Richard M. Doerflinger

Guttmacher report shows us that pro-life laws work

Richard M. Doerflinger
By Richard Doerflinger

February 17, 2014 (The Public Discourse) - On an issue associated with tragedy and mourning, there was good news this month. A new study finds that in 2011, the US abortion rate—the number of abortions per 1000 women of reproductive age—reached its lowest point since the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion in 1973. Abortions dropped to just over a million a year, from a high of 1.6 million in 1990.

And yes, see how jaded we have become. Only a million innocent lives destroyed each year? Still, things could be far worse, and they have been.

The study was published by the Guttmacher Institute, described by the Washington Post as a “pro-abortion-rights think tank.” Guttmacher is a former research affiliate of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the nation. Because it is trusted by abortion providers and gets its information directly from them, Guttmacher’s abortion data are often more complete than those gathered by the federal government from state health departments. But the group also has an ideological agenda. So as we welcome its data, we need to be cautious of its “spin.”

That spin is in full gear. Based on little evidence, the authors dismiss the possibility that the decline in abortion could be due largely to the passage of pro-life state laws. (Even here, though, they make exceptions—conceding that abortion rates may be reduced by bans on public abortion funding, and by laws requiring women seeking an abortion to make two visits to a clinic separated by a 24-hour waiting period.) They also say the 13 percent drop in abortions from 2008 to 2011 is probably not due to a further decline in abortion providers, because their numbers are almost unchanged. Instead, they attribute the decline to wider use of contraception, and especially to increased use of “LARCs” (long-acting reversible contraceptives) like the IUD and hormonal implants. These, say Guttmacher, are less prone than other contraceptives to “user error.”

There is good reason to question each of these judgments. Before turning to pro-life laws and the decline in abortion providers, let’s explore the “wider use of contraceptives” theory.

It is worth noting at the outset that the LARCs welcomed by Guttmacher suppress fertility for three to ten years and can be removed only with the help of a doctor, regardless of whether the woman changes her mind. Rather than saying that they have less “user error,” it would be more accurate to say they are less subject to user “freedom of choice.” But to Guttmacher, it seems, any choice to consider having a baby is “error.”

The “reproductive rights” movement’s turn away from “choice” and toward semi-permanent sterilization of women merits a discussion of its own. But there are good reasons to doubt that the abortion decline is largely due to contraception of any kind.

First, numerous studies suggest that contraceptive programs don’t substantially reduce unintended pregnancies or abortions. “Reproductive rights” advocates are aware of these findings. That is why, in their frustration, they are increasingly pushing semi-permanent methods that are less subject to what some call “user motivation.” A few years ago, Princeton researchers who advocate wider use of “emergency contraception” (EC) analyzed twenty-three different studies of programs to boost use of EC. All but one study showed increased use of the drugs.  “However,” they said, “no study found an effect on pregnancy or abortion rates.”

Second, it has long been known that women using contraception may reduce the likelihood of pregnancy, but the likelihood increases that any pregnancy that does occur will be ended by abortion. Statisticians call this an increase in the “abortion ratio,” the number of abortions per hundred pregnancies (excluding miscarriages). It is easy to understand why the abortion ratio may increase in such situations. If I’ve already acted to make sure the sexual act does not lead to procreation, and then the instrument for achieving that goal failed, I may see myself as having a right to fix that problem. The Supreme Court said as much in its Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision of 1992: many Americans have organized their lives in reliance on “the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.”

Thus, if wider or more consistent use of contraception were the chief reason for the abortion decline, we would see a reduction in total pregnancies (that is, a reduction in the sum total of abortions plus births), but not as much of a reduction in abortions. Births would decline more than abortions do. Yet between 2008 and 2011, the opposite happened: Births declined by only 9 percent, while abortions declined by about one-and-a-half times as much (13 percent). Not only the abortion rate, but also the abortion ratio, has dropped to its lowest level in at least two decades. Four out of five women who do become pregnant are letting their babies live. That can’t be due to contraception.

Third, the decline in abortions since 2000 has been led by a sharp decline among teens aged 15 to 17, somewhat offset by higher rates among women in their 20s and 30s. An earlier Guttmacher study noted that in 2008, the likelihood of abortion among these teens had dropped to being a little over half the likelihood for all women of reproductive age. And during much of this same period, family planning advocates were lamenting a decline in adolescents’ use of “reproductive health services” such as family planning.

Fourth, Guttmacher speculates that people may have used contraception more consistently between 2008 and 2011 because the pressures of a sluggish economy made them less willing to procreate. Yet in their earlier study of 2008 abortion data, cited above, the same Guttmacher researchers suggested the opposite: The sluggish economy under Bush was constraining access to contraception and leading people to have more abortions, stalling the steady decline in abortion rates from 2000 to 2005. Are we to believe that a Bush recession produces abortions while an Obama recession produces contraception? This theory seems a bit desperate. Generally abortion rates are higher, not lower, among women in poverty.

Finally, what about the shift in methods of contraception, from more easily reversible measures to LARCs such as the IUD? There is indeed a study claiming that among those using contraception, the percentage using LARCs increased from 2.4 percent in 2002 to 8.5 percent in 2009. This single-digit change is even less significant than it looks, as it was accompanied by a 2 percent decrease in surgical sterilization, the most effective method of all. And this was not a change from “unprotected” sex to use of contraception, but a marginal change in effectiveness rates among those already using some method. (Here I will pass over the “reproductive health” industry’s penchant for encouraging women to replace condom use with methods that expose them to a higher risk of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, another topic deserving its own discussion.) To say this trend is responsible for the lion’s share of a 13 percent abortion decline nationwide seems implausible, especially when we look at differences by state, discussed below. To say it’s responsible for the decline in the abortion ratio would be ridiculous.

Are there other ways to explain the abortion decline?

Let’s look at the supply side, the number of abortion providers. Guttmacher says there is only a small decline here: In 2011 there were 4 percent fewer providers overall (counting hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices), and only 1 percent fewer clinics doing abortions. So how can this be responsible for a 13 percent reduction in abortions? It is at this point that Guttmacher’s “spin” overwhelms its reporting.

The study admits that the blanket term “clinics” covers two different kinds of facility: multi-purpose clinics that chiefly provide family planning or broader health services (30 percent of providers, responsible for 31 percent of the abortions); and specialized “abortion clinics” (19 percent of providers, but responsible for a whopping 63 percent of the abortions). In most cases, each abortion clinic performs between one thousand and five thousand (yes, that’s five thousand) abortions a year. Closing even one such clinic could have a significant impact.

Did the number of dedicated abortion clinics decline, and if so by what percentage? This figure cannot be found in Guttmacher’s tables. But one table reports there were 329 such clinics in 2011; and the study’s text mentions that “in 2008 there were 49 more abortion clinics.” We can do the math ourselves. If there were forty-nine more in 2008, there were forty-nine fewer in 2011, so the number of abortion clinics dropped from 378 to 329, which is a decline of … 13%. If anything, the significance of this figure—which is identical to the percentage drop in abortions themselves—is underscored by Guttmacher’s apparent effort to hide it.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

In turn, what led so many abortion clinics to close? Guttmacher provides part of the answer. It laments the “disruption of services” produced by a law in Louisiana that made it easier to close such clinics (contributing to a 19 percent decline in the state’s abortion rate), and the 24-hour waiting period enacted by Missouri in 2009 (helping to give it a 17 percent decline from 2008 to 2010). More generally, it complains about “burdensome” laws regulating abortion clinics, many of which have been passed since 2011 and so can be expected to play a greater role in future abortion numbers.

Guttmacher’s spin doctors call these “TRAP” laws (“targeted regulation of abortion providers”), even when they only bring abortion clinics into line with standards already governing other clinics doing ambulatory surgery. For years, the abortion industry has been dragging these laws into court, claiming they place an “undue burden” on women’s access to abortion and will make clinics close entirely. Taking into account that these claims may be exaggerated or overheated to win a legal victory, does Guttmacher now want to claim that its allies have been lying in court? If not, it seems pro-life laws really do have an impact on the abortion “supply.”

Also suggestive are differences by state. Guttmacher mentions six states where the decline in abortion rates from 2008 to 2011 was much sharper than the national average of 13 percent. There’s one fluke here: Delaware. The state had a 28 percent decline, but it previously had the very highest abortion rate in the nation, and still has a much higher rate than average. The other five already had low abortion rates, and these sharply declined further: Kansas (a 35 percent decline), South Dakota (30 percent), the above-cited Missouri (21 percent), Utah (21 percent) and Oklahoma (20 percent).

In 2010, the year before the abortion decline was measured, all these states ranked in the top half of the country for having laws protecting life, according to the annual scorecard by Americans United for Life. Oklahoma was second in the country, and South Dakota was sixth. Utah comes in just under the wire at twenty-fifth, but AUL says that is because it does not have laws against cloning, embryo research or assisted suicide. In general, these are socially “conservative” states on matters of family and sexuality. They are hardly the states most likely to be pushing LARCs on their population; in fact, some of them have worked to reduce or eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood. Rather, their pro-life laws help reduce the abortion rate and abortion ratio, as other research has shown.

The states where the abortion rate increased from 2008 to 2011, or decreased much less than the national average, are Alaska, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, West Virginia, and Wyoming. All of these were ranked by AUL as being in the bottom half of the country in terms of pro-life laws. Maryland has a “Freedom of Choice Act” establishing a statewide “right” to abortion that is more extreme than Roe; Montana’s supreme court has found a similar expansive right in the state constitution and has legalized abortions performed by non-physicians; Alaska’s similar state supreme court ruling has forced the state to fund abortions and invalidated conscience protection for hospitals that do not wish to perform abortions. The states showing little or no decline in abortions were among the states with the most pro-abortion legal policies.

To be sure, the abortion decline is probably based on more than particular pro-life laws as such. After all, the governors and legislators making those laws were elected by the state’s voters, who wanted pro-life lawmakers. The laws are made possible by a culture and public attitude against abortion, which can also influence women’s attitudes and behavior directly. Sentiment against abortion, and acceptance of the “pro-life” label, has been growing nationwide (especially among young people), though surely more in some states than others. The national debate in the late 1990s on the grisly partial-birth abortion technique, the revelations about criminally dangerous abortionists like Kermit Gosnell, and the greater visibility of the unborn child due to advances like 4-D ultrasound have no doubt all played a role.

And that sentiment can be found in the medical profession itself, a trend that may scare the abortion industry most of all. The pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists could not have been happy a few years ago, when its own journal reported that only 14 percent of ob/gyns ever perform abortions. Those who do perform them have long complained that their morale is low, that their medical colleagues look down on them, and that when they retire there may be no one willing to replace them. Some abortion practitioners have even publicly admitted that abortion is an act of violence, hoping that their candor will free them to persuade their colleagues that it is necessary violence.

Maybe this is all pretty simple after all: if you want fewer abortions, oppose abortion; if you want lots of abortions, promote abortion. And maybe more Americans are learning what abortion is: a violent act against life, a grief for women, a corruption of medicine, and an embarrassment to a civilized society. Education to further advance that understanding should be accompanied by positive steps to help women at risk of abortion, and to help health-care professionals and policymakers address these women’s real needs.

In short, pro-life Americans should rejoice at the good news, and redouble their efforts to help pregnant women and their unborn children. Notwithstanding the spin doctors of the abortion industry, we are seeing some light at the end of that long dark tunnel.

Reprinted with permission from The Public Discourse

Share this article

Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

Court strikes down Wisconsin law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

CHICAGO, November 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - In a split decision, a three-judge panel ruled to strike down a Wisconsin law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the law, signed by Gov. Scott Walker in July 2013, had no rational basis in the law.

"A woman who experiences complications from an abortion...will go to the nearest hospital, which will treat her regardless of whether her abortion doctor has admitting privileges," ruled Richard Posner, a Reagan appointee, and David Hamilton, an Obama appointee.

Their ruling affirmed a decision by U.S. District Judge William Conley, an Obama appointee, who declared the law unconstitutional in March. Judge Conley wrote that pro-life laws will "almost certainly" cause "irreparable harm to those women who will be foreclosed from having an abortion."

Affiliated Medical Services, which brought the lawsuit together with Planned Parenthood, argued the law would force it to close the AMS Milwaukee abortion office.

Judge Daniel Manion, a Reagan appointee, issued a strongly worded dissent calling his colleagues' views an "extreme position."

"Every circuit to rule on similar admitting-privileges laws like the one at issue here has uniformly upheld them," he wrote. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled such laws are "obviously beneficial."

Supporters of the law say that requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges assures continuity of care in the event a woman suffers a botched abortion. "Between 2009 and 2013, at least nineteen women who sought abortions at Planned Parenthood clinics in Wisconsin subsequently received hospital treatment for abortion-related complications," Judge Manion wrote in his dissent.

After Tonya Reaves died from complications from an abortion in a Chicago Planned Parenthood, doctors accused the facility of "abandonment of a patient."

The Supreme Court has agreed to rule on the constitutionality of a Texas law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges, which closed more than half of the abortion facilities in the state.

"Last night, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled that the admitting privileges portion of Sonya's Law is unconstitutional," Wisconsin Right to Life said following Monday's ruling. "Now, we must look to the Supreme Court for the protection of women's health and safety after an abortion complication."

Featured Image
Father Bill Miscamble
Lisa Bourne

Notre Dame forces priest-professor to back off project promoting authentic Catholic education

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne

NOTRE DAME, Indiana, November 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Notre Dame University has made an apparent move to squelch the effort of one of its venerable professors to provide Notre Dame students information to help ensure they get an authentic Catholic education.  

Holy Cross Father Bill Miscamble, longtime Notre Dame history professor and prior History Department chair, was compelled to disassociate with a website created for him to help students and parents identify faculty and courses that best foster a Catholic education at the University.

Two days after went live, Father Miscamble had to make the announcement, “I regret that I can say only that I am required to end my involvement with the NDCatholic site and am not at liberty to say why.”

LifeSiteNews inquired with Father Miscamble on the situation, and he responded, “I am very sorry, but I cannot comment on this matter. God bless you.”

LifeSiteNews inquired as well with Notre Dame and did not hear back by press time. was launched November 9 by Sycamore Trust, a group of Notre Dame alumni who formed in 2006 over concern for Notre Dame’s weakening Catholic identity.

Sycamore Trust “was born of intense concern over the loss by Notre Dame of its historic claim to a robust Catholic identity,” according to its website.

The school, long regarded as the nation’s premiere Catholic university, has been the center of troubles over its Catholic identity for decades. In recent years, it has come under strong criticism for its decision to award President Obama an honorary doctorate in 2009, and over its handling of the HHS contraception mandate. It is also frequently criticized for various events and speakers hosted on campus in contradiction of Catholic teaching, and the actions of some faculty.

“The University’s honoring of President Obama in opposition to the policy of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and in defiance of its own bishop, together with such other unsettling events as The Vagina Monologues and The Queer Film Festival, have raised serious doubt whether Notre Dame retains a vibrant Catholic identity,” the Sycamore Trust's website states. “The dramatic shrinking of the Catholic faculty, measured against the school’s Mission Statement, confirms that it does not.”

The NDCatholic site launched November 9, “for students who are seeking an authentic Catholic education at Notre Dame — one that will allow them to grasp the complementary nature of faith and reason, to develop a deep understanding of and love for the truth, and to gain a clear appreciation of the Catholic moral and social vision.”

“For a Catholic institution to live up fully to its promise, it must have devoted teachers and scholars who aim to stir in their students a hunger for the truth,” Father Miscamble is quoted as saying with the announcement of

LifeSiteNews did not hear back from Sycamore Trust with comment prior to press time.

The group stresses on its website that it does not take issue with non-Catholic faculty at a Catholic university, and in fact, Father Miscamble's list of 100 or so recommended teachers is not limited to Catholics. Rather, “It is a question of balance, and unhappily the necessary balance in favor of Catholic faculty has been lost over the years at Notre Dame in its drive for secular acclaim.”

The NDCatholic website had been enthusiastically welcomed and commended, Sycamore Trust states in its announcement of Father Miscamble’s being removed from involvement in the site. apparently crashed on its first day due to heavy demand.

The site had opened with a video of Father Miscamble explaining its content, along with his longer written introduction, both of which the priest later requested Sycamore Trust remove because of his being directed to disassociate with the site.

Sycamore Trust Chairman Bill Dempsey says Father Miscamble told him he must disassociate himself from the website the day after it launched.

Dempsey emailed Father Miscamble the next day, telling him he was surprised and deeply disappointed, and also that he was concerned Notre Dame would look bad in the matter without a solid explanation for the decision. Dempsey asked Father Miscamble what reason should be given.

This prompted Father Miscamble’s statement that he could only say he’d been required to end his involvement with the NDCatholic site and was not at liberty to say why.

Father Miscamble, a former seminary rector who is also an author, has been a permanent faculty member of Notre Dame since 1988, also completing an MA, Ph.D. and Master of Divinity at the University prior to joining the faculty.  

He is also known for his pro-life support, founding Faculty for Life, and for speaking out about concerns over Notre Dame’s Catholic identity. Father Miscamble was among many who criticized the University’s scandalous 2009 honoring of Barack Obama in light of Obama’s rabid pro-abortion stance and policies.

In 2013 he released his book For Notre Dame - Battling for the Heart and Soul of a Catholic University.

“Where I see a kind of two faces is Notre Dame is a school that wants to be the preeminent Catholic university to a variety of constituencies, yet we face all the temptations to conform to all the universities with which we want to compete, and that is done often at a cost to our Catholicity,” he said at the time. “I say that we worship at the golden calf of U.S. News and World Report’s rankings, with all that implies.”

“There is a real struggle going on for the future of Notre Dame, a struggle for what kind of place this will be,” he said. “Notre Dame needs to be held accountable.”

Despite Father Miscamble being made to pull out of participating in the website, the Sycamore Trust is moving forward with

“For our part, we deeply regret this development, which we think a disservice to students and parents and, indeed, to the university,” the group states. “Even though Father Miscamble must withdraw, we will build upon what he has given us in continuing this project.”

Share this article

Featured Image
Ontario Health Minister Eric Hoskins
Lianne Laurence


The ‘tyranny’ of sex-change surgery and its political sycophants

Lianne Laurence
By Lianne Laurence

TORONTO, November 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – A recent move by Ontario’s Liberal government to expand referrals for sex-reassignment surgeries (SRS) opened yet another front in the decades-long political and ideological war over the perception and treatment of gender dysphoria.

This mental disorder is characterized by a repudiation or aversion to one’s sex, and whether surgically altering genitalia is legitimate treatment, or a mutilation vainly done to satisfy a mental delusion, is the most consequential question for transgendered persons themselves, and one of the more controversial issues surrounding “transgender rights.”

These have “emerged as the next big thing” in the United States in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision that homosexual “marriage” is constitutionally protected, says Peter Sprigg, policy analyst for the Washington-based Family Research Council (FRC), and co-author of the June 2015 report “Understanding and Responding to the Transgender Movement.”

And the “trans” lobby has been abetted by political, medical, academic, and cultural institutions that are “both imbued with and ruled by the false sexual ideology that already has normalized homosexuality and imposed gay ‘marriage’,” says Dutch psychiatrist Gerard van den Aardweg.

Author of On the Origins and Treatment of Homosexuality and The Battle for Normality: Self-Therapy for Homosexual Persons, the Catholic van den Aardweg says that “giving in to the lure of SRS” is the “greatest danger for a person with some form of this so-called gender dysphoria.”

He regards sex-reassignment surgery and “accompanying hormonal administrations” as “sort of a half-suicide, an act of despair,” he told LifeSiteNews in an email.

“People who are obsessed with the idea – which is an idée fixe – that their happiness depends on ‘changing’ their sex suffer from a mental sickness that cannot and will not be cured by surgical and physiological tinkering away at their body which disguises them as persons of the opposite sex,” he warned.

“For SRS is indeed an operation of disguise through the causing of irreparable damage to the body. The victim is no less a man or woman as before, so the whole thing is in fact a big comedy, or actually, a tragedy.”

Post-surgery suicide rate soars

Echoing that view is Dr. Paul McHugh, who as chief psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins, which pioneered sex-reassignment surgeries in the 1960s, discontinued the procedures there in 1979.

And most medical institutions thereupon followed Johns Hopkins’ lead, says Sprigg.

“There are actually very few places that perform gender reassignment surgery, even in a country as large as the United States,” he told LifeSiteNews. “The people who are experts in medicine, like the large university hospitals and teaching centers and so forth, they don’t do sex reassignment surgery, and they haven’t done it for decades.”

The Catholic McHugh has since become an outspoken critic of transgenderism, describing it as a “pathogenic meme” in June 2015. “The idea that one’s sex is fluid and a matter open to choice runs unquestioned through our culture,” he wrote, and is “doing much damage to families, adolescents, and children and should be confronted as an opinion with out biological foundation wherever it emerges.”

And in a controversial June 2014 Wall Street Journal op-ed, McHugh explained that Johns Hopkins stopped SRS after observing no demonstrable difference in “psycho-social adjustments” in patients who had had surgery than in those who had not. Such negligible benefits “seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.”

A Swedish long-term study published in 2011 tragically vindicated this decision, McHugh noted. It revealed that about ten years after sex-reassignment surgery, transgendered patients “began experiencing increasing mental difficulties.”

“Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable non-transgender population,” he wrote. “The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription.”

The transgendered “Catch-22”: mentally ill yet normal

But transgender activists have demonized such views as McHugh’s, and discount evidence in favor of “personal testimonies and political demands,” points out Sprigg.

“People on the left tend to say, ‘We need to have evidence-based policies,’ and they’re very self-righteous about that everything needs to be evidence-based, but the transgender movement is not evidence-based,” he said. “It just is not.”

Transgender activists have also benefited from the “broader LGBT movement” that “has been very successful in framing what they do as a civil rights issue, in the public, and in major cultural institutions like academia, and the new media and the entertainment media,” Sprigg told LifeSiteNews.

“No one wants to, or very few people, want to be portrayed as standing against some group’s civil rights.”

At the same time, transgendered persons face what Sprigg calls a “Catch-22”: they want to be perceived as normal, yet retain the benefits of being ill.

The “gay rights” movement lobbied successfully to have homosexuality removed from the Diagnosis and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), in order to normalize that behavior, Sprigg said.

“Transgendered people can’t use the same strategy entirely, because they are seeking medical care and insurance coverage for their medical care, and therefore they have to have a diagnosis.”

That’s where the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) comes in.

Medically necessary, says WPATH

WPATH, which incidentally denounced McHugh’s Wall Street Journal op-ed as a “conservative” smear job, was founded the same year Johns Hopkins stopped doing sex-reassignment surgeries, and took the opposite tack.

Its list of “medically necessary sex reassignment procedures” includes, in part: “complete hysterectomy, bilateral mastectomy, chest reconstruction or augmentation as appropriate to each patient (including breast prostheses if necessary), genital reconstruction…facial hair removal, and certain facial plastic reconstruction as appropriate to the patient.”

WPATH’s guidelines, “although they give a veneer of science and medical legitimacy to the process, are very biased in favor of gender re-assignment,” Sprigg says. “Usually both the people who are making the recommendations for surgery and the people who are conducting the surgery are committed ideologically to the position that surgery is the solution.”

Van den Aardweg is even more blunt.

“Any really scientific international standard must be based on reality and not on ideological assertions,” he told LifeSiteNews. “Everyone can see that the gender ideology that promotes the normalization of transgenderism and SRS is being imposed on the world by powerful international organizations and political bodies.”

“These arrogantly establish norms and criteria, proclaim by decree that what is abnormal will henceforth be normal, what is healthy unhealthy, what is ethical unethical, and pretend there is scientific consensus for their insane theories, while it is just a question of political and ideological pressure, of tyranny.”

Moreover, the claim that people are “critically examined and that only non-disturbed people are admitted” for SRS rings “hollow.”

“There are no tests to differentiate possible ‘successful’ from ‘unsuccessful’ cases so the selection is fully arbitrary and, as I noted, the outcome is terrible anyway,” he stated. “The transition industry is a very expensive example of medical charlatanism.”

Ontario follows WPATH

As for the Ontario Liberal government, it adopts WPATH standards of care and has funded sex-reassignment surgeries since 2008.

According to Ministry of Health figures, the province approved surgeries for 604 people at a total cost of $8,943,000 in the seven years since, with $2.3 million spent in the last fiscal year for surgeries approved for 141 people.

But because SRS can only be approved through the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Health Minister Eric Hoskins announced earlier this month that he will “dramatically” increase the number of qualified professionals who can assess and refer for SRS in order to reduce a two-year waiting list of some 1,200 people.

This involves an amendment to Ontario’s regulations, posted on the government’s registry until December 21 for comments from the public, which won’t be made public.

It’s expected the amendment will receive the lieutenant governor’s approval, after in camera cabinet discussions and endorsement, in early 2016.

The ministry also confirmed that “at this time, there are no providers of genital SRS in Ontario” and most people go to Quebec for the surgeries. Hoskins told media that he is looking into “the provision of the surgical services.”

He also stated when announcing his proposed amendment November 6, that: “Every Ontarian has the right to be who they are.”

Resist the “sex-ideological tyranny”

Van den Aardweg views Hoskins’ decision as “intellectually and ethically…very primitive” and “obviously inspired by the gender ideology that has stupefied the minds of so many politicians.”

“Politically, it is a further step toward the implementation of the revolutionary sexual ideology that aims at the normalization of any and all sexual deviations and at equal rights for their practitioners, that is, equal to the rights of normally married people and families,” he added. “So it is about a lot more than only about the fate of the individuals on the waiting lists.”

However, the fate of those individuals is most likely to be tragic and potentially fatal. “The realistic help they need, they don’t get,” he pointed out. “They will be confirmed in their mental confusion and false identity.”

“Of course, speaking about rights, all this is contrary to their ‘right to be who they really are’, the sole right in this connection. There is no right to sickness, merely a right to health (care) and realistic compassion.”

“The sex-ideological tyranny of the establishment must be countered by the sustained spreading of correct and honest information and public pressure on the responsible politicians and political parties,” added van den Aardweg.

“Regardless of success or defeat in immediate skirmishes, this line of action will always bear fruit, sooner or later,” he pointed out, “and greatly help the victory of truth and real human values over lies and un-values at the time the tide of the present moral and spiritual war will take a turn for the better.”

Those wishing to comment on Ontario’s proposed amendment, go here.

Share this article


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook