The following is a press release from the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, a pro-life group near Chicago that works to educate about the link between induced abortion and breast cancer.
The U.S. Postal Service is selling “Fund the Cure” stamps to raise money for breast cancer research. We urge you to boycott the stamps because funds are being funneled to the National Cancer Institute (NCI). We encourage funding for breast cancer research conducted by organizations other than the NCI.
At a July, 1998 hearing on the state of Cancer Research, the NCI was accused by then Congressman Tom Coburn, MD of misleading the public about 41 years of research linking abortion with the disease and selectively releasing data. Coburn said that the agency had a “bias for lack of what the facts are” and that its web page was “not scientifically driven, on this issue, but is more politically driven…”
Like the tobacco-cancer link, the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) research is not only politically explosive, but also a dagger in the heart of a well-funded, politically connected U.S. industry. The NCI's web page in 1998 said:
Although it has been the subject of extensive research, there is no convincing evidence of a direct relationship between breast cancer and either induced or spontaneous abortion. Available data are inconsistent and inconclusive, with some studies indicating small elevations in risk, and others showing no risk associated with either induced or spontaneous abortions.
The agency imposed an exceptionally high bar for this elective procedure by requiring “convincing evidence” of a connection. One scientist charged that the agency had also published an “outright lie.” [1, 2] Its website said, “The scientific rationale for an association between abortion and breast cancer is based on limited experimental data in rats and is not consistent with human data.” Truth was, 30 studies conducted on women in various parts of the world had been published by 1998 and 24 reported increased risk.
Biological evidence supported a causal relationship too. An animal study demonstrated that scientists could cause breast cancers in 77.7% of the rats who'd had abortions by exposing them to the carcinogen DMBA, but not in any rats having full term pregnancies. Among exposed virgin rats, 71.4% developed the disease. [3] Estrogen, moreover, is recognized as a tumor promoter. Most risk factors for the disease are associated with estrogen overexposure. When a woman becomes pregnant, estrogen causes her breasts to swell. By the end of the first trimester, estrogen rises in her blood 2000%. The hormone causes normal and pre-cancerous breast cells to multiply.
Estrogen's effects are neutralized by a third trimester process – “differentiation” – which fashions breast cells into milk-producing tissue and terminates cell multiplication. The woman choosing a full term pregnancy has more differentiated, cancer resistant cells than what she had before pregnancy and increased lifetime protection from the disease. Conversely, the woman choosing an abortion has more undifferentiated, cancer vulnerable cells than what she had before pregnancy.
The NCI web page confused the effects of miscarriages and induced abortions – as if these two events had the same impact on a woman's risk. In fact, most miscarriages produce insufficient estrogen and do not raise breast cancer risk. Miscarriages result from an insufficiency of the progesterone required to maintain the pregnancy. Estrogen is made from progesterone.
Four members of Congress requested hearings on the ABC research. Physician-Congressmen Tom Coburn and Dave Weldon stressed that biological evidence pointed to a causal relationship. Citing abortion as “the most avoidable risk factor for breast cancer,” they asserted, “Yet women are still being kept in the dark – or worse yet, knowingly given misinformation by government agencies charged with protecting their health.” They described an “anti-information position of the NCI with respect to this particular issue…”
Congressmen Henry Hyde and Chris Smith said that the NCI “sabotaged” the 1994 Daling study – the only study specifically commissioned by the agency – when it published “an accompanying editorial” written by Dr. Lynn Rosenberg in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Janet Daling et al. reported a 50% increased risk for women choosing an abortion. [4] Rosenberg, a Boston University School of Medicine epidemiologist, undermined the study, in part, by saying that Daling's findings were “far from conclusive, and it is difficult to see how they will be informative to the public.”
The hearings never took place. Late in 1999, the NCI modified its web page, removed its “outright lie” and deleted the words “no convincing evidence,” and “inconclusive.” Its new statement said:
The relationship between abortion and breast cancer has been the subject of extensive research. However, evidence of a direct relationship between breast cancer and either induced or spontaneous abortion is inconsistent. Some studies have indicated small elevations in risk, while others have not shown any risk associated with either induced or spontaneous abortion.
The agency still kept women in the dark about the fact that 26 out of 32 epidemiological studies worldwide had found a link by 1999. Out of 13 American studies, 12 reported increased risk. The revised statement continued to mix up the effects of miscarriages with induced abortions. It also said “some studies” revealed “small elevations in risk,” but there were actually 7 studies reporting a more than twofold elevation in risk. These studies are cited on our web page.
If there is no link between abortion and breast cancer, as the NCI would have us believe, then why has the agency felt the need to misrepresent the research and lie to women? Why weren't women told in 1973 when Roe v. Wade legalized abortion that scientists were studying a connection between abortion and breast cancer?
For further information about the mischief of the National Cancer Institute, visit our public policy page.
References
- Brind et al (1996) 50:481-96.
- Transcript of talks by Professor Joel Brind and Professor Robert Burton, Endeavour Forum Public Meeting (August 24, 1999) Malvern, Victoria, Australia, p. 20.
- Russo J, Russo IH, American Journal of Pathology(1980) 100:497-512.
- Daling et al. 86:1584-92.
(This article courtesy of Steven Ertelt and the Pro-Life Infonet email newsletter. For more information or to subscribe go to www.prolifeinfo.org or email infonet@prolifeinfo.org.)
