A pro-abortion's many factual inaccuracies

Fundamentalist pro-abortion Joyce Arthur believes that Anna Nienhuis' article, Censoring abortion statistics contains "factual inaccurac[ies]".

So let's look at Arthur's own factual inaccuracies from her own comments.

Factual inaccuracy number 1: Arthur thinks that groups like We Need a Law think that:

"fetuses deserve more human rights than grown women." 

Not true. Pro-life people believe that fetuses deserve the same human rights as grown women. That's because human fetuses are human beings. Therefore they have human rights. Just like grown women.

Factual inaccuracy number 2: Arthur says:

"It's quite remarkable to hear anti-choice people complaining about the BC and Ontario FOI regulations when their own movement is ultimately responsible for those regulations in the first place - they were enacted to protect providers from being identified, targeted, harassed, and put at risk of anti-choice violence."

Since the Ontario government has never stated--even after repeatedly being asked--their reasons for hiding all abortion information, how can Arthur say it is to "protect providers from being identified, targeted, harassed, and put at risk of anti-choice violence"? She can't. But that doesn't stop her from saying it. In fact in 2000, the Information and Privacy Commissioner actually ruled in favour of a pro-life group who was looking for abortion statistics but were denied the statistics from the Ministry of Health: the IPC found no evidence of violence:

"The information at issue in this appeal consists of general statistical information on a province-wide basis. This information cannot be linked to any individual facility or person involved in the provision of abortion services. I do not accept that the sequence of events, from disclosure to the harms outlined in sections 14(1)(e) and (i), could reasonably be expected to occur. While I accept the Ministry's submission, supported by ample evidence, that individuals and groups on both sides of the abortion debate have been subjected to threats, intimidation, and acts of violence, in my view, any link between disclosure and the harms in these sections is exaggerated. The evidence before me does not establish a reasonable expectation of endangerment to the life or physical safety of any person, or to the security of a building, vehicle or system or procedure established for the protection of items within the meaning of sections 14(1)(e) and (i) of the Act.  

This finding is in keeping with a fundamental purpose of the Act, as recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada:

"The overarching purpose of access to information legislation, then, is to facilitate democracy. It does so in two related ways. It helps to ensure first, that citizens have the information required to participate meaningfully in the democratic process, and secondly, that politicians and bureaucrats remain accountable to the citizenry . . . Rights to state-held information are designed to improve the workings of government; to make it more effective, responsive and accountable . . . [Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance) (1997), 148 D.L.R. (4th) 385 at 403, per La Forest J. (dissenting on other grounds)]." 

In my view, to deny access to generalized, non-identifying statistics regarding an important public policy issue such as the provision of abortion services would have the effect of hindering citizens' ability to participate meaningfully in the democratic process and undermine the government's accountability to the public."

Factual inaccuracy number 3: Arthur says:

"Judging by statements in this article and the goals of the "We Weed a Law" group, we can also be sure that the information will be used to lobby for restrictive laws and the removal of pregnant women's rights, on the basis of attacking and shaming them for having abortions for the "wrong" reasons."

The original article talks about how the BC and Ontario governments hide abortion statistics. Maybe Arthur didn't read the article and that's why she doesn't know this? There is nothing in the article, or in weneedalaws' stated goals anywhere, that have ever stated or implied they wish to attack or shame women. Arthur has manufactured these claims all by herself.

Factual inaccuracy number 4: Arthur says:

"Women do not need to state a reason for abortion, it's nobody's business, and making that mandatory would be a violation of privacy (and would fuel anti-choice misogyny). Such information could be useful of course, but it can be gathered in a study where subjects volunteer to participate and ethical guidelines are in place."

Arthur is not the only pro-abortion who perpetuates the myth of "anti-choice misogyny". This myth falls under the category of, if you say something often enough, people will start to believe it is true.

Factual inaccuracy number 5: Arthur says:

"There's a major factual inaccuracy in this article that basically destroys its credibility...Some stats can also be obtained from provincial ministries of health, including abortions done in doctors' offices or in unfunded clinics in Ontario."

Ontario's Ministry of Health and Long Term Care does not provide any information about abortions done in doctors' offices in Ontario. In fact CIHI also doesn't report abortions done in doctor's offices.

Factual inaccuracy number 6: Arthur says:

"So the accusations of "censorship" are way overblown."

Considering that not only abortion statistics, but anything and everything relating to the word "abortion" in Ontario is completely excluded from freedom of information requests, Arthur's statement destroys her own credibility. In Ontario censorship on abortion information is very real indeed.

Factual inaccuracy number 7: Arthur says:

"Btw, you can be sure this data would NOT support anti-choice propaganda that abortion is dangerous or that women are having abortions right up to the moment of birth! Quite the opposite - so having this info would help our side, not theirs."

Arthur has nothing to back up any of her statement, again debunking any credibility she may have had. How do we know that abortion is not dangerous and how do we know that women aren't have abortions right up until birth, since none of this information is reported? The statistics we do have clearly show that in 2012 alone there were 62,178 abortions with no gestational ages at all. That means that all 62,178 of those abortions could very well be late term abortions. Since Arthur has no idea what these facts are how can she know it would help "her side"?

You can read more on Joyce Arthur's factual inaccuracies on abortion.

Infant of Prague - we pray for Justin Trudeau

While buying my Christmas stamps today--and I mean by that stamps that actually have a Christmas picture on them and not some red cup like Starbucks is doing this year--I met a lovely 81 year old Lebanese lady by the name of Alba.

She wanted to send a picture to Justin Trudeau. Her picture was neither packaged nor did she have the address of the House of Commons. Stephen the Canada Post clerk was trying to help her, but was slightly frustrated with her when I happened upon the scene.

I offered to him, that if he just wrote the House of Commons on the package (which he also had to provide, and graciously did so), and that if he had access to the internet, I was sure he could find the postal code. He did, and he even packaged it all up for Alba and wrote the requested address out for her.

Her picture also included a hand written note to Trudeau.

Alba was happy to talk to me about her gift to Trudeau. In her very broken English she told me that the picture was a photograph of an embroidery she had done when she was 23 (she couldn't remember what the name of the picture was, but my sister informed me that it was the Infant of Prague.)

"The devotion to the Holy Child Jesus has long been a tradition of the Catholic Church for a very long time. This devotion is a veneration of our Lord's sacred Infancy. Many saints had a very strong devotion to the Divine Child, notably St. Therese of the Child Jesus, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Anthony of Padua, and St. Teresa of Avila. 

Prague is the capitol city of the Czech Republic, which is at the very central of Europe with Germany, Poland, Russia and Austria as its neighbours. The history of the Infant Jesus of Prague started in the 17th century when a statue of the Infant Jesus was brought into Bohemia (now Czech Republic) and eventually was given to the Discalced Carmelites in Prague. Since then, the statue has remained in Prague and has drawn many devotees worldwide to go and honor the Holy Child. Many graces, blessings, favors and miraculous healings have been received by many who petitioned before the Infant Jesus."

Alba told me that the legend associated with the picture, was the more you gave Jesus, the more he would give you in return. From the link above for Catholic Culture:

"As the devotion to the Infant Jesus spreads throughout the world, many parishes now offer Holy Mass and novenas to honor the Holy Child of God and many prayer groups have been formed. Jesus has kept His promise that the more that He is honored, the more that He will bless them. This is truly evidenced by the many favors He has granted to those who ask Him."

She also had pictures of the original photograph that she used to create the embroidery (see picture below). And she told me when she first saw the picture it reminded her of her sister who died at the age of two. That is why she felt compelled to embroider it back when she was 23. Now she wanted to share this very personal memory with Justin Trudeau.

Considering Justin Trudeau's pro-abortion edict against pro-life persons, I think this gift is very fitting. I just hope Trudeau has the good sense to put it on his desk.

Pro-choice doctors want reporting of abortion services

Dear Health Minister Dr. Eric Hoskins,

I think you should read Monday's National Post, Censoring abortion statistics.

The article addresses what the Ontario Government is doing in Ontario: hiding abortion statistics:

"Despite abortion being a fully funded medical procedure, it is the only medical procedure where hospitals and clinics do not have to report statistics. This matters because transparency matters and, despite what governments and some media may tell you, Canadians are not united on the issue of abortion. In fact, up to 92 per cent of Canadians think there should be some restrictions on abortion, whether to eliminate late-term abortions, sex-selective abortions or other human rights violations."

According to (pro-choice) Canadian medical health researchers, Dr. Margaret A. Burnett and Dr. Jeanelle N. Sabourin,

“there is inconsistent and inadequate reporting of prevalence and complication rates of abortions in Canada, and improved reporting is necessary for quality assurance and to ensure safety.”
(M. A. Burnett and J. N. Sabourin, “A Review of Therapeutic Abortions and Related Areas of Concern in Canada,” Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 34, no. 6 (2012): 539.)

Clearly it's not only pro-life persons who care about abortion related information. Pro-choice doctors want it as well.

So why the censorship Mr. Hoskins?

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Justin Trudeau needs to read the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

STATEMENT BY THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA ON NATIONAL CHILD DAY

Ottawa, Ontario 

20 November 2015 

The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, issued the following statement today on National Child Day:
“I think that one of the most rewarding things about being Prime Minister of Canada is having the ability to make a real difference in the lives of children in our own country and around the world.  

“Each child deserves to be raised in a world free of discrimination, violence, and exploitation, and each one deserves to grow up with proper nutrition and health care, a good education, and safe communities. (emphasis added)

“As we look back exactly 26 years to when the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted and opened for signature, we can see that real progress has been made in moving the markers forward for young people around the globe. But there is still an enormous amount of work to be done, from reducing preventable diseases to feeding the undernourished, from freeing those being forced to do child labour to ending child, early, and forced marriage, and from rehabilitating former child soldiers to sheltering the millions displaced as a result of conflicts and hunger..."

Has Justin Trudeau read the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child? If he had he would have also read this statement:

"...Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth."

And Canada signed this treaty.

It's all about human rights, Mr. Prime Minister. For the child before as well as after birth. Don't you get that?

ARCC - promotes discrimination, Charter rights violations, and political interference

This is just pathetic. But sadly, not unexpected:

"The ARCC [Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada] wants more surgical time for abortions in rural hospitals, elimination of conscientious objection by pro-life doctors, screening out of pro-life ob-gyns at medical school, full funding for pharmaceutical abortion through so-called “emergency contraceptives,” and withholding of  federal funding to New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island if these provinces don’t remove remaining restrictions on abortions."

Sounds like a big fat wad of discrimination, provincial political interference, and downright stick-your-nose-where-it-doesn't-belongedness to me.

"elimination of conscientious objection by pro-life doctors"?
Since Arthur only wants this for only pro-life doctors, I assume she's fine for a "pro-choice" doctor to be allowed to conscientiously object to something he/she believes is immoral, unethical, and deadly? Just not a pro-life doctor. This is both discrimination and goes against a doctor's Charter right of freedom of conscience.

"screening out of pro-life ob-gyns at medical school"?
Again Arthur wants to discriminate against pro-life doctors.

Arthur would also like to see the feds interfere in provincial health care with "full funding" for "emergency contraceptives"? That's none of the feds business though. But you already know that Joyce, don't you?

"withholding of federal funding to New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island if these provinces don’t remove remaining restrictions on abortions"? 
Again, none of the feds business and up to the provinces to decide.

Joyce Arthur just can't get our of her own way of her any-time-any-where, pro-abortion ideology.

Ontario PCs - hold Liberals to account for hidden agenda

Dear Monte [McNaughton],

I received your letter in the mail asking me for a donation to your [Progressive Conservative] party. I might consider giving the party a donation, if your party would stand up in the House and ask the question I asked Patrick Brown below (to which I never received a response). And, if your party would actively advocate and make an issue of this undemocratic, secretive law. 

If and when I hear that the PC Party is actively engaged on this issue, and holding the Liberals to account for their secret agenda on this, please contact me again.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/p/blog-page.html

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Patricia Maloney <maloneyp64@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 1:44 PM
Subject: Liberals hiding medical information
To: patrick.brown@ontariopc.com
Cc: Patricia Maloney <maloneyp64@gmail.com>

Dear Patrick,

Congratulations on your recent victory for your seat in the Ontario Legislature.

As you know I am taking the Ontario government to court with my Charter Challenge.

Could you ask Kathleen Wynne a question during question period about their hiding information about a tax-funded medical procedure (abortion), and why they did it without a word of debate in the legislature?

I have asked Kathleen and the then Minister Deb Matthews for their reasons for this, and they have continually refused to answer me.

Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/p/blog-page.html

Justin Trudeau's Liberal cabinet is not inclusive

How ironic that the media is talking about a diverse cabinet from Justin Trudeau. I could never be a member of Trudeau's cabinet. I could never be an MP in his caucus. Neither could any of my pro-life friends.

There will be no representative in that cabinet for either myself; for my pro-life colleagues; or the for unborn people who will never be born. There is no-one in that cabinet to represent any of us.

We used to discriminate against women. Now we discriminate against pro-lifers.

A big tent party? I don't think so.