Abortion’s Risk

Pro-choice groups should not fall into the trap of defending abortion as absolutely safe — it may not be.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


During the second 100 days of Gingrich rule, brace yourself for what promises to be the most vehement attack on abortion yet: an attempt by the right to persuade Americans that abortion increases women’s risk of breast cancer. The battle lines are being drawn, and so far, most pro-choice groups have played right into Newt’s hands.

The brouhaha began last November, when the Journal of the National Cancer Institute published a study by epidemiologists at Seattle’s Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center showing that for women under 45, induced abortion doubles breast cancer risk. “Approximately 1 woman in 100 develops breast cancer by age 45,” says Janet Daling, the study’s lead researcher. “Abortion raises that risk to about 2 per 100.”

The risk depends, in part, on a woman’s lifetime exposure to estrogen and the changes the hormone triggers in breast cells (see “Breast Cancer Cover-up,” May/June 1994). Reproductive events–age of first menses, childbearing and breast-feeding history, age at menopause, spontaneous (miscarriage) and induced abortion experience–all affect estrogen exposure, breast-cell development, and breast cancer risk, as do environmental factors, such as exposure to organochlorines.

Anti-abortion forces who got wind of Daling’s study fired off op-ed pieces like the one by Lynn Murphy in the San Francisco Chronicle, who hailed the report as “the 26th study [sic] showing that abortion greatly increases risk of breast cancer.” Murphy urged “a moratorium on abortion until it’s proven safe.”

Unfortunately, most pro-choice groups have focused on the study’s potential bias and limitations. With the exception of a few balanced fact sheets by some women’s health organizations, pro-choice groups either dismiss the alleged association or concede the possibility of increased risk but call it “infinitesimal.”

Such denials do a disservice to women and set pro-choice groups up as sitting ducks for GOP sharpshooters. Women deserve the facts. A Mother Jones search of the medical literature (from 1985 to the present) uncovered 24 studies dealing with abortion as a possible risk factor for breast cancer. The findings were mixed.

Nine studies show that induced abortion may increase the risk of contracting breast cancer, by as little as 10 percent to as much as 100 percent; 4 studies of spontaneous abortions show they increase risk. Abortion before a first full-term pregnancy appears to increase risk the most (1 study shows risk increasing with the number of abortions). Eight studies, 7 of which were of induced abortions, show no increased risk. Finally, 3 studies show that abortion decreases breast cancer risk.

At least four more studies are in progress; preliminary data from two suggest that abortion does increase breast cancer risk.

If abortion is linked to breast cancer, the risk increase appears to be modest, on the order of that observed in women who have taken the pill for many years or used postmenopausal estrogen replacement therapy (ERT), or who had their first period before 12, their first child after 30, or no children at all. The risk increase appears much less significant than the risk of having a mother or sister with the disease.

When the right starts advocating a “moratorium on abortion until it’s proven safe,” progressives should infuse the debate with something it has largely lacked–perspective. Pro-choice groups should not fall into the trap of defending abortion as absolutely safe. It may not be. Women should have access to all information that affects their health–and the right to choose what to do. For example, ERT may increase breast cancer risk, but it decreases risk of heart attack, making it a reasonable, in fact, potentially lifesaving choice for many women.

And Newt and his pals should not be allowed to frame the debate within the narrow construct of banning abortion. Congressional hearings must address our broader obligation to investigate all causes of breast cancer, and to find a cure.

FOR ABSTRACTS OF THE 24 STUDIES CITED IN THIS ARTICLE, SEND $3 TO COVER POSTAGE AND HANDLING TO “ABORTION’S RISK?”, MOTHER JONES, 731 MARKET ST., SUITE 600, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate