Home | Contact Us | Newsletters

On the 29th January this year, our research officer, Gabrielle Whiting, wrote to Prof. Ian Olver, Member of the Advisory Council, Cancer Australia and Chief Executive Officer, Cancer Council Australia, and to David Hill, Director, Cancer Council Victoria, drawing their attention to the three new studies published in 2009 which showed an increased risk of breast cancer caused by induced abortion and asked why they were not informing women. We have referred to these studies in previous issues of our Newsletter, but for the convenience of our readers, they are listed again below:
* 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.
* Xing P, Li J, Jin F. A case-control study of reproductive factors associated with subtypes of breast cancer in Northeast China. Humana Press, e-publication online September 2009.
* 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.

As Gabrielle had received no reply from any of the Cancer organisations for over 4 months, despite a further letter asking for a response, we asked Peter Kavanagh, DLP, Member of the Legislative Council for Western Victoria, to raise the matter in the Victorian Parliament. Cancer Australia is funded by the federal government, and both Cancer Council Victoria and Cancer Council Australia make frequent appeals for donations from the public. Members of the public are therefore entitled to receive a reply to scientific queries within a reasonable time.

Peter Kavanagh did raise the matter in Parliament on 9th June, and below is his media release: “Warn Women of Possible Abortion – Breast Cancer Link” - DLP
Last night in Parliament, Peter Kavanagh, DLP (Democratic Labor Party) Member for Western Victoria, urged the Government to study scientific evidence of a possible abortion-breast cancer link and to warn women of the risk if it is found to be justified by scientific studies.

The text of Mr Kavanagh’s speech to Parliament taken from Hansard follows: Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- “My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Health and relates to the apparent link between abortion and breast cancer. During the abortion debate in this Parliament in late 2008 I went into considerable detail, listing some of the scientific evidence which demonstrates that having an abortion increases a woman's risk of developing breast cancer. Even more recent
scientific studies released in 2009 confirm such a link. “Concerned Victorians who have some expertise in these matters have reported to me that they have approached various health organisations and health leaders in Victoria to alert them to the latest research, but they have not received any acknowledgement or any other kind of response.

“The submitted research includes the following: Ozmen V. and others 'Breast cancer risk factors in Turkish women' in the World Journal of Surgical Oncology, 2009; 7:37; Xing P. and others in 'A case-control study of reproductive factors associated with subtypes of breast cancer in Northeast China' in Medical Oncology, e-publication online, September 2009;
Dolle J. and others 'Risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years' in Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009: 18(4), pages 1157-1166.
“Apparently these important warnings are being ignored by the health authorities to which they are being reported. It seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that ideological commitment to unrestricted abortion may be preventing a proper assessment of the health risks of abortion. “The action I seek from the Minister is that he seek an objective review of the evidence of a relationship between abortions and breast cancer risk, and if such a link is shown to exist, to issue medical warnings along these lines, even if this has the effect of reducing the number of abortions.

“For further information or comment, please call Peter Kavanagh on 0408 224 774.” We are grateful to Peter Kavanagh for the adjournment matter, which has been reported around the world. Perhaps coincidentally, a couple of days later, Gabrielle received a reply from Paul Grogan, Director Advocacy, Cancer Council Australia, offering the same old excuses for why CCA does not warn women of their increased risk of breast cancer caused by abortion.
* He cites a meta-analysis published in Lancet in 2004 which found no link. Professor Joel Brind, Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, has examined this analysis and found it deeply flawed because the authors were very selective in which studies they included. But in any case, how could a meta-analysis of 2004 refute three new studies in 2009?
* Secondly, Grogan cites the hoary old theory of "response bias" to explain studies which do show a link between abortion and breast cancer. This theory claims that women with breast cancer tell the truth about their abortions while healthy women lie. This is not only insulting to healthy women, but there is no proof of such a bias. Since the correspondence with the Cancer Councils, yet another study has emerged, this time from Sri Lanka, indicating that women who have abortions triple their risk of breast cancer, and that breastfeeding for several months reduces the risk.

This study focused on analyzing the association between the duration of breastfeeding and the risk of breast cancer. But the researchers also reported other “significant” risk factors for breast cancer, such as passive smoking and being post-menopausal. The highest of the reported risk factors was abortion. The study, entitled "Prolonged breastfeeding reduces risk of breast cancer in Sri Lankan women: A case-control study," was led by Malintha De Silva and colleagues from the University of Colombo.

The researchers found that among women who breastfed for between 12-23 months there was a 66.3% risk reduction in comparison to those who had never breastfed and those who breastfed for between 0 and 11 months. The risk reduction climbed to 87.4% for those who breastfed for 24-35 months and 94% among women who breastfed for 36-47 months.

Joel Brind cautioned that the researchers do not clearly indicate whether they are referring specifically to induced abortions, as opposed to spontaneous abortions (miscarriage). Requests for clarification have not yet been answered. However, in the study the researchers compare their findings with other studies that focused on induced abortions, seeming to suggest that induced abortion was their focus.

Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, said that the study shows that "women who abort forfeit the protective effect of breastfeeding.”
“The loss of that protective effect is incurred in addition to the effect of abortion leaving the breasts with more places for cancers to start.” Karen Malec said that given the lack of routine mammograms in Sri Lanka, “health professionals must focus on disease prevention,” which would involve publicizing the link between abortion and breast cancer. “It is criminal that the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) has covered up this risk for over a half century. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the NCI to keep its fingers and toes in the dike, in large part because many researchers in other parts of the world do not depend on the
NCI for grants."

Commenting on the Sri Lankan study, the fourth epidemiological study in the last 14 months to report an abortion-breast cancer link, Professor Jack Scarisbrick, chairman of Life, a pregnancy counselling charity in the UK said: "This is devastating new evidence of the abortion-breast cancer link." “We have encountered from the pro-abortion lobby manipulation of the evidence on a truly disgraceful scale. This study is further evidence that has been gathering from all around the world that abortion is a major risk factor for breast cancer. When will the (medical) establishment face up to this fact and pull its head out of the sand? It is betraying women by failing to warn that what they are doing to their bodies – the quick fix of abortion – can do grave harm."

There has been an approximately 40% increase in the incidence of breast cancer since abortion was de facto legalised in Australia in the early 70s. We will keep our readers informed if and when Gabrielle gets a reply from the Cancer organisations, or when Peter Kavanagh gets a reply from the Victorian Minister for Health.

Abortion and Premature Birth
Patrick Craine of LifeSiteNews.com reports that a new study from McGill University, Montreal has found a strong link between a past abortion and premature delivery in subsequent pregnancies.

Dr. Ghislain Hardy, a third year resident in obstetrics and gynecology at McGill, and his team did a chart review of 17,916 women who delivered at Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill’s teaching hospital. Of their sample, 13% had obtained one abortion and 5% had procured two or more. Dr. Hardy’s team found that women with one past abortion were 45% more likely to give birth before 32 weeks, 71% more likely to do so at less than 28 weeks, and more than 50% more likely at less than 26 weeks. They noted that the link was even greater where the woman had more than one abortion. He presented the paper, entitled “Early Preterm Birth and Adverse Perinatal Outcomes in Women With a History of Induced Abortions,” at the 58th Annual Clinical Meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, held from May 15-19, 2010. “Preterm birth is a major concern in our health-care system today. It is the most important cause of neonatal morbidity,” Dr. Hardy explained in his presentation, according to the Canadian Health Network. “A study of the issue is important, because “an association between therapeutic abortion and prematurity has resurfaced in recent years.”

The link between abortion and subsequent premature delivery has been confirmed by a growing body of independent studies on the issue. Most significantly, in February 2009 a German team who evaluated over two million pregnancies between 1995 and 2000, found that the risk of very premature birth is increased by 30% after one abortion, and by 90% after more than one. Dr. Hardy explained that abortion could lead to greater cervical sensitivity that might result in a greater proclivity towards premature delivery. “Our study showed a significant increase in the risk of preterm delivery in the women with a history of previous induced abortion,” he said. “The association becomes stronger with decreasing gestational age and with an increasing number of therapeutic abortions.”
[Premature birth can result in cerebral palsy, heart, lung and bowel problems - editor]