For Breast Cancer Awareness Month,
Spread Awareness of the Abortion Breast Cancer Link

In 1996, Dr. Joel Brind along with colleagues at Penn State Medical College published a meta-analysis of peer-reviewed literature on the connection between induced abortion and subsequent breast cancer. Based on 23 studies, it found a 30 percent higher rate of breast cancer for women with abortion histories. Six years later, in February 2003, the National Cancer Institute officially declared the abortion breast cancer link nonexistent. Clear-thinking people know risk factors are complex and that study results are subject to interpretation, but which is it? Some say the abortion-breast cancer link is real; some say it’s not. Who should we believe? Hold that thought.

When Canadian journalist Punam Kumar Gill first heard about risks associated with abortion, she thought it was all pro-life propaganda. But when she heard that some 40-50 million women worldwide have abortions every year, even as a lifelong pro-choice feminist she thought the sheer numbers called for a closer look into the matter. What if there really were critical health risks following abortion? And what were women being told before consenting to one? Shouldn’t the risks at least be discussed rather than dismissed as anti-abortion strategy?

A Quest for Truth

As a just-the-facts-please kind of journalist, Gill set out to find out the truth for the sake of women’s health. First, she talked to doctors. Dr. David Grimes, an Ob-Gyn and abortionist seemed perturbed at the question: “There are no long-term consequences from abortion, either reproductive or otherwise,” he said rather tersely. “And that includes psychological effects as well.” It’s “an old dog that they keep on flogging,” he continued. There’s a small group of people who hold that view, and their common theme is “religiosity.”

She also consulted Dr. Brind, who emphasized the research findings. Yes, I’m pro-life, he said, but the politics of abortion shouldn’t come into play on this. What should matter is that women have accurate information with which to make an informed choice. That made sense to Gill, as that was what she was after as well.

Next, she visited breast cancer surgeon Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, who, like Brind, has been criticized for going against the medical establishment on this. Lanfranchi started collecting complete reproductive histories on her patients after seeing mention of the link in a textbook, and it’s not about politics for her either: “This is about having fewer patients in my office that are thirty years old with breast cancer,” she said bluntly. She mentioned two patients with “very aggressive breast cancers.” One had had seven pregnancies and five abortions. The other had had five pregnancies and three abortions. “They both died very quickly,” she said.

The Mystery Deepens

Dr. Grimes had emphasized that his opinion was the same as that of all the medical organizations, so Gill looked there next. She contacted the American Cancer Society, the Canadian Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the World Health Organization (WHO), the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) and its counterparts in the UK and Canada, RCOG and SOGC. But no one would give her an interview. Not. A. Single. One. The case was closed, they all said, and each referred her to their respective websites.

Now things were starting to feel suspicious. If the jury was in, then why wouldn’t any of them stand behind their position and speak to her?

She kept digging. It turned out, all of their websites referred to an NCI conference that had taken place in 2003. It was then 2016. Had there been no subsequent research into this matter in thirteen years? She travelled to the National Cancer Institute, hoping to persuade someone to talk to her, but upon arrival she was swiftly escorted off the grounds. Things were now approaching scandalous, but she was not one to go away quietly.

She returned to Dr. Brind. As a longtime participant in this debate, he knew some history that wasn’t on the NCI website. At one time, he said, the NCI position accurately reflected the equivocal nature of the debate. Some studies showed a link; some didn’t, and the NCI forthrightly informed the public about the discrepancies and ongoing investigations. That changed in 2001 after Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach came on as NCI director. Soon after his arrival, Brind explained, a letter had arrived on his desk for him to sign. The letter had been signed by twenty-eight congressmembers, and it requested that the NCI website be updated to say that there was no link between abortion and breast cancer, as this was what the congressmembers understood to be accurate scientifically.

Just pause a moment, and let that sink in. If what Dr. Brind said is true, then we have a situation in America where congressmembers requested that a particular medical opinion be issued as the official, government-endorsed position on a risk factor for a terminal disease. And the head of the medical organization complied with the request.

Much could be said about this, but at the very least, those who want more government involvement in health care might want to reconsider their faith in government.

And the Mystery Remains

Back to 2016: Gill was on a mission, now. She found a recording of the 2003 conference and went through it frame by frame. Several things were odd about it. Here are just three: First, in his introduction, Dr. von Eschenbach told attendees that the abortion- breast cancer question was not the topic or purpose of the conference, but it was the reason they were there. Second, in spite of the assertion that some one hundred experts had been cited as declaring the case closed, only a small handful of them were scientists who had actually done research directly related to the subject. Third, only one of them presented–Dr. Leslie Bernstein, Ph.D., a professor of preventive medicine at the University of Southern California. She was given twenty minutes, and she said the data showed no connection.

So that was it. Before February 2003, the data was inconclusive. After February 2003, the matter was settled. There were contradictory findings… until there were not. Make of it what you will, and choose for yourself who you’re going to believe. Gill documented all of this and more in her excellent 2016 film Hush: Start a Healthy Conversation, which she characterizes as pro-information and pro-women’s health.

And the Beat Goes On

Dr. Brind recently reported on meta-analyses from China (2013) and South Asia (2018), that found heightened post-abortion breast cancer rates ranging from 44 percent to 151 percent. Meanwhile, Western public health organizations–the NCI, the American Cancer Society, ACOG, RCOG, the Canadian Cancer Society, WHO, and Susan G. Komen (that one is especially perverse, given that it’s specifically about breast cancer)–continue to maintain, based on 2003 “information,” that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. Well, and Planned Parenthood, of course, that bastion of medical ethics and women’s health.

For the rest of us though, October has been designated as “Breast Cancer Awareness” month. What better time than now to become informed, promote women’s health, and engage in a healthier conversation? Check out the excellent work of Ms. Gill for yourself, and spread some awareness of the mystery of the abortion-breast cancer link.

A Night With Rev. Franklin Graham!
At this year’s annual IFI banquet, our keynote speaker will be none other than Rev. Franklin Graham, President & CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Christian evangelist & missionary. This year’s event will be at the Tinley Park Convention Center on Nov. 1st. You don’t want to miss this special evening!

Learn more HERE.

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer applauds the breast cancer group, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, for discontinuing its grants to Planned Parenthood (PP) while the abortion provider is under investigation by Congress.  Komen said it will not resume payment of the grants unless PP is exonerated. Komen attributed its decision to a new policy that prohibits grants from going to organizations under investigation by governmental authorities.

“Our group will remain as Komen’s critic as long as it continues to work against its own mission to eradicate breast cancer. Komen’s decision is a step in the right direction to protect women’s lives. However, I will not donate to Komen while it is still cooperating in the cover-up of the abortion-breast cancer link and downplaying the risk of using oral contraceptives (OCs).” asserted Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer.

“PP is a primary cause of the breast cancer epidemic. It sells cancer-causing abortions and oral contraceptives (OCs), also called “the birth control pill.”  Medical texts reveal that increased childbearing, especially starting early before age 24, substantially reduces lifetime breast cancer risk. Abortion not only deprives women of this protection, but 52 of 68 epidemiological studies show it raises breast cancer risk.[1] The World Health Organization lists OCs containing estrogen and progesterone on its list of Group 1 carcinogens – the highest level as a cancer-causing agent. [2]   OCs are associated with the deadly triple-negative breast cancer. [3,4]   Komen and the Institute of Medicine had an opportunity to reduce the incidence of breast cancer with its December 2011 study, “Breast Cancer and the Environment,” but they chose not to review reproductive risk factors and include avoidance of abortion and OCs among the ways to prevent the disease. We sincerely hope Komen will develop the political courage needed to fulfill its mission.

“PP has done substantial harm to women’s health. Additionally, PP does not do mammograms, although PP president Cecile Richards had led the public to believe otherwise.

“The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer was the first to expose the Komen-PP relationship to the world in 2003. We thank our supporters for doing such a marvelous job by contacting Komen and stating their objections to this irregular relationship, and we remind them their work is not yet done. Contact Komen at ww5.komen.org/Contact.aspx. Politely thank Komen’s representatives for temporarily halting its gifts to Planned Parenthood. Ask them to permanently halt their grants to PP and tell the full truth about the breast cancer risks associated with induced abortion and oral contraceptives.”

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women’s organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.

References:

1. See the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute’s website for a complete list of all epidemiological studies and the odds ratios reported for each at: http://bcpinstitute.org/epidemiology_studies_bcpi.htm

2. Cogliano V, Grosse Y, Baan R, Secretan B, El Ghissassi F. Carcinogenicity of combined oestrogen-progestagen contraceptives and menopausal treatment. Lancet Oncology 2005;6:552-553.

3. 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

4. Ma H, Wang Y, Sullivan-Halley J, Weiss, L, Marchbanks, PA, et al. Use of four biomarkers to evaluate the risk of breast cancer subtypes in the Women’s Contraceptive and Reproductive Experiences Study. Cancer Research 2010;70(2):575-587.

In my previous column, I revealed that the son of the founder of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation is in a joint business venture with Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest (“PPGNW”).

Located in Washington state, PPGNW holds a 12.5 percent share of the Metro Centre mall in Peoria, IL, where Nancy Goodman Brinker’s son Eric Brinker maintains “controlling interest,” according to an e-mail he sent me.

Eric is also a Komen board member.

This only matters because Komen refuses to acknowledge the link between abortion and breast cancer while it insists on bestowing grants to affiliates of the United States’ largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.

That Eric Brinker is in business with one of those affiliates thickens the plot.

Brinker wrote me that only “20 of Komen’s 122 U.S. affiliates fund breast health services through local Planned Parenthood clinics.”

Coincidentally, two of those 20, Komen Puget Sound and Komen Boise, fund Brinker’s business partner, PPGNW.

Komen has gone to quite a bit of trouble to protect what it claims is an infinitesimal relationship with Planned Parenthood.

Stating Planned Parenthood receives “less than 1 percent” of its donations, Komen now has a webpage, message points and a dispensation letter from a Catholic named Norman dedicated to sanctioning their relationship.

Why? If there were even the remotest chance abortion causes breast cancer, which several worldwide studies conducted over the course of many decades confirm, wouldn’t a responsible breast-cancer foundation back away from any risk of facilitating it?

Eric wrote in his e-mail to me, in bold, “There is no conclusive link between abortion and breast cancer.” “Conclusive,” interesting. Was Eric subtly acknowledging there is an inconclusive link?

Eric also wrote that Komen only funds Planned Parenthood “in areas where Planned Parenthood clinics are the only venue for women to receive breast screenings.” He and other Komen officials I spoke with stressed these are in underprivileged areas.

That this may be true is only because Planned Parenthood locates clinics in poor and minority areas specifically to control their populations through contraception and abortion. Komen merely corroborates this fact.

But that is no excuse to partner with Planned Parenthood. Early detection of breast cancer through screening should not be the goal. Prevention should be the goal.

All five PPGNW Planned Parenthoods involved with Komen either commit or refer for abortions. All dispense birth-control pills and emergency contraceptives.

Which leads to another point. Komen states on its website:

A large analysis that combined the results of many studies found that while women were taking birth-control pills (and shortly thereafter), they had a 10 to 30 percent higher risk of breast cancer than women who had never used birth-control pills.

As for the emergency contraceptive pill, which contains 10-15 times the amount of artificial hormones as a single birth-control pill, its labeling states it is contraindicated if one has a current or past history of breast cancer.

In fact, it appears hormonal contraceptives are more seriously implicated in breast cancer than previously known.

In 2009 a study published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention showed that the risk for women under 40 of contracting a newly identified and virulent form of the disease called triple-negative breast cancer rose by 320 percent if using hormonal contraceptives for a year or more.

That same study, co-authored in part by two of the very National Cancer Institute researchers who in 2003 denied a link between abortion and breast cancer, also acknowledged a 40 percent increased risk of contracting breast cancer under the age of 40 if a woman had had an abortion.

So there are several reasons for Komen to part company with Planned Parenthood.

A final point. Tragically, Susan Goodman Komen was only 33 years old when contracting breast cancer, and she died three years later. Her sister Nancy contracted breast cancer at age 39. She is now a 25-year survivor.

Both were under 40.

Would recognition that one’s reproductive history may be implicated in breast cancer be too hard to handle within the upper echelon of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation?

Would it make the disease less noble?