Jack Fonseca

Opinion,

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

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.



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
A photo of Kim Tucci at 25 weeks gestation Erin Elizabeth Photography
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

News,

‘Little miracles’: Mom gives birth to naturally-conceived quintuplets after refusing ‘selective reduction’

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
Image
An ultrasound of the five different compartments, each with its own baby, inside Kim's womb.

AUSTRALIA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A 26-year-old Australian mom has given birth to five healthy babies, all conceived naturally, after refusing the doctor’s advice that she must abort three of them in order to give the remaining two a better chance at life. 

“After my initial ultrasound I was told I could consider the selection method to give 2 babies the best chance in life,” wrote mom Kim Tucci in a Facebook post last September. 

“I watched a YouTube video on the procedure and I cried. I could never do that! Was I selfish for not giving two the chance of 100% survival? All I knew is that I already love them and that every heart beat I heard I connect with them more. For me life starts when a heart starts beating and all I know for sure is that I will do whatever it takes to bring them into this world healthy,” she wrote. 

Last Thursday Kim and her husband Vaughn welcomed the five new members into their family — one boy and four girls —increasing the number of their children from 3 to 8. The babies were born at 30 weeks, 10 weeks early, due to insufficient space in Kim’s womb. They weighed on average about 2.5 pounds. 

The quintuplets’ story began last March, after Kim and Vaughn had been trying for six months to conceive just one more child for their family. Due to health complications, Kim wondered if she would ever become a mother again. 

After what she thought was an extra long cycle, she decided to take a pregnancy test. 

“I was feeling tired and a little nauseated and thought I would take a pregnancy test just to get the ‘what if’ out of my head. To my shock and utter excitement it was positive,” she wrote on a Facebook post.

The parents got the shock of their lives when doctors confirmed in an ultrasound examination that there was not one baby, but five. 

“After a long wait for the ultrasound we finally went in. The sonographer told me there were multiple gestational sacks, but she could only see a heart beat in two. I was so excited! Twins!”

“I was moved to another machine for a clearer view and had the head doctor come in and double check the findings. She started to count, one, two, three, four, five. Did i hear that correctly? Five? My legs start to shake uncontrollably and all i can do is laugh. The sonographer then told me the term for five is ‘quintuplets,’” Kim wrote.

Even though Kim began to feel stretched to the limit with all those human lives growing inside her, she chose to focus on her babies, and not herself, referring to them as “my five little miracles.” 

“It's getting harder as each day passes to push through the pain, every part of my body aches and sleeping is becoming very painful. No amount of pillows are helping support my back and belly. Sometimes I get so upset that I just want to throw my hands up and give in.”

“Sometimes my pelvis becomes so stiff I can barely walk and my hips feel like they are grinding away constantly. I'm finding it hard to eat as I basically have no room left in my stomach, and the way it is positioned it's pushed all the way back with the babies leaning against it.” 

“My skin on my belly is so stretched its painful and hot to touch. It literally feels like I have hives! No amount of cream helps relieve the discomfort. I have a lot of stretch marks now. Dealing with such a huge change in my body is hard.” 

“Is it all worth it? Yes!!!! I will keep pushing through,” she wrote in one Facebook post days before the babies were born. 

The newborns' names are Keith, Ali, Penelope, Tiffany, and Beatrix. They were born at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Subiaco, Western Australia. Mother and babies are reported to be doing well. 



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Jordanian Prince Zeid Ra'ad Zeid Al-Hussein, the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights UN Photo/Paulo Filgueiras
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

News

UN rights chief tells Catholic countries to legalize abortion over Zika virus: bishops and cardinal react

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

GENEVA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- The United Nations, following the lead of international abortion activists, is now urging Latin American countries hit by the mosquito-borne Zika virus to lift restrictions on abortion for pregnant women who have contacted the virus and whose pre-born children may be at risk for birth defects, including having smaller than normal heads. 

The UN human rights office said today that it is not enough for South American countries to urge women to postpone pregnancy without also offering them abortion as a final solution. 

“How can they ask these women not to become pregnant, but not offer… the possibility to stop their pregnancies?” UN spokeswoman Cecile Pouilly told reporters. 

UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein said that governments should make available contraception and abortion services.

“Laws and policies that restrict (women’s) access to these services must be urgently reviewed in line with human rights obligations in order to ensure the right to health for all in practice,” he said.

But Brazil’s bishops strongly asserted yesterday that efforts should be made to eradicate the virus, not the people who may be infected by it. 

The disease is “no justification whatsoever to promote abortion,” they said in a statement, adding that it is not morally acceptable to promote abortion “in the cases of microcephaly, as, unfortunately, some groups are proposing to the Supreme Federal Court, in a total lack of respect for the gift of life.”

Honduras Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga has also come out strongly against the notion of “therapeutic abortions” as a response to the problem. Unlike Brazil where abortion is legal in the case of rape or health of the mother, abortion remains entirely illegal in Honduras.

“We should never talk about ‘therapeutic’ abortion,” the cardinal said in a homily at a February 3 Mass in Suyap. “Therapeutic abortion doesn’t exist. Therapeutic means curing, and abortion cures nothing. It takes innocent lives,” he said. 

While the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an international public health emergency February 1 on account of concerns over the virus, critics have pointed out, however, that not one death as resulted from the virus. Even on WHO’s own website the virus is described in mild terms. 

“It causes mild fever and rash. Other symptoms include muscle pain, joint pain, headache, pain behind the eyes and conjunctivitis. Zika virus disease is usually mild, with symptoms lasting only a few days,” the website states. “To date, there have been no reported deaths associated with Zika virus,” it added. 

Critics suspect that the crisis is being manipulated to advance an anti-human agenda on the pre-born. 

“Is Zika, actually, a hideous virus that threatens to spread uncontrollably across the world creating an army of disabled children with tiny heads and low IQ’s? Or might this be a willful misinterpretation of the scarce data to manipulate public opinion and legislatures?” wrote pro-life critic Mei-Li Garcia earlier this week.

“It becomes very clear that the publicity surrounding this story has a very little to do with medicine and a lot to do with a convenient crisis that is being used by those pushing for the legalization of abortion around the world,” she wrote.



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
JStone / Shutterstock.com
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

News,

Hillary’s litmus test for Supreme Court picks: They must ‘preserve Roe v. Wade’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

DERRY, NH, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - Hillary Clinton has a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees - several, in fact. At a Democratic event on Wednesday, Clinton unveiled her criteria in selecting a judge for the nation's highest court.

“I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests," she said.

"We’ve got to make sure to preserve Roe v. Wade, not let it be nibbled away or repealed,” she said.

There have been over 58,000,000 abortions since the 1973 court ruling legalizing abortion in all 50 states, according to National Right to Life.

That echoes her recent call to arms speech before Planned Parenthood last month, when she stated that taxpayers must fund abortion-on-demand in order to uphold the "right" of choice.

“We have to preserve marriage equality,” Clinton said, referring to last summer's Obergefell v. Hodges case, a 5-4 ruling that redefined marriage nationwide. “We have to go further to end discrimination against the LGBT community."

Her views differentiate her from the Republican front runners. Ted Cruz has called the court's marriage ruling "fundamentally illegitimate," and Donald Trump told Fox News Sunday this week that he would "be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things." Marco Rubio has said he won't "concede" the issue to the one-vote majority.

All Republican presidential hopefuls say they are pro-life and will defund Planned Parenthood.

Her husband, Bill Clinton, raised the makeup of the Supreme Court early last month in New Hampshire, saying it receives "almost no attention" as a campaign issue.

On Wednesday, Hillary said "the next president could get as many as three appointments. It’s one of the many reasons why we can’t turn the White House over to the Republicans again.”

Clinton said her judicial appointees must also reverse the Citizens United ruling on campaign finance and oppose a recent decision striking down a portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In 2013's Shelby County v. Holder, justices struck down Section 4(b) of the act, which said that certain states and jurisdictions had to obtain permission from the federal government before changing their voting laws.

At one time, most politicians frowned upon any "litmus test" for judicial nominees, emphasizing the independence of the third branch of government. "I don't believe in litmus tests," Jeb Bush told Chuck Todd last November.

But with the rise of an activist judiciary in the middle of the 20th century, constitutionalists have sought to rein in the power of the bench.



Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook