Where are the feminist breast cancer crusaders?

I got stuck into the feminist movement the other day and so I might as well continue riding that horse now.

One could believe that the feminist movement is interested in the welfare of women. But if you did have that wild and romantic notion floating around somewhere inside your noggin’ then you’d be wrong.

Only an air-headed blonde ditz with a Cleo subscription would think that.

The feminist movement does not care about women and that’s why it hides the ever more scientifically-verified breast cancer/abortion link. That’s right. The feminist movement would rather let women suffer and die than inform them about this secret little truth.

And in that sense, the feminist movement truly is dead. Those who claim to be part of it are actually flying undercover in what should be more factually known as the anti-feminist army of misery.

There is nothing more profoundly anti-woman than covering up and hiding a leading cause of breast cancer: abortion. But that is what has happened.

Of course, it is impossible to hide the truth completely and so the breast cancer websites in Australia mostly dance around the issue, although there some very deceitful lies in there as well. Take the Australian government’s own breast cancer risk calculator. You can find it here.

It asks some curious questions like whether you take ‘The Pill’ and how many times you’ve given birth. In my case the answers were ‘no’ and ‘none’, just in case you were wondering.

Now, being the good little Sherlock Holmes detectives that we all secretly aspire to be, let’s deduce some deductions. What do these questions tell us?

Firstly, they are obviously some kind of factor in the risk of breast cancer, otherwise they would not be included. But what kind of factor? We can’t afford to make an assumption so let’s look at all the possibilities, of which there are two: contraceptive pills and childbirth can either increase or decrease the risk of breast cancer. Which is it?

Luckily we don’t really have to use our brains too much here because the answer is given to us by clicking the link that says ‘learn more about this risk factor’. The information sheets tell us that giving birth is the best form of protection against breast cancer – especially the younger the age at which it occurs and the more frequently it happens. Childbirth is the sunscreen of breast cancer. So automatically we know that the contraceptive pill works against this sunscreen by reducing the best form of protection against breast cancer. Contraception means no childbirth and that equals no breast cancer protection. That’s easy enough to work out. Obviously abortion works against childbirth too. Even the most rabid pro-abortionist would have to concede that.

But there are other factors about the pill that should not be disregarded. It is possible that even though it reduces the protection of childbirth, the pill itself could also be a risk factor, positive or negative. And so it is, according to the helpful website. The pill increases the risk of breast cancer – and it does so for the decade after it’s stopped being popped. Perhaps graphic warning signs like those on cigarette packets should be placed on contraceptive packages too.

The nice pink breast cancer website run by the National Breast Cancer Foundation also says that there is another factor in breast cancer: breastfeeding. Again, it could be a risk or a protection. As it’s in the section titled ‘Can I reduce my risk?’ there’s a strong chance that breastfeeding might be a good thing. And so it is, with the National Breast Cancer Foundation stating:

Breastfeed if you can: Breast may be best for both you and the baby. The more months spent breastfeeding, the lower the risk of breast cancer.

So what do we know at this point? Firstly, childbirth and breastfeeding reduce the risk of breast cancer. Therefore, both abortion and the pill indirectly increase the risk of mammary malfunction because they strip away protections against breast cancer that come with a suckling, bouncing bundle of joy. And we also know that the pill itself increases the risk of breast cancer. However, not too many feminists seem to like writing about this.

But what about abortion? What does the Australian government have to say about that?

Abortion is included in the section titled ‘Unproven risk factors’. And as Sherlock Holmes would say, just because something is unproven, it doesn’t mean it’s not true.

Anyway, this is what the government pronounces:

Research has shown there is no link between termination of pregnancy and increased risk of breast cancer. This includes both induced abortion and spontaneous miscarriage.

This statement is also backed up by the National Breast Cancer Foundation. Its section on myths says this:

Myth: Having an abortion or miscarriage causes breast cancer.
Truth: Research has shown there is no link between termination of pregnancy – whether abortion or miscarriage – and an increased risk of breast cancer.

Unfortunately, it’s not the whole truth and so it’s actually deceitful. The truth is that some ‘research’ might show that there is no link, but a large body of studies over a long period of time show the exact opposite. And recent scientific analysis shows a very strong link between abortion and breast cancer.


But before we get to those recent studies, it might be worthwhile to point out that the Australian government also makes this declaration on the front page of its little website on breast cancer:

While the causes of breast cancer are not fully understood, there are a number of factors associated with the risk of developing the disease. Some of the risk factors for breast cancer include:

– being a woman
– increasing age
surviving a strong family history of breast cancer
having a breast condition such as a personal history of breast cancer, DCIS or LCIS
a number of hormonal factors, child-bearing history, personal and lifestyle factors

It’s a bit strange for the Australian government to declare so emphatically that abortion is not a cause of breast cancer when at the very outset it admits that the causes of breast cancer are not fully understood. Especially when it also acknowledges that child-bearing factors do, in fact, increase the risk of breast cancer.

So what do these recent studies find?

An Indian study published in the December 2013 Indian Journal of Cancer found that women who have abortions were 6.26 times more likely to suffer from breast cancer. It also found that consumption of the pill increased the risk by a factor of almost 10.

Not very good news, is it?

And it is backed up by a Chinese meta-data study (a study of studies) that found women who had one induced abortion were 44% more likely to get breast cancer. The risk rose significantly higher for every additional abortion. This study was published in the peer-reviewed journal, Cancer Causes and Control.

But we’ve not heard a peep from the feminists who constantly bang on about how women should have information so that they can make informed decisions about their bodies.

Who’s scared of highlighting the dangers of abortion?

Every wannabe Sherlock Holmes should be able to figure that out: those who are pro-abortion. And that would be the feminist brigade. They are so pro-woman that they deliberately hide information about the abortion / breast cancer link from vulnerable, distressed women everywhere. As a result, it is quite possible that thousands of Australian women are diagnosed each year with breast cancer because of the government-funded abortion they had previously. And some of them will die.

No one could have expressed this better than American professor, Joel Brind, who in a recent interview stated:

Seriously, were abortion not a politically protected procedure, the acknowledgement of its being one of the causes of breast cancer would long ago have been acknowledged. But this would have been devastating to the proponents of abortion. Even when abortion is legal, women would tend to avoid it if they knew it could cause breast cancer. But it is also important to remember that abortion’s legal status is largely dependent on its purported safety to women, something which is an explicit premise in Roe v. Wade. Scientifically, the questions have been asked and answered, and it’s high time women were allowed to know those answers.

Now, there’s a real feminist breast cancer crusader. And he’s a man, baby!


By the way, this is kinda interesting.

Doctors & camels

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of nine children. He has a background in military intelligence, Arabic language and culture and is an outspoken advocate of conservative and family values.

Share This Post On


  1. Unfortunately the suppression of the abortion-breast cancer link isn’t confined to the militant feminazis masquerading as breast cancer experts. There’s another related problem – the effeminate “metrosexual” men enabling them – too afraid to expose the truth – in case they lose their jobs – or worse – incite yet another feminist hissy-fit!

    Post a Reply
  2. Militant feminazis masquerading as breast-cancer experts have been trying to conceal the ever-mounting evidence linking abortion and breast cancer for decades. Many so-called mental health professionals (some of them may be more crazy than their patients!) have been similarly denying that abortion has any link with deteriorating mental health among women wherever the savage slaughter of pre-born babies is made legal.

    Post a Reply
  3. The real reason scientists won’t say abortion causes breast cancer is because the link can’t be proven. First of all, if there was a direct link between breast cancer and abortion a study with a good sample size would need to show almost everyone, if not everyone, who had an abortion also developed breast cancer. That doesn’t exist. Second, for the less stricter statement that the risk is increased by abortion is difficult to conclusively prove. For starters, everyone is different. Second, there could easily be other variables involved that are unknown or can’t be removed. Last, most of this kind of study have extremely low sample sizes making their conclusions less statistically meaningful. One thing to always keep in mind when it comes to epidemiological studies is that they can only prove correlation, not causation. Therefore, it is dishonest to say that abortion causes breast cancer, rather than saying that abortion might increase the risk of breast cancer. Now, before I finish, maybe someone can tell me why there is financial benefit for abortionists to gleefully kill their future customers (in the case of girls), and their customers’ egg fertilizers (in the case of boys). It doesn’t make the least bit of economic sense at all. Now, that they provide abortions because they hate babies, life, or women are all quite possible. Of course, equally possible is that they see the desire to get rid of unwanted pregnancy and would rather women came to them instead of trying to do it themselves or go to someone without any medical training. The motivation for why abortionists do what they do you can’t know unless you ask each one, but unless the abortionist is particularly stupid or short sighted, it’s not for financial gain.

    Post a Reply
    • Are you serious, Webboy? You seriously believe abortionists wouldn’t ply their terminal trade for fear of wiping out their “future clients”? Mate – wake up and smell the foul odour of abortionist reality! First point – abortionists make a FORTUNE from abortions – as a medical niche “specialty”, they rake in the dollars hand over fist. Second point – abortions do NOT wipe out the future of Australia – because the numbers of births are greater than the number of abortions. In 2012, there were 309,582 births in Australia – while there were, at most, about 100,000 abortions in the same year. Therefore your point about “economic sense” is completely irrelevant. Your attempt to paint abortionists as noble humanitarians who are motivated solely by a desire to help desperate women who would other wise do themselves harm is simply laughable. The only positive thing I can find in the entire wretched, sorry saga of abortion is that it is very popular with lefties – who am I to quibble when lefties go all out to make themselves extinct?

      Post a Reply
    • Not everyone who smokes gets cancer, but the significantly increased incidence of cancer among smokers as opposed to nonsmokers finally led to acknowledgment of its dangers, public health warnings and restrictions.
      For many years tobacco companies successfully applied political pressure to deny people the choice to consider these risks. Today, the abortion industry and the pro”choice” movement is doing the same.
      The Chinese study cited above analysed and compared data in 14 provinces in a country where 336 million abortions have taken place in the past 30 years. Not only did it find that women who had undergone induced abortions had significantlly higher rates of breast cancer than those who had not, but this risk increased with the number of induced abortions a woman had. The overall risk of developing breast cancer was 44% higher for women who had 1 induced abortion, 76% higher for a women who had 2 induced abortions and 89% higher for women who had 3 induced abortions. This dose response relationship is a significant indicator that abortion is the factor causing this increased risk.

      Post a Reply
    • “It’s not for financial gain,” cries webboy42. Of course they do it for financial gain. You can’t be that naive, surely. Or perhaps you’re the defence counsel for Kermit Gosnell.

      Post a Reply
  4. So it’s right for feminists to encourage women to reject marriage and motherhood, but wrong for men to defer commitments to their own family responsibilities. Isn’t this a double standard? Should men marry men and then we can get some sort of balance that way – I dont think so!

    It seems odd that Cory should be such a liberal autonomist when discussing race, but then such a traditionalist in his expectations of men, religion and bestiality (not to be too narrow in my interests – and his!).

    The contradiction might be explained as follows. Cory – and indeed Tony Abbott himself – seems to most resent the idea that women are left to try and force commitments from men and that they also demand some form of freedom to go with the servitude that is demanded of them by a harsh and unremitting religious upbringing. It’s not so easy, in this situation, for women to freely exercise their own autonomous choices: men are resisting playing their part in what adult women might want to do – and THAT is why people like Cory have to tell them what to do! Its for their own good!

    Post a Reply
    • Does anyone have a single clue as to what John Parton is on about?

      Post a Reply
  5. The Australian and American health authorities, cancer councils and the UN’s WHO are among many who have agreed there is no scientific basis for the link between a termination and breast cancer. This column is typical of you’re tactics to deny women the right to choose with scare tactics and pseudo-science. You’re a coward.

    Post a Reply
    • They only say that there are not scientific links between abortion and breast cancer because abortion is a politically protected procedure and they would not offend the feminist movement and the lucrative abortion industry. Furthermore, there are evidence that abortion-breast cancer research have been suppressed by the abortion lobby because they know if the truth gets out, they will lose their jobs.

      Post a Reply
    • Yeah, and gay activists agree there’s no link between homosexual behaviour and AIDS either! But which Australian and American heath authorities are you referring to? Do tell. Frankly sensible people don’t believe everything that comes from organisations that are obliged to adhere to a political line even at the expense of people’s health. There is no right to choose to kill. Women don’t have that right. The right to life is the fundamental human right upon which all other rights are built. You’re a coward and a stupid coward at that!

      Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pin It on Pinterest