January 28, 2013: For Immediate Release (From CCBR press release)
25 Years of Bloodshed: Anti-Abortion Youth Activists Across Canada Mourn Morgentaler Anniversary
“January 28 is a solemn day that impacts every Canadian, whether they realize it or not. Due to R. v. Morgentaler, our streets are emptier, our pre-born brothers and sisters live tenuously in a state of constant danger, and a generation of girls has been sold the insidious lie that their sons and daughters are disposable for any arbitrary reason at all,” said Stephanie Gray, executive director of CCBR who was just 7 years old when the Morgentaler decision passed.
“A new generation of young people are rising up to say stop killing our generation,” she continued. “Canada has failed miserably to live up to the standards of our Constitution and our Charter. When we say 'everyone' has a right to life, we need to mean everyone, including the youngest of our kind.”
Gray said that her group uses graphic abortion imagery because “pre-born childrens’ silent screams cannot be heard but their broken bodies can be seen—which cry out for justice.”
Demonstration locations and times:
Toronto: 6:30pm @ 2 Sussex Avenue
Windsor: 12pm @ Oulette Ave and Wyandotte St
London: 5pm @ Sarnia Rd and Western Rd
Calgary: 8pm @ 1133 Kensington Rd
Prince George: TBA
Monday, January 28, 2013
How Reproductive Justice affects women
25 Years Since the Morgentaler Decision: A Celebration
"A Celebration and Discussion of Reproductive Justice for Canadian Women
The Morgentaler decision followed the rise of a movement supporting a woman's right to choose that involved thousands of women, men, students, trade unionists and social justice activists. This victory for women's rights is an important reason to celebrate and to remember Dr. Morgentaler's contribution. It is also a moment to recognize that, despite the Morgentaler decision, women in Canada still struggle for access to abortion and that the fight for reproductive justice is still ongoing in Canada."
Dear Ms.Egan and Ms. Bardsley,
We all care about the well-being of women and girls. Will you please watch these two short videos? They were made by Keith Neeley. These women tell their stories about how abortion affected their lives.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney
"A Celebration and Discussion of Reproductive Justice for Canadian Women
The Morgentaler decision followed the rise of a movement supporting a woman's right to choose that involved thousands of women, men, students, trade unionists and social justice activists. This victory for women's rights is an important reason to celebrate and to remember Dr. Morgentaler's contribution. It is also a moment to recognize that, despite the Morgentaler decision, women in Canada still struggle for access to abortion and that the fight for reproductive justice is still ongoing in Canada."
Dear Ms.Egan and Ms. Bardsley,
We all care about the well-being of women and girls. Will you please watch these two short videos? They were made by Keith Neeley. These women tell their stories about how abortion affected their lives.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Who can be against justice?
The pro-abortions are at it again. Tomorrow they will "celebrate" 25 years of "Reproductive Justice".
That's the day that the Morgentaler decision came down.
So what is this latest euphemism "Reproductive Justice" anyway?
Wikipedia tells us that:
“Reproductive Justice is the complete physical, mental, spiritual, political, economic, and social well-being of women and girls, and will be achieved when women and girls have the economic, social, and political power and resources to make healthy decisions about our bodies, sexuality, and reproduction for ourselves, our families, and our communities in all areas of our lives.”
Well-being you say? Whose well-being? The woman's well being? The pre-born child's well-being? Society's well-being? I don't think so.
And what, exactly, is "just" about "Reproductive Justice"? Everybody knows that abortion harms the "complete physical, mental, spiritual, political, economic, and social well-being of women and girls". Everybody knows that abortion destroys pre-born children, who will never even get a chance to experience any "physical, mental, spiritual, political, economic, and social well-being". Everybody knows that abortion harms families and society. What exactly, is just about all that?
The only ones benefiting from this latest flavour of the week, what are they talking about (you are for justice right?), euphemistic phrase for abortion, are the doctors who earn their living from it.
"Reproductive Justice"; all paid for, courtesy you and me.
In fact the "celebration" tomorrow is brought to you by the Ontario Coalition for Abortion Clinics (OCAC).
Maybe "Reproductive Justice" is really for the well-being of Big Abortion. Maybe that is what "Reproductive Justice" is all about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update:
Have a look at this video that shows what "reproductive justice" looks like for babies. This video was made by Bernard Nathanson and is called "Eclipse of Reason". It shows an abortion.
"This is the face of a world of violence."
Watch it and weep. For the children. For the women. For Canada.
(note the statistics quoted here are much lower than today, as this film was produced in 1987).
That's the day that the Morgentaler decision came down.
So what is this latest euphemism "Reproductive Justice" anyway?
Wikipedia tells us that:
“Reproductive Justice is the complete physical, mental, spiritual, political, economic, and social well-being of women and girls, and will be achieved when women and girls have the economic, social, and political power and resources to make healthy decisions about our bodies, sexuality, and reproduction for ourselves, our families, and our communities in all areas of our lives.”
Well-being you say? Whose well-being? The woman's well being? The pre-born child's well-being? Society's well-being? I don't think so.
And what, exactly, is "just" about "Reproductive Justice"? Everybody knows that abortion harms the "complete physical, mental, spiritual, political, economic, and social well-being of women and girls". Everybody knows that abortion destroys pre-born children, who will never even get a chance to experience any "physical, mental, spiritual, political, economic, and social well-being". Everybody knows that abortion harms families and society. What exactly, is just about all that?
The only ones benefiting from this latest flavour of the week, what are they talking about (you are for justice right?), euphemistic phrase for abortion, are the doctors who earn their living from it.
"Reproductive Justice"; all paid for, courtesy you and me.
In fact the "celebration" tomorrow is brought to you by the Ontario Coalition for Abortion Clinics (OCAC).
Maybe "Reproductive Justice" is really for the well-being of Big Abortion. Maybe that is what "Reproductive Justice" is all about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update:
Have a look at this video that shows what "reproductive justice" looks like for babies. This video was made by Bernard Nathanson and is called "Eclipse of Reason". It shows an abortion.
"This is the face of a world of violence."
Watch it and weep. For the children. For the women. For Canada.
(note the statistics quoted here are much lower than today, as this film was produced in 1987).
Saturday, January 26, 2013
When pro-abortions get cranky
Anyone who reads the National Post, knows that every Saturday the Letters Editor Paul Russell, writes his own column highlighting:
"Some of the more passionately argued letters received that did not make it into the paper".
This week the theme was: "With contentious issues, the right word is crucial."
This is what Mr. Russell had to say about an apparently contentious word (at least for some), used in a column the previous week in the National Post, that caught the ire of a "pro-choice" doctor. The word is "pre-born child".
"Word choice is important when talking about the subject of abortion. Last Saturday, we ran a column by Scott Barber, in which he talked about “how the terms ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ … have been responsible for confusing the public, sparking political battles and stifling discussion.”
This column provoked many responses, including one from Dr. Gail Erlick Robinson. Her letter stated: “Mr. Barber [has fallen] into another semantic trap promulgated by anti-abortionists. Referring to a fetus in utero as a ‘pre-born child’ is a [linguistic] anti-abortion device designed to instill guilt in a woman contemplating an abortion.”
“It is ironic [that] Dr. Robinson should be critical of the language used to describe the abortion debate,” shot back William T. Weiland. “She assumes that abortion is the norm; otherwise, why use the term ‘anti-abortion’? Dr. Robinson feels it is inappropriate to attach guilt to a woman contemplating abortion. In today’s society, where abortion is widely accepted, it is ludicrous to suggest that such language would instill guilt. The source of the guilt for women who have chosen to abort a child is the abortion itself.”
“One can easily see how desperate and unnerved the anti-life side is becoming when Dr. Robinson has to resort to spin and semantics,” added Cliff Pyle. “If she cannot accept the term, ‘a pre-born child,’ she should drop the term ‘doctor’ from her name and resort to comedy. Her comment that referring to ‘a pre-born child instills guilt’ will do nothing for those who do suffer tremendous guilt after an abortion.”
Well that sews it up for me. Pre-born child. Pre-born child. Pre-born child.
"Some of the more passionately argued letters received that did not make it into the paper".
This week the theme was: "With contentious issues, the right word is crucial."
This is what Mr. Russell had to say about an apparently contentious word (at least for some), used in a column the previous week in the National Post, that caught the ire of a "pro-choice" doctor. The word is "pre-born child".
"Word choice is important when talking about the subject of abortion. Last Saturday, we ran a column by Scott Barber, in which he talked about “how the terms ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ … have been responsible for confusing the public, sparking political battles and stifling discussion.”
This column provoked many responses, including one from Dr. Gail Erlick Robinson. Her letter stated: “Mr. Barber [has fallen] into another semantic trap promulgated by anti-abortionists. Referring to a fetus in utero as a ‘pre-born child’ is a [linguistic] anti-abortion device designed to instill guilt in a woman contemplating an abortion.”
“It is ironic [that] Dr. Robinson should be critical of the language used to describe the abortion debate,” shot back William T. Weiland. “She assumes that abortion is the norm; otherwise, why use the term ‘anti-abortion’? Dr. Robinson feels it is inappropriate to attach guilt to a woman contemplating abortion. In today’s society, where abortion is widely accepted, it is ludicrous to suggest that such language would instill guilt. The source of the guilt for women who have chosen to abort a child is the abortion itself.”
“One can easily see how desperate and unnerved the anti-life side is becoming when Dr. Robinson has to resort to spin and semantics,” added Cliff Pyle. “If she cannot accept the term, ‘a pre-born child,’ she should drop the term ‘doctor’ from her name and resort to comedy. Her comment that referring to ‘a pre-born child instills guilt’ will do nothing for those who do suffer tremendous guilt after an abortion.”
Well that sews it up for me. Pre-born child. Pre-born child. Pre-born child.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Practising Catholic does not an NDP make
This is one for the books.
The Star Phoenix tells us that Saskatoon doctor Ryan Meili is running for the leadership of the Saskatchewan NDP. Meili is a doctor, and says he is a practicing Catholic. And he says that his position on abortion is not at odds with being a Catholic. Interesting:
"To put it simply, I am a practising Catholic, but I'm also a practising physician and a practising New Democrat," Meili said. "That means I've probably had more practice than most actually digging into this issue and it is an issue on which I still have my own personal beliefs."
I'm having some problems with his statement "I am a practising Catholic, but I'm also a practising physician and a practising New Democrat".
One can be a non-practising Catholic, a practising physician and a practising New Democrat.
Or one can be a practising Catholic, a practising physician and a non-practising New Democrat (well, maybe).
But a practising Catholic, a practising physician and a practising New Democrat? Dr. Meili, make up your mind. Practising Catholics are against abortion, and New Democrats are not against abortion. Simple really.
Then the good doctor says:
"But I recognize the distinction between personal beliefs and political and legal policy and what I see in terms of policy around this is this (abortion) is a legal procedure and it should remain so and it should be (part of) a full spectrum of reproductive health services from education to contraception to termination for those who choose and all the other options for those who choose other options."
I always get woozy when I hear someone say they make a distinction between their personal beliefs and political policy. How can there be a distinction between the two? It reminds me of the philosophy, "I'm personally against abortion, but would never tell a woman she couldn't have one." How can abortion be morally wrong for myself, but not morally wrong for someone else? What if I told you I was personally against lying, but that lying was fine for the rest of the population? Does that make sense?
I think the doctor has some issues. I hope he figures them out soon.
The Star Phoenix tells us that Saskatoon doctor Ryan Meili is running for the leadership of the Saskatchewan NDP. Meili is a doctor, and says he is a practicing Catholic. And he says that his position on abortion is not at odds with being a Catholic. Interesting:
"To put it simply, I am a practising Catholic, but I'm also a practising physician and a practising New Democrat," Meili said. "That means I've probably had more practice than most actually digging into this issue and it is an issue on which I still have my own personal beliefs."
I'm having some problems with his statement "I am a practising Catholic, but I'm also a practising physician and a practising New Democrat".
One can be a non-practising Catholic, a practising physician and a practising New Democrat.
Or one can be a practising Catholic, a practising physician and a non-practising New Democrat (well, maybe).
But a practising Catholic, a practising physician and a practising New Democrat? Dr. Meili, make up your mind. Practising Catholics are against abortion, and New Democrats are not against abortion. Simple really.
Then the good doctor says:
"But I recognize the distinction between personal beliefs and political and legal policy and what I see in terms of policy around this is this (abortion) is a legal procedure and it should remain so and it should be (part of) a full spectrum of reproductive health services from education to contraception to termination for those who choose and all the other options for those who choose other options."
I always get woozy when I hear someone say they make a distinction between their personal beliefs and political policy. How can there be a distinction between the two? It reminds me of the philosophy, "I'm personally against abortion, but would never tell a woman she couldn't have one." How can abortion be morally wrong for myself, but not morally wrong for someone else? What if I told you I was personally against lying, but that lying was fine for the rest of the population? Does that make sense?
I think the doctor has some issues. I hope he figures them out soon.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Abortion is a civil rights issue
Follow the horrible case of the Kermit Gosnell and his disgusting Philadelphia slaughterhouse.
"Make no mistake, abortion is a civil rights issue."
"It's all about the money. It's all about greed."
Friday, January 18, 2013
The hidden cost of abortion in Ontario
(This article appeared in the Fall 2012 issue of Canadian Physicians for Life, Vital Signs)
In January 2012, the Ontario Government quietly shut down access to all information on abortion services. This was accomplished by an amendment to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), as part of Bill 122: An Act to increase the financial accountability of organizations in the broader public sector. (1)
This is the clause that was added to the Act:
Why was this change made?
There are two background stories that will provide the answer to this question.
First. Officially, the Ministry of Health and Long Term-care (MOH) stated that the clause was added because "Records relating to abortion services are highly sensitive and that is why a decision was made to exempt these records". (2)
This statement is disingenuous since as numerous writers have already pointed out, all kinds of medical services are "highly sensitive", but are still subject to access to Freedom of Information rules. So why was this the only medical service singled out?
The more plausible reason for the change is that due to previous access to information requests made by this writer, we were discovering very high numbers of abortions being performed in Ontario, numbers much higher than being officially reported by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). In fact, these FOI requests (based on OHIP billings and not hospital records like CIHI uses) were identifying abortion numbers a full 53% higher than CIHI's numbers. (3)
(Note: CIHI statistics do not include abortions performed in private physician's offices. As well, it is voluntary for clinics to report data.)
CIHI reported 28,765 abortions in Ontario for 2010 (4), while my FOIs had hit 44,091 abortions and was about to climb again with my latest request for service code P001: "Medical management of non-viable fetus or intra-uterine fetal demise between 14 and 20 weeks". However this FOI request was denied because of the exclusion clause added to FIPPA in January.
Second. The group Echo, which is funded by Ontario tax payers, put together a so-called "Abortion Expert Panel" to study abortion access in Ontario (5). By their own admission, the panel was comprised of only pro-choice experts (6). This biased tax funded group advocates for more access to abortions, and for more access to second trimester abortions (7). Echo also lists these pro-abortion resources as sources of information:
National Abortion Federation
Canadians for Choice
Canadian Federation for Sexual Health
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada
Medical Students for Choice
Gynuity Health Projects (medical abortion advocates)
If a government is paying abortion experts to advocate for increased access to abortions, then it's agenda will be derailed if access to information requests divulge the inconvenient truth that Ontario is already performing far more abortions than officially reported.
Our best numbers to date are that 44,091 abortions were preformed in 2010. With an average cost of $1,600 (8), that's $70,545,600 Ontario taxpayers spent destroying preborn children in 2010 alone. So in a time of fiscal restraint when expenditures are being slashed and doctors and teachers are being asked to reduce their salaries, it would become increasingly difficult to explain to the public why we need to pay more to an already lucrative abortion industry.
The solution to this dilemma was to ensure that all abortion information--the numbers of abortions being performed; the types of abortions; and their escalating costs--was hidden from public scrutiny.
If we don't know how many abortions are being performed we remain ignorant--and quiet--about the cost of those abortions.
Below are the numbers of procedures done for specific Service Codes/Diagnostic codes for 2010. This is the kind of information that we will be prevented from obtaining in the future because of this change to FIPPA.
Footnotes:
(1) http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90f31_e.htm#BK83
(2) http://www.nationalpost.com/Ontario+cuts+access+abortion+data/7068507/story.html
(3) http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2011/12/ontario-abortion-doctors-very-busy-in.html
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2012/05/revised-2010-ontario-abortions-tell-sad.html
(4) http://www.cihi.ca/CIHI-ext-portal/pdf/internet/TA_10_ALLDATATABLES20120417_EN
(5) Abortion Expert Panel Report: Recommendations to Improve Abortion Services in Ontario
http://www.echo-ontario.ca/sites/default/files/Abortion%20Expert%20panel%20report%20final%20format_0.pdf
(6) http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2011/12/pro-life-experts-need-not-apply.html
(7) INDUCED ABORTION IN ONTARIO: CASE SCENARIOS1
http://www.echo-ontario.ca/sites/default/files/saas%20scenarios%20april%202011%20final.pdf
(8) http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/archives/story.html?id=57816457-0bde-439e-97f2-195e979fbf0d&p=2
(9) http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2012/06/dont-let-numbers-fool-you.html
(10) Improving Access to Abortion Services in Ontario, Information for Women and Proposed System Changes
http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/25006/310401.pdf
Improving Access to Abortion Services in Ontario, Recommendations for the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/25006/310394.pdf
A couple of additional notes on the Echo reports:
1) There is a contradiction in Echo's literature regarding short-term abortion complication rates. In three (5, 10) of the four Echo reports it states that "Abortion is a safe procedure with less than a 1% complication rate".
Yet in the Case Scenario report (7, 9), the percentages for short term complication rates are actually much higher at 6.95% to 8.05%.
2) Echo also recommends that: "Sexual and reproductive health topics, abortion counselling, and abortion procedures are part of the core content of medical and nursing schools’ curricula and supported by core education in medical ethics. Practical training is provided to medical students and primary care practitioners".)
In January 2012, the Ontario Government quietly shut down access to all information on abortion services. This was accomplished by an amendment to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), as part of Bill 122: An Act to increase the financial accountability of organizations in the broader public sector. (1)
This is the clause that was added to the Act:
"(5.7) This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services. 2010, c. 25, s. 24 (17)"
Why was this change made?
There are two background stories that will provide the answer to this question.
First. Officially, the Ministry of Health and Long Term-care (MOH) stated that the clause was added because "Records relating to abortion services are highly sensitive and that is why a decision was made to exempt these records". (2)
This statement is disingenuous since as numerous writers have already pointed out, all kinds of medical services are "highly sensitive", but are still subject to access to Freedom of Information rules. So why was this the only medical service singled out?
The more plausible reason for the change is that due to previous access to information requests made by this writer, we were discovering very high numbers of abortions being performed in Ontario, numbers much higher than being officially reported by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). In fact, these FOI requests (based on OHIP billings and not hospital records like CIHI uses) were identifying abortion numbers a full 53% higher than CIHI's numbers. (3)
(Note: CIHI statistics do not include abortions performed in private physician's offices. As well, it is voluntary for clinics to report data.)
CIHI reported 28,765 abortions in Ontario for 2010 (4), while my FOIs had hit 44,091 abortions and was about to climb again with my latest request for service code P001: "Medical management of non-viable fetus or intra-uterine fetal demise between 14 and 20 weeks". However this FOI request was denied because of the exclusion clause added to FIPPA in January.
Second. The group Echo, which is funded by Ontario tax payers, put together a so-called "Abortion Expert Panel" to study abortion access in Ontario (5). By their own admission, the panel was comprised of only pro-choice experts (6). This biased tax funded group advocates for more access to abortions, and for more access to second trimester abortions (7). Echo also lists these pro-abortion resources as sources of information:
National Abortion Federation
Canadians for Choice
Canadian Federation for Sexual Health
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada
Medical Students for Choice
Gynuity Health Projects (medical abortion advocates)
If a government is paying abortion experts to advocate for increased access to abortions, then it's agenda will be derailed if access to information requests divulge the inconvenient truth that Ontario is already performing far more abortions than officially reported.
Our best numbers to date are that 44,091 abortions were preformed in 2010. With an average cost of $1,600 (8), that's $70,545,600 Ontario taxpayers spent destroying preborn children in 2010 alone. So in a time of fiscal restraint when expenditures are being slashed and doctors and teachers are being asked to reduce their salaries, it would become increasingly difficult to explain to the public why we need to pay more to an already lucrative abortion industry.
The solution to this dilemma was to ensure that all abortion information--the numbers of abortions being performed; the types of abortions; and their escalating costs--was hidden from public scrutiny.
If we don't know how many abortions are being performed we remain ignorant--and quiet--about the cost of those abortions.
Below are the numbers of procedures done for specific Service Codes/Diagnostic codes for 2010. This is the kind of information that we will be prevented from obtaining in the future because of this change to FIPPA.
Footnotes:
(1) http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90f31_e.htm#BK83
(2) http://www.nationalpost.com/Ontario+cuts+access+abortion+data/7068507/story.html
(3) http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2011/12/ontario-abortion-doctors-very-busy-in.html
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2012/05/revised-2010-ontario-abortions-tell-sad.html
(4) http://www.cihi.ca/CIHI-ext-portal/pdf/internet/TA_10_ALLDATATABLES20120417_EN
(5) Abortion Expert Panel Report: Recommendations to Improve Abortion Services in Ontario
http://www.echo-ontario.ca/sites/default/files/Abortion%20Expert%20panel%20report%20final%20format_0.pdf
(6) http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2011/12/pro-life-experts-need-not-apply.html
(7) INDUCED ABORTION IN ONTARIO: CASE SCENARIOS1
http://www.echo-ontario.ca/sites/default/files/saas%20scenarios%20april%202011%20final.pdf
(8) http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/archives/story.html?id=57816457-0bde-439e-97f2-195e979fbf0d&p=2
(9) http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2012/06/dont-let-numbers-fool-you.html
(10) Improving Access to Abortion Services in Ontario, Information for Women and Proposed System Changes
http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/25006/310401.pdf
Improving Access to Abortion Services in Ontario, Recommendations for the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/25006/310394.pdf
A couple of additional notes on the Echo reports:
1) There is a contradiction in Echo's literature regarding short-term abortion complication rates. In three (5, 10) of the four Echo reports it states that "Abortion is a safe procedure with less than a 1% complication rate".
Yet in the Case Scenario report (7, 9), the percentages for short term complication rates are actually much higher at 6.95% to 8.05%.
2) Echo also recommends that: "Sexual and reproductive health topics, abortion counselling, and abortion procedures are part of the core content of medical and nursing schools’ curricula and supported by core education in medical ethics. Practical training is provided to medical students and primary care practitioners".)
Are lobsters more important than babies?
The Globe and Mail is worried about lobsters feeling pain when it's cooking. Oh brother.
What about babies feeling pain when they are aborted. Is the G&M worried about that?
Prof. Elwood says that:
“The advantage of pain is that it trains your attention to what caused it so you can learn and change your behaviour in the future."
The pain a child feels as it is being ripped from it's mother's body never gets the chance to change its behaviour, since the baby is soon, you know, dead.
“It shows clearly that the animals are learning, they’re discriminating between a safe area and an area that isn’t, It’s a criterion that has been tested and been found to be consistent with pain.”
The child never gets the chance to learn to find any "safe area", since none exists during an abortion. Lucky animals.
"While mammals are given some measure of consideration when they are slaughtered, it is common for crustaceans to have their bodies ripped while alive, Prof. Elwood noted.
But not the baby mammal of the human species, not a whole whack of "consideration" there. Not while they are being "slaughtered" and having "their bodies ripped apart".
“An unmentionably large number are abused in extreme ways and perhaps through this experiment there might be some changes in attitudes and practices.”
Wow. Do we as a species, actually care more about a lobster being boiled, than a about a baby being dismembered, disemboweled and decapitated? Now that is "abuse in extreme ways".
And changes in "attitudes and practices"? Bring it on I say. Save the baby. Boil the lobster.
What about babies feeling pain when they are aborted. Is the G&M worried about that?
Prof. Elwood says that:
“The advantage of pain is that it trains your attention to what caused it so you can learn and change your behaviour in the future."
The pain a child feels as it is being ripped from it's mother's body never gets the chance to change its behaviour, since the baby is soon, you know, dead.
“It shows clearly that the animals are learning, they’re discriminating between a safe area and an area that isn’t, It’s a criterion that has been tested and been found to be consistent with pain.”
The child never gets the chance to learn to find any "safe area", since none exists during an abortion. Lucky animals.
"While mammals are given some measure of consideration when they are slaughtered, it is common for crustaceans to have their bodies ripped while alive, Prof. Elwood noted.
But not the baby mammal of the human species, not a whole whack of "consideration" there. Not while they are being "slaughtered" and having "their bodies ripped apart".
“An unmentionably large number are abused in extreme ways and perhaps through this experiment there might be some changes in attitudes and practices.”
Wow. Do we as a species, actually care more about a lobster being boiled, than a about a baby being dismembered, disemboweled and decapitated? Now that is "abuse in extreme ways".
And changes in "attitudes and practices"? Bring it on I say. Save the baby. Boil the lobster.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Born a girl is a deadly devastation
The UN estimates that there are 200 million missing girls in the world today.
Mostly in China and India.
Watch this video by rapper Omékongo Dibinga brought to you by It's a Girl:
"...We kill innocent victims who have no choice..."
Won't our political leaders: Mr. Harper, Mr. Mulcair and Mr. Rae, please protect girls by supporting Motion 408?
Won't all political parties please condemn sex selection abortion?
Won't Canada please condemn Gendercide?
Mostly in China and India.
Watch this video by rapper Omékongo Dibinga brought to you by It's a Girl:
"...We kill innocent victims who have no choice..."
Won't our political leaders: Mr. Harper, Mr. Mulcair and Mr. Rae, please protect girls by supporting Motion 408?
Won't all political parties please condemn sex selection abortion?
Won't Canada please condemn Gendercide?
Is it inherently wrong for one person intentionally to kill another?
In Today's National Post, Margaret Somerville argues against legalizing euthanasia.
Dr. Somerville gives fundamental reasons why we should be against it.
"...Legalization gives individual autonomy priority over respect for human life. Its message is that personal control is the primary human good; loss of control is equated to loss of dignity. This is especially dangerous for old or disabled people. If euthanasia is an option, they are likely to perceive themselves as a burden on their families and on society, which they could relieve through euthanasia. They could even feel they have a duty to die...
...If, as I do, we believe legalizing euthanasia is a bad idea, it is not enough simply to argue that the pro-euthanasia advocates are wrong on the facts regarding potential abuses, which is where the debate has been focused so far. We must face the basic question that euthanasia raises: Is it inherently wrong for one person intentionally to kill another?
If something is inherently wrong, the issue of how best to manage it does not arise. We only manage activities that are ethically acceptable; we prohibit those that are not. As writer Peter Stockland says, the central question in the euthanasia debate is not whether the system will work as designed to prevent abuses, as pro-euthanasia activists argue it will, but what the system is designed to do. And that requires us to address geriatrician Dr. Catherine Ferrier’s challenging question: “If it’s not killing, what is it?”..."
Dr. Somerville gives fundamental reasons why we should be against it.
"...Legalization gives individual autonomy priority over respect for human life. Its message is that personal control is the primary human good; loss of control is equated to loss of dignity. This is especially dangerous for old or disabled people. If euthanasia is an option, they are likely to perceive themselves as a burden on their families and on society, which they could relieve through euthanasia. They could even feel they have a duty to die...
...If, as I do, we believe legalizing euthanasia is a bad idea, it is not enough simply to argue that the pro-euthanasia advocates are wrong on the facts regarding potential abuses, which is where the debate has been focused so far. We must face the basic question that euthanasia raises: Is it inherently wrong for one person intentionally to kill another?
If something is inherently wrong, the issue of how best to manage it does not arise. We only manage activities that are ethically acceptable; we prohibit those that are not. As writer Peter Stockland says, the central question in the euthanasia debate is not whether the system will work as designed to prevent abuses, as pro-euthanasia activists argue it will, but what the system is designed to do. And that requires us to address geriatrician Dr. Catherine Ferrier’s challenging question: “If it’s not killing, what is it?”..."
Monday, January 14, 2013
Changing hearts not laws
Is there a relationship between sex-selection abortion and rape?
I wondered about this, after reading yet another horrid crime in India about gang rape this morning.
So I googled "sex-selection abortion and rape", and sure enough others have put that idea forward as well here and here.
And this article says that according to official data, rapes have more than doubled in India between1990 and 2008.
And Wikipedia says that:
"According to the decennial Indian census, the sex ratio in the 0-6 age group in India went from 104.0 males per 100 females in 1981, to 105.8 in 1991, to 107.8 in 2001, to 109.4 in 2011. The ratio is significantly higher in certain states such as Punjab and Haryana (126.1 and 122.0, as of 2001).[2]"
So sex selection abortions are also on the increase in India, just like rapes.
Then there is this news item from India where the Indian government agency (NCPCR) actually links sex-selection abortion to rape.
"The spate of rapes in Haryana is a reflection of the adverse sex ratio in the state as well as the way the female sex is treated in society, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) said Tuesday and demanded severe punishment for the rapists. Gender discrimination and caste discrimination is reflected in the adverse sex ratio in Haryana. It is reflected in the way girls are treated," Shanta Sinha, NCPCR chairperson, told a TV channel."
Seems to me that the relationship between sex-selection abortion and rape is a factor that cannot be ignored.
Shouldn't we at the very least then, as a country, condemn sex selection abortion?
We already have an MP who wants to do just that: Mark Warawa's motion M-408 which states:
"That the House condemn discrimination against females, occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.”
Can we get Mr. Harper on side?
At the time that Mr. Warawa announced his motion, the Globe and Mail said that:
"A spokeswoman from the Prime Minister’s Office declined to comment directly on Mr. Warawa’s motion, noting that it would not come before the House for several months. “The Prime Minister has been clear that we do not intend to reopen the debate on abortion,” Julie Vaux wrote in an e-mail."
But then I remembered Mr. Harper's comments he made to Peter Mansbridge about abortion a year ago:
"No, no, no. Look Peter, I've spent my political career trying to stay out of that issue. It's one on which people, including in my own party have passionate views, they're all over the map, and you know what I say to people...as you know, many people I know are pro-life...what I say to people, is if you want to diminish the number of abortions you've got to change hearts and not laws, and I'm not interested in having a debate over abortion law".
Mr. Harper refuses to have a debate about abortion law, but by his own admission, he is in favour of changing people's hearts. Doesn't it follow then, that a really good vehicle to changing people's hearts is to condemn sex-selection abortion, a practice that may very well be also contributing to some of the very worst violence against women, namely rape?
Mr. Harper says we need to change hearts. This motion will do just that. I don't know how Mr. Harper can not support it.
I wondered about this, after reading yet another horrid crime in India about gang rape this morning.
So I googled "sex-selection abortion and rape", and sure enough others have put that idea forward as well here and here.
And this article says that according to official data, rapes have more than doubled in India between1990 and 2008.
And Wikipedia says that:
"According to the decennial Indian census, the sex ratio in the 0-6 age group in India went from 104.0 males per 100 females in 1981, to 105.8 in 1991, to 107.8 in 2001, to 109.4 in 2011. The ratio is significantly higher in certain states such as Punjab and Haryana (126.1 and 122.0, as of 2001).[2]"
So sex selection abortions are also on the increase in India, just like rapes.
Then there is this news item from India where the Indian government agency (NCPCR) actually links sex-selection abortion to rape.
"The spate of rapes in Haryana is a reflection of the adverse sex ratio in the state as well as the way the female sex is treated in society, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) said Tuesday and demanded severe punishment for the rapists. Gender discrimination and caste discrimination is reflected in the adverse sex ratio in Haryana. It is reflected in the way girls are treated," Shanta Sinha, NCPCR chairperson, told a TV channel."
Seems to me that the relationship between sex-selection abortion and rape is a factor that cannot be ignored.
Shouldn't we at the very least then, as a country, condemn sex selection abortion?
We already have an MP who wants to do just that: Mark Warawa's motion M-408 which states:
"That the House condemn discrimination against females, occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.”
Can we get Mr. Harper on side?
At the time that Mr. Warawa announced his motion, the Globe and Mail said that:
"A spokeswoman from the Prime Minister’s Office declined to comment directly on Mr. Warawa’s motion, noting that it would not come before the House for several months. “The Prime Minister has been clear that we do not intend to reopen the debate on abortion,” Julie Vaux wrote in an e-mail."
But then I remembered Mr. Harper's comments he made to Peter Mansbridge about abortion a year ago:
"No, no, no. Look Peter, I've spent my political career trying to stay out of that issue. It's one on which people, including in my own party have passionate views, they're all over the map, and you know what I say to people...as you know, many people I know are pro-life...what I say to people, is if you want to diminish the number of abortions you've got to change hearts and not laws, and I'm not interested in having a debate over abortion law".
Mr. Harper refuses to have a debate about abortion law, but by his own admission, he is in favour of changing people's hearts. Doesn't it follow then, that a really good vehicle to changing people's hearts is to condemn sex-selection abortion, a practice that may very well be also contributing to some of the very worst violence against women, namely rape?
Mr. Harper says we need to change hearts. This motion will do just that. I don't know how Mr. Harper can not support it.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Joyce Arthur's Pro-Can grant: an investigation
(Part one below appeared in the November/December 2012 issue of LifeCanada Journal)
This is part one of a two-part analysis of the $27,400 grant Joyce Arthur received in 2009 for writing her report "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British ColumbiaIn 2009 Joyce Arthur wrote a report criticizing crisis pregnancy centres in British Columbia. The next issue will contain part two. The purpose of the report was to:
"publicly expose the anti-woman and anti-feminist agenda of CPCs, and by doing so, work to mitigate discriminatory attitudes towards women...work to promote institutional change by ensuring that health organizations such as hospitals, clinics, and doctors' offices do not inappropriately refer women to CPC's, and instead have feminist-based alternatives to which they can refer women." (1)
In 2010, through an Access to Information request it was revealed that Ms. Arthur and her group, Pro-Choice Action Network (Pro-Can) received $27,400 from Status of Women Canada (SWC) to write this "Expose".
Then On October 29, 2012 we learned that The Christian Advocacy Society of Greater Vancouver and the Crisis Pregnancy Centre of Vancouver Society sued Joyce Arthur and the Pro-Can in Supreme Court.
The complaint states in part:
"The report has been widely read and disseminated online and republished by other organizations and used in media coverage, including a three-part investigative series by CTV News in Vancouver...The results of the harm done to the plaintiffs' reputation have included, inter alia, adverse impacts on the plaintiffs' relationships with, and ability to engage in its non-profit and funding activities in respect of, prospective clients, donors, and community partners," (2)
For anyone who has read the report (3), it is difficult to imagine how it ever received government funding at all. But it did. What happened? How did tax dollars end up going to an extremist organizations such as Pro-Can?
First. The funds were granted under the Women's Program at SWC. One of the goals to this program is to achieve "social justice". This was part of the pitch that Pro-Can used in order to get funding, and told us the Implications of not receiving this funding:
“Without funding from SWC, the organization will probably not be able to carry out this initiative. As a result, CPC's would be able to continue to operate by employing deceptive and misleading service delivery tactics and many more pregnant women, especially those most marginalized, would continue to have their reproductive rights eroded because their would be no critical awareness of what is happening. Ergo, SWC may not be able to fulfil its commitment of ensuring social justice for all women in Canada.” (1)
A definition of social justice from Wikipedia:
"A socially just society is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, understands and values human rights, and recognizes the dignity of every human being."
How does demeaning and criticizing those organizations who support women who choose to keep their baby and not abort it--recognize the dignity of every human being? It doesn't.
Second. It is clear from the documentation that Pro-Can had already concluded--without actually having done their so-called research and report--that PCs were already deceiving and misleading women.
One example is that the original proposal had a goal that CPCs become marginalized:
”...CPC's switch their focus to helping women who want to have babies instead of stopping women from having abortions—or if they continue doing the latter, they become more marginalized in their communities...”
So why did they need grant money then, for research that was already a foregone conclusion?
Third, funding. Of the $27,400 grant, $8,125 went to office expenses, etc. The remainder $19,275 went to salaries, as well as to hiring a family doctor and a medical researcher to discredit material published by CPC's. Specifically, "to go through the Volunteer Training Manual for the Crisis Pregnancy Centre Ministry, and identify and refute any medical errors or scientific distortions. They produced a detailed report critiquing and refuting many aspects of the manual, and providing support from the scientific literature. There were serious inaccuracies and distortions in many areas. These errors are taught to the counsellors, who pass them on to unsuspecting women." (3)
The doctor was Dr. Konia Trouton a Family Physician from Vancouver Island Women’s Clinic. The website from this doctor's clinic posts these warnings to women about CPCs:
"A word of caution: if you surf the net you will come across many anti-abortion websites that have frightening and inaccurate information about abortion. The resources and links page on this website has a list of pro-choice organizations that are good sources of information. Also beware of "CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTRES". Antichoice groups sometimes set up offices, distress centres, phone lines or 'clinics' that pretend to help pregnant women with information and pregnancy tests. Many of these groups try to influence vulnerable women to continue their pregnancy by frightening them. Some will say anything to have you keep your pregnancy. Not all of their information about gestational development, health risks and after-effects of abortion is correct." (4)
This clinic performs abortions--up to 20 weeks gestation I might add--for which the clinic is obviously well paid. Isn't this a conflict of interest, when a doctor who receives money for the abortions she performs, to then scare women away from CPCs?
And did Ms. Arthur receive any actual funds from abortion clinics to help with this project? It is unclear. However her proposal stated this:
"For this project we would work closely with abortion clinics. We would also liaise with women's centres across BC, family planning clinics (e.g. Options for Sexual health clinics)...we have no financial partners for this project, but we do plan to ask the abortion clinics to contribute funds for expenses...”
(Part two continued in next issue of the Journal)
Footnotes
(1) Access to Information request received from Status of Women Canada (SWC) in 2009
(2) http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/29/51748.htm
(3) http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/Exposing-CPCs-in-BC.pdf
(4) http://www.viwomensclinic.ca/YourDecision.aspx
This is part one of a two-part analysis of the $27,400 grant Joyce Arthur received in 2009 for writing her report "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British ColumbiaIn 2009 Joyce Arthur wrote a report criticizing crisis pregnancy centres in British Columbia. The next issue will contain part two. The purpose of the report was to:
"publicly expose the anti-woman and anti-feminist agenda of CPCs, and by doing so, work to mitigate discriminatory attitudes towards women...work to promote institutional change by ensuring that health organizations such as hospitals, clinics, and doctors' offices do not inappropriately refer women to CPC's, and instead have feminist-based alternatives to which they can refer women." (1)
In 2010, through an Access to Information request it was revealed that Ms. Arthur and her group, Pro-Choice Action Network (Pro-Can) received $27,400 from Status of Women Canada (SWC) to write this "Expose".
Then On October 29, 2012 we learned that The Christian Advocacy Society of Greater Vancouver and the Crisis Pregnancy Centre of Vancouver Society sued Joyce Arthur and the Pro-Can in Supreme Court.
The complaint states in part:
"The report has been widely read and disseminated online and republished by other organizations and used in media coverage, including a three-part investigative series by CTV News in Vancouver...The results of the harm done to the plaintiffs' reputation have included, inter alia, adverse impacts on the plaintiffs' relationships with, and ability to engage in its non-profit and funding activities in respect of, prospective clients, donors, and community partners," (2)
For anyone who has read the report (3), it is difficult to imagine how it ever received government funding at all. But it did. What happened? How did tax dollars end up going to an extremist organizations such as Pro-Can?
First. The funds were granted under the Women's Program at SWC. One of the goals to this program is to achieve "social justice". This was part of the pitch that Pro-Can used in order to get funding, and told us the Implications of not receiving this funding:
“Without funding from SWC, the organization will probably not be able to carry out this initiative. As a result, CPC's would be able to continue to operate by employing deceptive and misleading service delivery tactics and many more pregnant women, especially those most marginalized, would continue to have their reproductive rights eroded because their would be no critical awareness of what is happening. Ergo, SWC may not be able to fulfil its commitment of ensuring social justice for all women in Canada.” (1)
A definition of social justice from Wikipedia:
"A socially just society is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, understands and values human rights, and recognizes the dignity of every human being."
How does demeaning and criticizing those organizations who support women who choose to keep their baby and not abort it--recognize the dignity of every human being? It doesn't.
Second. It is clear from the documentation that Pro-Can had already concluded--without actually having done their so-called research and report--that PCs were already deceiving and misleading women.
One example is that the original proposal had a goal that CPCs become marginalized:
”...CPC's switch their focus to helping women who want to have babies instead of stopping women from having abortions—or if they continue doing the latter, they become more marginalized in their communities...”
So why did they need grant money then, for research that was already a foregone conclusion?
Third, funding. Of the $27,400 grant, $8,125 went to office expenses, etc. The remainder $19,275 went to salaries, as well as to hiring a family doctor and a medical researcher to discredit material published by CPC's. Specifically, "to go through the Volunteer Training Manual for the Crisis Pregnancy Centre Ministry, and identify and refute any medical errors or scientific distortions. They produced a detailed report critiquing and refuting many aspects of the manual, and providing support from the scientific literature. There were serious inaccuracies and distortions in many areas. These errors are taught to the counsellors, who pass them on to unsuspecting women." (3)
The doctor was Dr. Konia Trouton a Family Physician from Vancouver Island Women’s Clinic. The website from this doctor's clinic posts these warnings to women about CPCs:
"A word of caution: if you surf the net you will come across many anti-abortion websites that have frightening and inaccurate information about abortion. The resources and links page on this website has a list of pro-choice organizations that are good sources of information. Also beware of "CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTRES". Antichoice groups sometimes set up offices, distress centres, phone lines or 'clinics' that pretend to help pregnant women with information and pregnancy tests. Many of these groups try to influence vulnerable women to continue their pregnancy by frightening them. Some will say anything to have you keep your pregnancy. Not all of their information about gestational development, health risks and after-effects of abortion is correct." (4)
This clinic performs abortions--up to 20 weeks gestation I might add--for which the clinic is obviously well paid. Isn't this a conflict of interest, when a doctor who receives money for the abortions she performs, to then scare women away from CPCs?
And did Ms. Arthur receive any actual funds from abortion clinics to help with this project? It is unclear. However her proposal stated this:
"For this project we would work closely with abortion clinics. We would also liaise with women's centres across BC, family planning clinics (e.g. Options for Sexual health clinics)...we have no financial partners for this project, but we do plan to ask the abortion clinics to contribute funds for expenses...”
(Part two continued in next issue of the Journal)
Footnotes
(1) Access to Information request received from Status of Women Canada (SWC) in 2009
(2) http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/29/51748.htm
(3) http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/Exposing-CPCs-in-BC.pdf
(4) http://www.viwomensclinic.ca/YourDecision.aspx