Ontario taxpayers fund biased organizations that call for more abortion (is your province next?)

(This article was published in the January/February 2012 issue of LifeCanada Journal)

The provision of abortion services falls under provincial jurisdiction. If we want to change the status quo provincially, we first need to know what's going on in each of our provinces.

This must begin with reliable statistics on abortion, which we don't currently have, and haven't had for some time. We know that CIHI's yearly reported abortion numbers are low and that it is not legislated that clinics report their abortions.

We also need to know what provincial governments are doing in each of the provinces.

Take Ontario for instance.

The Ontario government has set up an agency called ECHO to look at "women's" issues. Echo is 100% funded with Ontario tax dollars. Their revenues come from government grants ($2,338,423 in 2010, and $1,373,999 in 2009).

One of Echo's three primary targeted areas of focus is sexual and reproductive health. These words should always raise a red flag. In this case the flag is very red and very big.

Echo has only had two years of full operation and already they are making recommendations that may surprise you.

Here are just a few of them (other recommendations are listed at the end):

· Designate hospitals for abortions at 16 weeks’ gestation and over

· Standardize all pregnancy counselling to include all options, including abortion

· All Obstetrical/Gynecology training programs must implement the SOGC curriculum and Abortion/Pregnancy Options and include second trimester abortion training.

· Changing the Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights code policy to specify that physicians must refer women seeking an abortion in a timely manner to a willing abortion provider (and extend this policy to include other sexual and reproductive health services, such as emergency contraception).

· Advocate for the approval of the use of mifepristone (in combination with misoprostol) in Canada. This medication allows medical termination up to nine weeks’ gestation in a safe and effective form that is not currently available in Canada. The lack of available access to this drug means that Canadian women are being served by inferior choices and subject to greater risk. (Note what Andre Lalonde, vicepresident of the SOGC said about medical abortions:

"We believe this will open up the access and make abortion easier. It can be done from a doctor's office, rather than a clinic or hospital. It's more confidential. Antiabortion groups won't know about it.” (emphasis added).

The report's experts didn't bother to solicit the advice of those of us who are not pro-abortion. By their own admission, of those chosen for their "expert panel", none "opposed abortion".

This is what happens when we allow our provincial governments to appoint pro-choice "experts" to look at abortion accessibility in a province. Not really a surprise, since a biased organization will probably yield biased solutions.

In fact, the recommendations didn’t even look at adoptions or crisis pregnancy centres as options to unwanted pregnancies. Instead they want to see all pregnancy counselling include abortion. Certainly this would be the death of the freedom of choice to set up a crisis pregnancy centre that would not promote abortion.

The mandate of this Ontario pro-abortion lobby is to advise the Premier, MPPs, and the Ministry of Health and to "provide input into government policy." Presumably the Ontario government is already considering these recommendations.

Further, recommendations that we need more access to abortion services is even more troubling since a Freedom of Information request submitted to the Ontario Ministry of Long Term care, revealed that Ontario spent 30% more on abortions in 2010 than expected (based on 2009 CIHI numbers, the last year CIHI has reported on).

What if other provinces are also under-reporting their numbers? And by how much? If we extrapolate the 30% across the country, that could mean 122,000 abortions in Canada per year.

There is some good news.

For instance, in Alberta, young pro-lifers from Calgary are petitioning the Alberta government to bring a halt to paying for abortions. The campaign to Defund Abortion in Alberta is a grassroots initiative started by university and college students, mostly from Calgary, seeking to eliminate public funding for abortion and to support conscience rights for taxpayers.

PEI has been in the news as well. The Island does not provide for abortions, although they do pay for abortions PEI women to get in a Halifax hospital with a doctor's referral. There has been activity on both sides of this debate. The latest is that the status quo will remain--for now.

In conclusion, we first need more reliable statistics about abortions in every province in order to put real numbers to abortions performed. We can do this by submitting FOI's in all provinces to discover what doctors actually billed for their abortion services. FOIs could also reveal the hidden number of abortion procedures being done in clinics across the country, as well as the number of medical abortions being performed (CIHI does not currently report medical abortions).

Second, we need to find out what's going on in the provincial Health Ministries’ bureaucracies. What other so-called expert panels are there like Echo, who will recommend more abortion access, later gestation abortions, and take away the medical professions' conscience rights? In other words, are your tax dollars funding abortion advocates to advise your government like in Ontario?

If these Ontario recommendations are implemented, we can only assume other provinces will follow suit.

More details on Echo's recommendations (these were omitted from the print version of this article):

· Designate hospitals for abortions at 16 weeks’ gestation and over as a provincial resource since these procedures are less frequently required, are higher risk.

· Standardize all pregnancy counselling to include all options, including abortion. There are many providers of pregnancy counselling; however, not all providers discuss abortion services as an option. This interferes with women’s ability to determine how to proceed in a timely fashion should she wish to have an abortion.

· Ensure abortion procedures, sexual and reproductive health- related medical ethics are part of core content of sexual and reproductive health curricula in medical, nursing and midwifery education programs.

· In particular, it is recommended that: Accreditation bodies must require mandatory sexual and reproductive health curriculum in medical school training; this should include associated elements of medical ethics through use of case studies.

· All Obstetrical/Gynecology training programs must implement the SOGC curriculum and Abortion/Pregnancy Options and include second trimester abortion training.

· Obstetrical/Gynecology residency training. Obstetrical/Gynecology residency programs are encouraged to implement and/or promote the Kenneth J. Ryan Residency Training Program (a privately funded initiative that strives to integrate and enhance family planning training for obstetrics and gynecology residents in the US and Canada).

· Family Medicine training programs should be encouraged to support a 3rd year residency program in Family Medicine for Women’s Care which includes comprehensive abortion training. Support the CPSO in changing the Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights code policy to specify that physicians must refer women seeking an abortion in a timely manner to a willing abortion provider (and extend this policy to include other sexual and reproductive health services, such as emergency contraception).

The UK follows Canada's abortion lead

The National Post reported that sex-based abortions are widespread in the UK.

Sex-selection abortion makes some pro-choice people queasy. Why I don't know, since all abortion is horrific. Regardless, sex-selection abortion seems to be particularly yucky to them.

Anyway, this article said:
"Writing in The Daily Telegraph, retired doctor Theodore Dalrymple said abortion was allowed under the 1967 act for health reasons or because the life of the mother or child was endangered. Now it was being interpreted to provide "abortion on demand."

Sounds a lot like Canada if you ask me: abortion on demand.

Dr. Dalrymple says:
"Certain people will rejoice at this: those, for example, who argue that women have an inalienable right to dispose of their bodies as they wish, and therefore to determine whether or not they continue with their pregnancy. According to this argument, women have the right to an abortion simply because they want it, for good, bad or no reason. If this is the case, the consultants who offered the sexually selected abortions did nothing wrong, morally speaking.

Yes, just like Canada. The pro-abortions here already celebrate our any-time-any-reason-no-reason abortion philosophy, so rejoicing is just the next logical step.

Dr. Dalrymple continues:
"Whatever the law says, most people now think that abortion is a right under all circumstances and not something that is permissible if certain conditions are met, as the framers of the law surely intended. That particular slippery slope has long been slid down. And the same people now conceive of life as an existential supermarket in which they are consumers, choosing the way they live much as they choose cranberry juice or the flavour of crisps that they want. And the customer in the existential supermarket is always right."

The pro-abortions here already say ad nauseum, how women have a constitutional right to abortion, which of course, they don't have. But they don't let that stop them. Oh no, oh no. Look out UK. Just peek out across the ocean into Canada to see where you're headed. It isn't pretty. But it's very very real.

Making politicians accountable, one letter at a time

A while ago I wrote about how important it was to make sure we send our letters to the right politician in Rob Nicholson is the man.

Mr. Harper had forwarded that letter to Mr. Nicholson. Below is the email exchange between myself and Mr. Nicholson.

I also include the response I received from Mr. Belanger, who wins a gold star for the most useless-computer-generated-email-of-the-year award. I've now received at least seven of these "letters".

**********

Dear Mr. Harper and Mr. Belanger,

It is time to open up the floor for a debate on the legal status of children in the womb. You are my Prime Minister and my Member of Parliament respectively. You are both where you are today because Canadians voted you to represent us. And a majority of Canadians (Seventy-two percent) surveyed in a September National Omnibus poll support legal protection for unborn babies. Most (62%) want protection from conception, or two or three months' gestation on. Another ten percent favour protection from 6 months on (Source: Environics poll commissioned by LifeCanada).

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) said the current Criminal Code provisions, which allow children to be terminated up until the moment they have fully exited their mother's birth canal, are "convoluted" and "dumbfounding." They support the effort of Tory MPs Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre) and Jeff Watson (Essex) to have Parliament re-examine Canada's legal definition of the beginning of human life.

I also support this effort and congratulate both Mr. Woodworth and Mr. Watson for their willingness to have this discussion. Their speaking out is to be commended, when so many other MPs either remain silent or are pro-abortion.

It is time to advocate for our pre-born citizens and heed what the Supreme Court judges said in 1988 when they struck down Canada's abortion law (R. v. Morgentaler, 1988). That Parliament has the right to legislate protection for unborn children (e.g. Chief Justice Dickson said, "Like Beetz and Wilson JJ., I agree that protection of foetal interests by Parliament is also a valid governmental objective."). A perfect place to begin this discussion, is with the re-examination of the legal status of children in the womb.

Mr. Harper, you have never offered a principled reason for censoring a public discussion on abortion in this country. If now is not the time, then when?

I look forward to hearing back from both of you.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

**********

Dear Ms. Maloney,

The Office of the Prime Minister has forwarded to me a copy of your correspondence concerning abortion.

As you know, in 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Criminal Code prohibition of abortion was unconstitutional and struck it down. The Government of Canada has indicated it will not reopen the debate on abortion.

In Canada, the provinces are responsible for the administration and funding of health care services. As is the case for other medical procedures, the delivery of abortion services is determined by the policies of the provincial governments and the standards set by the medical profession itself.

I appreciate having had your comments brought to my attention.

Yours truly,
The Honourable Rob Nicholson

**********

This is to acknowledge receipt of your email.

I appreciate hearing from the constituents of Ottawa—Vanier. Rest assured that your correspondence will be reviewed and acted upon should it be required.

Thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

The Honourable Mauril Bélanger, M.P.

Ottawa—Vanier

(Really Mr. Belanger. Do you think you could find five minutes to provide a real answer to a constituent's letter? Apparently not.)

**********

Dear Mr. Nicholson,

Thank you for your recent response to the email that I sent to the Prime Minister regarding our need to debate the legal status of children in the womb.

I must however, respectfully disagree with your statement that the 1988 Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition of abortion was unconstitutional. The 1988 Morgentaler decision did not give women the constitutional right to abortion in Canada. As well, the Supreme Court judges said that it was reasonable to put some restrictions on abortion because protection of the fetus is a legitimate government objective. And that Mr. Nicholson, is a legitimate objective of your government, which is also my government.

You say that the Government of Canada has indicated that it will not reopen the abortion debate. With all due respect Mr. Nicholson, it is not the Government of Canada who says this, it is Mr. Harper who says this. And just because Mr. Harper refuses to reopen the abortion debate, really is moot to whether or not the abortion debate should be reopened. As I noted below, 72% of Canadians support legal protection for the unborn and it is the will of the people that should be listened to. Mr. Harper can have his say in the abortion matter, certainly. Just like I, and every other Canadian can have a say. Yet we are systematically shut down, time and time again, in ever being allowed to have a voice in this country on this subject. And when we voice our concerns to our political leaders, we receive cut and pasted answers, or computer generated replies, that are a very poor substitute for real active engagement and debate on the subject.

If it weren't for a very few brave MPs like Mr. Woodworth, and a few before him, who have had the courage to speak out in the defense of the unborn, like the Supreme Court said they should, at great cost to their own political careers I might add, the silence from the rest of our elected leaders, you included, would be deafening.

That is not what democracy is Mr. Nicholson.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney