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.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Thursday, February 14, 2013
From the unthinkable to politically acceptable
From weneedaLAW.ca:
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)