Science In, Science Out: Texas Lawmakers Hear Two Very Different Abortion Bills

Yesterday in Texas, two Republican lawmakers presented two very different abortion-related bills, both of which deal with the reliability of mainstream medical and scientific research. One bill would bring Texas in line with the findings of the National Cancer Institute, removing language connecting breast cancer to abortion in the state-issued “Woman’s Right to Know” pre-abortion booklet. The other, the so-called Preborn Pain Act, would ban abortions performed after 20 weeks post-fertilization in the state, putting Texas in opposition to the Texas Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

State Rep. Sarah Davis (R-Houston) asked the Texas House State Affairs Committee to “vote to live in fact and not fiction” when considering her proposal to scratch the breast cancer claims out of the “Woman’s Right to Know” booklet. The language was first included in the booklet ten years ago. It reads, in part:

“If you have carried a pregnancy to term as a young woman, you may be less likely to get breast cancer in the future. However, you do not get the same protective effect if your pregnancy is ended by an abortion. The risk may be higher if your first pregnancy is aborted.”

Davis, a breast cancer survivor, called the language “patently offensive.” When she was diagnosed with cancer, she said, “Not one time did any of my medical advisors ask me, ‘Did you have an abortion, Ms Davis?’ Because that is simply not in the realm of science.”

Indeed, a review of research conducted by the National Cancer Institute found that the newest studies have “consistently showed no association between induced and spontaneous abortions and breast cancer risk.” And according to the American Cancer Society, “the scientific evidence does not support the notion that abortion of any kind raises the risk of breast cancer or any other type of cancer.”

But representatives from anti-choice groups such as the Texas Alliance for Life and Life Advocates said they do not trust the findings of these two organizations. One crisis pregnancy center director from Houston testified, “the people who want to remove [breast cancer’s link to abortion] are the very people who profit from abortion,” arguing that a national conspiracy on behalf of greedy abortion providers has skewed the country’s scientific research in their favor.

An obstetrician speaking on behalf of the Texas Alliance for Life also testified that science linking breast cancer to abortion has been “suppressed” since the passage of Roe v. Wade. Dr. Bevery Nuckolls said there exists “very strong evidence” linking breast cancer to abortion, citing a 1997 study led by Dr. Mads Melbye. The conclusion of that study: “Induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer.”

Just hours after Rep. Davis asked the committee members to consider her bill on the strengths of peer-reviewed medical science, Rep. Jodie Laubenberg (R-Parker) asked them to do precisely the opposite in considering a ban on abortion after 20 weeks post-fertilization. Laubenberg, who is the Texas state chair of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a back-door lobbying group responsible for the rash of suspiciously similar conservative legislation proposed across the country over the last several years, said her bill deals with “the life issue.”

Laubenberg’s bill does not include any exceptions for rape, incest, or the mental health of the pregnant person—only an exception for life-threatening physical conditions.

“The technology that we have now, that we know more about the development of the feelings of that preborn child, allows us to make, I think, a better decision,” Laubenberg told the committee. Her bill asserts that “substantial medical evidence recognizes that an unborn child is capable of experiencing pain by not later than 20 weeks after fertilization.”

Whatever Laubenberg’s “substantial medical evidence” is, it is not accepted by the Texas Hospital Association, which sent a representative to Wednesday’s hearing to oppose the bill, nor by the Journal of the American Medical Association, which published a 2005 clinical review finding that “evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.” Similarly, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists holds the official position that “scientific evidence does not support the elimination of legal abortion at 20 weeks’ gestation based on concern for fetal pain.”

Rep. Laubenberg claimed that by 20 weeks post-fertilization, a woman has had “more than enough time to decide whether or not she will have, choose to have, that abortion.”

But the reality of second trimester abortions is much more complicated than a woman simply being too lazy or ignorant to bother to abort. Of the fewer than 0.5 percent of abortions that are performed after 20 weeks in Texas, many are due to fetal anomalies that cannot be identified prior to that time. Women of color in traumatic, abusive, or unstable living situations are more likely to seek abortions at 20 weeks, often because they lack access to medical care that would enable them to abort earlier, or because they must save up the hundreds or thousands of dollars for their procedures over the course of many weeks.

Amelia Long, president of the Lilith Fund, an organization that provides financial resources for Texans seeking abortion, told RH Reality Check in December that it’s “never the case” that the Texans who reach out to her fund are “just putting it off and just being lazy.”

Much of the testimony on the 20-week ban centered on fetuses, rather than pregnant Texans’ right to access safe, legal abortion before the third trimester. Abortion is already banned in Texas after 24 weeks.

Dr. Patrick Nunnelly, an anti-choice OB-GYN from Austin, testified that the bill was “a critical step in the protection of a group of vulnerable citizens who have no choice.” 

But one woman’s tearful testimony put the focus back on pregnant Texans. She testified that her doctor discovered a terminal fetal anomaly in the second trimester of her pregnancy. The religious-affiliated hospital at which she was being treated would not allow her to terminate her pregnancy, even when her doctor appealed to the hospital’s board.

She said, through tears, “I should be allowed to make this very personal, very private decision,” and observed that had a 20-week ban been in place when she was faced with her decision, any choice about her medical options would have already been made for her, by the state.

The fundamental question proposed by both bills is this: Do Texas lawmakers trust peer-reviewed research produced by mainstream medical science? If the answer is no, then Laubenberg’s bill should pass. If the answer is yes, then Davis’ bill should pass. If both bills pass, Texas lawmakers are essentially contradicting themselves; either the best available peer-reviewed medical science is trustworthy, or it isn’t.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact

Follow Andrea Grimes on twitter: @andreagrimes

  • bnuckols

    The author only quoted half a sentence. The article clearly states, “Induced abortion had no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer, but we found a statistically significant increase in risk among women with a history of second-trimester abortion.”

    • Andrea Grimes

      “Induced abortion had no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer, but we found a statistically significant increase in risk among women with a history of second-trimester abortion. The fact that such an increase did not affect the overall result clearly indicates that it is based on small numbers and therefore requires cautious interpretation.”

      Further: “Nulliparous women with a history of induced abortion did not differ from parous women in their risk of breast cancer.”

      • bnuckols

        That 89% increased risk is significant to that “small number” of women who developed cancer. The 23% increased risk after ab at 15-18 weeks might seem significant for some.

        The authors admit that they probably missed thousands of abortions because the registry wasn’t computerized before 1973, but they started counting cancer cases in 1968. That fact skews any “overall” conclusions.

        • HeilMary1

          The longer certain cancer-prone women are pregnant with FEMALE fetuses, the greater their risk of many cancers. Abortions reduce this risk, and childbirths increase this risk. I collect obits of mothers who die young in the DC area. The vast majority had cancers and just had DAUGHTERS. I personally knew/know many victims, and the surviving sister physician of one victim concluded that pregnancy (with a daughter!) triggered her sister’s breast cancer. That tragedy also killed the widower with a heart attack!

    • cjvg

      If you are that concerned lets mandate that all pregnant women are informed of all the increase in cancer and death that pregnancy and childbirth carries for them.
      Recent childbirth: Women who have recently given birth have a short-term
      increase in risk that declines after about 10 years. The reason for this
      temporary increase is not known, but some researchers believe that it may be due
      to the effect of high levels of hormones on microscopic
      cancers or to the rapid growth of breast cells during pregnancy
      Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology. Vol. 1 and 2

      Oops that is every woman who is at risk.
      Older age at birth of first child: The older a woman is when she has her
      first full-term pregnancy, the higher her risk of breast cancer. Women who are
      older than 30 when they give birth to their first child have a higher risk of
      breast cancer than women who have never given birth.
      Epidemiologic Reviews 1993

      Well, I guess if your after 30 it is better to abort
      Pregnancy also plays a role in an extremely rare type of tumor called a gestational
      trophoblastic tumor. In this type of tumor, which starts in the uterus,
      cancer cells grow in the tissues that are formed following conception. AMA published study compiling several cancer studies.

      Again every woman increases her risk
      How about this little tidbit from the CDC, lets mandate that every (pregnant) woman is informed about this too!
      CDC reports that death from pregnancy and childbirth have doubled and in some states tripled in the past 10 -20 years.

      “Doctors say it’s hard for everyone to understand when a mother that appears to be healthy suddenly dies”
      “One reason is due to complications during C-sections.”
      “there is also an unexplained increase in strokes”
      “some of these pregnancy-related deaths do not happen during actually during childbirth, but even as much as six weeks after the delivery”

      Hmm, I have not heard any pro-life groups getting upset over this meaningless loss of live that is NOT occurring in other western countries.
      How about telling woman not to even risk it just in case it turns out to be a difficult pregnancy, cause even if they live through that it will still cost them years of their life later on. Lets mandate that too!
      “Young women who have a range of complications during pregnancy, including preeclampsia, gestational diabetes or preterm birth, are at an increased risk of developing heart disease and of dying later in life”
      While we are at it lets also mandate that every pregnant woman is warned that pregnancy increases her risk of death if she happens to get the flu
      “pregnancy may increase the risk of death during a case of severe flu, is the conclusion to a new study. According to the Centers for Disease Control”
      How about mandating that every pregnant woman is informed that her risk of violent death just jumped up significantly as reported by the FBI, AMA, CDC, BJS
      Lets go there for a change, why are those not mandate information for woman who are pregnant?
      These are even real undisputed numbers that are accepted by all.
      Not those from one study that has been discredited ages ago, and who’s results just can not be reproduced regardless of the desperate attempts too.

    • Ella Warnock

      Studies also show that women who have never been pregnant are at higher risk for breast cancer. Which I guess would denote that women should have children whether they want them or not, just so we can do more studies showing how an increase in population corresponds with lower breast cancer rates. Or something like that. At any rate, the overall statistics don’t really bear out that reality, so it’s probably nothing more than a scare tactic to discourage women from choosing to be childless.