ABORTION-BREAST CANCER CONNECTION BEGINNING TO HAVE ITS DAY IN COURT

By Dave Andrusko

A North Dakota judge has ruled that a local abortion clinic did not mislead women when it gave prospective clients brochures which said there is no evidence of a relationship between abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer.

Judge Michael McGuire's March 28 decision in the four-day-long trial was in response to a lawsuit filed by Amy Jo Kjolsrud, who argued the brochures amounted to false advertising. Originally, the Red River Women's Clinic handed out 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."

The clinic quickly reversed itself, removing the brochure only to circulate a replacement brochure that quoted a National Cancer Institute (NCI) "fact sheet."

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 However, this claim had been retracted by the NCI.

In ruling that the Red River Women's Clinic exercised "reasonable care," McGuire said, "It does appear that the clinic had the intent to put out correct information and that their information is not untrue or misleading in any way." A somewhat similar case was dismissed earlier in March by a California judge.

Testifying for Kjolsrud, Joel Brind, Ph.D., laid out the many studies that substantiate the connection between a woman's decision to have an induced abortion and a subsequent greater risk of breast cancer. Brind told the court that 28 of 37 studies conducted worldwide show a connection, raising a woman's breast cancer risk at least 30%. Julie Palmer, like Brind an epidemiologist, testified that she did not believe there is a direct link, although, she said, there are studies that support the idea there is a relationship between abortion and breast cancer.

Judge McGuire concluded from this, "One thing is clear from the experts, and that is that there are inconsistencies," the Forum newspaper reported. "The issue seems to be in a state of flux."

According to the Forum, Kjolsrud said "she is disappointed in the judge's ruling but still confident that the message about abortion and breast cancer is out in the public now." Kjolsrud originally filed her suit in 1999.

There was much that was eerily coincidental about the trial and events leading up to it. For example, just three weeks before the trial began, the NCI revised its fact sheet on abortion and breast cancer yet again.

According to the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, the latest NCI fact sheet says, in part, "The current body of scientific evidence suggests that women who have had either induced or spontaneous abortions have the same risk as other women for developing breast cancer. Until the mid-1990s, results from studies of breast cancer and induced or spontaneous abortion were inconsistent. Some investigators reported an increase in risk, typically from interview studies of several hundred breast cancer patients compared to other women. Other studies found no evidence of increased risk."

But, the coalition notes, "To set the record straight, 18 out of 23 studies published by 1996 had found risk elevations. Seven studies had reported a more than twofold increased risk, 3 of which were American studies. The NCI continues to erroneously treat miscarriage and abortion as if their effects on breast cancer risk were one in the same. Most miscarriages do not result in an increased risk because of an insufficiency of estrogen, a known tumor promoter."

Intriguingly, Brind noted, the NCI cites shortcomings in studies that demonstrated a connection. "Ironically, the same studies that the NCI depends upon as primary evidence for its claim that abortion does not elevate a woman's risk of breast cancer are also the studies which embody those very shortcomings," he said.

While those who believe the linkage between abortion and breast cancer to be increasingly clear are unhappy with Judge McGuire's decision, they note that this threat to women's health is finally beginning to be addressed. They also cite a case in Australia settled out of court last fall, for undisclosed damages. According to the plaintiff's attorney, Charles Francis, the settlement was in part for failure to inform the patient about the link between abortion and breast cancer.

As the North Dakota trial began, the Los Angeles Times ran an article describing the battle over the abortion-breast cancer link as "the ferocious new front line in the abortion wars." If so, it is because of many reasons, including the

following very important observations from Dr. Brind. "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."

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