From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Alberta’s abortion policy allows babies to be killed with an ‘induced cardiac arrest’ before a late-term abortion and left to die without medical care if they survive.

A Canadian provincial pro-life advocacy group says health officials have admitted that many babies in the province of Alberta are indeed born alive after abortions and then left to die, and because of this are they are calling upon the province’s health minister to put an end to the practice.

Official data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), which is the federal agency in charge of reporting the nation’s health data, shows that in Alberta in 2023-2024, there were 133 late-term abortions. Of these, 28 babies were born alive after the abortion and left to die.

As noted by Prolife Alberta’s President Murray Ruhl in a recent email, this means the reality in the province is that “some of these babies are born alive… and left to die.”

“Babies born alive after failed late-term abortions are quietly abandoned—left without medical help, comfort, or even a chance to survive,” noted Ruhl.

This fact was brought to light in a recent opinion piece published in the Western Standard by Richard Dur, who serves as the executive director of Prolife Alberta.

Ruhl observed that Dur’s opinion piece has “got the attention of both Alberta Health Services (AHS) and Acute Care Alberta (ACA),” whom he said “confirmed many of the practices we exposed.”

Alberta’s policy when it comes to an abortion committed on a baby older than 21 weeks allows that all babies are killed before being born, however this does not always happen.

“In some circumstances… the patient and health practitioner may consider the option of induced fetal cardiac arrest prior to initiating the termination procedures,” notes Alberta Health Services’ Termination of Pregnancy, PS-92 (PS-92, Section 6.4).

Ruhl noted that, in Alberta, before an “abortion begins, they stop the baby’s heart. On purpose. Why? Because they don’t want a live birth. But sometimes—the child survives. And what then?”

When it comes to the same policy for babies older that 21 weeks, the policy states, “For terminations after 21 weeks and zero (0) days there must be careful consideration and documentation concerning a Do Not Resuscitate order in anticipation of a possible live birth.” (PS-92, Section 6.4).”

Ruhl observed that the reality is, “They plan in advance not to save her—even if she’s born alive.”

If the baby is born alive, the policy states, “Comfort measures and palliative care should be provided.” (PS-92, Section 6.4).

This means, however, that there is no oxygen given, no NICU, “no medical care,” noted Ruhl.

“Their policies call this ‘palliative care.’ We call it what it is: abandonment. Newborns deserve care—not a death sentence,” he noted.

As reported by LifeSiteNews recently, a total of 150 babies were born after botched abortions in 2023-2024 in Canada. However, it’s not known how many survived.

Only two federal parties in Canada, the People’s Party of Canada, and the Christian Heritage Party, have openly called for a ban on late abortions in the nation.

Policy now under ‘revision’ says Alberta Health Services

Ruhl said that the province’s policies are now “under revision,” according to AHS.

Because of this, Ruhl noted that now is the time to act and let the province’s Health Minister, Adriana LaGrange, who happens to be pro-life, act and “demand” from her real “action to protect babies born alive after failed abortions.”

The group is asking the province to do as follows below:

1. Amend the AHS Termination of Pregnancy policy to require resuscitative care for any baby born with signs of life, regardless of how the birth occurred.
2. Require that these newborns receive the same level of care as any other premature baby. Newborns deserve care—not a death sentence.
3. Recognize that these babies have a future—there is a literal waiting list of hundreds of families ready to adopt them. There is a home for every one of them.

While many in the cabinet and caucus of Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s United Conservative government are pro-life, she has still been relatively soft on social issues of importance to conservatives, such as abortion.

By Dr. J. Edward Les

The thalidomide saga is particularly instructive: Canada was the last developed country to pull thalidomide from its shelves — three months during which babies continued to be born in this country with absent or deformed limbs

Physicians have a duty to put forward the best possible evidence, not ideology, based treatments

Late last month, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) announced that it, along with three Alberta doctors, had filed a constitutional challenge to Alberta’s Bill 26 “to protect the relationship between patients, their families and doctors when it comes to making treatment decisions.”

Bill 26, which became law last December, prohibits doctors in the province from prescribing puberty blockers and hormone therapies for those under 16; it also bans doctors from performing gender-reassignment surgeries on minors (those under 18).

The unprecedented CMA action follows its strongly worded response in February 2024 to Alberta’s (at the time) proposed legislation:

“The CMA is deeply concerned about any government proposal that restricts access to evidence-based medical care, including the Alberta government’s proposed restrictions on gender-affirming treatments for pediatric transgender patients.”

But here’s the problem with that statement, and with the CMA’s position: the evidence supporting the “gender affirmation” model of care — which propels minors onto puberty blockers, cross-gender hormones, and in some cases, surgery — is essentially non-existent. That’s why the United Kingdom’s Conservative government, in the aftermath of the exhaustive four-year-long Cass Review, which laid bare the lack of evidence for that model, and which shone a light on the deeply troubling potential for the model’s irreversible harm to youth, initiated a temporary ban on puberty blockers — a ban made permanent last December by the subsequent Labour government. And that’s why other European jurisdictions like Finland and Sweden, after reviews of gender affirming care practices in their countries, have similarly slammed the brakes on the administration of puberty blockers and cross-gender hormones to minors.

It’s not only the Europeans who have raised concerns. The alarm bells are ringing loudly within our own borders: earlier this year, a group at McMaster University, headed by none other than Dr. Gordon Guyatt, one of the founding gurus of the “evidence-based care” construct that rightfully underpins modern medical practice, issued a pair of exhaustive systematic reviews and meta analyses that cast grave doubts on the wisdom of prescribing these drugs to youth.

And yet, the CMA purports to be “deeply concerned about any government proposal that restricts access to evidence-based medical care,” which begs the obvious question: Where, exactly, is the evidence for the benefits of the “gender affirming” model of care? The answer is that it’s scant at best. Worse, the evidence that does exist, points, on balance, to infliction of harm, rather than provision of benefit.

CMA President Joss Reimer, in the group’s announcement of the organization’s legal action, said:

“Medicine is a calling. Doctors pursue it because they are compelled to care for and promote the well-being of patients. When a government bans specific treatments, it interferes with a doctor’s ability to empower patients to choose the best care possible.”

Indeed, we physicians have a sacred duty to pursue the well-being of our patients. But that means that we should be putting forward the best possible treatments based on actual evidence.

When Dr. Reimer states that a government that bans specific treatments is interfering with medical care, she displays a woeful ignorance of medical history. Because doctors don’t always get things right: look to the sad narratives of frontal lobotomies, the oxycontin crisis, thalidomide, to name a few.

The thalidomide saga is particularly instructive: it illustrates what happens when a government drags its heels on necessary action. Canada was the last developed country to pull thalidomide, given to pregnant women for morning sickness, from its shelves, three months after it had been banned everywhere else — three months during which babies continued to be born in this country with absent or deformed limbs, along with other severe anomalies. It’s a shameful chapter in our medical past, but it pales in comparison to the astonishing intransigence our medical leaders have displayed — and continue to display — on the youth gender care file.

A final note (prompted by thalidomide’s history), to speak to a significant quibble I have with Alberta’s Bill 26 legislation: as much as I admire Premier Danielle Smith’s courage in bringing it forward, the law contains a loophole allowing minors already on puberty blockers and cross-gender hormones to continue to take them. Imagine if, after it was removed from the shelves in 1962, government had allowed pregnant women already on the drug to continue to take thalidomide. Would that have made any sense? Of course not. And the same applies to puberty blockers and cross-gender hormones: they should be banned outright for all youth.

That argument is the kind our medical associations should be making — and would be making, if they weren’t so firmly in the grasp, seemingly, of ideologues who have abandoned evidence-based medical care for our youth.

J. Edward Les is a Calgary pediatrician, a senior fellow with the  Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy,  and co-author of “Teenagers, Children, and Gender Transition Policy: A Comparison of Transgender Medical Policy for Minors in Canada, the United States, and Europe.”