An idealistic American lawyer just out of law school is hoping to move the breast cancer-abortion controversy to a new level by finding one or more women prepared to launch a lawsuit against an abortion provider for not warning about the abortion-related risk of breast cancer. Abortionists may not be the only ones at risk, though; John Kindley says that medical bodies that continue to deny a breast cancer-abortion link may also be taken to court.

Pro-lifers in the U.S. and Canada are increasingly frustrated at what they see as a pro-abortion biased medical establishment ignoring obvious evidence of an association between breast cancer and abortion. Breast cancer rates have risen significantly in North America in recent years and, with the exception of theories about a possible link to environmental pollutants, no explanation exists for this trend.

The resistance to recognizing an abortion link to breast cancer may be breaking down with groups like the American Cancer Society, as well as some pro-abortion leaders, who are at least acknowledging that current evidence demands further investigation. Others, however, refuse to accept the evidence, including the influential (U.S.) National Cancer Institute.

Mr. Kindley told The Interim that he believes “the real way to resolve this (dispute) is in the courts.” He has written a 50-page report on the abortion-breast cancer link and the feasibility of pursuing the matter in court. The premise of the article, he says, is “that a lawsuit could be brought based on failure to inform about this evidence.”

American pro-lifers have tried to raise the issue in the legislatures of the land, but only a handful of states have actually introduced women’s “right to know” legislation which requires abortionists to warn women of the increased risk of breast cancer. Ironically, says Mr. Kindley, these well-intentioned laws end up giving greater protection to the doctors, not the women, because the Louisiana law, for example, gives the abortionist immunity from prosecution if he complies with the requirements of the law.

Mr. Kindley feels that he has done the necessary background work with the next steps being to find a client – a woman who underwent an abortion and is now suffering with breast cancer – and an experienced litigator who is willing to take on the case. He wants to see more public awareness of the breast cancer-abortion link, confident that women will start coming forward to sue as more of them become aware of the issue. He has joined others, including leading breast cancer-abortion researcher Dr. Joel Brind, in lobbying Congress and the commerce committee to start hearings in response to NCI’s ongoing denial of the evidence.

Mr. Kindley even talks about the potential for a class action suit, but he expects that a couple of individual cases will have to be successful first, before a judge will certify a class action suit. But, whether a class action suit is launched or simply a lot of women start initiating their own cases, he anticipates that a couple of successes could lead to more potential plaintiffs becoming aware that they have been harmed.

Although no lawsuit has been brought before the courts yet over this issue, the scientific evidence for the breast cancer-abortion link was relevant in a First Amendment case fought earlier this decade in Pennsylvania. “Dr. Brind testified in a First Amendment case … where (Christ’s Bride Ministries) had purchased signs in … transit stations which said: “Women who choose abortion suffer more and deadlier breast cancer,'” explained Mr. Kindley.

The transit commission received a letter from the vice-secretary to the Department of Health and Family Services, saying that “these signs are unfortunately misleading, unduly alarming, and do not accurately reflect the weight of the literature.” On that basis, without consulting CBM about the documentation it used to back up their allegations, the transit authority tore down the signs. CBM argued that its free speech rights had been violated. It lost the first round, but won on appeal. Although the scientific evidence wasn’t used directly by the judges in issuing their rulings, the appeals judge said that the transit company was not reasonable in failing to ask CBM if they had any basis for their claims. Mr. Kindley said, “it shows that what a government health official says is not the end-all of the debate.”