The risk of a woman dying of breast cancer is twice as great as the risk of her dying in a traffic accident.  If she has an abortion, her risk of dying of breast cancer increases 30% to 2.55 times that of dying in a traffic accident.   If she routinely wears a seatbelt, she reduces that risk of dying in a traffic accident, which increases her likelihod of dying from cancer if she has an abortion to 2.7 times the risk of dying in a traffic accident.  Wearing a seatbelt reduces her probability of dying in a traffic accident by 0.00001582, but having an abortion increases her probability of dying of breast cancer by 0.00018635, which means that the increase in her probability of death from an abortion is 12 times greater than the amount by which wearing a seatbelt reduces her probability of death.

For a woman who has an abortion to put on a seatbelt is about like using a sock to stop bleeding from the carotid artery, or putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound.

horizontal rule

Why the Silence About Abortion and Breast Cancer
Source:   Chicago Tribune; May 21, 2001
by Dennis Byrne

[Pro-Life Infonet Note:  Dennis Byrne is a Chicago-area writer and public
affairs consultant.]

How long will this nation sit by as a powerful, well-funded industry
continues to expose women to the No. 1 preventable risk of breast cancer?

How long will the industry's political flunkies, who receive millions in
campaign funds from this special interest, be allowed to turn a blind eye
to a danger that kills thousands of women every year?

How long will a biased media keep silent in the face of a hazard that
directly imperils more than 1 million women a year?

No, I'm not talking about the chemical industry, daily poisoning the
environment with its toxins. Nor the producers of fatty food or alcohol,
also factors suspected of increasing breast cancer.

The industry I'm talking about is the abortion business--consisting of
abortion "providers," their clinics, ideological supporters, grant-giving
foundations and the rest of the political power structure that refuses to
even admit that a scientific debate, let along scientific evidence, exists
about the dangers of induced abortions. They--despite their claims of
superior benevolence and compassion--are threatening thousands of women's
lives with an unspeakably painful disease.

Yet in the month of May, a time of renewal, promise, new life and marches
throughout the country against breast cancer, millions of women are being
deceived about this risk, or denied the knowledge of important studies.

Twenty-seven out of 34 independent studies conducted throughout the world
(including 13 out of 14 conducted in the United States) have linked
abortion and breast cancer. Seventeen of these studies show a
statistically significant relationship. Five show more than a two-fold
elevation of risk. In turn, the abortion industry says all those studies
are trumped by one study, whose methodology, critics say, is seriously

The biological hypothesis is that during pregnancy, a woman's breasts
begin developing a hormone that causes cells--both normal and
pre-cancerous--to multiply dramatically. If the pregnancy is carried to
term, those undifferentiated cells are shaped into milk ducts and a
naturally occurring process shuts off the rapid cell multiplication. An
induced abortion leaves a women with more undifferentiated cells, and so,
more cancer-vulnerable cells.

When I first wrote about this issue in 1997, the scorn and name-calling
flowed in. Anti-choice fanatic. Ignorant bozo. Misogynist. Since then,
much has happened. The United Kingdom's Royal College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists became the first medical organization to warn its abortion
practitioners that the abortion-breast cancer link "could not be
disregarded." It said that the methodology of the principal ABC
(abortion-breast cancer) researcher, Joel Brind, was sound.

John Kindley, an attorney, warned in a 1999 Wisconsin Law Review article
that physicians who do not inform their patients of the ABC link expose
themselves to medical malpractice suits. He concluded that about 1 out of
100 women who have had an induced abortion die from breast cancer
attributable to the abortion.

The American Cancer Society Web page lists induced abortions (along with
pesticides, chemical exposures, weight gain and other factors) among
elements that may be related to breast cancer, and that the relationship
is being studied.

Earlier, Dr. Janet Darling and colleagues at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer
Research Center, in a study commissioned by the National Cancer Institute,
found that "among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of
breast cancer in those who had . . . an induced abortion was 50 percent
higher than among other women." The risk of breast cancer for women under
18 or over 29 who had induced abortions was more than twofold. Women who
abort and have a family history of breast cancer increase their risk 80
percent.  The increased risk of women under 18 with that family history
was incalculably high.

Being pro-choice didn't shield Darling from the usual attacks. She fought
back. "If politics gets involved in science," she then told the Los
Angeles Daily News, "it will really hold back the progress that we make. I
have three sisters with breast cancer, and I resent people messing with
the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or
pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between breast
cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is
accurate. It's not a matter of believing, it's a matter of what is."

Yet the Web site of the Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization, sponsor
of many marches, fails to mention even the possibility of the ABC
connection in its list of risk factors. Not even under its list of fuzzy,
not "clear-cut" factors. Not even the existence of a scientific debate
over induced abortion is worth a mention.

As if women had no right to know.

Roe v. Wade:  28 Years of Life Denied

horizontal rule


I believe that the majority of people in the world would not support abortion on demand. Especially if they knew that the one million plus 'legal' abortions that have taken place each year in this nation for 28 years, have resulted in close to 40 million deaths of innocents. Many of which were the misnamed 'Partial birth abortions' (these are fully developed babies, whom the 'mother' (sic) decided to murder at the last minute) But not only have innocents been murdered but the women, and girls, have made themselves much more likely to develop breast cancer not to mention suicides, et. al. If you wish to join the Choose_Life egroup -

David Lewellyn

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 16:32:30 -0600 From: Karen Malec   Subject: "Abortion/Breast Cancer Link Can't Be Denied"

COALITION ON ABORTION/BREAST CANCER P.O. Box 152 Palos Heights, IL 60463 Toll Free 1-877-803-0102 Local Calls 1-630-226-9336 An International Women's Organization

November 18, 2001

Dear Friends:

The following letter to the editor from our coalition appeared in the Arlington Heights, Illinois based DAILY HERALD on Sunday, November 18, 2001. The letter discusses our group's concerns that the anti-breast cancer organization, Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, provides funding to Planned Parenthood, our nation's largest abortion provider and a peddler of contraceptives/abortifacients.

Please be sure to share this letter with individuals on your e-mail list. Without a grassroots effort to help spread the word, women will not learn about the abortion-breast cancer link.

Our work is only made possible with your continued financial assistance. Please remember to give a sacrificial donation to the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer when making your end of year contributions to charities. We have applied for our 501 (c) 3 tax status with the IRS. Donations can be mailed to the coalition at P.O. Box 152, Palos Heights, IL 60463.

Sincerely, Karen Malec President

"Abortion/breast cancer link can't be denied"

This is in response to an Oct. 9 letter by Emele J. Peters, "Link between abortion, breast cancer unproven."

Last month was Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Tens of thousands of people participated in the Race for the Cure sponsored by the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation.

Our women's group is troubled this foundation doesn't recognize 44 years of research and 28 studies linking abortion with breast cancer. All are listed on our Web site,

The foundation's use of recall bias theory to dismiss the research is inexcusable. Recall bias says that patients are more likely to honestly report their past abortions than healthy women (or that, unbelievably, patients make up abortions they've never had). The problem is that although a number of teams of scientists have tested for it, no one ever found plausible evidence of it. A Swedish team which tested for it found itself in the position of having to explain why seven patients said they'd had abortions that computerized records said they'd never had. Faced with having to argue that the women either lied or over-reported their abortions, this team withdrew its ridiculous claim of having found evidence of recall bias.

Although the foundation identifies postponement of a first-term pregnancy and childlessness as risk factors, it provides funding for breast cancer screening to Planned Parenthood, an abortion provider and a distributor of contraceptives. This is akin to an anti-cancer organization providing funds to a tobacco company to screen for lung cancer.

Scientists from the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute of Health warned in 1986 that "induced abortion before first-term pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer." A medical book published in 1998 and the 1988 Henderson lecture identify abortion as a risk factor. Scientists have long known, but are reluctant to say to the public, "Abortion causes breast cancer." It's time to put women's lives ahead of greed and ideology so that women who've had abortions can take steps to reduce their risks and seek early detection of the disease.

Karen Malec, president

Forwarded by: November 21, 2001 David Lewellyn Member Brain & Spinal Cord Network