CIHI publishes 2012 abortion stats and Quebec abortion stats for 2011

CIHI has published 2012 abortion statistics for 2012. As usual the data is incomplete. These numbers do not include abortions performed in private physician's offices and medical abortions. And BC clinic data is incomplete.

(Too bad Ontario's Minister of Health Deb Matthews could care less about accurate data with her laughable response to me that she's: "sorry that the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) was unable to provide you with the statistics you were looking for." You'd think that Ms. Matthews would be embarrassed by the fact that CIHI can't supply us with accurate data. But no. She lives is an alternate universe where her government's ability to produce accurate numbers of abortions is optional...but I digress.)

CIHI has finally published Quebec clinic and hospital induced abortion data for 2011.

Quebec Number of Induced Abortions Reported by Hospitals 10,575**
Number of Induced Abortions Reported by Clinics 15,670**
Total 26,245**

As always, these numbers do not include abortions performed in private physician's offices and medical abortions.

** Ontario (clinic data only) and Quebec (clinic and hospital data) include only induced abortions covered by their respective provincial health insurance plans. Data from all other provinces/territories (including Ontario hospital data) includes all induced abortions, whether paid for by the patient or by a different health insurance plan. For example, patients with coverage under Quebec's health insurance plan receiving care in Manitoba are reported by Manitoba. However, patients with coverage under Manitoba's health insurance plan receiving care in Quebec are not reported (by either Quebec or Manitoba). 

Henry Morgentaler's legacy

For insight into Henry Morgentaler, listen to the CBC interview with Henry Morgentaler back in 2008.

"My inordinate need to be loved by women. I got the impression that my mother didn't love me because there was a younger baby that she devoted a lot of attention to. I personally believe that she neglected me and didn't love me. To be loved by women was emotionally to me very important. 

Being the center of attention validates you. It means I am important. That I do important things. I can be recognized for that."

Never a word about the children he killed through abortion.

What a sad sad man.

He needed women to love him, and couldn't stand the attention his mother gave to a younger baby. So he devoted his life to making sure women got rid of their children, children who, unbelievably, threatened him. That an innocent tiny helpless baby could threaten this man is beyond astounding.

Why couldn't he use his medical ability to support these women through their pregnancies instead of taking the lives of their innocent children?

Now we are left with his legacy of abortion clinics across our country. Clinics that cause death and destruction instead of healing and nurturing. Clinics that were born from his insecurity because of babies. Clinics that we hope and pray will all close one day.

His clinic in New Brunswick is set to close. God willing, it will.

Challenging the extremes

Thank goodness we have a national pro-life group (weneedaLAW.ca) that is always active, on the move, stirring things up, and telling us what they're doing while they're at it.

For instance check out Faye Sonier's legal perspective on the closing of the Morgentaler clinic in New Brunswick.

At the end of the piece Faye has a line that should make the pro-abortions flinch:

"Those who lament the closing of this abortion clinic call themselves "pro-choice." Indeed, "choice" is the governing principle of their movement. "My body, my choice" is the best known slogan. Perhaps they do not realize the conundrum. For if abortion is truly a personal choice, how on earth can it also be medically necessary?"

Indeed. So how do the pro-abortions reconcile "choice" with "medical necessity"? They don't. Because if you choose to have an abortion, then what could be medically necessary about it? And if an abortion is medically necessary, there isn't really a choice at all, is there? Just don't confuse the pro-abortions with the facts, I guess. They might get a headache.

Take action by sending this email to government officials in New Brunswick and Ottawa.

And We Need a Law has also done a great position paper on gestational abortion legislation. It is a logical, coherent and moral analysis on the state of abortion legislation in Canada:

The difference between Legal, Decriminalized and Regulated abortion, & why we support Gestational Limits

The paper ends with a challenge to those who don't agree with gestational legislation, inviting them to explain why:

"...gestational limits would not legalize abortion because it already is legal. We've also argued that saving some does not condone the death of those we cannot yet save. And we've tried to show that all pro-lifers already support legislative efforts that will protect only some children (in this case, the children of poor mothers). 

We want to conclude with a challenge. If you think we are wrong, please address these points one by one and explain why. Be specific. Please show how abortion in Canada is, in any sense, not already completely legal right now. Show how a gestational limit that will protect only some differs morally from a defunding effort that will protect only some. And explain why those who saved Jewish children weren't condoning the death of their parents (who they couldn't save), but today when we try to save some pre-born children (via a gestational limit) we are supposedly condoning the death of the children we aren't able to save.

The truth is whatever you say it is

This is truly frightening. Ruth Farquhar in the Sudbury Star on the closing of the Morgentaler clinic in New Brunswick:

"The New Brunswick government is clearly, from a legal standpoint, in violation of the Canada Health Act. According to a letter addressed to federal Minister of Health Rona Ambrose from NDP Health Critic Libby Davis and NDP Critic of the Status of Women Niki Ashton, "under the Canada Health Act, the provincial and territorial health insurance plans are required to provide coverage for their residents for all medically necessary hospital and physician services. Abortion services have been determined to be medically necessary by all provincial and territorial health insurance plans." And of course, they ask the minister to intervene."

A legal standpoint? What is she talking about? There is no violation of the Canada Health Act (CHA) here.

Why am I reminded of that saying, if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth, and you will even come to believe it yourself? (frequently attributed to Dr. Josef Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda or to Adolf Hitler himself)

Ms. Farquahr quotes these MPs who think that the CHA requires that abortions must be publicly funded because they have been "deemed to be medically necessary by all provincial and territorial health insurance plans."

Does Ms. Farquahr think these MPs are some kind of expert on the topic? Because they are not. In fact, Ms. Ashton and Ms. Davies are wrong. And Ms. Farqhar is perpetuating this falsehood by repeating it in her article.

You see, the CHA leaves it up to the provinces to decide what is and what is not "medically necessary." And New Brunswick, through Regulation 84-20 of the Medical Services Payment Act, has "deemed" abortion not to be a "medically required" service "unless the abortion is performed by a specialist in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology in a hospital facility approved by the jurisdiction in which the hospital facility is located and two medical practitioners certify in writing that the abortion was medically required."

To say that all provinces have deemed abortion to be "medically necessary" is clearly not true.

I have no problem with an open and honest debate about the public funding of abortion. In fact, I along with many others would love to have a debate on how our health care dollars should be spent and whether abortion should take priority over say, the drug kalydeco for cystic fibrosis, avastin for people with brain tumours, the PSA tests for men, certain eye exams necessary to prevent blindness, and psychologist services--to name only a few unfunded medical treatments in Ontario.

What makes abortion so noble, that it should be paid for with scarce tax dollars when people who need life saving drugs are not paid for?

Yes by all means let's debate what our tax dollars should cover, and what they shouldn't cover. But it must be an honest debate. No one--no matter what their views on abortion are--should resort to deception to make their case.

Deb Matthews confirms closed opaque government

I heard from Minister Deb Matthews regarding my latest attempt to have her answer my many unanswered questions regarding her government's decision to hide abortion statistics.

From her response, I conclude that Deb Matthews

• doesn't care that CIHI is unable to give accurate abortion statistics;
• is aware that the abortion exclusion clause was never debated in the Legislature; 
• is unable or unwilling to share with the citizens of Ontario, the reasons she decided to exclude abortion services from FIPPA;
• is unable or unwilling to share with the citizens of Ontario, why abortion services were the only medical service excluded from the act;
• is unable or unwilling to share with the citizens of Ontario how the abortion exclusion clause enhances openness and transparency.

Here are my questions to her again:

"I have contacted CIHI on numerous occasions already about this [accurate abortion statistics]. Because of the way CIHI produces those statistics (i.e. they base their statistics on hospital discharge records and not medical billing records), they were unable to produce more accurate statistics. Therefore contacting CIHI again (as you suggest), will still not yield accurate statistics. So again I ask you, can you please provide me with a way to obtain accurate abortion statistics?

You say that "These amendments were debated and passed in the Legislature." My question was to provide the links to when the abortion exclusion clause was debated. Not to other amendments.

So I once again reviewed all 20 links on the Bill, from the link you provided me, including the transcripts of the public hearings on the bill on November 22 and 23. There were no instances in any of these documents, where the abortion exclusion was discussed, debated, or mentioned. 

Therefore I must assume that the abortion exclusion clause was not debated in the legislature. Please correct me if I am wrong about this assumption.

I asked you what rationale the government had for excluding abortion services from FIPPA. I couldn't find your response to this question in your letter. Perhaps you missed my question? If so, would you be so kind as to answer it for me now?

I asked you why abortion was the only taxpayer funded medical service singled out for exclusion from FIPPA. I couldn't find your response to this question in your letter to me. Perhaps you missed my question? If so, would you be so kind as to answer it for me now?

I asked you how excluding abortion services from FIPPA "enhances openness and transparency in the public sector"? Perhaps you missed my question? If so, would you be as so kind to answer it for me now?"

Here is her response to me:

Dear Ms. Maloney:

Thank you for your recent email regarding the abortion exclusion clause under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FIPPA).

I can only reiterate what I stated in my previous response to you.  The passing of the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010, that amended FIPPA, followed the customary legislative process of ensuring there was opportunity for public scrutiny, input and debate.

Public hearings were held on the bill providing interested parties with ample opportunity to raise their concerns and share their views on any issues related to the proposed legislation to be brought forward and be considered.

I'm sorry that the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) was unable to provide you with the statistics you were looking for.

Again, thank you for taking the time to write to me about this issue. 

Sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY

Deb Matthews
Minister

From this I can only conclude that Deb Matthews knows that her government is neither open, nor accountable nor transparent; and that the abortion exclusion clause was enacted for purely ideological reasons.