Go to Demographics NS in the Table of Contents for more information.

Hospital	Y1989	Y1990	Y1991	Y1992	Y1993	Y1994	Y1995	Y1996	Y1997	Y1998	Y1999	Y2000	Y2001	Y2002	Y2003	Y2004	Y2005	Y2006	Y2007	Totals
Aberdeen	17	0	32	38	50	45	14	50	52		57	50	54	61		54	61	65	71	815
Colchester	75	90	56	77	52	70	89	70	68	59	24	64	57	54		50	59	65	63	1142
Queens	11	0	0	0	15	15	12	0	0	15	0	12	12	8						100
VGH/QEII	1679	1607	1561	1625	1678	1552	1564	1467	1580	1608	1513	1537	1544	1487		1627	1581	1695	1736	28,641
Western Kings	0	0	0	0	20	45	29	0	0	0	0	0								94
Yarmouth Regional	38	46	42	40	47	44	46	47	50	30	0	0					35	25	20	510
Valley Regional	70	79	82	88	77	72	83	153	163	97	109	110	112	93		117	126	145	135	1911
South Shore Regional	14	0	0	0	0	10	0	12	16	13	0	11								76
Fisherman’s Mem	4	0	0	0	0	10	0	0	0	0	0	0								14
Sydney City	130	106	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0								236
Cape Breton Regional	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0								0
IWK	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	54	82	67		73	55	64	68	396
Clinic Abortions	0	0	587	520	624	542	429	0	161	136	137	115	84	86	74					3422
Other Hospitals	0	39	38	19	10	0	10	4	20	8	72	0		18		6	5	10		265
Sub Totals	2,038	1,967	2398	2407	2573	2405	2276	1803	2110	2010	1912	1953	1941	1874	1925	1927	1917	2059	2093	37,622
Live Births			12139	8597	12610	11212	10772	10570	10254	9613	9576	9074	8737	8568	8650	8637	8552	8513	8862	156,186
Recorded Deaths			-7314	-7593	-8597	-7843	-7745	-7745	-7773	-7874	-7704	-7918	-7803	-7919		-8167	-8307	-8117	-8404	119,268
Difference			4825	1004	4013	3369	3027	2825	2481	1739	1872	1156	934	649		470	245	396	258	36,918

Hospital names and service configurations changed during the past few years.  Hence, some instances of Zero’s, along with fewer than 10 abortions performed in some of these hospitals.  An example would be Western Kings is now Valley Regional.  The Sydney hospital is now closed and the one abortionist left town.  The VGH/QEII moved second trimester abortions to the IWK.  The VGH/QEII is still doing abortions.  

There seems to be inconsistencies from year to year in reporting.  Which came from a new person doing the reporting as well as the procedures to acquire the information from the Provincial government.

The number 10 usually means less than 10. 

This is the best effort with the data that is available to me.

Cost reported in 1992, 267,519.45, paid to Clinic 19,467.49.  In 1998 265,508.00.  In 1999 248,853.  In 2000,  paid to physicians only, and including the Clinic 260,587.

Cost reported in 2001 $255,505

Cost reported in 2002 $268,355.14

Cost reported in 2005 $280,078.84

Cost reported in 2006 $301,425.24

Cost reported in 2007 $315,876.77

 

For National rates dating back to 1970 go to : http://www.statscan.ca

Nova Scotia had 643 abortions in 1971 and 1700 in 1981/

 

Abortion Statistics for Canada available from Statscan.  

        

  *  Reported to Statscan 65,627 abortions in 1999 from all provinces except Ontario, down 3.2% from 67,785 in 1998”

 

Historical Notes:

Before 1969 the law permitted abortions only when necessary to preserve the life of the mother. The law was amended on May 14, 1969 to allow abortions in cases where "the continuation of the pregnancy ...would be likely endanger the life or death of the mother". The word "health" was never defined. Abortions were to be performed in accredited hospitals with the approval of therapeutic abortion committee of 3 doctors.

On January 28, 1988 the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the 1969 law on the basis of "unequal access" to Therapeutic Abortion Committees across Canada.  There was no cut-off point in pregnancy after which abortions may not be performed... this means abortions can be performed at any time during pregnancy.  Pregnancy is not a disease: however, StatsCan reports that the most frequently performed surgical procedure in Canada is the abortion procedure.  Abortion is elective surgery that does not cure a medical condition, paid for by tax dollars.

 

The leading cause of death in Canada is induced abortion..

Interesting but distasteful, is the fact that the average stay in hospitals for abortion cases is less than one day. Any complications incurred when in hospital are reported ONLY for the first complication (hemorrhage, infection, laceration, perforation, retained products of conception or 'other').

 

One in 25 women hospitalized after abortion.  Much lower StatsCan figure based on incomplete and misleading data, study shows By Isabelle Begin, The Interim

 

A recent custom tabulation of Canada's hospitalization statistics shows that, out of 103,244 women who received legally induced abortions in 1992-1993, 3,931 women were hospitalized for an average of two days because of life-threatening complications. This yields a hospitalization rate of 3.8 per cent, or one out of 25 women - a rate three times higher than the 1.3 per cent figure given in Statistics Canada's 1995 Therapeutic Abortions publications.

The two percentages differ because they come from two distinct databases. In the Therapeutic Abortions publication, from which official abortion statistics are taken, the total complication rate is lower than the custom tabulation figure for the following reasons:

1. Complications from abortions performed in clinics are not covered, when one out of three abortions in Canada is performed in a clinic;
2. Only three-quarters of all hospitals surveyed report medical complications due to abortion; and
3. Those hospitals report only immediate complications. Complications requiring re-admission, therefore, are not linked to the original abortion record in any way.

The custom tabulation, however, comes from Statistics Canada's hospitalizations database, which covers all hospitalizations by diagnosis code given upon admission for in-patient care (The type of care involving at least one overnight stay). The code for complications from legally induced abortion is ICD 635.

 

The custom tabulation yielded the number of hospital records in which diagnosis code ICD 635, appears in any of the five diagnosis fields, with each record being counted only once, even if this same code appears twice on the same record. In the latest year for which these figures are available from Statistics Canada, namely 1992-1993, there were 3,931 such hospital records. Out of 103,244 abortions performed that year, this yields a hospitalization rate of 3.8 per cent, or one out of 25 women.

 

So why are abortions so dangerous that they land one in 25 women in the Hospital? The World Health Organization (WHO) in its 1994 publication, Clinical Management of Abortion Complications, warns doctors (but not their female patients, sadly) that if induced abortions are incomplete, the women are in danger of hemorrhaging (bleeding heavily) or of septicemia (blood poisoning), or both.

 

Hemorrhaging involves the loss of large quantities of blood due to the sudden exposure of major blood vessels when retained placenta or baby parts detach from the uterus. Septicemia results from bacteria festering in retained cadaver parts and spilling into the mother's blood stream. 

 

Delayed hemorrhage is a particularly dangerous occurrence. It can result from abdominal injuries, lacerations or perforations made during the procedure. Numerous studies have shown that doctors can inadvertently inflict this kind of damage using the dilator, the suction cannula, the forceps and the curette (a sharp instrument used to scrape the uterus after suction and dismemberment of the child). If a woman's hemorrhaging is delayed, she is at great risk, since by the time the bleeding begins, she may be on the road traveling home. As the WHO's 1994 publication repeatedly states, "Delays in stopping the bleeding and replacing fluid or blood volume can be fatal. If not treated promptly, hemorrhage can result in shock and death."

 

Canadian hospital records show how serious an emergency it is when women are hemorrhaging or have septicemia. Doctors must perform emergency blood transfusions, D & Cs and A & Cs, and remove retained placenta.

 

Will women ever know that they have a one in 25 chance of needing life-saving

hospitalization after the procedure? There is no reason that they shouldn't, now that we

have accurate statistical information. 

 

These figures are from Stats Canada Therapeutic Abortions as follows:

 

1970-1995 incl.:  http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/971105/d971105.htm#ART2

1996-1997:  http://www.statcan.ca:80/Daily/English/000407/d000407c.htm

1998:  http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/People/Health/health42a.htm

 

 

Revision Date:  April, 2009

 

 

 

Abortion Comparisons from 1970 Canada

 

 

	2,001		2,003		2,005
Prov.	Live Birth	Abortion	L. Birth	Abortion	L. Birth	Abortion	% Aborted
BC	40,575	15,908	40,827	15,499	40,827	14,927	26.1
AB	37,619	10,603	40,287	10,814	42,110	11,040	20.5
SK	12,275	1,900	12,038	1,846	14,145	2,363	14.3
MB	14,002	3,375	13,940	3,670	11,167	1,723	12.6
ON	131,709	38,827	130,927	36,666	133,760	33,609	20.1
PQ	73,695	31,065	76,346	30,882	76,346	29,231	27.7
NB	7,195	1,028	7,117	944	6,892	1,032	13
NS	8,909	1,890	8,650	1,925	8,557	1,944	18.5
NL	4,716	893	4,629	895	4,501	883	16.4
PE	1,380	174	1,417	137	1,340	126	8.6
Canada	333,744	106,323	335,202	104,099	342,176	97,254	22.5
		Live Births		Abortions		Per Centage
Canada 1970		371,988		11,200		2.9

 

Reasons for Abortion 2009 USA

REASONS FOR ABORTIONS: COMPILED ESTIMATES

REASONS FOR ABORTIONS: COMPILED ESTIMATES

In this survey, 0.6% reported being forced to have relations (although a figure as high as 0.8% is possible depending on data breakdown). It is also interesting to note that 17% of abortions were for pregnancies following "proper" use of contraception. This would tend to undermine the claims regarding the efficacy of contraception methods, something highly promoted by groups such as Planned Parenthood.

An AGI study published in 2005 [6] was modeled after the 1987 study, providing an update to that work. This survey was conducted from December 2003 to March 2004; of approximately 2,000 women obtaining abortions who were surveyed, 1,209 completed questionnaires. As with the 1987, only rounded percentages as opposed to raw numbers were reported. Again, respondents could give multiple reasons, and the median number of four reasons were given. The table below gives reported percentages for the most important reason and for all reasons cited.

REASONS GIVEN FOR ABORTIONS: AGI SURVEY, 2004

Recent AGI literature has given figures of abortions following rape or incest. For example, an April 2005 information sheet [7] states that about 13,000 women have abortions following rape or incest. This is 1.0% of AGI-estimated annual abortions in 2000-2002. This figure appears to be derived from the 1987 survey percentage (or from preliminary results of the 2004 survey).

Issues with rape-related statistics: The AGI-based figure of 1% of abortions for cases of rape or incest is widely cited. However, it is the product of a limited survey by an organization with a stated objective of advocating unlimited access to abortion services. It is thus desirable to seek an independent source of such figures, such as that provided by the state reported statistics reviewed below. Evaluating this claim involves issues of reliability of rape-related statistics.

If the AGI figure for 1987 is correct, it would imply that 15,600 abortions in 1987 were for such cases.[8] Since the FBI only reported 91,110 forcible rapes in the U.S. in that year[9], this would imply that one out of six rapes resulted in pregnancy. This is higher fraction than appears to be supported by medical research--although the degree to which rapes go unreported is an issue here.

According to the FBI, reported annual numbers of rapes rose from just over 90,000 in the late 1980s to a peak of 109,000 in 1992, then dropped to about 90,000 for the years 1999-2002. Some sources estimate much larger unreported numbers. Stewart and Trussell [10] cite 333,000 rapes and sexual assaults reported in 1998, and additionally cite a National Women's Study which claimed 683,000 rapes in 1992. The latter figure would mean 5.3 unreported rapes for every reported rape. The wide range in estimates of unreported rapes is evidence of the problem of quantifying these figures.

Another issue is the frequency of rape-related pregnancy. Some sources claim very low frequencies, citing medical studies, and concluding the total number of pregnancies resulting from rape each year is on the order of 200-500.[11] Others obtain somewhat higher frequencies. Holmes et al. [12] surveyed 4,008 women and found a rate of pregnancy following rape of 5%. Additionally, of 34 cases of pregnancy after rape, they found 17 (50%) had an abortion, 11 (32%) kept the baby, 2 (6%) gave the baby up for adoption, and 4 (12%) miscarried. This frequency of 5% is representative of cited values.

Taking currently reported rapes of 90,000 per year and assuming 5% result in pregnancy and 50% of these are aborted, this implies 4,500 pregancies per year following rape of which 2,250 are aborted. The most extreme claimed rates of underreporting are necessary to bring this in line with AGI's claim of 13,000 rape-related abortions per year. Even higher levels of rape-related pregnancies have been claimed: Stewart and Trussell [10] cite the previously mentioned National Women's Study claiming 32,000 per year in 1992, and this figure is repeated by Holmes et al. [12] and by an AGI article in 2002 [13]. Stewart and Trussell extrapolate this to 25,000 per year in 1998 merely by considering lower crime rates. These higher rates are required to support the AGI claim of 1% of abortions for rape. Alternately, if only 50% of rapes are unreported then (using Holmes et al. data) a percentage of only 0.35% of abortions for rape is implied.

Such statistical approaches are very uncertain. The reasons for abortion are of course self-reported by the abortion seeker and thus not verifiable. It could be hypothesized that for various reasons women seeking abortions might falsely give rape as a reason, or alternately conceal rape as a reason. Apart from the issue of the rate of underreporting, certainly it is the case that many rapes go unreported. Thus, rape-related abortion data interpretation is hampered by the particularly traumatic circumstances of such cases. Nonetheless, it will be seen below that the larger sampling in states that report figures for rape-related abortions give consistent results, supporting the reasoning for lower figures than the AGI figures.

Abortions for sex selection: While not a major issue in the United States, abortions for the purpose of selecting the sex of the child are quite common in Asia, where they are generally used to abort female fetuses. Several Asian countries, including the People's Republic of China, India, and South Korea, are beginning to show significant demographic impacts resulting from such practices. India and the PRC have both been compelled to legislate against sex-selection abortions despite their otherwise broad support of abortion practice.[14]

Regarding the United States, in 1998 JAMA published a study[15] reporting a 0.2% decrease in the ratio of male to female live births from 1970 to 1990. The authors of the 1998 study discuss a variety of health factors that could influence this ratio. Data from the CDC in 2002[16] suggested that the decrease in the male/female birth ratio was 0.3% from 1970 to 2000. In 2005 the CDC completed a more detailed analysis[17] of trends in the U.S. male/female birth ratio. The authors identified several up or down trends in the ratio between 1940 and 2002, including a 0.6% decline in the male/female birth ratio from 1970 to 2002. They analyzed possible factors (age of mother, birth order, ethnicity) and noted additional parental/environmental characteristics that naturally influence the birth ratio. They did note that family preference can affect the birth ratio (although they did not explicitly point out that this is via such means as sex selection abortions) and that this does affect it in some countries, but do not report any indication that it is a factor in the United States. The historical variation in U.S. male/female birth ratio is within the range observed in connection to biological influences (e.g. parental/environmental).

Nonetheless, of reported trends in male/female birth ratio by ethnic group, the 2005 CDC study finds the greatest increase from 1970 to 2002 among children of Chinese and Japanese ethnicity: a trend of an increase of 0.022 for Chinese and 0.013 Japanese children, respectively. The result is that births of Chinese ethnicity have the highest average male/female ratio in 1998-2002, 1.076 versus the national average of 1.048.[17]

The overall change in the male/female birth ratio from 1970 to 2002 represents about 13,000 fewer annual male births by 2002, which would correspond to about 1% of abortions.[18] Still, this is too small a change in sex ratio to be distinguished among other potential causes for the population at large. Some observers suggest that this is an issue in some ethnic groups[14]. Were the change in birth ratio among Asian Americans to be attributed to abortions, it would represent on the order of 1,000-2,000 abortions per year, or about 0.1% of abortions. This may be considered an upper limit.

 

Summary and conclusions: Based on these figures, the following estimated percentages are suggested (along with ranges of values from the above studies and analyses):

REASONS FOR ABORTIONS: COMPILED ESTIMATES

rape	0.3 % (0.1-0.6 %)
incest	0.03 % (0.01-0.1 %)
physical life of mother	0.2 % (0.1-0.3 %)
physical health of mother	1.0 % (0.1-3 %)
fetal health	0.5 % (0.1-1.0 %)
mental health of mother	depends on definition
"personal choice" --too young/immature/not ready for responsibility --economic --to avoid adjusting life --mother single or in poor relationship --enough children already --sex selection	98% (78-99 %) --(32 %) --30% (21-36 %) --(16 %) --(12-13 %) --(4-8 %) --(<0.1 %)

Quantifying cases involving the "mental health" of the mother is difficult due to the highly subjective use of this term (as demonstrated by the wide range in percentage of abortions reported for this reason). It is likely that the number of cases involving clinical mental illness falls towards the low end of the range given above.

These official state statistics suggest that the commonly cited AGI figures for the "hard cases" are high, perhaps by a factor of three. In any case, however, there appears to be consensus that the hard cases--rape, incest, life/health of mother or baby--are a very small fraction of cases. They are arguably a poor premise for formulating general public policy regarding abortion. At the other extreme, AGI's surveys of 1987 and 2004 (as well as the detailed statistics from Minnesota) suggest that a significant fraction of abortions are obtained by mothers who have the means to care for a child but do not want their lives inconvenienced. This is an example of the consequences of the current extreme policy in the United States regarding abortion.

---

© 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008 by Wm. Robert Johnston.
Last modified 9 October 2008.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/index.html#AD