online today in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons [1], the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) and others [2] are using seriously flawed research to deny an abortion-breast cancer link. The author, Professor Joel Brind of Baruch College, concluded: "These recent studies therefore do not invalidate the large body of previously published studies that established induced abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer."

Brind is the second expert to accuse abortion enthusiasts of conducting "shoddy research." [3]  His paper represents an update to a 1996 review and meta-analysis of the research in which 18 out of 23 studies reported risk increases for women with abortion histories. [4]

Other research [5] in the journal Lancet in 2004 - also used to deny the cancer link - was severely criticized by four experts (independently of one another). [3,6,7,8]  Even the Lancet authors (and most authors of the 10 prospective studies) concede one of two breast cancer risks (the secondary risk), despite their denials of a link. [5,9]

Scientists don't debate the secondary risk of abortion - the longer a woman delays a first birth, the greater her breast cancer risk is. [10] But scientists debate whether abortion is independently linked to breast cancer - whether it leaves women with more cancer-susceptible breast tissue.  Most recent research excludes the effect of the secondary risk because it's already considered a "given."

See this bar graph to view the effects of both risks:
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/051201graphs/index.htm

The secondary risk by itself imposes a common law obligation on doctors to inform pregnant women that their risks are greater if they abort than if they have a baby. Two U.S. teenagers successfully sued their abortionists for failing to disclose the risks of breast cancer and emotional harm. [7]

"The NCI was wrong about the tobacco-cancer link in 1954, and it's wrong again today. Scientists are behaving much as they did when tobacco executives corrupted cancer research [11]," declared Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer. "They don't care if 270,000 breast cancer cases are expected this year. Post-abortive women are losing an opportunity to adopt risk-reduction strategies. Why do these scientists hate women?"

"The abortion industry and medical establishment withholds this information in an attempt to prevent massive lawsuits from being filed," asserted Andrew Schlafly, General Counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. [12]

Read quotes from breast cancer patients and physicians:
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/051201quotes/index.htm

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. 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 (Winter 2005) Vol. 10, No. 4; p. 105-110.  Available at: <http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf>.

2. The following governmental agencies and cancer fundraising businesses use severely flawed research to support their denial of an abortion-cancer link: the U.S. National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, and Breast Cancer Action.  Other cancer businesses which flatly deny the link, despite overwhelming diverse research to the contrary, include Y-Me National Breast Cancer Foundation and the National Breast Cancer Coalition.

3. Furton E. The corruption of science by ideology. Ethics and Medics (Dec. 2004) Vol. 29, No. 11, p. 1-2. Available online at <http://www.AbortionBreastCancer.com>. See the "Important Links" column.

4. Brind J, Chinchilli, VM, Severs WB, Summy-Long J. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health 1996;50:481-496.

5. 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 2004;363:1007-16.

6. Brind J. The abortion-breast cancer connection. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly Summer 2005; p. 303-329. Available at:
<http://www.AbortionBreastCancer.com/Brind_NCBQ.PDF>.

7. Schlafly A. Legal implications of a link between abortion and breast cancer. J Am Phys Surgeons 2005;10:11-14. Available at: <http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf>.

8. Lanfranchi A. The science, studies and sociology of the abortion-breast cancer link. Research Bulletin 2005;18:1-8. Available at:
<http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/June2005.pdf>.

9. Beral V, et al. Breast cancer and breastfeeding: collaborative re-analysis of individual data from 47 epidemiological studies in 30 countries, including 50,302 women with breast cancer and 96,973 women without the disease. Lancet 2002;360:187-195.

10. Trichopoulos D, Hsieh C, MacMahon B, et al. Age at any birth and breast cancer risk. Int J Cancer 1983;31:701-704.

11. Kessler D. Question of intent: A great American battle with a deadly industry. 1st ed. New York, NY: Public Affairs, 2001.

12. Schlafly A. Had an abortion? Call an attorney. Celebrate Life (September-October 2005) p. 31-32.