Canada: Juridics: Can Supreme Court abortionist judges be put on trial?

Professor David M. Fergusson, a self-described "atheist and rationalist" who expected the opposite of the actual results of his study, "found that women who had abortions were significantly more likely to experience mental health problems" than those who had no abortions. Dr Fergusson is the director of the longitudinal Christchurch Health and Development Study, in Christchurch, a city in New Zealand, whose results had been published last month in Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Volume 47 Page 16 - January 2006 [doi:10.1111/j. 1469-7610.2005.01538.x Volume 47 Issue 1.

Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health by David M. Fergusson, L. John Horwood, and Elizabeth M. Ridder.

Background: The extent to which abortion has harmful consequences for mental health remains controversial. We aimed to examine the linkages between having an abortion and mental health outcomes over the interval from age 15–25 years.

Methods: Data were gathered as part of the Christchurch Health and Development Study, a 25-year longitudinal study of a birth cohort of New Zealand children. Information was obtained on: a) the history of pregnancy/abortion for female participants over the interval from 15–25 years; b) measures of DSM-IV mental disorders and suicidal behaviour over the intervals 15–18, 18–21 and 21–25 years; and c) childhood, family and related confounding factors.

Results: Forty-one percent of women had become pregnant on at least one occasion prior to age 25, with 14.6% having an abortion. Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders. This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors.

Conclusions: The findings suggest that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems.

Science can never produce any kind of truth beyond statistical and anecdotal probabilities. Hence, the "may" language of the abstract. Previously, we have had the weight of anecdotal evidence, when women tell their own stories of post-abortion mental suffering sometimes accompanied by negative somatic side-effects; now we have further the best that science can give us. None of this supports the situation in law that has prevailed for some time since the Court threw out Parliament's lelgistlation, at the time claiming it was poorly written. Nowadays, however, the rhetoric of civil rights has been so inflated into utter nonsense that the Court's haphazard rulding has taken on the stature of a divine decree in the manner of the Medes and Persians.

Anecdotal evidence has long maintained just what Prof Dr Fergusson has now turned his scientific expertize to fathoming, contrary to the ideologically-imposed cap on understanding that had been put on the topic by the abortion industry, not only in New Zealand and Australia, but also in the United States and Canada. In the USA, of course, the US Supreme Court's refusal to give women full info on their likelihood of suffering after abortion in later life is being hotly contested, and Fergusson et al's findings will definitely come into play.

In Canada, the Supreme Court long ago had intimidated Parliament into neglecting its responsiblity, the error-prone Court throwing out Parliament's legislation as ultimately unconstitutional (which well it may be, for all I know, were it poorly written). Yet, the Court always has recourse to blot out a word or phrase or clause with well-reasoned criticism, while it retains Parliament's law otherwise on the grounds that not preserving the greater part of the law intact would result in a worse result than keeping the whole thing as is. Striking the law down without further ado was ideologically-driven and irresponsible. In its lawless move, the Court established conditions to deny women considering abortions the full medical info of the future consequences of mental-ill-health more likely for them over life after taking life.

The Canadian Supreme Court's decision also gave hegemony to government-financed counsellors who would pressure the women to abort, exercizing power at the point-of-counselling and knowingly witholding info from the women. Thus, the Court itself promoted its own ignorance and must must take responsiblity for its wilfull ignorance by not requiring research such as Dr Fergusson has now produced, against his own "best" intentions.

As a matter of fact, Canada and women who go to abortion advisors (often paid by government funding) have systematically held back the strong anecdotal evidence and now presumably will keep up the ban on informing women about the just-established evidence. Indeed, the government of Canada under the booted régime of Paul Martin purposefully appointed two new judges on the basis of two litmus tests it applied: 1.) their prejudice in favour of abortions without mandatory information regarding severe negative effects later in life; and 2.) their prejudice in gerryrigging the definition of marriage, demoting it as a legally-recognized specific and unique kind relation of intimate union between 1woman1man, and reducing all relations of intimate union to a generic, abstract and false pseudo-definition.

Each day, each hour, each minute the clock ticks without the Supreme Court calling upon Parliament to send it new legislation requiring mandatory information on the likelihood of statistically-demonstrable future suffering for women who have abortions, and the Court instead reclining back into its intellectual stupor to re-inforce ideologically the status quo ante that it had imposed on the Canadian female population, is itself criminal.

Parliement is obliged to act in these new circumstsnces, to ensure women have the info and are free of pressure to abort by abortion-favouring counsellors who want a higher kill count to justify their salaries. Parliemant should address the intentional denial of info to womaen about the likelhihood of future mental illhealth - no matter what the crudely-apponted Court may do.

If a girl or woman has been raped, or if she will with probability suffer physically to a serious degree (certainly permanent incapacitation would qualify) should the child in utero is brawt to term, then I believe she should be permitted to choose abortion; depending on her age, she also should be permitted to have the child in the adults, and even to give her life for that of the child should she insist on such a path (sufficient age is a vital factor recognizing choice either way, for the pregnant female in this dilemma-laden kind of case).

But in all cases, girls and women should have the info on probabilities regarding future mental ill-health should they choose to abort, whereas good care and support should be guaranteed during the pregnancy and after, to those who choose to bring their child to term as a newborn. - Owlb

Hat Tip to Evangelical Outpost.