Science Web Site Misleads Women Saying Abortion-Breast Cancer Link a Myth

National   |   Steven Ertelt   |   Oct 9, 2007   |   9:00AM   |   WASHINGTON, DC

Science Web Site Misleads Women Saying Abortion-Breast CanCer Link a Myth Email this article
Printer friendly page

by Steven Ertelt Editor
October 9,

New York, NY ( — A leading web site on science issues ran an article on Tuesday from its "junk science" reporter that misleads women by saying the abortion-breast cancer link is nonexistent. It also says there is little or no way to prevent breast cancer, despite studies showing that having children helps protect women from the disease.

In his article "Five Myths About Breast Cancer,"’s columnist Christopher Wanjek says the link between abortion and breast cancer is one of five myths that women should know this October, which is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

He calls the link a "persistent myth" that "was thoroughly resolved by the 1990s."

"Nevertheless, the Bush Administration revisited the issue in 2002, gave equal weight to the earlier, smaller studies showing a correlation, and told the National Cancer Institute to state the possible abortion-cancer connection in its fact sheets and Web site," Wanjek wrote. "It took Congressional action and a three-day conference on the topic to remove this erroneous information by 2003."

However, Dr. Joel Brind, a professor at Baruch College in New York, says there is 50 years of research showing a link between abortion and breast cancer.

Brind pointed out that breast cancer cases have risen 40 percent since abortion was made virtually unlimited in the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade.

Brind said the first study showing the abortion-breast cancer link was published in Japan in 1957 and it showed that women who have abortions have two-three times greater a chance of contracting breast cancer than those who decide to keep their baby.

Dr. Janet Daling, who considers herself pro-abortion, brought the abortion-breast cancer link into the mainstream when her 1994 research found that among women who had been pregnant at least once experienced a 50 percent increase in breast cancer risk when having an induced abortion.

In 1996, Brind and other researchers conducted analysis of all the major studies done in the field to that time.

They concluded that women who had an abortion before their first term child had a 50% increased risk of developing breast cancer while women who had an abortion after their first child sustained a 30% increased risk.

A few years ago, the British Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists confirmed Brind’s study and said it contained no major flaws or errors.

Wanjek also writes that "there’s not much a woman can do" to prevent breast cancer.

He admitted that women can "reduce but not eliminate the risk" but failed to cite one of the most important ways women can lower their risk of contracting breast cancer.

Scientists at the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center wrote in the October 1 issue of Cancer Research, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, about the protective effect of having children.

As reported, they studied a concept called fetal microchimerism, which is the ability of cells from a growing unborn baby to take up long-term residence in the mother’s body.

They say fetal cells “transplanted” to the mother before birth are a source of this protective effect. That’s something that abortion denies.

Because most breast cancers start in Type 1 and 2 lobules, units that organize breast tissue, and because induced abortions resulted in increased numbers of these lobules, abortion contributes to breast cancer.

Conversely, breast cancers do not start in Type 3 ad 4 lobules and full-term pregnancies result increased numbers of Type 3 and 4 lobules, which shows a pregnancy’s helpfulness.

"Thus, if you have an abortion you’re left with more places that breast cancers can start and if you have a full-term pregnancy you have fewer," Brind explains.

ACTION: Send your comments about his erroneous reporting to Christopher Wanjek at [email protected].