ENDEAVOUR FORUM NEWSLETTER No. 111, AUGUST 2003

Home | Contact Us | Newsletters

In view of the debate in Australia about the prohibitive costs of liability insurance for doctors, especially for obstetricians, the Abstract below of an article linking induced abortions with  subsequent  premature births is timely. The first author, Brent Rooney, is a Canadian medical researcher. 

Induced Abortion &  Subsequent Premature Births

Brent Rooney and Byron C. Calhoun, M.D.

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons  2003;8(2):46-49

ABSTRACT

At least 49 studies have demonstrated a statistically significant increase in premature births or low birthweight risk in women with prior induced abortions. This paper will focus on the risk of early premature births (less than 32 weeks gestation) and extremely early premature births  (less than 28 weeks gestation). Large studies have reported a doubling of early premature birth risk from two prior induced abortions.  Women who had four or more induced abortions   experienced, on average, nine times the risk of extremely early premature birth, an increase of 800 percent.  These results suggest that women contemplating induced abortion should be informed of this potential risk to subsequent pregnancies, and that physicians should be aware of the potential liability and possible need for intensified prenatal care. 

Informed consent for an elective surgical procedure must generally cover long-term consequences and not just immediate risk. A woman considering an induced abortion should thus expect to be informed of potential effects on her fertility and the health of future infants, as well as her own future health. An elevated risk of bearing a child afflicted with a serious disability such as cerebral palsy might influence her decision, as well as future liability determinations by courts. Low birth weight and premature birth are the most important risk factors for infant mortality or later disabilities as well as for lower cognitive abilities and greater behavioral problems and thus contribute importantly to the liability exposure of  obstetricians. 

OTHER ‘HAPPENINGS’ IN CANADA

A Canadian Status of Women report has suggested charging opponents of  feminism with “hate crimes”:

OTTAWA, June 4, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A report published by the Canadian Government's Status of Women Canada has called for government monitoring of groups opposed to gender feminism and for investigations seeking to press charges of hate crime on such groups. The $75,000 (tax-payer paid) report, "School Success by Gender: A Catalyst for the Masculinist Discourse" was published on the Status of Women website May 15. 

Beyond listing men's groups such as Promise Keepers, the report names newspaper columnists and websites which it believes are promoters of 'masculinist discourse', which the report suggests incites hatred towards women.  One of the people named in the report is Neil Seeman, a lawyer who directs the Canadian Statistical Assessment Service at the Fraser Institute in Toronto.  In a column in today's National Post, Seeman writes, "As far as I can tell, the only reason I'm on the list is because I've written a couple of articles about discrimination toward men, and toward male academics in particular." 

Even in the report's own wording the "masculinist discourse", which it suggests requires government monitoring and perhaps even criminal investigation, is nothing more than pro-family sentiment. The report says, "The right-wing ideology championed in the masculinist discourse calls for a return to traditional values and the nuclear family (directly related mother-father-children). It develops in a context where minorities are gaining more and more access to democracy. The goals of the masculinist discourse are to regain lost privileges and to stop the women's emancipation movement. ..  Masculinists are calling for biological mothers to go back to their children. Their goal is to reinstate the old-fashioned patriarchal family, and thus to completely close the door on new forms of families and new parental roles." 

Nevertheless, the report says: "We also recommend that consideration be given to whether legal action can be taken under section 319 of the Criminal Code" (section deals with hate crimes). Regarding monitoring the report says: "we suggest that a monitoring organization be established, similar to Hate Watch, but focused solely on gender social relations. It would also be useful to maintain, publish, disseminate and update a list of misogynist groups." 

Ontario Court Redefines Marriage to Include Homosexuals

OTTAWA, JUNE 10, 2003 .- An Ontario court set aside the heterosexual definition of marriage and ordered the Toronto city clerk to issue marriage licenses to several homosexual couples who had applied for them.   The federal government in Canada has decided NOT to appeal the decision  following a recommendation by the Justice Committee of the Parliament of Canada. [Pro-life and pro-family members of the Committee were eliminated and pro-gay marriage members substituted in their place.] 

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, an interfaith group, expressed disappointment with the decision in the case of Halpern v. Canada. "Nowhere else in the world has a court ruled that the heterosexual definition of marriage violates human rights," EFC president Bruce Clemenger said. "It is not an appropriate use of the [Canadian] Charter to redefine pre-existing social, cultural and religious institutions."  

Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien on Wednesday said the federal government won't appeal recent court rulings in Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec that said the banning of homosexual marriages is unconstitutional. "Rather, we will be proposing legislation that will protect the right of churches and religious organizations to sanctify marriage as they define it."

Member Organisation, World Council for Life and Family

NGO in Special Consultative Status with ECOSOC of the UN