Would you like to receive updates
from Canada Silent No More?

The BREAST CANCER LINK to ABORTION is significant!

Why Aren't Women Being Told?

It cannot be said that all women who have breast cancer have had abortions. Similarly, not all women who have had abortions will get breast cancer. Nevertheless, abortion is the most preventable risk factor for breast cancer.

See www.abortionbreastcancer.com, www.bcpinstitute.org, www.polycarp.org

First Way Abortion Causes Breast Cancer

Women have the right to know that 70 worldwide studies have independently linked induced abortion with breast cancer! Thirteen out of fifteen studies conducted on American women report increased risk. Seventeen studies are statistically significant, showing increased risk.

Most of the studies have been conducted by abortion supporters. The first study was published in an English publication in 1957 and focused on Japanese women. It showed a 2.6 relative risk or 160% increased risk of breast cancer among women who'd had an induced abortion.

[Segi et al. (1957) GANN 48 (Suppl.):1-63]

These studies suggest that an induced abortion cause biological changes to occur in a woman's breasts which make her more susceptible to breast cancer. This is one of two ways in which abortion causes breast cancer. The biological rationale for this phenomenon can be found on the ABC Summary page; www.abortionbreastcancer.com

Delayed first full term pregnancy is a second way in which abortion causes this disease.

“ Abortion is an "elective surgical procedure and a woman’s exposure to the hormones of early pregnancy -- if it is interrupted -- is so great, that just one interrupted pregnancy is enough to make a significant difference in her risk” [Professor Joel Brind, President, Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, Endeavour Forum Public Meeting, August 24, 1999, Malvern, Victoria, Australia].

Because American women already face a high lifetime risk of developing breast cancer of about 12.5 percent, boosting that risk by even a small percentage through the procurement of a single induced abortion is comparable to the risk of lung cancer from long-term heavy smoking.

Approximately 1 in 100 women procuring an abortion is expected to die as a result of abortion-induced breast cancer.


Today’s medical experts agree that the best way women can reduce their lifetime risk for breast cancer is by:

  1. Having an early first full term pregnancy (FFTP) starting before age 24;
  2. Bearing more children; and
  3. Breastfeeding for a longer lifetime duration.

It’s undeniable that abortion causes women to change their childbearing patterns. It leads them to forego the protective effects of early FFTP, increased childbearing and breastfeeding. Consequently, scientists do not debate that it increases breast cancer risk in this first of two ways. Despite this truth, there is not one anti-cancer organization which uses this phrase, “Abortion causes breast cancer.”  Why not? Women have a right to know that if they choose an abortion, they could be choosing breast cancer.

The single most avoidable risk factor

for breast cancer is...an induced abortion.

Today over 80, yes EIGHTY worldwide studies now link abortion to BREAST CANCER, and they are not telling women about this RISK Factor!

***At least five women have successfully sued their abortionists for keeping them clueless about the risks of breast cancer and emotional harm. [2,3]

"Cancer groups lied to women about the risks of using combined (estrogen + progestin) hormone replacement therapy and 'the pill' when conclusive evidence of a breast cancer risk became available in the 1980s," said Karen Malec, president of the Coalition, "and they are still lying about abortion. [4,5,6]

"I realize that the breast cancer epidemic has been tremendously profitable for the cancer establishment," continued Malec "but those who've participated in this cover-up should be deeply ashamed of themselves for the incredible suffering they've inflicted. These people are not pro-choice. They are cold, calculating abortion zealots driven by greed and fear of widespread medical malpractice lawsuits. Some cancer groups' officials formerly worked for the abortion industry."

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.


  1. Howe HL, Wingo PA, Thun MJ, Ries LA, Rosenberg HM, Feigal EG, Edwards BK. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1973 through 1998, featuring cancers with recent increasing trends. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:824-842.
  2. Schlafly A. Legal implications of a link between abortion and breast cancer. J Am Phys Surgeons 2005;10:11-14. Available at: <http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf> .
  3. Francis C. Abortion damages women and diminishes their humanity. Endeavour Forum. Newsletter #131, September 2008. Available at: <http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/news/080909> .
  4. Kahlenborn C, Modugno F. Potter D, Severs W. Oral contraceptive use as a risk factor for premenopausal breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2006;81(10):1290-1302. Available at: <http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/pdf/8110/8110a1.pdf> .
  5. Yager JD et al. Estrogen Carcinogenesis in Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med 2006;354:270-82.
  6. Hunt K, Vessey M, McPherson K, Coleman M. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1987;94(7):620-635. Available at: <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=3620411&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed

13 out of 14 studies since 1957-show more breast cancer among American women who chose abortion 1-13


The only study of American women which relied entirely of medical records of abortion (not interviews after the fact) reported a 90% increased risk of breast cancer among women who had chosen abortion 4.


Even Planned Parenthood's own expert admits that a young woman who aborts her first pregnancy is more likely to get breast cancer later on,

than a young woman who carries her first pregnancy to term 34.

A woman who is pregnant when diagnosed with breast cancer or who gets pregnant after breast cancer is much more likely to be cured

if she has the baby, instead of an abortion 35.


The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has acknowledged the finding of the 1996 "Comprehensive review and meta-analysis" by Dr. Joel Brind et al. 36: a significant, 30% average increased risk with abortion. The Guideline reads: "the Brind paper had no major methodological shortcomings and could not be disregarded." 37

The blue graphes indicate the studies showing a risk of breast cancer, several show a significant risk factor as a result of induced abortion! 

The red graphs indicate studies that do not show a link. A huge difference.


Explanatory notes:

Summary and meta-analysis of epidemiological evidence of the abortion-breast cancer link:

Each study above is listed by first author's name, year of publication, and nationality of women studied. On the right-hand side of the figure, the horizontal line with a central circle, given for each study, represents (on a log scale) the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the effect of induced abortion on the entire population studied, with the central circle representing the "point estimate" of "relative risk" (RR). This RR value represents how many times more likely to develop breast cancer, in that particular study, is a woman who had at least one induced abortion, relative to a woman who has not had an induced abortion. For example, in the 1984 French study of Le et al shown above, the point estimate of RR is 1.5, with a 95% CI that spans from 1.0 to 2.2. In other words, the study found that women who had at least one abortion were, on average, 50% more likely to develop breast cancer, and that one can be 95% certain that the increased risk is between 0% and 120%.

Point estimates to the right of the vertical line of unity (RR=1) indicate increased risk; while those to the left indicate decreased risk. If the 95% CI does not cross the line of unity, the results are said to be statistically significant. Narrower 95% CI's denote greater certainty about the RR value, reflecting larger studies with greater statistical power. Thus, the figure illustrates the fact that of the 33 published worldwide studies, 27 show increased risk, 17 of which are statistically significant. The pooled average from all the studies combined, calculated by two different methods, is shown at the bottom. It clearly indicates a significant risk increase averaging 30 to 40%.

The 1981 study of Pike et al. is limited to women with any abortions before first full-term pregnancy, the 1988 study of Ewertz and Duffy and the 1996 study of Wu et al. are limited to women with no children, and the 1957 study of Segi et al. is limited to women with children.




The ESTROGEN Connection:


Why induced abortions raise breast cancer risk-and most miscarriages don't:

The type of female sex hormone called estrogen, is the most potent stimulator of breast cell growth. In fact, the actions of most known risk factors for breast cancer are attributable to some form of estrogen overexposure.

In a normal pregnancy, the mother's ovaries begin producing extra estrogen within a few days after conception 38. The level of estrogen in her blood rises by 2,000% by the end of the first trimester-to a level more than six times higher than it ever gets in the non-pregnant state. 39,40

It is the undifferentiated cells in the breasts which estrogen stimulates to proliferate, so that there will be enough milk-producing tissue to feed the baby after birth. Only the undifferentiated cells are vulnerable to carcinogens, and can ultimately grow into cancer cells.

Importantly, during the last 8 weeks of pregnancy, other hormones differentiate these cells into milk-producing cells. In the process the growth potential-and cancer-forming potential-of these cells is turned off. That is why a full-term pregnancy lowers the risk of breast cancer later in life 41.

Therefore, if a woman who has gone through some weeks or months of a normal pregnancy chooses abortion, she is left with more of these cancer-vulnerable cells in her breasts than were there before she got pregnant, which raises her risk of breast cancer later in life.

In contrast, most pregnancies which abort spontaneously do not generate normal quantities of estrogen 39,40. Thus most miscarriages (at least 1st trimester miscarriages) do not raise breast cancer risk 36.

Schematic representation of tissue structure of:

a. Mature breast of a never-pregnant woman

b. Breast at end of full-term pregnancy


1. Pike et al. (1981) Br J Cancer 43:72-6

2. Brinton et al. (1983) Br J Cancer 47: 757-62

3. Rosenberg et al. (1988) Am J Epidemiol 127-981-9

4. Howe et al. (1988) Int J Epidemiol 18:300-4

5. Laing et al. (1993) J Natl Med Assoc 85:931-9

6. Laing et al. (1994) Genet Epidemiol 11:A300

7. White et al. (1994) J Natl Cancer Inst 86:505-14; Daling et al. (1994) J Natl Cancer Inst 86:1584-92

8. Newcomb et al. (1996) JAMA 275: 283-7

9. Daling et al. (1996) Am J Epidemiol 144:373-80

10.Wu et al. (1996) Br J Cancer 73:680-6

11.Palmer et al. (1997) Cancer Causes Control 8:841-9

12.Marcus et al. (1999) Am J Pub Health 89:1244-7

13.Lazovich et al. (2000) Epidemiol 11:76-80

14.Moseson et al. (1993) Int J Epidemiol 22:1000-9

15.Segi et al. (1957) GANN 48 (Suppl.):1-63

16.Watanabe & Hirayama (1968) Nippon Rinsho 26:1853-9 (in Japanese)

17.Dvoirin & Medvedev (1978) Meth Breast Cancer Epidemiol Res, Tallin 1978. USSR Acad Sci pp.53-63 (in Russian)

18.Nishiyama (1982) Shikoku Ichi 38:333-43 (in Japanese)

19-22. Le et al. (1984); Luporsi (1988); Rohan (1988); Andrieu et al. (1994); in Andrieu et al. (1995) Br J Cancer 72:744-51

23.Hirohata et al. (1985) Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 69:187-90

24.Ewertz & Duffy (1988) Br J Cancer 68:99-104

25.Lipworth et al. (1995) Int J Cancer 61:181-4

26.Rookus & van Leeuwen J Natl Cancer Inst 88:1759-64

27.Bu et al. (1995) Am J Epidemiol 141:S85

28.Talamini et al. (1996) Eur J Cancer 32A:303-10

29.Burany (1979) Jugosl Ginekol Opstet 19:237-47 (Serbo-Croat)

30.Adami et al. (1990) Br J Cancer 62:122-6

31.La Vecchia et al. (1993) Int J Cancer 53:215-9

32.Zaridze et al. (1988) "unpublished" in Ref. #19 above

33.Melbye et al. (1997) N Engl J Med 336:81-5

34.Rosenberg (1999) NE FL Women's Health v. State of FL, FL Circuit Ct, 2nd circ., videotape deposition of 11/18/99, pp.77-8.

35.Clark & Chua (1989) Clin Oncol 1:11-18

36.Brind et al. (1996) J Epidemiol Community Health 50: 481-96

37.Evidence-based Guideline #7 (2000) RCOG Press, pp.29-30

38.Stewart et al. (1993) J Clin Endocrinol Metab 76:1470-6

39.Witt et al. (1990) Fertil Steril 53:1029-36

40.Kunz & Keller (1976) Br J Ob Gyn 83: 640-4

41.MacMahon et al. (1970) Bull Wld Health Org 43:209-21


Call toll-free: 1-86-NO CANCER (1-866-622-6237)

E-Mail: info@bcpinstitute.org

All images and content are Copyright © 2002 Breast Cancer Prevention Institute.


Small quantities of this brochure can be printed for personal use.



The Strongest Protective Factor

Medical experts have universally recognized since the publication of a landmark Harvard study in 1970 that the earlier a woman has her first full term pregnancy (FFTP), the lower her risk for breast cancer is. [MacMahon et al. (1970) Bulletin of the World Health Org 43:209-21]

Cancer Society's tell women that late FIRST FULL TERM PREGNANCIES (30 years of age or older) increases risk, but this is a half truth. Since a late FIRST FULL TERM PREGNANCY is considered after the age of 24. Each year that a woman delays her First Full Term Pregnancy, her risk climbs markedly.

A subsequent Harvard study reported that for each one year delay of a first full term pregnancy, risk is elevated 3.5%. [Trichopolous D, Hsieh Cc, MacMahon B, Lin T, et al. Age at Any Birth and Breast Cancer Risk. International J Cancer (1983) 31:701-704] Nancy Krieger, PhD, wrote in 1989 that early First Full Term Pregnancy had “emerged as the strongest protective factor” against the disease. [Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 13:205-223]Joel Brind, PhD, the lead author of the only comprehensive review and meta-analysis of the abortion-breast cancer research, stated in an affidavit in a California lawsuit that a single year’s delay of a First Full Term Pregnancy impacts a woman’s risk of dying from breast cancer so greatly that it is about 10 times more than her risk of dying in childbirth. [Lawsuit referenced above]For this reason, we encourage married women not to delay their First Full Term Pregnancy. We do, however, encourage abstinence before marriage.


Abortion has been implicated with breast cancer in yet another way, however, and estrogen overexposure is the explanation for it. 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.

Biological evidence and more than two dozen studies worldwide support a cause and effect relationship. Fifteen studies were conducted on American women, and 13 of them reported risk elevations. Seven found a more than a twofold elevation in risk. Seventeen are statistically significant, 16 of which demonstrated a positive association. The term “statistical significance” means that scientists are at least 95% certain that their findings are not due to chance or error. The evidence of a causal relationship between abortion and breast cancer isn’t only based on a statistical relationship either. Scientists also require biological evidence and a reasonable biological explanation before concluding that there’s a causal relationship. These requirements have been met.

Biological Evidence

Researchers were able to demonstrate that 77.7% of a group of rats given abortions could be caused to develop breast cancers with the carcinogen DMBA. On the other hand, 0% of the rats allowed to have a full term pregnancy, but not allowed to nurse their pups, developed tumors when exposed to DMBA. Among a group of 9 rats allowed to have a full term pregnancy and nurse their pups, only one developed a tumor. Among two groups of virgin rats, 66.7% and 71.4% developed tumors after being exposed to the carcinogen. Rats with abortion histories were at the greatest risk of all 5 groups. The experiment demonstrated that an induced abortion resulted in close to a 80% risk elevation among rats. [Russo J, Russo IH (1980) Am J Pathol 100:497-512]


Most of the risk factors associated with breast cancer involve estrogen overexposure. Women who experience more menstrual cycles are exposed to higher levels of estradiol, a form of estrogen, over the course of their lifetimes. Women who reach puberty at an early age or menopause at a late age or who have fewer or no children, experience more menstrual cycles. They are known to have a higher risk of breast cancer. Women who have more children and who nurse them, on the other hand, experience fewer menstrual cycles and reduce their risk of breast cancer by doing so. Similarly, a low fat diet and avoidance of alcohol reduce a woman’s exposure to estrogen. Estrogen is a secondary carcinogen. It promotes the growth of normal and abnormal tissue. 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. For an exhaustive explanation of estrogen’s role in the promotion of breast cancer, see the Web Site for the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute at and click on “The Estrogen Connection,” www.BCPInstitue.org.

Biological Explanation for the Link

The explanation for the independent link makes good biological sense. It remains un-refuted and unchallenged by scientists because it is physiologically correct. A never-pregnant woman has a network of primitive, immature and cancer-vulnerable breast cells which make up her milk glands. It is only in the third trimester of pregnancy - after 32 weeks gestation - that her cells start to mature and are fashioned into milk producing tissue whose cells are cancer resistant. When a woman becomes pregnant, her breasts enlarge. This occurs because a hormone called estradiol, a type of estrogen, causes both the normal and pre-cancerous cells in the breast to multiply terrifically. This process is called “proliferation.” By 7 to 8 weeks gestation, (pregnancy) the estradiol level has increased by 500% over what it was at the time of conception. If the pregnancy is aborted, the woman is left with more undifferentiated -- and therefore cancer-vulnerable cells -- than she had before she was pregnant. On the other hand, a full term pregnancy leaves a woman with more milk producing cells, and fewer cancer-vulnerable cells in her breasts than she did before the pregnancy. In contrast, research has shown that most natural miscarriages do not raise breast cancer risk. This is due to a lack of estrogen overexposure. Miscarriages are frequently precipitated by a decline in the production of progesterone which is needed to maintain a pregnancy. Estrogen is made from progesterone, so the levels of each hormone rise and fall together during pregnancy. For a thorough biological explanation of the abortion-breast cancer link, see this second website for the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, www.BCPInstitute.org and click on its online booklet, “Breast Cancer Risks and Prevention.”


The first epidemiological study was reported in an English language journal in 1957. Researchers found a 160% elevation in risk among women who’d obtained abortions. [Segi M., et al. GANN (1957); 48 (Suppl): 1-63] The first study to examine the abortion-breast cancer link among American women was published in 1981 and reported that abortion “appears to cause a substantial increase in risk of subsequent breast cancer.” A 140% risk elevation was reported. [Pike MC et al., British Journal of Cancer (1981;43:72-6] Howe et al. 1989, the only statistically significant study conducted on American women in which medical records of abortion were used, not interviews after the fact, reported a 90% increased risk of breast cancer among women in New York who had chosen abortion. [Howe et al. (1989) Int J Epidemiol 18:300-4]Our bar graphs reveal the relative risk found for each epidemiological study. These graphs were developed for our website by Chris Kahlenborn, M.D., author of the book, Breast Cancer, Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill.

World’s Only Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis

In 1996, Professor Joel Brind of Baruch College in New York and his colleagues at Pennsylvania State Medical College conducted a review and meta-analysis of the studies. A meta-analysis pools together the data from the studies in an area of medicine - in this case, the abortion-breast cancer research - and comes up with an overall risk for a particular risk factor. The Brind team, half of whom included abortion supporters, found an overall 30% elevated risk among women choosing abortion after first full term pregnancy (FFTP) and a 50% elevated risk among women choosing abortion before FFTP. [Brind, et al. Jrnl of Epidemiol Community Health (1996);50:481-96]

Number of Additional Breast Cancer Cases

The average American woman already has a high lifetime risk of breast cancer - 12.5%. 1 in 8 women can be expected to be diagnosed with the disease in her lifetime. If this already high lifetime risk is increased by even a small percentage - 30% - then many thousands more women will develop breast cancer who would not otherwise have developed it. Using conservative figures, Dr. Brind has estimated that there are presently an additional 5,000 to 8,000 cases of breast cancer per year due to earlier abortions and that by the year 2020 there will be an additional 40,000 to 50,000 cases of breast cancer yearly.

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

On March 13, 2000 the U.K.'s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists became the first medical organization to warn its abortion practitioners, saying that Dr. Brind's review was methodologically sound and that the abortion-breast cancer research "could not be disregarded." [“Evidence-based Guideline No. 7: The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion” (2000) RCOG Press, p. 29-30]Later that summer after the London press learned of the RCOG’s warning, the BBC and The Guardian strenuously objected. Angry, post-abortive women, who hadn’t been informed of the breast cancer risk, called their doctors to learn what they could do to reduce their risks and otherwise protect their health. After being intimidated by members of the press who don't respect human life, the RCOG put its tail between its legs and dutifully withdrew the warning. The incident reveals the cowardice of the RCOG’s leadership. It demonstrates what the medical group was willing to say when it thought it was politically safe to do so. Today, the RCOG says that the relationship between abortion and breast cancer is "inconclusive." The group repeats the falsehood that the abortion-breast cancer studies which relied on interviews, not medical records, contain a bias called "report bias." This hypothetical problem proposes that studies, which use interviews, are inherently flawed because there is allegedly a difference in the reporting levels between healthy women and unhealthy women. In other words, healthy women lie or underreport their abortions, but unhealthy women don’t. However, a far more reasonable hypothesis is that women, who don’t want to report their abortions to researchers truthfully, would refuse to participate in these studies in the first place. If the RCOG’s claim of report bias were true, then the findings of scientists who relied on interviews would be inaccurate and artificial. However, the RCOG provides no citations to support its claim because there are none. The RCOG expects women to accept its phantom theory as if it were a fact. Truth is, there are no scientists who presently claim to have found credible evidence of such a bias or difference in reporting levels.The RCOG says it relies on the supposed findings of an abortionist, David Grimes, who is affiliated with the population control group, Family Health International. Despite the fact that Grimes clearly does not respect human life, the RCOG repeats his unsupported assertion that the studies which relied on medical records are superior to those relying on interviews.

Janet Daling et al. 1994 One especially disturbing study on women was done by Dr. Janet Daling and her colleagues at Seattle’s Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in 1994. Dr. Daling, an abortion supporter, found that “among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women.” Daling’s team found that teenagers under age 18 and women over 29 years of age who procure an abortion increase their breast cancer risk by more than 100%. Those with a family history of the disease increase their risk 80%. Daling’s most alarming finding was that teenagers with a family history of breast cancer who procure an abortion face a risk of breast cancer that is incalculably high. All 12 women in her study with this history were diagnosed with breast cancer by the age of 45. [Janet R. Daling et al., “Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: Relationship to Induced Abortion,” 86 Journal of the National Cancer Institute; (1994);1584]

The 1997 and 1999 Melbye Studies. The abortion industry relies heavily upon Melbye et al. 1997, a study conducted on Danish women, to dispute the abortion-breast cancer link and dismiss more than two dozen studies finding risk elevations. However, even this study reported that “{w}ith each one-week increase in the gestational age of the fetus...there was a 3 percent increase in the risk of breast cancer.” The researchers, nevertheless, reported no overall positive association between abortion and breast cancer. [Melbye, et al. “Induced Abortion and the Risk of Breast Cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine (1997);336:81-5] The Brind team argued in a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine that serious errors of misclassification and data adjustment in the Melbye study likely masked a significant risk increase. For instance, 60,000 women whose abortions were recorded in the Danish Life Statistics between 1940 and 1973 were counted by Melbye et al. as not having had abortions, although a number of them developed breast cancer. Additionally, Melbye and colleagues started recording breast cancer cases in 1968, but recorded abortions starting in 1973. It is clearly unscientific to start counting cases of a disease before the proposed cause of that disease. [Joel Brind & Vernon Chinchilli, Letter, ” Induced Abortion and the Risk of Breast Cancer,” 336 New England Journal of Medicine (1997) 1834-35]In addition, Melbye and colleagues implicitly corrected these errors in a subsequent study in 1999. [Melbye M., Wohlfahrt J., Anderson A.M., Westergaard T., Andersen P.K., “Preterm Delivery and Risk of Breast Cancer,” British Journal of Cancer (1999);80:609-613] In February of 2000, the New England Journal of Medicine, possibly the world’s most influential medical journal, admitted evidence of an abortion-breast cancer link in the text of an article written by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, in spite of having published the much criticized Melbye study three years earlier. In reviewing risk factors for breast cancer the article stated, "Other risk factors have been less consistently associated with breast cancer (such as diet, use of oral contraceptives, lactation, and abortion)." [Armstrong K., et al., “Assessing the Risk of Breast Cancer,”NEJM (2000);342:564-71]


Center for Reproductive Law and Policy expert, Dr. Lynn Rosenberg, a Boston University Medical School epidemiologist, testified in the fall of 1999 in a Florida case on the abortion-breast cancer link. When asked by an attorney whether a pregnant 15 year old who aborts her pregnancy has a higher risk of breast cancer than one who carries her pregnancy to term, Dr. Rosenberg answered, “Probably, yes." [Dr. Joel Brind, “ABC in the Courts: Dramatic ABC Testimony in Florida’s Parental Notification Appeal,” Abortion-Breast Cancer Quarterly Update, (Fall, 1999) Vol. 2, No. 3, p. 1].


In July 1998, Congressman Tom Coburn M.D., an obstetrician-gynecologist, questioned a representative from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), Dr. Edison Liu, during a Commerce Committee hearing on the State of Cancer Research. Congressman Coburn accused the NCI of misleading the public and "selectively releasing data" on the abortion-breast cancer link. Dr. Brind accused the NCI of publishing an “outright lie” about the research on its website. Its website in 1999 said, “The scientific rationale for an association between abortion and breast cancer is based on limited experimental data in rats and is not consistent with human data.” Commenting on this falsehood from the NCI, Dr. Brind said, “It is consistent with human data, and it is not just based upon limited data and rats. There is all the other biological evidence of what happens during pregnancy and what it is that makes breast cancer cells grow and what is the difference between a spontaneous and induced abortion. In other words, the whole biological story is consistent.” [Transcript of the talks by Professor Joel Brind and Professor Robert Burton at an Endeavour Forum Public Meeting on the 24th of August 1999, at Malvern, Vic. 3144, Australia] After Congressmen Coburn and Dave Weldon, M.D. and other members of Congress called for hearings into the NCI’s scientific misconduct, the NCI revised its web site in 1999 and removed its falsehood. Nevertheless, its web page discussing the abortion-breast cancer link, as well as its web pages later published, remained conspicuous for what they still did not tell women (i.e., the number of studies - worldwide and American - reporting increased risk; the number of studies reporting a more than twofold risk elevation; the number of statistically significant studies and the biological evidence). On June 7, 2002, twenty-eight members of Congress, including Congressmen Weldon and Coburn, sent a letter and petition with their own fact sheet to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson. They objected to the NCI’s reliance on Melbye et al. 1997, labeled it a “flawed study,” and called the NCI’s fact sheet “scientifically inaccurate and misleading to the public.” They pointed out that the NCI fact sheet erroneously stated, “The current body of scientific evidence suggests that women who have had either induced or spontaneous abortions have the same risk as other women for developing breast cancer.” Addressing this claim, the Congressmen asserted, “This glossing over of the weight of published scientific evidence does not provide the public with the information they deserve.” The Congressmen asked Secretary Thompson to have the fact sheet “re-evaluated for accuracy and bias.” Later that month, the NCI web page was taken down.


There is good reason to believe that medical authorities at the highest levels of organized medicine are aware that abortion causes breast cancer, but they will not speak of it publicly because it is political dynamite. Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., declared under oath in the lawsuit, Bernardo et al. v. Planned Parenthood, et al., that “Over the past three or four years, I have spoken with many authorities and people in a position to be well-informed. Some have been straightforward and said that they know it is a risk factor but felt it was ‘too political’ to speak about.” [Lawsuit referenced above]


John Kindley, an attorney who authored an article for the Wisconsin Law Review in 1999, discussed the issues of informed consent and the abortion-breast cancer connection. Informed consent is a legal obligation requiring physicians to fully inform their patients of the risks associated with any surgical procedures recommended by them. Mr. Kindley argued that physicians who do not inform their patients of the breast cancer risk expose themselves to considerable legal liability and can be sued for medical malpractice. He represents a North Dakota woman in a false advertising suit against a clinic which was distributing a pamphlet denying the existence of studies reporting increased risk among women choosing abortion.


Mr. Kindley explains how the increased risk of breast cancer resulting from an induced abortion impacts a woman’s lifetime risk: “The real significance of a relative risk increase depends upon the background risk which is increased. For example, although smoking increases the risk of lung cancer by a factor of 10.0, the background risk of lung cancer for nonsmokers is very low. By contrast, an average American woman’s lifetime risk of breast cancer is about twelve percent. A 1.3 relative risk increase from an induced abortion would therefore indicate about a four percent increase in absolute terms. Estimating a twenty-five percent mortality rate, this figure would suggest that about 1 out of 100 women who have had an induced abortion die from breast cancer attributable to the abortion.” www.johnkindley.com, “The Fit Between the Elements for an Informed Consent Cause of Action and the Scientific Evidence Linking Induced Abortion with Increased Breast Cancer Risk,” Wisconsin Law Review, (1999); Vol. 1998, No. 6; p. 1620]


Congressman Dave Weldon M.D. sent a “Dear Colleague” letter and a copy of Mr. Kindley’s law review article to all members of the U.S. House of Representatives on August 24, 1999. He discussed the duty of physicians to properly inform patients of the risks associated with surgical procedures. Dr. Weldon called abortion a “significant health risk” and a “health care time-bomb” in his letter.


The world’s first known abortion-breast cancer settlement was reported in Australia in 2001. An Australian woman who’d obtained an abortion sued her physician for medical malpractice. She claimed he failed to inform her of the research linking abortion with breast cancer and the possibility of emotional damage which she might suffer as a result of her abortion. Although she hadn’t developed breast cancer, her attorney, Charles Francis, said she nevertheless received a significant sum. [Patrick Goodenough, “First Case Linking Abortion-Breast Cancer Settled,” Cybercast News Service, www.CNSNews.com, January 4, 2002]


Women have the right to know about the abortion-breast cancer research. In fact, we find it paternalistic that women have been prevented from making informed choices about this women’s health issue. Public health authorities have been seriously remiss about educating women and their doctors about the weight of the research. These authorities include: the National Cancer Institute, research scientists and the nation’s anti-cancer organizations whose own web pages discussing the research, in some cases, cite irrelevant studies for which no abortion data were collected. Others contain much misinformation, omissions of most or all of the studies, half truths and even fabrications. Because of induced abortion, anti-cancer organizations guarantee themselves an ever increasing pool of donors who’ve been unwittingly victimized by this cover up - breast cancer patients, survivors and their family members. Many of these donors have become activists who’ve lobbied Congress for billions of dollars of taxpayer money to support increasingly more research into the causes of breast cancer and methods of prevention. We’re not opposed to research, but any anti-cancer organization which fails to truthfully inform women about what scientists have known for five decades and taxpayers and donors have paid for has no right to continually return to the wells of public or private money. We seek to reach women -- and those who love them -- with life-saving information, and our cause is extremely urgent. Will you help us to ensure that the public is finally told the truth about abortion? Please share this information with others and send us your donation now to help with our cause. Donations can be mailed to the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, P.O. Box 152, Palos Heights, Illinois 60463. Our coalition is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)3 organization.Press Release

Contact: Karen Malec, 847-421-4000

Date: June 22, 2010

June 22,2010-Study: Abortion More Than Triples Breast Cancer Risk Among Sri Lankans

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer notes a study in the journal, Cancer Epidemiology, reporting that Sri Lankan women with abortions more than tripled their breast cancer risk (3.42 odds ratio). Abortion was the most significant factor in the study. Researchers found a significantly reduced risk associated with prolonged duration of breastfeeding and a nearly tripled increased risk from exposure to passive smoking. 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. [1]

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

"Obviously, women who abort forfeit the protective effect of breastfeeding," said Karen Malec, president of the Coalition. "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.

"According to the researchers, 'mammography is not widely available for routine screening' in Sri Lanka. Therefore, health professionals must emphasize disease prevention. It is criminal that the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) has covered up this risk for over a half century. Uncle Sam is abusing women by concealing the risk."

The Sri Lankan study is the fourth epidemiological study in fourteen months to report an abortion-breast cancer link, including studies from the U.S, China and Turkey. [2-4] Louise Brinton, a NCI branch chief, served as co-author in the U.S. study in which she and her colleagues admitted that "...induced abortion and oral contraceptive use were associated with increased risk of breast cancer." The authors cited a statistically significant 40% increased risk. [4]

"It's becoming increasingly difficult for the NCI to keep its fingers and toes in the dike," said Malec, "especially since many researchers in other parts of the world do not depend on the agency for grants."

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.


1. De Silva M, Senarath U, Gunatilake M, Lokuhetty D. Prolonged breastfeeding reduces risk of breast cancer in Sri Lankan women: a case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol 2010;34(3):267-73. Abstract available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20338838

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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


Medical Groups Recognizing Link

A list of medical organizations recognizing a link between abortion and

breast cancer is provided below. Telling women their abortions are related

to increased breast cancer risk is clearly not good for cancer fundraising

businesses, the abortion industry and the pharmaceutical industry. Medical

groups whose doctors do not perform abortions or refer women for abortions

will be among the first to recognize that abortion raises a woman's breast

cancer risk.


National Physicians Center for Family Resources

P.O. Box 59692

Birmingham, AL 35259




The National Physicians Center for Family Resources offers a CD intended for parents and health educators which cites "increased breast cancer risk" as a "long-term complication of abortion" and offers a biological explanation for the abortion-breast cancer link. The CD is entitled, "Prescriptions for Parents: A Physicians' Guide to Adolescence and Sex."


Catholic Medical Association

2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, #864

Washington, DC 20006

Tel: 1-877-CATHDOC (877-228-4362)



"Whereas epidemiological evidence of an association between abortion and

breast cancer has existed for almost a half century,


"Whereas 29 our ot 38 worldwide epidemiological studies show an increased

risk of breat cancer of approximately 30% among women who have had an



"Whereas all women undergoing abortion are entitled to full informed consent

as to all risks including long term risks,


"Therefore be it resolved that the Catholic Medical Association endorses the

passage of state legislation to require abortionists to inform all women of

their future increased vulnerability to breast cancer."


Resolution Approved 10/15/03


American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists

844 South Washington, Suite 1600

Holland, MI 49423




AAPLOG has posted a position statement about the ABC link on its website.


Breast Cancer Prevention Institute

9 Vassar St.

Poughkeepsie, NY 12601




The Polycarp Research Institute

2232 Second Avenue

Altoona, PA 16602



Ehtics and Medics

6399 Drexel Road

Philadelphia, PA 19151



MaterCare International

8 Riverview Avenue

St. John's, Newfoundland

Canada A1C 2S5

Phone: 709-579-6472

Fax: 709- 579-6501

E-Mail: info@matercare.org


Statement Concerning the Link between Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer, R. L. Walley. FRCSC., FRCOG., MPH Executive Director and Honourary Research Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology


"MaterCare International an international group of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists was presented with the evidence of the link between abortion and breast cancer at its international conference in Rome in October 2004 by Dr Joel Brind's research group. The medical explanation and the epidemiological evidence convinced our group that there is a significant increase in breast cancer risk after induced abortion, especially before the first full term pregnancy.  This evidence has been denied by the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) and other researchers. Recently ten studies have been published in an attempt to discredit Brind's conclusion.


"In turn Brind has examined these ten studies and in a peer reviewed paper published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Vol 10, No 4, Winter 2005, < http://www.jpands.org >) he has shown that they have serious methodological weaknesses and flaws and therefore do not invalidate the conclusion that there is a increased risk of breast cancer.


"Women have a basic right to know of this increased risk of breast cancer and it is unacceptable that the information should be denied to them by the medical and cancer research establishments. MaterCare International as an organisation of women's health specialists  recognies its responsibilities in this matter and will do all it can to publish this evidence."


Breast Care Center-EAMC

G/F OPD Bldg East Avenue Medical Center, East Avenue,

Quezon City, Philippines

Phone: (632)-928-0611 loc 578

E-mail: pfbci_bcc@yahoo.com


Medical Groups Supporting Disclosure of Research

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

1601 N. Tucson Blvd., Suite 9

Tucson, AZ 85716-3450



"The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons believes that patients have the right to give or withhold fully informed consent before undergoing medical treatment. This includes notification of potential adverse effects. While there is a difference of medical opinion concerning the abortion breast cancer link, there is a considerable volume of evidence supporting this link, which is, moreover, highly plausible. We believe that a reasonable person would want to be informed of the existence of this evidence before making her decision."


Jane Orient, MD

Executive Director

October 27, 2003


Read Mrs. Malec's article, "The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: How Politics

Trumped Science and Informed Consent," in the Journal of American Physicians

and Surgeons: www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf