Thank you for your letter of January 27, 2012 responding to my email of January 26, 2012, where I stated that it was time to defund abortions in Ontario.
With all due respect Mr. McGuinty, you seem to be confused about the status of abortion in Canada.
In your letter you wrote:
“You may be aware that, in 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed the constitutional validity of abortion. The court ruled that a woman in our country has the legal right to a timely, accessible abortion as an insured service. In compliance with the Supreme Court decision, abortion remains a publicly funded procedure in Ontario.”
First, the 1988 Morgentaler decision did not give women the constitutional right to abortion in Canada.
Second, it did not require that abortions be publicly funded.
The Supreme Court said that the procedural requirements laid out in the abortion law caused extensive delays and unequal access to therapeutic abortion committees (TACs). It was the TACs which provided women with a valid defence to a criminal charge of abortion. So if a woman whose life or health was endangered by the pregnancy couldn’t access a TAC, she would be committing a crime if she proceeded with the abortion. And the Court said this was a violation of her Charter 7 right to ‘security of the person.’ Essentially, she had to choose between either obeying a criminal law or protecting her life/health, but not both. That is why the court struck down the law. (See here )
The Court also left open the possibility for Parliament to enact a new law to replace the old one.
Chief Justice Dickson in the majority decision said that the protection of the fetus:
“does relate to concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society and which, pursuant to s. 1 of the Charter, justify reasonable limits to be put on a woman’s right.”
In other words, it is reasonable to put some restrictions on abortion because protection of the fetus is a legitimate government objective.
You can read the1988 Court decision here.
Another argument people sometimes use in favour of funding of abortions is that the Canada Health Act requires it. This is untrue. As you know, the CHA only requires that medically necessary procedures be funded. Most abortions are not done for medical reasons.
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute (a research affiliate of the abortion-rights advocacy group, Planned Parenthood Federation of America), nearly all abortions are done for socio-economic reasons, not medical ones.
Did you know that when polled, 91% of Ontarians were unaware how much money your government spends to subsidize abortions in Ontario?
And did you also know that according to a 2011 Environics poll commissioned by LifeCanada, 71% of Ontarians oppose government funding of non-medically necessary abortions?
So, Mr. McGuinty, can you please tell me why Ontarians are paying approximately $35 Million a year on abortions (about 44,000 abortions per year for at least $800 per abortion) when it is likely that most of that money is going towards non-therapeutic abortions—abortions that are done for social reasons that have nothing to do with health care? The Canada Health Act does not require it, the Supreme Court has never ruled on it, and the majority of Ontarians are against it.
One must assume there is a reason, and the people of Ontario, myself included, deserve to know why we continue to pay for abortions.
If your government has no reason, then why are we paying for something for no reason when Ontario is in debt for $16 billion?
I look forward to hearing your answers soon.
Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney
Monday, January 30, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
ATIP: CIDA and IPPF (Part 4)
Attached are the appendixes which provides the details of the proposed deliverables by IPPF for the Muskoka initiative on maternal and child health initiative.
Click on each picture, print, then place them side by side to get the full table.
Click on each picture, print, then place them side by side to get the full table.
ATIP: CIDA and IPPF (Part 3)
Below I have scanned the Programme Goals and Objectives of the proposal to CIDA from IPPF for funding from the Government’s Muskoka initiative on maternal and child health initiative approved by Minister Oda (pages 7, 8, 9, part of page 10, and part of page 12).
I also referred to some of what is below, in my previous entry.
Sorry for the length of this entry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Programme Goal
All people, particularly the poor, marginalized, the socially excluded, and underserved are able to exercise their right, to make free and informed choices about their SRH, and have access to SRH information, sexuality education and high quality services, including family planning, all of which are stigma-free, sensitive to gender dynamics and sexual diversity, and offer a positive approach to sexuality. (10)
Objectives
1. To ensure access to IPPF quality-assured, client-oriented, rights-based and integrated package of SRH services including family planning, ante-natal care, STI prevention and care including HIV;
2. To ensure affordable community based outreach services and easy access to services, with a focus on the poor, marginalized and socially-excluded, stigmatized and underserved women and young people;
3. To ensure contraceptive and RH commodity security and to promote under-utilized and new contraceptive technologies;
4. To strengthen health systems through strong partnerships
Expected Results (11)
In partnership with CIDA, IPPF will deliver a comprehensive response to the Muskoka Initiative at two levels - globally and at country level. Globally, IPPF will drive the delivery of expected results and contribute to:
o Preventing the deaths of 1.3 million children under five years of age;
o Preventing the deaths of 64,000 mothers;
o Giving access to modern methods of family planning for 12 million couples
Through funding from the Government of Canada, IPPF's network of service delivery MAs based in 5 ountries (12) will deliver:
• 307,273 unintended pregnancies averted; (13)
• 1,229,092 CYPs provided by method including 98,971 IUD, 191,450 sterilization, 623,706 oral contraceptive pills, 140,511 condoms, 134,104 Injectables, 28,964 Implants, 10,438 Other Barrier Methods, 89 Other Hormonal Methods;
• 3,676,063 SRH services (excluding family planning) and provided by type of service: 186,623 gynaecological, 1,551,019 maternal and child health, 476,518 STI and RTI, 697,166 HIV and AIDS, 436,459 other SRH medical, 571 urological, 35,161 infertility;
• 5,738,052 SRH services including 3,245,485 family planning services provided to young people under age 25;
• 7,090,090 family planning (FP) services provided by method provided by type of service: 37,943 IUD, 19,192 sterilization, 5,196,801 oral contraceptive pills, 1,190,709 condoms, 511,674 Injectables, 67,440 Implants, 18,256 Other Barrier Methods and 568 Other Hormonal Methods;
• 1,321,938 HIV-related services provided along the prevention to care continuum
• 70 estimated percentage of Member Association's clients who are poor, marginalized and/or socially excluded.
A Logical Framework is presented at Annex 1 to demonstrate the programme's goal, objectives, idicators, targets, and contribution to the MDGs. Annex 2 includes a breakdown of these figures by member Association.
Strategy and Approach
IPPF proposes to scale-up services focused on delivering a core set of health outputs in 5 countries. We will drive the delivery of expected results in line with the Muskoka Initiative through IPPF's strategic Goal on Access. Our approach builds on IPPF's global experience of comprehensive family planning programming and the provision of integrated services, lessons learned and best practice hared among our network of MAs.
Objective 1: To ensure access to IPPF quality-assured, client-oriented, rights-based and itegrated package of SRH services including family planning, ante-natal care, STI prevention and care including HIV
Over 31 million clients, men or women, married or unmarried, young or old visit our 64,500 service delivery points every year. Every client visiting an IPPF service delivery point can expect to receive a holistic and integrated package of services. Clients arriving at our clinics for contraceptive services will typically be informed about other common SRH issues. They will also be offered the choice to be asked a set of rapid and standardized screening questions to elicit STI symptoms, safer sex practice, including condom use and voluntary counselling and testing (VCT), risks of gender-based violence, and as appropriate reproductive cancer screening history, such as cervical cancer. Additionally, every client coming to the service delivery points for non-contraceptive services will be asked about their contraceptive practices, family size and child-spacing desires. These services are essential integrated package of SRH services that IPPF MAs endeavour to make available at the primary level of care.
Our service delivery points are designed to be non-intimidating, as well as user and youth-friendly. They offer a safe space free from stigma and judgment. Our SRH information and services emphasize a positive approach to sexuality. In settings with a shortage of doctors, and whenever safe and effective, we train and provide supportive supervision to community-based health workers and mid-level providers to deliver specific procedures. This ensures that clients in resource-poor settings are still able to access high quality services from trained service providers.
• Quality-assured, client-centred care
Quality-assured and client-centred care means that clients' needs guide the planning and implementation of our services. IPPF services meet clinical standards, which require the commitment and expertise of clinic managers and service providers. We believe that clinic and programme tanagers, service providers and clients, all play a role in achieving quality-assured, client-centred care.
IPPF will strengthen the quality of care at service delivery points, taking into account our commitment to a holistic, no-missed opportunity and stigma-free approach through providing:
o Updated self-assessment checklist tool to reflect most recent technical developments.
o Guidelines and job-aids based on current global standards (WHO Medical Eligibility Criteria, Selected Practice Recommendations, or Decision Making Tool for Family Planning, including the tool for people living with HIV)
o A revised Quality of Care tools through revised edition of `IPPF Medical Service Delivery Guidelines, (14) which complements 'IPPF's Global Handbook on Family Planning. (15)
Objective 2: To ensure affordable community based outreach services and easy access to ervices, with a focus on the„poor marginalized and socially-excluded, stigmatized and underved women and young people
IPPF MAs are committed to ensuring easy access to services by using an integrated model of service delivery points, which are conveniently available to everyone, especially to the poor, marginalized, socially-excluded, stigmatized and underserved. All services are of quality, free of unnecessary administrative and medical barriers. People can choose from a wide range of SRH services and a large mix of contraceptive methods.
• Innovative outreach channels
Our MAs offer services through multiple channels, including static and mobile clinics, community-based distributors, retail outlets and other public and private-sector providers. IPPF's community-based health workers offer information and education as well as contraceptives such as condoms and oral contraceptives. They refer people to clinics for other contraceptives and SRH services. IPPF offer clients a larger mix of contraceptives, and in particular long-acting and reversible contraceptives (LARC), such as IUDs and implants, through mobile clinics.
We build the capacity of primary health care public and private-sector providers on new contraceptive technologies, supply them with contraceptive commodities where needed, and offer them regular technical support and supportive supervision. As grassroots organizations part of the national health system, IPPF MAs are committed to strengthening the health care system where they operate.
• Information and education
IPPF's high quality and accessible services are pointless if people do not know about them or want them. Demand generation will be conducted through a combination of channels, such as mass media, interpersonal and community channels, in order to maximize the effect of behaviour change communication (BCC). Instead of one-time BCC campaigns, we will ensure sustained healthy behaviour through continuous communication materials and campaigns.
Objective 3: To ensure contraceptive and reproductive health commodity security and to promote under-utilized and new contraceptive technologies
IPPF aims to deliver a continuous supply of a variety of contraceptives, so that clients can choose their preferred method without interruption whenever they want. Other SRH commodities needed to implement the integrated SRH package, such as antimicrobials for STI treatment, will also be secured. IPPF and our MAs will promote and offer under-utilized and new technologies:
o Oral contraceptives, emergency contraceptive pills and condoms are known to be challenging to use perfectly and consistently. These short acting methods will be readily available and accessible to people using such methods, including young people. J
o LARC (16) and surgical methods such as IUDs, vasectomy and bilateral tubal ligation, based on the needs of communities and the training needs of service providers.
o We will continue to participate in research and development initiatives with partners such as the World Health Organization (WHO), by piloting new service delivery models and contraceptive technologies, such as the Uniject injectable contraceptive that will be available by 2012. (17)
Objective 4: To strengthen health systems through strong partnerships.
IPPF MAs will continue to build on partnerships with key agencies, including Ministries of Health
(MOH), and UNFPA Country Offices to strengthen health systems. Most is participate in me annual planning meetings of their respective UNFPA Country Office and MOH, and play an important role as their implementing partner. (18) Many MAs play a critical role as national service providers on behalf of the government, with whom they have contractual arrangements.
Throughout the proposed initiative, IPPF MAs will continue to partner with key agencies, including
MOH and UNFPA Country Offices. In addition we will strengthen our collaboration with other national partners, such as:
o The national branch of the International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (FIGO), with whom IPPF also has a global Memorandum of Understanding. Many of our MAs' volunteers belong to the national FIGO branch, and will provide technical assistance through competency-based training on new contraceptives or quality of care supervision to our service providers;
o Public and private-sector providers will play an important role as implementing partners of the social franchising of our integrated SRH delivery models. We will give emphasis on training them on under-utilized and new contraceptive technologies;
o Training institutions, including nursing, midwifery, medical schools and MOH, to ensure that their pre-service training curricula are up-to-date with regard to contraceptive and SRH technologies, and quality of care standards.
10 IPPF Strategic Framework Goal 4: Access to SRH services.
11 The program expected results are based on expected results in 5 countries as presented in the Logical Framework Analysis at Annex 1
12 Member Associations selected work in OECD DAC recipient countries
13 Number of Pregnancies Averted is currently calculated using the impact calculator. The Impact Calculator is currently being used by the Futures Group to harmonize Couple Years of Protection conversion. Multiples of the three are generally used worldwide by USAID, WHO, and MSI. IPPF uses the lowest values so as to not inflate performance. If IPPF used the highest, its CYP would be 45 per cent higher.
14 'IPPF Medical Service Delivery' can be accessed at
http://www.ippf.org/en/Resources/Guides-toolkits/IPPF+Medical+and+Service+Delivery+Guidelines.htm
15 Global Handbook on Family Planning' can be accessed at
http://www.ippf.org/NR/rdonlyres/E8AA38AE-AE7A-4D35-BD57-A55D2B4BE7A5/0/Family_Planning_Global_Handbook.pdf
16 LARC and surgical methods are known to be more cost-effective in terms of couple years of protection (CYP) than short-term methods, such as condoms, Injectables and oral contraceptive pills. LARC methods may be suitable for many clients but require frequent repeat visits.
17 Uniject has an integrated hypodermic needle and a small squeezable bubble-like container, Uniject has the potential to improve the safety and acceptability of injectable contraceptives given by service providers, and in particular by community-based distributors. Uniject will be easier for clients to self-administer their injectable contraceptive in the privacy of their home, which is in line with the demedicalization philosophy of IPPF.
18 UNFPA-IPPF collaboration is backed up by a global Memorandum of Understanding and action plan that was updated in July 2010 by both agencies.
(and this from page 12):
Eligible Countries
IPPF will deliver a comprehensive response to the Muskoka Initiative at the country level in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Mali, Sudan and Tanzania. IPPF's Secretariat, through joint collaboration with Central and Regional Offices, will drive expected results globally in line with the Muskoka Initiative through IPPF's Strategic Goal on Access. The Secretariat will also manage the programme through offering technical expertise on comprehensive family planning and other SRH services, and the development, harmonization and implementation of the programme's main components. Central Office and Regional Offices will also support selected MAs in terms of technical assistance and capacity building. The Secretariat will support implementation in areas such as financial and human resources management, resource mobilization and monitoring and evaluation. 75 per cent of the programme budget will be allocated to MAs to deliver health outcomes in the 6 countries. The 6 MAs all fall into the list of 49 low-income countries identified in the Taskforce on Innovative International Financing for Health Systems (22) the Muskoka Initiative (23) and CIDA priority countries.
IPPF will ensure that no MA will use Canadian funds for abortion activity. In the past certain Governments have placed various legislative or policy restrictions on the use of funds, including for induced abortion services. IPPF has procedures in place that can immediately be reinstated to ensure that no funds from the Government of Canada are used for abortion services. This includes he holding of funds in a separate bank account.
22 The Taskforce on Innovative International Financing for Health Systems identifies 49 low-income countries where investments in national health systems would save four million children and babies annually, and up to 322,000 maternal deaths, and 193,000 adult HIV deaths.
23 The Muskoka Initiative is focused on achieving significant progress on health systems strengthening in countries with high burdens of maternal and under-five child mortality and an unmet need for family planning.
I also referred to some of what is below, in my previous entry.
Sorry for the length of this entry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Programme Goal
All people, particularly the poor, marginalized, the socially excluded, and underserved are able to exercise their right, to make free and informed choices about their SRH, and have access to SRH information, sexuality education and high quality services, including family planning, all of which are stigma-free, sensitive to gender dynamics and sexual diversity, and offer a positive approach to sexuality. (10)
Objectives
1. To ensure access to IPPF quality-assured, client-oriented, rights-based and integrated package of SRH services including family planning, ante-natal care, STI prevention and care including HIV;
2. To ensure affordable community based outreach services and easy access to services, with a focus on the poor, marginalized and socially-excluded, stigmatized and underserved women and young people;
3. To ensure contraceptive and RH commodity security and to promote under-utilized and new contraceptive technologies;
4. To strengthen health systems through strong partnerships
Expected Results (11)
In partnership with CIDA, IPPF will deliver a comprehensive response to the Muskoka Initiative at two levels - globally and at country level. Globally, IPPF will drive the delivery of expected results and contribute to:
o Preventing the deaths of 1.3 million children under five years of age;
o Preventing the deaths of 64,000 mothers;
o Giving access to modern methods of family planning for 12 million couples
Through funding from the Government of Canada, IPPF's network of service delivery MAs based in 5 ountries (12) will deliver:
• 307,273 unintended pregnancies averted; (13)
• 1,229,092 CYPs provided by method including 98,971 IUD, 191,450 sterilization, 623,706 oral contraceptive pills, 140,511 condoms, 134,104 Injectables, 28,964 Implants, 10,438 Other Barrier Methods, 89 Other Hormonal Methods;
• 3,676,063 SRH services (excluding family planning) and provided by type of service: 186,623 gynaecological, 1,551,019 maternal and child health, 476,518 STI and RTI, 697,166 HIV and AIDS, 436,459 other SRH medical, 571 urological, 35,161 infertility;
• 5,738,052 SRH services including 3,245,485 family planning services provided to young people under age 25;
• 7,090,090 family planning (FP) services provided by method provided by type of service: 37,943 IUD, 19,192 sterilization, 5,196,801 oral contraceptive pills, 1,190,709 condoms, 511,674 Injectables, 67,440 Implants, 18,256 Other Barrier Methods and 568 Other Hormonal Methods;
• 1,321,938 HIV-related services provided along the prevention to care continuum
• 70 estimated percentage of Member Association's clients who are poor, marginalized and/or socially excluded.
A Logical Framework is presented at Annex 1 to demonstrate the programme's goal, objectives, idicators, targets, and contribution to the MDGs. Annex 2 includes a breakdown of these figures by member Association.
Strategy and Approach
IPPF proposes to scale-up services focused on delivering a core set of health outputs in 5 countries. We will drive the delivery of expected results in line with the Muskoka Initiative through IPPF's strategic Goal on Access. Our approach builds on IPPF's global experience of comprehensive family planning programming and the provision of integrated services, lessons learned and best practice hared among our network of MAs.
Objective 1: To ensure access to IPPF quality-assured, client-oriented, rights-based and itegrated package of SRH services including family planning, ante-natal care, STI prevention and care including HIV
Over 31 million clients, men or women, married or unmarried, young or old visit our 64,500 service delivery points every year. Every client visiting an IPPF service delivery point can expect to receive a holistic and integrated package of services. Clients arriving at our clinics for contraceptive services will typically be informed about other common SRH issues. They will also be offered the choice to be asked a set of rapid and standardized screening questions to elicit STI symptoms, safer sex practice, including condom use and voluntary counselling and testing (VCT), risks of gender-based violence, and as appropriate reproductive cancer screening history, such as cervical cancer. Additionally, every client coming to the service delivery points for non-contraceptive services will be asked about their contraceptive practices, family size and child-spacing desires. These services are essential integrated package of SRH services that IPPF MAs endeavour to make available at the primary level of care.
Our service delivery points are designed to be non-intimidating, as well as user and youth-friendly. They offer a safe space free from stigma and judgment. Our SRH information and services emphasize a positive approach to sexuality. In settings with a shortage of doctors, and whenever safe and effective, we train and provide supportive supervision to community-based health workers and mid-level providers to deliver specific procedures. This ensures that clients in resource-poor settings are still able to access high quality services from trained service providers.
• Quality-assured, client-centred care
Quality-assured and client-centred care means that clients' needs guide the planning and implementation of our services. IPPF services meet clinical standards, which require the commitment and expertise of clinic managers and service providers. We believe that clinic and programme tanagers, service providers and clients, all play a role in achieving quality-assured, client-centred care.
IPPF will strengthen the quality of care at service delivery points, taking into account our commitment to a holistic, no-missed opportunity and stigma-free approach through providing:
o Updated self-assessment checklist tool to reflect most recent technical developments.
o Guidelines and job-aids based on current global standards (WHO Medical Eligibility Criteria, Selected Practice Recommendations, or Decision Making Tool for Family Planning, including the tool for people living with HIV)
o A revised Quality of Care tools through revised edition of `IPPF Medical Service Delivery Guidelines, (14) which complements 'IPPF's Global Handbook on Family Planning. (15)
Objective 2: To ensure affordable community based outreach services and easy access to ervices, with a focus on the„poor marginalized and socially-excluded, stigmatized and underved women and young people
IPPF MAs are committed to ensuring easy access to services by using an integrated model of service delivery points, which are conveniently available to everyone, especially to the poor, marginalized, socially-excluded, stigmatized and underserved. All services are of quality, free of unnecessary administrative and medical barriers. People can choose from a wide range of SRH services and a large mix of contraceptive methods.
• Innovative outreach channels
Our MAs offer services through multiple channels, including static and mobile clinics, community-based distributors, retail outlets and other public and private-sector providers. IPPF's community-based health workers offer information and education as well as contraceptives such as condoms and oral contraceptives. They refer people to clinics for other contraceptives and SRH services. IPPF offer clients a larger mix of contraceptives, and in particular long-acting and reversible contraceptives (LARC), such as IUDs and implants, through mobile clinics.
We build the capacity of primary health care public and private-sector providers on new contraceptive technologies, supply them with contraceptive commodities where needed, and offer them regular technical support and supportive supervision. As grassroots organizations part of the national health system, IPPF MAs are committed to strengthening the health care system where they operate.
• Information and education
IPPF's high quality and accessible services are pointless if people do not know about them or want them. Demand generation will be conducted through a combination of channels, such as mass media, interpersonal and community channels, in order to maximize the effect of behaviour change communication (BCC). Instead of one-time BCC campaigns, we will ensure sustained healthy behaviour through continuous communication materials and campaigns.
Objective 3: To ensure contraceptive and reproductive health commodity security and to promote under-utilized and new contraceptive technologies
IPPF aims to deliver a continuous supply of a variety of contraceptives, so that clients can choose their preferred method without interruption whenever they want. Other SRH commodities needed to implement the integrated SRH package, such as antimicrobials for STI treatment, will also be secured. IPPF and our MAs will promote and offer under-utilized and new technologies:
o Oral contraceptives, emergency contraceptive pills and condoms are known to be challenging to use perfectly and consistently. These short acting methods will be readily available and accessible to people using such methods, including young people. J
o LARC (16) and surgical methods such as IUDs, vasectomy and bilateral tubal ligation, based on the needs of communities and the training needs of service providers.
o We will continue to participate in research and development initiatives with partners such as the World Health Organization (WHO), by piloting new service delivery models and contraceptive technologies, such as the Uniject injectable contraceptive that will be available by 2012. (17)
Objective 4: To strengthen health systems through strong partnerships.
IPPF MAs will continue to build on partnerships with key agencies, including Ministries of Health
(MOH), and UNFPA Country Offices to strengthen health systems. Most is participate in me annual planning meetings of their respective UNFPA Country Office and MOH, and play an important role as their implementing partner. (18) Many MAs play a critical role as national service providers on behalf of the government, with whom they have contractual arrangements.
Throughout the proposed initiative, IPPF MAs will continue to partner with key agencies, including
MOH and UNFPA Country Offices. In addition we will strengthen our collaboration with other national partners, such as:
o The national branch of the International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (FIGO), with whom IPPF also has a global Memorandum of Understanding. Many of our MAs' volunteers belong to the national FIGO branch, and will provide technical assistance through competency-based training on new contraceptives or quality of care supervision to our service providers;
o Public and private-sector providers will play an important role as implementing partners of the social franchising of our integrated SRH delivery models. We will give emphasis on training them on under-utilized and new contraceptive technologies;
o Training institutions, including nursing, midwifery, medical schools and MOH, to ensure that their pre-service training curricula are up-to-date with regard to contraceptive and SRH technologies, and quality of care standards.
10 IPPF Strategic Framework Goal 4: Access to SRH services.
11 The program expected results are based on expected results in 5 countries as presented in the Logical Framework Analysis at Annex 1
12 Member Associations selected work in OECD DAC recipient countries
13 Number of Pregnancies Averted is currently calculated using the impact calculator. The Impact Calculator is currently being used by the Futures Group to harmonize Couple Years of Protection conversion. Multiples of the three are generally used worldwide by USAID, WHO, and MSI. IPPF uses the lowest values so as to not inflate performance. If IPPF used the highest, its CYP would be 45 per cent higher.
14 'IPPF Medical Service Delivery' can be accessed at
http://www.ippf.org/en/Resources/Guides-toolkits/IPPF+Medical+and+Service+Delivery+Guidelines.htm
15 Global Handbook on Family Planning' can be accessed at
http://www.ippf.org/NR/rdonlyres/E8AA38AE-AE7A-4D35-BD57-A55D2B4BE7A5/0/Family_Planning_Global_Handbook.pdf
16 LARC and surgical methods are known to be more cost-effective in terms of couple years of protection (CYP) than short-term methods, such as condoms, Injectables and oral contraceptive pills. LARC methods may be suitable for many clients but require frequent repeat visits.
17 Uniject has an integrated hypodermic needle and a small squeezable bubble-like container, Uniject has the potential to improve the safety and acceptability of injectable contraceptives given by service providers, and in particular by community-based distributors. Uniject will be easier for clients to self-administer their injectable contraceptive in the privacy of their home, which is in line with the demedicalization philosophy of IPPF.
18 UNFPA-IPPF collaboration is backed up by a global Memorandum of Understanding and action plan that was updated in July 2010 by both agencies.
(and this from page 12):
Eligible Countries
IPPF will deliver a comprehensive response to the Muskoka Initiative at the country level in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Mali, Sudan and Tanzania. IPPF's Secretariat, through joint collaboration with Central and Regional Offices, will drive expected results globally in line with the Muskoka Initiative through IPPF's Strategic Goal on Access. The Secretariat will also manage the programme through offering technical expertise on comprehensive family planning and other SRH services, and the development, harmonization and implementation of the programme's main components. Central Office and Regional Offices will also support selected MAs in terms of technical assistance and capacity building. The Secretariat will support implementation in areas such as financial and human resources management, resource mobilization and monitoring and evaluation. 75 per cent of the programme budget will be allocated to MAs to deliver health outcomes in the 6 countries. The 6 MAs all fall into the list of 49 low-income countries identified in the Taskforce on Innovative International Financing for Health Systems (22) the Muskoka Initiative (23) and CIDA priority countries.
IPPF will ensure that no MA will use Canadian funds for abortion activity. In the past certain Governments have placed various legislative or policy restrictions on the use of funds, including for induced abortion services. IPPF has procedures in place that can immediately be reinstated to ensure that no funds from the Government of Canada are used for abortion services. This includes he holding of funds in a separate bank account.
22 The Taskforce on Innovative International Financing for Health Systems identifies 49 low-income countries where investments in national health systems would save four million children and babies annually, and up to 322,000 maternal deaths, and 193,000 adult HIV deaths.
23 The Muskoka Initiative is focused on achieving significant progress on health systems strengthening in countries with high burdens of maternal and under-five child mortality and an unmet need for family planning.
ATIP: CIDA and IPPF (Part 2)
Further to my last entry on my Access to Information and Freedom (ATIP) request to CIDA...
I actually made two ATIP requests.
My first request asked for the signed funding agreement between CIDA and IPPF for the $6 Million funding IPPF would receive, as part of the Government’s Muskoka initiative on maternal and child health initiative approved by Minister Oda. I was informed that the agreement hadn’t been signed yet.
So I revised my first ATIP request, and asked to see the actual IPPF proposal itself, since we had heard that IPPF would receive $6 million.
I received back the 54 page proposal. It came with the following qualification in CIDA’s covering letter:
"For your information, IPPF's recent proposal does not reflect the terms of the approved program and CIDA has not yet signed a funding agreement with IPPF."
We do know that IPPF asked for $6 million, and news reports said they will get $6 million. Therefore, I imagine the funding agreement will be pretty close to the proposal but that remains to be confirmed.
Sprinkled throughout the proposal, is the mention of all kinds of contraceptives, emergency contraceptives and IUDs, including charts of how many of these will be provided.
Many consider emergency contraceptives and IUDs to be abortifacients.
On Page 12, I learned that:
"IPPF will ensure that no MA [member association] will use Canadian funds for abortion activity. In the past certain Governments have placed various legislative or policy restrictions on the use of funds, including for induced abortion services. IPPF has procedures in place that can immediately be reinstated to ensure that no funds from the Government of Canada are used for abortion services. This includes the holding of funds in a separate bank account."
What I'd like to know is, what mechanisms will be in place on the ground, to ensure that abortion services are not provided or referred?
On Page 7 under Program objectives and Components, Programme Goal:
"All people, particularly the poor, marginalized, the socially excluded, and undeserved are able to exercise their right, to make free and informed choices about their SRH [Sexual Reproductive Health], and have access to SRH information, sexuality education and high quality services, including family planning, all of which stigma-free, sensitive to gender dynamics and sezual diversity, and offer a positive approach to sexuality."
This above type of wording permeates the entire proposal.
On Page 8 under Program objectives and Components, Quality-assured, Client Centred care:
"IPPF will strengthen the quality of care at service delivery points, taking into account our commitment to a holistic, no-missed opportunity and stigma-free approach through providing:
Updated self-assessment checklist tool to reflect most recent technical developments.
Guidelines and job-aids based on current global standards (WHO Medical Eligibility Criteria, Selected Practice Recommendations, or Decision Making Tool for Family Planning, including the tool for people living with HIV)
A revised Quality of Care tools through revised edition of `IPPF Medical Service Delivery Guidelines, (14) which complements 'IPPF's Global Handbook on Family Planning. (15)"
Another question I have: If abortion services are not being provided, then why would they provide these manuals which discuss all aspects of abortion, at the "service delivery points"?
Here are a few interesting items from these guidebooks (Note that the guidebooks themselves are not part of the proposal, they are only referred to in the proposal. With a total of 840 pages in these two guidebooks, I'm sure there are a lot of other pieces of fascinating abortion information tidbits):
Chapter 10 is on "Emergency Contraception". Note this: "Mode of action (some clients may need reassurance that emergency contraception is not an abortion)."
Chapter 11 is on "Diagnosis of Pregnancy": "In the event of pregnancy, determination of the gestational age is important to give the woman an estimated date of delivery. This determination is also useful in the diagnosis of certain pregnancy complications (e.g. ectopic pregnancy or threatened abortion). When a client is considering an abortion, information about gestational age helps the woman to make a decision, and where legal, is essential for selection of the appropriate technique."
Chapter 12: "Safe Abortion": "In circumstances where abortion is not against the law, health service providers should be trained and equipped to offer a safe and accessible service. Provision of, or referral for, abortion services is an essential part of women’s sexual and reproductive healthcare: fulfilment of a woman’s right to choice should be a high priority for such programmes. As with all sexual and reproductive health services, the client’s right to confidentiality and privacy must be sustained."
Chapter 13 is on "Options for unintended pregnancy":
"HIV does not necessarily have a negative impact on the pregnancy but might have an adverse effect on the health of the mother especially if her CD4 count is low and ARVs are not available. HIV also leads to increased rates of complications after delivery and is associated with an increase in maternal mortality. If the client is currently pregnant but does not wish to continue her pregnancy, she should be referred to safe abortion services, where legally permitted. Postpartum contraception should be offered as an option for those who do not wish to become pregnant again".
These paragraphs from the guide books, guide the IPPF people (or MAs) on how to refer for abortion, where legal. But when abortion is not legal, what kind of advice do the IPPF people give to their clients?
My next entry will disclose more information from the IPPF proposal.
I actually made two ATIP requests.
My first request asked for the signed funding agreement between CIDA and IPPF for the $6 Million funding IPPF would receive, as part of the Government’s Muskoka initiative on maternal and child health initiative approved by Minister Oda. I was informed that the agreement hadn’t been signed yet.
So I revised my first ATIP request, and asked to see the actual IPPF proposal itself, since we had heard that IPPF would receive $6 million.
I received back the 54 page proposal. It came with the following qualification in CIDA’s covering letter:
"For your information, IPPF's recent proposal does not reflect the terms of the approved program and CIDA has not yet signed a funding agreement with IPPF."
We do know that IPPF asked for $6 million, and news reports said they will get $6 million. Therefore, I imagine the funding agreement will be pretty close to the proposal but that remains to be confirmed.
Sprinkled throughout the proposal, is the mention of all kinds of contraceptives, emergency contraceptives and IUDs, including charts of how many of these will be provided.
Many consider emergency contraceptives and IUDs to be abortifacients.
On Page 12, I learned that:
"IPPF will ensure that no MA [member association] will use Canadian funds for abortion activity. In the past certain Governments have placed various legislative or policy restrictions on the use of funds, including for induced abortion services. IPPF has procedures in place that can immediately be reinstated to ensure that no funds from the Government of Canada are used for abortion services. This includes the holding of funds in a separate bank account."
What I'd like to know is, what mechanisms will be in place on the ground, to ensure that abortion services are not provided or referred?
On Page 7 under Program objectives and Components, Programme Goal:
"All people, particularly the poor, marginalized, the socially excluded, and undeserved are able to exercise their right, to make free and informed choices about their SRH [Sexual Reproductive Health], and have access to SRH information, sexuality education and high quality services, including family planning, all of which stigma-free, sensitive to gender dynamics and sezual diversity, and offer a positive approach to sexuality."
This above type of wording permeates the entire proposal.
On Page 8 under Program objectives and Components, Quality-assured, Client Centred care:
"IPPF will strengthen the quality of care at service delivery points, taking into account our commitment to a holistic, no-missed opportunity and stigma-free approach through providing:
Updated self-assessment checklist tool to reflect most recent technical developments.
Guidelines and job-aids based on current global standards (WHO Medical Eligibility Criteria, Selected Practice Recommendations, or Decision Making Tool for Family Planning, including the tool for people living with HIV)
A revised Quality of Care tools through revised edition of `IPPF Medical Service Delivery Guidelines, (14) which complements 'IPPF's Global Handbook on Family Planning. (15)"
Another question I have: If abortion services are not being provided, then why would they provide these manuals which discuss all aspects of abortion, at the "service delivery points"?
Here are a few interesting items from these guidebooks (Note that the guidebooks themselves are not part of the proposal, they are only referred to in the proposal. With a total of 840 pages in these two guidebooks, I'm sure there are a lot of other pieces of fascinating abortion information tidbits):
Chapter 10 is on "Emergency Contraception". Note this: "Mode of action (some clients may need reassurance that emergency contraception is not an abortion)."
Chapter 11 is on "Diagnosis of Pregnancy": "In the event of pregnancy, determination of the gestational age is important to give the woman an estimated date of delivery. This determination is also useful in the diagnosis of certain pregnancy complications (e.g. ectopic pregnancy or threatened abortion). When a client is considering an abortion, information about gestational age helps the woman to make a decision, and where legal, is essential for selection of the appropriate technique."
Chapter 12: "Safe Abortion": "In circumstances where abortion is not against the law, health service providers should be trained and equipped to offer a safe and accessible service. Provision of, or referral for, abortion services is an essential part of women’s sexual and reproductive healthcare: fulfilment of a woman’s right to choice should be a high priority for such programmes. As with all sexual and reproductive health services, the client’s right to confidentiality and privacy must be sustained."
Chapter 13 is on "Options for unintended pregnancy":
"HIV does not necessarily have a negative impact on the pregnancy but might have an adverse effect on the health of the mother especially if her CD4 count is low and ARVs are not available. HIV also leads to increased rates of complications after delivery and is associated with an increase in maternal mortality. If the client is currently pregnant but does not wish to continue her pregnancy, she should be referred to safe abortion services, where legally permitted. Postpartum contraception should be offered as an option for those who do not wish to become pregnant again".
These paragraphs from the guide books, guide the IPPF people (or MAs) on how to refer for abortion, where legal. But when abortion is not legal, what kind of advice do the IPPF people give to their clients?
My next entry will disclose more information from the IPPF proposal.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
ATIP: CIDA and IPPF (more to come...)
There is a best way to get money from CIDA--and there is a worst way.
To deny the provision of essential obstetrics is a form of violence against women. Violence may be by commission i.e. a person is physically assaulted in some way, or by omission i.e. by culpable negligence not to have done what is necessary – in this case, providing essential care during pregnancy and childbirth.”
The best way involves telling CIDA you’ll give out lots and lots and lots of condoms to third world countries. International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) did this, along with promising all kinds of other contraception methods/abortifacients including emergency contraception and IUDs.
According to a recent Access to Information Request I did with CIDA, I learned that in IPPF’s proposal for $6 million of funding, IPPF promised to deliver :
1,229,092 Couple years of protection (CYP)
7,090,090 family planning services (FP)
3,738,052 sexual reproductive health (SRH) services (excluding family planning) and
5,738,052 SRH services provided to young people under the age of 25 (including family planning)
The worst way to get funding is to be MaterCare. Their applications for funding, have now been denied for eleven years in a row.
In their 2004 refusal from CIDA, MaterCare were told that one of the reasons their funding request was refused was because—are you ready for this? Because their project [West African regional Birth Trauma Centre in Ghana] was:
“aimed at curing the problem rather than preventing it from taking place”.
In their 2004 refusal from CIDA, MaterCare were told that one of the reasons their funding request was refused was because—are you ready for this? Because their project [West African regional Birth Trauma Centre in Ghana] was:
“aimed at curing the problem rather than preventing it from taking place”.
MaterCare was trying to cure a problem of maternal child mortality. Oh my goodness, what were they thinking?
In Matercare’s 2008 refusal, CIDA said:
“there was concern that MaterCare’s approach to the subject matter is not consistent with CIDA’s policies on maternal health.CIDA's approach to improving maternal health and reducing maternal mortality includes access to reproductive health care and family planning, themes that were not addressed in MaterCare’s proposal...”
“there was concern that MaterCare’s approach to the subject matter is not consistent with CIDA’s policies on maternal health.CIDA's approach to improving maternal health and reducing maternal mortality includes access to reproductive health care and family planning, themes that were not addressed in MaterCare’s proposal...”
Why? Because MaterCare won’t give out lots and lots and lots of condoms. Simple really.
And how does birth control save women’s lives? They don’t, not according to MaterCare:
“Abortion and birth control are irrelevant to reducing maternal mortality as most deaths occur during the last 3 months of pregnancy, during labour and delivery and one week afterwards. It is egregious to suggest to mothers that in order to save their own lives they must kill their babies, rather than to provide them with safe comprehensive maternity care. Early abortion is being promoted, by oral medication, and surgical means using manual vacuum aspirators (MVAs). The problem with these procedures is that having been given the pills or having undergone and MVA, the mother is sent home where bleeding or infection may result but she has no access to medical follow-up. Many African mothers are anemic due to malnutrition and malaria and with post abortion haemorrhage or infection death may well occur. In addition, these MVA kits are supposed to be for one time use only but as we know with injection needles and AIDS there is no assurance that they will not be used again, and as they cannot be sterilized, further use may result in spreading infection and leading to more maternal deaths.
To deny the provision of essential obstetrics is a form of violence against women. Violence may be by commission i.e. a person is physically assaulted in some way, or by omission i.e. by culpable negligence not to have done what is necessary – in this case, providing essential care during pregnancy and childbirth.”
See here for MaterCare’s full statement released in October last year on how they continue to be banned from receiving funding from CIDA.
Which brings me back to IPPF and my recent ATIP, on which I will write more later.
Feminists: author of their own demise
In response to this in the Toronto Sun:
Conceal baby's sex to reduce sex-selective abortions in Canada: Journal
I wrote this letter which was published yesterday:
Risking ‘gendercide’
Re “Conceal baby’s sex to reduce sex-selective abortions in Canada: Journal” (Jan. 17):
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada executive director Joyce Arthur says banning sex selection abortion is a “dangerous road to go down” and reeks of “paternalism.”
One would think feminists would want to ensure the protected continuation of the female members of the human species.
The Economist reported in 2010 that about 100 million girls have already been aborted world wide because of gendercide. So, the “dangerous road” is the one we are already travelling, where female gendercide continues unabated.
The irony is that if feminists like Arthur continue to refuse to condemn sex-selection abortions, they could very well be the author of their own demise.
Patricia Maloney
The Sun's response:
("But she doesn’t see it that way — abortion rights at all costs is the feminist way")
Conceal baby's sex to reduce sex-selective abortions in Canada: Journal
I wrote this letter which was published yesterday:
Risking ‘gendercide’
Re “Conceal baby’s sex to reduce sex-selective abortions in Canada: Journal” (Jan. 17):
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada executive director Joyce Arthur says banning sex selection abortion is a “dangerous road to go down” and reeks of “paternalism.”
One would think feminists would want to ensure the protected continuation of the female members of the human species.
The Economist reported in 2010 that about 100 million girls have already been aborted world wide because of gendercide. So, the “dangerous road” is the one we are already travelling, where female gendercide continues unabated.
The irony is that if feminists like Arthur continue to refuse to condemn sex-selection abortions, they could very well be the author of their own demise.
Patricia Maloney
The Sun's response:
("But she doesn’t see it that way — abortion rights at all costs is the feminist way")
Friday, January 20, 2012
MaterCare - Background on CIDA refusing funding (more to come...)
(This was released by MaterCare last year)
MATERCARE INTERNATIONAL
MATERCARE INTERNATIONAL
SUMMARY OF DISTRIBUTION OF
MUSKOKA FUNDING OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
FOR MATERNAL HEALTH CARE
&
- 11TH TIME MCI HAS BEEN DENIED
10 October 2011
The funding announced on September 22nd, by Prime Minister Harper, of $82 million for 28 NGO’s as part of the G8 Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Initiative went as expected to the "big" agencies for "maternal health and family planning" which included IPPF - $6 million and UNFPA - $40 million, both non Canadian organizations. As far as we can see there is little, if any, funding for essential obstetrics, which the Muskoka initiative was supposed to deliver, and only one for the drought area of east Africa e.g. Kenya. However there are 23 other agencies not listed.
In May of last year MaterCare International (MCI) was invited to the P.M’s office to meet with a senior policy advisor, about the work of MCI in west and east Africa since 1981. The meeting focused on MCI’s maternal health essential obstetrical projects, which met with the objectives of the Muskoka initiative. Also discussed were the reasons MCI’s has been denied funding for all its last applications since 2002 i.e. 11 times.
Reproductive health (abortion and birth control) has been the ideology of Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) for years, which it is determined to impose throughout the developing world, especially sub-Saharan Africa, now despite the intent of the Muskoka G8 initiative. The way it is distributing these funds favours large abortion/birth control/population agencies, which have little interest in providing essential obstetrics as that is not their prime interest.
Abortion and birth control are irrelevant to reducing maternal mortality as most deaths occur during the last 3 months of pregnancy, during labour and delivery and one week afterwards. It is egregious to suggest to mothers that in order to save their own lives they must kill their babies, rather than to provide them with safe comprehensive maternity care. Early abortion is being promoted, by oral medication, and surgical means using manual vacuum aspirators (MVAs). The problem with these procedures is that having been given the pills or having undergone and MVA, the mother is sent home where bleeding or infection may result but she has no access to medical follow-up. Many African mothers are anemic due to malnutrition and malaria and with post abortion haemorrhage or infection death may well occur. In addition, these MVA kits are supposed to be for one time use only but as we know with injection needles and AIDS there is no assurance that they will not be used again, and as they cannot be sterilized, further use may result in spreading infection and leading to more maternal deaths.
To deny the provision of essential obstetrics is a form of violence against women. Violence may be by commission i.e. a person is physically assaulted in some way, or by omission i.e. by culpable negligence not to have done what is necessary – in this case, providing essential care during pregnancy and childbirth.
MCI applied to CIDA for Muskoka funding for a comprehensive rural obstetrical project for the severely affected drought district of Kenya, which has been badly neglected by government and NGOs. MCI’s proposal has been turned down twice. The first time was due to a CIDA technical issue in uploading our proposal to their site. We were told that we had not pressed a “submit” button however there was no indication that this was required especially as CIDA confirmed it had received the 29 page proposal/budget and 27 other documents. Thus as the application was complete, a project number was assigned. We challenged this reason on the grounds that process was flawed, which CIDA later agreed. If we had not done so, we would have been unfairly denied. MCI was then told that the application had been found and was being “decoded”.
This had happened to other NGOs also.
Having followed the guidelines for funding, we understood that of the total budget of $2,917,968 MCI was required to raise 25% of the total budget with CIDA providing the remaining funding up to a maximum 75%. The proposal was then turned down, for a second time on the grounds that MCI had not met the requirement that:
"The average total annual revenues of the organization over the past three years or total unencumbered financial assets under the financial control of the applicant (e.g. endowments) must be greater than the average amount requested from PWCB per year of the project)."
MCI was asked for further explanation and were told that of the $2,917,968 total MCI had to raise over the 3 years of the contract, the amount of the CIDA contribution of $2,188, 476 (75% of the total) from Canadian sources but of this MCI would have to contribute only $729,492 (25% of the total). This would, however, then leave MCI with an unused surplus of $1,458,984 which leads to the problem that as a charity MCI has to follow strict guidelines as to the use of funds received and these this funds being designated had to be used for the Kenya project purpose. This the funding process makes it impossible for smaller NGOs to obtain CIDA funding. This is the 11th time MCI has been denied project funding by CIDA since 2001. We were told in writing that as MCI did not provide “reproductive health services”, it would never receive funding and also verbally that MCI was “too Catholic” and “too close to the Pope”! Other reasons have been mostly technical/process ones but never on the substance of our proposals.
MCI has developed a model of comprehensive rural (where most of the deaths take place) obstetrics that takes into account not only the obstetrical causes of death and provides prenatal care, treatment for life threatening complications and postnatal care, but also other obstructions to survival, e.g. lack of transport, poor roads, lack of infrastructure and trained personnel. During the last three years MCI has provided $1.2 Million to build and equip a 28 bed obstetrical hospital in the town of Isiolo, Kenya capable of treating all life threatening complications; built a rural maternity clinic in Merti, district some 225kms from Isiolo; provided an emergency transport 4 X 4 ambulance for providing long distance safe transport for severely ill mothers, provided two motorbike ambulances for the villages; and trained over 100 traditional birth attendants. This area of Kenya is located in the drought region where in some areas there has been no rain for 6 years and where there has been no health care at all. The communities served are nomadic pasturalists, who have lost many of their cattle and goats due to the drought; internally displaced refugees; and those from Somalia, the border is 200 kms and Isiolo town is a transit centre. Thus the maternal mortality and morbidity is one of the highest in sub - Saharan Africa.
Our application to CIDA was for operating costs for the hospital, for refurbishing and equipping five rural maternity centres. The project would have been a unique demonstration project conceived and implemented by an experienced Canadian NGO in partnership with a Kenyan NGO and with Kenyan colleagues. The hospital and clinic are both ready to provide care. This has been achieved by generous donations from Canadians individuals, foundations and women’s groups as well by government and private donors in the UK, Italy, Australia, Poland, and the US.
The problem with CIDA is that it functions in a typical bureaucratic way from the top down and not from the bottom up, and thus fails to consider the needs of those whom it is supposed to be helping. It more concerned with its form rather than function and is CIDA is blinkered by its own ideology. It is without the health professional input it had 20 years ago and has especially an antipathy towards smaller NGOs “there are too many of them”, especially those which are faith based. NGOs such as MCI are more efficient; they are closer to the people; their expertise is invited not imposed; they listen to, live and work within the communities which they serve and are thus more acceptable.
So now there is a project which will save mother’s lives in a drought area of Kenya conceived and developed by a Canadian NGO with provides essential obstetrics in a maternity hospital with one rural clinic, all built by generous, after tax, donations from individual Canadians including many seniors, as well as Canadian foundations and the Canadian Catholic Women’s League but is denied operating funding from the Muskoka initiative, even though the P.M’s office sought advice from MCI and which congratulated it for what it had achieved. This could be a major embarrassment for the Canadian Government.
Dr R. L. Walley
Executive Director
Professor Emeritus of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Thursday, January 12, 2012
The great pro-abortion urban legend
I watched the recent exchange between Joyce Arthur and Don Hutchinson on the CBC; precipitated by Stephen Woodworth's wanting to discuss our 400 year old law that excludes preborn children from the definition of “human being.”
Arthur says that late-term abortions are only done in "exceptional circumstances".
Arthur also says that abortions after 20 weeks gestation are "extremely rare".
How does Arthur know the gestational ages of these abortions and the reasons for them? Because the rest of us don't know.
What do we know?
We know that for 2009, CIHI reported a total of 93,755 clinic and hospital abortions. Of these abortions, 70,069* have "unknown" gestational age.
That means all of those 70,069, or most of them, or some of them, or none of them, could be late term abortions--we just don't know. That's what "unknown" means. And we don’t know these gestational ages because most abortion providers choose not to report them.
We also have no idea what the reasons were, since reasons are not reported.
We do know that in 2009 there were at least 552 late term hospital abortions.
We also know that there were actually more abortions performed in Canada than the total 93,755 reported by CIHI. In fact the total could be 30% - 50% higher.
It is certainly possible that Joyce Arthur knows all the gestational ages of these abortions and what their "exceptional circumstances" are. If she does, then the onus is on her to divulge this information to CIHI so CIHI can report it to the public; if she chooses to keep secret the evidence she supposedly has, we can only assume she doesn't in fact have any evidence at all to substantiate her claims. Somehow, I think the latter is the case. But I'd be very happy if Ms. Arthur could prove me wrong.
Even if Arthur can prove there are "only" 552 late abortions per year, does that mean late abortions are "extremely rare"? As a percentage of the total number of abortions, it might seem "rare". But a small percentage of a large number, is still a large number in absolute terms--552 viable babies killed every year. Are we supposed to take comfort in the fact that in relative terms there are so many fewer late term abortions than early abortions? That just means we have many, many, many, many early abortions.
(* 70,069 unknown gestational age abortions = 93,755 total known abortions - 23,686 known gestational age abortions)
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Spiritual battle
In today’s Gospel in the first chapter of Mark (1:21-28), the Devil makes his first appearance. One of Satan’s followers has taken possession of a child of God and cries out in panic at Jesus’ approach:
“’What do you want with us Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are: the Holy one of God’. But Jesus said sharply, ‘Be Quiet! Come out of him!’ And the unclean spirit threw the man into convulsions and with a loud cry went out of him. The people were so astonished that they started asking each other what it all meant. ‘Here is a teaching that is new’ they said’, with authority behind it: he gives orders even to unclean spirits and they obey him.”
This is what John Bartunek in his book The Better Part says about evil:
“The devil is real, and he is interested in counteracting the work of grace. In one sense, accepting this fundamental truth, and keeping it always in the back of our minds, can comfort us tremendously: it helps us make sense of all the unpleasant influences at work in and around us...we are engaged in a spiritual battle. If we believe in Jesus Christ, we also believe in the devil - doomed as he is, he would love to take as many souls as he can along with him...how many souls are enslaved to sin unknowingly under Satan’s evil spell - confused, depressed, headed for destruction?”
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Freedom of choice
This was in my Church Bulletin this morning. It discusses why the change was made in the Roman Missal from "for all" to "for the many".
"Another change in the Eucharistic Prayers, occur when during the consecration of the wine into the Blood of Christ, the priest prays: "...the Blood of the New Covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins".
This is a change for an important theological reason from "for all" that we are accustomed to hearing. Jesus Christ suffered and died on the Cross so that all humanity might be redeemed from the power of sin and death we brought on ourselves through Adam because of original sin. We all are redeemed because of our personal worthiness but we do not get a 'free pass' into heaven.
The choices we make in this life have eternal consequences and when we reject God's grace and refuse to repent of our sins, we separate ourselves from God. So, Jesus' suffering and death is not a guarantee that all will automatically be saved regardless of our choices but rather it provides the freedom for us to choose for or against God.
This change in the Eucharistic Prayers makes it clear that our freedom to choose for or against God matters and that Christ's death is not a guaranteed `free pass into heaven for all' because God respects our free will and our choices."
http://www.annunciation-ottawa.org/
"Another change in the Eucharistic Prayers, occur when during the consecration of the wine into the Blood of Christ, the priest prays: "...the Blood of the New Covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins".
This is a change for an important theological reason from "for all" that we are accustomed to hearing. Jesus Christ suffered and died on the Cross so that all humanity might be redeemed from the power of sin and death we brought on ourselves through Adam because of original sin. We all are redeemed because of our personal worthiness but we do not get a 'free pass' into heaven.
The choices we make in this life have eternal consequences and when we reject God's grace and refuse to repent of our sins, we separate ourselves from God. So, Jesus' suffering and death is not a guarantee that all will automatically be saved regardless of our choices but rather it provides the freedom for us to choose for or against God.
This change in the Eucharistic Prayers makes it clear that our freedom to choose for or against God matters and that Christ's death is not a guaranteed `free pass into heaven for all' because God respects our free will and our choices."
http://www.annunciation-ottawa.org/
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Canada's no abortion debate
My mother used to tell me when I was young, that I should always give credit where credit was due.
Today's thank you goes to the National Post and Charles Lewis who placed a story about the lack of any Canadian abortion debate on the front page of a national newspaper, albeit below the fold.
Pro-lifers have a tough task being heard in an increasingly pro-abortion world where the killing of unborn children has become so normalized, and even celebrated, that it is difficult to get any air time at all if you dare speak out for the unborn, who by the way, are not part of a woman's body. I never did understand that argument.
We all know that the pro-abortion lobby in this country, holds a score of 10, while pro-life people continue to hold the longest running zero score ever held in a first world country when it comes to abortion restrictions-debate-media-coverage-you-name-it-abortion progress, or lack thereof.
I also want to say something on the subject about how that other national newspaper deals with abortion, but my mother also told me if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all. I'll shut up now Mom.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Rob Nicholson is the man
I finally figured out why Mr. Harper won’t let us debate abortion in Canada. You can fool me five or six times but I eventually get it. I’ve been sending my emails to the wrong person. Duh.
I should be sending them to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Rob Nicholson. Wow I really am as thick a as brick. Why I couldn’t figure this out on my own, I have no idea.
You see every time I send an e-mail to Mr. Harper, his office keeps responding to me with a variation on this:
“In your e-mail, you raised an issue that falls within the portfolio of the Honourable Robert Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Please be assured that your comments have been carefully noted. I have taken the liberty of forwarding your e-mail to Minister Nicholson. I am certain that the Minister will wish to give your views every consideration.”
(sometimes it's Bev Oda, or some other MP, but usually Rob Nicholson is the main forwardee)
So there you have it folks. From now on, make sure you send all those cards and letters and emails, about how we want an abortion debate; or how we want legal protection for our pre-born citizens; or how we need to re-examine that archaic 400 year old law that says an unborn child is not a human being--on to Mr. Nicholson.
Just make sure you send a copy to Mr. Harper as well. You don’t want Mr. Harper to feel out of the loop or anything. You know. It might be bad for his ego.
Rob.nicholson@parl.gc.ca
stephen.harper@parl.gc.ca
I should be sending them to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Rob Nicholson. Wow I really am as thick a as brick. Why I couldn’t figure this out on my own, I have no idea.
You see every time I send an e-mail to Mr. Harper, his office keeps responding to me with a variation on this:
“In your e-mail, you raised an issue that falls within the portfolio of the Honourable Robert Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Please be assured that your comments have been carefully noted. I have taken the liberty of forwarding your e-mail to Minister Nicholson. I am certain that the Minister will wish to give your views every consideration.”
(sometimes it's Bev Oda, or some other MP, but usually Rob Nicholson is the main forwardee)
So there you have it folks. From now on, make sure you send all those cards and letters and emails, about how we want an abortion debate; or how we want legal protection for our pre-born citizens; or how we need to re-examine that archaic 400 year old law that says an unborn child is not a human being--on to Mr. Nicholson.
Just make sure you send a copy to Mr. Harper as well. You don’t want Mr. Harper to feel out of the loop or anything. You know. It might be bad for his ego.
Rob.nicholson@parl.gc.ca
stephen.harper@parl.gc.ca