The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons ran a study, re-published in the the British insurance journal The Actuary, on the abortion-breast cancer link. It examined statistics for women in eight European countries and avoided the supposed weakness of other studies that have found a connection between abortion and breast cancer; namely, “recall bias.” Patrick Carroll, director of research at the Pension and Population Research Institute, says, “Most of the known risk factors are reproductive, pregnancy-related or hormonal.” Among those reproductive risk factors is abortion. Carroll explains why: “There is hormonal activity and breast cell development during pregnancy. Induced abortion has a carcinogenic effect that is greater when the woman is nulliparous (no previous full-term pregnancy) by leaving the breast cells in a state of interrupted hormonal development where they are more susceptible to cancer. Full-term pregnancies leave breast cells more fully developed and resistant to breast cancer. Breast-feeding confers additional protection.”

Carroll concludes that there are implications for insurance companies, including the pricing of premiums. You would think that if any organization had an interest in the ABC link, it would be insurance companies, which shouldn’t let a pro-abortion ideology get ahead of their profits.

The Chicago Tribunewas one of the few media outlets to take note of this study in a commentary by Dennis Byrne. Byrne wrote in October: “During National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, it is fitting and proper that women be informed about any newly discovered dangers, even as the public groans under the weight of all the warnings surrounding the mere act of living.”

Byrne continued: “For example, a well-researched Chicago Tribunestory last week disclosed that women who have just a couple of alcoholic drinks daily increase their breast cancer risk by 13 per cent. Coincidentally, a new study reported that abortion is an important breast cancer risk factor, yet I couldn’t find a word describing the research in mainstream media.

“How to explain this disparity? I’ll be vigorously advised that ‘most’ studies disprove an abortion-breast cancer link. Or that the study in question appeared in a ‘conservative’ scientific journal. Or that the study is bogus or unimportant. Or, more rudely, that the whole breast cancer argument has been concocted by anti-abortion rights advocates to make women afraid to have abortions. The issue is dead, I’ll be notified. Kaput. Here I would remind critics that in science, it’s not who says it or how many say it that counts. What does count are the data and the rigor with which they are collected, analyzed and held up to a scientifically credible hypothesis.”

Byrne examines the method of the study and finds it stands up to scrutiny.

The ABC link is one of which women should be made aware; supposedly pro-woman abortion advocates betray their true agenda – on behalf of abortion, not women – when they deny that abortion can lead to breast cancer and prevent women from knowing the truth.

To read more about the ABC link, see “Abortion-breast cancer link clearer than ever” on page 7.