You Can Sue,            31 January 2019

Chapter 1: Induced Abortions: Severely Contraindicated Treatment

                  Address for Chapter 1:

                  Brent Rooney (MSc, email:


    Induced abortions (IAs) are virtually 100% elective (unnecessary)

treatments & thus must never be provided if the IA has potential

serious adverse risks. IA increases over 20 adverse risks, with

the most serious being: breast cancer, future premature delivery of a

handicapped baby, suicide, victim of homicide, substance abuse,

miscarriage, and reproductive tract infections. On the other side of the

 ‘health ledger’ are zero IA health benefits for women undergoing

 induced abortions validated by ‘study of studies’ (medical study

 category that provides the highest confidence, pro or con, about a

 claimed risk factor or beneficial effect).


    If a doctor performs a treatment where the possible harms

clearly outweigh the possible benefits, an objective and unbiased

court may well hold that to be an ethical violation against a

defendant doctor in a medical negligence law suit. Virtually 100%

of abortions are elective (ie. unnecessary) medical treatments. If

the potential harms of an elective treatment far outweigh the

potential benefits, the doctor must not provide the treatment to

the patient. Here is what Canadian judge Ellen I. Picard wrote in

her classic legal textbook:


  “... However, this does not mean that the doctor has a duty to

  provide (and the patient a correlative right to receive) whatever

  treatment the patient may request. If a patient requests treatment

  which the doctor considers to be inappropriate and potentially

  harmful, the doctor's overriding duty to act in the patient's best

  interests dictates that the treatment must be withheld. A doctor who

  accedes to a patient's request (or demand) and performs treatment

  which he or she knows, or ought to know, is contraindicated and

  not in the patient's best interests, may be held liable for any injury

  which the patient suffers as a result of treatment.....”[1, Picard]


Young Childless Women Undergoing IAs (Induced Abortions)


    It should be very obvious that increasing a woman’s lifetime

breast cancer risk via an unnecessary (ie. elective) medical

treatment is very unethical and dangerous. About 1/2 of abortions

in Canada and the USA are performed on childless women. It has

been medical fact for at least 3 1/2 decades that the older a woman

is at her first delivery of a baby (full-term), the higher her lifetime

breast cancer (B.C.) risk (see Chapter 3). In advanced counties there

is a 41% higher relative B.C. risk via a first delivery (full-term) at

age 32 versus a first delivery at age 22 (ie. a 10 year postponement),

according to Harvard University researchers .[2, Trichopoulos] (A

five (5) year postponement of a first delivery increases relative B.C.

risk by 19%). As a general rule, abortion consent forms have

zero warnings directed at CHILDLESS women. So, for example,

pregnant childless women do not see abortion consent form

warnings along the following lines:

    “If you are a childless young woman, delivering a baby (full-term)

    currently provides you with lower lifetime breast risk compared

    to a first delivery of a baby (full-term) when you are older.”


Does elective abortion have short term (1-5 years) health benefits?

    What are the top 3 killers of young women between ages

18 and 35 years old in advanced countries? Answer: Accidents

(#1 by far), Suicides, & Homicides. Any study comparing short

term death rates of women who deliver babies to women who

have induced abortions that excludes the top 3 killers of young

women clearly does NOT reveal which of the 2 groups has higher

total death risk. Thus, if a study purports to find that women

who deliver babies have 5, 10, or 15 times higher death risk as

women who have IAs, but that study excludes deaths by Accidents,

Suicides, and Homicides (the top 3 killers of young women), it

has provided readers with a very deceptive statistic. Mortality

studies that do NOT exclude any cause of death are termed

“All-Cause Mortality” studies. If there was just 1 study published

in a peer-reviewed medical journal finding that in the 12 months

“after end of pregnancy’ that women who choose induced abortion

have (on average) lower “All-Cause Mortality” risk than women

who deliver babies, then abortion supporters could claim a

significant benefit for abortion. Such a study does not exist and

the burden of proof that such a study does exist lies on the

‘shoulders’ of abortion supporters. If challenged in a court of law

to provide a copy of such a study, the defendant(s) will be unable

to do so. [So-called ‘maternal mortality’ studies, since they

exclude deaths by Accidents, Suicides, & Homicides, are NOT

“All-Cause” mortality studies.] If a defendant does provide a

claimed copy of such a study and it is shown that “maternal

mortality” was used to compare mortality risk, the defendant has

failed to provided the required study.


    The strongest form of evidence for or against a purported

medical risk is provided by the medical study category:

‘study of studies’ (meta-analysis). And if a ‘meta-analysis’ also

provides a systematic review of all studies for a particular risk,

it is termed Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis (SRMA),

the very pinnacle of medical evidence. Using data from 11 prior

published studies, David Reardon (PhD and Dr. John Thorp

(University of North Carolina) in a peer-reviewed November

2017 ‘study of studies’ reported:

    “Within a year of their pregnancy outcomes, women

    experiencing pregnancy loss are over twice as likely

    to die compared to women giving birth”.[3, Reardon]

Pregnancy loss includes: miscarriages, induced abortions, &

stillbirths. In published abortion studies by Finnish researchers,

zero reliance on interviews of women to ascertain IA history

is done. Instead Finnish researchers obtain abortion history

reliably via Finland’s national abortion registry. Using that

Finnish IA registry researchers, led by Dr. Mika Gissler, revealed

the comparative total death risk in the 12 months after pregnancy

end: Finnish women with induced abortions were 3.5 times

more likely to die compared to Finnish women who delivered

babies.[4, Gissler] In addition, in a surprise to many, the

‘Gissler’ study revealed that women who deliver babies have

lower total death risk (in the 12 months after pregnancy end) than

Finnish women not recently pregnant. Bottom line: If the consent

form you signed asserted or implied that induced abortion is safer

for a woman than delivery of a baby, this misinformed consent is

medical negligence. Consent forms must inform patients of safer

alternatives to the one desired, if such safer alternatives exist. A

pregnant woman’s delivery of a baby is a much safer alternative

than an elective induced abortion and optimizes her future

reproductive health.


Overview of Induced Abortion Risks

      On 8 November 2018 the deVeber Institute (Toronto,

Canada) released edition 2 of its very well researched book:

COMPLICATIONS. Hundreds of citations are provided to

support many adverse induced abortion outcomes. [ Oder


; if you order COMPLICATIONS via AMAZON,

make sure you get the most recent edition (edition 2), which will

have 2018 as the publication year ]

Address for this Chapter 1:




1 Picard EI, Robertson GB, Legal Liability Of Doctors And

Hospitals In Canada, Carswell, Toronto, Canada, pp. 345-346, 2007)


2 Trichopoulos D, Hsien D-C, MacMahon B, Lin T-M, Lowe RC, et al.

Age at any birth and breast cancer risk. Intl J Cancer 1983;31:701-704

[ Abstract: ]

3 Reardon DC, Thorp JM. Pregnancy associated death in record

linkage studies relative to delivery, termination of pregnancy, and

natural losses: A systematic review with a narrative synthesis and

meta-analysis. Safe Open Medicine 13 November 2017


4 Gissler M, Kauppila R, Merilainen J, Toukomaa H, Hemminki E.

Pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland 1987-1994 – definition

problems and benefits of record linkage. Acta Obstetrica Gynecologica

Scandinavica 1997;96(7):651-657 [URL: ]