Abortion increases the risk of breast cancer

A woman who undergoes an abortion before the birth of her first child increases the risk of suffering breast cancer.

In fact, breasts are particularly sensitive to carcinogenic influences before the birth of the first child. When a woman is pregnant, the levels of several hormones in the body increase greatly. This is particularly true for three of them: Estradiol, progesterone, and hCG (human Chorionic Gonadotropin.) These three hormones, especially the latter, serve to stimulate immature breast cells to mature and become fully differentiated cells^[1]. If this process is stopped because of an artificially induced abortion, hormone levels drop abruptly, thus suspending the natural process of maturation of many breast cells. Researchers call this the "hormonal blow." These cells are now vulnerable to carcinogens because they started the maturation process without completing it. (Cells that have fully matured are less vulnerable to carcinogens than those in process of maturation.)

Thus women who have children early are less likely to have breast cancer than women who give birth at later ages or those who have no children.

Animal models confirm that abortions performed in youth increase breast cancer.

Russo and Russo studied in their work, which became a classic^[2], several groups of rats that were given a carcinogen (DMBA.) They noted that 77% of the rats that underwent abortion and 69% of virgin rats developed breast cancer, and none of the rats that carried their pregnancy to term developed cancer.

The relation abortion / breast cancer is not new

Since 1957, Segi et al. noted that women who underwent induced abortions had twice the risk of breast cancer^[3]. In 1981 Pike et al.^[4] published their notable work showing that young women (under 32) who had undergone an abortion before their first pregnancy carried to term had an increase of 140% in the risk of breast cancer. Numerous studies followed, but in 1994, Daling et al.^[5] published a large study which noted that women who underwent an abortion before their first pregnancy carried to term had an increase of 40% in the risk. This risk increased to 150% if it was a teenager had had an abortion before the age of 18. In addition, Daling et al. noted that if these girls under 18 aborted babies over 8 weeks, they suffered an 800% risk increase of developing breast cancer.

Finally, in 1996, in what is openly regarded as the meta-analysis^[6] the most meticulous and most comprehensive of all research papers ever made on the relation between abortion and breast cancer, Brind et al.^[7] found that women who had an abortion before their first pregnancy carried to term had a 50% increase in the risk of developing breast cancer while women who had an abortion after their first term pregnancy kept an increased risk of 30%.

This study of Brind et al. has been examined from every angle. It is considered as "very objective and statistically impeccable."^[8].

Two recent "studies" that contradict Brind et al. are false, despite their extensive media coverage

In 1997, the New England Journal of Medicine published the results of a large prospective study by Melbye et al.^[9] which pretended to show that abortion did not increase the risk of breast cancer.

But this study shows unacceptable flaws that were pointed out in a response to the New England Journal of Medicine^[10] and can be summarized as follows:

• Melbye’s data leads to an increase of 44% risk of breast cancer due to abortion, but the study does not publish this result,
• follow-up period for the "cases" (i.e., women who had an induced abortion) was less than 10 years, whereas it was 20 years for the "control group" (i.e., women who did not have an abortion.) A follow-up period of less than 10 years is not long enough to observe the effects of abortion,
• 30,000 women in the study who actually had abortions were "reclassified" as not having had one,
• the study noted that women who had suffered a miscarriage after the 12^th week retained an increased risk of 38%, while women who had late abortions (after the 18^th week) experienced an increased risk of 89%, which is statistically significant. However, these two results were given little to no attention by the media.

There was also controversy around the "partiality of memory," which could only help discredit the Melbye Study.

On March 25, 2004 a "a collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83,000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries" was published. Its authors are a prestigious group of researchers from Oxford, and the publication was done in the Lancet, one of the most respected medical journals in the world. And Valerie Beral (main author) took great care to give numerous interviews to the press before the publication.

She told the press that: "The totality of the worldwide epidemiological evidence indicates that pregnancies ended by induced abortion do not have adverse effects on women's subsequent risk of developing breast cancer" (...) "Scientifically, this really is a full analysis of the current data" thereby suggesting that this would be a complete review of the data.

It turns out, however, that Beral’s study employs a wrong methodology and it does not withstand scrutinity^[11] : More than 15 studies were excluded for aberrant reasons, etc.

Ms. Malec, President of the Coalition on Abortion/ Breast Cancer^[12] feminist organization, probably holds the key to understanding this rage to hide reality. She said:

"This is the third time that Oxford's unorthodox methods have misled women about the ABC link,"

"With this review, they and their Lancet editors will be responsible for many deaths." (...) "The group published a widely reported review of 47 studies in 30 countries in the Lancet in 2002 and concluded that breast cancer rates could be cut by more than one-half if women increase their childbearing and breastfeeding."^[13] .

"Perhaps Beral's group, a recipient of United Nations Population Fund grants^[14], can explain how women should breastfeed their dead fetuses," (...) "Women can't both increase their childbearing and abort their pregnancies. For these reasons, any doctor, scientist or journalist who unequivocally declares that abortion is unrelated to increased risk for breast cancer is revealing his bad faith by doing so."

© TDD May 2005

---

Home

Original publication

Full display