A letter in today’s Ottawa Citizen:
In his letter, Robert Riordan disputes letter-writer David Morse’s statement that there has been a tenfold increase in the rate of abortions in Canada since 1970. He takes Morse to task for using the word “rate” rather than numbers.
The statistics show a tenfold increase in the numbers of induced abortions performed on Canadian women from 1970 to the present. However, Riordan’s claim that the number of abortions “became reasonably stable within a few years” after 1970 doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Using data from Statistics Canada, we find 11,152 abortions in 1970, with the numbers increasing almost yearly and reaching a high of 111,709 abortions for the year 1997. These are the numbers that Riordan calls reasonably stable.
From 1998 to 2004, the abortion numbers did decline slightly, but continued at over 100,000 a year, from 110,331 abortions in 1998 to 100,039 abortions in 2004.
If we examine the rate of induced abortions per 100 live births, we also find a tenfold increase. Statistics Canada reported the rate of induced abortions per 100 live births was 3.0 in 1970 and 31.0 per 100 live births in 2003.
The statistics for the year 2006 showing 91,377 abortions for the country seem to indicate a decline but data are missing. As Statistics Canada cautions the reader, abortion clinics in British Columbia, New Brunswick and Manitoba did not submit their numbers.
Additionally, the Canadian Institute for Health Information estimates that as of the data year 2000, “the Therapeutic Abortion Survey database represents approximately 90 per cent of all abortions performed in Canada on Canadian residents.” At the very least, the abortion numbers hover at 100,000 annually.
Louise Harbour, Ottawa
Executive director,
Action Life Ottawa
by 
I think most people will agree abortion is more commonplace than it was in 1970, the problem is the lack of accurate data. With data missing and some provinces not submitting numbers, it leaves a big gap in the information necessary to evaluate the situation. While I understand and agree with the concept of patient confidentially, the numbers themselves need to be made public. With such a divisive issue, I can’t help but feel the secrecy and misinformation is politically motivated. If it’s not a ‘bad thing’, what’s the problem with releasing the numbers?
I just ignored everything above the “If we examine the rate of induced abortions per 100 live births” line. An absolute number isn’t appropriate when comparing over such a time period. Per-thousand births (or women, or pregnancies) is much more suitable.
The 1998-2004 seems very stable. It looks like the number rose hugely during the 70s, 80s and perhaps 90s as the sexual revolution ran it’s course, then leveled off.