On Monday, First Lady Laura Bush appeared on “Good Morning America” and encouraged Americans to recognize October as Breast Cancer Awareness Month. She praised the work of “Susan G. Komen for the Cure” (formerly known as the Susan G. Komen Foundation).

If you have ever had Oprah on for more than five minutes, you know about the billions that “Komen for the Cure” has raised for breast-cancer research through its races and walks and partnerships with vendors of pink merchandise. But something you (and the First Lady) may not know:

:”Susan G. Komen for the Cure” has given more than a million dollars to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood killed over a quarter-of-a-million unborn babies last year and distributed untold amounts of hormonal contraceptives. There is enough data linking both induced abortion and long-term use of hormonal contraceptives to an increased risk of breast cancer to choke an elephant.

Discussion of a significant link between induced abortion and breast cancer is not news. Indeed, the oldest study, from Japan in 1957, concludes that abortion can increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer by as much as 160 percent. More recently, CUNY epidemiologist Dr. Joel Brind, in a meta-analysis of 31 studies, put the figure between 50 and 80 percent. Based on such findings, pro-life organizations including Chicago’s own Americans United for Life argue for laws requiring abortionists to reveal the potential link in the interest of obtaining a patient’s informed consent. Mississippi, Texas, Kansas, and Louisiana have such laws. At least three women, two Americans and one Australian, have won lawsuits against their abortionists for failing to disclose the link.

Nonetheless, a debate rages in the medical-research community, and the National Cancer Institute refuses to concede a link. Why not? It’s hard to say which is more politically charged, breast cancer or AIDS, but where both diseases are concerned, there is no serious interest among the many who have made good livings championing these causes in discouraging the sexually profligate behavior with which they are correlated. It is true that, unlike AIDS, most of the factors that put women at an increased risk of breast cancer are outside their control. Chief among them are age and family history. Perhaps the jury is still out on the question of an abortion, breast cancer link—yet why not err on the side of caution and eliminate a risk factor that is so easy to eliminate?

There is no debate, however, over the robust relationship between hormonal contraceptives and—not just breast cancer—but a host of women’s cancers. One need only read the warning literature that pharmaceutical companies include with Depro Provera, “the patch,” and “the pill.” Dr. Christopher Kahlenborn has published extensively demonstrating this link, most recently in an study for Mayo Clinic Proceedings called “Oral Contraceptive Use as a Risk Factor for Premenopausal Breast Cancer: A Meta-analysis.”

If Komen is so earnest to “end breast cancer forever,” why, in 2002, was Komen founder Nancy Brinker named a member of the Planned Parenthood of North Texas advisory board?

Why has Komen made grants to some 72 Planned Parenthood affiliates over the past five years?

Kristin Kelly, who sees to Komen’s public relations, argues that Komen grants to Planned Parenthood abortuaries are to provide breast health screening services. Surely she understands that every penny Komen gives Planned Parenthood frees other funds to keep the vacuums running.

“Susan G. Komen for the Cure” is cooperating with an organization the activities of which increase the risk of breast cancer. Some might call this hypocrisy. Others see it as proximate material cooperation with evil.

***
Christopher Check is executive vice president of The Rockford Institute, publisher of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, www.chroniclesmagazine.org.