Saturday, July 27, 2013

Aggravated Murder and Unborn Victims of Crime

This from the National Post today. Ariel Castor has been convicted of "aggravated murder" for forcing Michelle Knight to miscarry.

Remember MP Ken Epp's Bill C-484, Unborn Victims of Crime Act? Maybe we need to resurrect that bill. Any MPs out there willing to take this on? Looks like this would be a good time to do it.

Thursday, July 25, 2013

Decrease in rural BC doctors committing abortion

This article in today's National Post has some very good news.
A study published by Dr. [Wendy] Norman in 2011, however, found that the number of physicians providing the service in hospitals in rural British Columbia had dropped 62% between 1998 and 2005. 
That's good news indeed. Less doctors committing abortions.
Dr. Norman said reliable data are not available to analyze changes in the rest of Canada, but Ms. Arthur said anecdotal evidence suggests a similar trend is occurring in most other provinces.
The pro-abortions agree with us on the abortion data situation--as in there is little reliable data. And it's only going to get worse. So why aren't the pro-abortions all over Ontario's killing of abortion statistics? I haven't heard a peep out of them on this.

Pretty funny actually, especially since even Joyce Arthur has to base her information on "anecdotal evidence".

Then this:
She [Dr. Norman] said in an interview that she finds the work rewarding, with the opportunity to counsel patients on future contraception use, but acknowledged it is not a popular career choice these days, especially after a string of shootings of abortion doctors in the late 1990s.
Dr. Norman finds it rewarding to commit abortions? Really? If I was an abortion doctor, I don't think that 's a reason I'd ever make public.
About half of the area’s eight or nine anesthetists still refuse to assist in pregnancy terminations because of personal objections, the doctor said.
This makes sense. That there are doctors who have personal objections to abortion.

I'm looking forward to the day when all doctors have a "personal objection" to committing abortions. Then we won't need to keep abortion statistics at all. And the Ontario Government can hide all the data they want on abortions.

Summer update from weneedaLAW

Friday, July 19, 2013

Access to information and democracy

Robyn Urback: Ontario’s prohibition on access to abortion data will finally be challenged in court

As I've said many times. This case is about democracy. Robyn Urback from the National Post agrees with me.

Urback says:
There are other mechanisms in place that muddle our conception of abortion rates in the Ontario, including a tendency for some clinics to underreport (or not report at all) procedures to the Canadian Institute for Health Information. But that tendency does not represent a democratic affront in the same way the FIPPA amendment does. The limitation on access to abortion information should rile the sensibilities of all Ontarians, regardless of where their personal opinions lie. I don’t necessarily agree with Maloney’s views on abortion, but I do certainly hope she wins her day in court. 

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Press Release

For Immediate Release

Blogger Takes Ontario Government to Court over Suppression of Information

OTTAWA , July 18, 2013– “In January 2012, the Ontario Liberal government amended its freedom of information law to exempt any abortion-related data from Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. As a blogger and a member of the new media, I’m taking on the government and challenging them over this undemocratic move. Tax-payers should know how their tax dollars are being spent,” explains Patricia Maloney.

By means of Bill 122, the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, the Ontario government amended the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to restrict data relating to the “provision of abortion services” from the public. There is no recorded debate in Hansard of this amendment, and it did not come to the public’s attention until after the provision came into effect and Maloney exposed it.

Maloney, the author behind the blog Run with Life, discovered the amendment when the Ministry of Health responded to an FOI request she made in March 2012. After breaking the story on her blog, the amendment caught the attention of the national media. Among others, Margaret Somerville covered it for the Calgary Herald and Barbara Kay wrote about it in the National Post.

“I’m not interested in patient or physician names, or the identification of hospitals. I respect the dual purposes of freedom of information laws; to ensure government accountability by providing information to taxpayers while ensuring the privacy of Canadian citizens. But data relating to provincial trends and rates of a publicly funded medical procedure are fair game,” elaborates Maloney. “The government has not restricted this type of generalized data for any other medical procedure. This amendment is without precedent or justification.”

“And without this data, how will we know if safe-sex campaigns are effective? Or the sex-education program that Premier Kathleen Wynne has promised to introduce?” Maloney asks. “Or if there is a sudden spike in tween or teen abortions? This is an important healthcare issue. And now the public is running blind on a government expenditure previously identified as costing as much as 30 to 50 million dollars each year. ”

In March 2013, the Ministry of Health denied Maloney’s FOI request. Maloney retained constitutional lawyer Albertos Polizogopoulos, and appealed the decision to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC upheld the Ministry’s decision stating that the new section to the FIPPA was clear in its exclusion of documents relating to the provision of abortion services. Maloney is now seeking a reconsideration of the IPC’s Order (by the IPC) and a Judicial Review of the Order (by the Ontario Divisional Court).

“As a blogger, Ms. Maloney benefits from the freedom of expression and freedom of the press guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” explains Polizogopoulos. “The Charter protects her right to comment on matters of public interest. The allocation of taxpayer funds for a medical procedure which remains the source of much controversy is certainly a matter of public interest and the suppression of that information cannot be justified in law.”


Maloney’s counsel, Albertos Polizogopoulos, is available for comment and interviews. He can be reached at 613-241-2701. For more information on this case, the amendment to FIPPA and additional news coverage, please visit Maloney’s blog at

Friday, July 12, 2013

What Feminism and Liberalism have done for women

Lucinda Creighton was Fine Gael TD in Ireland. Up until today that is.

(TD stands for Teachta Dála, and is a member of Dáil Éireann, the lower house of the Oireachtas, the Irish Parliament).

She said:
"When a politician in good conscience promises matter and on such a fundamental issue, she could not in conscience support what was proposed."

Ms. Creighton voted against a section of her party's Bill, the Protection of Life During Pregnancy. The section was on the risk of loss of life from suicide. She was automatically expelled from her party. She had been a member of Fine Gael since she was 18. She is now 33.

She had an amazing speech before the vote that is well worth the read. Here is only a small part of that speech:

"...I have never regarded myself as a pro-life campaigner. I was not motivated to become active in politics because of the abortion issue. In fact I have spoken previously about the fact that I held a very different view on this matter when I was a student.

However, after much reflection, my views have evolved over the years; as I learned more about the topic, as I came in contact with friends and family affected by abortion, and as I matured and developed my own independent analysis of this most sensitive topic.

Crucially for me I stepped outside the “groupthink” which I genuinely believe dominates this debate in Ireland. It seems that if you do not succumb to the accepted view that abortion is a “liberal issue”, a “women’s rights issue”, a cornerstone of the “progressive agenda”, then you are deemed to be a backward, illiberal, Neanderthal fundamentalist who belongs to a different era. The distinct irony of this prevailing view, is that it is so illiberal in its intolerance of any alternative outlook.

Yet, when one steps back from the stifling groupthink, and reflects, I think one arrives at a different view. I am a woman and I am happy to say that I am also very much in favour of women’s rights. But by that I mean all women. Not just adults or adolescents or children – I mean babies too.

The sad reality, as we look around the globe at how women’s rights are advocated, promoted and defended, it is clear to me that abortion is in fact, often a tool for the oppression of women.

Look at China, India, Korea and indeed some parts of Europe and the United States. The societal preference for boys over girls has led to the obliteration of tens of millions of baby girls who were simply never born. A famous feature carried by the Economist magazine in 2010 showed just how females are discriminated against in this age of abortion.

One paragraph from that edition of the Economist jumped out at me and frightened me:

Until the 1980s people in poor countries could do little about this preference: before birth, nature took its course. But in that decade, ultrasound scanning and other methods of detecting the sex of a child before birth began to make their appearance. These technologies changed everything. Doctors in India started advertising ultrasound scans with the slogan “Pay 5,000 rupees ($110) today and save 50,000 rupees tomorrow” (the saving was on the cost of a daughter’s dowry). Parents who wanted a son, but balked at killing baby daughters, chose abortion in their millions.

It would be bizarre if we, as legislators and hopefully, as thinkers, did not ask the obvious question “What is the net difference” between such screening followed by intentional gender-based abortion, and the intentional killing of that baby after delivery? The answer is of course none.

The net effect is exactly the same, which is to say that an innocent baby, is simply wiped out. The scale of this exercise is such that in China, by the year 2020, there will be 30-40 million less women than men walking the earth, growing up, having families, going to work and generally contributing to society . 30-40 million less women is hardly a triumph for feminism or liberalism..."

The woman lost her high-profile political job, because she had to be true to her beliefs.

Here is her statement after losing her job:

“I am deeply disappointed to have to vote against the Government’s abortion Bill today. I never wished or expected to be expelled from the Fine Gael parliamentary party. This is the party I have worked for unstintingly since I was 18 years old. I will, of course, continue to be a Fine Gael member.

I feel deeply and strongly that aspects of this Bill are based on flawed logic and absolutely zero medical evidence. I could not vote for it, particularly in light of Fine Gael’s clear commitment not to introduce abortion prior to the last election. Promises matter in politics, but particularly in relation to matters of life and death. This is a promise I could not renege on in any circumstances.

I believe that I have made the correct decision."

Quite the courageous person. Quite the courageous, young female political person, who also just happened to be a Minister. What a great example for Canadian female MPs.

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

How Canadians can ban late-term abortions

LiveAction goes undercover again, this time in America's late-term abortion industry.

Notice how the abortion doctor continually calls the unborn child "the pregnancy". And she seems to have no problem in going ahead and aborting the 27 week old baby.

But there is something else noteworthy in this video. It is that two congresswomen stand up and speak out very openly and forcefully against abortion.

Republican Diane Black says:
"there is undisputed scientific evidence that babies over 20 weeks and over gestation can feel pain and that late-term abortion can impose severe health risks also for the mother...There is no federal law to protect pain capable unborn children or their mothers by restricting late-term abortions."

Republican Ann Wagner says:
"Everyone talks about the right to choose, but no-one discusses the implications of that choice."

Those are two gutsy women.

Why do we so infrequently have Canadian MPs speaking out against late-term abortion? Is it because our Prime Minister muzzles them? Is it because the pro-abortions will draw and quarter them? Or is it both these reasons?

We know what happened when Rona Ambrose spoke out in favour of Motion 312.

NDP MP Libies Davies actually said that Ms. Ambrose "betrayed the women of this country."

And Joyce Arthur said Ms. Ambrose "threw women under the bus".

One can easily see why our pro-life MPs (especially female ones) are very reticent in speaking out for women and their pre-born children. They know as soon as they say anything on the subject, they will be publicly humiliated by these extreme feminists.

Motion 312 was a Motion to call for a Parliamentary committee to study when a child becomes a human being. What part of that Motion exactly, betrays women and throws them under the bus I ask you?

Between 60 and 77% of Canadians believe late-term abortions should be banned.

There isn't a whole lot we can do about pro-abortion extremists except ignore them.

But there is something we can do about Mr. Harper.

It's time for the Conservatives to call a leadership review.

Monday, July 1, 2013

Happy Birthday Canada

Today is Canada's 146 birthday of nationhood.

We Canadians live in one of the safest, most prosperous, well educated, peaceful and financially well off countries in the world. Canada has some of the most amazing natural resources in the world as well--fresh water, bountiful forests, natural gas and oil. We have low unemployment and financial stability in these troublesome times when so many countries are suffering from severe recessions and strife.

And we have a strong and honourable history of democracy. Canadians have freedoms other countries can only dream of.

I love this country.

For all that, Canada's track record on legally protecting our pre-born citizens isn't something I am proud of. In this regard we don't rank with other democracies, we rank with totalitarian regimes like China and North Korea where human rights don't even begin to compare to Canada's.Yet Canada's human rights record for pre-born citizens is equal to China and North Korea.

Sometimes I think, will it ever change? Will Canada's political leaders ever finally realize the error they have made with abortion? It is frustrating to see them in their seemingly total blindness for the fate of our unborn children. Do we give up? Do we give in? Do we let the pro-abortions have their way?

No we don't. Not now. Not ever.

There are many dedicated men and women in this great country who care deeply about the plight of these children. Men and women who have devoted their life to the cause of life. To the cause of protecting and advocating for women and their children. I am very proud of these Canadians.

What we do have, is hope. We have hope that one day abortion will end. Maybe in my lifetime. Maybe not. But it will end. Hope is what keeps us going. Hope in our future. Hope in the future of our children. Hope in equal rights for all Canadians. Those born and those yet to be born.

It will come. I promise you.