January 9, 2002
volume 12, no. 3

World's First Abortion-Breast Cancer Settlement could open the floodgates

The legal precedent has been set. A flurry of more lawsuits are sure to follow. Will the greedy barristers take into consideration the fate of countless unborns and unsuspecting mothers and trump the cause of pro-life or will their objective only be to milk the millions of dollars stashed by NARAL, Planned Barrenhood and NOW? Either way it will weaken the pro-abort coffers unless the liberal media buries it in their futile attempt to block the outrage that is ebbing when more women, who have been kept in the dark about the definite, dangerous link between abortion and breast cancer, discover the real truth!

    A landmark case involving the world’s first known settlement of an abortion-breast cancer lawsuit was heralded by Australian attorney Charles Francis. The plaintiff, who cannot be publicly identified, due to a confidentiality clause in the settlement agreement, alleged her physician had not informed her of the research connecting abortion with an elevated breast cancer risk.

    Francis commented on the settlement and also discussed additional cases in which plaintiffs alleged they suffered emotionally as a result of their abortions. Francis stated the plaintiffs in the emotional distress cases had obtained "quite large,” out of court settlements.

    He also revealed that Australian legal precedent had required doctors to inform their patients of any material risks of a recommended surgical procedure, because patients have a right to decide whether or not to assume the risks of the medical treatment. He had this to say about the abortion-breast cancer settlement and other personal injury cases involving abortion providers:

        "In Australia the case of Rogers v. Whitaker in the High Court decided that before any operation a doctor has a duty to warn the patient of any material risks. Abortionists give the women concerned little or no information about the many risks of an abortion.

        “In 1996 two Australian women commenced legal actions because their abortionists gave them no warning that there might be adverse psychiatric consequences. Both these cases, ‘Ellen's’ case in Victoria and ‘Cynthia's’ case in New South Wales, were eventually settled for undisclosed amounts.

        “Since 1998 cases have been commenced which have also claimed the additional failure to warn of an increased risk of breast cancer caused by abortion. Recently one of those cases has been settled for an undisclosed amount. This is believed to be the first case of its kind in the world. A confidentiality clause which was part of the settlement prevents further discussion.

        “In another case to be heard in New South Wales shortly, ‘Mary’ (not her real name) is suing a hospital and an abortionist for failure to warn her that she might subsequently have a bad psychiatric reaction and for failure to warn of the increased breast cancer risk."

    Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, said “We’re delighted with the settlement of an abortion-breast cancer case. The abortion industry and its medical experts know that it will be far more challenging for them to lie to women about the abortion-breast cancer research when they are called upon to testify under oath. Scientists know that abortion causes breast cancer, but are afraid to say so publicly in today’s hostile political climate.”

    Mrs. Malec added, “Women and their families are the real victims of this scientific misconduct. Tragically, abortion data from the only Australian abortion-breast cancer study were concealed from Australian women for 7 years. Scientists could have spared women a great deal of suffering if they’d only set aside their abortion ideology and published their abortion data.

    “The lone Australian study exploring the link between abortion and breast cancer was conducted by Rohan et al and found a 160% elevated risk among women who had procured abortions. As the study's most significant and only statistically significant risk factor, abortion was unparalleled among all of the variables examined. The elevated risk resulting from induced abortion far and away exceeded that of family history for the disease and even childlessness, according to the research.

    “In spite of everything, the abortion "data" were never published in the American Journal of Epidemiology. [Rohan, et al, American Journal of Epidemiology (1988) Vol. 128, pp. 478-489] Rohan's abortion data had been buried in a file cabinet, until the publication of a small meta-analysis by French researchers, Nadine Andrieu et al, in the British Journal of Cancer in 1995. [Vol. 72, pp. 744-751] Andrieu not only reported previously unpublished data, but also found a synergistic effect between induced abortion and a family's history of breast cancer.

    “This isn’t the first time that data has been withheld from women. Data have been concealed in studies conducted on Taiwanese, Chinese and Asian American women too,” said Mrs. Malec [Lai et al (1996) Proc Natl Sci Council, ROC 20:71-7; Bu et al (1995) Am J Epidemiol 141:S85; and Wu et al (1996) Br J Cancer 73:680-6]

    Editors at the American Journal of Epidemiology which published the 1988 Australian study by Rohan and the 1995 Chinese study by Bu have repeatedly exhibited a deep aversion to data implicating abortion. In 1994 the journal’s associate editor, Lynn Rosenberg, Ph.D. of Boston Medical School, threw rocks at the only study specifically commissioned by the National Cancer Institute whose authors, Janet Daling, et al, found a 50% elevated risk among American women who had abortions. Rosenberg editorialized that she couldn’t imagine how Daling’s findings could be of use to women. [Daling et al, 1994) J Natl Cancer Inst 86:1584-92]

    How about that answer from Dr. Rosenberg -- “she couldn’t imagine how Daling’s study could be of use to women.” This has got to be the most reckless and stupid statement ever uttered from a representative of the health community.

    Dr.. Rosenberg, this is how women can put it to good use: They can weigh this and all other evidence by other researchers that abortions increase the risk of breast cancer against their need to have their child killed. Would the increased risk of getting cancer be worth it, especially if there’s a history of breast cancer in the family, which Dr. Rosenberg has no way of knowing?

    I will take this a step further -- if there IS a history of breast cancer in the family, an abortion should be avoided like the plague.

    Mrs. Malec asserted that “The notorious Lindefors-Harris study was also published in the American Journal of Epidemiology. Its authors were later accused of having covered up an abortion-breast cancer link among Norwegian women.” [Lindefors-Harris et al (1991) 134:1003-8; and Brind et al, J Epidemiol Community Health, 1998, 52:209-11]

    Joel Brind, Ph.D., author of a 1996 review and meta-analysis of the abortion -breast cancer studies and president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute located in Poughkeepsie, New York, expressed a sense of horror that researchers would selectively omit data for the most significant risk factor. At a talk given in 1999 in Malvern, Australia, Brind said, "This is not what you see in scientific research, ever. I've never seen it before, where the most significant finding in a study is specifically left out of a research paper." He concluded, "We hypothesize that there is more of it."

    They say that history repeats itself. It’s the tobacco industry all over again. How many more women have to die needlessly before the proponents of abortion start feeling a pang of guilt for their reckless, selfish and morbid stand. What is so terrible about notifying women as is done prior to ALL other surgeries, the risks involved? Is this really asking too much?

    The multimillion dollar abortion industry doesn’t care if thousands of women die every year solely from the fact that they had an induced abortion. For obvious reasons they refuse to warn women of the breast cancer risk, as well as all other physical and mental risks, but why the silence by the ACS (American Cancer Society)? They have informed the public of breast cancer risks, which pale in comparison to the abortion risk. But, of course, these other risks, if heeded, would NOT harm the abortion industry. That’s the missing link.

    The hierarchy of the ACS and the AMA (American Medical Association) have become pawns of Planned Parenthood, NARAL and NOW, the world’s leading killers of unborn children and their two biggest boosters.

    They have mocked the Hippocratic Oath and placed their ideology above the health of women. For them to say the research is inconclusive is the same as saying that tobacco does NOT increase the risk of lung cancer. The evidence is overwhelming and it is sad to say that the only thing that some people know is “money.”

    Unlike Australia, where only one study was done and which did establish the abortions/breast cancer link, in the United States, fifteen studies were done and THIRTEEN showed the increase risk. A staggering figure to withhold from the public, considering that it was all over the media, when just a few studies showed that cell phones MIGHT cause brain cancer and they were divided almost equally -- three to two.

    Why does it always have to take law suits before the truth finally gets to the public? You can bet your bottom dollar that in a country that suits are brought at the drop of a hat -- the United States, this decision in Australia will not only reverberate around the world, but will be especially pounced on by attorneys right here in the USA -- the law suit capital of the world. That is if the media and professional journals don't suppress this story for political and ideological purposes.

    Check your newspapers and your favorite TV news and see if the liberal media informs you of this first case of its kind -- which is indeed newsworthy, or will it be replaced by -- woman sues after spilling hot coffee on her lap.

    By the way, the Australian legal precedent that requires doctors to inform their patients of all risks of an elected surgical procedure, is also the law in the United States.

    Those of you who write and ask me what you can do to preserve the sanctity of human life here’s what you can do: Since the liberal media will, as usual, try to suppress this story, write and phone your local newspaper and TV station, if they have not reported the above and ask -- why not? And more -- do the same with all the major newspapers in the country and major networks and anyone else you can think of that should know about this first of a kind law suit AND SETTLEMENT.

    If you know of a breast cancer patient, tell them of the research linking abortion to breast cancer and that women are filing law suits against the abortionist and the clinic and winning. You don’t have to embarrass them by asking if they had an abortion, unless they have already told you. It is up to people who value life to get this very important news out, because the liberal media, as stated before, WILL try to suppress it.

Dr. Frank Joseph

Your email:
Your name:
E-mail it  to:

For past columns by Dr. Frank, see PRO-LIFE PRESCRIPTIONS Archives

January 9, 2002
volume 13, no. 3
Dr. Frank Joseph's PRO LIFE PRESCRIPTIONS column
Return to Current Issue