Monday, March 31, 2014

So how much has CIDA given IPPF anyway?

This is another fun fact from my recent ATIP to CIDA/DFATD.

The answer would be $147 million since 1983. That's about $5 million a year.

That's your tax dollars and mine. Given to the world's number one abortion provider.

100 crosses = 1,000 abortions in Canada every year

March 31, 2014

Ottawa, ON -Last week a local group in Elgin County, ON set up a massive abortion memorial along Hwy. 3 just outside of Aylmer.

“Roadside memorials are commonplace alongside many thoroughfares in Canada. They serve as respectful reminders of people who once were alive, and are now gone,” said Mike Schouten, director of

“Similar to the many other abortion memorials that continue to be set up across the country, this memorial consists of hay bales and crosses. Each of the 100 crosses represents one thousand lives lost to abortion in Canada every year,” continued Schouten.

The hay bales and crosses are accompanied by signs from and ARPA Oxford. There are also pictures of a pre-born child and a Bible passage.

“We applaud ARPA Oxford for this initiative. As a nation we are more and more recognizing that abortion is an injustice against vulnerable members of the human family and something needs to be done about Canada's lack of protection for pre-born children at any stage of development,” concluded Schouten.

Sunday, March 30, 2014

Jadelle not purchased for Tanzania - instead purchased for Mali

Remember Jadelle? Well it's back.

I recently received more information from CIDA/DFATD about the $6 million funding to IPPF.

In my current ATIP, it looks like my writing about Jadelle before (see page 181 below) triggered some questions from DFATD to IPPF, about Jadelle.

"Could you please provide us with more information on the contraceptives that your Tanzanian member uses as part of the project we fund?
The response (in part) from IPPF was that:
1. IPPF has not purchased Jadelle and distributed it to Tanzania
2. UMATI has not purchased Jadelle with Canadian funds
3. Canadian funds have not been used to ensure service providers and insert and remove Jadelle [sic] (see page 178 below)
Interesting. But what is even more interesting is that on another page located withing the semi-annual report, I discovered that Jadelle was purchased and used in Mali.

In the IPPF semi-annual report (April-September 2013) it was revealed that IPPF purchased a quantity of 4,000 Jadelle implants for Mali. On the same report, sure enough there is no Jadelle listed for Tanzania. (I'll post those pages later.)

(Update April 25, 2014, More information on this drug here
"Adverse health conditions among American women subsequent to Norplant use American women have experienced serious adverse health conditions after having Norplant inserted, including, but not limited to, increased intracranial fluid pressure (pseudo tumor cerebri), chronic blurred vision, leading to permanent vision loss or blindness, and tumors in the brain and other organs.2,3 Other conditions experienced by American women include hyper menorrhea (heavy and sustained menstrual bleeding), serious acne, sustained nausea, debilitating headaches, weakness or paralysis in one or more limbs, endometriosis, ovarian cysts, weight gains of sometimes over 100 pounds, severe mood swings and irritability. Further, many have found that having Norplant removed was a much more difficult procedure than they had been originally advised.4")

Note: On my last CIDA/DFATD ATIP, I had questioned them to find out specifically what was being funded under the "Approved Activities" (1) for the five countries Afghanistan, Mali, Tanzania, Bangladesh and Sudan. I was told that "no records related to your request exist." This time I received some of the details of that request. I'll blog more about that later.

Friday, March 28, 2014

Kathleen Wynne is the only one with a last name

I called Kathleen's office again. (I called earlier this week and spoke with Ian and Vera.)

This time I spoke with Cheryl and Carlitta.

Nobody there has last names it seems, and they won't give them to you if you ask. What are they afraid of?

In any event, I got lectured on how, even though Kathleen's Open and Transparent Government initiative is her initiative, well each piece of data (like abortion data) belongs to a particular Ministry and not the Premier.

She referred me to the Minister's office, where of course, I have been in touch with many times already and still waiting for answers.

I told Carlitta that although I understand what she's trying to say, I still maintain it is the Premier's responsibility to answer my very simple question, since is is Kathleen's initiative. Carlitta disagreed.

You see, this is what open, transparent and accountable government actually looks like in Ontario: not open, transparent and accountable.

That's what the gas plants and subsequent email deletion campaign looks like too. The big cheese simply doesn't take any responsibility and gets off the hook, downloading the fallout to all the poor schmucks underneath them.

Kathleen, and Dalton before her, seem to be experts at not being accountable. That's why they have last names.

Monday, March 24, 2014

When youtube collides with reality

Regarding my last response to Kathleen Wynne's repeated attempts to brush me off, I called her office today and asked to speak with her. Someone there told me that a person needs to put their request to speak to the Premier in writing. What a hoot.

Of course I've already repeatedly asked her if she intends to stop hiding abortion information under her open government initiative. In any event I've now sent her a written request to speak with her.Your queenship.

I also called Deb Matthews office and asked to speak with her about my last letter to her. Someone did call me back and apparently a response has been written, and it should go out in the next week or so. I'm honoured.

If you want a chuckle, have a look at Kathleen's "open government" video posted online:

"We're introducing an open government initiative to help create the transparent government you deserve. A government that works for you and with do this we are introducing three initiatives, open data, open information and open dialogue. Open data is the foundation of open government....we want to unlock the make it easy for outside parties to access".
And this:
"open information...this addresses government processes and making them more transparent...we want to give you a clear picture...of what things cost...."
"everything builds up to open dialogue...we want you to be able to communicate with us and tell us how you think we're doing and how things can be improved".
Kathleen really did post this video. I. Am. No. Kidding.

Sunday, March 23, 2014

When conscience and religious rights are stomped

Canada is one of the most pro-abortion countries in the world.

We already know this.

Now in BC we learn that:
"B.C.’s health minister has intervened in a dispute over increased fees charged to abortion clinics and instructed provincial health authorities to pay for extra costs so that services for women aren’t reduced. 
Terry Lake’s office confirmed Friday he has instructed the Vancouver Coastal and Vancouver Island health authorities to pay for the increased licensing fees being charged to three abortion clinics by the B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons...
The two Vancouver-area clinics and one Victoria clinic had warned they might have to reduce service hours to make up the costs, which amounted to almost $9,000 extra per clinic."
All abortions performed in Canada are already completely funded by the taxpayer. Now the BC health minister is promising to pay for these additional fees for these abortion clinics.

No surprise here, since Canadian politicians love to pay for abortions.

This is what's interesting though.

In the US the Supreme Court will decide whether the:
"Obama Administration can force Hobby Lobby and other pro-life-run companies, colleges and organizations to violate their consciences and religious beliefs and pay for birth control or abortion-causing drugs for their employees."
We obviously hope the pro-life groups win this case.

But in Canada, every single pro-life organization and every single pro-life person in this country, is already forced to pay for abortions from their taxes. This violates our consciences and our religious beliefs.

And we have absolutely no say in the matter.

So Mr. Harper, whatever happened to Canadian rights of freedom of conscience and religion?

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Black Madonna cries for Canada

Today is the Feast of St. Joseph the patron saint of Canada. Today is also the day the Black Madonna (Icon of Our Lady of Częstochowa) arrived in Ottawa.

It was a bitterly cold morning but that didn't stop people from going to Parliament Hill to pray with our Blessed Mother and St. Joseph.

God knows Canada needs all the prayers it can get to end the scourge of abortion in Canada.

When I look at her, the scar on her face makes me think she is crying.


2010 and 2011 late term abortion statistics - born alive

Statistics Canada has published two more years of the late term born alive abortion statistics for 2010 and 2011.

For these two years, there were 131 abortions, of 20 weeks gestation and greater, that resulted in live births. This means that the aborted child died after it was born. These abortions are coded as P96.4 or "Termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus and newborn".

This number does not include late term abortions that are born dead (stillbirths).

See my last post on this to calculate the figures.

Here is a screen shot of the numbers and the footnotes:

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Lying is okay for feminist warriors

The character Claire Underwood in the TV show House of Cards is not a very nice person. If you've watched the show you know this. She's a lying, manipulating sociopath who will use anyone in her path for her own gain. Ditto for her husband. You really don't like these people.

But when it comes to abortion well, things get weird, because now, the lying part is okay.

You see Claire has also had three abortions. And the feminists love her.

During a TV interview Claire admits to one abortion. Tracie Egan Morrissey writing for Jezebel, calls Claire a "feminist warrior". Here's Morrissey's take on this interview:
"What she knew is that she wasn't ashamed of her choices, and wouldn't be made to feel that way. So she needed to think quickly, in order to maintain the integrity of her convictions, but not rub people the wrong way with her truth. So she came up with a version of the truth that also touched on a deeper injustice in Claire's life."
And from Amanda Marcotte writing in Slate:
"Granted, Claire's story isn't exactly true. Yes, she's had an abortion (three, it turns out), and yes, she was raped by this man. It's just that none of her pregnancies were caused by this rape, and one of Claire's abortions happened because she and her husband chose together not to have a baby [Claire is 16 weeks pregnant at the time and they were campaigning so must get rid of baby]. Claire is a character who is frequently portrayed as a scheming, immoral liar, but for once, her truth-fudging comes across as entirely sympathetic. The implication is that the American public will forgive aborting a rape-caused pregnancy but would never forgive someone who rebels against the expectation that she must have children with her husband. To protect herself from the intrusive condemnation of people she's never met, she pretty much has to lie." 
How do you like that? A "version of the truth" and "she pretty much has to lie"? Because for the pro-abortions, the truth is whatever you say it is.

And then of course, the show portrays pro-life people as screaming, angry, name-calling bosons. Which is interesting because if anything, the pro-life people I have ever seen at marches, are always respectful, loving and peaceful. In fact at the last March for Life I attended in Ottawa in 2012 there were thousands of pro-life people and only a handful of the "pro-choice" variety. As I recall, these were the only screaming, angry, name-calling, bosons that I witnessed that day.

Here are a few screen shots of the House of Cards episode where those nasty pro-lfers make an appearance:

Sunday, March 16, 2014

CIDA funding to IPPF - the series

Here are all my writings on the funding CIDA (now called DFATD or Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada) has given to IPPF (International Planned Parenthood).

Monday, July 20, 2015
IPPF - Menstrual Regulation or Erratic Regulation?

Monday, February 16, 2015
IPPF and Depo-Provera: what about informed consent?

IPPF: 45 million services, but no abortion?
Friday, December 12, 2014

Government of Bangladesh dismisses board of FPAB
Tuesday, October 7, 2014

DFATD and IPPF - the numbers don't add up
September 23, 2014

DFATD and IPPF - check your numbers
September 22, 2014

DFATD and IPPF - 45,118 people not sterilized in Tanzania
September 22, 2014

MP questions CIDA due diligence insuring IPPF isn't funding abortions
May 4, 2014

Canadian money to IPPF for funding "safe abortion care" and "emergency contraception" in Afghanistan
May 2, 2014

Dec 10, 2013, 2013 

Oct 15, 2013 

Oct 04, 2013 

Sep 28, 2013

Sep 14, 2013

Jan 23, 2012

Jan 23, 2012 

Jan 23, 2012 

Jan 21, 2012

Thursday, March 13, 2014

Gestational abortion laws are moral and logical

Alliance for Life Ontario has responded to the gestational legislation approach to abortion.

I am concerned with this statement. Many pro-life people do support a gestational approach, an approach that is clearly not intrinsically immoral, as Archbishop Miller has already stated, and confirmed by Cardinal Collins, and Priests for Life Canada. Yet AFLO continues to say there is something morally wrong with this approach.

 Archbishop Miller said:
"Under the conditions articulated in Evangelium Vitae, n. 73, it is morally licit to work for and to vote for legislation, including gestational legislation, which limits the harmful effects of an unjust legal regime that permits abortion. 
At the same time, it is also morally licit to withhold support for gestational legislation — and other incrementalist legislative strategies intended to limit access to abortion — if, after prudent reflection, one is convinced that it is an unwise legislative strategy. 
The conditions articulated in Evangelium Vitae, n. 73 can be applied to the situation in Canada today with regard to gestational legislation. The Catholic faithful are free to support such legislation in good conscience. This does not mean, however, that Catholics are compelled to support gestational legislation. 
We pray that the prolife movement may not be divided in spirit by disagreements regarding the practical wisdom of gestational legislation. We implore all within the movement to refrain from questioning the good will or motives of those who have taken a different stand from their own on this issue."
Respected spiritual leaders have told us that a gestational approach is not an inherently immoral strategy, but a matter of prudential judgement. AFLO/CLC continues to contradict this. Saying that a gestational approach is immoral and intrinsically evil, judges these spiritual leaders as acting immorally. It also judges my actions as being immoral. That is what it means to support an immoral act: one is acting immorally. This is troubling.

In this latest statement, AFLO brings up a drowning baby analogy and says:
"Some supporters of gestational legislation have compared the present abortion situation in Canada with the scenario of two drowning children. “Aren’t you going to save one?” they ask. This is so misleading."
I don't know what is misleading about this at all. I actually think the analogy doesn't go far enough. Let me expand upon it.

I am standing by a river with a friend. We see two babies drowning.

I know that I will probably only have time to save one baby so I want to jump in and save her. I do this knowing that the other baby will probably drown. At least I know I can probably save one of them.

But my friend believes it would be immoral to save only one of those babies because both babies equally deserve to live. So when I attempt to save one baby, my friend pulls me back because she knows there is only time to save one baby and she believes it’s wrong to save only one baby.

Not only does my friend not help me to save the one baby, but she also actively intervenes to prevent me from saving the one baby. As a result, both babies drown. I could  probably have saved one of them if my friend did not believe that it was intrinsically immoral to save only one baby.

My friend has actively thwarted my efforts to save a drowning baby’s life. I am devastated.

This is exactly how I feel when anti-gestational pro-lifers try to persuade other pro-lifers that gestational limits are intrinsically immoral; I feel like they are thwarting our efforts to save lives.

I urge those who believe setting a gestational limit on abortion is intrinsically evil and immoral, to re-read Archbishop Miller's entire statement and discern for themselves how they regard gestational legislation.

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Ontario Government is still pretending

Dear Ms. Wynne (and to Mr. Milloy Minister of Government Services),

I am still waiting to hear from you regarding my question from October 2013.

That's rather interesting, especially since I notice that in your press release from today that you will be:
"Setting a high standard for accountability and transparency is part of the government's plan to make it more open and accountable to the people of Ontario."
Since I am one of those people residing in Ontario to whom your government is supposedly open and accountable to, frankly, I am having a lot of difficulty in comprehending how this can in fact be true. Especially since I have now waited almost five months for an answer from you regarding a very simple question indeed.

I look forward to hearing back from you at your earliest possible convenience.

Thank you.

Patricia Maloney

Sunday, March 2, 2014

Creating embryos using DNA from three people

Scary scary scary:
"The provocative notion of genetically modified babies met the very real world of federal regulation Tuesday, as a government advisory committee began debating a new technique that combines DNA from three people to create embryos free of certain inherited diseases."

98% of Canadians supported Motion 312

My latest ATIP to the Privy Council Office revealed that Motion 312 had 98% support from Canadians who wrote to the Prime Minister.

That is, 1033 of the 1054 letters, written to Stephen Harper, supported Stephen Woodworth's Motion which:
"asked that a special committee of the House of Commons be appointed and directed to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth. 91 members showed support for the bill asking that the special committee be appointed. Unfortunately, 203 members voted against the appointment of the special committee."
Rod Bruinooge's Bill C-510 had 97% support
Mark Warawa's Motion 408 had 99.7% support

Once again, we see a Prime Minister completely out of step with the Canadian public he supposedly serves.

Back as far as 2001 we had politicians playing the run-away-from-anything-relating-to-abortion game, when Alberta Premier Ralph Klein did it:
"Discussing the possibility of defunding abortion, Klein said in a press conference that “The chances, I believe, are slim and none.” The Edmonton Sun reported that when pressed on whether the issue was open to debate, Klein said, “No, it’s not. Not at all. No. Full stop.” In the legislature, Klein went further, saying “My position is that this is a matter between a woman, her doctor and her God.”
Now it's almost all politicians who play this game. Apparently there's not a backbone in the lot of them.
So what is it exactly is going on here? Is it that our fearless leader Mr. Harper is in fact fearful of a very tiny minority of pro-abortion extremists? Or is it that Mr. Harper is simply the de facto pro-choice leader in Canada?