Sunday, October 30, 2016

Beware of doctors carrying flowers

Dr. Ellen Wiebe has now "assisted" the death of 32 people in Canada.

Just like abortion has many euphemisms for the killing of unborn children (woman's choice, right to choose, terminating a pregnancy, reproductive choice, etc. etc.), we now have the euphemism "medical aid in dying" for killing born people:
"A Vancouver-based doctor with nearly four decades experience in family medicine, Wiebe has lately become one of Canada’s leading advocates for medically assisted death. Since the new laws came into effect, she has provided dozens of people with lethal doses of sedatives, all by intravenous injection. Richard Brown would be her 32nd. They made an appointment: He would die in his bed, on Thanksgiving Sunday."
Dr. Weibe is also an abortion doctor. It is unknown how many unborn children she has killed.

Dr. Wiebe's latest "patient" was Richard Brown who was in St. Paul's hospital in Vancouver, who refused to put Mr. Brown to death:
"St. Paul’s staff held a “family meeting” with Brown and his son Jeremy. According to a dictated note from a St. Paul’s palliative care doctor, Brown indicated at the meeting “that he wished to pursue medical assistance in dying in the community … (but) based on the current criteria, Mr. (Brown) does not qualify as he, in our opinion, does not have an illness that will cause death in the foreseeable future.” “At the time of discharge,” the note continues, “Mr. (Brown) was, in our team’s opinion, able to manage at home alone.” The note was sent to Wiebe after Brown had left St. Paul’s for the last time.."
Dr. Wiebe didn't share the opinion of St. Paul'. And since Dr. Wiebe had no hospital privileges at St. Paul's, she came up with quite an inventive way of visiting patients:
"Wiebe didn’t share the St. Paul’s opinion; she had visited with Brown before his discharge. The visit was somewhat disguised. Wiebe doesn’t have doctor’s privileges at St. Paul’s, so she sometimes arrives at that hospital bearing flowers, looking as if she’s a relative or friend to a patient. She won’t acknowledge that she “assessed” or consulted when she saw Brown at St. Paul’s. 
“People have accused me of practising medicine without hospital privileges,” she says. “I can get into trouble for that.” But she did manage to examine Brown’s records, and she spoke with him for about half an hour. She concluded he qualified for a medically assisted death." 
Richard Brown died by lethal injection at the hands of Dr. Weibe:
"Wiebe and her nurse arrived at the Brown house on Thanksgiving Sunday, before noon. As he had requested, none of Brown’s children were there; he’d spent time with his sons the day prior. A family friend let the doctor and nurse inside. 
“I accepted the offer of a cup of tea while I prepared my syringes,” Wiebe said later. Brown was in bed. He looked outside the window. “It’s a golden day,” he remarked. He turned to Wiebe and apologized for “interfering” with her Thanksgiving.
She administered the drugs and he died."
It must be quite the thing to fill a syringe with lethal drugs; inject those drugs into a human being, and then watch as the life flows out of that person. And less messy than an abortion. Maybe Dr. Wiebe has a new "calling"?

Sing a little louder - the holocaust of unborn children

I hope Joyce Arthur and "Fern Hill" watch this film.

Pro-abortion people really hate it when we compare the slaughter of the unborn by abortion to the Holocaust. They hate it because they know it's the truth. And they really hate the truth.

Friday, October 28, 2016

How the defeat of Cassie and Molly’s Law could endanger abortion

by Barbara Maloney

Cathay Wagantall’s Private Members Bill C-225 (Cassie and Molly’s Law) was defeatedby a wide margin (209 to 76) in the House of Commons last week. This means the bill will not be sent to a committee for study and is now dead.

Bill C-225 would have allowed charges to be laid for harming or causing the death of a preborn child while committing a criminal offence against a pregnant woman. Such a law would act as a strong deterrent to committing violent acts against pregnant women, increasing the chances she and her baby could make it safely through her pregnancy. It was a compassionate and common sense response to an all too common problem.

Not a single MP from any party other than the Conservatives voted for the bill. This suggests the vote may have been whipped by leaders of the Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc, which is odd since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the other party leaders have repeatedly argued in favour of women’s reproductive choice. Bill C-225 would have strengthened reproductive choice for women by making it a criminal offence for a third party to intentionally kill a pregnant woman’s fetus (thus terminating her pregnancy) while committing a criminal offence against her – a pregnancy termination to which she clearly did not consent. We are talking here about someone who attacks a woman and takes away her choice by ending the life of the child who otherwise would have been born alive. Nothing could undermine women’s reproductive choice more than that.

My MP, Chandra Arya (Liberal) wrote to me last month saying that he would not be supporting the bill. I had seen comments from other Liberal MPs as well. No doubt, the Liberal MPs were given a set of talking points to use to try to defend their opposition to C-225. But their arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny, which suggests something else was behind their opposition to the bill, as I explain below.

Criticism: C-225 doesn’t address the broader issue of gender-based violence

The Liberal government criticized the bill for failing “to address the broader issue of violence against women.” But why would any MP not support a law that at least partially addresses the problem? No bill ever completely addresses an issue, and so why should C-225 be held to a higher standard than any other bill?

Mr. Arya also told me that “Our government believes that gender-based violence has no place in our society, and we are committed to developing and implementing a comprehensive federal strategy against gender-based violence.” That’s great, and bill C-225 could have been one important part of such a comprehensive strategy. Voting for this bill in no way would have precluded the government from enacting further laws and policies that address gender-based violence. Pregnant women are sometimes attacked precisely because they are pregnant. Cassie and Molly’s Law would act to deter such violence, given the stiff penalties in the bill for purposely causing the death of the woman’s unborn child.

Criticism: C-225 might be challenged under the Charter

My MP also told me the bill “would likely be challenged under the Charter.” Yet, as far as I’m aware, there has been no credible legal opinion by any reputable lawyer arguing that the bill violates the Charter. On the contrary, renowned constitutional expert Eugene Meehan has provided a legal opinion, posted on Cathay Wagantall’s website, defending the constitutionality of the new offences created in the bill.

Most Liberal MPs voted in favour of the government’s bill C-14, Medical Assistance in Dying, even though several lawyers were of the opinion it was unconstitutional. So if the Liberal MPs were not deterred by the constitutional concerns regarding C-14, it is incredible that constitutional concerns were behind their opposition to Cassie and Molly’s Law.

What was the real reason for opposing C-225?

Given C-225 respects the constitution, including the Charter; given it is one concrete way that MPs can help tackle gender-based violence which they claim they want to do; and given it is supported by amajority of Canadians, it seems that MPs’ opposition to this bill stemmed from something else – something they may not have been even consciously aware of.

Which brings us to the issue of abortion.

Fear that C-225 could reopen the abortion debate

My MP told me that this bill could “reopen the abortion debate.” This bill and the abortion issue do have something in common – they both deal with pregnant women and preborn children. But anyone who is truly pro-choice ought to recognize the difference between an abortion which a woman freely chooses, and a situation where a woman has not chosen abortion and is violently attacked by a third-party who wants to kill her and/or her baby and unilaterally takes away her choice to bring her child safely to term.

So how do we account for supposedly pro-choice MPs voting against a bill that would have made it a crime to forcefully end a woman’s pregnancy against her will? Why did these MPs ignore the significant role that the woman’s free choice plays in differentiating C-225 from abortion? Are these MPs not pro-choice after all, but rather pro-abortion, even pro-forced abortion?

I don’t believe so – I don’t believe a majority of our MPs voted against C-225 because they actually believe that a dead fetus is better than a live fetus.

The only remaining explanation is that they voted against C-225 out of fear of what it would mean for abortion if we recognized in law that it can sometimes be wrong to kill a preborn child. They would have been asking themselves, even if only at an unconscious level: if it is wrong to kill a fetus during a brutal attack on a woman against her will, how can we justify abortion, which also kills a fetus?

But as MikeSchouten writing in the National Post points out, there would be no reason for anyone who is pro-choice to fear that C-225 would endanger abortion if they actually believed in their own pro-choice rhetoric: that a woman’s freedom to choose is enough to justify abortion (that is, that the choice of the woman trumps the life of the fetus.)

The defeat of C-225 was in essence, then, a sign that a majority of our MPs do not believe that freedom of choice, in and of itself, can justify abortion. A majority of our MPs could not get past focusing on how C-225 and abortion are alike (preborn child’s death), rather than how they differ (woman’s choice). It was apparently easier for our MPs to deny that it can ever be wrong to kill a fetus – and vote against C-225 – than to be put into the uncomfortable position of having to justify why abortion is not wrong. They are apparently only able to defend abortion if they deny there is any inherent value in the life of a preborn child. They would have had the confidence to defend abortion if they truly believed deep down that the choice of the woman trumps the life of the fetus.

Thus in defeating C-225 for fear it could endanger abortion, our Members of Parliament ended up revealing a lack of confidence in their own ability to defend abortion. If even our supposedly staunch “pro-choice” MPs feel so ill-quipped to defend abortion, then what kind of message does that send about the acceptability of abortion? C-225 itself could never have endangered abortion. The irony is the MPs who opposed the bill might end up doing just that.

Thursday, October 27, 2016

Catholic clergy's duty to speak out about abortion

Fr. John Lankeit SS Simon and St Jude Cathedral in Phoenix Diocese speaks out on abortion.

Fr. Lankeit does not mince any words in his delivery of this sermon on abortion.

He speaks about the obligation of priests, bishops and lay Catholics in their duty to protect the unborn.
"...A priest is bound by the fifth commandment, "Thou Shalt not Kill", if a priest doesn't speak up for the most vulnerable in society, and if the Catholic faithful in society do not actively protect the most vulnerable in our society to refusing to enable their deliberate destruction by their vote, then such Catholics, the priests and the laity, are condoning their killing by their cowardice..."
FR. Lankeit's message is a must hear for all Catholics, all clergy, and also for Catholic politicians who support abortion.

Saturday, October 22, 2016

Dear Kathleen - Does this mean you will stop hiding abortion information?

Received this from Ontario's "Open Government initiative":

"Almost 800 votes were received from ideas submitted as part of our recent Open Government Consultation. We’ve tallied the votes and are excited to share the top-voted ideas in each category.

Top-Voted Idea
Adopt the international Open Data Charter and its 6 principles for all Ontario ministry and provincial agency data.
Implement all of the recommendations made by the Open Government Engagement Team.
Public Participation
Create a way for constituents to communicate with their MPPs online, in order to be included in the decision-making process, such as through surveys of their views on what works best in each riding.
Technology Innovation
Create a dashboard to provide citizens with information about key government outcomes, metrics and initiatives.

Here is a ranked list of all your favourite ideas. 

Remember, the top ideas will be assessed during in-person and online workshops.  So register today to join civil society organizations, public servants and passionate members of your community to help us identify meaningful Open Government Commitments that can be implemented in 2017.

Workshops will be taking place on the following dates:

October 24 – Toronto – Ontario Trade Centre, 250 Yonge St. – 3:30 – 6:00 pm
October 25 – Online – Open ON Forum – 12:00 pm – 2:30 pm
October 26 – Ottawa – University of Ottawa – 3- 5:30 pm

(Full details will be sent out to those who register for the sessions)

Space is limited, so click on the session that works for you and let us know which workshop you want to attend.  Deadline to RSVP is Friday, October 21. Refreshments will be served.

Can’t make these sessions and really want to participate? Email us at Opengov@ontario.caand we will work something out.

Thank you in advance for your participation in this important initiative. 

Open Government Office"

Notice the top voted idea, is Transparency: "Adopt the international Open Data Charter and its 6 principles for all Ontario ministry and provincial agency data."

And the very first principle of this idea is "Open by default":

  1. "We recognize that the term “government data” includes, but is not limited to, data held by national, regional, local, and city governments, international governmental bodies, and other types of institutions in the wider public sector. The term government data could also apply to data created for governments by external organizations, and data of significant benefit to the public that is held by external organizations and related to government programs and services (e.g. data on extractives entities, data on transportation infrastructure, etc.).
  2. We recognize that free access to, and subsequent use of, government data is of significant value to society and the economy, and that government data should, therefore, be open by default.
  3. We acknowledge the need to promote the global development and adoption of resources, standards, and policies for the creation, use, exchange, and harmonization of open data.
  4. We recognize that open data can only be unlocked when citizens are confident that open data will not compromise their right to privacy, and that citizens have the right to influence the collection and use of their own personal data or of data generated as a result of their interactions with governments.
  5. We will:
    a. Develop and adopt policies and practices to ensure that all government data is made open by default, as outlined in this Charter, while recognizing that there are legitimate reasons why some data cannot be released;
    b. Provide clear justifications as to why certain data cannot be released;
    c. Establish a culture of openness, not only through legislative and policy measures, but also with the help of training and awareness programs, tools, guidelines, and communication strategies designed to make government, civil society, and private sector representatives aware of the benefits of open data;
    d. Develop the leadership, management, oversight, performance incentives, and internal communication policies necessary to enable this transition to a culture of openness in all government departments and agencies, including official statistics organizations;
    e. Observe domestic laws and internationally recognized standards, in particular those pertaining to security, privacy, confidentiality, and intellectual property. Where relevant legislation or regulations do not exist or are out of date, they will be created and/or updated; and
    f. In accordance with privacy legislation and standards, anonymize data prior to its publication, ensuring that sensitive, personally-identifiable data is removed."
If this is what Ontario citizens want, I guess it means Kathleen Wynne and her secretive Liberal government will overturn their hiding of abortions information?

Friday, October 7, 2016

Bill C-225 should satisfy pro-life and pro-choice people

My letter published in the National Post on October 4, 2016:
It seems to me that if pro-choice people like Joyce Arthur can’t support a sensible bill like C-225 (that protects a woman’s choice to carry her pre-born child to term), it confirms one thing and one thing only: that is that they are not pro-choice at all, but rather pro-abortion. Hopefully, MPs can see this and vote accordingly. Blind ideology without common sense isn’t useful or helpful. Especially for the women who would be protected by this bill.
Patricia Maloney, Ottawa.

Sunday, October 2, 2016

Canada's assisted suicide law will claim unintended victims

What Dr. Johnston writes about below is frightening. This is where Canada is heading with it's
assisted suicide law. Reprinted with permission from the author. Sorry for the weird formatting.
The Carter decision to allow assisted suicide and euthanasia claimed that Canada could avoid abuses through careful guidelines and screening. Medically facilitated elder abuse bygreedy relatives and medicalized suicide for the depressed — a grim reality where this practice is legal — were supposed to be avoidable, said the judge, because of a superior medical culture in Canada. The abuses of Belgium? Not for us.
Experience proves otherwise.
According to the new law, it will be five years before Canada’s assisted suicide and euthanasia regime has to report back to the nation. Two stories offer reasons why that report will fail to reveal those depressed patients, far from death, who are steered to suicide by others and by their untreated mental illness.
A friend, herself dealing with advanced ovarian cancer, heard from a neighbour that his wife was going to get assisted suicide. The neighbour said they would be going to a doctor in Vancouver to get this done. This baffled my friend, who had seen the woman outside her home, gardening. The husband made other comments suggesting that his wife would be dead soon. She had heart trouble.
My friend tipped off her own nurse to get community services involved and the suicidal woman’s depression began to be addressed by a nurse and social worker. This apparently able-bodied woman did not go to Vancouver right away — but she had been invited, as soon became clear.
This appears to be medical homicide as a solution to depression.
I will let my friend’s words testify to the end of that story:
“A few days later the husband came over with a clipboard and a pen. He started by saying, “Damn government did not pass the bill.” He asked me to sign a form — that he needed two signatures for the doctor in Vancouver. He stated that none of their family and friends would sign. I almost passed out!
Seriously. I told him I would not sign. He assumed that it was on religious grounds and I said no it was experiential. He said “OK, then I will ask your husband.” I told him he had better not even bring it up!
We went on a two-day visit to the grandsons and came back on June 7 (the designated day of the euthanasia) and his balcony was draped in black crepe.
Several days later I bumped into him at the mailbox and he complained that none of the neighbours had given condolences even though he made it obvious that [his wife] had “passed.” I asked him how he was and he said that his wife had a nice last day, that she liked the walk around the seawall.
He also told me that he felt sorry for the poor doctor because she was so tired because she had so many euthanasias that day. He and the boyfriend are now residing together in a big new travel coach parked elsewhere in the same trailer park and the Mustang has become the vehicle of preference and he sold his house. No one talks to him…”
This appears to be medical homicide as a solution to depression, apparently facilitated by a husband with other interests.
Several weeks ago I was contacted by the wife of a young man with a neurological disease. The man had been assured by a euthanasia-performing doctor in Vancouver that he qualified for an assisted suicide. He was depressed and never ventured outdoors.
At the patient’s invitation I visited him in his shared room in a dingy nursing home, a place once described to me as “a prison.” He told me about his struggle to find a cure with massive doses of vitamins. He was less disabled than, for instance, Walter Lawrence, who works in Vancouver as an inspiring peer counsellor to spinal injury patients and others.
Any able-bodied person would be given psychological help to relieve it.
But this patient had lost hope for the future and felt his existence was meaningless and that death was the only solution. This death-focused tunnel vision defines a suicidal depression, and any able-bodied person would be given psychological help to relieve it. This disabled man, who was nowhere near dying, was instead killed by a Vancouver physician.
Follow on Instagram for pro-life pictures and the latest pro-life news.
The physician’s rationale for circumventing the law, reportedly given over the phone before she met or examined the patient, was that he could easily get bed sores and then die of infection, so that his death “was reasonably foreseeable.”
What surprised his wife was “how easy” it was for her depressed, self-isolated husband to be killed under the new regime. What seems obvious is that the whole nature of this death is not going to be reported to the Minister of Health or the Minister of Justice — there is no transparency to this system.
Five years from now, the mandatory report is going to be full of bland and self-justifying statistics presented by the very doctors who have done the killing. By sanitizing these medicalized suicides and homicides with the now-familiar euphemisms about “medical aid in dying,” the uninvolved public will be reassured that nothing has gone wrong.
Canada has simply created a system which offers, and completes, suicide for people whose personalities, disabilities and personal situations put them at high risk for it. Well over a hundred real people have died in the few months since the old law was discarded. To complain that this was repeatedly predicted is to indulge in powerless understatement.
And next, we have the unfolding tragedy of palliative care. That medical specialty has always struggled to reassure fearful dying people that palliation has nothing to do with “mercy killing” and assisted suicide. Reluctant families have been truthfully promised that hospice nurses and doctors are not self-appointed angels of death.
Sadly, palliative care wards and hospices across Canada are, right now, in a hailstorm of administrative edicts to perform euthanasia inside their walls, in whispering range of those families and patients who had been promised a refuge of care.
Violating the principles and purposes of palliative care is in no way required by the new law. The thoughtless imposition of this radical shift needs to be halted. Hospital administrators can and must provide other locations for those few final minutes.
Our Minister of Health and her provincial colleagues would be wise to act quickly on this. The principles of suicide prevention have been betrayed. It is not inevitable that the principles of palliative care must be next.
LifeNews Note: Will Johntson, M.D., is a physician practicing in Vancouver British Columbia.

Life Chain - Ottawa

Some people say when we protest or pray to put an end to abortion, we are violent, or rude of ignorant. Funny that. Video below.

More pictures here.