And another MP speaks out: Jeff Watson

Debate abortion, unborn's human rights says Tory MP Watson

According to the CBC:

Watson said human rights for the unborn and abortion don't necessarily go hand-in-hand but said "there could be links between the two."

"I’d love to hear the debate on this. What are the various permutations and implications if human rights are extended to the unborn?" Watson said. "Parliament is exactly the place to have that discussion. If it doesn’t happen in Parliament, where do we have these discussions?"

"Obviously, the government has been extremely clear it is not going to reopen any debate. But the rules of Parliament are such that individual members of Parliament, if they want to discuss these issues, can bring them forward for discussion.

"And I think it's clear how the government will vote on those issues, too."

Watson admitted "it's no secret" he is a pro life member of Parliament and believes the "old debate" about abortion should be re-examined.

"I think there’s more that can be done with respect to that issue," Watson said.

He said the government could provide more social and financial support to women who experience unplanned pregnancies. Citing a college student as a hypothetical example, he said a young woman today would not have to choose between education and being an unexpected mother.

"With the right supports you could have both," Watson said. "There’s more to this discussion than the old debate."

Good on Jeff Watson. The debate continues. With or without Stephen Harper. 

Could there be a better Christmas present than this--pro-life MPs speaking out in defence of our pre-born Canadians?

Merry Christmas to all.

Is this 400 year old law outdated?

Tory MP boldly calls for abortion debate with statement that avoids using the word abortion

If Scott Stinson wants us to call what MP Stephen Woodworth is doing: "obfuscating", does it matter?

I say this is just one more gutsy principled Conservative MP in a growing list of similarly gutsy principled Conservative MPs. Good for them.

Just because the other Stephen doesn't want to have a debate using that word, well, we'll simply have the debate without Mr. Harper.

Woodworth said in his press release:
"Canadian law provides no human rights protection whatsoever for children before the moment of complete birth. This results from an unusual Canadian statute which defines a human being as a child who has completely proceeded in a living state from the mother’s body, whether or not the child has breathed.

This means that in Canada a child is legally considered to be sub-human while his or her little toe remains in the birth canal, even if he or she is breathing. This law was first formulated prior to the seventeenth century, when an early version of it was recorded in Coke’s Institutes of Law. In those times, medical science and principles of human rights were not sufficiently advanced to challenge such a law.

The important question is whether this 400 year old Canadian law is supported by 21st century medical science and principles of human rights. Perhaps Canadians should at least examine this question. MP Stephen Woodworth proposes that Parliament has a responsibility to lead that examination."

Yes I agree heartily with Stephen Woodworth. Let's examine this question.

Yonder breaks a new and glorious morn

This year I gave away my tiny little Nativity scene that I kept in my office. I had bought it at the dollar store a couple of years ago, and every year I would place it on my desk at Christmas, because, as everyone knows, Christmas is about the birth of Jesus Christ.

Since I didn't have it anymore I knew I'd have to get another one. So off I went back to the same dollar store. They didn’t have any. There were lots of bells and Santa Claus, ribbons and angels and other things we have come to associate with Christmas. But no Nativity scenes.

I then proceeded to go to gift shops, card shops, one department store, and saw lots more bells, Santa Claus, ribbons and bows, and tree ornaments. Nothing even remotely resembled a Nativity scene. I did actually find one porcelain Nativity scene--for $85. That seemed a bit rich, considering Jesus was born in, you know, a stable; with the sheep and the hay and the cows.

I even found a s'more in a manger. This is not a joke. This is for real. This would be a marshmallow in a manger. You know, like spun sugar and gelatin in a manger sitting on top of a graham cracker. Apart from the fact that I was offended, it was really rather pathetic. Move on, I thought, don't let it get you down. Don't lose sight of what you're looking for, a Nativity scene with Baby Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

Finally I found it in another dollar store. Three figurines: a baby Jesus lying in a manger with a little baby sheep beside him, Mary too, and a man with a staff. I think the man figurine was actually a shepherd, but he looked close enough to Joseph that I grabbed him. When I asked my sister who she thought he was, she that yes, he was probably a shepherd and not Joseph, since Joseph usually knelt beside baby Jesus.

That was fine. At least, I said, my Joseph is not a marshmallow.

My Nativity scene is complete. I am ready for Christmas.

Pro-life experts need not apply

The government agency Echo, has decided Ontario women need more access to abortions in a report called: Recommendations to Improve Abortion Services in Ontario: Report from the Expert Panel.
(Echo is a non-profit organization completely funded with Ontario tax dollars. Their revenue came from government grants of $2,338,423 in 2010, and $1,373,999 in 2009.)

So how did Echo conclude this? Well they asked a panel of "experts" to study abortion access in Ontario. The only problem is that, of all the experts they asked, none of them oppose abortion. No pro-life experts were consulted.

But here’s what else bothers me. It’s that Ontario abortion doctors are already performing way more abortions than we expected in 2010 at a cost of about 35 million dollars. Isn’t that enough? As well, Echo says they represent all Ontario women, but not all Ontario women are pro-abortion. So how can Echo say that they represent all of us? Clearly they can’t.

Their “expert” panel consisted of:

“a cross-provincial Abortion Expert Panel, who based the recommendations on their own expertise, key stakeholder consultation, and the findings of an Ontario based-study undertaken by Dr. L. Ferris through the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. The panel, assembled by Echo: Improving Women’s Health in Ontario, has been meeting over the past year to articulate clear recommendations and to assist in the development of the release strategy for key information from the study findings. The recommendations have implications for the health care, regulatory and training systems.”

I asked Echo’s CEO Pat Campbell if the "cross-provincial Abortion Expert Panel that was consulted with, had also consulted with medical professionals/other experts, who oppose abortion? Her answer was:

“None of the expert panel members oppose abortion.”

The report's “vision” is to:

“ensure accessible, safe, appropriate, timely, and non-judgmental abortion services for Ontario women through an integrated and sustainable sexual and reproductive health system.”

Some background on Echo comes from their Strategic plan and Reflecting Women’s voices.

Their stakeholders include the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the premier’s office, Members of Provincial parliaments, policy makers, and Ontario Women. This means this “pro-choice” group has the ear of not only your Premier and your MPP, but also your Ministry of Health. In fact Echo's mandate is to :

“provide input to government policy” and to “Act as a provincial advisor on women’s health to the Minister, the government and stakeholders; and Provide expert advice and recommendations in response to Minister and Government requests.”

Their “Health Issue focus” includes “Abortion Availability”. But there is no mention anywhere, in any of these three reports, on focusing on adoption availability/promotion, or on focusing on crisis pregnancy centres, two very important other choices for Ontario women.

Echo says it will:

“be the organization that...the women of Ontario seek out with their questions, ideas, options and support on issues of women’s health, equity and access.”

But will pro-life women go to Echo “with their questions, ideas, options and support on issues of women’s health?” I don’t think so.

Echo's conclusion from this "expert panel" is that:

“Ontario women benefit from access to well trained, committed service providers that do this important work in a generally effective and safe manner. The recommendations in this report are intended to continue to support the development of a system of care that supports improved quality and equity of access [to abortion].”

So what is our take away from this?

It is that in Canada’s biggest province, a 100% publicly funded organization, that supposedly “reflects all Ontario women’s voices”, but doesn’t bother to consult with pro-life voices, and that does not advocate for crucial pro-life choices, can conclude that women need more abortion access, when Ontario’s abortion doctors are already killing a whopping 44,000 babies a year and spending a fortune doing it. Do we really need to kill/spend more?

May I suggest you write a letter to Mr. McGuinty (dmcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org ) and your MPP?

(MPP contact information here)

You could tell them that you aren’t really interested in your tax dollars buying more abortions.

Even better, you could tell them that you’d like to see an expert panel formed to study, support and advise Ontario women on Crisis pregnancy centers and adoption agencies.

In fact maybe Mr. McGuinty could throw $35 million at these choices. That would indeed be money well spent.

CIHI clarification on abortion statistics

Last week I posted abortion statistics from OHIP records for 2010.

I noted the discrepancy between this FOI information I received, and what CIHI published for 2009. (My FOI asked for 2010, but CIHI hadn't published 2010 yet, so I made some general comparisons to previous years 2009, 2008, and 2007).

OHIP records showed at least 31% more abortions than what CIHI typically reports.

So I decided to ask CIHI if they could explain this discrepency.

This is what CIHI told me:

"Thank you for bringing this to our attention. As you know, CIHI just took over reporting on induced abortions from Statistics Canada last year. We are committed to improving the data quality, and have already made strides in areas such as increased accuracy regarding abortion methods and the number of complications associated with in-hospital procedures. We’ve also expanded coverage as a whole.

Currently, our Ontario data on abortion comes from hospitals and clinics. Hospital-based abortions are from administrative data and represent actual number of procedures; they are not based on OHIP billing data. In the case of clinics, we receive records from the provincial ministry that are based on OHIP data. They are for the two billing codes—S752 and S785—that most accurately reflect the scope of our induced abortion database.

We are investigating the information you have provided in order to better understand the discrepancies, and will continue to incorporate any information which will improve our data quality."

I've asked CIHI for some further clarification. I'll keep you posted.

Wanted: love and compassion

I recently made a donation to the Miriam Centre of Ottawa, for which I received a beautiful thank you note. The note said in part:

"Your generosity allows us to welcome with love and compassion, mothers who are facing a difficult pregnancy. On behalf of all our mothers and their families, we wish to thank you from the bottom of our hearts for your gift."

The Miriam Centre's services are provided without federal, provincial or municipal funding, and are funded only with donations.

Their goal is:

"to minister love and compassion to all mothers and also to those involved in their pregnancies.

Mothers, single or married, regardless of age or situation, are welcomed to the Centre before and after the birth of their child.

Miriam Centre offers assistance to mothers who have already given birth and are having difficulty adjusting to their new lives. Thus they are more confident of their future and that of their child."

It got me thinking.

On the one hand, here is an organization; run by a handful of staff members and some volunteers; whose only source of revenue are donations from the public; who receives no government funding; whose goal is to help a woman with a crisis pregnancy.

On the other hand, Ontario doctors performed at least 44,000 abortions last year; publicly funded by the taxpayer; at an average cost of $800 dollars per abortion.

That's about $35,000,000 Ontarians paid in 2010; for a procedure that is not medically necessary; that is harmful to women and their families; that doesn't help society; that destroys innocent human beings; in a time where every health dollar spent in Ontario is crucial.

Is it only me, or is there something wrong with this picture?

When the medical profession normalizes abortion

An article in the New England Journal of Medicine is claiming that abortion has virtually no negative effect on women.

The article says:

"Few long-term sequelae are evident after abortion, and the morbidity and mortality are lower with induced abortion (either medical or surgical) than with pregnancy carried to term."

How depressing.

We have normalized abortion to such a degree now that it seems we don't even think of other alternatives like adoption anymore. How tragic for the women who have unwittingly or wittingly bought into this pro-abortion viewpoint.

But it is not surprising that women have succumbed to this philosophy, when on the one hand she is influenced by the extreme minority who tell women they should be "pro-choice". And on the other hand, she can read something like this in a medical journal, where the entire article is written from the assumption that the taking of the life of an unborn person, is as normal and acceptable as some minor surgery. But abortion is not the same. A woman will remember and suffer from an abortion for the rest of her life. She is as much a victim as the child is.

Why can't the medical profession be truly compassionate with women and offer them support and counselling to encourage them to find another option and save the child inside of her? They would also be saving the life of the mother.

Whatever happened to the doctor's creed to first do no harm?

Putting an end to abortion

The pro-abortions hate it when we bring morality into the abortion debate. Their comeback is usually the forgettable "Against abortion? Don't have one." This week's We want the Debate poster puts that line in its proper perspective.

I think the topic of morality makes pro-abortions queasy. Like, what if there really is something morally questionable about destroying a little defenceless human being, for no other reason than it's my self given right to do so?

To assuage their icky feelings, they may read something from a hard line pro-abort, like "the only moral abortion is my abortion", with the hope that this will ease their conscience. I wonder if it actually does?

Over time, I suppose, they may convince themselves that abortion is perfectly okay, that it doesn't harm the woman at all. And the unborn child, what do they think of her?

The thing is, what do the pro-abortions think the criminal code is based on, if not morality? Don't murder, don't steal, don't rape. The list goes on.

So why are we against abortion? Because abortion hurts a woman, it hurts her family, it hurts society and it hurts a child. There are better ways for a woman to deal with an unplanned pregnancy, like getting support from a crisis pregnancy centre, or putting the child up for adoption. Why is it that the pro-abortions never talk about adoption?

Thank goodness we finally put an end to slavery.

We will put an end to abortion too.

Ontario abortion doctors very busy in 2010

I recently submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term care for 2010 abortion OHIP billing information. This is what I asked for:

1) How many procedures, and how many dollars, were billed for all abortion clinics in Ontario, for each of the following codes:

S752, S785, P053, P054, S770, S783

2) How many procedures, and how many dollars, were billed for all private physicians' offices in Ontario, for each of the following codes:

S752, S785, P053, P054, S770, S783

3) How many procedures, and how many dollars, were billed for all hospitals in Ontario, for each of the following codes:

S752, S785, P053, P054, S770, S783

(Procedure descriptions here and here and are also included in my graph below. The graph also contains a compilation of the statistics that I received from the Ministry.)

There were 77 selective fetal reduction procedures done in Ontario in 2010.

There were at least 43,997 procedures performed in 2010 in Ontario for a base cost of $5,470,562.36.

(Note: this is only what doctors billed for. See Ministry notes 2 and 3 below regarding costs. Therefore this base cost does not appear to reflect the total cost of an abortion to the taxpayer, which has been estimated at an average cost of about $800/abortion)

CIHI had reported that in 2009, there were 30,268 abortions in Ontario; that in 2008 there were 32,150 abortions, and in 2007, 32,331abortions.

We have suspected that CIHI/Statistics Canada abortions have been under reported. These 2010 figures from these OHIP billings, are actually about 45.4% (my original entry reported this at 31%, which is incorrect) higher than the CIHI figures for 2009 and seems to confirm that abortions are being under reported in Ontario.

(The following three notes were included in the response I received back from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term care for this 2010 abortion OHIP billing information.)

(1) The total procedures corresponds solely to the volumes of these procedures as per listed fee schedule codes.

(2) The total billed is based on the billed amount submitted on the claim and does not necessarily represent what was approved and paid for the claim (emphasis included). For example facility fees for specific TA clinics are not included in the fee billed total. The total billed measure includes billed amounts for the professional component volumes as well as the anaesthesia and/or surgical assist components where applicable.

(3) Both fee-for-service as well as globally funded claims were included and restricted to Ontario physicians, in-province claims only. Any potential out-of-province, out-of-country claims were not included.

Note: On May 4, 2012, I corrected an error I made in this blog entry in the percentage calculation above. I reported OHIP's numbers as being 31% higher that CIHI's numbers. It should have read that OHIP's numbers were 45.4% higher than CIHI's numbers.

UPDATE January 15, 2017: OHIP's numbers are actually 53.3% higher than CIHI's numbers for 2010 stats as I calculated here.

Click on the graph below and it will enlarge.