Linepharma, Mifegymiso, adverse reactions, and profit

This is my final post in this five part series on Linepharma, who markets, distributes, sells and profits from abortion in over 25 countries, including Canada. 

I've only documented a few of the adverse reaction cases from the 195 page ATIP package I received. You can view the other cases here from my Health Canada ATIP.

https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2022/01/improving-womens-health-one-abortion-at.html

https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2022/01/mifegymiso-case-17-year-old-serious-and.html

https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2022/01/mifegymiso-case-37-year-old-life.html

https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2022/01/mifegymiso-case-36-year-old.html

I cross referenced the 195 page report to the Canada Vigilance Summary of Reported Adverse  (43 records for MIFEGYMISO). Notice this from the first page of the summary report

"CAVEAT (from the report): This summary is based on information from adverse reaction reports submitted by health professionals and laypersons either directly to Health Canada or via market authorization holders. Each report represents the suspicion, opinion or observation of the individual reporter. The Canada Vigilance Program is a spontaneous reporting system that is suitable to detect signals of potential health product safety issues during the post-market period. The data has been collected primarily by a spontaneous surveillance system in which adverse reactions to health products are reported on a voluntary basis. Under reporting of adverse reactions is seen with both voluntary and mandatory spontaneous surveillance systems. Accumulated case reports should not be used as a basis for determining the incidence of a reaction or estimating risk for a particular product as neither the total number of reactions occurring, nor the number of patients exposed to the health product is known. Because of the multiple factors that influence reporting, quantitative comparisons of health product safety cannot be made from the data. Some of these factors include the length of time a drug is marketed, the market share, size and sophistication of the sales force, publicity about an adverse reaction and regulatory actions. In some cases, the reported clinical data is incomplete and there is not certainty that these health products caused the reported reactions. A given reaction may be due to an underlying disease process or to another coincidental factor. This information is provided with the understanding that the data will be appropriately referenced and used in conjunction with this caveat statement."

Lots of wiggle room there. Notice this statement: 

"Under reporting of adverse reactions is seen with both voluntary and mandatory spontaneous surveillance systems." (emphasis added)

Presumably there are many adverse reactions that are never reported to Health Canada. How many? We will probably never know. But women who take this deadly pill are really on their own. They go home, take the pills, and who knows what consequences these women will suffer? And will they be reported?

Medical abortions really just add another whole level of evil to the already abhorrent reality of abortion.

Mifegymiso case 17 year old, serious and life threatening

"Linepharma is a pharmaceutical company committed to improving sexual and reproductive health through expanding access to safe medication abortion."

Further to my last post about the company whose only product kills babies, I did an ATIP to Health Canada on the abortion drug Mifegymiso. My request:

"I would like to obtain the total number of medical abortions (mifepristone and misoprostol) dispensed in Canada since the drug became legal in 2017. I would also like to see any reports of adverse affects  attributed to these medical abortions in Canada since the drug became legal in 2017."

I am still waiting for the first part of my request, and received info back on the second part about adverse effects.

The first woman I will discuss who suffered from this dangerous drug was 17 years old. There are records for her from 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 in the system. I have no idea how long she suffered from her abortion, but there was a lot of paper work done on her.

Her case was classified as serious, life threatening.

This woman suffered the following horrible reactions to this drug.

Loss of consciousness, Hemoglobin low, Iron low, Hemorrage,Transfusion, Dilation and curettage, Retained products of conception, Heavy bleeding, Large clot, Toxic shock syndrome, Off label use, Escherichia sepsis (E. coli), Septic abortion, Abortion infected, Cardiovascular collapse, Circulatory collapse, Percutaneous cardiopulmonary support, Lung assist device therapy

Case Narrative: "Septic shock secondary to septic aabortion from incomplete medical abortion - was provided mifegymiso at 11-2 GA (well out of recommended gestational age); E.coli identified in blood cultures and from uterine contents; patient presented in cardiovascular collapse to local hospital, was transferred to other hospital level 2 center, urgent D&C carried out and ICU admission required with respiratory/cardiovascular support required, developed septic cardiomyopathy; recovered with extensive antibiotic coverage and intensive care; ultimately was discharged home with close followup."

This case was flagged as off-label use because:

"She had unknown relevant medical history. 11 Weeks 2 days gestation (79 days) patient received Mifegymiso beyond 63 days gestation." (emphasis added)

Interesting that 63 days number. Because from this Canadian Medical Abortion Dispensing Guide it says up to 70 days. So what is it Linepharma, 63 days or 70 days? And how do you make sure that women don't take it past this time like this girl did?

On one of the reports was the following comment.

"The case was reported by a physician to Health Canada on 22-Mar-2018 and retrieved by Linepharma on 16-Dec-2019."

Linepharma took a 21 full months to retrieve the information about this poor girl. You'd think that they would be a tad more interested in knowing about this horror story. And the other horror stories of women taking this dangerous drug. That they produce, market, make money from, and send around the world. 

How many people in countries not as advanced as Canada suffer from similar reactions? And what will happen if we start sending Mifegymiso to Africa? God only knows.

Mifegymiso case 36 year old, hospitilization, sepsis, missing information

This report for a 36 year old woman who suffered from sepsis after a Mifegymiso abortion, bears a strong similarity to some of the other reports.

It contains a lot of unknown information about her case.

A 36-year old female patient, unspecified weight and height, with unknown medical history, was administered Mifegymiso...unspecified dosage for induced abortion. Time frame was unknown. Time of gestation was not provided.

Concomitant treatment was not reported.

Corrective treatment, if any, was not reported.

The patient recovered from the event on unspecified date.

The health authority evaluated the case as serious (Hospitalization), coded sepsis as adverse reaction, suspected Mifegymiso and did not assess the causal relationship between Mifegymiso and the adverse reaction. (but I think we know the answer to this one)

Seriousness: -sepsis: yes (hospitalization) 

Causality assessment: Very poorly documented case, time frames and dosage of mifepristone administration were not provided. Chronology was unassessable.

Missing information: Confirmation of misoprostol administration.

More than one of these reports contain this lack of information. Why is that? Why isn't Health Canada following up with the person who reports the adverse reaction, to obtain this information? Isn't that a kind of crucial aspect of this reporting system?

Part 1 - CIHI 2021 abortion data

CIHI is out with their 2021 abortion numbers. They are now adjusting their numbers to use doctor's billing codes. That is good. But what is bad is that they are not including all of their previous stats.

"March 23, 2023 — Provision of abortion services in Canada has evolved in recent years. Since the medical abortion medication Mifegymiso became available in Canada in 2017, medical abortions have become increasingly accessible in non-hospital settings (e.g., nurse practitioner and physician offices, community and public health clinics). In addition, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic may have further shifted abortion services to non-hospital settings. As a result, reporting from traditional hospital data sources has led to an underestimation of the true number of induced abortions in Canada."

There are a lot of caveats to the 2021 data:

"Reporting enhancements

As part of CIHI’s ongoing improvement efforts, we explored opportunities to address data gaps, resulting in a revised methodology for reporting induced abortions for some jurisdictions in Canada. The methodology now includes physician billing data as the source of total abortion volumes and method of abortion for some provinces. 

Because of the revised methodology, 2021 results are not comparable with historical data results. Restated 2020 abortion volumes using the revised methodology can be found in the notes to Table 1. The tables also contain information regarding data sources and coding methodology.

Frequently asked questions

Why is the total number of reported induced abortions larger than in previous years?

The number has increased due to changes in reporting methodology. More complete reporting for 5 provinces (Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia) is now sourced from physician billing data. Restated 2020 abortion volumes using the revised methodology can be found in the notes to Table 1.

Why were the reporting changes made now?

We enhanced the methodology as part of our ongoing efforts to improve completeness of reporting. The revised methodology better captures induced abortions, which are increasingly occurring in non-hospital settings (e.g., nurse practitioner and physician offices, community and public health clinics).

Why is the revised methodology used for some provinces only?

Due to variations in physician billing data capture and completeness across the country, it was not feasible to use the revised methodology for all jurisdictions; this has resulted in some ongoing underestimation of total abortion volumes. More comprehensive reporting may be available in future CIHI releases.

Do the results include the number of induced abortions from RU-486/mifepristone/Mifegymiso? 

Reported volumes include abortions induced by Mifegymiso that occurred in a hospital, that were reported voluntarily by clinics or that were captured in the medical abortion physician billing codes. The data does not permit us to report these volumes separately because there is no unique code to identify Mifegymiso in the data sources. A high-level breakdown by method of abortion can be found in Table 3.

Why are there fewer data tables in the 2021 data release compared with previous years?

Breakdowns derived from hospitalization data only are no longer included since they are not representative of all abortions across all settings and represent only a small proportion of the total number of abortions."

So you can see that there is a lot of missing information from previous years:

• By Gestational age
• By number of previous deliveries
• By Number of previous abortions
• By complications

I had to do a fair amount of diddling with the report to get it to print properly, (formatting, etc) and haven't had time yet to review the actual data yet. 

Improving women's health one abortion at a time

"Linepharma is dedicated to improving women’s health and safe reproductive care."

Linepharma makes the medical abortion drug Mifegymiso. It is distributed in Canada by Celopharma.

Linepharma seems to be owned by a holding company AMRING HOLDING SA.

"There are currently 2 people with significant control at LINEPHARMA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED. One of of major shareholders of LINEPHARMA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED is AMRING HOLDING SA, which owns 1008 ORDINARY shares, with a total value of 1,008 GBP and AMRING HOLDING SA, which owns 404 ORDINARY B shares, with a total value of 404 GBP."

I couldn't find much about these companies, besides some basic information about their registrations etc, and their own very non informative websites. In fact Amring Holding SA doesn't seem to have a website of its own. Interesting.

Linepharma makes one product. The abortion pill Mifegymiso. Cellopharma distributes one product. The abortion pill Mifegymiso.

Linepharma distributes this product through the usual suspects, International Planned Parenthood, Marie Stopes, and United Nations Population Fund, and other stalwart organizations devoted to the killing of young fetuses.

Currently Linepharma sells their fatal fetal drug to women in Canada, Latin America, Asia, and Australia. And coming soon it will be in Japan, Chile, Bolivia, and South Korea.

We can only imagine how much money they make in their monopoly of medically killing children in the womb all over the world. If this isn't evil I have no idea what is.

Why low numbers for medical abortions in Quebec

The medical abortion numbers in Quebec I reported last time appeared to too low, so I asked RAMQ:

"The numbers of medical abortions seem to be very low. Can you check for me and see if there is a mistake in the medical abortion numbers? Also, the cost per abortion seems very low. Can you check on those costs as well?"

The response I received:

"Les tableaux disponibles en ligne concernant les remboursements accordés dans le cadre du Programme d’accès universel gratuit à l’interruption volontaire de grossesse médicamen­teuse fournissent des données concernant le MifégymisoMC (pilule abortive) remis en pharmacien communautaire à la suite d’une consultation en clinique médicale à une personne assurée au régime public d’assurance médicaments. La Régie ne détient pas de donnée concernant le MifégymisoMC reçu dans un établissement de santé . Nous constatons que peu de personnes assurées vont en clinique médicale lorsqu’elles envisagent un avortement médicamenteux. En effet, elles semblent privilégier les services en établissement. Le nombre peu élevé de remboursements du MifégymisoMC dans les pharmacies communautaires s’explique probablement ainsi."

I don't speak French, so according to Google translate:

"The tables available online regarding reimbursements granted under the Free Universal Access to The Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy Drug Program provide data on Mifegymiso™ (abortion pill) given to a community pharmacist following a consultation in a medical clinic to a person insured under the public drug insurance plan. The Régie does not hold any data concerning Mifégymiso™ received in a health facility. We find that few insured people go to medical clinics when they are considering a medical abortion. Indeed, they seem to favour institutional services. This is likely due to the low number of reimbursements for Mifegymiso™ in community pharmacies."

I will attempt to find out what the numbers are for health facilities. 

Mifegymiso case 37 year old, life threatening and involved or prolonged inpatient hospitalization

In 2017 a 37 year old woman suffered "life threatening and involved or prolonged inpatient hospitalization".

From her Adverse Reaction Report:

"Report received [date]. 37 year old woman with unknown medical history. Received Mifegymiso. Patient was 45 days gestation.

Patient presented for follow-up appointment with heavy bleeding and vasovagal (See below). Ultrasound scan detected retained product of conception in and around cervix that physician attempted to remove. An assessment of stat hemoglobin was ordered, then patient called at home to [be] given results at 130. A date for dilation and curettage was booked by clinic. Patient reported passed large clot size of an orange on way home and felt much better. 

On [date], nurse called in the morning and patient said bleeding was only spotting and she felt better and cancelled dilation and curettage.

On [date], patient reported being admitted to hospital with hemorrhage and loss of consciousness on date with low hemoglobin and iron. She underwent emergency dilation and curettage and blood transfusion."

Reactions:

"Loss of consciousness, Low hemoglobin, Low iron, Hemorrhage, Transfusion, D&C, Syncope vasovagal, Retained product of conception, Heavy bleeding"

Notice the use of Retained product of conception. A human being by any other name.

"Vasovagal syncope (vay-zoh-VAY-gul SING-kuh-pee) occurs when you faint because your body overreacts to certain triggers, such as the sight of blood or extreme emotional distress. It may also be called neurocardiogenic syncope.

The vasovagal syncope trigger causes your heart rate and blood pressure to drop suddenly. That leads to reduced blood flow to your brain, causing you to briefly lose consciousness."

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.

Educating Sandeep Prasad of Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights

Sandeep Prasad (Executive Director, Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights) should know better. He thinks that RU-486 will:

"increase access to abortion in more remote and rural areas"

and that

"Limiting the ability to prescribe Mifegymiso to physicians especially restricts access to the service in communities where it is most needed, in rural and remote areas where physicians are lacking and abortion services are far and few between."

You'd think that the executive director of a major "pro-choice" organization would know of the dangers of RU-486 being used where "physicians are lacking and abortion services are far and few between".

Here you go Sandeep: Educate yourself on this dangerous drug. You don't want women in rural areas to take this drug. Not unless you don't care what happens to them if they have serious complications like:

"pelvic infections (endometritis, salpingitis [inflammation of the fallopian tubes]) and vaginal haemorrhages. Rare cases of fatalities were reported, therefore access to emergency care which can provide gynaecological surgical procedures, antibiotic intravenous therapy and blood transfusion in the rare cases where complications occur, is recommended in the labelling to ensure patient’s safety."

How will these women get the help they need in these rural and remote areas when things go wrong?

Medical abortion is fatal for 19 year old woman

UPDATE: I could find nothing in the media about this tragedy. Two lives cut short. A family somewhere suffering from this young woman's death. And nothing in the pro-abortion media.

Since I last reported on the serious side effects of Mifegymiso (the medical abortion pill) a year ago, I checked again to see if there were any more adverse reactions (from the Canada Vigilance Adverse Reaction Online Database) to this deadly abortion pill.  

Unfortunately I discovered that a fatal report was submitted on 2022-07-04. This was a 19 year old young woman who died from septic shock by taking this horrific drug. 

This deadly drug is produced by Linepharma, who markets, distributes, sells and profits from abortion in over 25 countries, including Canada.

Don't let anyone tell you that this drug is safe. It is not. Not only does it kill children in the womb, it kills women.

Health Canada and RU-486: fatalities, endometritis, salpingitis and haemorrhages

From Health Canada's website:

"Analysis of the pivotal trials revealed that the average bleeding time was 10.8 days including 2 days of heavy bleeding. The majority of adverse events reported were transient and mild to moderate in severity. The medication causes vaginal bleeding and commonly induced pain and cramping, which required pain medication in some women. The other adverse events more commonly reported were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, fever/chills, headache, dizziness and weakness. Treatment failure (which was defined as viable pregnancy, non-viable persistent pregnancy, persistent bleeding and abdominal pain that required a surgical termination of pregnancy) was reported in 2% to 4.8% of women. 

A small number of patients who took Mifegymiso presented more serious complications, such as pelvic infections (endometritis, salpingitis [inflammation of the fallopian tubes]) and vaginal haemorrhages. Rare cases of fatalities were reported, therefore access to emergency care which can provide gynaecological surgical procedures, antibiotic intravenous therapy and blood transfusion in the rare cases where complications occur, is recommended in the labelling to ensure patient’s safety."

The pro-abortions and their heart of lead

Emma Healey in the Toronto Star:

"It’s deeply disturbing to look across the border and see how cavalierly the health and safety of American women are being tossed aside. The debate currently raging in the U.S. around reproductive health care just serves to reaffirm a sad truth: that for many people, the health and safety of women simply do not matter. To the Republican politicians who have made defunding Planned Parenthood a priority, it seems women’s lives and bodies are mere tools for inciting easy political and moral outrage."

The "health and safety of American women are being tossed aside"? What about the health and safety of the children they're carrying? What about the children being killed in their mother's womb for the sake of "reproductive choice"?

The pro-abortions are pathetic. As Carly Fiorina says: “Oh, please! Oh, please.”

And oh. It's also "excellent news" that we can now use the "gold standard" of killing pre-born children with pills. How awesome is that?

"In light of all this, it’s easy to look at the state of reproductive health in Canada and feel a comparative sense of pride. Just recently, it was announced that RU-486, or Mifegymiso, a drug widely considered the “gold standard” of medical abortions, will be available as early as January 2016. This is excellent news; the drug could play an enormous part in making abortion accessible and safe, especially for women who live in communities where access to clinics and abortion services is either difficult to obtain or (as is the case in Prince Edward Island) completely nonexistent."

Do these people ever listen to themselves? Do they have a heart at all or is it made of lead?

These people are so blinded by their "reproductive choice" pro-death agenda that they have no idea that other tiny defenseless human beings are being sacrificed at their altar of abortion. They're blinded, or more probably, they just don't care.

Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada Deceitful on Crisis Pregnancy Centres (Post 2)

THE CRUX OF THE MATTER

Due to the necessary fact checks on each of Joyce Arthur’s allegations, I am nervous that some readers may get bogged down by the required and detailed responses.

Accordingly, I have first provided a preliminary chapter on the most critical complaint. That is, according to Ms. Arthur, many or most CPCs in Canada provide misleading and inaccurate information on the subject of abortion.

This most important preliminary chapter is titled: Abortion Procedures and Risks.

For those of you not faint of heart, you can continue on with my report which more extensively responds to Ms. Arthur’s other false claims.

I. Abortion Procedures and Risks

The most critical false complaint by Arthur is that CPCs in Canada provide misleading and inaccurate information on abortion.

What Arthur knows – and yet conceals – is that the actual CPC abortion-related information is sourced from obstetricians, medical ethicists and the abortion providers themselves.

For example, according to Brian Norton, a board member with the Canadian Association of Pregnancy Support Services (CAPSS) (http://www.capss.com/our-board-of-directors/), the physical risks to abortion outlined in the CAPSS client brochure comes directly from, and is not limited to, abortion providers such as BC Women’s Hospital, Brampton Women’s Clinic, Clinique Médicale Fémina (Montréal), Hamilton Health Sciences, Kensington Clinic, Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital, Women’s College Hospital (Toronto) and Women’s Health Clinic (Winnipeg).

If Ms. Arthur truly believes the content is not accurate, she should conduct her “misinformation” assault not on CPCs but on the primary sources. Namely, Canadian abortion clinics and hospitals providing abortion services.

Further, Ms. Arthur should run a concurrent “misinformation” campaign against pro-choice affirmed peer-reviewed epidemiological studies.

I conducted a fact check of Arthur’s allegations and what written material is available to clients from most, if not all, CAPSS member CPCs. Arthur’s “homework” is found wanting. She is dishonest. Again.

In case you are thinking I am making this up, let me provide you with the precise word-for-word abortion information from the 2017 CAPSS client brochure (available from all member CPCs), titled: Abortion Adoption Parenting: an informational guide for unplanned pregnancy.

On Abortion Procedures (from brochure page 4)

The option of abortion – abortion procedures

There are various abortion procedures available during different stages of pregnancy. In Canada, 90% of abortions are done in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, avoiding the added risks associated with later term abortions. An ultrasound may be given before an abortion to determine the stage of pregnancy and also afterwards to determine if the abortion is complete. Depending on the type of abortion, the procedure may take between 5–30 minutes, with the entire process being generally less than 2 hours.

Medical abortions (typically up to 7 weeks) – There are 2 methods of medical abortion available in Canada. The first is a combination of methotrexate and misoprostol, and the second is a combination of mifepristone (also called mifegymiso) and misoprostol. Methotrexate is usually given by injection while mifepristone is a pill which is swallowed. Misoprostol is a pill which may be self-administered into the vagina or swallowed. Methotrexate is a chemotherapy drug which stops cell growth. Mifepristone blocks two hormones which are necessary for pregnancy to continue. Misoprostol causes the uterus to contract and expel the embryo. Cramping and bleeding will occur as the uterus contracts and as the embryo is expelled. Medical abortion may take several days to complete and require 1 to 3 visits to the abortion provider. If an incomplete abortion occurs then a surgical procedure may be required.

Surgical abortions – With each of the following surgical procedures, the cervix will be dilated (opened) to allow instruments to enter the uterus. Dilation may be done using misoprostol, laminaria (seaweed sticks), an osmotic dilator (expanding sponge) or metal rods. A local anaesthetic, as well as medication to reduce pain, blood loss and risk of infection, may be given. The tissue removed from the uterus may be examined to identify fragments of the embryo or fetus and the placenta.

vacuum aspiration and dilation & curettage: D&C (1st Trimester) – After dilation, abortion is performed by inserting a long tube (cannula) into the uterus. After the contents are removed by suction, a procedure using a loop-shaped instrument (curette) may also be required to scrape the wall of the uterus.

dilation & evacuation: D&E (2nd Trimester) – This method requires 2 appointments. After 24 hours of dilation, this procedure is performed with the use of both suction and scraping used in 1st trimester abortions (above), and the use of forceps to remove fetal parts. For abortions in the late 2nd trimester, prior to the procedure, a needle may be placed into the fetal heart with ultrasound guidance and potassium chloride injected to ensure the fetus is not alive prior to evacuation.

induction of labour (2nd Trimester) – In the 2nd trimester, as an alternative to D&E, sometimes labour is induced and the fetus delivered. As above, potassium chloride may also be used prior to induction of labour.

No misinformation on the abortion procedures in Canada. Totally accurate. Totally current. 

It is Ms. Arthur who misinforms her own readers about CPCs in Canada.

On Possible Risks to Abortion (from brochure page 5)

The CAPSS client brochure begins this one-page section with the following introductory statement, in an increased font size and in colour:

Thousands of abortions are performed every year in Canada, and are considered to be a safe medical procedure. However, as with any medical procedure, there are potential risks that you need to consider before making a final decision.

Totally accurate. Unmistakably clear.

The brief CPC information pertaining to emotional risks is attested by abortion providers and pro-choice affirmed epidemiological studies. Though routinely buried by Ms. Arthur and her ARCC political organization, these possible risk factors are in fact acknowledged by other pro-choice organizations in Canada.

On Emotional Risks

Arthur falsely accuses CPCs for frequently using the term “Post Abortion Syndrome”. But more overriding, she has a deep disdain of any term acknowledging abortion-related grief. From her 2016 report:

“many [CPCs] promote misinformation such as the existence of ‘Post-abortion Syndrome,’ which is not a medically recognized condition.”

“48% (79) mentioned negative psychological consequences, primarily in the context of ‘Post-abortion Syndrome’, which is not medically recognized.”

“20% of sites specifically mentioned ‘Post-Abortion Syndrome,’ while 16% did not specifically name ‘Post-Abortion Syndrome’ but listed what many anti-abortion groups believe are its symptoms. 51% of sites offered post-abortion counselling at their centres.”

“Figure 4.1: Group 1: 19.9% (n=33) of websites mention or discuss ‘Post-Abortion Syndrome.’ Group 2: 16.3% (n=27) did not name the fictitious syndrome but instead described symptoms that anti-abortion groups often claim it comprises. Group 3: 50.6% (n=84) offered post-abortion counselling.”

“presenting ‘Post-abortion Syndrome’ as real and common (48% of sites). Neither of these claims are supported by evidence (NARAL 2016).”

“Almost half of centres – 48% (79) – claimed on their websites that abortion results in negative psychological consequences, including depression, suicidal thoughts, or ‘Post-Abortion Syndrome’.”

First, let me first address the fact that Arthur is once again fudging the figures – this time on “Post Abortion Syndrome” being a widespread term on CPC websites. Later, I will speak to the more central issue of abortion and emotional risks.

As we have seen above, Arthur is highly critical of CPCs in Canada for using the designation “post abortion syndrome”. She states in her report that 79 websites use the term “post-abortion syndrome” or use some kind of reference to emotional pain of women after abortion.

Reviewing the 79 websites for myself, this is what I discovered.

When I began my research initially, I discovered that a total of two of these 79 sites had used the word “post-abortion syndrome”:

The Back Porch in Edmonton, Alberta (#9):

http://www.pregnancyhelp.ca/abortion

“The most common emotional risk is Post-Abortion Syndrome (PAS), which is closely related to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).”

Pregnancy Help Centre Durham also uses the term:

http://www.thebackporch.info/faq/abortion-edmonton

“If you are struggling with guilt, sleep disturbances, depression, intruding thoughts, feelings of despair, and/or thoughts to harm yourself, you may be experiencing symptoms of post-abortion syndrome.”

However recently when I rechecked the two sites I noticed that neither of these sites used the term post-abortion syndrome any longer.

Arthur would have unsuspecting readers believe that 79 CPC sites use the term, when only two in fact did; currently none of the 79 sites use the term.

Deceit? Misinformation? Fabrications? What can we call it?

So I then connected with a CAPSS representative on this subject and I learned that Post Abortion Syndrome (PAS) is not, in fact, a term CAPSS member centres use. For the emotional pain women describe to their centre staff, the common terms used by CPCs are “post abortion stress” or “post abortion grief”.

Further, having reviewed the website used by all Birthright centres, they also do not refer to Post Abortion Syndrome (PAS), as Arthur also dishonestly implies.

Below is the actual “position” of this term for CAPSS member centres, which – wait for it –Arthur knows. She and each of her board members received a written hard copy from CAPSS, years ago.

CAPSS informed Arthur and ARCC that their centres do not use the term PAS, and then gave the following explanation:

Years ago, various prolife professional counsellors and physicians in the USA used the term “post abortion syndrome” when describing the very severe cases of abortion grief. That was, and still is today in medical circles, a labeling misnomer. Post abortion syndrome – i.e. as a “post-traumatic stress disorder” – is not recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. When describing the emotional pain of abortion, CAPSS centres in Canada use “post abortion stress” or “post abortion grief”. In fact, since the very inception of CAPSS in 1997, “post abortion syndrome” has never been used in any CAPSS publication – whether in membership documents, volunteer training manuals, or brochures.

Having said that, there are excellent US produced publications on abortion grief and recovery which have used (and some still do use) this term. This is regrettable. The misnomer becomes fodder for unhelpful politicization (whether ‘prochoice’ or ‘prolife’), thus hijacking an important conversation on abortion grief and methodologies of care and healing.

Is there any integrity left within the ARCC organization?

Moving on from Arthur’s word games, I now will discuss the matter of emotional risks to abortion.

Here’s the thing. There are all kinds of organizations (including abortion clinics) other than CPCs who also discuss the emotional risks of abortion.

(Also note that Arthur’s percentages and numbers of clinics detailed above who are “guilty” of identifying these emotional consequences of abortion are also wrong since Arthur’s CPC counts in her report are wrong. More on this later.)

Here is the CAPSS client brochure’s content on possible emotional risks along with references of which organizations identify these risks:

Emotional

After an abortion many women feel some relief, while others have negative emotions. Reactions may be immediate, or feelings may arise years later. Responses vary. They depend on a woman’s age, stage of pregnancy, religious or cultural beliefs, previous mental health, or whether she is being pressured by others into having an abortion.

Women who experience negative emotions after an abortion have reported the following reactions: 4

• Sadness

• Guilt or shame

• Emotional numbing

• Depression

• Nightmares or flashbacks of the abortion

• Alcohol and drug abuse

   • Having thoughts of suicide

As an endnote source, the CAPSS client brochure states (on page 8):

4. Sources: Canadian abortion providers (references available on request). Also see BC Women’s Hospital, “Coping with Ending a Pregnancy,” http://www.bcwomens.ca/health-info/sexual-reproductive-health/abortion-services (accessed March 2017). Also see P.K. Coleman, “Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995-2009,” British Journal of Psychiatry 199, (2011): 180-86; D.M. Fergusson, J.L. Horwood and J.M. Broden, “Abortion and mental health disorders: Evidence from a 30-year longitudinal study,” British Journal of Psychiatry 193 (2008): 444-451; N.P. Mota, M. Burnett and J. Sareen, “Associations between abortion, mental disorders, and suicidal behaviour in a nationally representative sample,” Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 55, no. 4 (2010): 239-247.

Also on this topic of post abortion grief is the fact that there are organizations whose entire reason for existence is to help women heal and recover from their abortion grief. See:

http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/rc/canada.aspx

http://www.rachelsvineyard.org/emotions/affects.aspx

Another source which you may find of interest is the Canadian publication, Complications: Abortion’s Impact on Women (2013), by the deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research. I draw your attention to Section III “The Psychological and Social Impact” and Section IV “Women’s Voices: Narratives of the abortion experience.”

If you doubt that some women experience pain, loss, grief – call it whatever you like – from abortion, I suggest you Google “recovering from abortion grief” and see the resources that come up.

For those women who experience no grief from their abortions, that is wonderful and they are fortunate. But for those who do experience something other than relief, why would Arthur insist that the emotional pain these women experience after abortion isn’t real? And that CPCs, in providing help to these women, are “deceitful and misleading” women, and that CPCs provide “direct misinformation” to these women?

By making these false allegations Arthur belittles and marginalizes women who do experience these very real feelings and emotional suffering after abortion. PostAbortion Community Services (PACS) is one of many abortion recovery outreaches, nationwide, collaborating with CPCs. Program director Doreen Yung informs me that PACS has been helping women seeking healing from abortion grief for 25 years. PACS offers peer counselling, support groups and recovery retreats.

In addition to self-referrals, Yung says clients are referred to them by (pro-choice and pro-life) physicians and agencies. Perhaps to Arthur’s chagrin, PACS has also received referrals from abortion providers.

Abortion Breast Cancer link – truth or fiction?

Regarding informed consent on physical risks to abortion, with only one exception, CPCs note the same risks conveyed by abortion providers and pro-choice medical researchers. In fact, abortion clinics have a much longer and detailed list of the physical risks. Here is the CAPSS client brochure’s entire content on possible physical risks: 

Physical

• Heavy bleeding

• Infection

• Increased risk of premature births in subsequent pregnancies¹

• Damage to cervix or uterus, including a small risk of infection or scarring²
that can be associated with infertility or miscarriage

• Possible link to breast cancer *  

* controversial; see endnote 3

For endnote #1 (above), the following source is noted on page 8: P. Shah and J. Zao, “Induced termination of pregnancy and low birthweight and preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analyses,” British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 116, (2009): 1425-42; H.M. Swingle, T.T. Colaizy, M.B. Zimmerman and F.H. Morriss, Jr., “Abortion and the risk of subsequent preterm birth: a systematic review with meta-analyses,” Journal of Reproductive Medicine 54, no. 2 (2009): 95-108.

For endnote #2, the following detail is noted on page 8: Asherman syndrome, or intrauterine adhesions/scarring or synechiae.

As mentioned, there is only one risk factor that the medical community is in disagreement about. This concerns the worldwide epidemiological research on a possible link to breast cancer. Many studies reveal a link. Many studies do not.

From endnote #3, on page 8 of the brochure: The association between abortion and breast cancer is controversial. “Out of 73 published worldwide studies done to date, 56 show a positive association, of which 35 are statistically significant, while a total of seventeen studies show no link.” From I. Gentles, A. Lanfranchi and E. Ring-Cassidy, Complications: Abortion’s Impact on Women (Toronto: The deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research, 2013), 125. The 3 most recent studies (2014) conclude a link. For example: Y. Huang, X. Zhang, W. Li, F. Song, H. Dai, J. Wang et al., “A meta-analysis of the association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk among Chinese females,” Cancer Causes & Control 25, no. 2 (2014): 227-236. More research is needed.

The two other most recent studies also reveal a possible ABC link (not noted in the above endnote due to space):

U. Takalkar et al, “Hormone Related Risk Factors and Breast Cancer: Hospital Based Case Control Study from India,” Research in Endocrinology 2014, (April 2014) Article ID 872124, DOI: 10.5171/2014.872124; and A. E. Lanfranchi and P. Fagan, “Breast Cancer and Induced Abortion: A Comprehensive Review of Breast Development and Pathophysiology, the Epidemiologic Literature, and Proposal for Creation of Databanks to Elucidate All Breast Cancer Risk Factors,” Issues in Law and Medicine 29, no. 1 (Spring 2014): 3-133.

If of interest, here I lift some commentary on this ABC subject from CAPSS rebuttal publication (pages 17, 21-22):

[Eight] years ago, a committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said: “More rigorous, recent studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk.” Committee on Gynecologic Practice, “Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk,” ACOG Committee Opinion No. 434 (Washington: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2009).

And from another recent publication is the following (puzzling) observation: “As for the

epidemiological evidence, most scientists worldwide, except in the US, agree that induced

abortion is a known risk for breast cancer” (emphasis added). Gentles, Lanfranchi, and Ring-Cassidy, Complications, 90. This publication cites and discusses the various worldwide studies.

“This discussion must not be ideological nor fall into the trap of epistemic closure,” the CAPSS rebuttal contends. “We must go where the evidence leads.” The author continues, “Debates on this controversial risk most often concern whether methodologies of particular studies are flawed. But politically predetermined editorial biases are far worse and do much more harm. Women deserve better.”

For the sake and safety of women’s health, CPCs recommend more research. I most certainly concur. I trust you, the reader, do as well.

With this preliminary chapter “Abortion Procedures and Risks” concluded, now to the other erroneous allegations by Ms. Arthur. 

Tomorrow: Other Erroneous Allegations