Canadian columnist lauds pro-life Canadian book on abortion complications, highlights study documenting link between abortion and breast cancer

 

By Dave Andrusko

abortionimpact4National Right to Life has paid studious attention to the link between induced abortion and an increase in breast cancer literally for decades. We’ve run story after story, most often written by Prof. Joel Brind, loaded with studies that prove the “ABC Link” is not some statistical artifice conjured up by pro-lifers but a virtually undeniable reality for anyone with eyes to see.

Over the past ten days we have published three posts (two by Dr. Brind) about a hugely important study coming out of China written by a team of Chinese researchers led by Dr. Yubei Huang (“Chinese Abortion-Breast Cancer bombshell: Meta-analysis of 36 Chinese studies shows abortion increases breast cancer risk by 44%,”;  “Abortion/breast cancer link in China demonstrated beyond dispute, paralleled China’s enforcement of ‘One-Child’ policy”; and “Big news of abortion-breast cancer link in China provokes swift and unoriginal pro-abortion backlash”).

That study, “A meta-analysis of the association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk among Chinese females,” found a 44% increased risk for breast cancer among Chinese women having one abortion, a much higher rate for women having two abortions (76%), and higher rates yet for women having “at least” three abortions (89%).

But the grandeur of the Internet is that everyone around the world can with a click of a mouse read our stories and the study itself. More women can learn the truth, whether they live in the United States, China, or Canada. I was reminded of that when I read “Hard truths about abortion” by Barbara Kay, a columnist for a major Canadian newspaper, the National Post.

She describes herself in these terms—“I am not an abortion ideologue”—adding that “My beef has always been the lack of informed consent, the failure of abortion providers to volunteer IA’s [Induced Abortion’s] known risks to women and their future offspring to their clients.”

Kay has written a two-fer.

The first part of her column is about the Chinese study, buttressed by “A study in the Indian Journal of Community Medicine in May [which] found a six-fold greater risk of breast cancer among Indian women with a history of IA as compared to non-aborting women.”

Kay hits the high points of the study, and includes some trenchant comments from Dr. Brind. If that were the end of the column, that would be more than enough reason to read ”Hard truths about abortion.”

But in the second half of her column Kay discusses a book we reviewed last week– “Complications: Abortion’s Impact on Women.” This invaluable 400+ page book, authored by Angela Lanfranchi, Ian Gentles. and Elizabeth Ring-Cassidy, is published by our Canadian friends at The deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research.

Kay is clearly impressed. She writes, “[T]he book’s objective claims, 10 years in development, are evidence-based, with most of its 650 footnotes leading to peer-reviewed academic research. These authors find that studies worldwide report a strong correlation between intimate partner violence and abortion, suggesting more abortions are submitted to under pressure or coercion than by free choice.”

Kay is absolutely correct when she observes that the book is an abortion myth-buster. “One frequently hears, for example, that abortion is safer than giving birth,” she writes. “According to four large-scale data linkage studies cited from the U.S., the U.K., Denmark and Finland, however, it appears the reverse is true; IA causes significantly higher maternal mortality than childbirth. Another myth is that women freely choose abortion.”

And on and on, one brilliant insight after another. Let me end with a lengthy quote from Kay, who is always particularly adept at confronting “progressives” on abortion. She writes

“Soul-searching days lie ahead for ideologues invested in the notion that abortion is a minor, virtually risk-free procedure, without medical or psychological residue. For many ‘progressives,’ the right to unfettered abortion is the quintessential symbol of women’s liberation from the patriarchy. Any constraint at all, even on a woman’s confidence in aborting — whether or not it constitutes rational consideration of her own best interests — represents a defeat in the battle for gender equality. But this absolutism was adopted in simpler scientific times, before DNA, ultrasounds and longitudinal epidemiological studies. These scientific advances have altered the perceptions of many ordinary Canadians who had previously given little thought to the ‘blob of tissue’ being extracted from women, but who now rightly regard abortion (especially sex selection abortion) as a complex, morally freighted issue.”

Let me strongly encourage you to read Kay’s full column.  If you have time read our look at “Complications: Abortion’s Impact on Women.”

Details about purchasing the book can be found at www.deveber.org/complications.