Abortion and Breast Cancer: Bush Election Sparks Media Backlash.

When it comes to the link between induced abortion and breast cancer (the "ABC link"), it can be argued that the mass media have not deserved - - at least until now - - the brunt of the blame for the failure of the public to know about this preventable risk factor.

After all, widespread coverage was given to the 1994 study by Janet Daling and her associates, which showed a 50% increased risk of the disease after an induced abortion. And there was modest interest in my and my colleagues' 1996 review, which documented a 30% risk increase in worldwide studies.

But in the "Periscope" section of the March 12, 2001, Newsweek, the headline was blatantly unfair and the text of the little piece itself completely one-sided.

Take the headline: "Making scare tactics legal." Then there is the first line, which said it all: "Though the first anti-abortion administration in eight years is just over a month old, emboldened abortion foes have already launched a novel legal push."

The "novel" tactic is the introduction in 15 states of some sort of legislation requiring abortionists to warn women about the ABC link. In fact, five states (Mississippi, Montana, Louisiana, Kansas, and Texas) already require some sort of legal warning about the link, under laws going back as far as 1995.

Ironically, Newsweek gave the issue some of the best and most objective coverage back in 1994 and 1996. So what has changed?

Is the evidence weaker today for an ABC link? No, it's stronger.

But the times have changed. With a pro-life president in the White House willing to allow the facts to speak for themselves, science may well undermine the myth of the "safe abortion."

In the short space of the "Periscope" piece, Newsweek chose to limit quotes from medical professionals to a doctor on the board of the American Medical Association (AMA), who said the new laws would "force doctors to `tell our patients something that is not true,'" and a University of Pennsylvania bioethicist, who called the legislative efforts "despicable." Some might suggest this is less than balanced.

And lest the reader still conclude that there was any scientific merit to the ABC link, Newsweek did manage to squeeze in a small photo: that of a man holding up a crucifix at an anti-abortion rally.

The Newsweek article actually followed on the heels of a very lengthy article in the March 1 USA Today. That story centered on a feature article on the abortion/breast cancer link in the March issue of MAMM magazine, a very prominent lay publication in the breast cancer world. Let's track the errors and misrepresentations.

At first blush, the USA Today piece, written by Rita Rubin, seems much more even handed than the Newsweek article. But Rubin - - who focused on the difficulty of doing scientifically valid research in this area - - chose to quote only the opinions of doctors and scientists who dismissed the link, and National Abortion Federation spokeswoman Vicki Saporta.

I was never contacted, and if anyone else who has done research documenting the ABC link was interviewed, they were not quoted in the article. This was a far cry from the fair coverage Rita Rubin gave the ABC link in 1994 and 1996, when she wrote for U.S. News & World Report.

As it happens, I had been interviewed by MAMM reporter Stacy Stukin last fall. While the MAMM article was unflattering and slanted, to say the least, the worst distortion came in Rubin's USA Today article.

For example, Rubin writes, "In its current issue, MAMM magazine reviews the scientific literature and concludes that there is no connection between abortion and breast cancer (my emphasis)." In truth, the article's conclusions are much more tentative.

For example, Stukin wrote, "The science is still murky." I would argue the science clearly demonstrates a linkage between an induced abortion and a heightened risk of contracting breast cancer, but better than nothing.

Later, toward the end, Stukin writes, "So, as the controversy continues, issues remain about whether women should weigh breast cancer risk when considering abortion and how major health institutions, such as the National Cancer Institute, should present the facts."

"No connection?" Hardly.

The MAMM article does have one factual error, which is not really Stukin's fault. It is in reference to a free-speech court case (CBM v. SEPTA) which took place in Philadelphia in 1996. The local transit authority (SEPTA) had removed advertising paid for by Christ's Bride Ministries (CBM) that argued there was an ABC link and was taken to court.

The MAMM article correctly reported that a federal appeals court ruling found that SEPTA's action had violated the free speech rights of CBM. But the MAMM article also stated falsely, "The court failed to weigh in on the validity of the scientific claim, ruling that the constitutional right to free speech supersedes findings of fact."

In truth, the court relied heavily on my own expert testimony - - and even upon that of the pro-abortion experts - - in concluding that the ad had scientific merit. Therefore the ABC warning was not "unduly alarming," as SEPTA had claimed.

But in fairness to Stukin, the error originated in a March 2000 article in the Philadelphia Inquirer. The Inquirer reporter incorrectly reported that the appeals court "did not address SEPTA's contention that the article was misleading."

However, it could have been worse.

The author of the Newsweek "Periscope" article told National Right to Life that he wanted to interview me for the story, but that I had refused to be interviewed. This was a complete and utter fabrication.

That falsehood may well have made it into the story, had not NRLC alerted me. This allowed me to look for what I found to be the one request for an interview that had been e-mailed to me, wherein the author neglected to include a phone number.

There's more. ABC started the week of March 5 (the day the March 12 issue of Newsweek actually hit the street) with a five-minute segment on Good Morning America, taking the linkage between abortion and breast cancer to the proverbial wood shed. The network's in-house physician consultant Dr. Nancy Schneiderman reassured women that there was no merit to the abortion-breast cancer claims.

Getting back to the state legislative efforts that ignited this fierce media retaliation, one might wonder why adding a few words about breast cancer risk to an abortion informed consent bill should be so provocative. Allow me to suggest the following.

With breast cancer there is already at least a 10% incidence for women. If a woman has an abortion, even a very conservative estimate of an average increased risk of 30% means an increased incidence of three per hundred, or 3,000 per 100,000.

Even assuming a high breast cancer cure rate of 75%, that still comes out to an increased risk of breast cancer death (because of the abortion) of 750 per 100,000. Even if one accepts the AMA's dubious figures about maternal death and childbirth, abortion comes out 125 times more likely to result in a woman's death than childbirth!

Thus, these political and media battles are really about nothing less than the very concept of "safe abortion." Acknowledgement of the ABC link makes the concept of "safe abortion" untenable.

Care for a safe cigarette, anyone?

Joel Brind, Ph.D., is a professor of human biology and endocrinology at Baruch College of the City University of New York; founder and president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute in Poughkeepsie, New York; and a frequent contributor to NRL News.>EN