A landmark case involving the world’s first known settlement of an
abortion-breast cancer lawsuit was heralded by Australian attorney
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
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
"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.
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.”
“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
“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
“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."
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
“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
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
“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
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
“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
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
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
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
significant finding in a study is specifically left out of a research paper."
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,
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
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.