Breast cancer prevention

Not only does the Breast Cancer Industry receive 36 times more money from donors than colorectal cancer, but those dollars have little impact on breast cancer prevention.

On page 38 of Charity Intelligence Canada's report Cancer in Canada there is a graph that identifies the Opportunity for Donor Impact of the top cancers in Canada.

Under the prevention column you see there are no dollar signs for Breast Cancer. According to the legend on the graph, this means there is:
"Limited or no opportunity for donor impact".

Page 41 says:
"Breast Cancer in Canada: Donor opportunity for impact – Very Low, due to saturation and past success"

And yet we know there is evidence that points to a possible link between breast cancer and abortion, a link the Breast Cancer Industry refuses to acknowledge.

The report also summarizes some of other cancers and their donor impacts:
"Pancreatic Cancer: Donor opportunity for impact – Very High
Lung Cancer: Donor opportunity for impact – High
Colorectal Cancer: Donor opportunity for impact – High
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: Donor opportunity for impact – Moderate to High
Ovarian Cancer: Donor opportunity for impact – Moderate to High"

On page 41 the report summarizes breast cancer funding in this way:
"Breast cancer is the most funded cancer – receiving 28% of all Canadian cancer funding, despite representing fewer than 10% of cancer deaths or PYLL [potential years of life lost]. Breast cancer receives 3 times the average of the other 9 top killers: more than $10,000 per breast cancer death. With 45 charities focused on breast cancer and high support from general cancer charities – and the resulting high survival rates – breast cancer has a low funding need relative to other cancers."

If breast cancer "has a low funding need relative to other cancers", why do we see that little pink ribbon on so many consumer products?

So, let's go out on a limb here.
 
Let's assume just for one tiny moment (work with me on this), that yes, there just might actually be an increase in the incidence of breast cancer for women who have had one or more previous abortions.
 
If we then started telling women about this evidence, letting them decide for themselves if it had merit, I wonder what might happen?

Maybe some women might opt out of choosing to have an abortion. Maybe some women might choose to keep their baby. Maybe some women would choose to put their baby up for adoption instead.

I wonder how much breast cancer prevention we might see then?