New Ways to Tell Old Lies: Abortion Law Reform Association’s new “Fact Sheet” on Abortion and Breast Cancer

By Joel Brind, PhD

Editor’s note. Dr. Brind will be speaking at the NRL 2017 national convention which begins next week in Milwaukee. Be sure to visit ASAP to take advantage of the early bird rate, before it ends June 22.

Joel Brind, Ph.D.

Joel Brind, Ph.D.

The breast cancer epidemic has been going global in recent years—with some of the blame falling squarely on abortion. As I have reported previously in NRL News Today, with literally dozens of studies coming out of south and central Asia and the Mideast, just within the past decade, the linkage is obvious.

And this follows on the now raging breast cancer epidemic in China, following on the infamous “one child policy” instituted in 1980. The role of abortion there became clear in 2013. Hubei Huang et al. publishing a systematic review and meta-analysis of no less than three dozen studies from mainland China alone.

Back in 1996 my colleagues and I documented with our own review and meta-analysis, among worldwide studies at that time—a 30% increase in breast cancer risk among women with a history of any induced abortions. This increase is now starring on the world stage for all to see. Literally millions of women are paying the price for what I have often described as a cover-up.

All these results mean that the trade association of the people that perform abortions (the obstetrician/gynecologists associations such as the American College of ObGyns and the Royal College of ObGyns) have a major PR problem on their hands.

Sure, you can recycle the old lies promulgated by the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) back in 2003, but 14-year-old conclusions about allegedly “safe abortion” are a bit old and the “evidence” almost laughably outdated.

Along comes the abortion advocacy group “Abortion Law Reform Association New Zealand” with a refurbished pack of lies they call a “fact sheet.”

Predictably, the new “fact sheet” trots out the NCI’s 2003 “workshop” findings that “Neither induced nor spontaneous abortions are linked to a rise (sic) in breast cancer risk.” I was one of the experts at the “workshop,” and we were not even permitted to examine the data, during this charade of one-sided presentations. (See

But the NCI disburses the grant money for most of the breast cancer research, and, as one other breast cancer researcher told me, in declining to collaborate on a minority report, “I have to live with these people every day; they have to sign off on my grants.”

So I wrote a minority report anyway. The NCI acknowledges it on their website as a “minority dissenting comment,” but, wouldn’t you know it, there is no link to the text or even a mention of the author’s name. (However you can find it here:

So what is the new angle from Abortion Law Reform Association New Zealand? It’s found as the very first “fact” on their “fact sheet,” no less.

“Many studies with strong research designs conducted throughout the world with hundreds of thousands of women unanimously conclude that women who have had either spontaneous or induced abortions do not have a subsequent elevated risk for developing breast cancer.”

Just in case you missed it, let’s follow the logic here. We start with “Many studies.”

How many is many? They don’t say. Nor—most importantly—do they say what proportion of existing studies they are talking about. It is only to state the obvious that the absence of such basic data is very disturbing.

Next, we hear that they are “studies with strong research designs.” This sounds impressive, even meaningful, but it has no meaning whatsoever, because they don’t say whether they are good studies or bad. (Most of these “many” are actually provably fraudulent, and I have published deconstructions of them many times in NRL News Today as well as in the peer-reviewed medical literature.)

But the real twist is when they tell you that these studies “unanimously conclude” something. Stay with me on this.

So, for example, say you have 100 studies. Twenty come to one conclusion (say, that there’s no link between abortion and breast cancer), and 80 of them come to the opposite conclusion (that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer).

Well, in a sense the 20 studies can be called “many,” right? Taking the “many” (20) studies (even though which in fact they comprises a small minority of the 100 total studies), we can say truthfully say that these “many’ studies “unanimously conclude” that there is no link.

See? It’s unanimous!

This should set a new world’s Olympic record in gymnastics—verbal gymnastics, that is!

But real facts–like the fact that abortion does indeed raise a woman’s risk of breast cancer–are not subject to majority rule by organizations which engage in such deceptive marketing.

Yes, they can be denied by a majority of health ministries, abortion associations, even voluntary anti-cancer charities (in reality, all the same cadre of politically correct population controllers), and you may arrive at any “consensus” you like.

Facts–real facts–are indeed stubborn things. The earth is round, it’s climate naturally varies over time, and abortion increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer.

Editor’s note. Joel Brind, Ph.D. is a Professor of Human Biology and Endocrinology at Baruch College, City University of New York. He is co-founder of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, Somerville, NJ, and a frequent contributor to NRL News Today and National Right to Life News.