Let's talk about pro-abortion discrimination and other non-sensical things

Why does the CMA want to make a toxic drug available to Canadian women for medical abortions? Never mind that the drug is really toxic to pre-born children.

The Canadian Medical Association Journal has come out with a commentary by Shelia Dunn and Rebecca Cook, that is advocating for the use of the abortion drug mifepristone (RU-486).

(Interesting that the article was available on-line two days ago but suddenly disappeared from view yesterday. Unless you want to pay for it.)

The two page commentary doesn't tell us of any of the risks of this drug, which itself is very troubling. Especially since one of the writers is a doctor.

One of those risks just happens to be death.

Here's what the FDA says about this drug:

"Since its approval in September 2000, the Food and Drug Administration has received reports of serious adverse events, including several deaths, in the United States following medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol. Each time FDA receives a report of a serious adverse event or death after medical abortion with these drugs, the agency carefully analyzes the available scientific information to determine whether or not the serious adverse event or death is related to the use of the drugs. As previously reported by the agency, several of the women who died in the United States died from sepsis (severe illness caused by infection of the bloodstream) after medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol. Sepsis is a known risk related to any type of abortion.  Most of these women were infected with the same type of bacteria,  known as Clostridium sordellii. The symptoms in these cases of infection were not the usual symptoms of sepsis. We do not know whether using mifepristone and misoprostol caused these deaths."

Then there's this priceless piece of advice in the CMAJ article:

"Failure to provide essential drugs that only women need, including mifepristone, is a form of discrimination that Canada is obligated to remedy."

What's this about "discrimination" against women? What about the "discrimination" against pre-born children if this drug becomes legal? Don't Canadians already discriminate enough against the very youngest in our society, with the 100,000 plus abortions committed every year?

They saved the best for last:

:"Ultimately, the availability of mifepristone in Canada would provide an important therapy that would help to optimize the health of Canadian women."

What exactly, is "essential" about a drug that can kill and seriously hurt women? Calling toxic poison a "therapy" to "optimize the health of Canadian women" sounds like something out of Aldoux Huxley's Brave new World. I shudder to think.

The pro-abortions need to listen to themselves for a change, instead of just talking all the time. They are so wrapped up in their own abortion dogma, they don't even make any sense. I dare say, even to themselves.

Why not adoption?

I was gobsmacked today, when I heard that only 2% of single women who face an unplanned pregnancy, choose adoption. That is unbelievable.

This morning Anastasia Bowles, program director of Adoption in Canada at LifeCanada spoke to Shelley McLean at CFRA about adoption. Listen to the six minute podcast. It is the entry for November 27 at 6:17 AM. You might learn something new about adoption. I did.

Anastasia tells us that there is a lot of confusion out there about how adoption is practiced. She clears up some of the negative connotations on adoption.

She also tells us that a woman these days has much more control about the adoption process than in days gone by. Like how there can be open adoptions where the woman can select the adoptive parents. How she can negotiate for future contact with her child with the adoptive parents. That adoptions don't cost the birth mother anything.

A woman places her child for adoption, or entrusts her child; she doesn't give up her child.

One of the issues that Adoption in Canada is hoping to address, is that there isn't enough post-adoption support out there, and this is something LifeCanada is working on. They have created a website with resources and information on adoption.

Adoption is a good thing. It gives a child the chance to live her life. It gives loving parents a child. What could be more important than this?

Stephanie Gray debates Dr. Fraser Fellowes

In Toronto recently, Stephanie Gray debated Dr. Fraser Fellowes who is a late term abortionist.

This was a great debate and as expected, Stephanie ran circles around Dr. Fellowes. Though I must admit I have a lot of respect for Dr. Fellowes who agreed to debate Stephanie in the first place. If I was pro-choice, I wouldn't debate Stephanie.

Now I'd really love to see Joyce Arthur debate Stephanie, although the only time she was invited to debate her that I'm aware of, Arthur declined.

But Dr. Fellowes did debate Stephanie.

Watch for yourself.

Conservative policy convention - re-opening abortion debate?

Dear Mr. Anders,

At the recent Conservative policy convention, grass roots delegates voted on two pro-life initiatives: condemning sex selection abortion and euthanasia.

I have a couple of questions I would like to ask you regarding what the Sun reported after the convention:

"And he [Rob Anders] says on “gendercide,” that is, gender-selective abortion, as well as on euthanasia, “social conservatives need to know they feel the love here.”

“Social conservatism is a significant component of the Conservative Party in Canada and I think they spoke today. Social conservatives should be happy,” says Anders.

“It’s very important to listen to the base of the party. I am the base of the party in a lot of ways. I’m the canary in the mine. I’m always glad when the base exercises its voice.”

On euthanasia? “We’re pro-life.”

Does the condemnation on gendercide reopen the abortion debate? He smiles. He says his statements speak for themselves."

I understand that grass roots Conservatives made their voices known at the convention. But making one's beliefs known, and acting on those beliefs, are two very separate issues. Therefore I am hoping you can provide me with some clarifications to these statements.

1) You stated at the convention that the Conservatives are Pro-life on euthanasia. I notice that you did not say the same of abortion. Is the Conservative party pro-life on abortion?

2) Could you please expand on the Sun report that states: "Does the condemnation on gendercide reopen the abortion debate? He smiles. He says his statements speak for themselves." Are you reopening the abortion debate? If yes, what political action will the Conservatives take to accomplish this? It is a well known fact that Prime Minister Harper has stated unequivocally that the Conservatives will not reopen the abortion debate. How do you reconcile these two facts, as they are contradictory?

I am sure you will appreciate that social conservatives such as myself, must be very clear on the Conservatives' positions on life issues before we next go to the polls.

As it stands now, and as long as Mr. Harper remains as leader of the party, I would not be able to, in good conscience, vote Conservative at the next election. This is why it is crucial that I and others like me, completely understand what the Conservative party is saying regarding abortion.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to respond to the questions/concerns I have raised.

Sincerely
Patricia Maloney

Tax-payer funded pinkos at CBC

For some reason I am always surprised at how pink the CBC is. Like this morning where in the space of a half hour, I listened to two of Michael Enright's goes-without-saying-lefty-culture topics that forms the ethos of our tax payer funded national broadcaster.

The first was from UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, who talked about man made climate change as being a given. Clearly she has never read the National Post which if she had, she'd learn there is a completely different side to that issue. But no, that doesn't suit the CBC. It is simply a given that this is settled science. Everyone knows that right?

The second was as essay from John Miller Demos in Lithuania: Hey hey! Ho ho! The thing I hate has got to go!

So what kind of demos do Miller attend? Well the pinko variety of course. The environment, against capitalism, anti-abortion and women's rights protests, etc.

Again from listening to his essay, it is easy to simply know that, hey aren't all my demos just so freaking righteous?

Now maybe, just maybe, if I listened to the CBC a little longer this morning, I'd hear someone put forth some discussion that maybe, just maybe, climate change may not actually be man made. Or about the 20 thousand strong pro-lifers who demo in Ottawa every year at the annual pro-life rally.

But somehow I don't think so. So I had to turn the radio off. I was starting to feel nauseous.

Conservative policy convention - But what does it mean?

This week I received an email from Minister Jason Kenney. It came with a link to an article in the Calgary Sun regarding the recent Conservative Party's policy convention in Calgary.

After reading the article, I replied to the Minister with this email.

Dear Minister Kenney,

 

I was guardedly happy to hear that the Conservative grass roots delegates have voted on two pro-life initiatives, condemning sex selection abortion and euthanasia.

This is welcome news. I have a couple of questions that I would really appreciate if you could answer for me.

What I would like to know now is, how will your government respond to these issues, in particular the condemning of sex-selection abortion? It is encouraging that the delegates condemn the practice, but condemning sex-selection abortion as a policy of the Conservative party is one thing, but action taken by Prime Minister Harper and the government, in Parliament, is another one entirely.

And how does this jibe with Mark Warawa's own motion on the same subject, a motion that was deemed non-votable because it was outside of federal jurisdiction (supposedly because it was under provincial jurisdiction)? That is, why is it legitimate for a federal party to condemn the practice, but outside of Parliament's jurisdiction to condemn the practice?

The Conservative base has spoken on sex-selection abortion. However, they also supported the Unborn Victims of Crime policy resolution at the 2008 Conservative policy convention. Yet, five years later, that support still has not translated into any kind of policy, bill, or motion. With all due respect, Mr. Kenney, if the Conservative base speaks in such a clear way on something as important as this, but that never actually translates into concrete action by the Conservative government, I don't see why I would get excited about it.

I must be very honest with you. I really need to see some changes in the value system of the leadership of the Conservative party before the next election. As it stands now, and if, the Conservative government continues to support the status quo on abortion (i.e. if it maintains its pro-abortion position) and/or Mr. Harper remains leader, I could not in good conscience vote Conservative. I would probably vote for the Christian Heritage party since I couldn't vote NDP or Liberal.

Mr. Kenney the lack of any real pro-life initiatives coming from the Conservatives is very troubling for me and for many other social conservatives in this fine country. I believe this really is becoming a conscience issue for many of us.

I sincerely hope that we will all see some real substantial changes in this regard before the next election.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to respond to the questions/concerns I have raised.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Exposing the specificity of Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC

Today I re-read Faye Sonier's article, reprinted in LifeCanada's Journal, on the BC Crisis Pregnancy Centres defamation case against Joyce Arthur Defamation Suit and the Tactic of Being Vague.

Faye says:

Unfortunately the court found that the report was so unclear in its attributions of wrong-doing that a reasonable person reading the report wouldn’t necessarily think that the Vancouver and Burnaby CPCs were guilty of committing those particular ethical breaches. As the judge ruled, “it is difficult to say that the ‘deceptive’ tactics reflect personally on the plaintiffs. The impugned statements do not have any specificity; the Report describes the tactics in broad generalizations.”

I always thought Arthur was writing about BC's CPCs, for the same reasons Faye does:

And keep in mind, that these allegations are made within a report entitled Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia, where that title appears on the top of each page of the report, wherein the stated goal of the report is to “find out what these centres were doing and saying to women in B.C., and whether they were engaging in deceptive or harmful practices,” and where the appendix lists only B.C. CPCs. I think the average reader would likely assume that the allegations made within the report apply to B.C. CPCs, and likely to the two CPCs which launched the suit against Arthur.

What exactly is not specific about "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia" appearing as a title on every page of the report?

I decided to take another look at my ATIP to Status of Women regarding the infamous $27,400 funding Joyce Arthur received to write this horrid report.

Here are a few "specific" references to CPCs in BC from that ATIP. And remember. This document is what clinched the funding for Arthur.

From Arthur's proposal:

There are CPC's in almost every city in BC. With the closure of many women's centres, and the brief office hours of most family planning clinics around BC, comprehensive and non-judgmental reproductive services for women (and referrals to such services) are becoming very difficult to access. In some areas, women may only be able to access the local CPC. In fact, CPC's are striving to replace feminist-based agencies. They even obtained government funding from the BC Liberals while funding cuts for Women's Centres were being planned. 

It is critical to research and evaluate the extent and impact of CPCs' reach and influence in BC. Armed with this knowledge, we can take concrete steps to stem the tide, by educating women and the public about the true nature of these centres, lobbying government to stop funding them, using the media to publicize the CPC anti-feminist agenda and tactics, and promoting and establishing feminist-based alternative services for women.

Under the document entitled Goal and Objectives in Arthur's proposal:

The overall goal of this social justice project is to minimize the harmful impact of CPC's through public education. As part of that goal, we hope to be able to accomplish the following objectives:

• research the current situation in BC -- for example, numbers, locations, sizes, and resources of CPC's and similar agencies
• research community influence of CPC's — for example, relationship between them and other women's groups, whether legitimate agencies refer to them, alternative services in the community impact on minority groups and youth in particular, etc.
• research how CPC's shape public policy and discourse on reproductive rights — for example:
• – analyze how these groups are co-opting feminist language and strategies while using them to foster a right-wing patriarchal agenda that promotes a traditional, narrow role for women as wives and mothers
• – evaluate how and to what extent their anti-feminist agenda asserts itself into the public consciousness and negatively impacts women's ability to achieve equality
• – evaluate their relative success at supplanting feminist-based resources in local communities in BC, and look at ways to counter this
• solicit and collect stories from women who have been harmed or deceived by CPC services
• research and try to curtail CPC's public funding sources
• publicity expose the anti-woman and anti-feminist agenda of CPC's using various public education and media initiatives, and by doing so, work to mitigate discriminatory attitudes towards women
• shift public awareness by alerting and educating the following target audiences (in BC):
• — women
• — aboriginal, minority, and youth group— women's groups and other community organizations
• — health professionals and institutions who might refer to CPC's, including doctors, walk-in clinics, hospitals, counselors, family planning clinics — government
• — public

Under section 24. JUSTIFICATION

Expected concrete results: 

1. To examine the state and organization of CPC's in B.C., including numbers, size, locations, funding sources, their influence in the community and how they shape public policy discourse on reproductive health issues

2. To examine the ways in which CPCs disseminate deceptive and misleading information to circumscribe women's right to full reproductive agency

3. To produce a report detailing the research findings, which will be used as a tool to inform the public about the anti-woman agenda and practices of CPCs, with a particular focus on educating women's organizations, health professionals and government as well as individual women

4. To implement any changes recommended in the report

5. To persuade CPCs to alter their current practices in order to ensure women have full choice over their reproductive health 

In Arthur's Summary Of Expected Outcomes:

• Public discourse on the issue of women's reproductive choices is drawn from a broad spectrum of perspectives, including a feminist perspective

• Diverse women throughout BC have full access to comprehensive arid nonjudgmental reproductive services

And finally, this from Status of Women Canada, in their recommendation for approval of the funding to Arthur, and SWC's brief description of the initiative:

This initiative seeks to ensure access by a diversity of women in British Columbia to comprehensive and non-jugmental reproductive services as well as a representative speck of perspectives on women's reproductive rights. It has two related components, research and public education. The first component will consist of examining the current trend towards the proliferation of crisis pregnancy centres operating in the province and their role in shaping public discourse on women's reproductive rights. The second part of the initiative will be to inform the public, educators, health professionals and governments about the results of this research. This information will help ensure the public has an accurate understanding of the various approaches to supporting towards women's reproductive choice, as part of an overall strategy to provide the public with a comprehensive understanding of women's reproductive rights. A set of indicators will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of both components of this initiative in achieving planned outcomes. 

There's only one question left to ask.

If Arthur's report is not "specifically" referring to Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia, then why would Status of Women Canada, use funds from the Women's Program, whose mandate "is to achieve the full participation of women in the economic, social and democratic life of Canada. Funding is provided to eligible organizations in support of projects at the local, regional and national levels", hand over Canadian tax dollars, to a Canadian person, for a report that is about Crisis Pregnancy Centres not in Canada?

Providing women better access to opt out of parenting

It today's National Post we learn that it's not enough that women can "opt out" of  being pregnant. Now men want to "opt out" too: Opting out: Women can have an abortion,some men say they should have a choice over parenthood too.

Laurie Shrage professor of philosophy and women’s and gender studies says:

“If a man accidentally conceives a child with a woman, and does not want to raise the child with her, what are his choices? Surprisingly, he has few options in the United States,” Prof. Shrage argued in an op-ed published in The New York Times in June — the piece that began the wave of notes from worried men. “In consenting to sex,” she writes, “Neither a man nor a woman gives consent to become a parent.”

Is that like, if I consent to drinking and driving, and then run over a pedestrian, it's okay? After all, I didn't give my consent to kill the pedestrian.

In the same article we also learn Joyce Arthur's take on the subject:

“[But] before we expect men to be given that option of opting out, we need to make sure women do have really good access to abortion and we need to ensure the government can step in for men who opt out.”

I think Arthur has a point. We really do need to make sure women have really good access to abortion.

We know that women can now have an abortion in most hospitals in Canada. And that women can now have an abortion in numerous stand alone abortion clinics across the country. Women can also have an abortion in many doctor's offices in Canada.

But I think that from now on, women should also be able to get an abortion at all the small hospitals in Canada as well. Also, they should be able to have an abortion at all walk-in medical clinics too.

Then I think we should seriously consider providing abortions for women who want to "opt out", at dental clinics across the country. After all, dental clinics have doctors and technicians on staff, it would be easy to do and this would ensure that women have really really good access to abortion.

Last but not least, we should also consider providing abortions in Nursing homes across the country. As the Canadian population ages, there will be more and more of these institutions opening, and this would go a long way in ensuring that women have really really really good access to abortion. This would allow a woman to "opt out" of pregnancy, when she's visiting her old mother or father. Assuming they haven't already been euthanized that is.

Yes, the possibilities are endless.

How to win friends and influence people - the Conservative way

I keep getting these super annoying emails from Ontario Conservative MPPs trying to woo me. They must be getting ready for an election.

Each time I receive such an email, I respond to the MPP with a question, asking them why they did nothing to stop the Liberal government from changing our to access information rights.

I've received at least 11 of these junk emails. In turn I have sent 11 replies asking a question about the abortion exclusion clause that the Liberals added to FIPPA under the pretext of "Broader Accountability". Not.

I'm still waiting for an answer from at least one Conservative MPP, brave enough and principled enough, to speak up. Surely there is one, right?

So far I've heard from:
Andrew Boddington
Tim Hudak (3)
Jim Wilson
Lisa Macleod
Vic Fedeli (3)
Doug Holyday
Monte McNaughton

C-510 ATIP from Justice

Here are the results of my ATIP from Justice on C-510.

This was my request:

"all correspondence relating to Bill C-510 ( Roxanne's Law) between and within the following offices/departments: the Justice Minister's Office, Prime Minister's Office, Privy Council Office, Justice Department, the public and the media, including briefing notes, talking points, reports, emails, letters, and any other documents that reference bill C-510."

As I stated before, there isn't much there that isn't already publicly available.

Maybe the Conservatives are finally getting a grip

It seems the rank and file Conservatives have some pretty good heads on their shoulders at this weekend's Tory convention.

"A motion condemning sex-selective abortion passed with overwhelming support among delegates. Earlier this year, a group of Conservative MPs kept a similar controversial motion from reaching the Commons. "Right now in the world there are over 200 million missing girls because of the practice of using ultrasounds to find out if its a boy or girl," said Vancouver-area MP Mark Warawa. "Girls have equal value as boys, we should not be discriminating against them in any form."There was a closer vote on a policy that "the Conservative Party will not support any legislation to legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide." It ultimately passed, but one delegate from Nova Scotia encouraged delegates to put themselves in the shoes of a person dying in pain who can't find palliative care."

So what was all the fuss about last year, when Stephen Harper, Joyce Arthur and the rest of the pro-abortion crowd all went hairy ape over Mark Warawa's motion against sex-selection? Seems their pathetic attempts at intimidation didn't stand the test of reason, morality, or logic. In short, they're talking through their ears.

Maybe Mr. Harper will finally listen up, and heed what his grass root members are so very clearly telling him. Because many of us, myself included, may not vote Conservative next time. First we need to see more changes in Conservative policy/laws on life issues.

A big part of the Tory base is Social Conservative. We've already been fooled into thinking we'd see some support for life "once the Conservatives got elected". It didn't happen. Then again , "once we got a majority". It didn't happen. You can fool us once or twice, but I wouldn't hedge my bets on round three.

We're watching. And waiting.