The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

Is there such a link?  Joel Brind, Ph. D., professor of endocrinology at Baruch College in New York, published a comprehensive review and analysis of the entire worldwide literature on this subject--23 separate studies-- in the October, 1996 Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.  He concluded from all this evidence that there was a statistically significant 30% overall increased risk of breast cancer in women who had abortions.

Some of these 23 studies and the probable explanation of why there is a link are referred to in the flyer, "Breast Cancer...risks and choices."

Just recently, a new study from Denmark, based on the medical records of 1.5 million women, faulted Dr. Brind's conclusions and claimed that no such risk of breast cancer exists for women who have abortions.  The study received a great deal of publicity in the mainstream media because it was printed in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine and was endorsed by the National Cancer Institute.

Is the Danish research reliable and accurate?  Here's what Dr. Brind has to say about it:

1) The enormous number of women's records studied is very misleading.  Of the 1.5 million subjects in the study, 1.2 million never had induced abortions nor did they develop breast cancer!  They should never have been included.

2) Of the 281,000 who did have abortions, most are too young to have developed cancer.  Some are still teenagers.

3) Of the 10,000 women who did develop breast cancer, most are too old to have any records in the abortion registry, which began in 1973, when the oldest were already 38.

4) Of the 1338 women who had abortions and did develop breast cancer (the only ones whose records bear on the issue), over 81% had abortions recorded only at age 30 or over, 54% at age 35 or over.

5) Among the women who had abortions as teenagers, the study found essentially the same increased risk (29%) as reported by his own review.  That is the figure used in our ads on CTA trains and buses.

Dr. Brind also noted that some important data was omitted or de-emphasized in the Danish study.  For instance, the Danish study found a statistically significant trend of a 3% risk of breast cancer for each week of gestation before abortion, even within the first trimester.  Women who had aborted an 11-12-week-old fetus showed a 12% higher breast cancer risk, with the risk increasing to 89% for abortions after 18 weeks.

To sum up, here are some of the major myths the Danish study is perpetuating, followed by the facts:

Myth 1: The Danish study definitely settles the matter.   There is no increased risk for the average woman.

Fact: This one study from Denmark is only one of 30 separate studies published since 1957.  It is only the sixth not to show an overall increased risk of breast cancer.

Myth 2: The enormous size of the Danish study dwarfs others into insignificance.

Fact: Most of the women studied have neither the exposure to abortion nor the disease in question.  Their presence artificially inflates the size and validity of the study.

Myth 3: The credibility of the overall finding of no increased risk is supported by previous research.

Fact: This is a total misrepresentation of the medical literature.  Three of the four studies cited as proof are entirely irrelevant.   Two concern spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) exclusively and the third concerns mostly spontaneous abortions, with no data relating specifically to induced abortion.

Abortion after Breast Cancer

Several studies have revealed an increased risk of breast cancer in women who have abortions; researchers now find an increased risk of fatality in women who have abortions after breast cancer. When confronted with a pregnant breast cancer patient, doctors frequently tell her that having a baby would be dangerous, so an abortion would be the "healthy choice." This is how abortions are sold to women in this predicament, who were never considering killing their babies in the first place, but were "advised" and persuaded to do so for their own health. "Therapeutic abortion" is a typical recommendation to a woman who has been diagnosed and treated for breast cancer even though her chances for survival would be considerably better if she were to carry the baby to term.

Joel Brind, Ph. D., professor of endocrinology at Baruch College in New York, published a comprehensive review and analysis of the entire worldwide literature on the abortion-breast cancer link—23 separate studies— in the October, 1996 Journal of Epidemology and Community Health. He concluded that there was a statistically significant 30% overall increased risk of breast cancer in women who had had abortions. Not surprisingly, Planned Parenthood and NARAL refuse to acknowledge these studies. They would have to redefine their term "reproductive health" if they were to admit that there are NO instances in which abortion is healthy- even to "remedy" breast cancer. In fact, studies show that it is physically and mentally better for a woman who has had breast cancer to give birth to the child she conceived as nature intended, rather than to terminate the pregnancy by killing the child in her womb.

According to ongoing studies conducted by the Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, Canada, only 25% of breast cancer mothers who had abortions lived, while 55% of breast cancer mothers who carried their babies to term survived. In spite of the difficulty conducting accurate studies on abortion and breast cancer, K.W. Schweppe carefully gathered data from the previous 40 years and has concluded: "in cases of completed carcinoma therapy, the survival rates in women who became subsequently pregnant and stood through the entire period of gestation, are distinctly improved. There is no medical indication for an abortion." (ABCQ Update)

According to Dr. Joel Brind, even aggressive treatment of breast cancer with chemotherapy and/or radiation is not enough to cause significant harm to a baby in utero. Yet in one study 2,000 out of 3,000 women were advised to have an abortion because of their past breast cancer. We know abortion kills babies, but it is time for America to realize that the blind abortion surgery can kill women also, particularly those who have struggled with breast cancer. Evidence shows "women who become pregnant subsequent to mastectomy survive surprisingly well,...and often better than mastectomy patients overall...there is nothing to be gained therapeutically by interrupting a pregnancy." (ABCQ Update, Donegan (1977) Obstet Gynecol)

Abortion - Breast Cancer Update (6/99)

As pro-life organizations and congressmen are inspired by the work of Dr. Joel Brind, the public is learning not only that abortion causes breast cancer, but that compelling evidence of the link has been deliberately covered-up since 1957. In the last few years, Illinois Right to Life has been teaching young women that abortion is a "100% preventable" cause of breast cancer, a disease that kills 46,000 American women every year.

At the request of Rep. Thomas Bliley (R-VA), Congress is now conducting an investigation of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Brind said, "isn’t it ironic that most of the studies of American women were actually performed, and or, funded by the NCI. And yet the NCI says there is ‘no convincing evidence’ of the ABC link. This is outrageous because eleven out of twelve studies show the link and that link is consistent with our understanding of the biology of cancer, hormones and pregnancy."

Congressmen Coburn and Hyde supported Bliley and urged Congressional hearings on ABC: "It is clear that Congress must take the NCI to task for its alarming attempts to bury the ABC link. Congress has both the authority and the duty to inform women that a choice not to have an abortion can help them avoid breast cancer later in life." Congress appears to be listening.

On June 8, 1999, the U.S. House of Representatives debated and approved by three votes the Coburn Amendment, which will bar the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) from spending any funds to review or approve any drug whose purpose is to cause a chemical abortion, including RU-486. During the emotional debate, Rep. Pitts brought up the link between the French abortion pill RU-486 and breast cancer. Reps. Myrick and Smith also emphasized the devastating impact legal RU-486 would have on a woman’s health, increasing her risk of breast cancer. Rep. Chris Smith declared, "we would hope that the FDA would spend more time looking at drugs to mitigate breast cancer and try to get rid of that terrible, terrible disease, and that the whole abortion establishment would stop the cover-up and begin informing women about their risks." n

We believe women should have access to all the information available before making a decision that may have life-long consequences for them and their children.  It is not in the best interest of a woman's health to suppress or distort the record simply because it contradicts personal beliefs or social policy.  We hope this information will help you reach the best decision for yourself or a friend.  For more information on the Abortion Breast Cancer Link, call (312) 422-9300.

IRLC Home Page 
Dr. Joel Brind
Studies on Abortion and Breast Cancer