Jack Fonseca

,

Sorry, Canada’s abortion regime is no ‘role model to the world’

Jack Fonseca
Jack Fonseca

I never knew there was a “responsible” way to kill babies. That is, until I read Joyce Arthur’s recent article where she gushes over the upcoming 25-year anniversary of the Morgentaler ruling when the Supreme Court struck down Canada’s laws on abortion.  She is the Executive Director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada.

Yup. She schooled me good. Thanks to Joyce, I now realize that Canada’s mass killing of millions of children in-utero is actually “responsible abortion care”.  Golly gee, if all it takes to ascribe a positive meaning to an ugly act is changing the words we use, I suppose a child pornographer should likewise be able to call himself a “responsible sex educator”.

Joyce explained that the January 28, 1988 ruling has made Canada “a role model to the world”. Her article laid out reasons for that honour, including the following claims:

1. In Canada, “doctors and women handle abortion care responsibly.”
2. Canada permits “abortion-on-request” for any reason at all, no questions asked.
3. Our abortion status quo respects a woman’s right to “bodily integrity.”
4. “Maternal deaths and complications from abortion are fairly low.”
5. Abortion-on-request is the “moral high road”—it “saves lives, raises women’s status, and…  benefits everyone.”

Hmm. Do Joyce’s high-sounding claims hold up to scrutiny as reasons for Canada to be a role model for the world? Let’s examine each one.

Reason #1: In Canada “doctors and women handle abortion care responsibly

Let’s set aside the small detail that killing innocent people is never responsible, and look only at the technical veracity of this statement.

First, the term “responsibly” suggests there is a significant measure of self-restraint involved in the decision to abort.  To use the famous Clinton cliché, it implies that abortion should be “rare” and committed only in dire circumstances.  With easily over 100,000 abortions committed in Canada every year (Stats Canada figures under-report because provinces withhold data), this statement collapses under the weight of that massive number.  If our nation annually aborts a population the size of the City of Kamloops, we’re not describing “responsible” behavior. We’re not talking about a “rare” situation. We’re describing a situation that’s out of control, without any restraint at all. Add to this, the statistic that 1/3 are repeat abortions and we can safely say that “willy nilly” is a more accurate description of our abortion regime than “responsible”.

Secondly, the assertion that “doctors and women handle abortion care responsibly” suggests that women are jointly discussing this decision with their family doctor, and that it’s arrived at with the thoughtful counsel and support of the woman’s family doctor.  The statement harkens to a favourite line of pro-abortion politicians: “It’s a decision between a woman and her doctor.”  The problem is that it’s a near-total lie.  Much, if not almost all of the time, women never discuss abortion-choice with their family doctor. Women, oftentimes coerced by a boyfriend or husband, simply call the abortion facility or a “sexual health office” and book an appointment. There’s no involvement with the woman’s doctor at all. The first doctor she encounters is the abortionist whom she gets to meet for the first time on the operating table. By that point, the decision to abort has been made. The abortionist isn’t here to counsel her. He’ll spend about 20 minutes with her to dismember and decapitate her baby. The woman is not even likely to see much of the abortionist’s face. 

Sorry Joyce, but no cigar on this one.

Reason #2: We permit “abortion-on-request” for any reason at all, no questions asked

Is abortion-on-demand, as it’s often called, something to make Canadians proud? According to figures from the abortion industry’s own research division, The Guttmacher Institute, plus independent statistics gathered by seven U.S. state governments, abortion is used today as a back-up birth control method more than 96% of the time.

The majority of people I speak to who identify as “pro-choice” tell me they are disgusted to learn that abortion is being used as a form of birth control. Once again, Joyce got it wrong.  Our regime of abortion-on-request is a source of national shame, not national pride.

For historical clarity, I’ll mention that even prior to the 1988 court ruling, in practice, Canada already had abortion-on-demand. The law passed by Pierre Trudeau in 1969 created “Therapeutic Abortion Committees” (TACs) in hospitals, which were panels of 3 doctors who had discretion to approve the killings.  Already, between 1969 and 1987, abortion rates had shot up dramatically under the TAC regime because the doctors rubber-stamped virtually all applications. For example, we’ve seen from the therapeutic abortion records of an Ontario hospital between 1971 (when they started) until 1988 (when the committee was disbanded), that no request was refused. The committee never saw the woman and indeed, they signed the papers in the hallways. 99% of abortions were committed for “mental health and psycho-social reasons”, and this means they were approved on request.  The records show this hospital had many repeat abortions and one year, a woman had her fourth abortion. The procedure was definitely being used as a form of birth control.

Reason #3: Our abortion status quo respects a woman’s right to “bodily integrity

I’m really baffled by this one Joyce. How are we helping women achieve bodily integrity when abortion chops up the tiny bodies of baby girls and dismembers them? What about the “bodily integrity” of the girl-child in the womb?  If you have the stomach for it, look at this photo of an actual aborted baby, and ask yourself if she has “bodily integrity”.

Reason #4: “Maternal deaths and complications from abortion are fairly low

Fairly low compared to what? A 100% correlation? The studies I’ve read show a dramatic relationship between women who abort and subsequent maternal death, suicide and complications.

An authoritative 1997 study funded by the government of Finland established that women who undergo induced abortion experience a death rate nearly 4 times greater than women who give birth. This excludes death from suicide, which another Finnish study found to be 6 times higher for women who abort than women who give birth.

A study sponsored by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario found that women who underwent abortion experienced a 4 times higher rate of hospitalization for infections vs. childbirth. In 2000, the UK’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists established that the immediate physical complication rate of induced abortion is at least 11%. A similar U.S. study found a higher complication rate of 17%.

Reason #5: Abortion-on-request is the “moral high road”—it “saves lives, raises women’s status, and…  benefits everyone

Wrong, wrong, and triple wrong.  First, abortion doesn’t save lives, it takes them. Not only the babies’ lives, but also those of the women who abort, as evidenced by the much higher maternal death and suicide rates.  The abortion industry would likely counter with the tired, old spectre of the “thousands of women” who would die by “back alley coat hanger” abortions, if they were made illegal. That was a lie in 1969 and it would still be a lie in 2013. Former abortionist, the late Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson admitted after his pro-life conversion that he and other abortion industry leaders invented out of thin air the figure of “tens of thousands of women dying from illegal abortions”. This was to gain public sympathy for legalization.  Those high numbers were never true.  The fact is that for decades prior to its legalization, 90 percent of abortions were done by physicians in their offices, not in back alleys, as Randy Alcorn shows in his book ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments. If abortion became illegal in 2013, doctors who choose to break the law would still do them with medical equipment, not with coat hangers. The suction tube equipment used by abortuaries is inexpensive and easy to obtain.

Secondly, legal abortion doesn’t raise women’s status.  On the contrary, it makes it easier for men to keep treating woman as purely sexual objects whom they can simply pressure or coerce into abortion should they ever become pregnant.  The sexual revolution has not liberated women. It has liberated men to objectify and abuse women.

Finally – does abortion really “benefit everyone” as Joyce claims?  A root cause of the impending bankruptcy of Medicare and the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) is the decline in Canada’s birth rate since the 1960’s.  Naturally, abortion contributes to that problem. For example, the CPP was enacted by legislation in 1965 during a time when each woman had approximately 3.5 children (see chart). The CPP funding model made economic sense at a time when the birth rate predicted a sufficient number of future workers would exist to pay taxes in support of the benefits to be received by pensioners.

The funding model no longer works however, because the numbers have changed dramatically and the worker-to-pensioner ratio has plummeted. After the legalization of abortion and widespread contraception, Canada’s birth rate fell dramatically to just 1.58 children per woman as of 2011. Combined with longer average life-spans in old age, this resulted in a precipitous decline in the ratio of Canadian workers (who pay taxes) to pensioners (who receive CPP benefits). That ratio has been decimated since 1965.  In 1985 for example, Canada had almost 5-1/2 workers per pensioner. Currently there are barely more than 3 workers per pensioner.  By 2025 that is projected to be approximately 2.5 workers per pensioner. See this chart for example. That’s unsustainable.

Rather than “benefiting everyone” abortion is contributing to national bankruptcy and tearing a gaping hole in our social safety nets, including our imploding health care system. So, wrong again Joyce. Abortion hurts everyone!

Conclusion - I’m sorry to disagree

This January 28th, instead of celebrating 25 years of “responsible abortion care” in Canada, I’ll be lamenting the 2.5 million lost children since 1988 and the profound poverty visited upon our country by abortion since decriminalization in 1969.

Jack Fonseca is project manager for Campaign Life Coalition. Follow him on Twitter @JackFonsec. This piece is reprinted from CampaignLifeCoalition.com with permission.


Advertisement
Featured Image
A Nazi extermination camp. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

Imagine the outrage if anti-Semites were crowdsourcing for gas chambers

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski
Image
A Nazi oven where the gassed victims were destroyed by fire. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Image
Empty canisters of the poison used by Nazis to exterminate the prisoners. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Image
Syringe for Manual Vacuum Aspiration abortion AbortionInstruments.com
Image
Uterine Currette AbortionInstruments.com
Image

Imagine the outrage if the Nazis had used online crowdsourcing to pay for the instruments and equipment used to eradicate Jews, gypsies, the handicapped, and other population groups — labeled “undesirable” — in their large industrialized World War II extermination facilities. 

Imagine if they posted a plea online stating: “We need to raise $85,000 to buy Zyklon B gas, to maintain the gas chambers, and to provide a full range of services to complete the ‘final solution.’”

People would be more than outraged. They would be sickened, disgusted, horrified. Humanitarian organizations would fly into high gear to do everything in their power to stop what everyone would agree was madness. Governments would issue the strongest condemnations.

Civilized persons would agree: No class of persons should ever be targeted for extermination, no matter what the reason. Everyone would tear the euphemistic language of “final solution” to shreds, knowing that it really means the hideous crime of annihilating a class of people through clinical, efficient, and state-approved methods of destruction. 

But crowdsourcing to pay for the instruments and equipment to exterminate human beings is exactly what one group in New Brunswick is doing.

Reproductive Justice NB has just finished raising more than $100,000 to lease the Morgentaler abortion facility in Fredericton, NB, which is about to close over finances. They’re now asking the public for “support and enthusiasm” to move forward with what they call “phase 2” of their goal.

“For a further $85,000 we can potentially buy all the equipment currently located at the clinic; equipment that is required to provide a full range of reproductive health services,” the group states on its Facebook page.

But what are the instruments and equipment used in a surgical abortion to destroy the pre-born child? It depends how old the child is. 

A Manual Vacuum Aspiration abortion uses a syringe-like instrument that creates suction to break apart and suck the baby up. It’s used to abort a child from 6 weeks to 12 weeks of age. Abortionist Martin Haskell has said the baby’s heart is often still beating as it’s sucked down the tube into the collection jar.

For older babies up to 16 weeks there is the Dilation and Curettage (D&C) abortion method. A Uterine Currette has one sharp side for cutting the pre-born child into pieces. The other side is used to scrape the uterus to remove the placenta. The baby’s remains are often removed by a vacuum.

For babies past 16 weeks there is the Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) abortion method, which uses forceps to crush, grasp, and pull the baby’s body apart before extraction. If the baby’s head is too large, it must be crushed before it can be removed.

For babies past 20 weeks, there is the Dilation and Extraction (D&X) abortion method. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist uses forceps to partially deliver the baby until his or her head becomes visible. With the head often too big to pass through the cervix, the abortionist punctures the skull, sucks out the brains to collapse the skull, and delivers the dead baby.

Other equipment employed to kill the pre-born would include chemicals such as Methotrexate, Misoprostol, and saline injections. Standard office equipment would include such items as a gynecologist chair, oxygen equipment, and a heart monitor.

“It’s a bargain we don’t want to miss but we need your help,” writes the abortion group.

People should be absolutely outraged that a group is raising funds to purchase the instruments of death used to destroy a class of people called the pre-born. Citizens and human rights activists should be demanding the organizers be brought to justice. Politicians should be issuing condemnations with the most hard-hitting language.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Everyone should be tearing to shreds the euphemistic language of “reproductive health services,” knowing that it in part stands for the hideous crime of annihilating a class of people through clinical, efficient, and state-approved methods of destruction that include dismemberment, decapitation, and disembowelment.

There’s a saying about people not being able to perceive the error of their day. This was generally true of many in Hitler’s Germany who uncritically subscribed to his eugenics-driven ideology in which certain people were viewed as sub-human. And it’s generally true of many in Canada today who uncritically subscribe to the ideology of ‘choice’ in which the pre-born are viewed as sub-human.

It’s time for all of us to wake-up and see the youngest members of the human family are being brutally exterminated by abortion. They need our help. We must stand up for them and end this injustice.

Let us arise!


Advertisement
Paul Wilson

The antidote to coercive population control

Paul Wilson
By Paul Wilson

The primary tenet of population control is simple: using contraception and abortifacients, families can “control” when their reproductive systems work and when they don’t – hence the endless cries that women “should have control over their own bodies” in the name of reproductive health.

However, in much of the world, the glittering rhetoric of fertility control gives way to the reality of control of the poorest citizens by their governments or large corporations. Governments and foreign aid organizations routinely foist contraception on women in developing countries. In many cases, any pretense of consent is steamrolled – men and women are forcibly sterilized by governments seeking to thin their citizens’ numbers.  (And this “helping women achieve their ‘ideal family size’” only goes one way – there is no government support for families that actually want more children.)

In countries where medical conditions are subpar and standards of care and oversight are low, the contraceptive chemicals population control proponents push have a plethora of nasty side effects – including permanent sterilization. So much for control over fertility; more accurately, the goal appears to be the elimination of fertility altogether.

There is a method for regulating fertility that doesn’t involve chemicals, cannot be co-opted or manipulated, and requires the mutual consent of the partners in order to work effectively. This method is Natural Family Planning (NFP).

Natural Family Planning is a method in which a woman tracks her natural indicators (such as her period, her temperature, cervical mucus, etc.) to identify when she is fertile. Having identified fertile days, couples can then choose whether or not to have sex during those days--abstaining if they wish to postpone pregnancy, or engaging in sex if pregnancy is desired.

Of course, the population control crowd, fixated on forcing the West’s vision of limitless bacchanalia through protective rubber and magical chemicals upon the rest of the world, loathes NFP. They deliberately confuse NFP with the older “rhythm method,” and cite statistics from the media’s favorite “research institute” (the Guttmacher Institute, named for a former director of Planned Parenthood) claiming that NFP has a 25% failure rate with “typical use.” Even the World Health Organization, in their several hundred page publication, “Family Planning: A Global Handbook for Providers,” admits that the basal body temperature method (a natural method) has a less than 1% failure rate—a success rate much higher than male condoms, female condoms, diaphragms, cervical caps or spermicides.

Ironically, the methods which they ignore – natural methods – grant true control over one’s fertility – helping couples both to avoid pregnancy or (horror of horrors!) to have children, with no government intervention required and no choices infringed upon.

The legitimacy of natural methods blows the cover on population controllers’ pretext to help women. Instead, it reveals their push for contraceptives and sterilizations for what they are—an attempt to control the fertility of others. 

Reprinted with permission from the Population Research Institute.


Advertisement
Featured Image
United Nations headquarters in New York Shutterstock.com
Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.

New development goals shut out abortion rights

Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.
By Rebecca Oas Ph.D.

Co-authored by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

A two week marathon negotiation over the world’s development priorities through 2030 ended at U.N. headquarters on Saturday with abortion rights shut out once again.

When the co-chairs’ gavel finally fell Saturday afternoon to signal the adoption of a new set of development goals, delegates broke out in applause. The applause was more a sigh of relief that a final round of negotiations lasting twenty-eight hours had come to its end than a sign of approval for the new goals.

Last-minute changes and blanket assurances ushered the way for the chairman to present his version of the document delivered with an implicit “take it or leave it.”

Aside from familiar divisions between poor and wealthy countries, the proposed development agenda that delegates have mulled over for nearly two years remains unwieldy and unmarketable, with 17 goals and 169 targets on everything from ending poverty and hunger, to universal health coverage, economic development, and climate change.

Once again hotly contested social issues were responsible for keeping delegates up all night. The outcome was a compromise.

Abortion advocates were perhaps the most frustrated. They engaged in a multi-year lobbying campaign for new terminology to advance abortion rights, with little to show for their efforts. The new term “sexual and reproductive health and rights,” which has been associated with abortion on demand, as well as special new rights for individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual (LGBT), did not get traction, even with 58 countries expressing support.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Despite this notable omission, countries with laws protecting unborn children were disappointed at the continued use of the term “reproductive rights,” which is not in the Rio+20 agreement from 2012 that called for the new goals. The term is seen as inappropriate in an agenda about outcomes and results rather than normative changes on sensitive subjects.

Even so, “reproductive rights” is tempered by a reference to the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, which recognizes that abortion is a matter to be dealt with in national legislation. It generally casts abortion in a bad light and does not recognize it as a right. The new terminology that failed was an attempt to leave the 1994 agreement behind in order to reframe abortion as a human rights issue.

Sexual and reproductive health was one of a handful of subjects that held up agreement in the final hours of negotiations. The failure to get the new terminology in the goals prompted the United States and European countries to insist on having a second target about sexual and reproductive health. They also failed to include “comprehensive sexuality education” in the goals because of concerns over sex education programs that emphasize risk reduction rather than risk avoidance.

The same countries failed to delete the only reference to “the family” in the whole document. Unable to insert any direct reference to LGBT rights at the United Nations, they are concentrating their efforts on diluting or eliminating the longstanding U.N. definition of the family. They argue “the family” is a “monolithic” term that excludes other households. Delegates from Mexico, Colombia and Peru, supporters of LGBT rights, asked that the only reference to the family be “suppressed.”

The proposed goals are not the final word on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They will be submitted to the General Assembly, whose task is to elaborate a post-2015 development agenda to replace the Millennium Development Goals next year.

Reprinted with permission from C-FAM.org.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook