T Nation

Scientific Review of 72 Studies, Biological Evidence Supports Abortion-Breast Cancer Link


Some people think I am off my rocker, yet they are NEVER proven wrong ; ) Here is a study that would make me super scared of the correlation, if I happened to be a woman and supported abortion on demand.

"A scientific review conducted by Angela Lanfranchi, MD and Patrick Fagan, Ph.D. found that support for an abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link exists in current knowledge of breast physiology (as it is presented in standard medical texts), as well as epidemiological and experimental research. The review, published in Issues in Law and Medicine, is entitled, â??Breast cancer and induced abortion: A comprehensive review of breast development and pathophysiology, the epidemiologic literature, and proposal for creation of databanks to elucidate all breast cancer risk factors.â??[1] Lanfranchi is Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery at the Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. Fagan is the Director of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute.
Among 72 epidemiological studies they reviewed, the authors explained:
â??â?¦21 show some positive, statistically significant relationship. Seven studies show a positive, marginally significant link between induced abortion and breast cancer. Of three meta-analyses on the subject, two show a positive, statistically significant link between induced abortion and breast cancer. Two ecological epidemiological studies show a relationship between induced abortion and breast cancer. These studies have been conducted over fifty years across multiple cultures and countriesâ?¦.â??[2]
The authors explained that surging pregnancy hormones (mostly estrogen) stimulate breast growth during the first months of pregnancy, leaving the breasts with an increase in cancer-susceptible Type 1 and Type 2 lobules (where most cancers are known to originate). If the mother carries her pregnancy to 32 weeks, her risk sharply declines because she has matured a sufficient number of lobules into permanently cancer-resistant Type 4 lobules; and she has acquired 90% of the risk reduction associated with a full term pregnancy. The authors said this evidence explains why other well-accepted reproductive risk factors raise risk including childlessness, premature birth before 32 weeks and second trimester miscarriages.[3]
The authors identified methods that are being used in gravely flawed studies that result in either an underestimate or the elimination of the risk: i.e., failure to follow women for a minimum of eight to 10 years after an abortion so that cancers are detectable; excluding breast cancer patients and women with histories of breast cancer; excluding consideration of women who died of the disease; confining their analyses to young women in their reproductive years; only comparing childless aborting women with childless never-pregnant women, instead of making the comparison with childbearing women (who are at reduced risk for breast cancer); and ignoring the effects of highly carcinogenic abortions (i.e., abortions occurring before first full term pregnancy, before age 18 or after age 30; abortions among women with a family history of breast cancer; and second trimester abortions).
The National Cancer Institute concluded after its 2003 workshop that abortion is not associated with breast cancer, but Lanfranchi and Fagan said the NCIâ??s conclusion contradicts not only epidemiological evidence of a link, but also accepted reproductive risks for breast cancer listed in standard texts including premature birth before 32 weeks gestation, delayed first full term pregnancy and childlessness.[4]
The authors analyzed the evidence in light of the nine criteria that Sir Austin Bradford Hill recommended in 1965. These guidelines are used to help determine whether a cause-effect relationship exists between a potential risk factor and a disease. After demonstrating that all nine criteria have been met, Lanfranchi and Fagan concluded:
â??We see that many studies of induced abortion demonstrate significant associations, across multiple cultures and with some apparent specificity of cause (hormone exposure). The association manifests itself in the appropriate order, demonstrates a dose effect, is biologically plausible and coherent with existing science and has been demonstrated by analogy.â??[5]
ABC link critics claim that recall bias is a flaw in research supporting a link, but they conveniently ignore studies that are free of any possibility of recall bias, including a prospective study on women in New York and two ecological studies.[6-8] Lanfranchi and Fagan called the recall bias hypothesis â??unproven.â??
In order to expand knowledge of the link, the authors recommended the establishment of a tissue bank and the development of a research data network located in existing mammography screening centers that would collect standardized data on forms concerning womenâ??s reproductive, hormonal and breast histories that would include all potential risk factors.
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international womenâ??s organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.
1. Lanfranchi A & Fagan P. Breast cancer and induced abortion: A comprehensive review of breast development and pathophysiology, the epidemiologic literature, and proposal for creation of databanks to elucidate all breast cancer risk factors. Issues in Law and Medicine 2014;29(1):1-133.
2. Ibid, p. 101.
3. Ibid, p. 102.
4. Ibid, p. 100.
5. Ibid, p. 103.
6. Howe HL, Senie RT, Bzduch H, Herzfeld P. Early abortion and breast cancer risk among women under age 40. Int J Epidemiol 1989;18:300-304.
7. Remennick L. Reproductive patterns and cancer incidence in women: A population-based correlation study in the USSR. International Journal of Epidemiology 1989;18(3):498-510.
8. Carroll, P. The breast cancer epidemic: modeling and forecasts based on abortion and other risk factors.â?? Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Vol. 12, No. 3 (Fall 2007) 72-78."



You are proof God doesn't exist.


You should be ashamed of yourself for attempting to con people into believing this ABC bullshit. This lie is continually perpetuated by the anti-science anti-abortion crowd. Congratulations on trying to scare women.




Here's a study proving that the more "religious" a person is, the lower their IQ is. Aren't studies fun?



Granted the OP is off his rocker, but this is his first semi-coherent post ever.


Well it is copy and pasted so, it is not really his post.


Be fair, he wrote a small paragraph on his own.

edit: Of course, the first sentence admits he is off his rocker.


Please address the topic and prove me wrong. If the science of the world was so strong, it would NOT be wrong. Oh wait, that is not how science works. That would be a conundrum.


I wouldn't call a sentence with a comma a paragraph....


I love how these religious zealots, pick and choose which studies they believe. Half the time they completely reject the peer review process and scientific method in general, yet they use a fucking computer which is a direct consequence of quantum mechanic theory, peer review and the scientific method. If I remember correctly, the op would be dead if it wasn't for this process. Look at his avatar.

"Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons"
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a politically conservative non-profit association founded in 1943 to "fight socialized medicine and to fight the government takeover of medicine."[1][2] The group was reported to have approximately 4,000 members in 2005, and 3,000 in 2011.

Clearly an objective scientific source.

Patrick S Carrol. M.A.

I didn't know a liberal arts major was qualified to write about epigenetics?

A native of Ireland, Dr. Fagan earned his Bachelor of Social Science degree in Sociology and Social Administration, and a professional graduate degree in psychology (Dip. Psych.) from University College Dublin. He received a doctoral degree at American University in 1976, and in October of 2006 he defended a Ph.D dissertation in public policy (Belonging and Rejection in Family and Religion: Impacts on Society and Implications for Policy).

Ph.D in public policy? Seriously. I have a degree in applied physics, I guess that makes me and expert on renaissance poetry right?

That entire diatribe you listed is about as effective an argument as the bible.


I should also add that we will never convince people like kneedragger, because they figured out the answers to everything when they were in high school.

We should refute this garbage because of the thousands of lurkers who read it and believe it because they don't know any better. Education and scientific literacy is the only thing that will ensure our species survival. Prove things for yourself. Reading a study is not proof. Conducting an experiment and verifying current theory is proof.


If rationality is the means of arriving at truth then you may be correct. However the problem lies herein: if rationality is not the means of arriving at truth then rationality itself can be dismissed via an irrational argument.

Edit. Example:

Rationality is not a means of arriving at truth because bananas are surfboards.


I didn't use the word rationality anywhere. Rationality does not lead to truths about the physical world. That is what led the Greeks down a rabbit hole. It may lead to mathematical truths, but only because these truths are congruent with existing definitions. 2+2=4 Because it is defined as such.

The scientific method is empirically based. It, by definition, can not answer questions outside of the scope of nature. But while we live inside the scope of nature, it is the only tool we have to make accurate, repeatable predictions. Hypothesis, test, refute, retest. There is no other method when dealing with the physical world, of which cancer is an element.

How else can we learn about the physical world, trial and error. That is the scientific method. You can not reason your way from primary axioms to a satellite.


The scientific method relies upon rationality - eg, something happens >> something must have caused it to happen. Whereas if rationality is not a means of arriving at truth one could say: something happens >> no it didn't; yes it did; didn't you kill my brother? Knickers, fish sticks and bananas.


  1. All objects that exist are surfboards
  2. A banana is an object
  3. All bananas are surfboards

This is a completely sound argument and reiterates my point, but it reduces to mere word games. Define banana as equivalent to object.

But this is off topic and appears to be a subtle attempt to shift the topic from empirical scientific methods to philosophy, of which endless arguments would ensue.


Again that relies upon rationality. If rationality is not a means of arriving at truth one could say:

  1. All objects that exist are surfboards
  2. A banana is an object
  3. A banana is never a surfboard except when it's a teapot

Not so subtle.


You are conflating deductive logic, with inference. Scientific models are just that, models. The are not an axiomatic algorithm.

If i throw a ball I can reasonably infer that the ball will fall. This inference does not follow from any premise, such as what goes up must come down. There may be a situation where the ball does not fall down. It is not a logical truth that the ball must fall.

Now lets all kindly return the to topic at hand, abortions cause breast cancer. I am happy to discuss epistemology in another thread.


Fair enough. I contend that abortions cause breast cancer because bananas are surfboards.



You do not understand science and I will not waste my time trying to explain it to you.

Here is the bottom line: you are spreading outright lies (just to clarify- there is no causal link between abortion and developing breast cancer) in an effort to scare women from getting abortions.

Hope you are proud of yourself.



Sorry for the hijack. I'll finish this here:

Reasonable inference itself relies upon rationality. The correct response should be as follows:

The statement: If rationality is not the correct means of arriving at truth then an irrational argument can be used to arrive at truth.

^^The above premise itself relies upon a rational argument.

Further, if an irrational argument can be used to arrive at truth then an irrational argument can be used in support of rationality.

For example: the fact that bananas are surfboards proves that rationality is the means of arriving at truth.