Sticking to the facts and evidence on abortion statistics

I learned this week that Fake Person supports our Charter challenge with this tweet.

Makes sense, because we know officially reported abortion statistics in Canada aren't very useful. They are grossly under-reported (by at least 45% in Ontario alone). They aren't based on medical billings, but rather, on hospital records. So all abortions performed in doctor's offices are not reported, and it's not mandatory for clinics to report them, so many don't. Hence their inaccuracy.

So it's very important to be able to get accurate abortion information, hence our Charter challenge.

I write a great deal on this topic. I have published statistics based on doctor's billing records, information I have received from CIHI, from Stats Canada, etc. I'd say my track record for abortion statistics is pretty sound.

But this is what I don't understand. In this blog entry which was linked from her tweet above, Fake Person makes fun of me, and pro-lifers in general, using our charter challenge as a kick off point to launch into one of her typical ridiculing spree of us.

What is the point of that? If she agrees with what we are doing, what is the need to make fun of us?

Then she says this:

As a fan of facts and evidence, DJ! generally supports the release of information, provided the safety of patients and providers is guaranteed.

So she's a fan of "facts and evidence", but is worried about the safety of patients and providers? Since I never ask for private information, she can rest assured that this isn't the case. And that fact has been published numerous times by me, and by others.

Then she ends her piece by linking to Joyce Arthur's abortion stats, which are a compilation of CIHI's (self acknowledged) inaccurate stats.

I notice that in her chart, Arthur publishes a chart showing the gestational age of abortions from CIHI for years 2007 to 2013.

These numbers are for abortions done after 21 weeks, and range from 537 to 564 a year. What Arthur doesn't tell you, is that these numbers are based on only a small subset of all abortions, for which the gestational ages are known.

Arthur frequently concludes, that late term therefore are only performed in "exceptional circumstances" and are "extremely rare". But as I've shown on at least three occasions before, her "facts and evidence" on late-term abortions are wanting. As I detailed in the following posts below, there is no way Arthur can know if abortions are performed only in "exceptional circumstances" and are "extremely rare".

The actual late-term abortion numbers could very well be a lot higher.

For 2009 CIHI statistics.
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2012/01/great-pro-abortion-urban-legend.html

For 2010 CIHI statistics.
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2013/02/we-dont-know-what-were-talking-about.html
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2012/11/anti-abortion-laws-are-unjust-harmful.html

For 2012 CIHI statistics.
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2014/06/repeating-untruths-doesnt-make-them-true.html

Sticking to the "facts and evidence" is a good thing. I intend to keep doing that.