Abortion and Breast Cancer:

Taking It to Court - - and Winning

By Joel Brind, Ph.D.

It's a fact of life these days in the western world--and especially in the U.S.--that sooner or later, serious issues end up in court. After all, Roe v. Wade is not the name of a law, it's the name of a lawsuit.

Early this year, in Australia, new ground was broken in the courtroom regarding the abortion-breast cancer link (ABC link). In addition, there are ongoing cases in the United States which hold the promise that women may one day be told the truth that an induced abortion increases a woman's risk of breast cancer by 30% or more. Currently, abortionists in only four states are required to inform women of the possible ABC link.

The breakthrough happened in greater Melbourne, Australia, but it seems sure to be a harbinger of things to come on this side of the world. The unnamed post-abortive woman sued an abortionist for a botched, second-trimester abortion, with body parts expelled over a matter of days after the procedure, and severe psychological trauma.

The case was actually settled out of court, for undisclosed damages, last fall, so there was no precedent-setting court ruling or jury verdict announced. But what was precedent-setting was that the settlement was in part for failure to inform the patient about the ABC link. The plaintiff's claim, articulated by her attorney, Charles Francis, contained three key elements:

1) failure to warn the patient "that the termination of her pregnancy might increase the risk of her subsequently developing breast cancer,"

2) failure to warn the patient about the existence "of a body of medical opinion and/or surveys that suggested" an ABC link, and

3) failure to inform the patient of the breast cancer risk-lowering effect of carrying the pregnancy to term.

The explanation for why an induced abortion increases a woman's risk of breast cancer is the model of simplicity.

A. Estrogens are strong growth promoters of normal and most cancerous breast tissue.

B. Most known risk factors for breast cancer are attributable to some form of estrogen overexposure.

C. Maternal estradiol (estrogen) rises 20-fold (2,000%) during the first trimester of a normal pregnancy. Estrogen makes breast tissue grow, including potentially cancerous tissue. If the pregnancy is completed, other hormones cause the breast tissue to differentiate into milk-producing tissue. However, if pregnancy isn't completed, the excess estrogen leaves the tissue free to grow into abnormal or even cancerous cells.

In reaction to the Australian settlement, one need look no further than the pro-abortion spin that comes out of the official sources of public health information, as well as the likes of Planned Parenthood, to appreciate how important this all is.

These critics allege that the ABC link is "unproven" or "not established." But the point here is that even if the Australian court were to have accepted that the link is unproven, the fact that there is evidence in the published medical literature should be in itself sufficient to require that any medical practitioner inform a woman of the existence of such evidence. Otherwise, the abortionist should be guilty of an assault or battery upon the patient.

Is there such a body of evidence? There is published evidence in abundance documenting the ABC link.

As of today, 28 out of 37 epidemiological studies--dating back as far as 1957--have found that women who've had an induced abortion are more likely to get breast cancer later in life. In studies on American women specifically, the trend is even clearer. Thirteen out of 15 studies show an increased risk. (See items 1 and 2 above.)

And that's just what is termed the "independent" effect of having an abortion--the negative results. The flip side is that the abortion costs the woman a positive result--the protective effect that is associated with completing a full-term pregnancy.

This is not idle speculation. For over 30 years, this protective effect--the fact that a full-term pregnancy lowers breast cancer risk (especially when it is the woman's first pregnancy)--has been well established in the medical literature. (See item number 3.)

A medical practitioner has a responsibility to warn the patient about this evidence of potential harm for an entirely elective procedure.

The abortion industry tries to hide behind the white wall of denial erected by medical associations, such as the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and defended by prestigious authorities such as the World Health Organization, National Cancer Institute (NCI), American Cancer Society, and others.

However, it is one thing to say that evidence of an ABC link is "inconclusive" or "unproven," and that it is "customary practice" or accepted "standard of care" not to mention it. But it is quite another to say that evidence of the link does not exist.

The obvious falsity of this is, in fact, the basis of a lawsuit coming to trial soon in North Dakota. The plaintiff, Amy Jo Mattson, accuses the Red River Women's Clinic of false advertising.

In the Red River case, the clinic had been handing brochures to prospective clients which read: "Anti-abortion activists claim that having an abortion increases the risk of developing breast cancer and endangers future childbearing. None of these claims are supported by medical research or established medical organizations" (boldface and underlining in original).

One would think the abortionist could hardly stand a chance defending such an obvious untruth. And the abortion clinic apparently shared that sentiment, for it quickly tried to settle the case by agreeing not to circulate the offending brochure.

But Mattson would have none of that, especially since the defendant clinic proceeded to circulate brochures which quoted an outdated National Cancer Institute "fact sheet."

The NCI "fact sheet" stated, "There is no evidence of a direct relationship between breast cancer and either induced or spontaneous abortion." The problem is that this false claim had been retracted by the NCI!

The trial in the Red River case (originally filed in 1999) is scheduled to take place in Fargo, North Dakota, later this month. The trial had been scheduled for September 11.

A similar case was filed late last year against Planned Parenthood (PPFA) and one of its affiliates in San Diego, California. Three women are suing on behalf of the general public, alleging false advertising on PPFA's Internet web site. Hopefully the case will go to trial later this year.

Neither of the plaintiffs in these two American cases is seeking monetary damages for any harm done to the plaintiffs (although one such case has been filed in Philadelphia). They are just trying to get the abortionists to tell the truth to the public.

Nevertheless, the arguments are very similar. Court rulings which acknowledge the evidence of the ABC link would seem bound to lead to successful malpractice litigation.

After all, the evidence of the ABC link is hardly an academic curiosity. My own estimate is that about 10,000 of the American women who get diagnosed with breast cancer each year have abortion to thank. And the NCI's own statistics, read in an unbiased fashion, back it up.

The four most common cancers--lung, prostate, breast, and colon--together account for more than half of all cancer cases. But only breast cancer is still on the rise in the U.S.

And most importantly, the entire rise in breast cancer incidence is occurring among women in their 60s and younger. These are women young enough to have had legal abortions.

That's a lot of women whose lives have been destroyed, and this damage will not be swept under the rug of "safe abortion," forever.

Joel Brind, Ph.D., is professor of human biology and endocrinology at Baruch College of the City University of New York, and founder and president of the non-profit Breast Cancer Prevention.