We have been watching with absolute amazement the witch hunt that is currently being carried out on the South Fraser Pregnancy Options Centre and the Crisis Pregnancy Centre in Vancouver. Three CTV special investigative “reports” would have us believe that these centres are filled with the most wicked and deceptive folk in the whole of Canada, laying in wait and then preying on young women in crisis pregnancy. One centre also teaches abstinence/chastity in local schools and even this good work was met by an anguished, “how does a religious organization get into a public school?” Oh let’s all faint!
Just to put it all in perspective:
The agencies involved are run by Christians, supported predominantly by donations from Christian families, individuals, businesses and churches and provide a service that is “a gift from the church community to anyone in need.”
The centre has been accused of providing dubious abortion advice and medical misinformation to an undercover CTV plant. Can you really begin to imagine with all the awful twisters there are out there, that a Christian Pregnancy Centre was the focus of a CTV “sting” if it was not so ludicrous it would be laughable?
See links below:
Contrary to what is being portrayed, the Crisis Pregnancy Centre is upfront about not promoting or referring for abortion. The information provided in the segments from the counsellor regarding abortion is all verifiable in peer reviewed studies. The counsellor explained the necessity to ensure that all parts of the fetal child were removed and recognized. This has caused a furore and yet the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada Induced Abortion Guidelines require just that. Under Operative Procedures on page 1020, it states: “thorough removal and identification of tissue..” Of course the SOGC wording is more clinical but it means make sure two arms, two legs, body, head etc are identifiable and removed. http://www.sogc.org/guidelines/documents/gui184E0611.pdf
In Ontario we have the Independent Health Facilities “Clinical Practice Parameters and Facility Standards” Obstetrics & Gynecology: Induced Abortion, document, from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, and abortion facilities are required to maintain a record of known complications (page 13). We wonder whether the BC Government has a similar document.
On Page 15 of this same document it lists complications to be monitored which include but are not limited to:
- Failed abortion with continuing pregnancy or requiring a second procedure
- Incomplete abortion
- Haemmorhage 500ccs
- Infection requiring IV antibiotics
- Pulmonary Embolus
- Any complication regarding hospitalization
These would not be listed if they had not already occurred and we wonder if every woman undergoing an abortion has these read to her prior to the procedure. Yet we are informed by Dr. Wendy Norman, who was interviewed by CTV, that “abortion is ‘indisputably safe’ and has no long term affects.” (See the following article co-authored by Dr. Wendy Norman regarding the devestating consequences of “uncommon post abortion infection”). Methinks the physician speaks with a forked tongue.
Evidence Proves Harm
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario commissioned a study in 2001. A comparison was made between 41,039 women who had induced abortions and a similar number who did not undergo induced abortions. The study only concerned itself with short-term consequences, but in the three-month period after the abortion, the hospital patients had a more than four times higher rate of hospitalizations for infections (6.3 v 1.4 per 1000), a five times higher rate of “surgical events” (8.2 v 1.6 per 1000), and a nearly five times higher rate of hospitalization fro psychiatric problems (5.2 v 1.1 per 1000), than the matching group of women who had not had abortions. I wonder if women considering abortion are informed of these consequences either.
In contrast to this “no problem” hype, are hundreds of studies. Perhaps the most poignant contrast can be found listening to Toronto’s own PRO-CHOICE, Dr. Prakesh Shah. Who would better understand the problem than this Mount Sinai neo-natal specialist? His publicly available podcast newscast Sept 9, 2009 presents that a woman’s first abortion increases the risk 36% of later having a premature baby and her second abortion increases the risk of her having a premature baby by 93%. Like a Ralph Nader demanding safer automobiles, he is asking the medical community to find less damaging ways to do abortions (NOT stop abortions). Indeed, in a news story reported by Hilary White, UK guardian, (no Canadian paper carried the story), there were 6 statements that He is PRO- CHOICE. The study covered about ¼ of a million births. Considering we see studies published in our media with less than 100 people, that is a very large “sample”. (A German study had the same results covering 1,000,000 births). As you may know, premature is NOT “cute little baby” it can be a medical mess with permanent devastating consequences.
From the newscast: The interviewer in the newscast, at 6:42 minutes into the interview asks, “What sort of mechanisms do you imagine could be at work here so that the termination (of the pregnancy) does actually make subsequent pregnancies carry a high risk?” Dr. Shah responds: “There are three postulated mechanisms, one is the mechanical trauma when you are trying to dilate the cervix to get the conceptors out you have to dilate the cervix and that may lead to trauma to the cervix. (7:07) 2nd when there is curettage done, the curettage is to remove the conceptors with a semi blunt instrument from the uterus. It does damage the underlying epithelium and may cause faulty implantation of (the) placenta in the subsequent pregnancy and thirdly (7:22) when the conceptors is (sic) removed we hope that everything is removed however a small amount of residuals are always left or most of the time left and that may act as a source of infection because it will be a dead tissue and the infection is one of the biggest triggering factors for the pre-term labour in the subsequent pregnancy.
Not to belabour the point but you do get our drift that induced abortion is not without inherent risks. Why the medical establishment prefers to protect abortion rather than maternal health we will never know. For those who are still not quite sure about abortion complications the following may help to clarify.
The abortion and mental health controversy shifted into high gear following the recent publication in The British Journal of Psychiatry of a meta-analysis review that combined results of 22 studies and reported that women who have abortions are 81 percent more likely to experience subsequent mental health problems. The study included all studies between 1995 and 2009 which met strict inclusion criteria. The data included 877,181 women from six countries. Every one of the 22 studies, even those where the authors concluded there were no significant mental health risks, revealed higher rates of mental health problems associated with abortion for at least one symptom, and many for more than one symptom. http://afterabortion.org/2011/do-not-publish/
Abortion – very real risks
Women who have abortions often face increased physical and emotional problems, including substance abuse, mental disorders, impaired fertility, pregnancy loss, and breast cancer. This article will examine the various studies and what they say about the risks of abortion. http://afterabortion.org/2000/the-risks-of-choice-studies-document-the-physical-and-emotional-dangers-of-abortion/
Abortion safer than childbirth?
Abortion advocates, relying on inaccurate maternal death data in the United States, routinely claim that a woman’s risk of dying from childbirth is six, ten, or even twelve times higher than the risk of death from abortion. In contrast, abortion critics have long contended that the statistics relied upon for maternal mortality calculations have been distorted and that the broader claim that “abortion is many times safer than childbirth” completely
ignores high rates of other physical and psychological complications associated with abortion. Now a recent, unimpeachable study of pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland has shown that the risk of dying within a year after an abortion is several times higher than the risk of dying after miscarriage or childbirth. http://afterabortion.org/2000/abortion-four-times-deadlier-than-childbirth
Taking Care of Business – Getting rid of the opposition
“Some Providers of Sexual Health Services have expressed concerns that these centres aren’t giving women the full story.” Greg Smith director of the Options for Sexual Health Facility informed us that he had heard from disgruntled clients who believed they were not given all possible information at the South Fraser Pregnancy Options Centre.
Now hold on just a minute is this character assassination of a business rival? If you go onto his website you will realise that the Options for Sexual Health Facility is one of 50 OPT facilities across British Columbia who sell their services – you can see their product list on line at their site, with flavoured condoms to boot! You will be connected with abortion providers etc. and you should also know that the centre ensures under its “Common Abortion Myths and Facts” that a girl under sixteen does not need her parents’ consent to abortion.
As for the fact sheet, that’s a posting for another day.
All in all this “investigation” is a farce and down at the bottom we have a media, unwilling to really investigate where it should, a sex and abortion industry that is only too willing to close down any facilities that will affect their bottom line and a medical profession that has ignobled its own profession by protecting abortion and abandoning women. How on earth do you protect a woman’s choice if it causes her harm and kills her child?
In closing, we have nothing but admiration for the folks under attack. We have been blessed to have had the privilige to watch this unfold and cannot tell you what wonderfully kind and caring people we are speaking about.
If this is a fair story we would not wish to see the biased version.