Tuesday, June 30, 2020

502 Livebirth abortions in Canada from 2014 to 2018

Live birth abortions from Statistics Canada: Termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus and newborn [P96.4]

I've reported on these Stats Canada's livebirth abortions, and CIHI's livebirth abortions, many times before.

Stats Canada's and CIHI's livebirth abortion numbers are never the same. I've never been able to get an answer as to why their numbers are always different.

We still don't know why these late term abortions are born alive. We still don't know what happens to these little souls when it happens. We do know that they died because they are reported as a death by Stats Canada. Are these tiny humans held and comforted as they wait to die? Are they thrown into the garbage? How much do they suffer? Did anyone ask them what they wanted?

These livebirth abortions are shameful. They are a tragedy. And they continue to happen year after year.


Fetal pain during abortion is an ethical problem

Fetal pain during an abortion is a real thing. Recently I listened to an interview from Johnathon Van Maren with John C Bockmann, about his new research on fetal pain: Reconsidering fetal pain.

Three things of note about this research.

First, is that the two authors (Stuart WG Derbyshire and John C Bockmann) are on different sides of the abortion debate:
The two authors of this paper have very different views on the morality of abortion. One of us believes that abortion is necessary for women’s health and autonomy, while the other believes that abortion violates the ethical principle of non-maleficence and ought to be restricted and discouraged.
I'd say it's unusual to hear of a pro-choice person willing to collaborate with a pro-life person on abortion.

Second, is that most previous research on fetal pain believed that that the cortex was necessary for pain experience. There is new evidence to the contrary, and pain could be felt as early as 13 weeks gestation.
"Reports often suggest that the cortex and intact thalamocortical tracts are necessary for pain experience. Given that the cortex only becomes functional and the tracts only develop after 24 weeks, many reports rule out fetal pain until the final trimester. Here, more recent evidence calling into question the necessity of the cortex for pain and demonstrating functional thalamic connectivity into the subplate is used to argue that the neuroscience cannot definitively rule out fetal pain before 24 weeks."
"The most common surgical technique is dilatation and evacuation (D&E). In a D&E, the cervix is dilated, the amniotic fluid drained, and the fetus is removed in pieces via several surgical manoeuvres using grasping forceps. Again fetal death follows either direct feticide performed before the D&E or the trauma of the D&E results in the death of the fetus. We consider the possibility of fetal pain during these two procedures post-13 weeks’ gestation."
Canada performs D&E abortions. Thousands of them. Every year.

In 2018 Canadian doctors performed at least 2,076 D&E abortions according to CIHI. I say at least because CIHI only reports D&E abortions for those performed in hospitals. We do not know the numbers of these abortions performed in clinics. We also know that CIHI reported at least 3,002 hospital abortions done between 13 and 21+weeks gestation, with an additional 3,818 of unknown gestational ages. How many of those unknown gestational age abortions were done? We don't know.

(Once again the gestational ages of the clinic abortions are also not reported. Also the "gestational age" abortions are not in addition to the "type" of abortion; they are different ways of categorizing the same hospital abortions. But since D&E abortions are done from 13-24 weeks gestation, we must ask ourselves exactly what type of abortion this difference of 926 is made up of?

Third, regardless of the sheer number of how many D&E abortions are performed each year in Canada (and one is too many), shouldn't we also be concerned about the morality of the pain inflicted on the fetus? It is refreshing to see a pro-choice person care enough about fetal pain, as well as the morality of causing fetal pain, to undertake such research.
"We also agree that if fetal pain is likely then that has ethical and clinical significance independent of any views on the morality of abortion per se. That said, it is also clear to us that the issue of fetal pain has ethical significance because of abortion practices and not because of other surgical or therapeutic fetal procedures."
Thousands of Canadian children in the womb are pulled apart every year, limb by limb, without anesthesia, when it is very probable that they feel those limbs being crunched and ripped. Just imagine someone doing the same to you. That would be called barbaric.

More on fetal pain here.

Friday, June 26, 2020

Gaining insight into New Brunswick's abortion statistics

By Peter Ryan

(Peter Ryan was Executive Director of New Brunswick Right to Life from 1999 to 2016. He recently published his Memoir The God of Life Lives: A Memoir)

The following is an attempt to shed insight into New Brunswick abortion statistics for 2015-19, as compiled by Patricia Maloney.

Ever since the advent of legalized abortion in Canada in 1969, abortion has been anything but a settled issue in New Brunswick. In the early 2000’s, for instance, two of the main hospitals (in Moncton, Fredericton) stopped doing abortions. A third major hospital (Saint John) did few or no abortions for decades. On the other hand, two formerly Catholic hospitals (Bathurst and Francophone hospital in Moncton) began doing abortions.

These instances of institutional aversion to or acceptance of abortion reflected the drama of decisions by individual obstetrician-gynecologists at the different locations. They also reflected New Brunswick’s unusual and, in comparison to most provinces, more restrictive policy: Until 2015, Medicare only covered abortions if they were performed in a hospital by an obstetrician-gynecologist after being certified by two physicians as medically necessary.

That policy became a major issue in the 2014 provincial election. The victorious Liberal party under Brian Gallant campaigned on removing abortion barriers. In 2015 the rules requiring two doctor approval and an ob-gyn were annulled.

Interestingly, the in-a-hospital requirement remained. As a result, the private abortion clinic that has operated in Fredericton since 1994 (first by Henry Morgentaler, then since 2015 by a different owner) is the only one in Canada not publicly funded.

Statistically, the profile for many years – before 2015 - was that about 1,000 surgical abortions a year took place in the province: about 400 in hospitals, and about 600 in the private clinic. This meant an abortion rate of about 13-14 abortions per 100 live births, less than half the Canadian average.

In my judgment New Brunswick’s reduced abortion rate, more restrictive Medicare policy, and exclusion of funding for private clinics reflect a more pro-life social and political culture than elsewhere. That culture was likewise expressed for a number of years when one-third or more of the sitting Members of the Legislature, and coming from both of the main parties (Liberals and Conservatives) attended the annual March for Life in Fredericton.

The ground shifted in 2015, with newly elected premier Brian Gallant touting abortion as a “Charter right,” though it is not. Under government auspices, a new abortion “service” was soon opened at The Moncton Hospital. A provincial hotline was also set up to give women “access” at hospital sites.

Three hospitals were publicly identified as offering abortions: beside The Moncton Hospital, the Dumont Hospital in Moncton (serving Francophones), and the Chaleur in Bathurst. What was not publicly disclosed, and has just now come to light, was that, starting in 2015, the province's other five regional hospitals also began to perform a small number of abortions each year.

Predictably, hospital surgical abortions rose significantly in 2015, 2016 and 2017 according to provincial government figures: 560, 608 and 656, respectively. (1) An average increase of over 50% compared to the 400 per year previously.

The increase for 2015-17 is even greater according to Canadian Institute for Health Information stats: an average of 734 per year, an increase of over 84% from pre-2015 years.

I have no explanation for the discrepancy between NB’s health department stats and those of CIHI. One thing is clear: Public policy changes after the 2014 election had a dramatic impact on the loss of prenatal lives.

As one examines the stats for individual hospitals, one is struck by how The Moncton Hospital has become the dominant center for surgical abortions, with an average of 292 abortions a year from 2016-19.

In 2017 a new phenomenon emerged: “medical abortions,” referring to chemical or mifegymiso (containing RU-486) abortions. That year New Brunswick became the first province to offer free chemical abortions. The government reported 162 in 2017. (2)

Chemical abortion stats then surged hugely in 2018 and 2019: 520 and 704, respectively. At the same time, surgical abortions decreased to 522 and 405, respectively. (3)

What is so dismaying for pro-lifers is that the net total number of Medicare-funded abortions has, during the past two years, reached an annual average of 1,075, more than two and a half times the pre-2015 average.

To give an accurate provincial picture, we must also factor in surgical abortions at the private clinic in Fredericton. While no public stats are available, Clinic 554 says they performed about 1,000 from 2015-19, or about 200 a year. Assuming that information is correct, it would mean a total of about 1,275 NB abortions a year as of 2018 and 2019.

Consequently, comparing the 2018-19 average to the pre-2015 average of about 1,000 abortions, we find the annual provincial total has increased by about 28%. The provincial population increased by less than 4% between 2015 and 2019. This means the lives of preborn children in New Brunswick have become significantly more at risk.

The NB abortion stats compiled for 2015-19 reveal one more newsworthy fact. The provincial government data includes gestational ages of abortions at five of the 8 main hospitals. What is striking is that, from 2015-18, the hospitals in Saint John and Fredericton (Chalmers) seemed to take turns specializing in second trimester abortions, whereas the other three hosptials listed did first-trimester procedures.

In 2015 and 2018 Saint John did a total of 14 abortions at an average age of 16.8 weeks; in 2016 and 2017 Fredericton did a total of 20 at an average age of 16.3. Whereas at the other three hospitals the average age for 2015-18 was 9.3 weeks.

The significantly higher average fetal age of abortions at two previously undisclosed locations is startling in light of complaints repeatedly made in recent years by abortion rights activists that Medicare-funded abortions were not available in hospitals at 14 weeks or more gestation, whereas, they argued, Clinic 554 did them up to 16 weeks but women were forced to pay. The newly published data reveal that, in truth, the hospital system had, since 2015 and without general public knowledge, acquiesced to those complaints, performing abortions up to and past 16 weeks.

Elected in 2018, the government of Blaine Higgs has stood firm against funding the private abortion clinic in Fredericton, despite pressure from the federal government. That pressure has included the withholding of $140,000 in health transfer funds due to NB’s policy.

The abortion situation in New Brunswick continues to be unsettled. In late 2019 Clinic 554 announced that due to lack of public funding they will be forced to close down. The building was put up for sale, though its operations continue in the meantime. How a closure would affect the profile of future hospital abortions remains to be seen.

The safety of preborn babies in New Brunswick has much deteriorated since 2014, reflected in markedly higher abortion numbers. The fact that all eight main hospitals have become involved in abortion, as opposed to two previously, is alarming.

What is especially shocking is how the number of “medical” (chemical) abortions has spiked, even after a new government not known for friendliness to abortion rights took office. Pro-lifers have always tended to focus greatly on the problem of surgical abortions. In the future more attention deserves to be given to chemical abortions, while not ignoring the plight of any preborn child.

On a positive note, New Brunswick’s life-friendly social culture has not greatly eroded. A poll by Narrative Research in February, 2020 found that two-thirds of residents oppose tax-funded abortion on demand.

(1) These totals do no include cases where a hospital performed 5 or fewer abortions.

(2) The government says mifegymiso is for pregnancies up to 7 weeks.

(3) That figure refers to government data; CIHI stats are not yet available for both of those years.

Wednesday, June 17, 2020

Nunavut doesn't track abortion statistics based on doctor's billing records

My FOI from Department of Health, Government of Nunavut yielded this:
"The doctors in Nunavut are paid a daily wage based on the area they work in. Doctors are paid a daily rate and they see as many patients as they are booked for-regardless of the service that is requested."

Wednesday, June 10, 2020

Nova Scotia's abortion numbers higher than CIHI

Nova Scotia's abortion numbers for 2015-2019 from Nova Scotia Health and Wellness.

Along with higher numbers reported using doctor's billing records than CIH reports, it also looks like Nova Scotia's abortion numbers are going up with the use of medical abortions. See jump in 2019.



Monday, June 8, 2020

Peter MacKay's dumpster fire campaign

All Conservatives should listen to my friend Jonathon Van Maren's excellent analysis of the leadership campaign the Culture Wars Episode 15: Why I think Leslyn Lewis is the best choice for next leader of the Conservative Party

His conclusions are spot on. If Peter MacKay wins, social conservatives will have no place in the Conservative Party. We will be done. MacKay makes no bones at how much he disdains us with when he stupidly said he considers social conservatives are a stinking albatross around Andrew Scheer's neck.

The thing is, we stinking albatrosses, actually make up a good chunk of the Conservative party. Without us supporting the Conservatives, their chances of defeating the Liberals in the next election would be very difficult, if even possible.

Jonathon's entire podcast should be listened by everyone considering how to vote, as he explains his reasons for his ranked choices.

1) Leslyn Lewis
2) Derek Sloan
3) Erin O'toole
4) Peter Mackay

I will be voting the same way.

Wednesday, June 3, 2020

Huge difference between NPDB and CIHI abortion numbers

I continue to try and understand why the accuracy of abortion statistics in this country are so pathetic. I contacted CIHI to get more clarifications about their numbers.

As we already know CIHI's data sources are here:

1. Discharge Abstract Database, Canadian Institute for Health Information.
2. National Ambulatory Care Reporting System, Canadian Institute for Health Information.
3. National Physician Database NPDB (here), Canadian Institute for Health Information.
4. Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux du Québec.
5. Manitoba Health, Seniors and Active Living.
6. Induced abortion clinics in Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

When I compared the numbers in the National Physician Database (number 3 above) I learned that these numbers are very different from CIHI's quick stats (which is what everyone uses for yearly abortion numbers).



So I asked CIHI to explain the difference between the two sets of numbers, since the quick stats use a bunch of sources, and the NPDB uses only one source? 

Here is the response I received from CIHI:
"CIHI’s annual induced abortion tables report on abortion volumes in Canada. It includes data on hospital-based abortions submitted to national databases (e.g. DAD, NACRS), in addition to clinic data that is voluntarily provided to CIHI. These tables also include NPDB data as a source for Ontario to estimate the volume of non-hospital abortions.
The NPDB annual release includes NPDB data only, with the goal of national reporting on payments to physicians and services provided. The “utilization” data tables that report service volumes are based on fee-for-service data only. Services provided under alternative forms of reimbursement (e.g. salary and capitation) are not included.
In addition, different methodologies are used to identify abortion volumes between the two reports (Canadian Classification of Health Interventions, CCI, for hospitalization data, vs Fee for service billing codes in NPDB).
Given these differences, there will be expected differences in volumes."
In other words, the NPDB uses fee for services numbers only. And different (undefined) methodologies are used. I've asked what these methodologies are.

Shouldn't fee for service data be more accurate? Why isn't it? Why do they need to obtain the data from so many different places? Then have to use methodologies to get something resembling accurate stats? Why not just make the reporting for abortions performed mandatory and insist every province provide that info?

One can only imagine the gyrations CIHI goes through to come to numbers that they hope to, but never actually achieve, be accurate.

Tuesday, June 2, 2020

Pro-abortions use tax dollars to lobby against pro-life Charter rights

Should a charity that receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funded grants, be in the business of advocating for the repeal of Charter rights of pro-life organizations?

(Pro-life organizations receive $0 in taxpayer funded grants.)

This is what Sandeep Prasad of Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights is trying to do. He wants to take away our Charter right to protest abortion.
"Every May, anti-choice protesters arrive in Ottawa for the "March for Life" -- the largest demonstration against the right to choose. 
This year, COVID-19 has cancelled this in-person event, like many others. But what will it take to cancel the "March for Life" for good?"
Since April when I last wrote about this pro-abortion organization, I learned that this goup received an additional $11 million dollars in new grant money. This brings their total grant money to date to over $14 million.

(It's not the first time this group has had a campaign against pro-life people. See also here and here).


(Notice the large discrepancy between what the government reports as grants to them, VS what they reported to CRA.)

Action Canada also has almost $2.5 Million in assets, including almost $1.5 million in the bank. Not bad.


Salaries for the people who advocate for abortion in this so-called "non-profit" are pretty lucrative as you can see.


Full statements for Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights here:

These people eat a steady diet of going after pro-life groups. And they can do it because they receive millions of dollars in funding from Canadian taxpayers, including pro-life people. 

Wednesday, May 6, 2020

Saskatchewan abortion statistics

Saskatchewan Ministry of Health abortion statistics are once again, different from what CIHI reports.

Also note that after October 1, 2018, the numbers reported by the Ministry of Health do not include medical abortions.


CIHI numbers for Saskatchewan:

2015 - 1,885
2016 - 2,082
2017 - 2,083
2018 - 2,009

Sunday, April 26, 2020

Stop giving grants to Pride parades

Canada gives a lot of our money to the LGBTQ / pride parade lobby. In Sept 2019 I wrote that we gave a total of $32,339,221 to this lobby.

Now I find out that new grants are actually still being given to Pride parades. During a world wide pandemic.


Since we are all in lockdown with the CCPvirus, wouldn't it make sense to close down the Pride parades as well? Will the federal government stop the flow of money to them? Apparently not. Since April 2020, while the world has been in lockdown; while all of our churches are shuttered, Canadian tax dollars continue to flow to Pride parades. Pride parades that cannot and will not happen. To the tune of $385,800.

I have a suggestion for Justin Trudeau. Revoke these grants. Instead send the money to our long term care facilities where most of these deaths are occurring. They could really use it.

Wednesday, April 22, 2020

Monday, April 20, 2020

BC abortion numbers vary from CIHI numbers

I've received total numbers of abortions from British Columbia Health for the past five years.

The first chart below has these totals, together with CIHI's totals. You can see that from 2015 to 2017, BC's totals are less than CIHI's totals. In 2014 and 2018, BC's totals are more than CIHI's totals.

The second chart gives additional surcharge services for two of the codes. So I did not include those services into the totals.

BC does include medical abortions. These numbers go up every year.


Wednesday, April 8, 2020

Pro-abortion violence never takes a break

It is a well known fact the the pro-abortions are violent against pro-life people. It is also a well know fact that the police are no friends to pro-life people. If I had to ask myself why this is so, I would say the pro-aborts get their marching orders from leading pro-aborts, like Justin Trudeau and other politicians like Jim Watson who discriminate against us at every possible turn.

Need more information on this? Read on.

Reprinted with permission from Alliance for Life Ontario.

Now here is the Thing…..
Here is the story as recounted to me regarding what I define as an assault at a 40 days for Life Vigil in Ontario.
There were five of us standing at the vigil site, keeping 10 feet in between each of us. Two young women and a man (mid twenties, all of them) drive up in a car. They came out with a roll of paper, came up to us and said that we were “f**** ridiculous” and how dare we stand there, so they were going to block us. 
I replied, oh let me move my box for you and then instructed those with me to go to the various corners. She said, “What, you’re going to just keep moving?” I replied yes and she says “Well we’ll follow you.” I said, that’s fine. They rolled out their paper in front of me and I (stupidly, I know I shouldn’t have.) I didn’t even think walked up, placed my arms over it and held my sign in front of it (my arms were pushing the paper down). She told me to stop touching their property, so I lifted my hands up so that I wasn’t touching it, but my sign was still able to be read in front of it. 
She came up to me and slapped my face and pushed me away. As I was taking out my phone to take pictures and call the police, she grabbed my sign and hit me with it and then grabbed my phone from me and threw it. I went and got it and she fought me over it again, but I kept it. She hit me with the roll from the paper and was yelling at me that she didn’t care if I posted about it on social media. I responded that I was calling the police and then they left. 
The police say that their [perpetrators] reports, which were similar but not identical, showed that they didn’t go over the story together first, say that I ripped up their paper (here the officer inserts, “which was ripped”) and got up into her face so she pushed me away and then I put my camera in her face so she knocked it down the hill. 
The officer said that because it’s a controversial issue, things are bound to escalate and because I engaged with them by getting in their face (despite me telling her I didn’t) things like this can’t go to court. It’s a matter of he says, she says, so that’s that. “I got a call from the officer that came out when that woman slapped me; here’s what she said: 
They aren’t pressing charges because they say that I ripped up their paper and got into her face with my cell phone and she only pushed me out of her way and threw my cell phone because it was in her face. 
Also, because of the type of situation, it being so controversial it makes people react more, which of course doesn’t excuse it, but that is how it goes. The officer says that it’s a case of he says, she says, so there really isn’t any point moving forward. She’s says if even if I want to press charges, she won’t. They do have a written report so if she ever does anything again, she’ll be red flagged.”
So there is the story and I would like to make a couple of observations. In the same city within a couple of weeks either side of this incident a passenger on a bus slapped the driver and a customer at a grocery store spat on a worker – both incidents had details but also images that the police could use to identify the person and verify what happened. Charges have been made and are pending in both these cases because of the images together with the details provided by witnesses. Going back to the vigil incident – the woman was found because a photo was taken of the departing car which got the number plate – there were also 4 witnesses at the vigil who can verify our pro-lifer’s account but apparently were not trusted to tell the “Truth”.
However, it seems that because of the controversial nature of abortion we are to expect that “people react more”? Maybe that is true but I for one do not expect the police to react less. These folks drove to the vigil site intentionally and also intentionally endeavoured to”block” the pro-life message, used foul language and allegedly assaulted a young pro-life woman. I absolutely believe the account above and really wonder how police 50 years ago took witness statements and details and followed up with charges, minus the “images’ so readily available today which seem to mean everything?!!!! I shake my head that “there really isn’t any point moving forward” and charges would not be laid by police even if the victim wants them.
What this tells me is that the police no longer find pro-life Canadians credible witnesses or appear to doubt that anyone would actually tell the truth in this particular case, because of abortion’s controversial nature. Charges will not be pressed as it seems we are to expect people to react more in this circumstance – our only recourse is to have a video of the act itself. Now forgive the pun but that really seems like a “cop out” to me.
I know that I do not need to remind the pro-lifers in this province about the fact that we have 8 “bubble zones” around specific abortion facilities – well do you know how that came about? Claims were made by abortion staff in Ottawa that a pro-lifer had spat upon a couple as they entered the facility. Just for your information – no video, no image just claims or allegations that this had happened. Those allegations were enough to get the Mayor of Ottawa to contact the Attorney General of Ontario and set in motion, at a pace greater than the speed of light, the legislation “safe access zones”that unconstitutionally, bars pro-life witness outside these facilities within certain specific parameters. What is also amazing was that a report had been published a few months earlier saying that “harrassment” at abortion facilities “was rare” in Canada. So let us recap – claims of someone spitting on someone entering an abortion facility were enough to have draconian and unconstitutional legislation drawn up, debated and passed before you could say “”EH”. Even with evidence from the pro-abortion side that harassment was rare. I would remind you of the fact that we had already and still have laws to cover any assault of this kind if it had indeed happened outside the abortion facility.
One cannot help thinking that if you are pro-abortion your claims or allegations will be taken seriously even without “images”. However as a pro-life Canadian it is just “he says she says” and by the way get ready because people react more because abortion is controversial! We cannot nor should we stand for this in 2020.
I would like to end this piece with a story from my early days at the Scott abortion facility in Toronto where we used to go once a week. There was a particularly obnoxious facility “guard” who decided as I was alone at the time (my colleague was using the washroom) he would taunt me. He came out of the facility with a billboard with caricatures of pro-lifers on it and got right into my face asking me which one was me. He was a good 6 inches taller than me and he leaned down to me, I could feel his breath on my face and inside my heart was beating wildly, but I looked at him and said “does your mother know this is how you treat women?” It was the first thing that came into my head and it stunned him because he went back inside the facility. Needless to say the two police officers present at the time did absolutely nothing to come to my defense.
I am not really blaming the police then or now because they also have to work in an insane politically correct world. However, whether you are pro-abortion or pro-life your claims should be taken seriously with or without images and people should not be excused for violent behaviour because we and apparently the police expect them to react more when it is a controversial issue.

Monday, April 6, 2020

We know the world is upside down when this happens

The Coronavirus is here. We have people dying all over the world from this horrible pandemic. The world is shut down because of it. Financial markets are in free fall. People have lost their jobs. People of faith are prevented from attending their Church services, their Mosques and their Synagogues. Catholic Christians are prevented from receiving the sacraments including reconciliation, baptisms and the sacraments of the sick for the dying. We can't even enter our churches for private prayer, even if we follow all the social distancing rules.

So what are the pro-abortions up to here in Canada? Unlike many US states, Canada is pathetically still performing abortions. None of the rules the rest of us have to follow apply to killing babies.

In fact the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada has put out a fundraising call for Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights.


This pro-abortion group apparently needs funds "urgently". But the pro-abortions don't want to buy masks or ventilators for healthcare providers and the dying. They want more money to dismember, decapitate and disembowel more babies because the over $4 million dollars they have already received from taxpayers in the past four years was not enough.

Yes, their need is "urgent".

Sunday, March 22, 2020

Canadian abortion statistics: who does, and who does not, report medical abortions

This is an update of all the different kinds of abortions reported by CIHI, vs the provinces. (Further to this post which is starting to confuse even me.)

CIHI only reports these abortions: S752 - induced - by any surgical technique up to and including 14 weeks gestation, S785 - induced - by any surgical technique after 14 weeks of gestation (CIHI does not report medical abortions)

Quebec Health has confirmed that their abortion numbers do not include medical abortions.

Alberta Health has confirmed that their abortion numbers do not include medical abortions.

Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care does report medical abortions:

MOHLTC reports all these types of abortions (at this point Ontario has the most comprehensive reporting of abortion numbers in Canada):
A920A - MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF EARLY PREGNANCY - INITIAL VISIT (medical abortions)
P001A MEDICAL MGMT FETAL DEMISE BETWEEN 14-20 WKS GESTATION
P054A FETAL MANAGEMENT-SGL/MULT-INTRACARDIAC KCL INJECTION
S752A FEM.GENITAL SYST.-INDUCED-CURRETINTRA-AMNIOTIC INJ.
S770A CORPUS UTERI - HYSTEROTOMY.
S783A CORPUS UTERI - HYSTEROTOMY WITH TUBAL INTERRUPTION.
S785A FEM.GENITAL SYST.-INDUCED-INTRA-AMNIOTIC INJ. (INCOMP.)

BC does report medical abortions

Monday, March 9, 2020

Canada abortion rates by province

Ideally I would have used actual abortion numbers from each province, and had actual numbers from CIHI. But that seems like an impossible dream. We know Alberta is under reports because they don't count medical abortions. We know that CIHI also isn't reporting medical abortions. We know that Quebec and Ontario under report their abortions by 20%. And that's just what we know, we don't know.

So instead I just used CIHI's numbers.

Wednesday, March 4, 2020

The never ending story of abortion statistics in Canada

Further to my post on Canada's abortion statistics, I have done a four year comparison between CIHI's and Ontario's abortion numbers. As you can see the spread between CIHI's and MOHLTC's numbers increase every year between (2014 and 2014/2015), to (2017 and 2017/2018). So while overall the numbers are decreasing, the spread is getting larger. In 2014 and 2014/2015, the difference was 8.4%. In 2017 and 2017/2018 the difference was 20.42%. 

Adding 20.42% (to CIHI's reported 85,195 in 2018 for all of Canada) would mean a total of at least 102,592 abortions for all of Canada. 

See above link for my notes from CIHI and MOHLTC.

Alberta abortion codes

Further to this FOI I did for Alberta, I received this from Alberta Health Services regarding the claim codes that are used for abortions.

'86.41',,'87.0 ','87.1','87.21','87.29A','87.29B'

More information on the code meaning can be found in this link

86.4 Other removal of embryo
86.41 Hysterotomy to terminate pregnancy

87.0 Intra-amniotic injection for termination of pregnancy
87.0 A Termination of pregnancy between 13 and 20 weeks for medical or genetic reasons using potent prostaglandins by any route
NOTE: 1. Includes the insertion of a laminaria tent if required.
2. A D & C required within 14 days should be claimed under 81.09.

87.2 Other termination of pregnancy
87.29 Other termination of pregnancy NEC
87.29A Suction curettage or dilation and curettage for termination of pregnancy
NOTE: May only be claimed when performed in an active treatment hospital or by a physician approved to perform the procedure by the CPSA when performed in an accredited non-hospital surgical facility.

87.29B Termination of pregnancy, dilatation and evacuation (D&E) termination where imaging report confirms fetus is 12 weeks size or greater
NOTE: 1. May be claimed for termination of viable or non-viable pregnancy.
2. May only be claimed when performed in an active treatment hospital or by a physician approved to perform the procedure by the CPSA when performed in an accredited non-hospital surgical
facility.

Sunday, March 1, 2020

UPDATE: Alberta abortion statistics for 2015/2016 to 2018/2019

UPDATE March 4, 2020 Claim codes for Alberta.

UPDATE March 3, 2020
My question to AHS regarding their statistics, and their response: 
Q. Can you explain why your stats are consistently lower than those stats reported by CIHI?
A. There are two reasons
1.       Difference in Data source (We use Claims and CIHI uses inpatient/outpatient data).
2.       Difference in methodology (We restrict any claims with 60 days as one abortion) but am not sure about CIHI (You can confirm with them).

I received abortion statistics from Alberta Health Services (AHS) through a freedom of information request. I then compared these numbers to CIHI's numbers. As you can see, AHS's numbers are less than CIHI's. This was a surprise since both Quebec and Ontario's numbers are higher than CIHI's.

But notice the footnotes.

From CIHI data:
"patients with coverage under Quebec’s health insurance plan receiving care in Alberta are reported by Alberta. However, patients with coverage under Alberta’s health insurance plan receiving care in Quebec are not reported (by either Quebec or Alberta)."
So abortions covered by AHS, but done in Quebec, aren't reported anywhere.

From Alberta data:
"Mifegymiso prescriptions were introduced in July 2017 which affected abortions numbers for the last two fiscal years."
So abortions covered by AHS do not include medical abortions, but only surgical abortions. This means that 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 numbers would be higher than reported--if only we knew how many medical abortions were occurring in Alberta.

Once again we have confusion over abortion statistics.

Monday, February 24, 2020

UPDATE The facts about abortions statistics in Canada

(UPDATE March 22, 2010. Quebec Health (RAMQ) has confirmed that their abortion numbers do not include medical abortions.)

The media has it wrong: New data suggests Canadian clinics and hospitals performing fewer abortionsSo does Joyce Arthur.

Why? Because what people always report are CIHI's numbers. And CIHI is missing a lot of data based on freedom of information requests I've done.

It is a well known fact CIHI under reports abortion numbers because they do not collect data based on fee for service records (i.e. OHIP billings in Ontario).
"CIHI captures administrative, clinical and demographic data on induced abortions performed in Canadian hospitals. Data is supplied by provincial and territorial ministries of health, hospitals and independent abortion clinics in Canada. Clinic data is submitted voluntarily to CIHI. Counts in the following tables include induced abortions performed in a hospital or clinic setting in Canada. Due to variations in use of fee-for-service (FFS) payments for induced abortions across the country, these figures are not based on pan-Canadian FFS data."
What we do know about CIHI's data:
  • abortions performed in physician's office are not reported (only hospitals and clinics are reported). (UPDATE March 2, 2020 Correction: CIHI apparently does a calculation to increase their accuracy  *** However they are still under reporting see below)
  • clinic abortion data is under reported because of its voluntary nature
  • medical abortions (the abortion pill RU-486) are not reported (for the most part they are prescribed through physician offices)
  • CIHI hospital abortion data is accurate
  • the only accurate data available for all abortions comes from FFS or doctor's billing records (OHIP in Ontario RAMQ in Quebec)
I have received data from Ontario billing records over the years. Recently I received Quebec billing recordsBoth of these sources are fairly accurate because they are based on FFS records.

Ontario: In 2017/2018 MOHLTC reported 42,853 abortions compared to 2018 CIHI reported 29,513 abortions in Ontario. A difference of 13,340 unreported abortions.

(UPDATE March 2, 2020): in 2017/2018 MOHLTC reported 42,853 and in 2017 CIHI reported 35,587. In the calculation above I used CIHI's 2018 numbers instead of 2017 numbers. The confusion comes from the fact that CIHI reports a calendar year, and MOHLTC reports a fiscal year of April 1, 2017- March 31, 2018. So it makes more sense to compare MOHLTC numbers to CIHI's calendar year. Therefore Ontario: In 2017/2018 MOHLTC reported 42,853 abortions compared to 2017 CIHI who reported 35,587 abortions in Ontario. A difference of 7,266 unreported abortionsThis means CIHI under reported Ontario's abortions by 20.42%. I will be doing more comparisons in a later post.)

Quebec: Recently I reported numbers for the first time from Quebec

In 2018 RAMQ reported 26,979 compared to 22,093 from CIHI = 4,886 unreported abortions

This means CIHI under reported Quebec's abortions by 22%.

Quebec and Ontario are the largest provinces in Canada. Therefore they perform the most abortions. So total numbers of abortions reported by CIHI are probably somewhere between 22% and 45% lower than the actual totals.

CIHI reported 85,195 in 2018 for all of Canada. Quebec and Ontario abortions make up 65% of that number. If we assume all provinces have similar under reported abortion numbers, it's fair to say that the percentages would be somewhere between 22% or 45% higher than CIHI reports.

This means the total number of abortions done in Canada in 2018 can reasonably be expected to be somewhere between 103,937 to 123,532. Not 85,195.

UPDATE March 2, 2020 from CIHI: "The report you shared (42,853) includes seven fee codes, however CIHI reports only using two fee codes. If you limit your comparison to the 2 surgical fee codes (S752 and S785), the total numbers presented in the MOH report are very close to CIHI’s reported numbers (32,795 vs 29,513 respectively). In addition, CIHI reported for calendar year 2018 while the other report appears to be based on fiscal year 2017/18 data."

To which I responded: "So why doesn't CIHI use all the fee codes used by Ontario, since those are abortions as well? There is a big 45% difference between CIHI's numbers and Ontario's numbers. Ontario reported 42,853 and CIHI only reported 29,513. I realize there is a difference in the two reporting periods, because MOHLTC reports using a fiscal year, CIHI uses a calendar year, but there is no way to get a completely equivalent time frame, so I must compare the two years in this manner."


*** This is included on CIHI's annual reports on abortion ***

The methodology to estimate induced abortion volumes for Ontario is consistent with the enhanced methodology that was introduced in the 2015 report. Total volumes were derived by using the total abortion volumes reported to the National Physician Database (NPDB) at CIHI and adding both hospital-based abortions for non-Ontario residents and hospital-based medical-method-only abortions for Ontario residents (as reported to the Discharge Abstract Database and the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System). For Ontario, volumes reported in the column Number of induced abortions reported by clinics include services from non-hospital settings. Volumes for non-hospital settings (clinics/surgical facilities/physician offices) were estimated using the total abortion volumes as described above and subtracting hospital-based abortions. This methodology results in induced abortions occurring in physician offices and in clinics being included in non-hospital settings volumes. This estimation approach for non-hospital volumes was required because information on the location where the service is rendered (e.g., clinic, hospital, physician’s office) may not be included in the NPDB data.

Update March 3, 2020 from OMHLTC: 

"Health Services Branch has confirmed that medical abortions would be captured under A920A." This means that medical abortions are being captured under A920. But so are missed abortions. As well, there are other methods to deal with missed abortions which do not include RU486What a dog's breakfast abortion statistics are.

UPDATE March 4, 2020, comparison of Ontario and CIHI's data for the past four years.

Friday, February 14, 2020

Update on Francis Barrett being carded by Ottawa Police

"After watching me from across the street (in front of 65 Bank) they [the police] came across the street, stood behind me (see picture below), said nothing for a couple of minutes until I turned and said, is there a problem? That is when he [one of the police officers] said you're breaking the bubble zone law. I said your joking, can't you see the sign right beside me? Don't you know were the bubble zone is?" Francis Barrett
It is abysmal how pro-life people are treated in Ontario. 

First we were prevented from praying in front of the abortion site with the abortion bubble zone law. This forced Fr. Tony Van Hee to bring a Charter Challenge against the government for this discrimination

Now Francis Barrett has been carded

He first complained to the Ottawa Police about the treatment he and others received at the abortion site (outside the bubble zone). After multiple meetings, phone calls, emails, and four months of waiting, Mr. Barrett never received an apology for his treatment.

He then complained to the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD). The OIPRD is an "independent" group in charge of complaints against the police:
"OIPRD is responsible for receiving, managing and overseeing all public complaints about municipal, regional and provincial police in Ontario. As an independent civilian oversight agency, we make sure that public complaints about police are dealt with in a manner that is transparent, effective and fair to both the public and the police." 
What did the OIPRD do with Mr. Barrett's complaint? They dismissed it:


Not 'transparent'. Not 'effective'. Not 'fair'.

Even though these peaceful pro-life persons, acting within the law, were asked for ID for no reason, and subsequently intimidated by the Ottawa Police, the appeal was dismissed. (The OIPRD reports to the Attorney General's office. How can an appeal board be independent when they report to a government bureaucracy?).

Mr. Barrett was also told that there is no other appeal, and that his only other recourse was to go to Judicial Review, ie, go to court. All he wanted was an apology for their behaviour. They wouldn't give him one.

(When I had my own Charter Challenge with the Attorney General, the judge who ruled against the AG for hiding abortion information actually noted that the only recourse a citizen has in these circumstances, is to go to court. That this was unfair. We see this exact same behaviour today: A citizen must go to court--at great personal expense--to get justice in Ontario against the AG and its army of highly paid lawyers.)

This:
"the officers were acting in their authority in checking the permission of the group to be there." 
So I asked. What authority is that? They refused to answer my question.

This:
"The circumstances outlined in his complaint do not suggest that the police were engaging in that prohibited activity at the time they requested his identification." 
The police were definitely engaging in a prohibited activity. It's called carding
"This regulation describes the limitations and duties of police officers when collecting identifying information (also known as “carding” or “street checks”).The regulation applies if a police officer asks a person for identifying information or to see an identifying document while:
  • Looking into suspicious activities
  • Gathering intelligence
  • Investigating possible criminal activity
During these interactions officers must inform the person of their right to not provide identifying information and provide a reason for requesting identifying information. The reason cannot be:
  • Arbitrary
  • That the person declined to answer a question or attempted to end the interaction
  • Based on race or solely because that individual is in a high-crime location"
None of these conditions apply here. Again I asked, which of these was Francis Barrett and his small group of seniors doing that required this harassing behaviour?

No answer.

To add insult to injury we have this:
"the police have a discretion as to the nature of the identification that they may accept, and absent evidence that police exercised the discretion improperly, it is unlikely that an investigation would result in grounds to believe misconduct occurred."
Except the police had absolutely no grounds to ask Mr. Barrett for ID in the first place. So the kind of ID they would accept is entirely moot. They weren't supposed to ask for ID in the first place. 

This:
"it is unlikely that an investigation would result in grounds to believe misconduct occurred."
The OIPRD is actually admitting here that they didn't even bother to investigate Mr. Barrett's complaint. Presumably they just unilaterally decided it wasn't valid. Prejudice: 'preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience'.

And "lead to tensions"? What does that mean? The only tensions that day were the tensions caused by the police, not the peaceful senior citizens silently praying outside the bubble zone. They were intimidated for no reason. They were carded for no reason. They deserve an apology.

Peaceful protest in Ontario is only allowed if you are not pro-life.