Major studies link abortion to alarming breast cancer increases

Ignoring all science, Obamacare treats young women as reproductive units needing to be managed with government-sponsored drugs and surgery. Photo: Young pro-abortion activist

WASHINGTON, December 11, 2013 — A new meta-study from China, where forced abortions and one child politics are the norm, concludes there is a 44 percent increased risk of breast cancer with one abortion and a 76 and 89 percent increase with two and three abortions. Meanwhile, Obamacare — being feverously pitched to young women as sexual freedom — includes a $1 billion superfund for abortions, enough to more than double abortions in America.

Based on the latest science, President Obama’s signature legislation that funds almost unlimited abortion may turn out to be real the war on America’s next generation of young women.

SEE RELATED: Update on teacher Bill Diss, pro life teacher, Planned Parenthood target

Dr. Michael New, assistant professor of political science at the University of Michigan–Dearborn and an associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, wrote in National Review Online:

“Earlier this month, the academic journal Cancer Causes Control published a meta-study analyzing the link between abortion and breast cancer in China. This meta-study pooled the results of 36 separate academic studies on the subject.

“The meta-study provides very compelling evidence that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. By pooling the 36 studies, it concluded that induced abortion raises the risk of breast cancer by 44 percent. Each of the 36 studies showed a positive correlation between abortion and breast cancer—and for at least 19 of the studies; the correlation reaches conventional standards of statistical significance.”

What is shocking is that this is not really news. The abortion breast cancer (ABC) link is well-known in America, but suppression of legitimate research documenting this link is just as widespread.

SEE RELATED: America joins in on the #GreatKateWait; even as they protect abortion

New explains: “Unsurprisingly, this study has received no attention from the mainstream media. The only outlets that have reported on the study are Christian, conservative, and pro-life media outlets. Of course, the mainstream media lavishes attention on studies which purportedly find that abortion does not pose health risks to women. … Once again, instead of thoughtfully engaging public-health debates about the health risks of abortion, the mainstream media is circling the wagons for their allies in the abortion industry.”

Mary L. Davenport, M.D., who is on the board of directors of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute and is immediate past president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, wrote in the American Thinker, “The censorship of medical journals, prevention of conference presentations, denial of grant money and faculty promotions, and self-censorship of honest scholars in academic medicine who want to tell the truth but feel they cannot, impoverishes us.”

Davenport describes the work of Dr. Joel Brind, professor of biology and endocrinology at Baruch College. Brind published a meta-analysis in 1996, “on abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer. The Brind meta-analysis, combining the results of 23 studies, gave a more complete view than any single study. But even though it was the most comprehensive study on the topic at the time, it was disregarded by establishment medical groups.” Brind’s study, published in the British Medical Association’s epidemiology journal, showed a 30 percent risk increase due to ABC.

Brind, in turn, points out that the new ABC study is just one of several that receive little or  no media coverage.

“The Huang study follows right on the heels of two new studies this year from India and Bangladesh, studies which reported breast cancer risk increases of unprecedented magnitude: over 600% and over 2,000%, respectively, among women who had any induced abortions,” writes Brind at LifeNews. “[The] Chinese meta-analysis is a real game changer. Not only does it validate the earlier findings from 1996, but its findings are even stronger.”

Medical research is dependent upon millions or billions of dollars in government grants and the anti-ABC cabal is global. Both Davenport and Brind agree the suppression of ABC information by the established medical community is widespread.

In August 2013, Davenport’s presentation of a scientific paper on abortion and pregnancy, accepted months earlier by the Medical Women’s International Association in Seoul, South Korea, was cancelled at the last minute. Davenport described the chain of events: “

Shelley Ross, the Secretary-General of [MWIA] personally barged into an interview with Korean journalists to attempt to prevent us from speaking to them, almost causing a fist fight. In a press release regarding this incident, [Ross] claimed that the [ABC] presentations threatened a woman’s reproductive rights, and further asserted that ‘the evidence is overwhelming and undisputable that a woman’s control over her reproductive health is linked to … the health of women and children.’”

Brind describes the anti-ABC effort in the strongest of terms: “Since … our study came out in 1996, the ‘mainstream’ abortion advocates entrenched in universities, medical societies, breast cancer charities, journals, and especially, government agencies like the National Cancer Institute (in reality, the NCI is just another corrupt federal agency like the IRS and the NSA) have relentlessly targeted the ABC link with fraudulent studies and other attacks, culminating in a 2003 international phony ‘workshop’ by the NCI, which officially declared the ABC link non-existent.”

In reality, the policies of this administration treat young women as little more than reproductive units to be managed with government-sponsored drugs and surgery. In a decade or two, young women may find that free abortions actually come with a heavy price even beyond the loss of their child.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

More from Common Sense
blog comments powered by Disqus
Paul E. Rondeau

Paul E. Rondeau's research and writing on social issures has appeared in law journals, private publications, and  the popular press.  His work has been cited at the U.S. Supreme Court, United Nations and by best-selling authors.  He serves as executive director at American Life League.  He can be contacted at


Contact Paul E. Rondeau


Please enable pop-ups to use this feature, don't worry you can always turn them off later.

Question of the Day
Photo Galleries
Popular Threads
Powered by Disqus