News

NEW YORK, April 23, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new study by Karin Michels and her colleagues on the link between abortion and breast cancer is seriously flawed, said the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer.

“We call on journalists to challenge Michels et al. to conduct a proper study that allows sufficient follow-up time between exposure to abortion and the development of breast cancer,” said Karen Malec, president of the Coalition.

  At least four other studies in recent years have been criticized for the same reason.

“This isn’t the first time that Harvard Nurses Study researchers [8] have produced the wrong epidemiological results,” said Joel Brind, president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute. “They were wrong about combined hormone replacement therapy {HRT) reducing the risk of heart attack and stroke, and they’re wrong about abortion.”

  The U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) funded the new study, Michels et al. 2007.  Ten years ago, NCI expert Patricia Hartge concluded, “In short, a woman need not worry about breast cancer when facing the difficult decision of whether to terminate a pregnancy.”

“So why has the NCI continued to spend millions of dollars to fund studies on the abortion-cancer link?” asked Malec.  “Clearly, its scientists must either suspect a link or know that it exists.”

  The study, Michels et al. 2007, focused on the debated breast cancer risk – whether abortion leaves women with an increased number of cancer-vulnerable breast lobules. It did not focus on the recognized breast cancer risk – the loss of the protective effect of a full term pregnancy. 

“Even the NCI agrees that increased childbearing, starting at an early age, protects women from breast cancer,” said Malec. “Legislators have a moral obligation to require abortion providers to inform expectant mothers that if they have an abortion, their breast cancer risk will be higher than it would be if they have a baby.  That’s settled science.”

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.