Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
WHILE DEBATES AROUND the Eighth referendum are being heard out on television and radio in these final weeks before the vote, claims around the issue of abortion are also spreading quickly through social media platforms.
One prominent paid-for advertisement from a group calling itself Good Counsel Network Ireland has been surfacing on Irish Facebook user news feeds.
We won’t link to this ad here because it uses a video which some readers might find disturbing (it features the murderous doll character ‘Chucky’ from the horror movie series Child’s Play). The status on the video post, in essence, claims that having an abortion leaves a woman at increased risk of developing breast cancer.
This claim – that abortion can cause breast cancer – also surfaced in Ireland in 2016 when an undercover Times (Ireland edition) reporter was told by a crisis pregnancy advice centre in Dublin that “there are more breast cancers found in groups of women who’ve had abortions than any other group”.
As the Facebook ad from the Good Counsel Network Ireland is currently gaining traction, we’ll examine the information they are distributing.
The claim
The text of the paid-for post on Facebook goes as follows:
WOMEN ARE ABUSED BY ABORTION PROFITEERS LYING TO THEM AND DENYING THE FACTS, FOR EXAMPLE THAT ABORTION IS LINKED TO BREAST CANCER SINCE 1958! ( 77% ABORTED RATS GOT CANCER V. 0% OF THOSE GIVING BIRTH: RUSSO, 1980) COVERED UP BY A CORRUPT NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MURDER AND THE NCI WHICH BEFORE 2003 COVER-UP ADMITTED THE LINK….NO MEDIA WILL TELL WOMEN THE FACTS….
The sources
The claim here “that abortion is linked to breast cancer” says that such a link has been in evidence since 1958. The post does not cite a source for this claim and attempts to contact Good Counsel Network Ireland to expand on this have been unsuccessful.
It is likely that this is a reference to the earliest-known study of potential links between abortion (in this case both induced and spontaneous abortion), which was carried out as part of wide-ranging research into common cancers in Tohoku, Japan.
Scientists here noted that there was a higher rate of breast cancer recorded among women who also said they had experienced an abortion but the researchers said that they believed they couldn’t draw any conclusions from this survey because of “methodological weaknesses” in their study.
Although their cautionary comments were usually ignored by later researchers when citing their report, the Tohoku team were explicit about their concern that the women in the control group, who were not facing a life-threatening disease, were less likely to report a past history of induced abortion, thus making it impossible to draw any conclusions about a cancer link. In later years, this phenomenon would be referred to as “recall bias”.
- Cambridge Medical History Journal (UK)
Let’s turn then to the only example cited by Good Counsel Network Ireland (GCNI) of a scientific study which it says backs up its claim. This refers to a 1980 research paper published by J Russo and IH Russo in Philadelphia, USA. They had studied the incidence of malignant tumours and benign lesions in the mammary glands of rats.
In the study, they used rats who had had a full pregnancy and lactated, rats who had had a pregnancy but not lactated, rats whose pregnancy was terminated early and virgin rats as control groups for each of those three.
These researchers discovered that there was a 77% higher increase of carcinomas in those rats who had had their pregnancy terminated early – this is presumably the figure cited in the GCNI ad. A similar percentage of the virgin rats however – who never experienced pregnancy – also developed carcinomas.
The Russos concluded – and reconfirmed in later studies – that in fact pregnancy and lactation was the protective factor against breast cancer, rather than abortion being a factor in causing breast cancer. Also, breast cancer does not naturally occur in rats – in the Russos’ study, all of the test rats were injected with a toxin in order to allow tumours the chance to develop.
What is the research since the 1980 study?
The possibility of a correlation between breast cancer and abortion has been the subject of extensive study across scores of academic and medical institutes.
In 2003, the National Cancer Institute in the US assembled over 100 experts in the area to workshop all the available studies at the time. That convention concluded that the strongest scientific evidence concluded that “having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer”.
In January of this year, a meta-analysis by Chinese researchers of 25 studies from across the world into the issue found “IA (induced abortion) was not significantly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer”. You can read the full article at the Medicine journal here.
A representative from the World Health Organisation’s department of reproductive health and research, Dr Ronald Johnson, was questioned last year by the Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment on WHO guidelines on the risk of breast cancer to women who had had an abortion.
Dr Johnson told the Oireachtas hearing that abortion poses ”no known risks for breast cancer, future reproduction or mental health”.
Conclusion
The best-available epidemiological evidence consistently refutes the claim that there is an increased risk of breast cancer specific to women who have had an abortion.
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists states that ”there is no established link between induced abortion or miscarriage and development of breast cancer.” The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines state categorically: ”Women should be informed that induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.”
We rate the claim that women are being “den(ied) the facts” and “that abortion is linked to breast cancer” as FALSE.
TheJournal.ie’s FactCheck is a signatory to the International Fact-Checking Network’s Code of Principles. You can read it here. For information on how FactCheck works, what the verdicts mean, and how you can take part, check out our Reader’s Guide here. You can read about the team of editors and reporters who work on the factchecks here.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Why is it a smear when a person like David Norris is asked questions about things he DID say? Just wondering. He would be one of my favoured candidates but I just don’t get this whole “smear” thing, I believe Everyone should be held to account for opinions they express no matter what their background or stance is.
I suggest you read the following article from the Independent and bet a better perspective: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/sad-truth-is-that-attacks-on-norris-are-sparked-by-his-homosexuality-2672579.html
To quote one section: “…as I know, other prospective candidates to be President of Ireland have never been asked about the issues raised with Norris.
The other candidates have not been asked because, insofar as I know, they are neither homosexual nor lesbian and, therefore, the media do not seek to canvass their views on matters related to sexuality.
It is only because Norris is a homosexual that the media feel free to ask him about matters related to sexuality; but because other prospective candidates are not homosexual, the media has not, and will not, ask them about such deeply personal matters.
There is a huge contradiction in that.
The only conclusion is this: homosexuality or lesbianism or bi-sexuality are still felt by sections of the public, and the media, to be in some way out-of-step, unusual or perhaps even deviant. How depressing.
What is happening to Norris right now is desperately unfair.”
The issue is more that of the article being taken out of context and being moulded to portray a decent honorable man as a pedophile. The whole matter would be sorted if Helen Lucy burke provided the tapes of the interview which she won’t. First she couldnt find them then she did but didn’t have a tape recorder and then all of a sudden they were water damaged to lost again. Norris was all over the media 10 years ago clarifying his views and did a 2nd interview with Joe Jackson.
Its a smear campaign coz for example with the age of consent he was referring to teenagers having sex and being prosecuted but helen Lucy burke wrote that he didn’t want an age of consent at all which is wrong. She has an agenda of some sort. I really think that religious nut jobs don’t want him as president coz hes gay. The man would do an amazing job as president. And between this and fine gael actively trying to stop him getting nominated is disgusting.
@biggins see this is what I don’t get, David Norris is obviously going to get questioned about anything that makes him unique in the running, just like pat cox has got questioned and criticised about being pro Europe. But rather than embrace the questioning it is moulded into a smear campaign. I don’t care about anyone’s sexual preference, I would however as an Irish citizen like to know what David Norris meant when he spoke about Greek culture etc, are you suggesting that David Norris should not have to answer or clarify his comments because of his sexual preference?
@Biggins31. If any of the other candidates have uttered views that are similar to Norris, have no doubt that they will be brought to light. Norris was quiet clearing in his words and expressing his views. That many people have felt that those views are very wrong is unsurprising. Have there been some homophobes that have decided to get on that band wagon, certainly. It is also true that Davis is getting as much support purely for his sexuality as he is opposition. One being as wrong as the others, the man’s views are what defines his politics and suitability. Irregardless of what you think of his views on Peadophilia or Pederasty he has shown a profound lack of cop by not knowing when to shut his mouth. He only has himself to blame and putting all this down to homophobia or Christian fundementalists is clutching at straws and looking for bogeymen to square a circle in your own mind.
And if there is a contradiction on any side it’s on the side of Norris thinking he should not have to answer questions on something he said, when his whole political life, he admireably has always fought for questions to be answered!
He did answer them. Seriously have you not listened to any of the interviews he’s done!!! He clearly explains his views and answers all questions in relation to that article. He was on pat Kenny radio show and morning Ireland I think look it up on RTE!
@David I heard him on newstalk where when questioned on it he said and I quote “I am not going to get drawn into this attempt at a smear campaign”. The words “smear campaign” were also bandied about before he ever attempted at answering questions at what was either a very naive or dangerous thing for a political figure to say. Either way his reaction has filled me with 0 confidence in him, something I would love to have cause I think behind the naivety and rashness he is prob the best candidate for the Irish citizen.
Well I suggest you listen to the other 2 interviews I mentioned before forming your conclusion.
Norris has answered questions for weeks upon weeks.
It got so repetitive that people were turning off/out with annoyance and by association away from the likelihood of voting for Norris.
…So the old woman’s tactics, who re-dug up her unsubstantiated crap and later could not provide the FULL record of the conversation (convenient – especially if they were to show he said something more cleared on the day all those years back) was/is working – trying to turn people away from Norris and/or use him for some twisted old agenda in her weird mind!
its no wonder Norris after a month of the same questions regurgitated by the rags papers, wanted to shut-up and concentrate on the more modern actual issues that Ireland needs to tackle in the present climate of economic uncertainty.
I didn’t form a conclusion, I merely stated what I have heard, read and seen. And gave my opinion based on those. I have also stated that David Norris is someone I hold in high regard and would consider him to be one of the better candidates for the presidency. It just bothers me slightly when the “smear” card is pulled by his supporters when people just would like to hear explanations on certain comments made by him. If he hasn’t explained things properly – anytime I have listened to him or read pieces on him and haven’t got an explanation for his pretty ridiculous remarks, then that’s his fault not mine, I am sure any good PR rep will tell you the same! Attacking and ridiculing people for questioning him and his remarks because of one journalists piece is pretty ridiculous. He did after all get himself into the hole he is in!
Ok seriously I wasn’t attacking you I said listen to the 2 radio interviews he did and you will hear the exact Information you are looking for. There’s no point saying he hasn’t explained himself when he clearly has. No point moaning you don’t have the information when its accessible to you.
Dave, apologies I didn’t mean you or me, I mean as a whole his supporters. I am not moaning either by the way. That again is language too common in this debate!
Let’s be fair here, his words were completely twisted. If you truly feel that he was a supporter of paedophilia, why would you vote for him?
There is no stitch up of David Norris for this campaign. I hope the Gay and lesbian community stop this daft nonsense condemning people for hunting down Norris because he is gay. The reason why Norris is under pressure is because in every electoral campaign candidates know they are going to face a grilling about their past, what they said and did not say and what they are going to do in the future. The biggest problem with Norris is not his homosexuality, but his mouth!What he said in that article was stupid. This man is too erratic to fill this position,not because he is gay. Get a grip please gay community, there will be a time when there will be a gay person who will be president, but that time is not now because Norris is not the right candidate.
David Norris is without doubt one of the most ebullient, entertaining, academic and thought provoking public figures of our time. I don’t give a fiddler’s what his sexuality is, and I have no doubt that a gay person would make as good, or bad, a President as a heterosexual person. What I’m more interested in is a candidate that has the potential to continue on the legacy of our last, and our current, President. Their legacy has not been one of flamboyance, but rather of quietly developing a much more tolerant and considerate society that reflects the Irish culture and history of growth and change for the greater good, in a political environment where practitioners appear to live in another universe removed from reality that firstly preserves itself. If David Norris can prove toe that he can do that, then he gets my vote. Being part of, although also apart from at times, that dysfunctional dinosaur that is Seanad Eireann, does not inspire me. Aside from Michael D, who has also contributed handsomely to the political self preservation lot, the evolving list of ‘would-be’s leave more questions than answers. God preserve us!
Micheal. I think that you are comparing Apples and Oranges, you presume that the main reason behind the Norris event is his sexuality. I profoundly disagree, it is his views that are shocking. How can people feel that it is acceptable to believe that Paedophiles are demonized by the media as evil. How is that not one of the most shocking views that an Irish politician has given in 50 years, especially after the awful abuse by the Church. He did great work in the 80′s challenging a discriminatory and foolish law. Young people are perfectly safe around gay people, certainly safe around Norris but if any other politician had said these, their career would have been over, irregardless of their sexuality, gender or political views.
I think the most worrying aspect of all of this is this just displays yet again that Irish politicians think they can go around and say what they want and then refuse to answer questions on same at their own behest. They really believe they live in an alternative reality!
At this moment in time, I see no reason to vote for David Norris. I’m not going to decide to vote for him, purely because he’s a homosexual – that is the most irrelevant reason to vote for anyone. Mary Robinson did not get elected for being a woman – she got elected for the hard work she did, and promised to do, in relation to Human Rights in Ireland and around the world. Her gender did not matter. The whole campaign has been, almost from the start, based upon his sexual orientation.
Norris needs to rescue his campaign and fast. I know that he probably has policies which are credible and relevant, but he need to make sure that the are heard – right now they are being drowned out by these other irrelevances. He still has time, and can pull this through, but it will require work – but if he does it, the presidency will be his for the taking.
Hear! Hear! Michael I was incensed to read about the so called “christian” newspaper articles really? Is this the same institution that is responsible for abusing so many of our young people in horrific ways with far reaching consequences, …that means that so many of them have ended up being life long users of mental health services. In my experience as a mental health professional, young people do not feel suicidal or commit suicide because they have “lost their religion” its for a number of very complex reasons. It is also a fact from my experience that some of the people that I work with, feel suicidal and depressed because of what was done to them as children by some people purporting to be “christians”. Keep up the good work MIchael and all at Belong To.
He has not denied he said those things, so how can he be ‘smeared’ by the truth?
This main reason we are hearing about his ‘sexuality’ is because he and his campaigners think it will attract votes, not because others are condemning him for it.
What worries me is that he could not bring himself to state unequivocally that sex between children and much older adults was always wrong.
So, a country with one of the worst records for child sexual abuse is being urged to vote for a man who is ambiguous about such things?
That will be what will make headlines around the world if he is elected, not how he was a liberal/gay rights campaigner.
And it will not die down. For years and years, every time he makes a foreign visit, he will face the same scrutiny and allegations in foreign media.
Haven’t we got enough trouble already?
have your say