Lung Cancer and Breast Cancer: Two Approaches


Americans are familiar with the Surgeon General’s warnings that accompany the sales of tobacco products. Every item must carry notification that its use has been credibly linked to lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, fetal injury, premature birth, low birth weight, and overall health complications. While smoking remains legal, educational and public institutions have collaborated to discourage the practice—and rightfully so. The choice to smoke is now a fully informed choice.

Not so with abortion. Dozens of studies have credibly linked the alarming increases in the rate of breast cancer with the deliberate termination of pregnancy and yet women are not informed about the inherent risks to the procedure.

Evidence surrounding childbearing and breast cancer has long been available and undisputed. For centuries, the medical community called it “the preventative effect of childbearing.” Beginning in 1970 with a landmark study by Harvard University, scientists simply quantified what lay wisdom had already recognized: having a first child before the age of 24, having several children, and breast-feeding them markedly reduces a woman’s risk of breast cancer.

Since then, with the legalization and growth of the abortion industry into a multi-billion dollar business, the avoidable medical risks have been buried for the sake of selling a highly politicized product. The proliferation of breast cancer it its wake has caught the nation’s attention, and yet the insidious contributing factors have been studiously—and irresponsibly—ignored.

Clearly, not all women who have abortions get breast cancer and not all women with breast cancer have procured abortions, but significant links are still there. Estrogen overexposure is the key. The full explanation can be found at but one has to begin by realizing that estrogen is actually a secondary carcinogen. Despite the good it does, it also has the capacity to produce abnormal tissue, especially when an abortion interrupts the body’s delicate process of preparing for pregnancy and nursing.

Dr. Joel Brind, combining many studies for a meta-analysis, concludes that nearly 10,000 cases of breast cancer are presently related to the abortion link each year, and with  abortions being procured by increasingly younger women, that number will rise to almost 50,000 annually by the year 2020.

While many of the studies acknowledging the increased breast cancer risk are conducted by abortions supporters, the contrary studies have been shown to be flawed, biased, and unethically tied to those whose business is the marketing of abortion. Even as the public proved too wise to succumb to such a strategy from the tobacco industry, confusion about what makes an informed “choice” concerning abortion has allowed them to turn a blind eye to industry-based sleight of hand in this realm.

It is gratifying that breast cancer is very much in the news considering its 40% increase in the last 30 years. It legitimately draws on the sympathies of a genuinely concerned population, but to ignore one of the greatest contributing factors is an egregious disservice to all women. Abortion supporters have long argued that the pro-life community is singularly concerned with the welfare of the child, not the mother, and yet it is the proponents of “choice” who have suppressed this critical information. Who really cares for women, we must ask?

The pink ribbons are all around us. Most media outlets cooperate freely in raising both awareness and money to fight this horrendous disease. Perhaps your contribution to the cause this year could be to spread the word about the avoidable risks that can lead to breast cancer. Pro-lifers do care about women—and revealing the abortion link would be a real act of charity.


About Author

We welcome guest contributors who graciously volunteer their writing for our readers. Please support our guest writers by visiting their sites, purchasing their work, and leaving comments to thank them for sharing their gifts here on To inquire about serving as a guest contributor, contact


  1. Hello! I am Genevieve too, mostly use my nickname of “Genny.” I enjoyed reading your article “Lung Cancer and Breast Cancer: Two Approaches”. I am breast cancer survivor; just turned 7 on December 17. My breast cancer is still somewhat of a mystery to me–I have never had an abortion, never smoked, never did drugs. I was unfortunately exposed to second-hand smoke for the first 18 years of my life. My family and I lived in Fallon, Nevada for two years as my husband is active duty Navy. We are aware of the leukemia cluster there and continue to follow the news as our boys were very young then, and our daughter was born there in 1989.

    I took note of your mention of estrogen over-exposure. My tumor was estrogen positive. After my fourth and last round of chemo, my body let me know that I was beginning menopause! After my chemo and radiation treatments, I was found to have a high level of estrogen. About three months after my treatment was finished, I began a monthly injection to reduce my estrogen. Previously, I had an emergency hysterectomy due to an ovary dying. This was most likely related to the chemo. The doctors decided to leave the right ovary so that my body would have a natural form of estrogen. I would not be able to receive hormone replacement therapy while going through menopause.

    So you can see it’s been a wild ride. I have had genetic testing; results are negative. I had no cancer in my lymph nodes as indicated by my sentinel node biopsy. There is no breast cancer history in my family.

    After my diagnosis in 2001, I immediately contacted the CDC to inquire about breast cancer studies of women who live or have lived in Fallon, NV. I received a reply two days later for more information and have not heard from the CDC since. It seems no one there wants to discuss this matter.

    I had spoke with a woman at the Nevada Department of Health in 2002. She too, didn’t seem too interested in helping me find information. I had no follow up from her, either.

    Thank you again for your article alerting the connection between abortion, estrogen and breast cancer. Would you have any resources regarding the connection between soy and soy products relating to breast cancer? I have been advised to stay away from all soy products due to soy being a natural estrogen.

    I seem to be the exception to the 1970 Harvard Study: I had my first child at age 19; second & third at 22 & 26 years old. I breast-fed all three.

    Hopefully, articles such as yours will be able to reach more and more breast cancer groups and sites. I participated in the Susan G. Komen walks for several years. I then received information from a member at the catholicmomcommunity message board that there is a direct link between Komen and the dreaded Planned Parenthood. I was stunned. Here is an organization so very much dedicated to a cure for breast cancer–let’s help women live! And yet, they give no value to human life and contribute to abortion clinics. I have since cut all ties with the Komen organization. Your article should be handed out to anyone who expresses interest in becoming involved with Komen.

    Genny Caraveo

  2. I savoured reading it. I need to read more on this issue…I am admiring the time and effort you put in your blog, because it is plainly one great place where I can find lot of usable info..

Leave A Reply

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.