Abortion Statistics: Despotic Secrecy or a Right to Know?

How many abortions are performed in Canada every year? We don’t know (exact numbers). How much do we pay for them? We don’t know. Where are they being done (exactly)? We don’t know. What is the gestational age of the babies being aborted? We don’t know.

Pierre Trudeau once said:
"Democratic progress requires the ready availability of true and complete information. In this way people can objectively evaluate their government's policy. To act otherwise is to give way to despotic secrecy ."

In 2006 the Conservatives promised--via their Federal Accountability Act--that:
"Government will become more transparent and more open.”

This Act was supposed to increase government accountability, but as it relates to abortion statistics, government accountability has actually decreased to the point where abortion statistics are grossly under-reported and completely unreliable.

Before 1988 it was mandatory for hospitals and abortion clinics to report abortions performed to Statistics Canada. With the Morgentaler ruling in 1988 when abortion was decriminalized, Statistics Canada deemed abortion reporting to be “voluntary”.

Allowing abortion reporting to become voluntary, resulted in a decreased level of clinics reporting. Statistics Canada who collects and publishes all sorts of statistics has always prided themselves on the quality of their statistics. But since abortion statistics were now unreliable, SC didn’t want their name associated with numbers that weren’t accurate. So in 1995 the responsibility for abortion data collection was transferred to the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). CIHI is funded by federal, provincial and territorial governments but is not a government department.

In 2010 CIHI took over complete responsibility for the collection and publication of the abortion statistics. Because CIHI is not one of the government organizations covered under the Access to Information Act, not only have the abortion statistics become unreliable, but possibly more worrisome, Canadians can’t ask pertinent abortion related questions to CIHI under Access To Information rules.

This is goes against what the Conservatives' Federal Accountability Action Plan was supposed to accomplish:
“Allow Canadians and organizations to participate more fully in public policy development and better assess the Government of Canada’s performance in order to hold it to account...Government will become more transparent and more open.”

Part of this Plan includes the Office of the Information Commissioner
“Who is committed to ensuring that individuals' rights to information under the Access to Information Act (ATIA) are respected and that government operates within a culture of transparency and fairness.”

But so what? Since CIHI is not ATIPable, an increase in getting access to information is meaningless.

Yet the Information Commissioner's website says we have a “Right to Know”:
"In a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision in Dagg vs. Canada, Justice Gérard La Forest wrote:
'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."

So what do we know?

- We know that Access to Information is about transparency, openness, accountability and our right to participate in democracy.
- We know we had the vehicle to collect and produce the information with Statistics Canada.
- We know abortion statistics are now voluntary.
- We know that CIHI who now collects the abortion statistics, is not ATIPable.
- We know that the Conservatives promised better access to information.

So how can Canadians “objectively evaluate their government's policy” on our any-time, any-reason, no-reason, taxpayer-funded abortion policy--when we don’t know how many tax payer funded abortions are done every year, how much we are paying for them, where they are being performed, what the gestational age of the babies being destroyed is, what the complications are, the type of abortion procedure, the age of the girl/woman, how many are repeat abortions, and the reasons for the abortions? And we aren’t allowed to ask abortion related questions to the very organization who is collecting the few statistics we do have?

We can’t.

Abortion reporting must again be made mandatory for all hospitals and all clinics. The responsibility for abortion collection must be returned to Statistics Canada.

Otherwise, it’s despotic secrecy.

What would the Martians think? (Part 2...When the truth isn't the truth)

Vicki Saporta, President and CEO, National Abortion Federation (NAF) provided the opening remarks to the celebration of the 20th Anniversary of Regina v. Morgentaler Of What Difference? Reflections on the Judgment and Abortion in Canada Today.

Ms. Saporta stated: "This landmark decision has undoubtedly protected the health and saved the lives of countless women, and was named as one of the most important and influential Charter cases of the last 25 years."

To say that the lives of countless women have been saved because of abortion is not quite true. Less than 5% of all abortions are because of rape, incest, fetal and maternal problems. That means that 95% of abortions are performed as a means of birth control, not to save women's lives.

It is the lives of the unborn killed by abortion that women like Ms. Saporta never talk about. About 100,000 each year in Canada. Even if Ms. Saporta is referring to the lives of women who died before abortion was legal, those numbers (44 in the five years before 1969) doesn't come close to the 100,000 annual killing of fetuses.

Then Ms. Saporta says
"In fact, abortion is the only time-sensitive and medically necessary procedure excluded from the list of services on the inter-provincial billing agreement."

Abortion is excluded because as stated above at least 95% of them are not medically necessary. Abortion advocates will always say that abortions are medically necessary. I say, prove it.

Next she says:
"The Canadian Medical Association’s policy of allowing physicians to refuse to refer patients for abortion care is a clear violation of CMA’s own Code of Ethics, which requires physicians to:
• Consider the well-being of the patient;
• Practice medicine in a manner that treats the patient with dignity; and
• Provide patients with the information they need to make informed decisions
about their medical care.
The CMA’s policy treats women unfairly and impedes women’s access to care."

Jeff Blackmer of the CMA states:
"CMA policy states that "a physician should not be compelled to participate in the termination of a pregnancy." In addition, "a physician whose moral or religious beliefs prevent him or her from recommending or performing an abortion should inform the patient of this so that she may consult another physician."

Insisting that doctors be allowed to follow their conscience is a fundamental right for doctors. I would never want be advised by my doctor on any matter, knowing that he had parked his conscience at the door that morning.

What is disturbing about Ms. Saporta's comments, and others like her, is that they say things "like abortion is medically necessary" by simply slipping them into the conversation as if it were true. Then they repeat them over and over and eventually people just start believing they are true.

Take Dr. Bernard Nathanson for example. He was responsible for over 75,000 abortions before he finally had a change of heart. He said that slogans like "Women must have control over their own bodies." were made up. That they fabricated the results of fictional polls to simply show what they wanted us to believe.

I suggest you google Dr. Nathanson's name. You won't see his name come up on any pro-choice websites. I don't imagine the abortion advocates were too happy when he started telling the truth.

I think at this point, our Martian friend at the back of the room must be really confused. "You mean the truth isn't always the truth?"

Part 1...Women's "Rights"
Part 2...When the truth isn't the truth
Part 3...Translating Dr. Henry Morgentaler
Part 4...Why late-term abortions are not inconsequential

What would the Martians think? (Part 1...Women's "Rights")

I just completed reading 20th Anniversary of Regina v. Morgentaler Of What Difference? Reflections on the Judgment and Abortion in Canada Today. This was a feminist symposium in 2008 to celebrate (their word) the twenty year anniversary of the Morgentaler court case; the case that opened the flood gates for fully funded nationally available abortion that gave women their "right" to abortion on demand.

(As I've stated elsewhere, the ruling never actually granted a Charter right to abortion but abortion advocates like to pretend it did. They believe that if they say something long enough and often enough, people will think it’s true.)

After I read the document I was left with a feeling of immense sadness.

This phenomenal increase in women’s rights was accomplished by a corresponding elimination of all rights to the unborn child.

The word "Rights" is used 75 times in the document: it talks about Charter rights, Sexual rights, Reproductive rights, Equality rights, Human rights, Abortion rights, Women's rights, Fundamental rights and Our rights--all as they relate to women.

The only nod to father’s rights was preceded by a "so-called" as in "so-called fathers rights", the common derogatory term we use when we want to belittle or make fun of something.

Any mention of the unborn or fetal rights was again always in the negative sense as in:
"if we acknowledge the current ascendant discourse is one of the unborn child, then we as feminists and supporters of choice for women must re-insert the women in the social vernacular, and start again from the premise that the pregnant woman and the unborn child speak with one voice, and that voice is hers."

It's always about the woman.

I imagined a Martian sitting at the back of the room watching the proceedings and listening to the speeches as one half of this foreign human species--the half that is the carrier of the offspring of the species--celebrated their rights to be allowed to kill the newest members of their own species.

(to be continued...)

Part 1...Women's "Rights"
Part 2...When the truth isn't the truth
Part 3...Translating Dr. Henry Morgentaler
Part 4...Why late-term abortions are not inconsequential

Status of Women Canada pays extreme group to discredit CPCs

In January 2009, the uber-feminist Pro-Choice Action Network, (Pro-Can) wrote a very nasty and very biased report called "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC": http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/Exposing-CPCs-in-BC.pdf

In January 2010, I argued that we should applaud and support these CPCs, not ridicule and deride them: http://www.lifenews.com/int1440.html

Even though there are tons of reasons why Canadians should support Crisis Pregnancy Centres, I have learned an even more scandalous piece of information about Pro-Can and their sorry report.

By way of Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) requests to Status of Women Canada (SWC), I found out that this extreme radical group received funding from SWC to the tune of $27,400 to write this abortion manifesto. I also learned that SWC has never given any funding to CPCs.

And there's more.

First, on Pro-Can's Application for funding, under "Goals and Objectives" appears this gem:

``[the goal of this project is to] ..publicly expose the anti-woman and anti-feminist agenda of CPCs...and by doing so, work to mitigate discriminatory attitudes towards women...work to promote institutional change by ensuring that health organizations such as hospitals, clinics, and doctors' offices do not inappropriately refer women to CPC's, and instead have feminist-based alternatives to which they can refer women."

CPCs are clearly not anti-women or anti-feminist. And please don't tell me that Canadians expect our doctors to refer pregnant women to abortion clinics ``instead`` of CPCs. How outrageous is that?

Second, funding was supposedly provided because there was a "public education" component to the grant. A report that demeans and attacks crisis pregnancy centres, based on biased research can hardly be considered "public education".

Third, Pro-Can never publicly acknowledged the funding they received. Yet, on their Application form, under the heading "Declaration and Undertaking" the applicant clearly makes the following declaration:

"I am authorized by the organization to sign this application. I am taking responsibility to ensure that the organization agrees to the following declaration and undertaking...The organization agrees to publicly acknowledge any financial or other assistance provided by SWC".

Fourth, in SWC's Recommendation for Approval under "If Applicable, how does this initiative link to government wide priorities and international commitments" is the following very disturbing statements:

"As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. V. Morgentaler (1988), under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, women have the right to therapeutic abortions but when crisis pregnancy centres disseminate misinformation to pregnant women, they in effect circumscribe women's full Charter rights. Through this initiative, the government of Canada is fulfilling its court ascribed duty to ensure women have full reproductive choice by informing the public of the diversity of perspectives on abortion."

As everyone knows, the Morgenatler ruling only struck down the existing abortion law; it never granted a "full Charter right" to abortion. So funding to Pro-Can was recommended based on a false premise.

If CPCs save lives, and abortion destroys lives; why did our government fund these radical feminists, but not crisis pregnancy centres?

That, my friend, is the $27,400 question.