Lung Cancer and Breast Cancer: Two Approaches

Americans are familiar with the Surgeon General's warnings that accompany the sales of tobacco products. Every item must carry notification that its use has been credibly linked to lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, fetal injury, premature birth, low birth weight, and overall health complications. While smoking remains legal, educational and public institutions have collaborated to discourage the practice—and rightfully so. The choice to smoke is now a fully informed choice.

Not so with abortion. Dozens of studies have credibly linked the alarming increases in the rate of breast cancer with the deliberate termination of pregnancy and yet women are not informed about the inherent risks to the procedure.

Evidence surrounding childbearing and breast cancer has long been available and undisputed. For centuries, the medical community called it "the preventative effect of childbearing." Beginning in 1970 with a landmark study by Harvard University, scientists simply quantified what lay wisdom had already recognized: having a first child before the age of 24, having several children, and breast-feeding them markedly reduces a woman’s risk of breast cancer.

Since then, with the legalization and growth of the abortion industry into a multi-billion dollar business, the avoidable medical risks have been buried for the sake of selling a highly politicized product. The proliferation of breast cancer it its wake has caught the nation’s attention, and yet the insidious contributing factors have been studiously—and irresponsibly—ignored.

Clearly, not all women who have abortions get breast cancer and not all women with breast cancer have procured abortions, but significant links are still there. Estrogen overexposure is the key. The full explanation can be found at www.bcpinstitute.org but one has to begin by realizing that estrogen is actually a secondary carcinogen. Despite the good it does, it also has the capacity to produce abnormal tissue, especially when an abortion interrupts the body’s delicate process of preparing for pregnancy and nursing.

Dr. Joel Brind, combining many studies for a meta-analysis, concludes that nearly 10,000 cases of breast cancer are presently related to the abortion link each year, and with  abortions being procured by increasingly younger women, that number will rise to almost 50,000 annually by the year 2020.

While many of the studies acknowledging the increased breast cancer risk are conducted by abortions supporters, the contrary studies have been shown to be flawed, biased, and unethically tied to those whose business is the marketing of abortion. Even as the public proved too wise to succumb to such a strategy from the tobacco industry, confusion about what makes an informed "choice" concerning abortion has allowed them to turn a blind eye to industry-based sleight of hand in this realm.

It is gratifying that breast cancer is very much in the news considering its 40% increase in the last 30 years. It legitimately draws on the sympathies of a genuinely concerned population, but to ignore one of the greatest contributing factors is an egregious disservice to all women. Abortion supporters have long argued that the pro-life community is singularly concerned with the welfare of the child, not the mother, and yet it is the proponents of "choice" who have suppressed this critical information. Who really cares for women, we must ask?

The pink ribbons are all around us. Most media outlets cooperate freely in raising both awareness and money to fight this horrendous disease. Perhaps your contribution to the cause this year could be to spread the word about the avoidable risks that can lead to breast cancer. Pro-lifers do care about women—and revealing the abortion link would be a real act of charity.