Richard Dur is Executive Director of Prolife Alberta

Every now and then, a study quietly enters the world, receiving little attention — its truths heavy, its implications profound. Released in the June 2024 issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Second-Trimester Abortion and Risk of Live Birth is one such study.

Dr. Nathalie Auger and her colleagues have delivered groundbreaking research on second-trimester abortions, exposing a fact that should have ignited a national conversation. They reveal that more than 11% of all second-trimester abortions in Quebec resulted in live births. There is no comparable Alberta study, but given the similar abortion practices in both provinces, there's no reason to believe the numbers would differ.

Yet, this unsettling truth has been met with silence. Instead of action, there’s an air of dismissal. Some claim that the statistical fact of babies being left to die is "easily disproved." Others dismiss it as mere "misinformation." But Dr. Auger’s research stands, undeniable and unflinching.

These are not abstract statistics. They are babies—tiny, fragile, and alive. And yet, in most cases, they are left to die. So, what does the Quebec study suggest should be done with these unintended live births? The answer is chilling: increase the effectiveness of killing. Specifically, through feticidal injections — a lethal injection designed to reduce the likelihood of live birth by 98 percent.

One must pause here — not to dwell on the mechanics of this act, but to reflect: What have we become when we measure success by how effectively we can silence a beating heart?

The medical practitioners involved, in the view of Hannah Arendt, embody what she famously termed the “banality of evil.” Not because they act with malice, but because they operate within a system that has normalized the taking of human life as a routine procedure. It is not individual cruelty at work, but a quiet, bureaucratic efficiency that strips away the moral weight of such decisions. In a world where metrics of success are calibrated to extinguish life, we must ask ourselves: What does this say about us? How far have we strayed when the deliberate act of stopping a heart becomes just another statistic?

Perhaps even more striking is the finding that nearly half of these abortions were performed for reasons other than fetal anomaly or maternal emergency. These were not the hard, tragic cases we are led to expect. These were decisions made under other circumstances.

These numbers should stop us dead in our tracks. Where is our humanity when it comes to babies, both born and unborn? What responsibility do we bear when a child is born alive after an attempted abortion?

Now, I don’t expect every reader to share my view that human life is sacred — including the life of an unborn child. But what does it say about a society that is so quick to terminate life, but so reluctant to provide care when that life persists? And what does it say about a government so persistent in its silence?

What kind of society are we if we allow newborns to die simply because of the circumstances of their birth? The least we owe to a child born alive is the same standard of medical care any other newborn would receive. Doctors should be required — morally, ethically, and legally — to provide the same care to infants who survive an abortion as they would to any other newborn of the same gestational age.

This is the conversation we should be having. Especially in light of Premier Smith’s recently announced plans to amend the Alberta Bill of Rights, this is a moment for reflection. This is a moment to ask who we are as Albertans and to contemplate the responsibility we bear to Alberta’s present and future children.

Richard Dur is Executive Director of Prolife Alberta

From Teen Strategist to Conservative Leader: The Life of Pierre Poilievre

Related Stories