Guest Author - Rebecca Pearce-Banks
October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. For years both sides of the abortion debate have been arguing about the connection between breast cancer and induced abortion.
I’ve done thorough research and, at first, thought I had found numerous studies that support both sides of the argument. Taking to heart the old adage “Know your enemy,” I dug a little deeper. I expected to find cold, hard facts from studies done by both the pro-life and pro-abortion groups. Instead I found several well-known organizations basing their refutation of the abortion/breast cancer link not on numerous ironclad studies, but on deriding study-reporting practices.
The methods of conducting a scientific study were somewhat new to me, so I searched until I felt I had a good grasp of how it is done.
The abortion/breast cancer studies have been conducted using either the case-control or the cohort method of gathering data.
In case-control studies, women who already have breast cancer (cases) are studied, along with a group that is cancer-free (controls). Information is then gathered from all subjects and compared to see if any one thing stands out as a contributing factor in causing the breast cancer.
In cohort studies, information is gathered from a large population of women, regardless of cancer status, and they are then tracked for a period of time to see who gets breast cancer.
According to the arguments of establishments issuing denials on the abortion/breast cancer link, case-control studies claiming the opposite cannot be trusted. They theorize that women faced with a life-threatening situation, such as breast cancer, are more likely to disclose sensitive background information like an abortion. They also theorize that the control groups, for reasons they have never identified, are much less likely to disclose an abortion.
They call this “reporting bias.” Unfortunately for them, they have never been able to factually prove their theory about these case-control studies. Finger-pointing and blanket denials is as scientific as their rebuttal has gotten.
That is, unless you factor in their beloved cohort studies. In that case, they round up a very large number of women from all backgrounds, ethnic groups, income brackets, etc. They gather background information on all the women, and then continue to monitor and update their health information for a period of time. When a number of women who never reported having an abortion happen to get breast cancer, two things will happen.
First, there is never any question to whether the subjects provided full disclosure on past abortions. According to their reporting bias theory regarding the validity of case-control studies, one should challenge all information not received under the duress of a major medical problem. Sadly, this double standard has been largely ignored because it is largely unknown.
Second, when a population of cohort study subjects are diagnosed with breast cancer without previous abortion, the study declares that abortion does not directly cause breast cancer. The focus is then detracted from the true cause of study being an increased risk of breast cancer caused by abortion. (Not the direct cause and effect relationship they would have you believe is the concentration of their cohort study)
Not everyone who smokes cigarettes will get lung cancer, but they definitely have an increased risk of developing the disease. The same rings true for abortion. Regrettably, biased and diluted coverage of these studies have duped the American public into taking the sound bytes they hear on the evening news as irrefutable truth.
I could sit here and type ten pages disputing pro-abortion groups’ faulty studies and the agendas behind them. But the real burden falls on your shoulders… You have to go seek out the truth and become a strong advocate for women and unborn babies. As I found, researching this issue away from the voice of public “reason” can be eye opening. Here are some links to get you started. For more information, please contact me.
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
A self-proclaimed pro-choice doctor concludes induced abortion increases risk of breast cancer at an early age.
Doctor Angela Lanfranchi testifies before Massachusetts Joint Health Care Committee.
Q&A of various studies done to show the link between induced abortion and breast cancer
An explanation of biased findings in abortion/breast cancer studies