Friday, December 23, 2016

This is for you Patrick Brown

Your Afternoon Briefing For Thursday December 22, 2016 

'Twas the day before Queen's Park emptied out for the year, and what to our wondering eyes did appear in our inboxes but a fundraising letter for the STOP THE NEW SEX-ED AGENDA party, written in the style of 'Twas the Night Before Christmas.

Heard: A so-con spin on classic Christmas poem
22.12.2016 Sabrina Nanji Parents

As First Educators' spokeswoman Tanya Granic Allen has put a social conservative spin on the classic holiday poem, 'Twas the Night Before Christmas, to raise donations for the newly formed political party headed up by Queenie Yu, the Stop the New Sex-Ed Agenda Party.

Here it is: ‘Twas the night before Christmas when all through Queen’s Park
The politicians fled home, to Strathroy and Lanark.

The polls had been published in The Star and The Post
Kathleen Wynne's numbers were clear - the premier was toast.

Patrick Brown's "blue" team, now turned into "reds"
While visions of power danced in their heads.

With the inappropriate s/x-ed being taught in the schools,
Wynne and Brown thought the parents and public were fools.

When out in the public arose such a clatter,
Parents from every corner of Ontario began to natter.

Concerned parents took to the streets to protest.
Voters throughout Ontario campaigned with zest.

Tanya Granic Allen yelled “Get that s/x-ed repealed!”
In Scarborough's byelection, Queenie Yu ran and appealed.

Patrick Brown upon realizing this was a real threat,
Sat down with his team to see what deal he could get.

After discussions with Tanya who insisted on a repeal in full,
Patrick Brown issued a letter which turned out to be bull.

Tanya said she wanted “repeal”, but Patrick preferred “scrap”,
Later Brown flip-flopped, calling the letter a "mishap".

"There was a mistake, I support it!" declared Brown of Wynne’s s/x-ed,
A “modern” and “socially liberal” party was what he wanted, he said.

But PAFE and Queenie refused to let him get away,
The duplicity of Brown’s positions must be made known today!

"Protect the kids! Defend Parents’ rights! Scrap the s/x-ed!"
MPPs must acknowledge this or thousands will be red.

Now Nicholls, now Hillier, now Cho and Barrett!
On MacLaren, on Monte, on anyone else who will say it!

Having declared war on his base, Brown started to sweat
And set up nominations to block perceived so-con threat.

But PC party president Rick Dykstra had to admit defeat
In a nomination by Sam Oosterhoff which was quite a feat!

Patrick Brown was utterly humiliated and shocked.
"A teen beat Brown in his game!" the media mocked.

Then in November there were two byelections to test,
And Queenie gave voters a vehicle to protest.

A new Party! Stop the New S/x-Ed Agenda, it was called.
Immediately Queenie and her new party had the media enthralled.

Elizabeth in Ottawa ran under the party banner as well
With Queenie campaigning to create momentum and groundswell.

Again, more embarrassment as Patrick had his headlines stolen
By a small party which was a new thorn in his colon.

His eyes - they looked angry! His dimples - how unmerry!
His words were like stingers, and some thought they were scary!

"Enough with the so-cons!" Not another he would allow
As candidates in nominations, Patrick disqualified them- and how!

But the media caught on and demanded an answer.
This war with so-cons was quickly becoming a cancer.

“So what now?” asked people of PAFE and Queenie.
How are we effective if Patrick’s a meanie?

"Fret not!" Tanya said as she inspired hope,
There’s always plan B and plan C to cope.

PAFE is working closely with Queenie and her new party,
Together we’ll be a force and represent our supporters largely.

But we need funds to wage this battle to defend our parental right
As primary educators, and keep up the good fight.

So please donate, click here, and give us a shilling,
You have options - a tax credit or not - how thrilling!

We want to continue exposing Kathleen Wynne and Patrick Brown
And ensure those with anti-family policies are brought down.

So please, give generously, and we’ll represent you right,

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

The biggest problem with assisted death - patient safety

Thank goodness the Globe and Mail hasn't completely lost their way. Margaret Wente argues for the important question:
"Is there any place for conscience in medicine?"
She argues that:
"Faith-based institutions are places where you’re most likely to find that elusive promise of “patient-centred care” (the cruellest cliché in medicine, in my view). The culture of an institution is what makes all the difference to the quality of care. Many secular people who work in faith-based institutions are among the biggest opponents of the idea that they must be made to offer medically assisted death. 
The death dogmatists argue that people will suffer terrible hardship if they can’t get assisted death anywhere. They’ll be shipped around like so much freight, until someone takes them in and helps them die. This is rubbish. In fact, patients are transferred all the time for procedures (including assisted death) that aren’t offered where they are. Issues of access are pretty easy to resolve if people of goodwill put their heads together."
But what about people who don't want assisted death? Where can they safely go? If I am dying, and I go to a faith-based institution to die, I can be assured that I won't be killed. I won't ever be assured of that in an institution where assisted death is practiced:
"Dr. Leung told me that at a recent conference on palliative care, people had already begun talking about when it might be appropriate to introduce the idea of medically assisted death to patients who might be eligible. In his view this is the slipperiest of slopes. “I’ve seen so many seniors in hospitals,” he says. “They’re alone, they’re frightened, and they don’t know what their doctors are doing. We need to keep safe spaces for them.”
Having volunteered in a nursing home, I see this as a big concern. There are residents in these homes who are incapable of advocating for themselves, and many have no one else to advocate for them either. How do we protect them? We can't.

Residing in an institution where assisted death is not practiced, they will be safe. If these places do not exist, who can be safe?

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

CBC doesn't report Pierre Lemieux's pro-life news

A couple of days ago CPC leadership candidate Pierre Lemieux announced that he would make sex-selection abortion illegal.

Good. A politician making an unambiguous stand against one type of abortion: The kind that targets baby girls. So nice to see principled and politician in the same sentence.

So off I went to see how the media was reporting on this news. What did I find? Well there seems to be one article out there in the mainstream media, all from the Canadian Press: Toronto Star, National Post, Huffington Post, CTV, Global News, as well as a bunch of local newspapers.

The Globe and Mail didn't bother to publish anything at all. They are always biased against anything pro-life, so this wasn't a surprise.

But what is really interesting, is that the CBC also didn't bother to publish anything. That would be the same CBC who thinks they aren't biased towards abortion. But they are, as I have written many times.

So why didn't the CBC, our publicly funded, national broadcaster, not report to their national listeners that there is a very vocal CPC leadership contender out there, who will make sex-abortion illegal?

Can you answer that for us CBC? We really want to know what excuses you'll make this time.

Monday, December 12, 2016

Pro-deathers also want access to information

It isn't only pro-life people who want accessibility to freedom of information from the Ontario government. 

"Dying with Dignity Canada is concerned about the Ontario government’s commitment to transparency after legislation was tabled Wednesday that would exclude hospitals from freedom of information requests related to medically assisted death." [just like it is with abortion]
“While we support the privacy 100 per cent of clinicians and patients, we’re having trouble understanding why there’s a restriction on those requests as it relates to public health care facilities,” said Shanaaz Gokool, the CEO of Dying with Dignity Canada. [how long have I been saying this?]
In Ontario, medical assistance in dying is covered by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan and the drugs are available at no cost [just like abortion].
...Gokool [is] concerned about the limits it places public information. [as should we all be concerned]
If the government’s proposed legislation passes [Patients First Act], information about which facilities provide medically assisted death, and which don’t, will also be restricted. [just like it is with abortion]
More importantly, Gokool said, the public won’t be able to find out what communications have taken place between those institutions and the government. [yes, just like it is with abortion]
“We find it troubling,” [no kidding] said Gokool, adding that there are hospices across the province that are opting out of providing medically assisted death. 
“Freedom of information requests have become a tool in democracy … for civil society organizations like our to find out what’s going on in government run programs and such. [I couldn't agree more]
“These are public health care facilities that receive public funds and they should be accountable to the communities and the province.” [I really couldn't agree more]
Hospitals are excluded from freedom of information requests for other services, including abortion, he noted. [thanks Dr. Hoskins, tell me something I didn't know]
“We are looking forward to the discussion now that the legislation is in,” Hoskins said, noting he hasn’t introduced any legislation that didn’t result in discussions and amendments. [what about when you snuck in the abortion exclusion clause Dr. Hoskins? you didn't even bother to discuss it then.]
“This is a sensitive subject and important to Ontarians and we want to make sure we get it right,” he said. [That's because they really messed it up when they decided to hide abortion information]"
I guess it's settled then. All Ontarians believe access to information in Ontario is important. 

Thursday, December 8, 2016

Stop censorship

While George Orwell’s ‘1984’ was a warning, it has become a ‘how-to’ manual of sorts for cultural Marxists. Telling the truth requires knowing the facts and being free to talk about them openly. 

The STOP CENSORSHIP TOUR will be hosting an event in Ottawa at the Ottawa Reformed Presbyterian Church on Saturday, January 7 and you are invited to learn about how the Government of Ontario is actively hiding abortion statistics in order to frustrate the ongoing work of helping women and advancing pre-born human rights. 

This event is free to attend and will feature John Sikkema, a lawyer with ARPA (Association for Reformed Political Action) Canada and Mike Schouten, Director of The event will also feature Pat Maloney, a pro-life blogger from Ottawa who has been fighting for access to abortion data in Ontario. There will be a financial appeal to support the ongoing efforts of

For more information please email Cassy Knegt at

Welcome to Liberal Canada

God help Canada.

First off today we have a disgusting CBC segment on This Hour has 22 minutes where the actor begins by taking the Lord's name in vain in a crude manner like someone from the proverbial locker room. I know this is fine with some people but pretty disgusting behaviour that I can't imagine our tax-payer funded broadcaster would ever get away with if the object of their ridicule were Muslims. The actor then proceeds to ridicule and make fun of the fact that new MPP Sam Oosteroff is against abortion. So very funny (apparently). Naturally anyone who is anti-abortion must be made fun of, right?

And the CBC says they are not biased for abortion? I'd like to see the CBC make fun of pro-choice people. Haha.

(If you are so inclined, and I hope you are, I suggest you send in your complaint to the CBC Ombudsman Esther Enkin at

Then we have the media being totally moronic about insisting that new MPP Sam Oosterhoff answer their questions about same-sex marriage. Oosterhoff kept insisting he had already answered their questions the day before. Not good enough. Oosterhoff actually remained very gracious in his attempts to focus on his first day as an MPP by celebrating with friends and family. But the ignorant media were having none of that. I would not have been as kind as Oosterhoff. I'm pretty sure.

Last but not least, we learn that a teenager doesn't feel "safe" because her teacher said he was against abortion. The un-named teacher said:
“I find abortion to be wrong...but the law is often different from our personal opinions.”
This is where the story gets really scary:
"A little later, the class had a five-minute break, and when it resumed, several students didn’t return, among them a popular young woman who had gone to an administrator to complain that what the teacher said had “triggered” her such that she felt “unsafe” and that, in any case, he had no right to an opinion on the subject of abortion because he was a man."
What happened next was outrageous. The teacher first apologized, but this wasn't enough. He was fired.

The girl feels unsafe? Are you kidding me? Babies in the womb are not safe. The teacher who was fired for believing that slaughtering unborn babies was wrong...was not safe. Now the teacher's family is not safe because their dad lost his job because he believes that abortion is wrong. That's not safe.

Remember Nazi Germany? When Jews were persecuted? When Jews were not safe? When Jewish academics and others were prevented from working?

This is where Canada has got to. Except now it's Christians.

When Justin Trudeau said that pro-life people can't belong in his party, the rot started at the top. And now it's making its way downward.

Wake up people. This will only get worse.

Monday, December 5, 2016

CBC - big abortion's mouthpiece - Part 3

(Part 1)
(Part 2)
"I cannot understand the need for that. There isn't a medical reason we would need that." Dr. Wendy Norman
So let's look at these strict accessibility guidelines for RU-486 (mifepristone), based on the US example, a country ten times the size of Canada.

Is there a "medical reason" for these guidelines or isn't there?

The CBC has interviewed Dr. Norman at least six times, and each time she questions why Canada has chosen to only allow doctors to dispense this drug, and not pharmacists. Dr. Norman calls this behaviour "strange and bizarre", "highly unusual", an "absolutely inexplicable regulation" and "demeaning".

Decide for yourself.

All the information and links below are from the US's Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Approved Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS). (All emphasis in red added)


The goal of the Mifeprex REMS is to mitigate the risk of serious complications associated with Mifeprex by:
a) Requiring healthcare providers who prescribe Mifeprex to be certified in the Mifeprex REMS Program.
b) Ensuring that Mifeprex is only dispensed in certain healthcare settings by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber.
c) Informing patients about the risk of serious complications associated with Mifeprex 


A. Elements to Assure Safe Use

1. Healthcare providers who prescribe Mifeprex must be specially certified.
  a. To become specially certified to prescribe Mifeprex, healthcare providers must:
  i. Review the Prescribing Information for Mifeprex.
  ii. Complete the Prescriber Agreement Form. By signing the Prescriber agreement Form, prescribers agree that:
    1) They have the following qualifications:
      a) Ability to assess the duration of pregnancy accurately
      b) Ability to diagnose ectopic pregnancies
      c) Ability to provide surgical intervention in cases of incomplete abortion or severe bleeding, or to have made plans to provide such care through others, and ability to assure patient access to medical facilities equipped to provide blood transfusions and resuscitation, if necessary.
    2) They will follow the guidelines for use of Mifeprex (see b.i-v below).
b. As a condition of certification, healthcare providers must follow the guidelines for use of Mifeprex described below:

  i. Review the Patient Agreement Form with the patient and fully explain the risks of the Mifeprex treatment regimen. Answer any questions the patient may have prior to receiving Mifeprex.
  ii. Sign the Patient Agreement Form and obtain the Patient’s signature on the Form
  iii. Provide the patient with a copy of the Patient Agreement Form and Medication Guide.
  iv. Place the signed Patient Agreement Form in the patient's medical record.
  v. Record the serial number from each package of Mifeprex in each patient’s record.
  vi. Report any deaths to Danco Laboratories, identifying the patient by a nonidentifiable reference and the serial number from each package of Mifeprex.

c. Danco Laboratories must:

  i. Ensure that healthcare providers who prescribe Mifeprex are specially certified in accordance with the requirements described above and de-certify healthcare providers who do not maintain compliance with certification requirements 
  ii. Provide the Prescribing Information and Prescriber Agreement Form to healthcare providers who inquire about how to become certified. 

The following materials are part of the REMS and are appended:
• Prescriber Agreement Form
• Patient Agreement Form

2. Mifeprex must be dispensed to patients only in certain healthcare settings, specifically clinics, medical offices, and hospitals, by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber.

  a. Danco Laboratories must:

    i. Ensure that Mifeprex is available to be dispensed to patients only in clinics, medical offices and hospitals by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber.
    ii. Ensure that Mifeprex is not distributed to or dispensed through retail pharmacies or other settings not described above.

3. Mifeprex must be dispensed to patients with evidence or other documentation of safe use conditions.
  a. The patient must sign a Patient Agreement Form indicating that she has:
    i. Received, read and been provided a copy of the Patient Agreement Form.
    ii. Received counseling from the prescriber regarding the risk of serious complications associated with Mifeprex.

B. Implementation System

1. Danco Laboratories must ensure that Mifeprex is only distributed to clinics, medical offices and hospitals by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber by:
  a. Ensuring that distributors who distribute Mifeprex comply with the program requirements for distributors. The distributors must:
    i. Put processes and procedures in place to:
      a. Complete the healthcare provider certification process upon receipt of the Prescriber Agreement form.
      b. Notify healthcare providers when they have been certified by the Mifeprex REMS Program.
      c. Ship Mifeprex only to clinics, medical offices, and hospitals identified by certified prescribers in the signed Prescriber Agreement Form.
      d. Not ship Mifeprex to prescribers who become de-certified from the Mifeprex Program.
      e. Provide the Prescribing Information and Prescriber Agreement Form to healthcare providers who (1) attempt to order Mifeprex and are not yet certified, or (2) inquire about how to become certified.
    ii. Put processes and procedures in place to maintain a distribution system that is secure, confidential and follows all processes and procedures, including those for storage, handling, shipping, tracking package serial numbers, proof of delivery and controlled returns of Mifeprex.
    iii. Train all relevant staff on the Mifeprex REMS Program requirements.
    iv. Comply with audits by Danco Laboratories, FDA or a third party acting on behalf of Danco Laboratories or FDA to ensure that all processes and procedures are in place and are being followed for the Mifeprex REMS Program. In addition, distributors must maintain appropriate documentation and make it available for audits.
    b. Ensuring that distributors maintain secure and confidential distribution records of all shipments of Mifeprex.

  2. Danco Laboratories must monitor distribution data to ensure compliance with the REMS Program.
  3. Danco Laboratories must audit new distributors within 90 calendar days after the distributor is authorized to ensure that all processes and procedures are in place and functioning to support the requirements of the Mifeprex REMS Program. Danco Laboratories will take steps to address distributor compliance if noncompliance is identified.
  4. Danco Laboratories must take reasonable steps to improve implementation of and compliance with the requirements of the Mifeprex REMS Program based on monitoring and assessment of the Mifeprex REMS Program.
  5. Danco Laboratories must report to FDA any death associated with Mifeprex whether or not considered drug-related, as soon as possible but no later than 15 calendar days from the initial receipt of the information by the applicant. This requirement does not affect the applicant's other reporting and follow-up requirements under FDA regulations.

C. Timetable for Submission of Assessments
Danco Laboratories must submit REMS assessments to FDA one year from the date of the initial approval of the REMS (06/08/2011) and every three years thereafter. To facilitate inclusion of as much information as possible while allowing reasonable time to prepare the submission, the reporting interval covered by each assessment should conclude no earlier than 60 days before the submission date for that assessment. Danco Laboratories must submit each assessment so that it will be received by the FDA on or before the due date.

What do participants need to know?

Healthcare Providers who prescribe and dispense Mifeprex must To be able to prescribe:
  • Review the drug’s prescribing information.
  • Complete and submit the Prescriber Agreement Form.
Healthcare Providers who prescribe and dispense Mifeprex  must Before dispensing
  • Review the Patient Agreement Form with the patient and fully explain the risks of the Mifeprex treatment regimen.
  • Provide the patient with the Medication Guide.
  • Complete the Patient Agreement Form with the patient. Provide a completed copy of the form to the patient and retain a completed copy in the patient’s record.
  • Complete the Patient Agreement Form with the patient. Provide a completed copy of the form to the patient and retain a completed copy in the patient’s record.
Patients who are prescribed Mifeprex Before receiving
  • Review the Patient Agreement Form.
  • Complete the Patient Agreement Form with the prescriber.
  • Receive counseling from the prescriber on the risks associated with Mifeprex.
Distributors that distribute Mifeprex must To be able to distribute
  • Establish processes and procedures to ensure that the drug is distributed only to clinics, medical offices, and hospitals identified by certified healthcare providers.
  • Establish processes and procedures to maintain a distribution system that is secure and confidential.
  • Establish processes and procedures to maintain a system for proper storage, handling, shipping, tracking package serial numbers, proof of delivery and controlled returns of Mifeprex.
  • Train all relevant staff involved in distribution of Mifeprex on the REMS Program requirements.
Distributors that distribute Mifeprex must At all times
  • Maintain confidential distribution records of all shipments of Mifeprex.
  • Cooperate with audits carried out by the application holder to ensure that all processes and procedures are in place and are being followed.
Patient must fill out this form (1 page):

Doctor must fill out this form (2 page):

Medication guide for patient (4 pages) 

FDA warning:
"You should not buy Mifeprex over the Internet because you will bypass important safeguards designed to protect your health (and the health of others). 
Mifeprex has special safety restrictions on how it is distributed to the public. Also, drugs purchased from foreign Internet sources are not the FDA-approved versions of the drugs, and they are not subject to FDA-regulated manufacturing controls or FDA inspection of manufacturing facilities
To learn more about buying drugs safely, please see Buying Prescription Medicines Online: A Consumer Safety Guide"
Mifepristone U.S. Postmarketing Adverse Events Summary through 04/30/2011 (including deaths, hospitalizations, blood transfusions, ectopic pregnancies and infections):

Sunday, December 4, 2016

CBC - big abortion's mouthpiece - Part 2

CBC can't see how biased they are. I have detailed their bias here in part 1 as it relates to the abortion pill RU-486.

The Ombudsman thinks that I am concerned about Health Canada's position on the drug:
"the CBC covered the introduction of Mifepristone into Canada over a period of time and on multiple platforms and programmes. Many of those did adequately represent the position of Health Canada and its reasons for the regime required for use of the drug in Canada."
My complaint made no mention of Health Canada. Yet the Ombudsman talks about their story being balanced as regards to Health Canada, which I never mentioned in my complaint. Rather my complaint was about the fact that the CBC chose only ever to ask an abortion doctor her opinion as to why the drug was being dispensed this way [by doctors and not pharmacists]. The CBC did not ask that question of a pro-life doctor. Why not? If the CBC had asked a pro-life doctor, I'm pretty sure they would have received quite a different answer.

The Ombudsman said my complaint was not about the safety about the drug but rather accessibility of the drug. My point was that you cannot properly discuss the accessibility of the drug, if you don't also discuss its safety. That is because accessibility is directly related to the fact that the drug is so dangerous. What part of this does the CBC not understand?

The person the CBC chose to interview on accessibility is an abortion doctor who naturally has a vested interest in abortions. And RU-486 is abortion. The CBC did not interview a pro-life doctor on accessibility, and I can guarantee if they had, that doctor would have brought up the important issue of the dangers of the drug. But the CBC did not do this. And as I already pointed out in the first installment on this, the CBC didn't do this over time either. Nearly all their reporting on this drug has been biased for abortion as they only ever interview people from the abortion industry.

Why doesn't the CBC interview someone not from the abortion industry and let the reader make up their own mind?

Let's look at another controversial issue which is currently being debated and a recent decision made this week by the government: pipelines. CBC interviews people on both sides of that debate, those who oppose the proposed pipelines and those who support them. The CBC would never think of interviewing only those people who support pipelines or only those who oppose pipelines when covering the government's decisions regarding the Kinder Morgan and the Northern Gateway pipelines. Like pipelines, RU486 is controversial. Both involve government's decision whether to approve or not and both involve regulations if/when they are approved,  Those who oppose pipelines will be more likely to focus on the negative things that result from allowing the pipelines to be built; those who support pipelines will be more likely to downplay the negative aspects of the pipelines and highlight the positive. Surely the CBC can see that if they interviewed only people who held the former position, or only those who held the latter, they would be biased. No different with RU-486: If someone supports RU-486 in the first place, their views on accessibility will be coloured by that, as will someone who opposes it.

The Ombudsman also seems to issue with my calling Dr. Norman an "abortion doctor":
"You describe her as an “abortion doctor”. As Ms. Hiscox mentioned in her introduction her qualifications are extensive in the field of public health as well as family planning. According to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (the federal funding agency for health research) website, she is also the Applied Public Health Chair of that organization."
That's because:
"Dr. Norman has been a family physician since 1985 and has practiced exclusively in the area of abortion since 1997". (emphasis added)
More later...

Thursday, December 1, 2016

Social conservatives of Canada - buy a membership for CPC leadership

We social conservatives never give up. We keep on trucking. We never stop defending the unborn. We never stop defending parents' right to decide on the sex-ed curriculum for their children.

Next May 2017 we have the opportunity to vote for the next leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. It's a crowded contingency of leadership hopefuls. But there are really only two candidates who will support what we believe in, that is, true social conservative values: Pierre Lemieux and Brad Trost. Even though Andrew Scheer is pro-life he won't have reopen abortion debate.

I always laugh when I hear Justin Trudeau talk about Canadian values. The values he talks about are not my values--never have been and never will be.

This is really really important that we make our votes count in this leadership race. I did today when my husband and I bought a membership and supported Pierre Limieux. Here is Brad Trost's donation page.

All of the votes for a candidate who holds our values will count in the party, regardless as to who wins. Our membership tells the party that we matter. All social conservatives need to buy a membership for one of these candidates. Every single one of us needs to do this. We can't just say we support social conservative candidates, we need to put our hands into our wallets and pull out $15 and buy a membership.

This is our chance to stand up for our values, not Justin Trudeau's values

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

CBC - big abortion's mouthpiece - Part 1

I complained (again) to the CBC Ombudsman that their coverage of the abortion drug RU-486 was biased. After waiting three months for a response; after three follow up emails; after a telephone call; I finally received a response this week.

Here is the result of that complaint to the CBC Ombudsman Esther Enkin:

As expected, the decision was that the CBC is not biased.

(NOTE: the CBC Ombudsman's role is supposed to be independent ("The ombudsman acts as an appeal authority for complaints about journalistic standards and is independent of CBC program staff and management.) But the position is as a CBC employee, who also happens to be a career CBC employee. Why isn't this role given to someone who is at arm's length from outside of the CBC?)

Let's discuss the Ombudsman's conclusions.

"The Managing Editor for CBC News Network, Jennifer Harwood, replied to your complaint. She stated that the interview was not a debate about the safety of the drug. Rather it was about the issue of accessibility. She said that in “that context, it is my view that the coverage was fair and balanced.”"
Jennifer Harwood said the interview was not about the safety of the drug, but accessibility. My point was that it is precisely because the safety of the drug is dangerous, is exactly why accessibility should be more difficult. This point is ignored by the Ombudsman. And since there are issues about the drug's safety, which was the whole basis of my complaint--that is why doctor's must dispense it and not pharmacists. I contend that this is the exact reason the US insists that doctors dispense it and not pharmacies. So my whole point is ignored, so how can the coverage be fair and balanced?

Ombudsman: Regarding Dr. Norman's "strange and bizarre" comment that I took issue with:
You’ve used a couple of interesting words – you called this very unusual regime around this, you said “have bizarrely put in place”. Why do you think they’ve put this extra layer or these extra additional requirements around this particular drug?
Dr. Wendy Norman 
"Well, this is a gray question, Heather, and I think it is a little bit inexplicable, a little bit hard to explain. In Canada, for many years, the safety mechanisms for drugs have required pharmacists to dispense them and even some of our most concerning drugs, for example, methadone, pharmacists are able to dispense this drug, so for all of a sudden out of the blue to have a normal woman’s health medication such as Mifepristone, the RU-486, requiring this very unusual mechanism, is strange."
"all of a sudden, out of the blue"? I don't think so. After much evidence that the drug is dangerous, this was decided by Canada, and the US did the same. And RU-486 isn't really like Methadone though is it? I contend that allowing doctors only to dispense RU-486 is not "bizarre and strange" at all. If a first world country (like the US) that is ten times the size of Canada does it this way (for safety reasons), that is something to heed, and Canada followed suit. Sounds prudent to me and not "bizarre and strange". 

"The host of CBC News Morning Live introduced the interview with Wendy Norman in this way:
Canadian doctors say Health Canada’s strict guidelines will limit access to the abortion drug RU-486... "The host says that Canadian doctors say..." 
This statement implies that "[ALL] Canadian doctors say..". Bias again. Not all doctors say this, only some doctors. More precisely, some abortion doctors. Did the the interviewer try and find any doctors who disagreed with this statement? Apparently not. 

Dr. Norman calls Mifepristone a "Normal woman’s health medication". I fail to see what is normal about a drug that has killed women, causes excessive hemorrhaging, and the multitude of serious side effects "normal". Again, my whole point is about the danger of the drug, a point the Ombudsman has neglected to address. In fact these side effects are mentioned in only two of the CBC writings on the subject. There truly is nothing "normal" about RU-486. This is why Health Canada felt it important to have doctor's dispense it, just like it is done in the US (my US point was also not addressed by the Ombudsman).

"On issues of controversy, we ensure that divergent views are reflected respectfully, taking into account their relevance to the debate and how widely held these views are. We also ensure that they are represented over a reasonable period of time."
So the CBC represents a "widely held views...over a reasonable period of time"? I beg to differ. I googled "RU486 and CBC" and "abortion pill and CBC".

Below are all the links that came up. I found 20 CBC links related to RU-486 (there could be more). The first four might be said to be somewhat neutral, so let's ignore those articles. 

The remainder 16 CBC articles on RU-486 all quote only pro-abortion advocates, and no alternate pro-life viewpoints, with Dr. Wendy Norman a seemingly favourite of CBC journalists. Dr. Norman is quoted six times. 

The CBC gets millions and millions of dollars a year from the taxpayer. It should be impartial on such controversial subjects like abortion. But is the CBC biased for abortion or not? You be the judge.

Part 2 here


3) Vicky Sapporta (National Abortion Federation) and Mary Ellen Douglas (Campaign Life Coalition)

4) Dr. Laura Lewis (Ontario family physician and a Canadian Physicians for Life board member)
5) Joan Dawkins (executive director of Women's Health Clinic)

6) Dr. Wendy Norman and Dr. Ellen Wiebe (abortion doctors)

7) Dr. Kelly Monaghan (of abortion Clinic 215 in St. John)

8) Dr. Wendy Norman (abortion doctor)

9) NDP MLA Nahanni Fontaine (NDP is officially pro-choice)

10) Leigh Anne Caron, (team manager of health services at Women's Health Clinic in Winnipeg)

11) Dr. Wendy Norman (abortion doctor)

12) Dr. Wendy Norman (abortion doctor)

13) Lyndsey Butcher (executive director at Planned Parenthood Waterloo Region)

14) Dr. Wendy Norman (abortion doctor) and Judith Soon (assistant professor in the faculty of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of British Columbia)

15) Vicki Saporta (president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation and its Canadian offshoot, NAF Canada), Dr. Erika Feuerstein, family physician at Women's College Hospital and Bay Centre for Birth Control in Toronto and Rebecca Cook, a law professor in the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program at the University of Toronto

17) Dr. Wendy Norman (abortion doctor)

Monday, November 28, 2016

Some MPPs still have principles

I am happy to see that MPP Monte McNaughton is still speaking out against Kathleen Wynne's radical sex-ed curriculum. Nice to know that McNaughton still stands behind his principles on the subject.

Unlike Patrick Brown, he of throwing-us-under-the bus fame.

November 28, 2016


Did you catch Christina Blizzard's article in the Toronto Sun this weekend? Her article, entitled Parents Opting for Private Schools over sex-ed curriculum, revealed just the latest chapter in Kathleen Wynne’s ongoing sex-education controversy:

127 new private schools have opened in Ontario since 2015.  

127 new schools for parents who believe that the public system cannot give their children the education they wish their children to receive. How do I know that the spike in enrollments is related to the sex-ed issue? Well, because parents all over Ontario have been telling me this for the past year, and I have been listening.

This afternoon at Queen’s Park, I asked Education Minister Mitzie Hunter to release the full statistics on how many students have left the public school system for the private system, the total enrollment in those private schools, as well as the total number of private schools operating in Ontario annually since 2006.

The people of Ontario deserve to know just how much Premier Kathleen Wynne has fractured the public education system with the reckless way her new sex-education curriculum was developed and implemented.
Thank you for your continued support on this important issue.

Yours sincerely,
Monte McNaughton, MPP

PS: If you haven't seen it yet, have a look at this article from last month in which I reiterated my position on the sex-education curriculum. I continue to believe that parents will be heard on this important issue.

Justin Trudeau - Human rights are for all humans

Justin Trudeau:
“As people know … I never shy away from bringing up human rights wherever I go, I highlight our values and the challenges we face  and underline the importance of respecting human rights wherever I am, including in Cuba last week."
Without getting into the Prime Minister's stupid comments regarding the death of Fidel Castro, Justin Trudeau clearly does not respect Canadian human rights: Justin Trudeau does not respect the human rights of pre-born children; Justin Trudeau does not respect the human rights of pro-life Canadian citizens who also want to be in the Liberal party but are forbidden to become MPs because of those beliefs.

That's a large segment of Canadian society whose human rights Justin Trudeau does not respect, myself included.

Not respecting the human rights of human beings, but believing that you do, is the worst kind of discrimination. It's also arrogant and hypocritical.

Friday, November 25, 2016

Pro-life man is called to do God's will

A lovely testament to Life. This man, Paul Caron, witnesses daily at the Morgentaler abortion clinic in Ottawa.

His sign reads "Why must the child die?

Thanks to Donald Andre Bruneau--who is also a staunch witness to life--for the video.

Dear pro-abortions: you can't handle the truth

Anonymous blogger "Fern Hill" doesn't like what Priests for Life US did when Fr. Frank Pavone put an aborted child on the altar.

She goes on to say that we Canadians are paying for this, that we paid these "offensive nutbars" tax dollars.
"Why am I going on about this? Because you, dear readers, and I have given these offensive nutbars more than $75K over the last five years."
Not so "Fern Hill".

What "Fern Hill" doesn't seem to comprehend, is that these are two entirely two different organizations. So I posted comments on her blog to educate her:

Patricia Maloney said...
Hey Fern Hill you realize that Priests for Life headed up by Fr. Frank Pavone is American and has nothing do do with Priests for Life Canada eh?
fern hill said...
Nothing to do with Canadian branch? Then, why does one get to the Canadian website from a link called "International" on the US site?
Patricia Maloney said...
Check your facts Fern Hill:

In recent days, social media has been abuzz regarding a video posted by Fr. Frank Pavone, head of Priests for Life (U.S.A.), in which the body of an aborted child was openly displayed on an altar. Many were rightly disturbed, shocked and horrified by such an action. While Priests for Life Canada would certainly concur
with the need for the public to be aware of the stark reality of abortion, we are deeply disturbed by such actions...In closing, we would like to make it clear that Priests for Life Canada is completely independent of Priests for Life (U.S.A.), and although we, along with many other pro-life organizations, do share common goals and objectives, we cannot concur with all of their actions and the recent actions of Fr. Pavone are not supported by Priests for Life Canada. Priests for Life Canada shares the same concerns as recently issued by Fr. Pavone’s Ordinary, Bishop Patrick Zurek of the Diocese of Amarillo:
“Priests for Life Inc. is not a Catholic institution, but a civil organization and is not under the control or supervision of the Diocese of Amarillo. The Diocese of Amarillo deeply regrets the offense and outrage caused by the video for the faithful and the
community at large. The action and presentation of Father Pavone in this video is not consistent with the beliefs of the Catholic Church."
Priests for Life Canada supports the investigation around the release of this video that is now being undertaken by the Diocese of Amarillo. We continue to pray for all of the good work done by Priests for Life (U.S.A.)
Fr Thomas Lynch
President Priests for Life Canada
fern hill said...
Link to furious back-pedalling. Completely separate but sharing a website. Hokay.

In any case, these fetus freaks are getting Canadian taxpayers' money to further stigmatize abortion and shame women who access a legal, common, and moral medical procedure.

That is insupportable. 

So what happened next? Well I posted another comment to "Fern Hill"'s blog, a comment she did not post:
"Priests for life US and Canada do not share a website. The US website links to the Canadian website. That's like saying my blog shares your website because I have linked to your website. I don't think so. 
Abortion may be legal and it may be common but killing an unborn child is not moral."
I guess my comment was too close to the truth.