Fathers for Good runs a column “Newsworthy Dads” I was interviewed on the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link for this week’s column. My thanks to editor Brian Caulfield for his gracious offer and willingness to help get the word out about the ABC link via this interview.
Gerard M. Nadal, who holds a Ph.D. in molecular microbiology, is taking a strong stand on the link between induced abortion and breast cancer (ABC). Many studies have shown the link, and basic biology provides the physiological reason for it, yet an abortion mindset in some halls of science and the media have worked together to keep these facts hidden from the public, he says.
Dr. Nadal is 49 years old, married, and the father of three children. He is currently pursuing an M.A. in theology through Franciscan University of Steubenville.
In this Fathers for Good interview, he outlines in layman’s terms some of the research that shows the ABC link.
Fathers for Good: Briefly explain what you see as the abortion-breast cancer link.
Dr. Nadal: I first learned of the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link about three years ago when I came across a book entitled, Breast Cancer, Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill, written Chris Kahlenborn, a medical doctor. It’s a great read for those who are not medical professionals.
In brief, when women become pregnant for the first time, they make vastly increased amounts of the hormones estrogen and progesterone, which stimulate the milk-producing tissue of the breast to undergo massive proliferation during the first trimester. These cells form the immature and cancer-prone Type-1 and Type-2 lobules. In the last trimester, hormonal changes will mature 85% of these lobules into cancer-resistant Type-3 and Type-4 lobules. Terminating the pregnancy through induced abortion robs these lobules of the last trimester’s maturation and leaves behind a great deal of newly made, cancer-prone cells.
Most women who have had miscarriages have miscarried precisely because they are not producing enough of the hormones estrogen and progesterone and have not undergone the proliferation of breast lobules. Therefore, they don’t share the same risk as women who have had induced abortions.
FFG: How is the birth-control pill implicated?
Dr. Nadal: The pill contains very high doses of synthetic estrogen and progesterone, which mimic a pregnancy followed by abortion on a monthly basis. Studies have shown frightening rates of breast cancer for women taking the pill or estrogen replacement therapy in menopause. They all share the same mechanism for cancer production as induced abortion. One recent study leads some of us to believe that the synthetic form of estrogen in the pill may be responsible for a particularly aggressive and deadly form of breast cancer called Triple Negative Breast Cancer.
Karen Malec is the President and Co-Founder of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, and has a very informative website: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/start/
FFG: Do you think there is a cover-up to protect abortion on demand?
Dr. Nadal: Unfortunately, it’s not so much an opinion as a matter of fact. On February 22, I wrote an article in Headline Bistro detailing this. Some researchers who favor abortion say one thing in epidemiology journals which few people read, then dismiss reality to craft public policy that protects and promotes abortion on demand, and hormonal contraception on demand. Yet they better than anybody know the harm being done to women – 1 in 9 of whom will contract breast cancer.
FFG: Some would say you are debating an interpretation of data and that there’s no objective truth, even in science.
Dr. Nadal: If anyone has ever had the misfortune of falling from a ladder or dropping Mom’s good china, then they can ably testify to the scientific truth of the law of gravity. Similarly, we know the factors that will increase the probability of contracting diseases, because we have scientific certitude about the normal physiology of the body and the pathophysiology that results when chemicals or microbes perturb that normal function. The same holds true for the abortion-oral contraceptive-breast cancer link.
When attempts are made to twist reality in order to accommodate an agenda the truth becomes the first casualty, and real people pay the price in their bodies, minds, and souls for denying objective reality.
When I ran college retreats, I used to describe God’s law as functioning as the guard rails on a mountain road. He knows the danger zones. In that light, his law becomes liberating and not at all constricting. It frees us to live lives unencumbered by needless suffering. The more empirical evidence we discover in science, the more one comes to an appreciation of those guard rails, and the more we are able to prevent some of that needless suffering.
For more information, visit Dr. Nadal’s blog.
Coming Home 
Great interview, Gerard!
What a truly great interview. Too bad this information is simply ignored by the media in the west.
I know so many many women who have breast cancer. Often these women have been on the pill for years – many of them Catholic and who no doubt have done so in defiance of church teaching or because their parish priest, under the guise of “charity” have ok’ed this as long as they have consulted their “conscience”.
When will feminist’s realize that a woman’s biology does not enslave but rather is a liberating gift?
A question:
I understand why the AMA, the WHO, the American College of OB/GYN, the National Cancer Institute, and the Surgeons General under DEMOCRAT presidents have not endorsed the ABC link. Those are evil, pro-abort organizations, dedicated to suppressing the Truth.
But why have the Surgeons General under PRO-LIFE REPUBLICAN Presidents, like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, why have THEY never endorsed the ABC link? Surely pro-life Republican Surgeons General aren’t in on a pro-abort conspiracy. SO why have they remained silent? Isn’t it the Surgeon General’s job to warn the public about things like the ABC link?
Please explain.
DoneSomeEpidemiology,
So have I.
As for why the Surgeons General, you would need to ask them what their motives were. Surgeons General serve at the pleasure of the President and may not want to rock the boat, assuming that this even made it onto their radar screens. That a very big IF.
For having done epidemiology, you have entirely skipped reference to Dr. Joel Brind’s metaanalysis of the literature and gone straight to political machination on the part of political appointees. Follow the links in my post.
Most Surgeon Generals have come under fire for not grasping important health issues.
C. Everett Koop on HIV.
Dr. Jocelyn Elders was finally let go for suggesting that we teach teens to masturbate. Have you ever met a teen that needed teaching or encouragement?!
Satcher was considered pretty much out of it.
If you are trying to make an argument, you chose to build one on quicksand.