The recent Dobson case signalled abortion pill makers that they won’t be held accountable for ‘complications’ in Canada


The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of five-year-old Ryan Dobson is applicable to the thousands of pregnant women who drive their born children to school, to music lessons, to sporting events etc., or even if they share the driving on the family vacation.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal ruled that Ryan’s case could proceed, based on legal precedents that Canadian children can sue their parents, and fetuses, if born alive, can sue third parties for injuries suffered in the womb.

While Ryan was still in utero, his mother was involved in a car accident and, as a result of the injuries to both, Ryan was born 13 weeks prematurely. He now suffers from permanent mental and physical disabilities.

Acting on the child’s behalf, Ryan’s grandfather sued his daughter. This was not motivated by family discord but rather it was an attempt by Ryan’s grandfather to obtain insurance money to provide for Ryan’s very considerable needs, which otherwise could not be afforded.

The Supreme Court of Canada overturned the ruling of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, and went further to very specifically quash the legal precedent that such a child can sue his mother; though such a child can still sue his father.

Unfortunately motor vehicle accidents are not rare, and there will be future “Ryans” to whom the Supreme Court has now denied any hope of help.

In the written decision it is stated, “The court should not impose a duty of care upon a pregnant woman towards her fetus or subsequently born child. To do so would result in very extensive and unacceptable intrusions into the bodily integrity, privacy and autonomy rights of women.”

Supreme Court judges are, and are expected to be, extremely diligent in their deliberations, and to exhaustively explore all possible ramifications and applications of their decisions, by which they create the ultimate (supreme) legal precedent. Could it be that the precedent they have set in the Dobson case is designed to facilitate a new expansion of the abortion culture in this country?

The makers of the abortion pill RU486 said repeatedly that they would not apply to market the drug in Canada unless they were made to feel “welcome.” After years of pressure, Health Canada has now written to the company assuring it of a “fair hearing,” and now the highest court in the land has cleared away another obstacle: the potential for ruinous lawsuits.

One of the problems with abortion pills is that they do not always work. A failed abortion with a surviving, seriously damaged child would be an abortion-provider’s worst nightmare – if the child had the ability to sue its mother and the abortion-provider, Exelgyn, and Health Canada.

However, RU486 is not the only “abortion pill” available. Methotrexate, which was originally developed many years ago to treat childhood leukemia, is equally effective as an abortifacient. It has been widely used as an abortion pill in other countries but it has not been widely used in Canada.

On the first try, abortion pills fail in approximately 10 to 15 per cent of the cases. These women are then strongly advised to try again, and on the second try the failure rate goes down to about 5 per cent. The remaining women are then strongly urged to have a surgical abortion.

Some women will have second thoughts and change their minds, and drop out of the abortion process. It might be as early as 36 or 48 hours, when they do not return for the second drug (misoprostol or similar drug) to expel their most likely damaged, if not dead, fetus. Or they may refuse to have a surgical abortion if the abortion pill fails altogether.

How many damaged babies will be born as a result of damage caused in the womb by RU486 (or methotrexate) and misoprostol? This cannot be estimated, but it is possible to devise a formula to give some indication. Based on data from France, where by some estimates as many as 46 per cent of abortions are by chemical means, and the number of abortions per year in Canada is well over 100,000, if one in a hundred women changed their minds, it would result in probably a minimum of approximately 50 damaged babies per year.

The actual numbers will never be known, for they will be lost among those unfortunate children who by cruel quirk of nature are born deformed or defective.

How severe might such birth defects be? The available data comes from Brazil. Misoprostol was developed to treat gastritis and ulcers, but it is also an abortifacient drug. It is used in conjunction with RU486 (or methotrexate) to increase the effectiveness of these drugs and speed the abortion process, which otherwise might take a week or up to three weeks.

Unlike Canada, in Brazil misoprostol could be bought without a prescription. It was used illegally to procure abortions, most of which worked; but the failed abortions resulted in a mini-epidemic of deformed babies.

There is a report (unconfirmed, but from a previously reliable source) that a private abortion facility in Alberta has decided not to indulge in medical abortions (methotrexate, RU486 or the like). There is a similar report that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of that province are considering a “guideline” requiring that only an abortion provider who can immediately provide a surgical abortion if necessary to prevent the birth of a damaged baby should prescribe such drugs for the purpose of causing an abortion.