This Is Literally A Deadly Silence

Published research linking induced abortion with increased breast cancer risk has existed since 1957. At last count 27 out of 34 studies worldwide indicated a connection between abortion and cancer. But why is it that in an informal survey I conducted among dozens of women, only two had ever heard of this possible link?

The answer, in my opinion, is politics. The issue has become politicized and polarized between anti-abortion activists - who would like to see mountains of headlines on the topic - and prochoicers, who judge the significance of this issue to be of molehill size.

With all the political wrangling, the scientific data have received various interpretations and the news media are confused about whose story to print. However, I believe the possibility of a connection between induced abortion and breast cancer should be viewed as an important women’s health issue, not as a political football, especially when it appears that it may be the single most avoidable risk factor for this disease.

According to Dr. Joel Brind of New York’s Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, while cancer risk is reduced for those who go through with a full term pregnancy, there is an overall 30 percent increase in the risk that breast cancer will develop later, when a pregnancy is artificially cut short. This increased risk, Brind contends, is due to “estrogen overexposure” - a condition favoring breast cell mutation. Brind’s studies showing a link between surgical abortion and breast cancer, published in October 1996, garnered worldwide headlines - but only momentarily. All media coverage of his findings soon trailed off and disappeared. He suspected politics at play: “Mainstream organs of public health policy wasted no time in using their power and prestige to bury the truth,” he said.

Accused of being in league with the anti-abortion movement, Brind and his methods of research were heavily criticized by a group of Harvard doctors; thus, his studies soon lost credibility. However, the United Kingdom’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also reviewed Brind’s report and judged it to be “carefully conducted.” They maintain that it has “no major methodological shortcomings and could not be disregarded.”

Dr. Janet Daling of Seattle’s Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center experienced the same frustration over the reception her studies received. Significantly, she found an even higher risk factor than Brind. She found “the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50 percent higher than among other women.” Those under age 18 or over 30 who abort increase their breast cancer risk by more than 100 percent, and teenagers with a family history of breast cancer who procure an abortion face a risk that is incalculably high, she concluded. But Daling soon had her studies shot down by an editorial in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Furious, she argued that “if politics gets involved with science, it will hold back the progress researchers make.” She resents “people messing with the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life.”

It’s interesting that, unlike Brind, Daling is considered pro-choice. She remarked, “I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate.”

Because they see that vital information is not getting out fast enough for women to consider, several congressmen and state legislators are now demanding funding for more studies on the abortion-breast cancer connection.

Under congressional pressure, the National Cancer Institute revised its Web page on the abortion-cancer link. Today, the Institute’s Web site includes an article about cancer and abortion which says: “ 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 abortions.”

Meanwhile, a few states have mandated that abortion providers must warn women considering induced abortion of their breast cancer risk.

Unfortunately, though, few abortion clinics advise patients of that possibility. Because of this failure to warn, Stephanie Carter of Hatboro, Pa., recently filed suit against abortion provider Dr. Charles Benjamin of Philadelphia. Carter claims she would not have had her pregnancy surgically aborted had she been warned of the physical and emotional risks. This case is significant because it is the first trial citing the potential for cancer due to abortion, and it will be tried before a jury.

All states have “informed consent” laws protecting surgical patients; therefore, those who counsel or perform surgeries on women seeking abortion owe it to them to give a full disclosure regarding possible risks, no matter how great or small they think those risks may be. They should stop ignoring the results of scientific research, keeping in mind that a woman’s right to choose should include the right to know about abortionbreast cancer research.

Instead of being pro-life or pro-choice on this issue that concerns women’s health and mortality, I urge all parties to be pro-information. Perhaps then abortion will finally become what so many politicians have so loudly pledged to make it - rare.