Informed women, an informed public, educated politicians, and an ethical medical profession will end elective abortion in Canada
“Science knows when a human being begins to exist and has known officially and internationally since 1942 with the Carnegie Stages of Human Embryonic Development. Science also knows that a human being is the same organism throughout all the various stages of his or her biological existence…”
Yet, two thirds of Canadians appear to have no clue that science has established beyond a shadow of a doubt that a human being comes into existence at fertilization, a week or so before that tiny human being implants in his/ her mother’s womb! When human life begins is not a matter of preference or feelings, but one of scientific fact which should inform any discussion regarding elective abortion in Canada. However, “informed” is a word that cannot be ascribed to Canadians in this very important situation.
According to the February 1st 2020 DART and Maru/Blue poll press release two thirds of Canadians believe that a human life begins at viability, in the first 8 weeks or within the first three months, between 3 to 6 months or at birth. How on earth are we ever to have an informed national discussion with the prevalent ignorance regarding the human being who has the most to lose – his/her life?
In the latest trio of polls conducted by Angus Reid, we see no improvement and a hardening of Canadian hearts toward the pre-born child, with 52% agreeing that elective abortion should be available “at any time during pregnancy”, with 36% being comfortable with elective abortion up to until 15 weeks of pregnancy and, according to researchers at Angus Reid, 15 weeks is “about when a fetus develops a heart beat”!!!
Again, how do we expect “informed” discussion with such misinformation as the basis for a poll? Science informs us that a human’s heart begins beating at 5 weeks and can be seen immediately on ultrasound. The tiny human being is about three weeks old at this point. At 15 weeks of pregnancy, the little one is 13 weeks old and has an average fetal heart rate of 164.19 beats per minute, 1,655.071 per week for a running total of 15, 782,029 heartbeats!!!!!!!
How might this factual information have informed those who answered the poll questions?
It doesn’t get any better when we consider chemical abortion, as in the case of Mifegymiso. In one of the largest studies ever undertaken to compare the outcome of surgical versus medical abortion it was found that the so-called “Gold Standard” medical abortion had an inherent 4 times rate of adverse risk for women.
Results: “The overall incidence of adverse events was fourfold higher in the medical compared with surgical abortion cohort (20.0% compared with 5.6%, P<.001). Hemorrhage (15.6% compared with 2.1%, P<.001) and incomplete abortion (6.7% compared with 1.6%, P<.001) were more common after medical abortion. The rate of surgical (re)evacuation was 5.9% after medical abortion and 1.8% after surgical abortion (P<.001). Although rare, injuries requiring operative treatment or operative complications occurred more often with surgical termination of pregnancy (0.6% compared with 0.03%, P<.001). No differences were noted in the incidence of infections (1.7% compared with 1.7%, P=.85), thromboembolic disease, psychiatric morbidity, or death.”
How can women’s choices be “informed “when this information is not provided to them? It gets even worse when we consider that a safe and successful reversal has been developed which has saved the lives of 4,000 babies in the womb so far. Yet, this procedure and the doctors who offer it have been attacked and maligned by medical bodies which for some unfathomable reason do not , it appears, want women to have a second chance at choice. Abortion pill reversal is successful, (64%-68%) currently, safe and effective yet women are not being informed.
We might turn our attention to surgical abortion for a moment where the information provided to women is as scant as with medical abortion. Why is it that medical consent forms do not include the risk of pre-term birth after elective abortion?
Proper Informed Consent = Fewer Premature Births
Brent R Rooney MSc, Research Director
Letter to the Editor (CMAJ),
The Jan. 2016 ‘McKinnon’ study found that Black-Canadian women have almost triple the very preterm birth (<32 weeks’ gestation) risk as non -Black women.[1] If Black-Canadian women are more likely than non-Black women to access a medical treatment associated with raised risk of preterm delivery, that would help explain racial disparity in preterm birth risk. In 2007 the [U.S.] Institute of Medicine’s authoritative textbook identified “Prior first trimester induced abortion” as an “Immutable Medical Risk Factor Associated with Preterm Birth” (along with 16 other ‘preemie’ risks).[2] This APB (Abortion Preterm Birth) risk was confirmed by the October 2009 ‘Shah’ SRMA (Systematic Review with Meta- Analysis), with dose-response being demonstrated.[3]
In the 2013 ‘Hardy’ study 3 McGill U. researchers found that prior IAs (Induced Abortions) multiply very preterm birth risk by 1.45 (95% CI 1.11 1.90) and this study was the eleventh statistically significant study reporting that prior IAs boost risk of extremely preterm birth (<28 weeks’ gestation).[4] In December 2008 Rooney, Calhoun, & Roche demonstrated that a major reason for the U.S. preterm birth racial disparity is that Black-American women have over four (4) times the IA rate as non-Black women.[5] That 2008 study has never in 85 months since been challenged via a ‘letter to the editor’. We also revealed that all ‘suction’ (vacuum aspiration) abortions are unethical, since this IA procedures has zero published animal studies to validate its safety, thus violating principle 3 of the 1947 Nuremberg Code.
Despite three (3) SRMAs confirming ‘abortion-preemie’ risk & zero SRMAs failing to confirm this risk, Canadian women of all races and ethnicities are not told on abortion consent forms about higher future risk of premature delivery. This is a clear denial of women’s right to informed medical consent.”
Of course ,there is much more that women are not informed about, including the risk on long term mental health. Dr Christina Franceis is a pro-life obstetrician and gynaecologist and president of the American association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Dr Francis is the source of the following.
“Killing One’s patients isn’t healthcare”
- All human beings are created equal
- Modern technology has proven, without a shadow of a doubt that a unique and whole human being is created at fertilization.
- Modern medical technology can successfully treat medically complex pregnancies
- Still remain situations such as ectopic pregnancy, infected uterus which can place the mother’s life at risk – these can be handled today
- There is false information being spread by abortion advocates that elective abortion is needed to save these mothers – however modern medicine can save the mother and respect the life of her little one.
- 7,000 AAPLOG members and 76%-93% of obgyns do not procure abortions
- They know that abortion does not have to be legal to ensure that physicians can provide excellent health care.
Women do not have fully informed consent
- The abortion pill puts women’s lives at risk they need to be seen by a medical professional to receive an accurate gestational age (50% of women get it wrong) ultrasound to check for ectopic pregnancy 1 in 50 will have one – they need to be screened.
- Excellent healthcare does not include elective abortion
- Elective abortion has no benefit to my patients – it ends the lives of one and may harm the other.
- Surgical abortion – 160 studies conclude that elective abortion has a horrendous effect on pre-term birth which of cause puts the child at risk
- Women need to know that they could face the chance of pre-term birth and/or losing their baby after elective abortion.
- Elective abortion leads to significant risks of long-term mental health problems – depression, anxiety, drug abuse, suicide
- 7 times increased risk of suicide in women who have elective abortions compared to those who bring to term.
Abortion has had a bad impact on women, it has compromised the safety of women’s lives and that of their child for the sake of a political narrative. Instead of defaulting to elective abortion we need to find innovative solutions?
Alliance for Life Ontario wants to be a part of discovering and implementing innovative solutions but we need a properly informed public, correctly informed politicians and a medical profession that wishes to practice real medicine not medical killing on demand. Oh for the day!
