Canada's 2022 abortion stats are out. And they are up by 11%. We've decapitated, disemboweled and dismembered more pre-born children in 2022 than in 2021.
That's 9,726 more dead little souls who will never draw their first breath. This is apparently what it means to be progressive. Thank God I am not.
Further to this post, it seems that CIHI is still under-reporting abortion stats, at least for Ontario.
Below I compare both stats. Since Ontario publishes numbers for fiscal years (2020/2021) and CIHI publishes for calendar years, I compare Ontario numbers to each of CIHI's fiscal years. You can see the differences below.
CIHI is under-reporting by either 5,998 or 5,185 abortions, depending on which of CIHI's years you look at. That's about 17% under reported. It could be even higher than that, since Ontario also has four other abortion codes it uses, that CIHI does not use.
That would be 759 additional abortions, 126 of which are fetal reduction abortions, where one fetus is killed and the sister or brother is allowed to live. I wonder how the abortionist decides which fetus he will kill? I wonder if the mother will tell her surviving child when she grows up, that her twin brother or sister was killed so that she could live?
Abortion is evil enough on its own; fetal reduction abortions just add another layer of evil on top of the first.
The abortions CIHI does not include, that Ontario does include:
CIHI has reported abortion numbers for 2019
Back in December I posted a comparison chart of CIHI's numbers compared to FOI's I did for each province.
CIHI reported 27,911 for Ontario for 2019. The Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (MOHLTC) reported 46,189. that means that CIHI is not reporting a whopping 18,278 Ontario abortions.
CIHI believes they are accounting for the difference. Unfortunately they are not. From CIHI's notes:
"The methodology to estimate induced abortion volumes for Ontario is consistent with the enhanced methodology that was introduced in the 2015 report (emphasis added). 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."
CIHI does not report medical abortions. They only report 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.
How many of these 18,278 missing abortions are medical abortions? We do not know.
MOHLTC does report medical abortions. As well as all these types:
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.)
"Induced abortions are not performed in clinics in Prince Edward Island."Yet you can see from the chart below that Health PEI, not only reports abortions in PEI clinics, but that they report more abortions in clinics than in hospitals. According to the FOI I received from Health PEI, the clinic in question is the Women's Wellness Program & Sexual Health Services. It seems that Health PEI must be tracking these clinic abortions as hospital abortions. But there are also a few abortions being reported in a hospital setting.
"found the number of infants who were born alive and died after an abortion jumped from one per 100,000 in 1986-1999, to 19.4 per 100,000 between 2000 and 2012. Those accidental live births totalled 218 babies."The study's author asked these sobering questions:
“How are such infants cared for?” they ask in the journal Neonatology. “If not resuscitated, is palliative care provided? Are the infants admitted to neonatal units or do they die in the delivery room?”All information regarding the reasons they happen, and what happens to the child after they are born alive, is anecdotal.
"P96.4 Termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus or newborn"Newborns from Termination of Pregnancy:
"P96.4 Termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus and newborn"Stillborn Abstracting:
"A stillborn is any intrauterine fetal demise or termination of pregnancy occurring at or after 20 completed weeks of gestation in which the fetus shows no signs of life. A liveborn resulting from a medical abortion prior to 20 weeks is considered pre-viable for the purposes of classification and an abstract is not created."
"P96.4 Termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus or newborn"Newborns from Termination of Pregnancy:
"P96.4 Termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus and newborn"Stillborn Abstracting:
"A stillborn is any intrauterine fetal demise or termination of pregnancy occurring at or after 20 completed weeks of gestation in which the fetus shows no signs of life. A liveborn resulting from a medical abortion prior to 20 weeks is considered pre-viable for the purposes of classification and an abstract is not created."You can read the full report from CIHI here.
"So what if they're [late-term abortions] rare? They HAPPEN! Murder is rare too. One is too many."
"There is a large body of scholarly works on abortion policy."
"We report the first detailed data on abortion facilities and providers in Canada, including data on facilities providing 90.4% of the total number of Canadian abortions (83,708) reported to the Canadian Institute for Health Information for 2012".
"A strength of this study was the high response rate, allowing it to capture 90.4% of the terminations reported to CIHI in 2012.1 It also presents the first picture of MA in Canada and can provide a basis for further evaluations. However, we recognize that it might not be completely representative; physicians were recruited from publicly advertised sites providing surgical abortion services, which might have introduced a lower response rate from hospital-based services and from MA providers not associated with an advertised abortion facility. Another potential limitation is the low response rate observed in Ontario (56.3%), a high-population area; thus, the results of this survey might not be generalizable to every province, especially Ontario."
“That’s [Therapeutic Abortion Survey] been collected since 1970. And then they cancel it. They cancelled the publication, the tables, and the survey,” he said. “We should look into it more. Again, we’ve had a lot of news reports about how abortions are hard to obtain in different provinces. Once you get rid of this tracking, it makes it very, very difficult to do things like enforce the Canada Health Act.Nobody else in this country can write or comment about abortion statistics either, because you can't write or comment on something (especially on something as political as abortion) if you don't have the facts to back you up.
"Hospitals are mandated by their provincial/territorial ministry of health to report all hospital activity (not limited to abortions); therefore, coverage of abortions performed in Canadian hospitals can be considered complete. However, there is no such legislative requirement for clinics to report their activity (reporting is voluntary). For 2014, clinic data for British Columbia is incomplete, and clinic data for New Brunswick is absent."
"fetuses deserve more human rights than grown women."Not true. Pro-life people believe that fetuses deserve the same human rights as grown women. That's because human fetuses are human beings. Therefore they have human rights. Just like grown women.
"It's quite remarkable to hear anti-choice people complaining about the BC and Ontario FOI regulations when their own movement is ultimately responsible for those regulations in the first place - they were enacted to protect providers from being identified, targeted, harassed, and put at risk of anti-choice violence."Since the Ontario government has never stated--even after repeatedly being asked--their reasons for hiding all abortion information, how can Arthur say it is to "protect providers from being identified, targeted, harassed, and put at risk of anti-choice violence"? She can't. But that doesn't stop her from saying it. In fact in 2000, the Information and Privacy Commissioner actually ruled in favour of a pro-life group who was looking for abortion statistics but were denied the statistics from the Ministry of Health: the IPC found no evidence of violence:
"The information at issue in this appeal consists of general statistical information on a province-wide basis. This information cannot be linked to any individual facility or person involved in the provision of abortion services. I do not accept that the sequence of events, from disclosure to the harms outlined in sections 14(1)(e) and (i), could reasonably be expected to occur. While I accept the Ministry's submission, supported by ample evidence, that individuals and groups on both sides of the abortion debate have been subjected to threats, intimidation, and acts of violence, in my view, any link between disclosure and the harms in these sections is exaggerated. The evidence before me does not establish a reasonable expectation of endangerment to the life or physical safety of any person, or to the security of a building, vehicle or system or procedure established for the protection of items within the meaning of sections 14(1)(e) and (i) of the Act.
This finding is in keeping with a fundamental purpose of the Act, as recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada:
"The overarching purpose of access to information legislation, then, is to facilitate democracy. It does so in two related ways. It helps to ensure first, that citizens have the information required to participate meaningfully in the democratic process, and secondly, that politicians and bureaucrats remain accountable to the citizenry . . . Rights to state-held information are designed to improve the workings of government; to make it more effective, responsive and accountable . . . [Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance) (1997), 148 D.L.R. (4th) 385 at 403, per La Forest J. (dissenting on other grounds)]."
In my view, to deny access to generalized, non-identifying statistics regarding an important public policy issue such as the provision of abortion services would have the effect of hindering citizens' ability to participate meaningfully in the democratic process and undermine the government's accountability to the public."Factual inaccuracy number 3: Arthur says:
"Judging by statements in this article and the goals of the "We Weed a Law" group, we can also be sure that the information will be used to lobby for restrictive laws and the removal of pregnant women's rights, on the basis of attacking and shaming them for having abortions for the "wrong" reasons."The original article talks about how the BC and Ontario governments hide abortion statistics. Maybe Arthur didn't read the article and that's why she doesn't know this? There is nothing in the article, or in weneedalaws' stated goals anywhere, that have ever stated or implied they wish to attack or shame women. Arthur has manufactured these claims all by herself.
"Women do not need to state a reason for abortion, it's nobody's business, and making that mandatory would be a violation of privacy (and would fuel anti-choice misogyny). Such information could be useful of course, but it can be gathered in a study where subjects volunteer to participate and ethical guidelines are in place."Arthur is not the only pro-abortion who perpetuates the myth of "anti-choice misogyny". This myth falls under the category of, if you say something often enough, people will start to believe it is true.
"There's a major factual inaccuracy in this article that basically destroys its credibility...Some stats can also be obtained from provincial ministries of health, including abortions done in doctors' offices or in unfunded clinics in Ontario."Ontario's Ministry of Health and Long Term Care does not provide any information about abortions done in doctors' offices in Ontario. In fact CIHI also doesn't report abortions done in doctor's offices.
"So the accusations of "censorship" are way overblown."Considering that not only abortion statistics, but anything and everything relating to the word "abortion" in Ontario is completely excluded from freedom of information requests, Arthur's statement destroys her own credibility. In Ontario censorship on abortion information is very real indeed.
"Btw, you can be sure this data would NOT support anti-choice propaganda that abortion is dangerous or that women are having abortions right up to the moment of birth! Quite the opposite - so having this info would help our side, not theirs."Arthur has nothing to back up any of her statement, again debunking any credibility she may have had. How do we know that abortion is not dangerous and how do we know that women aren't have abortions right up until birth, since none of this information is reported? The statistics we do have clearly show that in 2012 alone there were 62,178 abortions with no gestational ages at all. That means that all 62,178 of those abortions could very well be late term abortions. Since Arthur has no idea what these facts are how can she know it would help "her side"?
"Quebec data is not included. As part of the Agreement between the Government of Quebec and the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), the data transmitted by Quebec and held by CIHI may only be used for the mandate given to CIHI by Quebec. Therefore, CIHI is not authorized to provide you with the requested data for Quebec."When I asked for clarification on this,CIHI said:
"Data transmitted to us by a jurisdiction still belongs to the jurisdiction in question. We are authorized to provide Québec’s aggregate data or information only when the request falls within the mandate in the agreement between CIHI and the Government of Québec. Media requests do not fall within the mandate."Notice that the numbers of livebirth abortions this time, i.e. for 2013/14 (161) are higher than last time, i.e. for 2010/11 (158) and don't even include Quebec numbers (there were 21 livebirth abortions reported in Quebec in 2010/2011).
"many hospitals make it a policy to first terminate the fetus in-utero, perhaps using lethal injection... Dr. Wendy Norman, a clinical professor at the University of British Columbia, confirmed in an email to the Post that abortions “performed intentionally in major centres for pregnancies over 20 weeks would almost certainly include a technique … to induce fetal demise PRIOR to the delivery of the fetus.”If what Dr. Norman says is true, this would mean the child would die before it exited the mother's body, which means it would not be classified as a livebirth abortion. Yet these current stats confirm doctors are still performing abortions resulting in livebirths, so what is going on here?
