Abortion is a social justice issue

Mike Schouten wrote in the National Post on May 25 that many voters see abortion as a social justice issue, and that Mr. Harper may be paying the price for shutting down the abortion debate.

I agree.

Mr. Schouten says:
"The Prime Minister believes that an abortion debate would hurt his party in the polls. I submit the opposite: Paradoxically, the recent drop in support for Harper’s party may have something to do from his refusal to act as a principled social-justice champion on an issue that many of his (former) supporters care about."

Then a letter writer responded with this:
"I also support Stephen Harper's decision to not open the abortion debate. I believe that women must continue to have the right to choose abortion should this be compatible with their life situations...proabortion persons equally must have the opportunity to live according to their belief system. All Canadians deserve the opportunity to make their choices about abortion and the Prime Minister is correct in not opening up this divisive issue."

To which I responded with this letter. Below is the full text of that letter to the editor:

The letter writer "believe[s] that women must continue to have the right to choose abortion should this be compatible with their life situations". Let's say that I have just decided that my "life situation" includes my choice to murder someone. Would he support that? He might argue that murder is not legal. Agreed, but being legal, doesn't make something moral or right.

For instance, in many countries in the world female genital mutilation is fully legal, but I don't imagine the writer supports this practice. Yet in these countries where this practice is performed, sanctioned and legal, it occurs because like "pro-abortion persons", pro-female-genital-mutilation persons also wish to "equally...have the opportunity to live according to their belief system."

A belief system is no guarantee of legitimacy or of rightness.

How to get there from here

I agree with Jakki Jeffs that:
"The Canadian pro-life community has worked since 1969 to promote respect and protection for every innocent human life."

But I disagree with Ms. Jeffs when it comes to the most effective strategy for achieving legal protection for preborn children.

Those who believe in what some call the "all or nothing" approach, will only accept a complete abortion ban, and will never accept restrictive abortion legislation as a means towards this ultimate goal of full protection.

But given the current political, social and legal reality we Canadians find ourselves in today, a complete abortion ban would be impossible to achieve. However, fully 72% of Canadians believe children should be protected at some point prior to birth. This means most Canadians today would support some restrictions on abortion.

Imagine the following situation:

Two firemen arrive at the scene of a burning nursing home. Hundreds of elderly residents will soon die as the building is completely engulfed in flames.

One fireman looks at the building and says:
"This is horrible. Everyone will perish in this building very soon. I know I can't save all of those people because I simply do not have the means to save them all. This is so tragic but what can I do? I can't do anything."

The second fireman looks upon the same scene. He also realizes that all the residents are about to die. He says to himself:
"I think if I go in there right now, I can save one person."

The second fireman rushes inside, grabs a resident and is able to carry an elderly woman to safety. The building collapses and everyone else perishes. One person is saved.

I am fireman number two.

The pro-life community wants full protection for every human being, yes. But if we will only ever accept full and total legal protection in one fell swoop, babies that otherwise could have been saved, will die.

I prefer some protection against abortion, rather than no protection. Then as hearts and minds continue to change, further protective laws will become possible and more lives will be saved.

Ponder this if you will. The pro-abortions want complete non-restrictive access to abortion. Some pro-lifers will accept nothing but a complete and total ban on abortion. As I see it, both strategies achieve the same results.

This is why, in good conscience, I and many Canadians I know, support a new pro-life initiative called "We need a Law" (www.weneedalaw.ca) which advocates for:
"legislation that restricts abortion to the greatest extent possible.”

Goose family on a warm summer day

The Canada Goose family I see every year is back in town. This was taken on the Aviation Parkway this morning. Welcome back guys.

Mr. McGuinty...you have some explaining to do

Dear Mr. McGuinty,

Your government recently performed a stealth attack on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Your government recently amended the Act to exclude records relating to the provision of abortion services. Individuals no longer have a right to make access requests under Part II of FIPPA to an institution for records in the custody or under the control of that institution relating to the provision of abortion services:
(5.7) This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services. 2010, c. 25, s. 24 (17)

This amendment to FIPPA was very quietly slipped in as part of Bill 122: An Act to increase the financial accountability of organizations in the broader public sector. This was done by your government.

The irony, of course, is that this manoeuvre actually greatly decreased financial accountability since all access to abortion related information in the province of Ontario is now prohibited.

These changes have nothing to do with pro-life or pro-choice ideology.

These changes are comprehensive and are a complete perversion of the democratic process. What happened here is a shameful abuse of power.

And this all happened under your watch.

In light of these facts, and as leader of the Government in Ontario, and since the Government in power answers to its citizens, of which I am one, can you please answer the following questions for me?

1) Why were abortion services the only "medical procedure" excluded from FIPPA? Why were no other "medical procedures" excluded?

2) Why was there no information made available to the public about these changes beforehand so that we would be aware of the far reaching implications of these changes, and could lobby against them? Why was this done in secret?

I look forward to receiving your reply at your earliest possible convenience.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Mr. Hudak where were you?

Dear Mr Hudak,

As you know, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and effective January 1, 2012, section 65 of the Act was amended to exclude records relating to the provision of abortion services.

The effect of section 65 (5.7) of the Act is that individuals no longer have a right to make access requests under Part II of FIPPA to an institution for records in the custody or under the control of that institution relating to the provision of abortion services:

(5.7) This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services. 2010, c. 25, s. 24 (17)

This amendment to FIPPA was very quietly slipped in as part of Bill 122: An Act to increase the financial accountability of organizations in the broader public sector.

Mr. Hudak, you might want to read this article published today in the Calgary Herald written by Margaret Somerville.

Dr. Somerville says about these changes:
“This change has ethical implications. It might also raise legal issues. For in-stance, a right to freedom of speech is seriously cur-tailed if one is prevented from obtaining the facts needed to form one's opinion. And we often speak of such restrictions, when they are imposed in non-democratic countries, as a breach of human rights...

FIPPA is meant to augment the transparency, openness and accountability of all levels of government for their decisions and actions, and our right, as Canadian citizens, to participate in democracy and democratic decision-making. My guess is that if the same approach were taken to information on breast cancer, people would be outraged.”

To be very clear, this issue is not a pro-life or a pro-choice issue. It is a pro-democracy issue, or to be more exact, this is an anti-democracy issue. Because it doesn't matter if you are pro-life or you are pro-choice. The result is that all access to abortion related information in the province of Ontario is now prohibited. It is comprehensive.

To frame this a bit differently and to expand on what Dr. Somerville says, can you imagine what would have happened in Ontario, if the exclusion clause instead excluded "breast cancer services"? This would mean that we would no longer know how many women get breast cancer, how many die from breast cancer, and whether or not our Ontario health care system was taking care of women who have breast cancer, and what the outcome was of their breast cancer treatment. The outrage would be deafening.

In light of these facts, and as leader of the official opposition in Ontario, and since your role as Opposition leader is to keep government accountable, can you please answer the following questions for me about this bill?

1) Why were abortion services the only "medical procedure" excluded from FIPPA?

2) This exclusion was never debated or even mentioned in the Ontario Legislative Assembly. Can you please tell me why you and your party did not object to this exclusion, and never raised a red flag to the people of Ontario?

3) You did not vote against the third reading of this bill. Can you please tell me why?

I look forward to receiving your reply at your earliest possible convenience.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Archbishop Miller says we need an abortion law

(Press release from weneedaLAW.ca)

Archbishop J. Michael Miller of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver endorses WeNeedaLAW.ca

Surrey, B.C. May 15, 2012 - Archbishop J. Michael Miller of the Archdiocese of Vancouver gave a strong endorsement for  weneedaLAW.ca. on Wednesday morning.

In an email to Campaign Director, Mike Schouten, Archbishop Miller said:

“Canada does need a law, and this initiative is a helpful first step toward correcting an unacceptable legislative void that is unique among democratic nations. I encourage Canadians to support it and pray for its success.”

"We are incredibly pleased and grateful for Archbishop Miller's unequivocal support for our mission", said Schouten. "We know that our efforts to re-frame this debate have been the cause for some pushback, but it is exciting to see it resonate with the Archbishop."  

The mission of the weneedaLAW.ca  campaign is to build support for federal legislation that restricts abortion to the greatest extent possible.

"Protection for all children in the womb is our goal, and we know the only way that will happen is by taking the numerous steps required. It's unrealistic to demand that, as a first step, those in government enact a complete ban on all abortions." Schouten said.

Schouten concluded by saying, "Archbishop Miller's endorsement of this fresh approach is a huge boost in the initial stages of our campaign!"

March for Life 2012: The news story you didn't read

Dear Ottawa Citizen,

What happened? Did you forget to cover the March for Life last Thursday? That's too bad.

Now I know it was a freezing, finger numbing, winter like, bone chilling, blustery windy day in Ottawa. It wasn't fun for me either. But it was news you know. And that's the business you're in, right?

I'm curious though. Tell me: If there were 20,000 “pro-choice” people marching through Ottawa, would you have covered that? And maybe you might even have written a front page news story. You know, instead of the one lonely photograph and wee tiny caption, and no story that we got.

Oh well. Not to worry, because I wrote it for you.

On Thursday May 10, 2012, almost 20,000 pro-life people marched through Ottawa to declare their support for Canadian unborn children and their mothers.
 
The day was freezing cold, windy and cloudy, appropriate for the somber message these people were trying to get across in the Nation's Capital, where Canada's complete lack of legal protection for its unborn children, is a scourge on our great country.
 
The cold however, did not deter the peaceful marchers. In fact, there was much singing and smiling for all to see and hear, by anyone willing to look and listen.
 
There were the requisite handful of loud people of the pro-abortion persuasion along the march route. But their tiny numbers were pretty easy to ignore. (Have a look at the footage below Ottawa Citizen. You might learn something).
 
On the Hill before and after the March we heard from many pro-life MPs and clergy.
 
More important than those speakers though, were the Silent No More women and men who testify how abortion ruins lives. Their lives and their families’ lives. They tell us of their anguish from abortion, and subsequent healing. Pretty powerful stuff for anyone willing to pay attention.
 
So what do you think Ottawa Citizen? Can you make it next year?

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

(Many thanks to Maureen for her fine editing of the attached video)

Brian Lilley talks out

Brian Lilley at SunNews talks about the March for Life and Freedom of Information aborted in Ontario

Nick Vandergragt talks out

On Nick Vandergragt's show yesterday, he talks about March for Life, and Freedom of Information in Ontario aborted

Choose May 10 broadcast at this link.
http://devel.autopod.ca/chum/43/podcasts/

Freedom of Information in Ontario aborted

I recently asked for more abortion statistics from the Access, Privacy & Corporate Coordination, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care

Here is the response I received:
"I am replying to your request for access to information, received on April 5, 2012, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act).

Please be advised that effective January 1, 2012, section 65 of the Act (Application of the Act) was amended to exclude records relating to the provision of abortion services. The effect of section 65 (5.7) of the Act is that individuals no longer have a right to make access requests under Part II of FIPPA to an institution for records in the custody or under the control of that institution relating to the provision of abortion services.

Please find attached copies of Section 65 (5.7) of the Act

Mr. Don Young, Assistant Deputy Minister, was responsible for this decision..."

What does this mean? It means that all abortion information in Ontario is now hidden. It is now secret.

The amendment to FIPPA was silently slipped in as part of Bill 122: An Act to increase the financial accountability of organizations in the broader public sector.

There has been nothing about this debated at Queen's Park. Nothing said about it during debate in the Ontario Legislature; nothing said about it at the committee hearings.

It all happened under the radar.

That's despotic secrecy just like Pierre Trudeau predicted.

Welcome to the world of Orwell.

Lawless abortion is unacceptable

Finally somebody is doing something about calling for an abortion law in Canada. We have had a few good men and a few good women try it in Parliament. Now we have this.

I think a good place to start would be a gestational law. Let's prohibit all abortions over 20 weeks gestation. Or prohibit sex-selection abortion. This would save lives. Then we can work on saving other lives, and keep going until we eventually put an end to abortion.

It has been far too long that we have allowed our children no legal protection. If we can save the life of one unborn child through this kind of initiative, it will have been worth it.

Canada needs an abortion law

Sunday, 06 May 2012 00:00 Mike Schouten

 

Most Canadians find lawless abortion unacceptable

By Mike Schouten

Special to The B.C. Catholic

Most people are aware that Canada is the only nation in the Western world without an abortion law. For those who don't believe it, it's true. Canada, along with China and North Korea, provides no legal protection for children in the womb.
 

When you think about it, it's ironic that our leaders repeatedly call out China and North Korea for their human rights violations, and yet, along with them, we are the only three countries in the world without any legal protection for the right to life of children in the womb.
 

We know that the majority of Canadians find this fact unacceptable, and more and more of us want something done about it. The gap between public opinion and public policy regarding abortion legislation is growing. While we still don't have an abortion law, we know that more than three-quarters of Canadians want some protection for children in the womb.
 

It's time Canada had federal abortion legislation, so a brand new initiative has been launched! The mission of weneedaLAW.ca is to promote, as much as possible, the single message that we need a law.
 

It is time for Canada to get in line with international standards and public opinion and enact abortion legislation. We are firmly committed to acknowledging the sanctity of the life of every human being, and we believe it is high time the public was mobilized to support MPs who want to take steps in this direction.
 

This campaign will promote legislative initiatives that limit abortion, with the long-term goal of a complete ban. It will do what it can to send a loud and clear message that all human life must be protected.
 

All life matters, and weneedaLAW.ca is the gathering place where all Canadians can come together with the intention of providing a loud and clear message that we need to do all we can to protect pre-born humans with federal abortion legislation.
 

Together we can bring about the change in attitude required. Together with the dedicated MPs who know Canada needs to do better than having no law, we will bring about the change needed in our land.
 

Please go to our website, www.weneedaLAW.ca, and spread the word.
 

Mike Schoutenwww.weneedaLAW.ca.

Government Whip yields big stick

May 4, 2012

Asking for a study whether the unborn becomes a human being only at “complete birth” generates hostile response in Canadian Parliament

By Patricia Maloney

 

Conservative Member of Canadian Parliament Stephen Woodworth

In Canada there are no legal restrictions on abortion. None. Abortion is legal at any time throughout the nine months, for any reason, or for no reason.

So when on Thursday April 26, Conservative Member of Parliament Stephen Woodworth brought forward a motion in the House of Commons to simply ask for a committee to discuss when an unborn child becomes a human being, it really seemed like a legitimate request to ask our Parliament.

Simply put, Woodworth’s motion 312, was to ask “that a special committee of the House to be appointed and directed to review section 223(1) of our Criminal Code which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth…”

In other words, let’s talk about when an unborn child becomes a human being. This motion is not about enacting a law to prohibit abortion in any way. This motion is about a study; to discuss; to research; to debate. To, you know, participate in the democratic process.

Naturally we expected opposition from our two opposition parties, and we weren’t disappointed.

But it was the vociferous objections that came from Woodworth’s own party when Government Whip, Gordon O’Connor said:

“The decision of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision…in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount and take precedence over that of the state…I cannot understand why those who are adamantly opposed to abortion want to impose their beliefs on others by way of the Criminal Code…There is no law that says that a woman must have an abortion. No one is forcing those who oppose abortion to have one…Whether one accepts it or not, abortion is and always will be part of society. There will always be dire situations in which some women may have to choose the option of abortion. No matter how many laws some people may want government to institute against abortion, abortion cannot be eliminated. It is part of the human condition.”

(In Canada the Whip is the MP responsible for ensuring party discipline among members of the Government caucus. In other words, the Whip carries a very big stick.)

No need to read between the lines here. Our Prime Minister has said many times he will never reopen the abortion debate. But for the Government Whip to come out with statements like this, implies that the government is going much further than simply remaining silent on the subject of abortion. This sounds like a pro-choice position to me.

You know, this is actually sort of funny, in a warped kind of way. This tells us that the Conservatives in Canada are really no different than our other parties on abortion policy.

So what happens next? Well, one more hour of debate in June, and then a vote later in the year to see if the study will take place.

Will any of our brave pro-life MPs be willing to vote for the Motion with the courage of their convictions? Or will they allow themselves to be whipped into shape? We’ll just have to wait and see.

Patricia Maloney is a Canadian pro-life blogger.

Revised 2010 Ontario abortions tell a sad tale

We know that CIHI recently released their 2010 abortion statistics.

Absent from the statistics were the number of abortions from Quebec.

So I asked CIHI why there was no data for Quebec, CIHI told me that:

"We receive Quebec hospital and clinic abortion data directly from the Quebec ministry (hospitals, but not clinics, are mandated to collect it). It reflects all induced abortions for patients covered by the province’s health insurance plan. As per my earlier note, we are currently working with the ministry to obtain this data."

I also asked for clarification on clinic data and which provinces accurately report clinic data. This is what CIHI told me:

"AB, MB, NL and NB have reported comprehensive clinic data. As stated in the footnotes for the published tables, BC, ON, QC have not reported comprehensive clinic data. There are no clinics in SK, NS, PEI or the territories."

Regarding hospital data CIHI confirmed that all provinces and territories:

"voluntarily participate in the DAD database. The data is collected through a secure electronic data electronic submission service."

Finally, now that we know the 2010 CIHI numbers, I was able to more accurately compare the 2010 Ontario numbers for Ontario, with the data I received from 2010 OHIP billing records.

These OHIP billing records reported that there were at least 43,997 abortions in Ontario in 2010. Plus there were 94 medical abortions in Ontario for 2010, for a new total of at least 44,091 abortions committed in Ontario in 2010.

CIHI is reporting only 28,765 abortions in Ontario for 2010.

This means that Ontario abortion statistics based on OHIP billings are higher by 53.3% than CIHI's numbers. This is much worse than what my last estimate reported, which was higher by 45.4% (I originallyy reported this as being 31% higher but that calculation was in error).

So while we're at it, let's multiply that 44,091 number of Ontario abortions for 2010 by a more realistic total cost for an abortion, which is $1,600.

(UPDATE January 15, 2017: The article linked to above is no longer on line anymore but here is the text of what it said: 

"By Paula Simons, Edmonton Journal, Published: Tuesday, October 11 2011...Cholewa says her clinic would likely bill AHS [Alberta Health services] somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1,600 for each procedure - about the same fee it charges the province to terminate a pregnancy." emphasis added

That's at least $70,545,600 Ontario taxpayers spent killing their unborn children in 2010.