Dear Carz: You raise two questions. The first, re: baseline risk, is a good question, and it is true that epidemiological studies don't typically give this, as it varies greatly from population to population and from time to time. So for example, a 30% risk increase where the baseline lifetime risk is 10% (average for the US) is an absolute lifetime risk increase of 3%. Fast forward to the recent 2013 study in Bangla Desh, which reported a 2000% risk increase (relative risk >20), because in Bengla Desh, breast cancer has been almost unheard of until recently, as almost all women get married and have lots of children, starting in their teens, breast feed all of them, never drink alcohol or take birth control steroids. So that's a very good question, and the answer is that it depends. The interesting thing is that in studies from all over the world, black, white, brown; rich or poor: all populations of women studied have shown increased risk over whatever the baseline is, among those women who've had any abortions.

The second point you make is also interesting. "the teenaged girl or adult woman who terminates a pregnancy and goes on to be happily married and have three children" While that may be true in some cases, such women are at about triple or quadruple the risk as those who carried that teenage pregnancy to term (and maybe just gave up the child for adoption and went on with her life). That's really the silver lining for the teen with an unintended and unwelcome pregnancy: That baby will buy her a fair measure of insurance against breast cancer. Too many times, that "happily married" mother of 3 receives the unhappy diagnosis of breast cancer, which would have been most likely avoided had she not aborted her first, inconvenient pregnancy.

Dear pedestrian: "What exactly do you mean by " This has nothing to do with abortion." Having fewer or no children has everything to do with abortion, being the very purpose of abortion. So your comment is nonsensical on its face. Nevertheless, there are those experts who agree with you. They say that the risk increase is not due to the abortion per se, but the loss of the protective effect a full-term pregnancy would have provided. Oh, I get it! It's not the abortion that raises the breast cancer risk, it's the termination of the pregnancy! Double-talk if I ever heard it.

It is indeed sad that the author and her many supporters cannot (or wilfully will not) understand the nature of the statistics being presented, rather regurgitating misinformation as it’s read because it suits their bias. Not even the great Prof. Joel Brind, whom Ms Francis relies on for most of her interpretaions seems to understand the difference between Relative Risk (RR), increased in RR and the Odds Ratio (OR). The OR is NOT the same as RR, or increase in RR. Look it up, Wikipedia has a good article on it. The interpreting an OR= 1.89 (as Joel Brind does), as an increase in RR of 89% is erroneous, it will be less than that. Interpreting the Indian and Bangladesh studies the same way to get increases in RR of 600% and 2000%, as Joel Brind does in his original opinion piece that Ms Francis' piece is bentirely based on, is completely wrong! How many people here (including teh author of this piece) go the primary literature to investigate what is being discussed as fact?
Such as the “Bangladesh study”:
http://www.banglajol.info/index.php/JDMC/article/viewFile/15628/11078
You see the statistics they based the OR on had 262 ‘cases (i.e. cancer cases) versus 262 ‘controls’, with 231 (88%) of the ‘cases’ having had a history of abortion, and only 70 (26%) of the control group having had a history of abortion. Now, I’m no statistician, but that seems to me that is going to skew the results somewhat, especially when using that control group to calculate an Odds Ratio (OR).
One disturbing thing in the ‘Indian study’:
http://www.ijcm.org.in/article.asp?issn=0970-0218;year=2013;volume=38;issue=2;spage=95;epage=99;aulast=Kamath

is that it seems that using Joel Brinds interpretation of RR increase (i.e. RR increase=OR, which it ISN’T, but whatever), is that the Indian authors appear to have found that a high school education appears to increase womens risk by >480% versus illiterate women, and in fact any amount of education increases the risks.
WOW! Why isn’t THAT ever discussed?
Maybe because that would show how selective a certain lobby group are in discussing the results of such studies, and how the statistics are being abused and misinterpreted.

Gadfly, what about the far more prevalent miscarriages suffered by far more women than abortions?

By your reckoning, they are all doomed for breast cancer too?
Thats amazing that all you pro-life people have found the cause of breast cancer when I, as a nurse of 30 years, have NEVER heard any cancer specialist mention abortion as a cause of breast cancer.

In fact, the whole fanciful notion makes me feel sick, because some poor women who had to go through a traumatic abortion for whatever reason earlier in their life, now have to contend with some unfeeling people suggesting they will get breast cancer as a 'punishment' for their sins...

Early miscarriages are associated with low levels of oestrogen - too low to support the pregnancy. There is no link between early miscarriage and breast cancer.

However late miscarriages do involve a significant breast cancer risk. Oestrogen levels have been very high for several months, but the maturing of breast lobules to make them cancer-resistant has not begun.

There is also an increased breast cancer risk with extremely premature births.

But Susie will think of some other excuse to deny the abortion-oestrogen-breast cancer link. As I said before, the truth will out one day - but the sisters will do their best to ensure it will not be soon.

Edmund Burke, it is not so much a gender war about abortion rights though is it?

It is a religious war that is populated by mainly religious men who liked the 'good 'ol days' when men were supposedly tough and holy, and women did as they were told.

Sorry Edmund, but those days are gone and women have a right to say what happens to their bodies, and it is no longer dictated by holy men or gods.

Abortion rights are here to stay, and so is that other sin...contraception.
Why not put all your efforts into stopping unwanted pregnancies happening in the first place, rather than trying to force women to go on with pregnancies they don't want?