Editorial: “Official” Statistics don’t tell us much
By Joanne Byfield

I suppose we should be grateful that they report abortion statistics at all. That even though they are two and-half years late and very short on detail, we do get a glimpse of the scale of this gruesome procedure.

And, yes, Statistics Canada and the Canadian Institute for Health Information admit that there are serious limitations to the data, that the aggregate numbers only capture 90% of the total and that more detailed breakdowns are almost meaningless since outside of Alberta, no private clinics submit demographic or other information about gestational age or complications.

It does make one wonder, however, why we can get monthly and very detailed tables on the use of asphalt or retail trade statistics current to the previous month but wait years for abortion statistics. In the case of many of these consumer or industrial statistics, the sources for the information number in the hundreds or thousands so you would think it would be more difficult to get current and accurate data. For abortions, there is a comparatively small number of sources (as the pro-choice side likes to point out, relatively few hospitals perform abortions) and almost every abortion performed, whether done in a hospital or one of the private clinics around the country, is fully or partially paid for by taxpayers and is therefore recorded on an electronic database. I doubt that physicians performing abortions wait more than two years to be
paid by the health care system.

So why does it take years to see the “official” numbers and why are so many not counted? And why, when they are released, as they were this year on July 13 for the 2004 calendar year, did almost no media outlets cover the story?

Just several days later, most of the newspapers and broadcast outlets in the country covered another Statistics Canada release about the aging population and the difficulties presented by the lack of young people to cover the pensions, fill the jobs and pay the taxes required for all the services governments provide. “A low fertility rate and increased life expectancy are the main reasons behind the rapid aging,” is how the Globe and Mail explained the problem. The newspaper also pointed out that immigration was not a solution since most immigrants arrive at the age of thirty.

However, if the Globe and Mail had bothered to cover the abortion statistics, the reporter might have noticed that the 100,039 babies aborted in 2004 (and the more than 250,000 aborted since then) would have added quite a few young people to help alleviate the aging problem. In fact, in the 10 years reported in this year’s release, 1995 to 2004, there were 1,068,728 babies aborted. Again, bringing the numbers up to 2007, that’s about 1.3 million Canadian citizens eliminated from our communities and economy. Keep in mind that these numbers only represent 90% of abortions performed so the actual figures are higher.

In 2004, private clinic abortions in Manitoba were not reported to the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Some American states did not report abortions performed on Canadian women. Nunavut did not submit abortion reports for 2004. Since the abortion law, which included mandatory reporting of abortions, was struck down in 1988, reporting of abortion statistics has been voluntary. Furthermore, it is increasingly difficult to get detailed information on abortions including age of women, gestational age and other demographic information. Almost half of all abortions are performed at private clinics across the country, but most do not submit any detailed information except those in Alberta.

From the sketchy information we do have and assuming that those who did not report detailed information have roughly the same pattern as those who did report, here’s what the numbers show. About one-third of abortions in 2004 were performed under 9 weeks’ gestation with a further 42% under 12 weeks. Seven percent, roughly 7,000 were performed between 13 and 16 weeks and slightly over 4,000, 4.1%, were performed after 16 weeks. The report lists 14% as unknown gestational age and that’s with almost no private clinics reporting. So, if the pattern holds, what we do know is that 74.7%, or roughly three-quarters, of the over 100,000 abortion were performed in the first trimester. That means that about a third, approximately 30,000, are later abortions.

StatsCan also reports on repeat abortions. Again, from partial reporting—it received detailed reports from 42,880 cases—53.3% had no previous abortions (although in 15.9% of cases the information was not given.) 20.8% reported one previous abortion and 10% reported two or more. That represents a repeat rate of over 30%. We know that in Alberta the repeat rate, according to statistics released under a Freedom of Information request, stands at just under 40%.

Oddly, the detailed reports do not say how many abortions are performed over 20 weeks but does tell us that the complication rate for abortions over 20 weeks is 10.5%. For abortions between 17 and 20 weeks, the complication rate is 6.9%, but again, we do not know how many abortions there were in that category.

Since abortion is one of the most common surgical procedures performed on women, is it too much to expect that our governments would gather and report the detailed statistics in a timely manner? Perhaps they could even expand the categories to include post-16 week abortions and detailed age breakdowns. For example, instead of a category that lists the number of abortions on girls between the ages of 10 to 19, tell us the number by each year. How many 10, 11 and 12 year-olds are having abortions and who is getting them pregnant? If abortion is just a medical procedure like all the others, give us the information.

Surely, the number of women having abortions is as important as how much asphalt is produced and used each month in Canada or the total number of retail sales by province and category.

Joanne Byfi eld is the president of LifeCanada.