Abortion and subsequent mental health: Review of the literature
Authors: Carlo Bellieni, MD and Giuseppe Buonocore, MD.
Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 2013; 67: 301-310.
"The studies analyzed here show that abortion is a risk factor for subsequent mental illness when compared with childbirth; data show that even when compared with the other two possible outcomes (miscarriage or the birth of an unplanned baby) the risk is greater or similar. Even miscarriage is a risk factor for subsequent mental illness, although the evidence for this risk has not been investigated so widely and seems lower than for abortion. Some consequences can be drawn. The first is that fetal loss is traumatic. It is a risk factor for mental illness – both in the case of abortion and in miscarriage – and its impact on a woman’s life can erroneously be underestimated. Most studies show that abortion has a greater impact on women’s mental health than childbearing; all remaining studies show similar mental consequences and only one seems to have noted a worse outcome for childbearing."
Download PDF:
The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) reported 85,195 induced abortions for 2018. Hospitals accounted for 26,498 abortions and 58,697 abortions were performed in a clinic setting.
CIHI reported 94,030 abortions for 2017. Has there been an actual decline in the number of abortions in Canada? In 2017, the abortion pill Mifegymiso became available in our country. Women can obtain a prescription for the abortion pill from their family doctor or obtain it from a clinic and use the drug regimen at home. How many abortions were done by using Mifegymiso in 2018? We do not know. According to Global News, “…CIHI researchers said it was not possible to know how many of the reported cases involved the drug.” Do the 2018 statistics capture any of the Mifegymiso abortions?
There remains a long standing problem with abortion statistics in Canada with some abortion clinics at times not reporting their numbers. Additionally, abortion clinics do not report demographic data such as gestational age of the child, method of abortion, complications, previous induced abortions and previous deliveries. Since abortion is publicly funded in almost all private clinics, they should be legally required to provide a full accounting including number of abortions and demographic data.
The private abortion clinic in New Brunswick, which does not receive public funds, did not report the number of abortions done at its clinic in 2018. Hospital abortions are publicly funded in New Brunswick.
- CIHI tells us in the following notes:
-Information on gestational age is not available from clinic data or from Quebec data.
-Information on the number of previous deliveries is not available from clinic data or from Quebec data.
-Information on the number of previous induced abortions is not available from clinic data or from Quebec data.
-Detailed information on the type and method of abortion is not available from clinic data or from Quebec data.
-Information on complications is not available from clinic data or from Quebec data.
-Complications during subsequent visits, transfers or readmission for cases where the health care number was not recorded during the initial visit or hospitalization are not included; complications may therefore be undercounted.
Why is clinic reporting so dismal? The simple answer is because it is merely voluntary for clinics to report abortion data but not for hospitals. CIHI explains that “Hospitals are mandated by their provincial /territorial ministry of health to report all hospital activity (not limited to abortion);therefore, coverage of abortions performed in Canadian hospitals can be considered complete. However there is no such legislative requirement for clinics to report their activity (reporting is voluntary).”
Here’s what we do know from hospital data (excluding Quebec) for 19,444 hospital abortions as reported by CIHI:
As concerns the number of previous deliveries, for women undergoing abortion, out of 19,444 hospital abortions: 7,465 had one or more previous deliveries. 6,908 had no previous deliveries. For 5,073 abortions, the number of previous deliveries is unknown.
Number of previous induced abortions as reported by Canadian hospitals (excluding Quebec):
9,390 had no previous abortions.
3,155 had one previous abortion.
1,845 had 2 or more.
The number of previous abortions is unknown for 5,054 hospital abortions.
Gestational age of the child as reported by Canadian hospitals (excluding Quebec):
8 weeks or less: 6,649
9-12 weeks: 5,975
13-16 weeks: 1,560
17-20 weeks:783
21+ weeks: 659
Unknown : 3,818
Combined data for hospital and clinic abortions by age group, show that the numbers were highest for women in their twenties.
- 19,894 abortion were reported for women aged 18-24.
- 21,051 abortions were reported for women aged 25-29.
- age of the mother at the time of abortion was unknown for 9,193 abortions.
Annual abortion statistics are not merely numbers. They represent the death of thousands of unborn human beings. Until we have complete abortion statistics in Canada, we cannot know if a decline actually occurred in the number of abortions in 2018.
The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute provides a compilation: Epidemiologic Studies: Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk. There are 76 studies on the list with the earliest published in 1957. Of the 76 studies listed, 61 found a positive association between abortion and breast cancer. 41 of these were statistically significant. For more information, read:
bcpi-factsheet-epidemiol-studies_2020.pdf (bcpinstitute.org)
— Renata Klein, Pro-Choice Feminist
I felt like I was dying...it hurt so much. I had contractions coming so fast, and I was sick to my stomach and dry heaving. I couldn't stop trembling and I felt so hot. - RU486 patient Aimee, talking about ther experience.
Darton, N., Surprising journey for abortion drug, New Yorl Times, 23 march 1995 p.C12.
There is also the grisly possibility that a woman will deliver her tiny but unrecognisable dead fetus of 6-12 weeks development alone and at home.-Duffy A, Santamaria DR J. The how and why of RU486., Thomas More Centre Bulletin 1990;2(9). 1-5
Finland(9)
- -Chemical abortion [has] roughly four times the rate of adverse events than surgical abortion: 20.0% of women in the medical[chemical]-abortion group and 5.6% of women in the surgical-abortion group had at least one type of adverse event.
Abortion kills a Human Being
Certain animal species receive protection under the law in Canada. Yet at the same time, there exists a complete absence of protection for the unborn child. Animals are treated with more regard than the baby awaiting birth.
Is the child in the womb a human being?
Yes, science proves beyond a doubt that the unborn child is human. The unborn is the offspring of a human mother and father and is a living human being distinct from his parents. The child in the womb has his/her own DNA, a unique genetic finger print. Scientific knowledge about the life of the unborn baby has revealed to us that this child eats, sleeps, moves, feels pain, can suck his or her thumb and yawns. His little heart starts beating 22 days after conception. Yet, this innocent child is callously treated as a non-human and a non-person.
In Canada, the baby in the womb is not even recognized as a human being in law.
Section 223 of the Criminal code states that a child becomes a human being after birth when it has fully emerged in a living state from the womb of its mother. Only then, will this child receive legal protection.
What are the differences between the unforn child and born human beings?
SIZE: Yes, the child in the womb is smaller than a newborn child or an adult but since when is size a factor in determining a person's right to life?
LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT: Yes, the child in the womb is less developed than a newborn. A newborn child is also less developed than a three year old toddler. The newborn child is no less human than the toddler in spite of differences in their level of development. If we use the development criteria to determine who is deserving of protection, then should the newborn child be denied his right to life because he is less developed than the toddler? May we kill a newborn baby because he is less developed than others? The unborn child is also less developed at certain stages but this is irrelevant. The toddler, the newborn baby and the child in the womb are all human beings.
ENVIRONMENT: Where you are does not change who you are. Location does not alter the value or the nature of a human being. If the unborn child is not human, then a short journey down the birth canal will not make him/her a human being.
DEGREE OF DEPENDENCY: If viability and independence become the criteria, then is a diabetic who is dependent on insulin less valuable than a person who is not? The newborn child is totally dependent on others for his care as is the child in the womb who is totally dependent on his/her mother for survival.
Finally, our location, level of development, dependency and size do not make us lesser humans or non-humans nor are they requirements to determine our right to life.
Since 1969, more than 4 million unborn children have been aborted in Canada. The 1988 Supreme Court decision striking down the 1969 law has left Canada without a law on abortion.
In the absence of any legal restrictions, abortion is allowed during all nine months of pregnancy. Consider that abortion is the only circumstance in which it is permitted for an individual to end the life of an innocent human being.
Do you care about the unborn child? We cannot remain indifferent to this injustice and the loss of so many lives. Each and everyone of us can in some way be a voice for the unborn. We are a people of life and for life!
We love them both mother and child.
This document delves into abortion statistics in Ontario and examines the use of the abortion pill regimen Mifegymiso.
Abortion-By-Numbers-2021_FINAL_WEB.pdf
SUMMARY
For decades, it has been difficult to obtain any current and accurate statistics on abortion. In Canada, ONLY hospitals are required to report all numbers and demographics, but clinics (surgical facilities and doctors offices) have no such legislative requirement. With each passing year, data is lacking and often inaccurate. It would seem there is no other medical procedure for which incomplete data is permitted to perpetuate. In every other healthcare procedure, data collection is considered important, to ascertain the patient’s journey, both before and after the procedure, to ensure best practices and informed decision making, to create a picture of the patient’s history and to ensure follow-up. Why when it comes to abortion, are all the normal practices of medicine no longer valid?
Alliance for Life of Ontario calls on the provincial government to craft legislation which would mandate any facility, providing abortion, whether surgically or chemically, to report all demographics and numbers of every woman undergoing the procedure and make it a requirement of receiving OHIP. If women’s health matters as much they say it does, then we should see it in practice, especially with regard to induced abortion.
The Legalization of Euthanasia in Canada (The 2015 Supreme Court Decision), and the Euthanasia Experience Internationally.
Written by Susan Friday, 29 October 2021 16:52
This Powerpoint looks at the 2015 Supreme Court Decision in the Carter Case which struck down the prohibition on euthanasia and assisted-suicide in Canada. It provides data on the euthanasia experience around the world.
Bill C-7 : A Dangerous Expansion of Euthanasia in Canada
Written by Susan Friday, 22 October 2021 12:51
Bill C-7 amends Canada’s law on euthanasia, which is euphemistically referred to as medical assistance in dying, in the bill. The federal government proposed Bill C-7 as its response to the September 2019 Quebec Superior Court decision striking down the requirement in Bill C-14 that natural death be reasonably foreseeable in order to qualify for euthanasia. The government could have exercised its option to appeal the decision but chose not to. While Bill C-7 removes the clause that natural death be reasonably foreseeable, it goes much further than the Quebec Superior Court decision mandated.
This bill greatly expands access to euthanasia. It allows physicians and nurse practitioners to euthanize a patient even if the patient is no longer able to consent as long as the patient has previously indicated consent. In Bill C-14 which was passed in 2016, the ability to consent prior to receiving a lethal injection was presented as a safeguard to protect vulnerable persons from involuntary euthanasia:
"Immediately before providing the medical assistance in dying, give the person an opportunity to withdraw their request and ensure that the person gives express consent to receive medical assistance in dying."
Consider in addition that the 2015 Supreme Court decision in Carter explicitly stated that euthanasia would be allowed “for a competent adult person who clearly consents to the termination of life."
The Summary of Bill C-7 states that “this enactment amends the Criminal Code, to among other things”: permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has been found eligible to receive it, whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable and who has lost the capacity to consent before medical assistance in dying is provided, on the basis of a prior agreement they entered into with the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner: and permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has lost the capacity to consent to it as a result of the self-administration of a substance that was provided to them under the provisions governing medical assistance in dying in order to cause their own death.
Page 2 of the bill says: "while recognizing the inherent risks and complexity of permitting medical assistance in dying for persons who are unable to provide consent at the time of the procedure, Parliament considers it appropriate to permit dying persons who have been found eligible to receive medical assistance in dying and are awaiting its provision to obtain medical assistance in dying even if they lose the capacity to provide final consent, except if they demonstrate signs of refusal of the procedure."
Section 3.2 of Bill C-7 now permits euthanasia of a patient who is no longer competent if the patient has previously given consent as long as “the person does not demonstrate by words, sounds or gestures, refusal to have the substance administered or resistance to its administration.”
However, section 3.3 which follows says: “For greater certainty, involuntary words, sounds or gestures, made in response to contact do not constitute a demonstration of refusal or resistance for the purpose of paragraph 3.2c.” According to these two sections of the bill, it seems that the decision depends entirely on how the physician interprets the words, sounds or gestures of the incompetent patient. Clause (3.3) provides protection to the physician not the patient.
Consider the following report from Holland. An elderly woman with dementia had given her consent to euthanasia in an advance directive. A physician at the facility where she lived decided later that the time had come for euthanasia. Prior to administering the lethal injection, the physician had placed a sedative in the elderly woman’s coffee. The patient struggled when the physician began the injection at which point, the physician asked the woman’s family to hold her down so she could finish the injection. The family agreed to do so.
Changing the law to allow euthanasia by advance consent was not required by the Truchon decision of the Quebec Superior Court. In such cases, there is always a risk that a person may receive euthanasia against their wishes. Secondly, Bill C-14 required two independent witnesses to a patient’s request for euthanasia. Bill C-7 requires only one witness and that person can be a paid caregiver or a medical professional responsible for your care. It cannot be however, the physician or nurse practitioner who will deliver the lethal injection.
It also eliminates the 10 day waiting period between the time of the request and the provision of the lethal injection for those whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable. It means that it would be possible for someone to request and receive euthanasia on the same day. For those whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable but meet other criteria, a 90 day reflection period is required.
Persons with chronic illnesses or disabilities are at risk with this change in the law. Adequate support services are still lacking for them. Under Bill C-14, cases of coercion towards euthanasia were reported in Canadian media. CTV featured the story of Roger Foley and CBC, the story of Candice Lewis. Persons with disabilities are now eligible for euthanasia and in two years, persons with mental illness will be as well.
Finally this bill lacks specific conscience rights protection for health care professionals and institutions who object to participation in euthanasia. Prior to the 2015 Supreme Court decision in Carter, euthanasia was considered homicide. Now, we are told that giving lethal injections is health care. Patients need care not killing.
In December 2020, Justice Minister Lametti asked and obtained from the Quebec Superior Court, an extension to give more time for the federal government to pass Bill C-7. The government was given until February 26, 2021. Bill C-7 became law on March 17th, 2021.
By Jonathon Van Maren
On December 16, 1985, a little girl was born in Vancouver General Hospital. No joy greeted her arrival—her birth mother had already tried to have her aborted at an abortion clinic just across the border in Bellingham, Washington and had only come to VGH due to complications. Hospital staff delivered her into a bedpan. The pan was then swiftly carried off by Vera Wood, a senior nurse, and according to court documents was placed in the room where “dead foetuses were stored.” She was “moving, gasping, and crying weakly,” but it was assumed that she wouldn’t last long. They never did.
A year later, nurse Kathryn Larouche told the Vancouver Sun that “there were a couple of people…I don’t want to say who. They told us, ‘Don’t do anything. Leave it alone. It will die.” The attending doctor told nurses not to bother resuscitating the child.
Her name was Ximena Renaerts, and she wanted to live. When the nurse checked back on her about a half hour later, she was still alive—a defiantly wheezing baby in a room meant for dead babies. Ximena was supposed to be a corpse, too—she’d already been thrown out. But as she kept on breathing, in and out, the hospital staff decided that it was probably best to call a nursing supervisor, who arrived nearly an hour after the little girl had been born into the cold bedpan. She was still lying in the pan, uncovered and sitting on a stainless steel counter when the supervisor arrived. Moved with compassion, the supervisor initiated a Code Blue and called for the Infant Transport Team.
At that point, the little girl had become extremely cold from lying uncovered and untended in the bedpan, and the loss of heat had caused permanent brain damage—but her life was saved. Her story made big news again when her adoptive family sued Vancouver General Hospital for ten million dollars over a decade later, and when faced with the possibility of a public trial, the Hospital backed down and settled with the family (who lived in Chilliwack) for an undisclosed sum of money to be used for Ximena’s round-the-clock care, made necessary by her disabilities. Several police investigations went nowhere, and Vancouver General Hospital did its best to kill the story.
There is some reason to believe that Vancouver General Hospital wanted to avoid a trial because Ximena was not the only baby born alive and left to die—while they insisted that this had never happened before, they stated that no “viable” babies had been abandoned in this fashion, without defining what they meant by “viable” and ignoring the fact that Ximena had not been considered “viable,” either. Kathryn Larouche told the Vancouver Sun that she saw at least three other infants “die after they were delivered alive…We were supposed to turn the other way. We weren’t supposed to do anything.” Due to the emotional trauma these events caused, she and five other nurses quit working for VGH.
Some of you may wonder why I’m bringing up Ximena’s story, all these years later. The reason is simple: Every year, in Canadian hospitals, the same thing is happening to other boys and girls just like her. As I wrote last week, some of these babies—abortion victims who lived just a little bit longer than was intended—are actually issued Canadian birth certificates and death certificates. Pro-life activists try to draw attention to deaths of these children, but they are usually ignored. These dead children are simply considered to be the collateral damage of a society that has allowed abortion since 1969, and their brutal passing elicits only yawns from the politicians, the media, and the abortion industry.
So perhaps the story of Ximena Renaerts can remind us that these were real children, even if they were so cruelly abandoned that they remained nameless in life and in death. Perhaps our collective national conscience is not so congealed with blood that we cannot feel a twinge when we imagine a tiny little girl, gasping for breath in between little cries that desperately tried to remind those who had abandoned her that she was alive. And then, perhaps, we can set ourselves to work creating a culture that refuses to look away from what we have done, and refuses to walk away from those who need us most.
_____________________________________________
Reprinted with permission.
Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Canada: Background paper
Written by Susan Tuesday, 19 October 2021 13:11
Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Canada. Library of Parliament. Publication no.2015-139-E, 15 December 2015.
Nicol, Julia & Tiedemann, Marlisa. Legal and Social Affairs Division. Parliamentary Information and Research Division.
This background paper by the Library of Parliament provides a history of case law relating to euthanasia and assisted suicide, parliamentary bills and motions and a complete chronology of cases, laws and bills.
Denying food and fluids to persons with disabilities: Death by dehydration/starvation
Written by Susan Friday, 15 October 2021 15:21There have been numerous cases of patients with disabilities denied the basic necessities of life, meaning food and fluids, in order to end their lives. Terri Schiavo of Florida and Vincent Lambert of France are two high profile cases which received international attention. In both instances, the parents fought for the maintenance of food and fluids for their adult children. Tragically, these families lost their battle in court.
Section 25f of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities stipulates that countries must:
“Prevent discriminatory denial of health care or health services or food and fluids on the basis of disability.”
Withholding or withdrawing food and fluids from a person who is not imminently dying, with the intention of causing death, is euthanasia. Even if food and water are provided by feeding tube, it does not transform basic care into a medical treatment.
The case of Hannah Cement, an Ottawa woman went to court recently. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) reported on July 11, 2019:
“Today EPC was informed that Hugh Scher, the lawyer for the Cement family, achieved a negotiated agreement whereby Hannah will continue to be fed and hydrated and receive basic medical care until she dies a natural death.
Hannah Cement is a 62 year-old woman with Down Syndrome and dementia, who is a life-long member of an Orthodox Jewish family and community. The substitute decision makers for Hannah, her family, refused to consent to a course of treatment that constituted the withdrawal of all treatment and care, including food and fluids and providing only comfort care.
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) was granted limited intervention standing, in the court, based on our concerns related to the definition of food and fluid as medical treatment.
In late March, 2019, the Consent and Capacity Board (medical decision making tribunal) made a terrible decision in the Cement case, essentially ordering the withdrawal of all medical treatment from Hannah. This would have led to Hannah dying a similar death as Vincent Lambert.
The family appealed the decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, once again, sought intervention standing in the case.
The news that the doctor, the hospital and the Cement family reached an agreement to assure that Hannah will continue to receive basic medical care until she dies a natural death is an incredible victory.
While we mourn the death of Vincent Lambert, we are very thankful for the legal agreement to enable Hannah Cement to continue living until she dies a natural death.”
Cheryl Lowen and Alan Nichols died by (Maid) euthanasia, even though they did not qualify to be killed.
Written by Susan Friday, 15 October 2021 15:01By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
Kristen Holliday wrote a ground breaking article that was published in the Vancouver Sun on December 11. Holliday examines how Bill C-7, the bill to expand euthanasia in Canada, creates a situation where it is easier to die by MAiD (euthanasia) rather than receive effective medical treatment. Holliday examines several stories of deaths that were "outside" of the law.
Holliday tells us about the euthanasia death of Cheryl Lowen, who died in December 2019 by MAiD. Cheryl did not have terminal condition. Ray Chwartkowski, Lowen's brother, comments on the death of his sister. Holliday reports:
The last time Ray Chwartkowski saw his sister, Cheryl Lowen, was two days before she died in December, 2019.
On that day, he was shocked to learn that her death was scheduled, as she had been approved for medical assistance in dying, often referred to as MAID.
“She never had a diagnosis for any terminal illness,” he said. “I consider her death a total tragedy.”
Chwartkowski is convinced that his sister did not qualify for MAiD:
He said Lowen, who was 50 when she died, had a difficult childhood and struggled with physical and mental health problems throughout her life. In mid-2019, she was diagnosed with median arcuate ligament syndrome, a chronic illness that causes severe abdominal pain.
Chwartkowski said he has compassion for her pain but is certain she didn’t meet MAID’s criteria of a reasonably foreseeable death. He also questions her ability to make a well-informed decision after receiving the difficult diagnosis.
“From what I understood, she was refusing to eat, she was refusing immediate medical attention,” said Chwartkowski, adding that she also refused surgery to treat her condition.
Chwartkowski believes his sister, confronted with a chronic medical condition after a life filled with difficulty and mental health struggles, simply gave up hope.
“It’s like she just had so much heartache,” he said. “It just doesn’t make sense. She had so much going for her.”
Chwartkowski said, to his knowledge, Lowen applied for MAID twice and was denied the first time.
Alan (left) in July 2019
Holliday also tells us the story of Alan Nichols, who died by MAiD in July 2019, even though he was not physically ill, but rather living with chronic depression. Holliday interviews Gary Nichols, Alan's brother:
Gary said Alan was a healthy child and an excellent hockey goalie until he was diagnosed with a brain tumour at the age of 12. After two brain surgeries, he suffered from hearing loss, loss of co-ordination, and the occasional seizure. He also suffered from severe depression, said Gary.
“After a while, he really started to withdraw from people. He’d go through cycles, wanting to die. But then, he would change his mind, find something good.”
Gary moved to Edmonton in 2011, where he works as an accountant, while Alan remained in their hometown of Chilliwack.
In 2019, when Alan was admitted to a Chilliwack hospital and his family was notified that he was scheduled to die by MAID, Gary said he was appalled. He received the news four days before his brother’s death.
He believes Alan should not have been approved under current legislation.
“He didn’t have a terminal illness, his natural death was not foreseen,” Gary said.
Gary is convinced that if Alan received the proper care that he would be alive today.
“Of course, we would have tried to stop it because we know that probably in a week or two he’s going to change his mind,” Gary said. “Overall, they don’t know how to handle mental illness. It’s quite obvious. There’s such a high percentage of suicide with mental illness.”
Krista Carr
Holliday interviewed Krista Carr, a leader with the disability organization, Inclusion Canada, who is concerned about how euthanasia has been implemented:
Carr said she receives calls from Canadians with physical and mental disabilities who say health providers have suggested MAID is now available to them.
Carr said advocates for MAID stress the importance of personal autonomy and the right to choose. However, people living in poverty and social isolation, and those without access to treatment, sometimes feel they don’t have a real choice, she said.
“They can’t get assistance in living, but they can get quick assistance in dying,” Carr said.
The question is how many stories, like Alan Nichols and Cheryl Lowen exist? How many lives have been ended by euthanasia (MAiD) rather than providing the necessary care to enable that person to live?
The government should have tried to assess how many abuses of the current MAiD law existed before expanding the law. This could have been one of the topics examined in the Five-year review of the law that was supposed to begin in June 2020.
If you have a story, please contact This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
We want to help you find justice.
Article used with permission of the EPC 2021.
RU-486, mifepristone is a synthetic steroid drug with only one purpose – to induce abortion.
A woman takes two drugs for a chemical abortion, a method referred to as medical abortion by advocates. Myfegymiso is a combination product containing one mifepristone tablet (RU 486) 200 mg tablet and four misoprostol (Gymiso) 200ug tablet. Mifegymiso was approved by Health Canada in 2015.
Ru-486 is used for abortions from 5 to 9 weeks gestation. Initially Health Canada had approved Mifegymiso for use up to 7weeks gestation. Under pressure from abortion advocates to change original requirements and guidelines for the use of mifepristone, Health Canada in 2017 extended the period of use up to 9 weeks gestation, removed the requirement that physicians had to undergo training before dispensing mifegymiso to a patient and removed the regulation that only physicians could dispense the drug to the patient and supervise the patient’s ingestion of the first dose. The abortion pill had to be given in the physician’s office. Now a physician can write a prescription and the woman can take the drugs at home without medical supervision. Health Canada advises that “follow-up is important to confirm whether the pregnancy has completely ended and to verify that there is no prolonged heavy bleeding or infection.” In the updates to the product monograph and risk management plan, you find: “Ensure that patients have access to emergency medical care in the 14 days following administration of mifepristone and schedule a follow-up 7 to 14 days after talking mifepristone to confirm complete pregnancy termination and monitor side effects.”
How does this combination abortion pill work? The first drug, mifepristone kills an unborn child by destroying the lining of the uterus. It blocks the hormone progesterone thus depriving the developing child of nutrients. A second drug misoprostol given 24 to 48 later is used to stimulate contractions to expel the dead child.
An RU-486 abortion is a drawn-put process with severe risks and complications. Ru-486 kills the child and in some cases has also killed the mother.
Australian pro-choice feminist Renata Klein writing in 2013 about the findings of years of research on RU 486 with her colleagues Professor Janice Raymond and Dr. Lynette Dumble warned in their 1991 book: “The adverse effects of the two drugs were unpredictable and dangerous and the research undertaken inadequate…We concluded that the RU/486/PG abortion had the making of a new wave of DIY backyard abortions which burdened women who had decided they needed an abortion with unnecessary days of agony: haemorrhaging, vomiting, cramping and the well-founded fear of sepsis. We predicted deaths and also wondered why pro-choice activists could not see that this abortion method only benefited pharmaceutical companies and doctors.”
The National Post reported on October 16th,2018 that at least 13,000 prescriptions were written for the abortion drug since January 2017. This number doesn’t include however data from the Yukon, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. The cost of Mifegymiso is covered in some provinces including Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia.
The abortion pill regimen is sometimes referred to as 'medical abortion'. Medical abortion means a chemically induced or drug induced abortion.
If a woman has taken the first drug in the abortion pill regimen and has changed her mind about abortion, the abortion pill reversal process offers women an option of continuing the pregnancy. To find out more about this choice, read this analysis by the Charlotte Lozier Institute:
On-Science-4-FINAL-2.pdf (pcdn.co)
Abortion Pill Reversal: A Record of Safety and Efficacy - Charlotte Lozier Institute.
Unborn child 20 weeks after conception
In a February 17th article in Public Discourse, the authors state: “There are rare circumstances in which a mother’s life is in jeopardy due to either pre-existing conditions or pregnancy complication. It is extremely rare for this to occur prior to the point of viability (currently 22 weeks after last menstrual period, 20 weeks after fertilization). After 20 weeks fertilization age, it is never necessary to intentionally kill the fetal human being in order to save a woman’s life.
In cases where the mother’s life actually is in danger in the latter half of pregnancy, there is not time for an abortion, because an abortion typically is a two to three-day process. Instead immediate delivery is needed in these situations, and can be done in a medically appropriate way (labor induction or C-section) by the woman’s own physician. We can, and do, save the life of the mother through delivery of an intact infant in a hospital where both the mother and her newborn can receive the care that they need. There is no medical reason to intentionally kill that fetal human being through an inhumane abortion procedure, e.g. dismembering a living human being capable of feeling pain, or saline induction which burns off the skin, or feticide with subsequent induction.” (1)
Consider as well the following statements made by other physicians:
“In more than 25 years of medical practice, I have come to learn that if a woman is healthy enough to become pregnant, she is healthy enough to complete the term –in spite of heart disease, liver disease, almost any disease. As far as I’m concerned there are no medical indications for terminating a pregnancy.” Dr. Hymie Gordon, Director of Medical Genetics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, October 15, 1974.
In 1951, Dr. Roy Heffernan, then president of the American Medical Association and Dean of Tufts Medical School stated in a presentation to the American College of Surgeons:
“Anyone who performs a therapeutic abortion is either ignorant of modern methods of treating the complications of pregnancy or unwilling to take the time to use them.”
In a letter to the Health and Welfare Committee of the Parliament of Canada in 1968, Dr. Henry Fitzgibbon provided more evidence that induced abortion was not needed for medical reasons. Dr. Fitzgibbon was at the time an obstetrician and gynecologist. He was a member of the Canadian Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a Certified Specialist in Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the Royal College of Surgeons of Canada and a fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Dr. Fitzgibbon wrote:
“As has been repeatedly pointed out at the hearings, there are no longer any valid reasons for the termination of pregnancy on medical grounds. The requests for abortion made to practising physicians are almost invariably on social grounds and as such are not covered by any of the suggested bills.”
More than 1,000 medical professionals signed the Dublin Declaration on Maternal Healthcare which states in part: “As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.”
Abortion is never required to save the life of the mother or to treat complications that may arise in pregnancy.
(1) Source: Harrison, Donna, M.D., Cretella, Michelle, M.D., Schirger, John, M.D., Stevens, David, M.D., Orient, Jane, M.D. It is never necessary to intentionally kill a fetal human being to save a woman’s life: In support of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. The Public Discourse, February 17th, 2019
Babies born alive following abortion is not a new phenomenon in Canada. It has occurred since the 1969 abortion law was passed with an amendment made to the Criminal Code of Canada which allowed abortion under certain conditions. A 1975 brief by Alliance for Life presented to Parliament highlighted this often ignored outcome of abortion:
“For the past few years, there have been several hundred hysterotomies performed annually in Canadian hospitals. A hysterotomy, which is similar to a caesarean section, results in the delivery of a live child. The child is then left deliberately to die, a process that takes anywhere from a few minutes to several hours. Nurses are forbidden to make any attempts to save the lives of these children.”
A Vancouver Sun article from May 1974 reveals that an abortion was done on a woman because she was more than 40 years old and “distraught” at being pregnant at that age. The baby born alive weighed 2 ½ pounds, approximately the size of a six or seven months old fetus. The baby lived for 24 hours.
In another case, an alderman for Surrey, British Columbia said she was informed of a baby aborted at five months gestation at the Burnaby General Hospital. “That baby lived four hours after the abortion,” she said.”
From the same Vancouver Sun report, we also learn that in 1970 “a baby of 24 weeks (six months) was aborted, put in a pan and left to expire there.”
In a 1976 brief, the Victoria Pro-Life Society recounted a horrific situation first reported in a news article from the Daily Colonist, Victoria B.C. dated April 5, 1972: “Dr. C.C. Merry, a pathologist at the Winnipeg General Hospital, found a baby boy whimpering in a garbage bag by the hospital incinerator waiting to be burned. He said those who take part in abortion become “blasé” to such occurrences and would not try to save the life of such a baby because the point of the abortion has been to destroy the life.”
Unborn baby at 20 weeks