CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Abortion and Breast Cancer

Aug 8, 2014

We have long known that there is a very real connection between women having abortions, and an increased risk of developing breast cancer. The abortion industry, a compliant and PC media, and activist politicians all deny this of course, and pour out their wrath on anyone who dares to make these claims.

We have a perfect illustration of this unfolding as we speak. It seems one brave Australian Senator was willing to tell the truth about this, and for daring to do so, he is facing all sorts of abuse and censure. Consider the headline: “AMA and Greens criticise Senator Eric Abetz for making false link between cancer and abortion”.

“False link”? Nothing like pro-abortion activists and their media stooges banding together to highjack the truth and mangle the facts. The article begins:

Senator Eric Abetz’s comments linking abortion with breast cancer are an insult to all women, says acting Greens Leader Adam Bandt. Senator Abetz appeared on Channel 10 program The Project last night and was asked if he believed the “factually incorrect” statement that abortion leads to breast cancer. “I think the studies, and I think they date back from the 1950s, assert that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer,” he said.
The senator then said there were organisations, other than the Australian Medical Association (AMA), that had differing opinions. Mr Bandt has demanded Senator Abetz apologise for his comments and not attend the upcoming World Congress of Families conference.
“Eric Abetz’s comments are an insult, not just to any woman who has suffered breast cancer or who has had an abortion, but to all women,” the MP said. “The minister should not scare young women by peddling his dark, anti-choice ideology on national television. This is a Government of old men who do not share modern Australian values”…
AMA President Associate Professor Brian Owler appeared to hear things differently. Last night he told media the senator had “cherrypicked” old information skewed toward an anti-abortion ideology.

abortion breast cancerAn “insult to women”? “Cherrypicked”? So who is right here? The truth is, there is a growing scientific awareness of the relationship between abortion and breast cancer. One American expert, Dr Joel Brind, an Endocrinology Professor, has said that “the single most avoidable risk factor for breast cancer is induced abortion.”

As he states elsewhere: “By way of background, abortion raises a woman’s risk for breast cancer in two ways; the debate is over the second, not the first. Scientists have long understood that the risk of breast cancer is reduced when a woman completes a full-term pregnancy. This ‘protective effect of childbearing’ is lost with an abortion. The second way abortion increases the likelihood of breast cancer is that an abortion leaves a woman with more cancer-vulnerable breast tissue than she had before she became pregnant.”

Many studies can be mentioned here. A study in Sri Lanka found that abortion triples risk of breast cancer in women, as one discussion notes:

A new study coming from researchers in Sri Lanka finds women who had abortions more than triple their breast cancer risk compared with women who carry their pregnancy to term. The study was published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology and found a 3.42 odds ratio against women having abortions compared with those who kept their baby.
Abortion was the most significant factor in the study on breast cancer risk and researchers found a significantly reduced risk associated with prolonged duration of breastfeeding a newborn. Malintha De Silva and colleagues from the University of Colombo led the study.
The Sri Lankan study is the fourth epidemiological study in fourteen months to report an abortion-breast cancer link, including studies from the U.S., China and Turkey. Other studies have shown the protective effect a full-term pregnancy has for women.

A study in India also demonstrates this link, showing that abortion raises the breast cancer risk six-fold. One report says this about the findings:

A study published in the Indian Journal of Community Medicine (May, 2013) found a 6.38-fold greater risk of breast cancer among women with histories of induced abortion. The study, led by Ramachandra Kamath, MD (Department of Public Health, Manipal University), found induced abortion was the most important risk factor….
The authors found a non-statistically significant 1.76-fold risk increase among women with first births after age 30. “Medical texts acknowledge delayed first full term pregnancy is a risk factor for breast cancer. It’s indisputable that abortion contributes to delayed first full term pregnancies; and in some cases, women remain childless forever, which is also an accepted risk factor.” Kamath’s group observed that India has the “largest estimated number of breast cancer deaths worldwide,” and breast cancer rates are on the rise there.

A more recent examination of the data makes this point even stronger. As Dr Brind writes,

A new systematic review and meta-analysis of abortion and breast cancer (ABC link) in China was just published four days ago in the prestigious, peer-reviewed international cancer journal, Cancer Causes and Control. In this meta-analysis (a study of studies, in which results from many studies are pooled), Dr. Yubei Huang et al. reported that, combining all 36 studies on the ABC link in China that have been published through 2012, the overall risk of developing breast cancer among women who had at least one induced abortion was significantly increased by 44%.
These results, said the authors, “were consistent with a previously published systematic review”. That review was the one I published in the British Medical Association’s epidemiology journal with colleagues from Penn State Medical Center in 1996, which study reported an overall significant 30% increased risk of breast cancer in worldwide studies.

This is just a small sampling of the evidence. But pro-deathers and secular left activists hate to let the truth and evidence get out in this debate. They prefer to cover it up and demonise those who share it. Well done to Eric Abetz for having the guts to stand up and speak truth on this vital issue, even when it is unpopular to do so.

Women certainly deserve to hear the truth about this.

[1017 words]

31 Responses to Abortion and Breast Cancer

  • I’m amazed that commentators are labelling Senator Eric Abetz’s views as “DANGEROUS”….when abortion is completely life endangering for babies. They are missing the wood for the trees as usual.

    Senator Eric Abetz needs and deserves support and not condemnation. Even Tony Abbott is “white anting” him.

  • My forthcoming book on abortion will have all the footnotes and references plus much more on this. But in the meantime here is one helpful listing of the studies:

    www.bcpinstitute.org/epidemiology_studies_bcpi.htm

  • Even without the abortion – breast cancer link, there is no excuse for abortions other than medical emergencies.

  • What is becoming clearer and clearer, is that so-called ‘authoritative’ medical organisations are becoming so politicised on controversial life issues that their credibility is evaporating fast. The AMA are just one of many that would appear to be almost worthless on some issues in terms of upholding the ethos of ‘doing no harm’.

    Let me get this straight – if a medically qualified professional links a particular behaviour with an increased risk of a specific negative health outcome in the future, they should get one of these two responses:

    A. Thanked for warning people of possible risks, and encouraged to seek – or possibly even given – additional funding to extend such a campaign and/or further studies.
    or,
    B. Howled down by the ‘elites’ and told to shut up.

    Why is the general response ‘A’ in respect of, for example, smoking to lung cancer, but ‘B’ in respect of abortion to breast cancer? Even if it turned out that there was no link, who would just lash out and shoot the messenger in the early stages of doing studies? Is that exercising ‘due care’ in respect of public health?

    Abortion clearly doesn’t just twist our society on a personal level, now it appears to do so professionally as well. But when such twisted attitudes potentially cost lives, it’s not just negligent, it’s evil. Abortion is not just killing the unborn, it’s cutting short women’s lives too. That’s the truth, and the various medical organisations around the world dismissing the abortion-breast cancer link have more and more blood on their hands every day. It clear they don’t want to inform the public, they only want to squash deviations from politically korrekt™ groupthink.

    Look at my two options above again and imagine if the medical authorities had gone down road ‘B’ in respect of smoking. After all, not everybody who smokes gets lung cancer, do they? Not even close. But would that have been an acceptable professional response to the early studies showing a link between smoking and lung cancer?

    At a more fundamental level it pains me just how little currency truth and life have these days, this is just another example of the sadness and darkness of a people who have shunned the light of God.

  • Yes exactly right Mark.

  • Urgh, I saw The Project interviewing Abetz and was disgusted for the billionth time by their blatant disregard for truth and appeal to scientific authority as though “scientists” are somehow free from biases, worldviews, and fear of the powerful politcial correctness bullies of our fading culture.

    Rule of thumb: If The Project supports it, that is almost grounds for entirely rejecting it. Same goes for the Green, Labor, Marxists, etc. If on the odd occasion they actually support something good and moral, beware their agenda ie they champion the poor while insisting that Western culture (capitalist, white, Christian, men, etc.) is the cause of all poverty everywhere.

  • “…..This is a Government of old men who do not share modern Australian values”…..”

    The Supreme Court judges in Roe vs Wade were all old white men who didn’t understand womens’ bodies.
    I’ts about time abortion was revisited, as the pro-abortionists have been on the back foot since then.

    I’m looking forward to that book Bill. Thanks and keep up the good work.

  • Brian,

    In medical emergencies attempting to give premature birth would be the way to go.

    Infanticide is always wrong.

  • Yes Matt, and in the case of risk to the mother’s life, as in an ectopic pregnancy, then something must be done to save life. It is not really an abortion then. I discuss this more fully here:

    billmuehlenberg.com/2013/06/04/abortion-for-the-health-and-life-of-the-mother/

  • Any stats on miscarriages relation to breast cancer? The interruption of the preparation of breast cells to become active milk producing cells would be similar as in an induced abortion?
    As to smoking and abortion leading to cancer and the different response to it, smoking only kills the body, not the soul, remember we are in a spiritual war and the devil doesn’t care if a body lives a bit longer as long as the soul goes with him to hell.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

  • So if a women miscarries, are they also at the same increased risk of breast cancer? If not, why not?

  • Thanks Ursula and Ben.

    “Researchers have found that most miscarriages don’t raise the risk of breast cancer because these pregnancies don’t produce enough estrogen, which is the driving factor behind the proliferation of undifferentiated, cancer-vulnerable cells.”

    www.rtl.org/prolife_issues/LifeNotes/AbortionsLinktoBreastCancer.html

  • Thanks Bill,

    We must also consider the case of prem and still births which most often occur after 21 weeks gestation. One would expect the oestrogen levels to be quite high by then. Do you have an article to a peer reviewed study?

    www.medscape.com/viewarticle/528774_8

    Given that most termination occur before week 18… we can see the oestrogen has not raised that far as opposed to a still birth which often occur much much later. You would think an inverse relationship.

    I also know that Japan has used abortion as a means of contraception for decades and their rate of breast cancer is very low. 165 out of all countries

    www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/breast-cancer/by-country/

    You would think they would rank top 10?? It is interesting to note that countries that promote oestrogen contraception seem to be nearer to the top. Undoubtedly oestrogen can be linked to breast cancer… especially the older larger quantities of it. There maybe a case for late term abortion (which I am not in favour of unless for medical reason)… but for pregnancies under 12 weeks I just do not see it.

  • That abortion increases the risk of breast cancer is irrelevant. What is relevant is that is the murder of a person. Full stop.

  • Thanks Ben. I am not a doctor, nor do I claim expertise in all things medical. So others may add their thoughts here.

  • Both are relevant Jan. Abortion kills babies and harms women.

  • The evidence is so glaring. All cancers have to be registered and if you look at the statistics of say, the Cancer Council of Victoria, you can see that over the past 32 years the incidence of all other cancers has stayed much the same while breast cancer rates are sky-rocketing.
    vcrdata.cancervic.org.au:8082/ccv/#trends_cancer

  • Hi Nina, but likewise the use of oestrogen as contraception has risen exponentially in that time period. Breast cancer is a horrible thing and we should all try to search for a reason and cure for it. If we cloud our focus with one train of thought, it may hide the real reason and that would be a terrible thing.

  • Early miscarriages – often the result of oestrogen levels too low to support the pregnancy – are not linked with subsequent breast cancer.

    However late miscarriages and premature birth (before 32 weeks gestation) are linked with a significantly increased risk of this disease.

    Over-exposure to oestrogen is the main risk factor here, since oestrogen levels soar during pregnancy. Oestrogen makes the breast lobules proliferate, but they become vulnerable to cancer at the same time. HRT and oral contraception (containing oestrogen and other similar compounds) are acknowledged breast cancer risks for the same reason. Alcohol (which interferes with the breakdown of oestrogen in the liver) and obesity (fat cells secrete oestrogen) are risk factors too.

    In the last two months of pregnancy, certain hormones kick in to mature the breast lobules, making them milk producers and cancer resistant. Very premature birth means the lobules miss out on this protective effect.

    Cancer councils agree that hormonal contraception, HRT, obesity, alcohol, late miscarriages and very premature birth are all breast cancer risk factors.

    Curiously, a previous induced abortion is the only factor these councils deny. No prizes for guessing why.

  • Dear Bill,
    I was hoping you would write an article on abortion and the link to breast cancer. We can always rely on you for the Truth.

    Fools like Adam Bandt and the MSM don’t want to face up to it. They think telling the truth about abortion is an insult to women. Not telling them the truth is an insult to their intelligence. No one is saying that EVERY woman who has had breast cancer has had an abortion. Neither is anyone saying that EVERY woman who has had an abortion will get breast cancer but abortion INCREASES the risk of breast cancer. It is common sense! Any unnatural act is bad for us healthwise.

    The AMA should be ashamed of itself for sitting on the fence on this issue. It obviously cares more about antagonising its members many of whom believe in abortion and there will be plenty of those.

    As for the MSM I didn’t expect anything else from that Satan controlled crowd.

    Eric Abetz is very brave for bringing up the abortion issue at all and Tony Abbott the Catholic should be supporting him if he had any backbone at all.

    Many years ago I used to be in possession of leaflets with details of the studies which had been done on the link between abortion and breast cancer which I used to give away when selling raffle tickets for Right To Life but I haven’t come accross any for years

  • Absolutely right, Bill. Combine that with increased risk of mental health problems, which also seems clear from research, and abortion seems a no-brainer. No wonder the so-called ‘pro-choicers’ want to keep out this kind of research of the public domain.

  • So who do I believe? The AMA and the scientific literature or some random guy on the internet?

  • Thanks Twiggy. So who do I believe? The scientific literature presented above (as well as the 74 studies presented here: www.bcpinstitute.org/epidemiology_studies_bcpi.htm ) or some random girl commenting on the internet?

  • Bill,
    I’ll look at your evidence when you have your paper published in a reputable medical journal. Until then you are just another religious nutter spouting off on the internet.

  • Twiggy,
    I’ll listen to your comments when you have your paper published in a reputable medical journal. Until then you are just another anti-Christian bigot spouting off on the internet.

  • Gotta love Internet trolls. Now they are telling us that only people with peer-reviewed articles can tell people about other peer-reviewed articles! Next thing you know they will be telling us we have no right to say that 2+2=4 unless we have PhDs in higher mathematics. You know they are getting desperate when they have to sink to that level of moonbattery.

  • Hi Bill,

    Agree, cheap shots at each other does not really progress our understanding of the disease. Chapter 5 in this paper is an interesting read

    canceraustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/rfrw-breast-cancer-risk-factors-a-review-of-the-evidence_504af03f5c512.pdf

    The problem with their dismissal of abortion as a risk factor is that they do not quote at what stage ie how many weeks the women were into their pregnancy.

    Interestingly they do say that women who do have babies and breast feed that baby do have a reduced risk of developing breast cancer.

    So what can we conclude? Not sure… only that there are many risk factors for breast cancer with the highest being a genetic predisposition. Maybe if you are in that group you might think twice about a late term abortion… but prob the risk of breast cancer from drinking alcohol would be just as high for the same person??

  • One of the things pointed out in the following defence of highlighting a possible link (responding to a recent article in the Huffington Post) is that many doctors may not want to publicise it for more cynical reasons such as a fear of malpractice suits.

    Money is certainly a player in this issue, as the abortion industry is an industry, let us not forget that.

    www.abortionbreastcancer.com/news/140811.pdf

  • Here’s another link, this time from a doctor with a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology and Microbiology.

    gerardnadal.com/2014/08/12/the-abortion-breast-cancer-link-when-orthodoxy-trumps-science-and-reason-2/

  • I am astounded that if someone dares to challenge the “holy grail” of abortion rights (in the best interests of women’s health), they are labelled a “religious nutter”!
    It only makes me wonder what their agenda and personal history involves when abortion rights mean more to them than women!

  • If there is no guilt attached to abortion, and it is just a normal medical procedure, then surely one would be grateful to hear that this could be a risk in developing breast cancer.

Leave a Reply