Big Abortion and the ABC Link

Big Abortion and the ABC Link

It’s quite obvious that if the link between abortion and breast cancer was ever accepted by mainstream medicine, then the biggest losers would be abortion providers. They would be basically sued out of existence.

So it would come as no surprise that those businesses which make a living by killing unborn Australian citizens would do everything in their power to ensure that the ABC link was discredited. (For more about the ABC Link, click here.) They have done a good job of that here, since there is not even room for debate on the topic in the media, and it has become a hot potato issue for politicians.

Additionally, there have been some concerns raised by Australian pro-lifers that controversy about the abortion-breast-cancer link makes the pro-life movement ‘look bad’. We ‘appear unscientific.’

We are to endocrinology what climate sceptics are to global warming.

Like many in the pro-life movement, I believe this whole issue is a kind of red-herring: abortion kills babies and ending abortion is our primary concern. But with even pro-lifers starting to question the ABC Link, which incidentally calls into question the integrity of courageous researchers such as Drs. Lanfranchi and Brind, the time is right to start looking more closely at Big Abortion in Australia. The following is a sample of the evidence that is readily available to anyone with a pc and a little time.


Who is funding Breast Cancer Research in Australia?

There is plenty of information from the US about a major conflict of interest involving the world’s biggest corporate donor to breast cancer research, the Avon company, and its ties to ‘reproductive health’, AKA abortion on demand. See here for  more. Avon is also Australia’s largest corporate donor for breast cancer research, the other major donors being the Commonwealth bank and the Australian Women’s Weekly. See more here.

I don’t intend to go into this in depth in this post, since it is quite clear that the same scenario exists here as in the US:

Avon supports breast cancer research, and also supports abortion through its involvement with the United Nations Women’s arm UN Women. And you can read about the former Avon chairman and CEO receiving the 2010 Clinton Global Citizen Award here.


The Federal and State governments are also likely candidates for litigation and therefore have a vested interest in covering up ABC. The government supports both breast cancer research and abortion: federally, in the form of medicare rebates, and on the state level  through abortion legislation.


Sean Triner and Pareto Fundraising

Sean Triner is the co-founder of Pareto Fundraising, an agency that specialises in developing marketing and fundraising campaigns for non-profits. You can find out more about  Triner on the Pareto website here:

One of their services is an annual fundraising benchmarking programme, which various charities can join to have their effectiveness assessed and compared to that of other organisations. The Children’s Cancer Institute and the National Breast Cancer Foundation were among the 91 participants in this year’s benchmarking programme.

Some of  Pareto Fundraising’s clients include:  the Cancer Council of New South Wales, Camp Quality, the Australian Cancer Research Foundation, Cure Cancer Australia Foundation, Canteen, Peter Mac, (which supports breast cancer research) and Catholic Mission.

Oh, and also Marie Stopes International.


So, when it comes to an issue as controversial as abortion and breast-cancer, a cancer-research organisation would rely on its marketing agency to ensure that there is no hint of a credible link unless this was absolutely unavoidable. The last thing a health-related non-profit needs is publicity about their possible failure to warn the public of a potential risk factor.

Even with out ties to the abortion industry, Pareto has an understandable, if not moral, reason to deny the ABC link.

But, according to the Marie Stopes website, Pareto has even more reason to bury its head in the sand: Sean Triner is actually named as a patron of Marie Stopes.

This connection raises a few questions about the influence an abortion advocate is likely to have in the world of Australian breast cancer research as it relates to the risk factor presented by abortion, and it could be argued that that  particular agency was chosen precisely to ensure that admission of the link was prevented.

RU-486 and The New Wave of Abortion Providers 

The arrival on Australia’s shores of the abortion drug RU-486, and its subsequent listing on the Therapeutic Goods Act Authorised Prescriber Scheme in 2006 meant that abortion could expand beyond the confines of abortion mills and into the clinics of the average GP all around the country. It was hailed as a breakthrough for country women, who would no longer have to travel to regional centres or capital cities in order to terminate the lives of their children. And it meant that pro-choice doctors, who may have found the thought of dismembering their tiny patients a little unpalatable, could expand their services through this less invasive means.

RU-486 (mifepristone) followed by GyMiso (misoprostol) are given over the course of 24 hours to first kill, then expel a tiny human child from its mother’s body. There have been many documented cases of severe side-effects and even deaths, but despite this, RU- 486 was listed by the World Health Organisation as an “essential medicine” in 2005. For more information, see here.

The sole distributor for the drug in Australia is Marie Stopes International; the company was registered with the TGA as sponsors in 2012. Most doctors who wish to use the abortion-inducing drug must complete (online) training with MSI. Australian and New Zealand-trained Obstetricians and Gynaecologists are exempt from this training. For more information see here and here.

It is unknown how many GPs are prescribing RU-486; the number may be relatively low, due in part to a major health insurer’s requirement that doctors increase their cover to equal that of surgical abortion providers. But according to Marie Stopes, one third of their clients choose medical abortions, so it’s likely that this is a growth industry. Read more here.




There you have it: abortion providers, cancer councils, doctors, and perhaps even the government have a vested interest in maintaining the myth that abortion does not cause breast cancer.

I’d like to challenge everyone to dig a little deeper and start questioning the standard response from the AMA and cancer councils, and think twice about where your hard-earned cash is going when donating to breast-cancer research.


Author: genericmum

Share This Post On

Submit a Comment

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