Tony Abbott and Peter Dutton say there's no link between abortion and breast cancer after Eric Abetz comments spark furore


Prime Minister Tony Abbott has appeared to reprimand Eric Abetz for comments he made linking abortion to breast cancer and says the senior minister feels “sheepish” about the resulting furore.

The federal government has spent the day distancing itself from Senator Abetz’s remarks made in a TV interview on Thursday after a flurry of criticism from medical groups.

Mr Abbott said on Friday that he has since spoken to Senator Abetz about his comments.


There are studies that do not show a link between breast cancer and abortion, but there are studies that may show a link.;year=2013;volume=38;issue=2;spage=95;epage=99;aulast=Kamath


There is no link.

"Several groups of experts have looked at the available studies on the possible link between abortion and breast cancer.

"In 2003, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) held a workshop of more than 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed human and animal studies that looked at the link between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. Some of their findings were:

"Breast cancer risk is increased for a short time after a full-term pregnancy (that is, a pregnancy that results in the birth of a living child).
Induced abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.
Spontaneous abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.
The level of scientific evidence for these findings was considered to be “well established” (the highest level).

"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Committee on Gynecologic Practice also reviewed the available evidence in 2003 and again in 2009. In 2009, the Committee said, “Early studies of the relationship between prior induced abortion and breast cancer risk were methodologically flawed. More rigorous recent studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk.”

“In 2004, the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, based out of Oxford University in England, put together the results from 53 separate studies done in 16 different countries. These studies included about 83,000 women with breast cancer (44,000 in prospective studies and 39,000 in retrospective studies). Although the results of the retrospective studies showed a small increase in risk, the prospective studies found a small decrease in risk. After combining and reviewing the results from all of these studies, the researchers concluded that “the totality of worldwide epidemiological evidence indicates that pregnancies ending as either spontaneous or induced abortions do not have adverse effects on women’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.” These experts did not find that abortions (either induced or spontaneous) cause a higher breast cancer risk.”

Check this out for more information; read what the studies show. Any claim that induced abortion raises the breast cancer risk is unfounded and biased.



I think all three of the studies posted above were released in 2013, years after analyses of studies you quote by various groups.

Regarding the 53 study results that were analysed that is discussed in the article that you posted, here is a very critical view of that study:


The abortion–breast cancer hypothesis has been the subject of extensive scientific inquiry. The scientific community has concluded that abortion does not cause breast cancer. This consensus is supported by major medical bodies, including the World Health Organization, the U.S. National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

One of the tactics adopted by the mainstream pro-life movement is promoting an alleged ABC link. To continue to promote this pseudoscience is a deliberate obstruction of scientific research and dissemination of accurate medical information. I lived in Texas for almost three decades; it is a dreadful place where medical practitioners are required by law to inform women that they are increasing their chances of getting breast cancer by having an abortion, which is false information and deliberately deceitful. This dire warning is laden with religious and moral overtones, which should never, EVER creep into a doctor/patient relationship. And yet there it is, the law, in direct opposition to the Establishment Clause, manipulating fearful and vulnerable women with gleeful impunity.

Go ahead and post your links of “maybe” and “might” and “could be.” For all the science I offer here, you and your movement can find equal pseudoscience to post in opposition.

What does any of it matter to you if you have not had, or are not going to have, an abortion? If you have daughters or nieces or sisters, are you going to infuse them with misinformation and fear-mongering, or would you be willing to give them the best that real science has to offer?

By the way, your BCPI Fact Sheet on Abortion and Breast Cancer is from 2004.

I just don’t understand why the truth about this is so hard for you to swallow.

Oh, wait. Yes I do.


Would the pro life movement be promoting a link between breast cancer and abortion if there wasn’t study after study making a link between breast cancer and abortion?


Please tell me you’re joking. OF COURSE THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT WOULD PROMOTE FALSE SCIENCE if they believed it was in the interest of reducing or abolishing abortion.

When the truth doesn’t do the trick, try a lie. Take a look at the sources of the studies you endorse. Are you finding the “results” on pro-life websites? On religious websites? Have you asked your own doctor about it? Is s/he pro-life?



There are studies from different years, countries and researchers, showing link between breast cancer and abortion and the pro-life community highlights those studies.

What do the organisations that dispute a link between breast cancer and abortion say about a link between breast cancer and the contraceptive pill, which also has some studies say there is not a link and other studies that say there is a link between them. The International Agency for Research on Cancer groups the contraceptive pill has a class 1 carcinogen, same group as asbestos and tobacco.


Eric abetz has shown himself on several occasions to be a person of poor Judgement
In the comment he makes,
Tony Abbott is actually an intelligent man,
Peter Dutton still has a bit of political maturity to gain


Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists:

Nobody enjoys performing abortions. The doctors who do so are the ones who feel most strongly about reducing the need for abortion, and many work in difficult circumstances giving contraceptive advice to young women. They have the support of the College.

World Health Organisation have a page titled, ‘Expanding access to medical abortion in developing countries…’

According to what I have read online, the American cancer society provides grants to Planned Parenthood.

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have a statement opposing North Dakota abortion laws:

These organisations may sincerely believe that abortion is not linked to breast cancer, but given the position that all of these organisations seem to have on abortion, can they be considered an independent and impartial source of information regarding abortion?


So birth control pills are at least as “maybe, possibly” damaging as Chinese-style salted fish and outdoor pollution? Those who drink alcoholic beverages are consuming substances which are “known to be human carcinogens.” I bet all the drinkers and all the women roll the dice and take their chances.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies estrogen/progesterone in the same group 1 category as cigarettes and asbestos, but all that category means is that there is sufficient evidence to prove carcinogenicity in humans. It does not in any way imply that oral contraceptives are as carcinogenic as cigarettes and asbestos: they aren’t. And the IARC entry clearly states that there is also convincing evidence in humans that these agents confer a protective effect against cancer in the endometrium and ovary.

Science does not need to take sides.


It is well known that hormonal birth control increases the risk of breast, cervical and liver cancers.


You say this as if you know it for a fact. I am asking you to verify your statement with research documentation that does not come from a pro-life (biased) source.

Good luck.


Because it is a fact. According to the government anyway. Maybe when you lose the attitude I’ll provide a link. Until then, you can research it yourself.


Gee, that’s almost like bargaining with God Himself. Whose government are you referencing?

I don’t need your link. I have researched it since 1967 and I have lived it.

I trust science.


:rotfl: You aren’t God.

So…don’t believe the US government. No one else does either. :shrug:


Mine was a response to your snarky withholding of sources. What I meant was, dealing with YOU was almost like bargaining with God. * I did not imply that I am God or that I am anything like God.*

Remedial reading: I see it in your future.

rolling on the floor,




And risk of heart attack or stroke and blood clots


Heart attack, stroke, blood clots, yes. Cancer, no. In fact, taking the Pill may reduce the risk of some reproductive cancers.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit