It’s delightfully ironic that researcher Dr. Joel Bring should give credit to the mainstream media for spreading awareness of the abortion-breast cancer link. Dr. Brind, an endocrinologist at Baruch College (City University of New York) is a leading authority on studies first-time induced abortion and breast cancer.
He was in Toronto in late October to discuss the impact of a new “mata-analysis” which brings together 23 previous studies. The study, published in the British Medical Association’s Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, concludes that women who have had an abortion are 30 per cent more likely to develop breast cancer at some point in their lives.
“We are convinced that such a broad base of statistical agreement rules out any reasonable possibility that the association is the result of bias or any other confounding variable,” the analysis concludes.
In a meeting with pro-life supporters, Dr. Brind cited the power of the mass media in bringing the abortion-breast cancer messages to a worldwide audience. The irony stems from the fact that since Dr. Brind first went public with his research findings, the media has either ignored his message or attempted to discredit the results. Even news reports of the meta-analysis cited Brind’s having written for pro-life publications – a clear attempt to use bias to discredit the study. Others in the scientific community have criticized the analysis as either incomplete or premature.
Despite by less than sympathetic treatment he has received from the mainstream media and some of his scientific colleagues, Dr. Brind believes the response to the meta-analysis represents a breakthrough. “This issue will never be the same again,” he said at an October18 press conference. “The abortion-breast cancer message is not at a certain level of the world’s consciousness. The momentum on this issue is moving to the pro-life side.”
We would like to share in Dr. Brind’s optimism that the truth will out in this case. Perhaps the research will soon convince legislators of the need for fully informed consent legislation, so that women seeking abortions will be fully apprised of the potential risks. Dr. Brind estimates that abortion results in a least 5,000 breast cancer cases in the U.S. each year. Faced with those kinds of numbers, can we continue to pretend that abortion is as risk-free as the pro-choice element would like us to believe?
Would it be unfair to suggest that in attempting to discredit the mounting evidence of the abortion-breast cancer link, certain parties are in effect more pro-abortion than they are anti-cancer?