Abortion: The “Best Predictor” of Breast Cancer

By Joel Brind, Ph.D.

Editor’s note. This was originally written for National Right to Life News and supplements the important topic discussed in “Abortion and Breast Cancer goes mainstream again…finally!”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Patrick Carroll

The fall 2007 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons provides important additional confirmation of the abortion-breast cancer link (ABC link). This time, the study comes from an unexpected source.

The Breast Cancer Epidemic was produced by British actuary Patrick Carroll, research director of the London-based Pension and Population Research Institute. Actuaries are in the business of making forecasts of disease and death for the insurance and pension industries.

Carroll’s study found that abortion is the “best predictor of breast cancer” incidence in all eight European countries he examined (England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Finland, and Denmark).

In his Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons article, Carroll employed the same mathematical model for all of the nations that he had used in a 1997 study that predicted with remarkable accuracy the increase in breast cancer in England and Wales from 1998 to 2004.

He took all of the factors known to strongly affect the risk of breast cancer and tracked them over time in all eight countries, along with the incidence of breast cancer. There were seven factors, including age at first childbirth, number of children (or no children), and abortion.

(And in case you’re wondering about the prevailing dogma that most women who get breast cancer have no known risk factors, see my article in the October NRL News that debunks that myth.)

By examining data on pregnancies, hormone use, and breast cancer diagnoses for women born each year back to the 1920s, Carroll found that the strongest, most significant correlations were between abortion and breast cancer in all the European countries he studied. Deriving the mathematical equations that fit the data, he was then able to make accurate predictions.

Carroll, who is also a statistician, predicts an overall breast cancer increase of a whopping 50.9% in the cancer rate for England and Wales by 2029, due to high abortion rates and low fertility (childbirth) rates alone.

By contrast, smaller breast cancer rate increases are predicted for the rest of Europe, where abortion rates are lower.

Carroll’s study is comprehensive and enormously impressive. In terms of European populations of women, covering the last three decades of the 20th century (including women born within the last seven decades of the century), Carroll has—quite literally—done the math.

Carroll was even able to find that abortion could explain at least part of the heretofore inexplicable “reverse social gradient” observed in most of Europe—and the U.S., for that matter: that more affluent women have a higher incidence of breast cancer. That’s because they have more abortions, which increases the risk, and have their children later in life, meaning they do not enjoy the protection against breast cancer that comes when a woman completes her first pregnancy until later in life.

Why does abortion increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer by an overall average of about 30%? After puberty, a girl’s breasts grow to adult size, but they still consist almost entirely of immature type 1 and type 2 lobules, the places where almost all breast cancers start.

After 32 weeks gestation, however, most lobules mature into cancer-resistant type 3 and type 4. This explains why full-term pregnancy—in contrast to abortion or premature birth before 32 weeks—permanently lowers a woman’s long-term risk of breast cancer.

There is still another nagging question that Carroll’s work might raise in the context of the ABC link. If the ABC link is already well established by 50 years of epidemiological research and decades of biological research, why only now has this important piece of the proof been provided?

Such evidence as Carroll has provided has indeed been popping up around the world for the last 20 years, but only now has someone put it all together for many populations in a mathematically rigorous way. For example, an important piece of such correlational data appeared in 1990. A study from the Soviet Union, where abortion was legalized in the mid 1950s, and quickly became the dominant means of birth control, revealed a 200% increase in the Soviet breast cancer incidence rate between 1960 and 1987.

Our own National Cancer Institute (NCI) published its 2001 Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer. In that year it focused on incidence patterns of the five major types of cancer between 1987 and 1998.

That study revealed that, although cancer in men went down 3% per year, the overall cancer incidence rate went up. Why?

Because it went up slightly more than 3% per year in women. A closer examination of the data showed that virtually the entire increase in cancer was in breast cancer among women under the age of 65 in 1998 (i.e., under the age of 40 in 1973 when abortion was legalized on demand nationwide).

In other words, the NCI found that virtually the entire increase in cancer incidence during the last decade of the 20th century could be laid at the doorstep of Roe v. Wade.

Unfortunately, the NCI is still in denial, apparently finding the ABC link to be a far too inconvenient truth.

Patrick Carroll, however, has seen fit to advise—in a yet more recent paper he published in the professional journal, The Actuary—that British insurance actuaries adjust their premiums and that health care providers plan their treatment facilities to accommodate the forecast increases in breast cancer.

Joel Brind, Ph.D., is a professor of biology and endocrinology at Baruch College of the City University of New York, and editor and publisher of the Abortion-Breast Cancer Quarterly Update. He is a frequent contributor to NRL News.