Abortion study results blamed on 'ideology', Critic says no connection found because none wanted

A new study that purports to show no link between abortion and breast cancer should not be taken seriously because of procedural shortcomings, according to a critic who says the results simply were what researchers wanted to find. The study, "Induced and Spontaneous Abortion and Incidence of Breast Cancer Among Young Women," by Karin Michels of Harvard Medical School and others, was published in the Archives of Internal Medicine. It found negligible connections between abortion and breast cancer. However, Karen Malec, of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, said breast cancer, like lung cancer, isn't something that develops overnight. "If you smoke cigarettes, are you going to develop lung cancer tomorrow?" she asked WND, "Or six months from now? "It's going to take years to develop lung cancer after being exposed to carcinogens. That's the problem here. We're finding that this is more and more of a problem with these studies that deny an abortion breast cancer link.

Malec said there are at least five studies that they have made this mistake. She has posted online an analysis of the new study. The study looked two years into a woman's past in asking her abortion history, but Malec said that's simply insufficient time for the problems to develop. "This is a concern, that there's a lack of follow-up, and sufficient follow-up time," she told WND. As WND has reported , many such studies have been debunked for a lack of scientific integrity. Dr. Joel Brind's results were published several years ago in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Brind, Ph.D. and president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, had updated a similar analysis he completed in 1996. In his essay, Brind addressed 10 separate studies conducted between 1996 and 2005 – studies used by those who deny a link between induced abortion and cancer – pointing out problems with the each study's methodology. He asserts those problems skew the results toward the denial of a causal connection between abortion and breast cancer, also known as the ABC link, making them thoroughly unreliable.

He said because American woman have a 1-in-8 chance of developing breast cancer during their lifetimes, any increase can mean thousands more women will suffer. He said right now the abortion link is triggering up to 8,000 additional cases of breast cancer per year, but by the year 2020 that could be as high as 50,000 annual cases. The basic biology underlying the ABC link boils down to the fact that breast cancer is linked to reproductive hormones, particularly estrogen. At conception, a woman's estrogen levels increase hundreds of times above normal – 2,000 percent by the end of the first trimester. That hormone surge leads to the growth of "undifferentiated" cells in the breast as the body prepares to produce milk for the coming baby.

Undifferentiated cells are vulnerable to the effects of carcinogens, which can give rise to cancerous tumors later in life. In the final weeks of a full-term pregnancy, those cells are "terminally differentiated" through a still largely unknown process and are ready to produce milk. Differentiated cells are not as vulnerable to carcinogens. However, should a pregnancy be terminated prior to cell differentiation, the woman is left with abnormally high numbers of undifferentiated cells, therefore increasing her risk of developing breast cancer. Malec's organization was set up in 1999 by a group including cancer survivors as well as women who have had abortions "because of our deep concern that women haven't been informed about strong biological evidence and epidemiological research published since 1957 which provide overwhelming support for a cause and effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer," the organization's posting said.

"More than two dozen peer-reviewed studies conducted in different parts of the world report increased risk. Most of these studies were conducted by scientists describing themselves as abortion supporters." However, "gatekeepers" in organized medicine have continued to maintain the appearance of an absence of links, said Malec, including an earlier study, done in Denmark, that also lacked follow-up but has been used to try to convince women of the "safety of abortion." She also noted several of the key leaders of the National Cancer Institute, which helped fund the new study, have editorialized against studies confirming the link. Further, she wondered, if all those studies of a decade ago "proved" there was no link, why would the National Cancer Institute all these years later still be spending millions of dollars on such studies.

"Clearly, its scientists must either suspect a link or know that it exists," she said. The "personal ideology" or "their own involvement in performing or referring patients for abortions," have come between many researchers and the evidence that there is a link, according to the Coalition. "Regardless of personal ideology, physicians who fail to inform their abortion-bound patients of the breast cancer risk, violate their legal duty to obtain informed consent and expose themselves to the risk of medical malpractice lawsuits," the Coalition said. "Recent prospective studies, widely touted as refuting the abortion-breast cancer link, are found to embody many serious methodologic flaws sufficient to invalidate their findings," Brind concluded.

According to a statement given under oath by Dr. Angela Lanfranchi in a California lawsuit, doctors who documented the medical histories of their patients with breast cancer "found as I did that … cases of breast cancer in young women are associated with an abortion history." The Coalition has documented two factors that increase a woman's risk for breast cancer. The first has been confirmed since the 17th century, that having children reduces a woman's lifetime breast cancer risk, a point on which the National Cancer Institute agrees. The second factor, which is at the heart of the present debate, is that women with estrogen overexposure are at a higher risk. "There is staggering evidence of an independent link between abortion and breast cancer. What this means is that a woman who has an abortion is left with more cancer-vulnerable cells than she had before she ever became pregnant," the Coalition said.

"Biological evidence and more than two dozen studies worldwide support a cause and effect relationship. Fifteen studies were conducted on American woman, and 13 of them reported risk elevations. Seven found a more than a twofold elevation in risk," the Coalition said. Women who don't have children, or have abortions, are exposed to higher levels of estradiol, a form of estrogen, during their lives. And estrogen is a secondary carcinogen, promoting the growth of normal and abnormal tissues. "In fact, estrogen replacement therapy, which is generally the same chemical form as the estrogen naturally produced by a woman's ovaries, was included on our nation's list of known carcinogens in 2001," the group said. So what do studies mean, such as the new one that concludes, 'Neither induced nor spontaneous abortion was associated with the incidence of breast cancer."

"This is the same study design and the same population base that gave us the wrong answer about hormone replacement therapy," said Malec, "and they're giving us the wrong answer about abortion too." The hormone replacement therapy study was left unfinished because it was beginning to documented not only an increased risk of breast cancer but also increased risks of stroke and heart attack, Malec said. The new study also featured the contributions from Fei Xue, Graham A. Colditz and Walter C. Willett. Their work said induced abortion has been "inconsistently associated with breast cancer risk." But it also included among its foundational work statistics from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, named for a past president of Planned Parenthood, the largest member of the abortion industry in the U.S. "Even the NCI agrees that increased childbearing, starting at an early age, protects women from breast cancer," said Malec. "Legislators have a moral obligation to require abortion providers to inform expectant mothers that if they have an abortion, their breast cancer risk will be higher than it would be if they have a baby. That's settled science."

"did the 2 of you read the article posted? The study looked at a WHOLE TWO YEARS into a woman’s past in asking her abortion history."

That is a valid problem with the study, two years seems much too short, so short in fact, I'm trying to find the actual study to see if that is an accurate description.

"Then note why female breast cancer rates are rising while male breast cancer rates are not?"

Less then 1% of breast cancer appear in males, and always have so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.

I KNOW about this because of 2 sister in laws. They struggle every day to keep their sanity for their ignorance in their youth. They have both begged for the forgiveness of God, but can't accept His free gift unconditionally. They hang on to it while they attempt to raise the children they have now. The guilt is overwhelming. One has a handicapped child and is convinced that happened because she aborted her first child.

They have had multiple marriages, drug and alcohol problems and are on antidepressants.

If a woman tells you she is "proud" or not ashamed of her abortion, she is either non human, or a liar.

BTW, Both are under 55 and both have had uterine cancer. Of course, we know there is no link. Some studies have told us so.

Thank you. That one was worthy of a bookmark.

How about the aggressiveness of the tumor?
In 1991 H. Olsson studied the aggressiveness of, and the propensity to metastasize of diagnosed breast cancer. His study showed, if she had aborted her first pregnancy and later developed breast cancer, that her cancer was more aggressive and more quickly lethal than cancers among women who had carried their first pregnancy to term.
A marker gene associated with breast cancer, 1NT2, was shown to be eighteen times higher than the normal rate among those who had aborted. H. Olsson et al., Cancer 67:128590.

That's the type of answer I was looking for: 1NT2 marker eighteen times greater than normal in post-abortive women - presumably regardless of disease status.

That is sad and I hope they gain some peace from God. I have a friend who is in her 40’s who had two abortions when she was in her 20’s. She loves children but was unable to conceive after marrying in her 30’s. She too is very regretful about her abortions and I know it has caused problems for her. She also wonders if her apparent sterility is linked to it.

I don’t pretend to know the answer but would guess 9 months of discomfort before giving a child up for adoption would be easier than a lifetime of regret (or possibly other issues).

I don’t know that we will ever see a true accounting for abortion which is ironic since we are bombarded with comprehensive studies everyday.

Exactly. The guy who promotes all this (Brind) is a Biology professor at a third rate business college that doesn’t even offer an undergraduate degree in business. It’s utter nonsense, that’s been de-bunked by every serious group of researchers who’ve looked at it, including at Baylor University (you know, that left-wing, secular, abortion-loving university in Texas, that obviously wouldn’t want to find a connection).

This abortion-causes-breast cancer scam comes from the same branch of “science” as Algore’s take on global warming.

the rise of the number of abortions is on a par with the rise in breast cancer. I find that very interesting.

Except that the rate of breast has recently PLUMMETED, in the wake of the research that scared huge numbers of women away from hormone replacement therapy.

About 25 years ago I figured out that whoever funds the research project will get the result they want. Just look at the myriad studies about hormone replacement and breast cancer. Don’t worry though. If some new project scares you, wait 6 months and a new research project will come out with the exact opposite of what the current study said.

A bit off the topic of the thread, but...

They have both begged for the forgiveness of God, but can't accept His free gift unconditionally. They hang on to it while they attempt to raise the children they have now. The guilt is overwhelming.

What exactly was the point of the crucifiction?

They realize that, but it’s hard for them to forgive themselves. When you place your sin at the foot of the cross, sometimes you are tempted to pick them back up for self pity. Especially the one with the CP child( he’s now about 19) She is reminded every day she killed a healthy child and has to feed him through a tube and hold him while he has seizures about 30 times a day. It’s VERY tough.

You are correct! That is another factor I wish they would investigate more.

And even further .. how many of these women who have taken those hormone replacement drugs have also had an abortion ..??

Just because somebody does something doesn't mean somebody else accepts the results.

The ladies in question are Christian. The guilt of having had an abortion can be so overwhelming that it is possible to forget what God gave up his son for, what Christ gave up his life for. I probably wouldn't have directed the comment to an atheist. It was meant as a gentle reminder to some fellow Christians, both of whom are suffering with their guilt, that forgiveness is part of our faith.

Induced and Spontaneous Abortion and Incidence of Breast Cancer Among Young Women

"Methods We examined the association between induced and spontaneous abortion and the incidence of breast cancer in a prospective cohort of young women, the Nurses' Health Study II. The study included 105 716 women 29 to 46 years old at the start of follow-up in 1993. Information on induced or spontaneous abortions was collected in 1993 and updated biennially. During 973 437 person-years of follow-up between 1993 and 2003, 1458 newly diagnosed cases of invasive breast cancer were ascertained. "

They analyzed a whole ten years!

CORAM, MT. SINAI, PORT JEFFERSON STATION (CMP) FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION (PDF link to study of breast cancer on Long Island, NY)

BREAST CANCER RISK FACTORS with references starts on page 25.
“The importance of reproductive factors in affecting breast cancer risk has been known for a long time. Women who have never given birth (or had a full-term pregnancy) are at a higher risk for breast cancer compared to women who have carried a pregnancy to term.”(Page 26) NY State Dept. of Health

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.