Abortion Raises Breast Cancer Risk A Resource for Crisis Pregnancy Centers Karen Malec, Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer,

Abortion Raises Breast Cancer Risk

A Resource for Crisis Pregnancy CentersKaren Malec, Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer,

www.AbortionBreastCancer.com Angela Lanfranchi, MD, FACS, Breast Cancer Prevention Institute,

www.BCPInstitute.org

http://www.AbortionBreastCancer.com/

http://www.BCPInstitute.org/

Table of ContentsPART I

NARAL Pro-Choice America & Planned Parenthood Have Launched Attacks on Crisis Pregnancy Centers in Urban Areas

Cancer Authorities That Acknowledge or Deny An Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

Abortion Raises Breast Cancer Risk in Four Ways

What NARAL & Planned Parenthood Don’t Tell Women About the Birth Control Pill, the Protective Effect of Childbearing and Induced Abortion

Medical Texts and Authorities Recognize the Risk-Reducing Effect of Full Term Pregnancy

Biological Reasons for An Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

Why Abortion Is A Risk Factor for Having Premature Babies

Why Premature Birth Before 32 Weeks Increases Breast Cancer Risk

Why Most Miscarriages Do Not Raise Breast Cancer Risk

Table of Contents

The “Susceptibility Window”: The Most Cancer-Susceptible Time in A Woman’s Life

What Dr. Susan Love Reveals About the “Susceptibility Window”

Scientists Acknowledge Abortion Is A Risk For Breast Cancer In Recent Studies

U.S. National Cancer Institute Branch Chief Louise Brinton Admitted Abortion Raises Breast Cancer Risk in a 2009 Study

Most Epidemiological Studies Support an Independent Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer

PART II

Why the U.S. National Cancer Institute Isn’t Reliable: The Agency’s 2003 Workshop, “Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer”

Parallels to the Tobacco-Cancer Cover-Up

Part I

NARAL Pro-Choice America

and Planned Parenthood Have

Launched Attacks on Crisis Pregnancy Centers in Urban

Areas

Why?Crisis Pregnancy Centers are

bad for business.

They inform women about risks of breast cancer, premature birth and

emotional harm.

NARAL & PLANNED PARENTHOOD CITE CANCER AUTHORITIES

THAT DENY AN ABORTION-BREAST CANCER LINK

U.S. National Cancer Institute (But, the agency also delayed warning the public about the risk of smoking for over 3 decades, and it was subjected to considerable political pressure from tobacco state Congressmen.)

National Breast Cancer Coalition (whose board of directors includes former NARAL activist and abortion provider, Cynthia Pearson)

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (whose physicians perform abortions)

American Cancer Society (which delayed its recognition of the risk of smoking for over 3 decades)

NARAL & PLANNED PARENTHOOD DON’T TELL

WOMEN Eight Medical Groups Have Issued Statements

Acknowledging the Independent Link between Abortion and Breast Cancer

(i.e. that abortion leaves the breasts with more places for cancers to start)

Catholic Medical Association

Breast Cancer Prevention Institute

Polycarp Research Institute

MaterCare International

Breast Care Center EAMC

Ethics & Medics

American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists

National Physicians Center for Family Resources

And ... the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Issued a

Statement In Support of Disclosing the Evidence

“The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons believes that patients have the right to give or withhold fully informed consent before undergoing medical treatment. This includes notification of potential adverse effects. While there is a difference of medical opinion concerning the abortion

breast cancer link, there is a considerable volume of evidence supporting this link, which is, moreover, highly plausible. We believe that a reasonable person would want to be informed of the existence of this evidence before making her decision." Jane Orient, M.D., Executive Director, October 27, 2003

ABORTION RAISES BREAST CANCER RISK IN FOUR WAYS

By Causing the Mother to Lose the Risk-Reducing Effect of Childbearing (A Recognized Risk);

By Causing Her to Delay Her First Full Term Pregnancy (A Recognized Risk);

Through the “Independent Link,” meaning the abortion, by itself, raises risk, independently of the loss of the protective effect of childbearing, by leaving her with more places in her breasts for cancers to start (The Only Contested Risk); and

By Causing Her, in a Later Pregnancy, to Have a Premature Birth Before 32 Weeks Gestation (An Uncontested Risk).

NARAL & PLANNED PARENTHOOD

DON’T TELL WOMEN

Medical Authorities and Textbooks Agree:

1) Full term pregnancy reduces a woman’s lifetime risk of breast cancer;

2) Each subsequent full term pregnancy reduces lifetime risk by 10%; and

3) Every one year delay of a first full term pregnancy increases the risk of premenopausal breast cancer by 5% and postmenopausal breast cancer by 3%. Breast Cancer Epidemiology, LI CL, Ed. Chapter 6 Reproductive Factors, Pg. 122, Springer Science

IT’ INDISPUTABLE ABORTION RAISES RISK BY:

Causing the mother to lose the protective effect of full term pregnancy;

Causing her to have a smaller family or no full term pregnancies; and

Causing her to delay a first full term pregnancy.

For These Reasons, It’s Indisputable That:

The woman who has an abortion has a greater breast cancer risk than does the one who has a full term pregnancy.

Full term pregnancy reduces risk, but induced abortion does not.


WOMEN:Even a paid expert witness for Florida abortion providers represented by the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, acknowledged under oath the risk-reducing effect of full term pregnancy.

During her testimony in a 1999 lawsuit challenging Florida’s parental notice or consent law, Boston Medical School epidemiologist Lynn Rosenberg answered, “Probably, yes,” after the defense attorney for the state asked her the following question: “A woman who finds herself pregnant at age 15 will have a higher breast cancer risk if she chooses to abort that pregnancy, than if she chooses to carry that pregnancy to term.” Rosenberg (1999) NW Women’s Health vs. State of FL, FL Circuit Ct., 2nd Circuit, videotape deposition of 11/18/99, pp. 77-78

Time Magazine

October 15, 2007

“Much of the long-term underlying increase in

incidence among women is due to historical changes in reproductive patterns, such as delayed childbearing and

having fewer children.”

American Cancer Society,

Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2005-2006


WOMEN:The World Health Organization lists the birth control pill with estrogen plus progestin in it (combined oral contraceptives) and combined hormone replacement therapy in the highest level of cancer-causing agents (Group 1) in 2005. Cogliano et al. Lancet Oncology 2005;6:552-

553

WHO scientists wrote, “Most combined oral contraceptives are taken orally, but they can also be delivered by injection, transdermal patch or vaginal ring.” Cogliano et al. Lancet Oncology 2005;6:552-553

A Mayo Clinic meta-analysis found the use of oral contraceptives before a first full term pregnancy increases the risk of pre-menopausal breast cancer by 44%. Kahlenborn et al. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2006;81(10):1290-1302

Two studies in prominent medical journals have strongly linked use of the birth control pill with the aggressive, deadly, triple-negative breast cancer. Ma et al. Cancer Research 2010;70(2):575-587 and Dolle et al. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 2009; 18(4)1157-1166


WOMEN:Oral contraceptives (“the pill”) can specifically cause the particularly aggressive and deadly triple-negative breast cancer.

This form of breast cancer occurs frequently among women under age 50 and African Americans and is associated with high mortality.

In their 2009 study on oral contraceptives (“the pill”) and triple-negative breast cancer, Jessica Dolle and her colleagues, including National Cancer Institute branch chief Louise Brinton, reported that women who start using oral contraceptives before age 18 multiply their risk of developing triple-negative breast cancer by 3.7 times and recent users within the last 1 to 5 years multiply their risk of developing triple-negative breast cancer by 4.2 times. Dolle J et al. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 2009;18(4)1157-1166. See: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Abortion_ Breast_Cancer_Epid_Bio_Prev_2009.pdf

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Abortion_


WOMEN:The biological reasons for three breast cancer risks⎯abortion, combined oral contraceptives (the pill with estrogen + progestin), and combined hormone replacement therapy⎯are the same.

All three risks have to do with the effects of the hormone, estrogen, while it is in the presence of the hormone, progesterone, on immature, cancer-susceptible breast lobules.

Evidence that the pill & HRT raise risk provides further biological support for an abortion-breast cancer link.

Abortionists often “add fuel to the fire” by giving women the pill after performing abortions on them.

Biological Reasons for an Abortion-Breast Cancer

LinkIn a normal pregnancy, there are physiological changes that take place in the breasts that cannot be undone by induced abortion.

After conception and before implantation, the embryo releases the hormone hCG (human chorionic gonadotropin) which immediately causes the mother’s ovaries to produce higher levels of estrogen and progesterone and change her breasts.

The mother’s breasts become sore and tender because of the multiplication of breast cells to produce more breast tissue in preparation for breastfeeding.


LinkIn the first months of pregnancy, the breasts grow under the influence of pregnancy hormones.

With the stimulation of pregnancy hormones estrogen and progesterone, the number of cells that are immature and cancer-vulnerable are markedly increased in number.

In short, if the mother has an abortion, a premature birth before 32 weeks gestation or a 2nd trimester miscarriage, she is left with more places (cells) for cancers to start.


Link

It is only in the hormonal environment that occurs after the first 32 weeks of pregnancy - during which time hPL (human placental lactogen) has been very elevated - that these cells mature through specific genetic changes that cause them to become cancer-resistant.


Link

Breast maturity influences a woman’s breast cancer risk.

The breasts mature during puberty and then again during full term pregnancy.


LinkThe Breasts Mature During Puberty and Full Term Pregnancy.

A breast lobule is a unit of tissue consisting of a milk duct with ductules (glands that make milk).

During puberty: Type 1 lobules mature into Type 2 as a result of exposure to the female hormones, estrogen and progesterone. Type 1 & 2 lobules are immature & cancer susceptible.

During full term pregnancy: Under the influence of fetal pregnancy hormones, the immature lobules mature into Type 4 lobules. Type 4 lobules contain the early milk, colostrum, and are cancer-resistant. When they no longer produce milk, they retain the protective genetic changes and become Type 3 lobules.

Lanfranchi, A. Normal breast physiology: The reasons hormonal contraceptives and induced abortion increase breast cancer risk. The Linacre Quarterly 2009;76:236-249. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/LQ_76_3_2_Lanfranchi.pdf

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/LQ_76_3_2_Lanfranchi.pdf

Breast lobule maturation before and after first full term pregnancy


LinkAfter puberty, 75% of the lobules are Type 1 and 25% are Type 2. There are only a few Type 3.

Starting early in pregnancy, pregnancy hormones increase (mainly estrogen) and stimulate the lobules to multiply. The breasts grow larger and feel sore and tender under the influence of pregnancy hormones. During the first months of pregnancy, the mother grows more Type 1 and 2 lobules - more places for cancers to start.


LinkBy mid-2nd trimester, the breasts have doubled in volume. The breasts consist of 70% Type 4 cancer-resistant lobules and 30% cancer-susceptible lobules.

The longer she is pregnant before an abortion takes place, the more places she grows for cancers to start in her breasts. Her risk increases 3% per week of gestation at the time of the abortion. However, if she delivers the baby at 32 weeks of pregnancy or later, her breast cancer risk drops sharply. Melbye et al. Br J Cancer 1999;80:609-613. Hsieh et al. Lancet 1999;353:1239.


Link

If she has an abortion, a premature birth before 32 weeks gestation, or a 2nd trimester miscarriage, she will be left with more places for cancers to start.

58


LinkBy 32 weeks gestation, she has matured enough Type 4 lobules that she has acquired 90% of the protective effect of full-term pregnancy.

The unborn child and the placenta produce hormones hCG and HPL that are responsible for maturing most of mom’s breast lobules into cancer-resistant Type 4 lobules in the last months of pregnancy. This is called the “differentiation process” which helps protect the mother from exposure to high levels of estrogen and progesterone early in her pregnancy. Lanfranchi The Linacre Quarterly 2009;76:236-249


Link

If she delivers her baby at 40 weeks gestation, then 85% of her lobules will be fully mature and permanently cancer-resistant.

She will be left with fewer places for cancers to start than she had before she became pregnant.

Breast lobule maturation before and after first full term pregnancy


LinkMost miscarriages do not raise breast cancer risk. Most miscarriages are abnormal first trimester pregnancies, but most abortions are normal pregnancies.

In a normal pregnancy, the levels of pregnancy hormones are elevated. The embryo produces hCG, which stimulates the mother’s ovaries to increase the levels of estrogen and progesterone for the purpose of maintaining the pregnancy. A fetal abnormality may result in a 1st trimester miscarriage because of insufficient levels of pregnancy hormones needed to maintain the pregnancy. Stewart D. et al., Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 76 1993;1470–1478. Williams Obstetrics, 21st ed. eds. F.G. Cunningham et al. (New York: McGraw- Hill, 2001), ch. 33, 856–869.

If the mother did not experience elevated levels of pregnancy hormones, then the breasts were not hormonally stimulated to grow. She was not left with more places for cancers to start and an increased breast cancer risk. Frequently, women will say they didn’t “feel” pregnant, and their breasts were not sore and tender.


WOMEN:

Abortion raises breast cancer risk by increasing the rate of premature birth in the mother’s subsequent pregnancies.

Any premature delivery before 32 weeks increases breast cancer risk for the same biological reasons that abortion raises risk - by leaving the breasts with more places for cancers to start.


WOMEN:“Induced abortion is a recognized cause of premature birth often due to cervical incompetence, uterine infection, and scarring post-abortion. The cervix is the mouth of the uterus, and its muscle tightly holds the fetus and placenta inside during pregnancy. If the cervix is damaged during forced dilatation during an abortion, the situation becomes a vicious cycle in which induced abortion is a cause of prematurity, and prematurity more than doubles (the mother’s) breast cancer risk if it is before 32 weeks. The greater the number of previous abortions a woman has, the higher her risk of premature births in future pregnancies.” Lanfranchi A. The Linacre Quarterly 2009;76:236-249. See: http://www. abortionbreastcancer.com/download/LQ_76_3_2_Lanfranchi.pdf

http://www/


WOMEN:

The Institute of Medicine lists abortion as a risk factor for preterm birth in its book, Preterm Birth. Preterm Birth, Institute of Medicine 2005 Appendix B, Table 5, p. 519.


WOMEN:

Three systematic reviews and meta-analyses in 2009 confirm elevated risks of premature birth for women who have abortions.

Shah P. et al. Induced termination of pregnancy and low birthweight and preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis BJOG 2009;116(11):1425-1442. Available at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122591273/abstract

Swingle HM, et al. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2009;;54:95- 108.

Van Oppenraaij RHF et al. Human Reproduction Update Advance Access 7 March 2009;;1(a):1- 13. Available at: http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/15/4/409

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122591273/abstract

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122591273/abstract

http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/15/4/409

http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/15/4/409


WOMEN:

Premature babies are known to be at risk for cerebral palsy, mental retardation, and neonatal deaths.Rooney B, Calhoun M, Roche L. Does induced abortion account for racial disparity in preterm births, and violate the Nuremberg Code? J Am Phys Surg 2008;13:102-104.


WOMEN:Four studies show that the woman who has a premature birth before 32 weeks gestation increases her breast cancer risk.Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Andersen A-M N, Westergaard T, Andersen PK. Preterm delivery and risk of breast cancer. Bri J Cancer 1999;80:609-13.

Hsieh C-c, Wuu J, Lambe M, Trichopoulos D, et al Delivery of premature newborns and maternal breast-cancer risk. Lancet 1999;353:1239.

Vatten LJ, et al. Pregnancy related protection against breast cancer depends on length of gestation. Br J Cancer 2002;87:289-90.

Innes K and Byers T. First pregnancy characteristics and subsequent breast cancer risk among young women. Int J Cancer 2004; 112:306-311.


LinkFor the mother, induced abortion and an early premature birth are biologically identical events that result in the same hormonal changes to the mother’s breasts. Whether the baby is dead or alive, the mother’s breasts are still left with more places for cancers to start.

Evidence of a premature birth-breast cancer link provides biological support for an independent link between abortion & breast cancer (i.e., that abortion, apart from the loss of the protective effect of childbearing, raises breast cancer risk).

Scientists do not contest the premature birth-breast cancer link; but when the evidence has to do with an abortion-breast cancer link, many are quick to challenge it.


LinkThe more months she spends breastfeeding her babies during her reproductive life, the lower her breast cancer risk is. Here are the biological reasons why:

1. Mammary glands remain in a state of near complete differentiation as Type 4 lobules.

2. Breastfeeding suspends menstruation, thereby avoiding monthly exposure to peaks of estrogen & progesterone. Experts agree estrogen is a cancer-causing agent and that women with fewer menstrual cycles have a reduced breast cancer risk.

3. Some cycles may be anovulatory, meaning that she was not exposed to an elevated level of estrogen that is necessary to stimulate the release of an ovum (egg) from the ovary.

Lanfranchi The Linacre Quarterly 2009;76:236-249


LinkThe “Susceptibility Window” - The most cancer-susceptible time in a woman’s life takes place between the onset of menstruation and first full term pregnancy.

That is when she has the highest number of Type 1 lobules.

That is worst time in a woman’s life to be exposed to a cancer-causing agent (i.e. abortion, the birth control pill, radiation, cigarette smoking, etc.).

0

30

60

90 Lob.1Lob.2Lob.3

Lobular Structures in the Human Breast

% o

f S

tru

ctu

res

AfterFull-termpregnancy

Beforefull-termpregnancy


LinkDr. Susan Love’s Breast Book reveals her knowledge of the susceptibility window. It shows that breast cancer risk increases with:

The number of menstrual cycles a woman has during her life; and

The length of time that elapses between the onset of menstruation and “first pregnancy.”

More menstrual cycles mean increased exposure to the hormone, estrogen (recognized as a cancer-causing agent).

Susan Love’s Breast Book


LinkBut, a short pregnancy isn’t protective. The truth is, only a full term pregnancy of at least 32 weeks duration is protective against breast cancer. Melbye et al. Br J Cancer 1999;80:609-13

Use of the term “first pregnancy” is misleading. Dr. Love makes it sound as if a pregnancy lasting 24 hours has the same risk-reducing effect as a full-term pregnancy.

Scientists from Several Countries Acknowledge Abortion

is a Risk for Breast Cancer in Recent Studies

There is acknowledgement that abortion is a risk for breast cancer made by scientists from several countries in recently published studies concerning all breast cancer risks.

In order for a study concerning breast cancer risk to be accurate, all known risks must be controlled for in the study (or case) group which has the risk to be studied and the control group which is used for comparison. This is the basis for controlled studies.



For example, if a study was to look at whether candy increased breast cancer risk or not, the study group who ate candy and the control group who did not eat candy would have to be similar in all other known cancer risks.

Thus if the case group had more women in it with a family history of breast cancer than the control group, the study would come in for merited criticism if it found that candy increased breast cancer risk.

In short, for a study to be valid, the study group and control group of women have to be equal in all known risks.



If scientists did not know and agree that induced abortion was a known risk factor for breast cancer, they would not refer to it in their studies and analyses.

Induced abortion is specifically acknowledged as a known risk factor in the performance of their studies as well as in the methodology and discussion sections of the published papers.



Since 2007, six studies have reported risk increases for women with induced abortions. They were conducted in China, 8 West European nations, Iran, Turkey, and the U.S.:

Lin Jie, Yu Jian-feng. A case-control study on risk factors of breast cancer among women in Cixi. Zhejiang Journal of Preventive Medicine 2008. In Chinese. Available at: http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-ZYFX200806003.htm

Carroll, P. The breast cancer epidemic: modeling and forecasts based on abortion and other risk factors." J Am Phys Surg Vol. 12, No. 3 (Fall 2007) 72-78. Available at: <http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf>

Naieni KH, Ardalan A, Mahmoodi M, Motevalian A, Yahyapoor Y, et al. Risk factors of breast cancer in North of Iran: A case-control in Mazandaran Province. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention 2007;8;395-398. Available at: http://www.apocp.org/cancer_download/Volume8_No3/395-398%20c_Naieni%204.pdf

Ozmen V, Ozcinar B, Karanlik H, Cabioglu N, Tukenmez M, et al. Breast cancer risk factors in Turkish women – a University Hospital based nested case control study. World J of Surg Oncol 2009;7:37. Available at: http://wjso.com/content/7/1/37.

Xing P, Li J, Jin F. A case-control study of reproductive factors associated with subtypes of breast cancer in Northeast China. Medical Oncology, e-publication online September 2009. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19771534.

Dolle J, Daling J, White E, Brinton L, Doody D, et al. Risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(4)1157-1166. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Abortion_Breast_Cancer_Epid_Bio_Prev_2009.pdf

http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-ZYFX200806003.htm

http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf

http://www.apocp.org/cancer_download/Volume8_No3/395-398%2520c_Naieni%25204.pdf

http://wjso.com/content/7/1/37

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19771534

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Abortion_Breast_Cancer_Epid_Bio_Prev_2009.pdf



Several recent studies from groups of scientists in different parts of the world have controlled for induced abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.

An American study looking at oral contraceptives as a risk for certain subtypes of breast cancer also controlled for induced abortion.

National Cancer Institute Branch Chief Louise

Brinton, Ph.D., M.P.H., chief organizer of the

agency’s 2003 workshop on the abortion-breast cancer link, admitted in

her 2009 study that abortion raises breast cancer risk.

In 2009, Dr. Brinton co-authored a study conducted on women from the Greater Seattle area. Led by Jessica Dolle, the study focused on the link between the pill and triple-negative

breast cancer.

The authors reported a statistically significant 40% increased risk among women with abortions. This was an acknowledgement that abortion is a

risk factor for breast cancer independent of the loss of the

protective effect of childbearing. Dolle et al. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention

2009;18(4)1157-1166

Text

The following known and suspected breast cancer risk factors were examined separately as potential confounders for the main effects of all other risk factors in age-adjusted models: age (at reference), race, education, annual income, family history of breast cancer, body mass

index (BMI; kilogram per square meter) 1 year before reference, smoking history, alcohol consumption, age at menarche, number of live births, age at first birth (still or live), lactation

history (among parous women), abortion history (among gravid women), and oral contraceptive use (never/<1 y versus z (less than or equal to) 1 year, oral contraceptive

duration, age at first use, years since first use, and years since last use).

Among women (less than or equal to) 40 years, the relative risk for triple-negative breast cancer associated with oral contraceptive

use(greater than or equal to) 1 year was 4.2 (95% confidence interval, 1.9-9.3), whereas there was no significantly increased risk with oral

contraceptive use for non-triple-negative breast cancer among women (less than or equal to) 40 years, nor for triple-negative breast cancer or non-triple-

negative breast cancer among women 41 to 45 years of age.

Text

ResultsIn analyses of all 897 breast cancer cases (subtypes combined), the multivariate-adjusted odds ratios for examined risk factors were consistent with the effects observed in previous studies on younger women (Table 1). Specifically, older age, family history of breast cancer, earlier menarche age, induced abortion, and oral contraceptive use were associated with an increased risk for breast cancer. Risk was decreased in relation to greater number of births and younger age at first birth.

53 of 66 Epidemiological Studies Support an Independent Link as of

2011(that abortion raises risk by itself, independent

of the loss of the protective effect of childbearing)Joel Brind, Ph.D. & his colleagues authored a 1996 review

and meta-analysis of 23 studies conducted in 14 countries. They identified 18 of 23 studies whose authors found risk increases for women with abortions.

Brind’s team reported:

a statistically significant 50% increased risk for women whose abortions took place before first full term pregnancy; and

a statistically significant 30% increased risk of breast cancer for women whose abortions took place after first full term pregnancy.

Brind J, Chinchilli V, Severs W, 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.



of the loss of the protective effect of childbearing)After the 1996 review & meta-analysis by Brind and his

colleagues, their opponents authored 16 studies and a 2003 collaborative reanalysis in the medical journal, The Lancet, by Valerie Beral and her colleagues. The authors of the 16 studies & The Lancet article claimed abortion is not linked to increased breast cancer risk.

Yet, even Beral’s team acknowledged the risk-reducing effect of full term pregnancy. They wrote, “Pregnancies that result in a birth are known to reduce a woman’s long-term risk of breast cancer.” Beral V, Bull D, Doll R, Peto R, Reeves G. Lancet

2004;363:1007-16.

It is a contradiction, then, for the authors to conclude that abortion is not associated with increased breast cancer risk.



of the loss of the protective effect of childbearing)Although they paid lip service to the known, protective effect of

childbearing, Beral’s team underestimated the risk of abortion by omitting the loss of that effect when they calculated the risk of abortion. In other words, they only considered the effect of the independent link.

In their words, they examined the “Relative risk of breast cancer, comparing the effects of having a pregnancy that ended as an induced abortion versus the effects of never having had that pregnancy.”

That is an unrealistic scenario since the pregnant woman cannot undo her pregnancy as if it had never taken place. She has only two choices - abort or have a baby. The pregnant woman wants to know what her breast cancer risk will be if she aborts in comparison to having a baby. She’s not likely to ask her doctor, “What will be my risk if I abort in comparison to never having had that pregnancy?”

Beral’s team should have compared the risks of two groups of women who were hormonally similar - pregnant women who aborted with pregnant women who had full term pregnancies.



of the loss of the protective effect of childbearing)

The 16 studies and The Lancet study by Beral’s team were proven in medical journals to be severely flawed.

1) Beral V, Bull D, Doll R, Peto R, Reeves G. Collaborative Group of Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Lancet 2004;363:1007-16. 2) Brind J. The abortion-breast cancer connection. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly Summer 2005; p. 303-329. <http://www.AbortionBreastCancer.com/Brind_NCBQ.PDF>. 3) 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>. 4) Brind J. Letter. Induced abortion and breast cancer: A critical analysis of the report of the Harvard Nurses Study II. J Am Phys Surg 2007;12(2)38-39. Available at: <http://www.jpands.org/vol12no2/brind.pdf>. 5) Brind J. Letter. Breast cancer in relation to abortion: results from the EPIC study. Int J Cancer. 2008 Feb 15;122(4):960-961. 6) Brind J. California Teachers Study report on incomplete pregnancy is flawed. Contraception 2009; Mar;79(3):240. Lanfranchi A. The abortion-breast cancer link revisited. Ethics and Medics (November 2004) Vol. 29, No. 11, p. 1-4. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/news/041120/index.htm 7) Furton E. Editorial. The corruption of science by ideology. Ethics and Medics (Dec. 2004) Vol. 29, No. 11, p. 1-2. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/E+MDec2004-EFurtonarticle.PDF 8) 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 9) 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 10) Lanfranchi A. The breast physiology and the epidemiology of the abortion breast cancer link. Imago Hominis 2005;12(3): 228-236. http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/Lanfranchi060201.pdf 11) Brind J. Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk: A Critical Analysis of the Report of the Harvard Nurses Study II. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Summer 2007) Vol. 12, No. 2, p. 38-39. Available at: <http://www.jpands.org/vol12no2/brind.pdf>.

The 16 studies & The Lancet article received heavy criticism from experts in the medical journals shown above (citations 2-11) because researchers had violated the most fundamental rules of scientific investigation (i.e. failure to allow sufficient time to elapse between exposure to abortion and the development of breast cancer; misclassification of thousands of women who’d had abortions as not having had abortions; and the exclusion of patients with in situ breast cancer, which develops earlier than invasive breast cancers).

http://www.AbortionBreastCancer.com/Brind_NCBQ.PDF

http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf


http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/news/041120/index.htm

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/E+MDec2004-EFurtonarticle.PDF

http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/June2005.pdf

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/Lanfranchi060201.pdf




ofthe loss of the protective effect of childbearing)Nevertheless, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, the U.S.

National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the National Breast Cancer Coalition, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, etc. use studies (proven in medical journals to be severely flawed) to deny that abortion is an independent risk factor for breast cancer.

Although they admit that childbearing reduces breast cancer risk, they contradict themselves by refusing to implicate abortion as a risk factor for the disease. That reveals their intellectual dishonesty.

End of Part IPart II Provides Information on the National Cancer Institute’s

2003 Workshop

For More Information

Contact:Karen Malec, Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer,

www.AbortionBreastCancer.com Angela Lanfranchi, MD, FACS, Breast Cancer Prevention Institute,

www.BCPInstitute.org

http://www.AbortionBreastCancer.com/

http://www.BCPInstitute.org/

Documents

Abortion Raises Breast Cancer Risk A Resource for Crisis Pregnancy Centers Karen Malec, Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer,