Wednesday, February 27, 2013

In her own words

Joyce Arthur says that :
“I have never said what Jeff Watson claims I did in his survey. He’s tried to sum up what he thinks our position is, but he’s put his own anti-choice spin on it,” she said. “He’s inserted this phrase ‘at any time, for any reason — including for sex-selection or birth control’ as if it’s part of my position and it’s not."

If her position on abortion is not an any time, any reason position, including for sex-selection or birth control, then what exactly, is her position?

I've put together a few choice quotes from Ms. Arthur herself, to help readers see if they can figure out for themselves, what those gestational limits might be, and for what reasons, that Ms. Arthur would not condone abortion.

From here

From Point 3:
"It is senseless and cruel to restrict or ban abortion because giving rights to fetuses or banning abortion does nothing to 'protect the unborn' or women."

From Point 4:
"Historical and medical evidence clearly shows the negative and often catastrophic results when the state interferes and imposes restrictions on the reproductive rights of women in the interests of “protecting” fetuses,[16] [17] as if women are incapable or irresponsible. But the only person who can make conscientious and informed decisions on behalf of an embryo or fetus is the pregnant woman herself. The state’s only role should be to ensure that women have the resources and supports they need to achieve the best pregnancy outcomes – which may sometimes include having an abortion. We can trust women to know what is best for their families and themselves, which means there’s no need to re-open the abortion debate in Canada."

From Point 6:
"If late-term abortions were restricted by law, it would penalize women in the most tragic circumstances by making it difficult or impossible for them to obtain desperately needed abortions."

And from her comments below about sex selection:
"Yes, sex selection can be a sexist act, but it's nonsensical to protect women from discrimination by restricting their rights. In India, laws against sex-selection abortion cause women to resort to unsafe and illegal abortion to avoid having a girl, and some may even face abuse and violence from their families if they bear a girl.
"Of course, abortions are not something women want to do -- they make this difficult decision for one reason or another -- family needs, their personal circumstances, their health, or their own inability or reluctance to be a parent. As blogger Jane Cawthorne explains, having an abortion for reasons of sex selection is not much different than having one for financial reasons, or because the baby will be disabled. The answer is not to coerce a woman into giving birth to an unwanted girl just "to make some sort of anti-sexist point." Instead, we must strive to "make the world a place where little girls are as wanted as little boys, where the systemic discrimination of women is a thing of the past."

And here are some excerpts from her article, "Canada does not need an abortion law":
"Most anti-abortionists confidently state as “scientific fact” that human life begins at conception and therefore embryos deserve legal protection. The question of when life begins is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one, and there can be no consensus. The moral value of a fetus is also a matter of personal opinion, so it must be left up to individual women to decide what their fetus means to them, if anything. But even women who believe abortion is murder often need abortions, so the nature of the fetus and its moral status are ultimately beside the point. Women’s lives, health, and basic human rights depend on the availability of abortion, and those are the only factors necessary to justify abortion.

"A common anti-abortion claim is that there’s no difference between a newborn and a 9-month fetus, therefore a fetus should have legal rights. But a fetus is inside the woman and completely dependent on her, which makes all the difference in the world. A pregnant woman cannot hand over her fetus to someone else to take care of, like she could with a newborn. Further, pregnancy has a major effect on a woman’s body and emotional state, and every pregnancy carries some risk of serious complication or death. The crucial decision to take on that risk—no matter how small—can only be decided by the pregnant woman herself."
"Women now have well-established constitutional rights to life, liberty, conscience, security of the person, and equality. Such rights cannot be easily removed or compromised, and all are directly implicated in the abortion issue.

"Some commentators simply presume that since all other developed nations have abortion laws, Canada should have one too. But this ignores the historical context. Legal restrictions in liberal countries are a relic of patriarchy and religious tradition – they evolved from total abortion bans that were in place earlier in the 20th century. Canada is lucky, in a sense, that the revised abortion law we had in place from 1969 to 1988, was so bad that our Supreme Court threw it out as unconstitutional. Other countries took a different path, with legislatures tinkering with the original abortion law. For most of the 20th century, people could not comprehend the idea that women should or could exercise a right to abortion on request. As a result, existing abortion laws were revised on the unquestioned and false assumption that some kind of abortion law was necessary."
"The abortion debate will probably never be resolved on a philosophical level, because the anti-choice movement is strongly motivated by religious ideology. Their fixation on the fetus, with their foregone conclusion that fetuses are full human beings with rights, cancels out any competing claim for women’s rights. Underlying all the pro-fetus rhetoric is the unquestioned assumption that women were made to have babies, this is their God-given natural role, and the law must enforce that. "
"But access to safe and legal abortion is a fundamental human right for women, not something that should even be up for debate, let alone negotiation or compromise. This is not about “a woman’s right to choose,” which just trivializes the issue. It’s about a woman’s right to life. Because the right to life means more than just mere physical survival, it must be backed up by democratic rights and freedoms, including the right to pursue happiness on one’s own chosen path."
"On the abortion issue, Canada has shown that women and doctors act in a timely and responsible manner, without punitive criminal laws to control them. Canada enjoys a low abortion rate compared to the rest of the world, and most Canadians support women’s rights and equality. This gives Canada a special responsibility to be a role model to the world. Let’s demonstrate that abortion practice can be successfully managed as part of standard healthcare, and that having no law is better for women."

And excerpts from her article, "We Don't Need a Law Against Abortion" where she talks about funding:
"Let’s be clear — There is absolutely no justification for regulating abortion via criminal or civil law. That is no “radical feminist” proposition, but one based on evidence, common sense, and the widely-accepted belief that women deserve equality.

"As the only democratic country in the world with no legal restrictions against abortion, Canada serves as a valuable model for other countries."
"There’s another important reason we should not pass any abortion restrictions—to protect women’s rights. Only women get pregnant. Therefore, any regulation of pregnancy is inherently discriminatory, because such laws place a special burden on women that is not placed on men. This also means all abortion care should be fully funded under the Canada Health Act as “medically required,” just like childbirth. After all, we fund the costs of delivery even though women choose to get pregnant for socio-economic reasons, not medical reasons. Unless all pregnancy outcomes are funded equally, the government holds the "right to choose" instead of women—poor women in particular. That's discrimination, and a violation of women’s constitutional equality rights. "

"The case for repealing anti-abortion laws":
"All anti-abortion restrictions are unjust, harmful, and useless because they rest on traditional religious and patriarchal foundations. Laws kill and injure women, violate their human rights and dignity, impede access to abortion, and obstruct healthcare professionals."
"A fetus is not innocent, as anti-choice people claim. Although an unwanted fetus has no ill intent, it is exploiting the woman's body and endangering her life and health against her will. Bringing a pregnancy to term is far riskier than having an abortion, and any pregnancy has a profound effect on a woman's whole being, mentally and physically. Therefore, a woman has the right to defend her life and health with an abortion."

In this article, she calls decriminalizing abortion, taking the "moral high road":
"The Canadian pro-choice movement will do all it can to ensure that Canada never goes back, and we encourage other countries to embark upon a similar journey. When women can make their own reproductive decisions without interference from the state, society takes the moral high road -- one that saves lives, raises women's status and potential, and ultimately benefits everyone."

So can you tell us then, Ms. Arthur; in your own words, please. What are those specific reasons, and your position, on when you would not condone abortion? We're all dying to know.

Friday, February 22, 2013

Abortion statistics published for 2011

CIHI's 2011 abortion statistics

Re Quebec's statistics this year (they weren't reported at all in 2010):

"Hospital and clinic breakdowns for Quebec were not available for 2011 at the time of publication"

Quebec totals were published though. However, they are most probably under reported like all abortion statistics, because clinics are not mandated to report.

There are also still no statistics reported on abortions done in private physician's offices.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Monday, February 18, 2013

We don't know what we're talking about

Lack of accurate numbers turns Canada’s abortion argument in guesswork

National Post
Feb 18, 2013 8:19 AM ET

By Pat Maloney

There is a lot of confusion in Canada regarding statistics about abortions. This makes it very difficult to have a proper discussion when the facts are not readily available. And it shouldn't matter if you are pro-life or pro-choice; we need accurate information regarding abortion in Canada.

There are a couple of reasons for this confusion. The first stems from the fact that not all abortions are reported. As well, the reasons abortions are performed are not captured or reported. Another problem is that the gestational age of most abortions is unknown.

This means we have no idea how many abortions are performed, how many of them are late-term, and what the reasons are. Consequently, there is no way we can say Canada has very few late-term abortions, or that their reasons are for fetal anomalies, or danger to the mother, because of this lack of good information.

We do know that Statistics Canada reported 491 children died due to "termination of pregnancy" after being born alive from 2000 to 2009. We know this happened, but we don't even know the reasons it happened, except for the few women who wrote letters to the National Post, and other anecdotal information.

What else we know, is that in 2010 (the last year for which we have abortion statistics), the Canadian Centre for Health Information (CIHI) reported 64,641 abortions. This number is very under-reported for these reasons:

1) Quebec did not report any statistics in 2010 (We do know though, that there were 27,139 in 2009 in Quebec, so the 2010 numbers would likely be a similar or higher number).

2) It is not mandatory for clinics to report abortion data and clinic data is under-reported.

3) Abortions performed in private physician's offices are not published or reported at all. (There were 18,330 in Ontario alone in 2010 based on access to information from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long term care. We can assume that each province would have a similar proportional number of abortions performed in doctor's offices raising the numbers even higher.)

Of these 64,641 known abortions reported by CIHI, the gestational age was only reported for 22,668 abortions (8,300 performed on fetuses <=8 weeks, 11,191 on fetuses 9-12 weeks, 1,794 on fetuses 13-16 weeks, 846 on fetuses 17-20 weeks, 537 on fetuses 21+ weeks). These known gestational age abortions are reported for hospital abortions only--we have no gestational ages for those done in clinics or physician's offices.

Therefore, there were at least 41,973 abortions performed in 2010 with an unknown gestational age. This means all of those 41,973 abortions, or most of them, or some of them, or none of them, could be late term abortions--we just don't know. And we don’t know these gestational ages because most abortion providers don't report them.

If all of the unknown gestational age abortions were in fact late term, then the percentage could be as high as 65%.

Joyce Arthur, Canada's leading abortion advocate, frequently makes statements that all late-term abortions are done "for compelling reasons, such as fetal abnormalities incompatible with life or a serious threat to the woman’s health or life".

There is no way that Ms. Arthur, or anyone else in Canada for that matter, can make such a claim. Since there is no requirement to report or publish the reasons for late-term abortions, or for any abortions, no one including Ms. Arthur can assert this.

We don't know how many abortions are being done in Canada every year. We don't know how many abortions are late-term. And we don't know the reasons women are having abortions.

A couple of solutions to this problem are as follows. Make the reporting or all abortions statistics mandatory. This would include all clinics, private physician's offices and Quebec. Make it mandatory to report the gestational age of the unborn child and the reasons for the abortions. Then make the facts public, including the cost to the taxpayer.

Abortion is the only medical procedure where ready and accurate statistics are not available in Canada. So why not abortion? Then we can really start the discussion.

Thursday, February 14, 2013

From the unthinkable to politically acceptable


The Overton Window is shifting!

The Overton Window is a political theory that an idea can transition from the unthinkable, to acceptable, and eventually be transformed into public policy.

From the perspective of this campaign, it is incredibly encouraging to see the Overton Window shifting! As you can see from this update, there is so much going on! Mainstream media coverage, courageous MP's, an endorsement - all indications that pre-born human rights are a topic of discussion like they haven't been in years!

Keep up the great work everyone!
Newsletter collage

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

When abortions can be performed

Below is a letter from Dr. Philip G. Ney that was printed in the National Post on Feb 6.

Dr. Ney has his own perspective on how to restrict abortion.
(Reprinted with permission from the author)

Making the decision to abort
Re: Some Questions About Abortion For Carolyn Bennett, Jonathan Kay, Feb. 5.

Jonathan Kay’s fine piece of rhetoric would be persuasive except he neglects two salient aspects: a) Should anyone or any political or medical body have the august authority or temerity to define (morally) who is a person? b) If the doctors are doing a good job at limiting abortions by gestational age, why not go along with the “pro-choice”? Because physicians cannot be trusted to be honest about gestational age in any situation where they have a “special” patient.

Instead, why not use the almost universally accepted criteria of evidence-based practice. Abortions would be limited not because of age or politics or pressure, but because it is bad medicine. Like every other procedure to qualify an abortion would need to be: necessary, beneficial, relatively free of harm, done only after less invasive more reversible treatments have been tried, done in good faith and only after fully informed consent is freely given. To provide abortions for any other reason is to condone malpractice.

Dr. Philip G. Ney, Victoria.

Monday, February 11, 2013

Who's stupid?

Oh yi yi, who peed into this guy's cornflakes?

Now I know we are all entitled to our opinion, but when that includes personal attacks about people we don't agree with calling them "stupid" and "bushwackers", well that's a different matter entirely:
"Bushwhackers embarrass PM - Ignorant of the law, three Tory backbenchers revisit abortion issue".

And "ignorant of the law"? Ah, no. Too bad the writer, Marc Bonokoski, didn't take ten or twenty seconds, to read the letter in question.

Now I wouldn’t call Mr. Bonokoski stupid or a bushwacker, but maybe if he had bothered to read the letter, he'd see that he was, how shall I put this, not the sharpest needle in the haystack. The letter was about the possibility of born babies dying, and nothing being done to help them.

The original letter, and clarification press release of the letter, explains why they wrote to the RCMP in the first place:
"Our request to the RCMP was not about the deaths of preborn children, but rather the deaths of children who had already been BORN ALIVE and who are, therefore, recognized as "human beings" in Canadian law.Section 223 (2) of our Criminal Code makes it a crime to cause injury to a child before or during birth as a result of which the child dies AFTER being BORN ALIVE. The Criminal Code calls it homicide. That is not our opinion; that is the law today."

Mr. Bonokoski also thinks that the letter to the RCMP written by Messrs. Velacott, Benoit and Lizon was unconscionable. Why? Because Mr. Harper stated that the abortion debate was closed, don't you know? Well I hate to break it to Mr. Bonokoski, but the letter wasn't about abortion.

I thought newspaper professionals were supposed to read stuff they're writing about. Apparently some don't need to.

Second, exactly what was "unconscionable" about this letter? I don't think Mr. Bonokoski knows the meaning of that word, but here's a hint, it's when you don't listen to your conscience. The MPs raised an issue that in good conscience they wanted to be investigated, so it wasn't unconscionable, got it?

Lastly, Mr. Bonokoski said:
"Until I grow a uterus and am able to bear children, it is absolutely none of my business and certainly outside my emotional and psychological purview."

So here's a question for Mr. Bonokoski. If you lived in a country where female genital mutilation is legal, I suppose you'd be okay with that too? After all it's also "absolutely none of your business and certainly outside of your emotional and psychological purview", right?

Illogical reasoning aside, here's the question I'd really like Mr. Bonokoski to answer. Why is he standing up for Mr. Harper and his "I won't reopen the abortion debate" mantra? I always puzzle when I hear someone say this, especially a newspaper person whose raison d'etre is supposed to be free speech (I thought), something that this mantra categorically dismisses. So what is that all about anyway?

I wonder. Is this guy trying to get some kind of brownie points in his weird Mr. Harper adulation? Maybe he's wants to run for the Conservatives and become an MP.

Mr. Bonokoski says he sought the Canadian Alliance nomination in the federal riding of Nepean-Carleton in 2000. Does he not realize that the policy of the CA and the policy of the existing Conservative party is that individual MPs have the freedom to vote their conscience on these moral issues? So it's a good thing that voters rejected Bonokoski because he didn't even know CA policy, and it seems like he still doesn't.

Perhaps he harbours some bitterness over his loss in Nepean-Carleton due to his pro-abortion world view that compels him to lash out at anyone who might have the courage to stand up in defense of Canada's most vulnerable citizens? Could that be it?

Or maybe he wants to become Minister for the Department of Diputs Elpoep. Could be.

Saturday, February 9, 2013

The abortion debate is happening

Paul Russell devotes his entire column today in the National Post , The Week in Letters, to the abortion debate in Canada:  Readers agree: It's time Canada had an abortion law.

He also publishes some excellent letters under the title ‘How many miracles were destroyed because of late-term abortions?

A few excerpts below from Mr. Russell's column:
"Our federal government doesn’t want to reopen the abortion debate — but many of our readers definitely do. Scores of letters focused on that issue this week, with the vast majority calling for either limits or an outright ban on the practice."

“We need a debate on abortion in Canada,” wrote Kieran McIllvray. “Other Western countries have no problem with such debates. Why is Canada different? We are after all talking about human life. We need to have a clear understanding of what that means, biologically, medically and of course morally....

...Three doctors waded into the debate on the Letters page. On Tuesday, in a note titled, “How to avoid live fetuses,” Dr. Christiane Dauphinais stated that the Quebec College of Physicians instructs doctors that “when performing an abortion on a woman who is 21 weeks pregnant or more … inject digoxin or potassium chloride into the fetus or the amniotic sac. This effectively kills the fetus, thereby avoiding having to deal with a live, aborted infant.” This guidance from the medical college repulsed at least one reader.

“Does this sound like a good doctor’s healing treatment or rather like an executioner’s order?” asked Regina Kosalka. “So much for the Hippocratic Oath reinforced in the Declaration of Geneva after the Second World War in response to atrocities perpetrated by Nazi and imperial Japanese ‘doctors’ participating in inhumane medical practices.”...

...A few readers pointed out how loaded the terminology is around abortion.

“Thank you for giving the issue of late term abortions the coverage it deserves, even though it was not an emotionally easy read,” wrote Patrick Stewart. “It is interesting how language affects how we think and act. A mother who plans to take her pregnancy to full term will refer to the unborn as ‘her baby,’ while another who plans not to carry the unborn to full term — and those who will assist her — refer to the unborn as ‘a fetus.’ ”

“Endless discussions about abortion is becoming stale and tedious, because [no one] can seem to make up their mind about the fetus-in-the-woman,” added Peter Koning. “We do not dare to talk about a real baby in mother’s womb.”

He offered this advice on how to bring clarity to the issue.

“Is our future Queen, Kate Middleton, pregnant with a fetus or a baby?” Ms. Koning asked. “Half if not more of the world is anxiously waiting for the birth of her baby, not her fetus. We don’t talk about her fetus, do we? It is a baby in her and every pregnant woman’s womb. Maybe the pro-abortionists should rethink what is in a woman’s uterus. Our government should also do some rethinking on the issue.”

Once again the National Post engages in the abortion debate. A debate we can't have in Parliament, a debate we can't have in most of the media, and a debate we can't have on university campuses.

Another insight into the abortion debate is this telling "pro-choice" comment yesterday in the Post from Jesse Kline, on the notion of morality. He says:
"Given that our society clearly has not come to a consensus about whether abortion is immoral, restricting a woman’s right to choose entails imposing one group’s morality upon another. In a free society, this act is itself morally wrong."

Following this logic, we should also not impose our morality on those sectors of the world's population who practice, say stoning adulterers. Or those people who practice murder and rape. If we do, then we are imposing our morality on another person right? But the reality is, that in a "free society", humankind makes laws based on morality all the time, just look at our criminal code. It's full of laws based on morality, that is what criminal law does. It would be morally wrong to not put such laws in place to protect the innocent. The only exception to this usual code of a societal morality, especially in Canada, seems to be when it comes to abortion. Why is that?

But the good news in all of this is, that if we consider all the places we can't have the debate, it seems to me that we are doing a pretty good job of having it in the National Post. Maybe Parliament, the rest of the media and the Universities will eventually come on board too. Otherwise they just might find themselves left behind.

Monday, February 4, 2013

Rules for abortion on demand

Check out Jonathan Kay: Some questions for Carolyn Bennett (and my other pro-choice critics) on late term abortions.

He talks about what MP Carolyn Bennett says about his article this weekend:
"Over the weekend, Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett wrote a brief rebuttal, in which she declared: “I am totally fed up with ‘lawyered’ assertions that totally misrepresent the facts. While in Canada, we do not have a law, we do have very strict professional guidelines. No physician in Canada can terminate a pregnancy over 24 weeks without serious indications: the life of the mother at risk, or the fetus has very serious malformations.”

Ms. Bennett also said:
"I challenge him to find ONE late trimester abortion perfomed in Canada to a healthy mother with a healthy fetus. I am one of many politicians ‘willing to tackle’ this subject. He needs to be one of many journalists who are prepared to admit when their fine prose may have misled Canadians …in this case to admit that late-trimester abortions are NOT happening in Canada without ‘reason’."

Well I would like to challenge Ms. Bennett to tell us how she can know that late-trimester abortions are NOT happening without reason? Because nobody else in Canada knows the reasons for late-term abortions as I've written here and here. Why? Because that information is neither captured nor reported. If she does know, then she needs to share that information with the rest of us so we can all be smart.

Then Mr. Kay asks a question:
"my question is this: How is this status quo meaningfully different from a federal abortion law that sets 24 weeks as the gestational limit for elective abortion? The current Canadian policy, as Ms. Bennett describes and praises it, is basically a civil variant of the one encoded in the criminal laws of just about every European nation — except that most of those countries generally have gestational limits well below 24 weeks (12-18 weeks is typical).

And so I ask: If some Canadian decision-making body is going to determine when a women is allowed to have an abortion on demand, why is it better that such a body be composed of unelected doctors, rather than elected politicians?"

Good question. I know how I'd answer it.

Sunday, February 3, 2013

How many abortions are done in doctor's offices?

Suzanne Fortin tells us that an Ottawa abortion clinic has been closed.


This from the Ottawa Sun:
"The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario forced the Dr. Wee-Lim Sim Medical Practice at 371 Friel St. to stop doing therapeutic abortions after the inspection.

In a July 2011 report, college inspectors wrote that the clinic wasn’t using the “minimum expected standard” of anesthetic for the procedures.

Inspectors also noted a lack of procedure manuals, fire code compliance, safety standards, control over drugs and monitoring equipment."

But here's the thing. That is one doctor's office, in one city, in one province, in Canada. How many other doctor's offices in Canada are also doing abortions, and how many abortions are they doing? We don't know. We do know that CIHI doesn't give us any statistics on these abortions done in private physician's offices. We also know that there were 18,330 of these abortions done in private physician's offices in 2010 (based on a freedom of information request of OHIP billings), and that these numbers are not reported in CIHI's statistics.

So how could this be changed to get more accurate numbers? Well, if CIHI would start basing their statistics on hospital billing records instead of their current method (1). If they made this change, our abortion numbers in Canada would be a lot closer to the true numbers of abortions performed in Canada. And that would be a very good thing.

But CIHI says they can't do that because:
"using fee-for-service (FFS) payments to produce more comprehensive induced abortion statistics at the national level. Our study revealed that the use of FFS payments for induced abortions varies significantly across the provinces and territories; thus this data would not allow CIHI to produce a pan-Canadian comparable series of statistics."

To be honest with you, I'm not exactly sure why this is the case. Couldn't they simply do what I did in Ontario, and ask all the Provincial Ministries of Health to provide them with the numbers of abortions performed in hospitals, clinics and private physician's offices, all based on billing records? If I could do it in Ontario (at least before the Liberals secretly shut it all down), surely it could be done in every province, right? Then we would have a much better idea of the numbers of abortions done each year.

And as an added bonus, all those clinics that don't report their abortion, their data would also now be captured too.

Seems to me if there's a will, there's a way.

"CIHI captures administrative, clinical and demographic data on induced abortions performed in acute care, day surgery and emergency departments in Canadian hospitals. Data is supplied by provincial and territorial ministries of health, hospitals and independent abortion clinics in Canada. The figures in the following tables include induced abortions performed in a hospital or clinic setting in Canada.

CIHI has explored using fee-for-service (FFS) payments to produce more comprehensive induced abortion statistics at the national level. Our study revealed that the use of FFS payments for induced abortions varies significantly across the provinces and territories; thus this data would not allow CIHI to produce a pan-Canadian comparable series of statistics.

As a result, CIHI will continue to report on induced abortions performed in hospitals and abortion clinics only. While this is probably an underestimate of induced abortions done in the country, it is currently the best way to produce pan-Canadian comparable data."

Saturday, February 2, 2013

Are we cowed by the totalitarian abortion lobby?

Check out Barbara Kay's take on the born alive issue.

Ms. Kay says:
"I got into a Twitter dispute with one of my colleagues yesterday. I asked him if it wasn’t worth one regulatory constraint on late-term abortions if it prevented 54 deaths of living babies a year. He adamantly rejected it: “apples and oranges” he called the comparison.

There is more than one kind of slippery slope. And right now we are on a slippery slope to complicity with criminality.

I reject his comparison. Life outside the womb is life. Unless of course you are one of those creepy new progressive types that call for the right to kill babies with defects up to 30 days outside the womb. I asked my friend: Suppose there were a regulation we could impose that would effectively end spousal homicide of women: Wouldn’t you be eager to see it implemented? He didn’t answer.

But I know what he means by apples and oranges. Apples are women – and their protection from harm is the driver of much anguished public debate. Oranges are live babies that are not really “alive” in the moral sense in his mind if the mother delivering it doesn’t want it.

All that tells me is that this otherwise bright friend is so programmed to believe in the slippery slope of abortion regulation that he can’t bring himself to countenance a single exception to our no-fetters situation. Which is odd, because every other nation in the world insists on certain regulations, and no democratic nation has outlawed abortion in general.

This refusal to stare down the hands-off fetishists is getting downright silly. Worse, it is permitting criminal activity in the name of social harmony. Well, I don’t feel particularly harmonious about those 491 live births and I am betting there are plenty of other Canadians who believe in abortion as a general right, but are also sickened by late-term abortions and would be perfectly happy to see that aspect of the practice regulated.

There is more than one kind of slippery slope. And right now we are on a slippery slope to complicity with criminality. Is this really what most Canadians want, or are they just too cowed by the totalitarian abortion lobby to speak up?"

I think that just about sums it up pretty nicely.

Canadian and Ontario abortion statistics: the series

Here is a compilation of all my abortion statistic posts from 2010 onwards.

Born alive abortions and stillbirth abortions:






Here is the link to the Ontario Liberal's stealth attack on hiding abortion statistics in Ontario. All posts on this subject can be found at this link:

Fact checking works wonders

It's been an interesting week for abortion politics.

The week got off to a shaky start when a Canadian Press article on the 25th anniversary of the Morgentaler decision came out with some factual errors, and was subsequently picked up by pretty much every media outlet:
"It's been 25 years to the day since the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that criminalizing abortion violated a woman's charter rights."
"The Canadian Institute for Health Information says at least 64,000 abortions were performed in Canada in 2010, the most recent year for which information is available."

I sent CP an email and told them that no, the Supreme Court never ruled that criminalizing abortion violated a woman's charter rights, and that those 64,000 abortions are grossly under reported because:
"A) Quebec did not report their statistics for 2010 at all. B) It is not mandatory for clinics to report abortions, and many do not. C) all the abortions done in private physicians offices are not captured at all. There were at least 44,000 abortions done in Ontario alone in 2010 (only 28,765 were reported by CIHI for Ont. in 2010. My numbers are based on freedom of information requests I did of the Ont Min. of Health based on Dr's OHIP billings. BTW Ont recently excluded abortion services from FOI's). See here:

Then later in the week Maurice Vellacott issued a press release, which anyone who actually bothered to read, would see it contained a very significant bit, about abortions resulting in live births--that the Canadian Press once again, didn't immediately report the live births variable.

The media reports came out saying that three MPS wanted the RCMP to investigate any/all abortions after 19 weeks as possible homicides. Even Mr. Harper and other MPS in the House of Commons were all on about, their favourite topic: "not reopening the abortion debate."

That wasn't even what we are talking about people. Once again, most of the major media outlets picked up the wrong information.

Again I contacted the CP. Finally on Friday I heard back from them and was assured that they had updated their reports. Thank goodness.

Watch MP Maurice Vellacott discuss the born alive abortions with CBC.

Take particular note of NDP Niki Ashton who talks about something--abortion--that Mr. Vellacott is not talking about. Ms. Aston says that it is an "egregious statement equating abortion to murder." It's too bad she didn't actually listen to Mr. Vellacott, because that isn't what he's saying at all. He's talking about babies left to die after an abortion.

Now I have no problem with educating the mainstream media and NDP MPs about abortion, and in fact it's kind of fun. But maybe they should check out some of the facts for themselves before speaking to the world about it. I have to do that, so why shouldn't they?

(In today's paper, at least the National Post gets it right here and here: And yesterday CFRA got it right too after some not so right newscasts the night before.)