Thursday, November 16, 2017

New FOI reveals even less evidence for abortion bubble zone

Remember I told you about the police reports at 65 Bank St. for 2014 to June 2017? There were 64 incidents in 41 months. That's 1.56 incidents per month. Of those 64 incidents, there were no injuries and no charges laid.

Today I received more information from the police reports. This time for 2010-2013. There were 113 incidents in 48 months. That's 2.35 incident per month. Out of those 113 incidents, there were--once again--no injuries and no charges laid.

This means that in the most recent period (2014 to June, 2017), the number of police reports have actually decreased by 33.6% from the previous three year period (2010 to 2013).

So why do we need a bubble zone at all?

Also remember that the abortion bubble zone law is a direct result of Ottawa mayor Jim Watson who discriminates against pro-life people. Watson initiated this law. Watson also took down our pro-life flag at city hall during the March for Life. Watson also refused to respond to my repeated requests for an explanation for why our March for Life was rerouted so 100 masked thugs could divert 14,000 peaceful people.

I guess we could call Ottawa the abortion capital of the world:

  • No protection for life and no protection for the rights of those who defend life
  • Justin Trudeau is the most pro-abortion federal leader ever
  • Kathleen Wynne and Patrick Brown are the most pro-abortion provincial leaders ever. I guess you could say two for the price of one
  • And now we can add Jim Watson as the most pro-abortion mayor ever

China and North Korea have nothing on Canada. How embarrassing.

Friday, November 10, 2017

Conservatives in Ontario are puppets of the Liberals

During our Charter challenge, the Ontario government was told to overturn this clause Section 65.(5.7):
“This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services.”
So what did this bunch do to effect this change? Yes, they repealed the clause. But then they added in a new clause. Now they won't allow anyone to go to a specific hospital and ask them how many abortions they are doing (see in red below):
Non-application of Act, provision of abortion services
(13) This Act does not apply to information relating to the provision of abortion services if, 
(a) the information identifies an individual or facility, or it is reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances that it could be utilized, either alone or with other information, to identify an individual or facility; or 
(b) disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to threaten the health or safety of an individual, or the security of a facility or other building. 2017, c. 19, Sched. 2, s. 1 (2). 
Same, pharmacies
(14) A reference in subsection (13) to a facility includes reference to a pharmacy, hospital pharmacy or institutional pharmacy, as those terms are defined in subsection 1 (1) of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act. 2017, c. 19, Sched. 2, s. 1 (2). 
Related statistical information
(15) For greater certainty, this Act applies to statistical or other information relating to the provision of abortion services that does not meet the conditions of clause (13) (a) or (b). 2017, c. 19, Sched. 2, s. 1 (2).
And to add insult to injury--they stuck this new section into Bill 163, Protecting a Woman's Right to Access Abortion Services Act, 2017.

Last time the PCs didn't know what hit them when the Liberals excluded abortion information from FIPPA. They didn't have a clue that it had happened while they slept. This time it's much better--the gutless PCs knowingly voted for the bill.

Thank you Patrick Brown. Kathleen Wynne must love having you in opposition.

Thursday, November 9, 2017

Health Canada ATIP on RU-486

Here is the information for an ATIP I made to Health Canada for the abortion drug RU-486.

There was one document for pages 345-2544. It is too large to be able to access from the Google drive. It appears to be 2000 pages of data, but impossible to decipher what the data means. It also seems to contain data other than misoprostol and mifepristone.

Pages 1-336
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QDsYLWnwO6d1lWbDI3MXNNeVU/view?usp=sharing

Pages 337-344
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QDsYLWnwO6MlItSm9Yd2lOeG8/view?usp=sharing

Pages 2545-2547
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QDsYLWnwO6WDlielFDXzlQLTA/view?usp=sharing

Pages 2548-2968
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QDsYLWnwO6azB5SnZqR2tIMU0/view?usp=sharing

Pages 2969-3050
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QDsYLWnwO6U19VSzRIWkJpdnc/view?usp=sharing

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Abortion bubble zone FOI - "open government" is a farce Part II

Further to my last post on the ridiculous discriminatory anti-pro-life abortion bubble zone legislation, I received "answers" to my questions. See Ministry responses below (my points in black, government response in red).

First. You state:
  • "The records at issue may contain personal information and therefore does not fall within the Open Government initiative."
I am not requesting any personal information. If the records I am seeking, do contain personal information, the usual procedure is to redact this information. Therefore clearly releasing personal information to me is not an issue and my request satisfies the Open Government policy.
The Open Government initiative is intended for records that do not contain personal information, are not confidential, are not a risk to security (e.g., of vulnerable or targeted individuals) and do not contain sensitive/legal/contractual agreements. The records you are seeking may require a review in accordance with FIPPA and severances may be applied.

Second. The document you sent me states:
  • "When is it fair and equitable to waive fees?...whether the requester worked constructively with the institution to narrow the scope of the request; whether the requester has advanced a compromise solution which would reduce costs;"
I have twice now agreed to reduce the scope of my request.
Please be advised that the initial parameters of the request were very broad and the fee was much higher. Upon narrowing the request and in the interest of good customer service, the Ministry significantly reduced the fee from $675 for 22.5 hours to $450 for 15 hours.

Third. The document you sent me states:
  • "Generally, the requester must provide details regarding his/her financial situation, which may include information about income, assets and expenses." 
Obviously I have no intention of providing anyone with information "about my income, assets and expenses." This would be a breach of my privacy rights.
Further to the information provided about fee waivers, in order to assess whether there is a financial hardship the ministry has the right to request documentation in order to assess financial hardship.

Fourth. On numerous previous occasions I have obtained FOI information from the Ontario government. Fees have never been requested of me, except once. That one time I complained and that fee was waived. Therefore the Ontario government has clearly demonstrated a history of not charging me fees. Why should fees now be charged?
Every request is different and must be assessed on its own merits to determine whether fees are necessary. Waivers are granted when it is proven that there is a financial hardship (supporting documentation required) or a benefit to the health and safety of the public.

Fifth. You ask me how these records:
  • "at issue will benefit public health and safety". 
This abortion bubble zone law's alleged reason for being, is to protect the health and safety of women who go to abortion facilities. Notice that the intention is to protect these women. I see no allowance in the legislation that would provide protection to pro-life people whose health and safety is frequently in danger from people who spit at us; who rip up our signs; who threaten us; who confront us with verbal obscenities; and who block us from our annual peaceful March for life all the while hiding their identity by covering their faces. Our health and safety is threatened frequently in these many ways but we have no protection against that. This is why I want to be able to understand why this legislation was enacted--why are we not also provided with health and safety protection? Why are we being discriminated against by our politicians and others and why is this discrimination allowed to continue?
Please explain how the dissemination of the records at issue will protect the health and safety of the public per the criteria below:
·         whether the subject matter of the record is a matter of public rather than private interest;
·         whether the subject matter of the record relates directly to a public health or safety issue;
·         whether the dissemination of the record would yield a public benefit by disclosing a public health or safety concern, or contributing meaningfully to the development of understanding of an important public health or safety issue; and
·         the probability that the requester will disseminate the contents of the record.

Abortion bubble zone FOI - "open government" is a farce

Below is an exchange that I had today with the Attorney General's office. The AG wants to charge me $450 to find out how their bubble zone legislation came to be. Legislation which discriminates against pro-life people. Legislation that is not grounded on any evidence. Legislation that all began with Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson.

It wasn't bad enough that the government has enacted this legislation. Now they want to charge me $450 to find out what went on behind the scenes. They don't want me to know what went on. So they put up a financial roadblock. Pathetic. Unprofessional. Discriminatory. Secrecy is still alive and well in the halls of the Ontario government.

Kathleen Wynne's so-called Open government initiative doesn't exist.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Dear FOI office at the Attorney General's office,

I received your letter dated Nov 2 where you informed me that there will be a fee of at least $450 to get the information I requested:
  • "All information provided to the Ministry of the Attorney General from external sources from January 1, 2017 to October 30, 2017 regarding the need for bubble zones or safe access zones." 
Your letter states that I may request a waiver of this fee due to financial hardship of if release of the record will benefit public health or safety. 

First. This fee will indeed cause me financial hardship.

I have already reduced the scope of my request twice (at your request) in order to reduce the amount of information I requested and to lessen the burden on your office.

As a senior on a fixed income; together with the fact that information in custody of the Ontario government actually belongs to the taxpayer (me and every other resident of Ontario); along with the fact that Kathleen Wynne has publicly stated;
Second. Regarding health and safety. To date, we have seen absolutely no evidence of need for this abortion bubble zone. Yet the government has stated that this law is in effect because of harassment towards women who go for abortions. 

Ottawa police records show no charges or assaults being laid against anyone at the Morgentaler facility in a three and a half year period. Therefore my request is a direct attempt to see what evidence the government actually has concerning this reason for this law, based on the health and safety of these women.

I suggest that this fee be waived in its entirety. I am sure you will agree that citizen access to information--which is only held in custody by the government of the day, and not owned by the government of the day--should not only be accessible to those who have the financial means to obtain this data.

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

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney
__________________________________________________________________________________

Here is the response I received for my email above from the FOI office of the Attorney General:
Hi Patricia, thanks for your email below. Please note fees are charged in accordance with the legislation to ensure that the burden of processing requests is not passed on to the tax payers.

With regard to Open Government, it does not include the release of personal information, which must be protected in accordance with the privacy provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The records at issue may contain personal information and therefore does not fall within the Open Government initiative.

Concerning your request for a fee waiver, thank-you for your explanations. As mentioned in our letter dated November 2, please provide proof of your financial hardship and/or how the dissemination of the records at issue will benefit public health and safety. For assistance, please refer to the “Fees, Fee Estimates and Fee Waivers” reference material produced by the Information and Privacy Commissioner: https://www.ipc.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/fees.pdf.
__________________________________________________________________________________

My next response: 

Dear FOI office of the Attorney General,

First. You state:
  • "The records at issue may contain personal information and therefore does not fall within the Open Government initiative."
I am not requesting any personal information. If the records I am seeking, do contain personal information, the usual procedure is to redact this information. Therefore clearly releasing personal information to me is not an issue and my request satisfies the Open Government policy.

Second. The document you sent me states:
  • "When is it fair and equitable to waive fees?...whether the requester worked constructively with the institution to narrow the scope of the request; whether the requester has advanced a compromise solution which would reduce costs;"
I have twice now agreed to reduce the scope of my request.

Third. The document you sent me states:

  • "Generally, the requester must provide details regarding his/her financial situation, which may include information about income, assets and expenses." 
Obviously I have no intention of providing anyone with information "about my income, assets and expenses." This would be a breach of my privacy rights.

Fourth. On numerous previous occasions I have obtained FOI information from the Ontario government. Fees have never been requested of me, except once. That one time I complained and that fee was waived. Therefore the Ontario government has clearly demonstrated a history of not charging me fees. Why should fees now be charged?

Fifth. You ask me how these records:
  • "at issue will benefit public health and safety". 
This abortion bubble zone law's alleged reason for being, is to protect the health and safety of women who go to abortion facilities. Notice that the intention is to protect these women. I see no allowance in the legislation that would provide protection to pro-life people whose health and safety is frequently in danger from people who spit at us; who rip up our signs; who threaten us; who confront us with verbal obscenities; and who block us from our annual peaceful March for life all the while hiding their identity by covering their faces. Our health and safety is threatened frequently in these many ways but we have no protection against that. This is why I want to be able to understand why this legislation was enacted--why are we not also provided with health and safety protection? Why are we being discriminated against by our politicians and others and why is this discrimination allowed to continue?

I look forward to hearing back from you.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Friday, November 3, 2017

Abortion bubble zone - to Ottawa city council

Dear City of Ottawa Councillors,

From: Patricia Maloney 
Date: Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 4:10 PM
Subject: Run with life: Abortion bubble zone - law of unintended consequences

To: diane.deans@ottawa.ca, Marianne.wilkinson@ottawa.ca, "Nussbaum, Tobi" , "Watson, Jim (Mayor/Maire)" , jeff.leiper@ottawa.ca, jan.harder@ottawa.ca, Mathieu Fleury , catherine.mckenney@ottawa.ca, Bob.Monette@ottawa.ca, jody.mitic@ottawa.ca, Eli.El-Chantiry@ottawa.ca, Shad.Qadri@ottawa.ca, Mark.Taylor@ottawa.ca, Rick.Chiarelli@ottawa.ca, Keith.Egli@ottawa.ca, Tim.Tierney@ottawa.ca, River Ward , David.Chernushenko@ottawa.ca, Jean.Cloutier@ottawa.ca, Stephen.Blais@ottawa.ca, George.Darouze@ottawa.ca, Scott.Moffatt@ottawa.ca, Allan.Hubley@ottawa.ca, Michael.Qaqish@ottawa.ca

I just thought that you'd like to know the effect your abortion bubble zone is having on pro-life people, especially Catholics. 

Your discrimination against us, is having the opposite effect of what you intended. What it means is that we are making more of an effort to go to the abortion site and pray there.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Thursday, November 2, 2017

Abortion bubble zone - law of unintended consequences

There is an interesting side effect to the abortion bubble zone law. Because of this law, I am far more inclined to go and pray at the abortion facility in Ottawa. We were there again today. We even prayed for Kathleen, Patrick, Justin and Jim.


Mind you, as you can see, they have the entrance to the abortion facility covered up with scaffolding and boards. And there's no construction going on there so what's up with that? Clearly they've done that to prevent us from "observing" the place. And as you know we aren't allowed to "observe" the abortion facility. No. No. No.


Just to make sure I didn't accidentally "observe" the abortion facility, I observed this instead:


Yes. I'm pretty sure I will now be visiting the abortion facility a lot more often now. To pray. For the women; that they will choose life for their pre-born children. For our politicians; that they will stop taking away our rights. For the abortion doctors; that they will stop performing abortions. And all of these prayers are a very good thing indeed.

Saturday, October 28, 2017

Ireland worries about Canada's born alive abortions

Remember the 491 born alive abortions in Canada in for 2000 to 2009?

Well Ireland has picked up on this worrisome fact and has some worries of their own:
"Concerns were raised to the Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, over claims made in the Oireachtas..." 
"Abortion is not criminalised in Canada and is governed under the same laws as other health procedures. Anti-abortion campaigners in Ireland have claimed that the liberal law has led to terminations where the foetus was still alive after the procedure."
Rónán Mullen, the independent senator, claimed on the record of the joint Oireachtas committee considering repeal and replacement of the Eighth Amendment that in Canada “botched abortions have taken place in recent years and where children were alive after the procedure”. 
Mattie McGrath, the independent TD, has made similar claims and Cora Sherlock, a spokeswoman for the Pro Life Campaign, has said that there were more than 400 babies in the last ten years “born alive in botched abortions and left to die alone” in Canada. "
SOGC was not able to respond to the allegations:
“The SOGC is not aware of cases where there is evidence of any dereliction of duty, and therefore we are not able to respond to the allegations that you refer to in your email,” he said." 
And Stats Canada could not "support or refute" Ireland's concerns about these born alive abortions:
“There is nothing in the data that would support or refute the characterisation of these events as ‘botched abortions’ or the assertion that these infants were ‘left to die alone in hospital corners’,” Statistics Canada said in a letter.
(Note that for the 10 years 2000 to 2009 there was an average of 49 born alive abortions per year. The latest numbers are an average of 73 per year or a 50 % increase in born alive abortions. See below.)
__________________________________________________________________________

Previous entries on live births:
https://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2014/03/2010-and-2011-late-term-abortion.html
https://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2015/04/941-stillbirth-and-livebirth-abortions.html

Here is an update on Canada's born alive abortions. These abortions are coded P96.4, "Termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus and newborn".

1) After you go to the link above, click on "Add/Remove data".

2) Go to "Step 4 - Select: Cause of death" and click on "All" twice (the first click all causes of death to be ticked, and the second click removes all causes). Then scroll down towards the bottom and click only on "Termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus and newborn [P96.4]"

3) Then go to "Step 5 - Select the time frame" and choose from 2009 to 2013.

Between 2009 and 2013 there were 366 born alive abortions in Canada or an average of 73 born alive abortions per year:

(UPDATE: I realized that I included 2009 in both calculations. If we ignore 2009 in this most recent calculation, it would be a total of 299 for four years for an average of  74.75 born alive abortions per year)


Friday, October 27, 2017

Abortion bubble zone goes after Catholics - Michael Coren

"fundamentalist fanatics"
"angry zealots"
"right-wing fringes of Christianity"
"arch-conservative views"
"protesters howling"

This is what Michael Coren calls pro-life people. Naturally he agrees with the abortion bubble zone law.

I'd love to know where and when Coren has witnessed this kind of behaviour from pro-life people. Because I never have.

I think Coren may have learned the pro-choice chauvinist lingo from his new friends on the far left. Maybe he's had writing lessons from say Heather Mallick. Or maybe Joyce Arthur. Or maybe even Fern Hill.

Whoever it was, they taught him well. I hope he enjoys his new company.

Thursday, October 26, 2017

Abortion bubble zone goes after Catholics - hypocrisy of politicians

See earlier today on this bubble zone law

And All three provincial party leaders have weighed in on Quebec's new law banning face coverings.

Kathleen Wynne's denunciation of Quebec's law.

The media has been badgering politicians for their opinions on Quebec's law since that law was passed. Is the media asking our politicians about this Ontario bubble law? Of course not. Our media doesn't care. Our politicians not only don't care but they are the author of this law.

Discrimination against Catholics. Double standard. Hypocrisy.

Remember the Communists in Russia? How they tried to eradicate Christianity and God?

If we continue to sit back on our complacent little haunches, Catholics and all Christians in Canada will be next.

Abortion bubble zone goes after Catholics: we are in the world we are not of the world

From LifeSite News:
"Ontario’s legislators passed a bill criminalizing pro-life speech and expression outside abortion clinics today by a vote of 86-1. 
MPP Jack MacLaren, a member of the Trillium Party, cast the sole dissenting vote. 
PC Conservative MPPs Sam Oosterhoff, Monte McNaughton and Rick Nicholls were not in the House for the vote."
This morning my sister Maureen and I were scheduled to pray at the abortion facility on Bank St.  We went as planned. We prayed the Rosary. Another lady joined us from Our Lady of Fatima parish. The three of us prayed the Divine Mercy Chaplet.

We made sure we didn't "observe" the abortion facility because that is now illegal. I "observed" the ground in front of me.


None of us "observed" the abortion site.



Heck the birds started singing when we were praying.


Fr. Raymond de Souza calls it secular fundamentalism.

It's amazingly hypocritical that Jim Watson is speaking out against the Niqab ban in Quebec but is perfectly fine with banning Catholics from being at the abortion site.
"In his letter dated Tuesday, Watson pointed out that Ottawa residents regularly use public services across the Ottawa River. 
"I am saddened that, in doing so, they will not enjoy the same freedoms as they do in Ottawa," Watson wrote...  
"...I sincerely hope that, with the opportunity for reflection, your government will abandon what can only be described as a thinly veiled appeal to populist sentiment, in light of the divisive effects."
"They will not enjoy the same freedoms as they do in Ottawa"? 

"Thinly veiled appeal to populist sentiment, in light of the divisive effects"?

Does Watson have a clue as to the hypocrisy and irony of what he's saying? Maybe Watson should do some "reflecting" of his own. In fact it was Watson who instigated this anti-free speech bill

Please email Kathleen, Patrick, Nasir and Jim and tell them what you think of this anti-freedom, anti-Catholic, and anti-free speech bill.

kwynne.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
ynaqvi.mpp@liberal.ola.org
patrick.brown@ontariopc.com
jim.watson@ottawa.ca

Saturday, October 21, 2017

Abortion bubble zone goes after Catholics - part 2

From the Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL):

  • The CCRL’s opposition to Bill 163 focuses on the following:
  • The government has failed to identify or address any need for the intrusion and limitation into the constitutional right to freedom of expression
  • The bill’s penal sanctions are an intrusion into the federal power over criminal law, and present a lowering of the thresholds typically required to constitute the offence of “harassment” under the Criminal Code
  • All parties by their support of the bill are engaging in political suppression of dissenting viewpoints, with the invention of the need for broad areas of “no go” zones, the total effect of which (conceivably, bubble zones around all pharmacies in urban areas), the bill engages in overreach to impose its dubious objectives
This is what Catholics won't be able to do anymore: Pray peacefully and silently at the abortion facilities across Ontario. 


Please sign the petition. 

Then send an email to Attorney General Yasir Naqvi, Premier Kathleen Wynne, PC leader Patrick Brown, and NDP leader Andrea Horvath telling them to respect our freedom of conscience rights, freedom of religion rights. freedom of assembly rights and freedom of expression rights.

kwynne.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
ynaqvi.mpp@liberal.ola.org
patrick.brown@ontariopc.com
ahorwath-qp@ndp.on.ca

Friday, October 20, 2017

Abortion bubble zone goes after Catholics

Don't kid yourself. This new bubble zone legislation isn't about the supposed harassment that goes on at abortion facilities by pro-life persons. It's about discrimination against Christians.

And we have Strawberry Social Jim Watson to thank for this stupidity.


We already know that there is no need for a bubble zone. My FOI on police reports at 65 Bank Street revealed no assaults where a charge was laid.

This is what the bubble zone will do:
3 (1)  While in an access zone established under section 6 for a clinic or facility, no person shall,  (a)  advise or persuade, or attempt to advise or persuade, a person to refrain from accessing abortion services;  (b)  inform or attempt to inform a person concerning issues related to abortion services, by any means, including oral, written or graphic means;   (c)  perform or attempt to perform an act of disapproval concerning issues related to abortion services, by any means, including oral, written or graphic means;  (d)  persistently request that,           (i)  a person refrain from accessing abortion services, or          (ii)  a protected service provider refrain from providing, or assisting in the provision of, abortion services;  (e)  for the purpose of dissuading a person from accessing abortion services,           (i)  continuously or repeatedly observe the clinic or facility or persons entering or leaving the clinic or facility,          (ii)  physically interfere with or attempt to physically interfere with the person,         (iii)  intimidate or attempt to intimidate the person, or         (iv)  photograph, film, videotape, sketch or in any other way graphically record the person;   (f)  for the purpose of dissuading a protected service provider from providing, or assisting in the provision of, abortion services,           (i)  continuously or repeatedly observe the clinic or facility or persons entering or leaving the clinic or facility,          (ii)  physically interfere with or attempt to physically interfere with the provider,         (iii)  intimidate or attempt to intimidate the provider, or         (iv)  photograph, film, videotape, sketch or in any other way graphically record the provider; or  (g)  do anything prescribed for the purpose of this clause.

Notice this clause:
(i)  continuously or repeatedly observe the clinic or facility or persons entering or leaving the clinic or facility,
I am not kidding. You cannot OBSERVE an abortion facility.

Are Kathleen and friends serious? The only "observing" I've ever seen done at the abortion facility is when people stand across the street silently praying and "observing" said abortion facility. Which Catholics do. Which I have done. Which I will do. During this year's 40 days for life. And at other times. You can't do that. Anymore.

What about my religious right to say the rosary? Is that banned too? Is that what Kathleen and friends have in store for us next?

I'm not even talking about the gross trampling this law will have on our rights to freedom of speech, freedom or assembly, freedom of conscience and freedom of expression.

This is a sneaky witch hunt against practicing Catholics. Of course the Liberals are good at sneaky. They wrote the book on sneaky.

Will the leader of the opposition Patrick Brown speak up for us? I doubt it.

Monday, October 16, 2017

A letter to Patrick Brown - I don't support you

From: Jennifer Snell
To: Garfield Dunlop <Thomas.DeGroot@ontariopc.com>
Cc: Patrick Brown <patrick.brown@pc.ola.org>; MPP Monte McNaughton <monte.mcnaughton@pc.ola.org>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: Jennifer, Here is your invitation to a fundraiser at the Wilcoxs'

To whom is reading this reply: 

I worked very hard to have Patrick Brown elected as leader of the PC party in Ontario. This is something I very much regret doing. 

Patrick is not the leader that he promised to be. He has betrayed people like me. His support of the many liberal policies makes me very very upset. I don't need to list the issues as I'm sure you get the picture. I am a Catholic and live by the teachings of the Catholic Church. I will not support the evil of the current liberal party nor that of the current PC party. 

Please understand this is not personal attack against the good people who remain in the PC party but an indication that thousands of social conservatives like myself will not support the PC party of Ontario under its current leader. In my opinion there is no difference between the liberal party under Kathleen W. and the PC party under Patrick B. 

May God protect Ontario and Canada.

Jennifer Snell

Friday, October 13, 2017

CIHI is still under-reporting abortion statistics

Abortion statistics are getting more confusing.

The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) reported a total of 44,430 abortions for 2015/2016.

CIHI reported a total of 39,679 abortions for 2015.

That's a total difference of 4,751 abortions for one year.

To add to the confusion, MOHLTC reports using seven abortion codes (S752A, S785A, P054A, S770A, S783A, P001A, A920A)while CIHI reports using only two abortion codes (S752A and S785A):
"The enhanced methodology implemented in CIHI’s 2015 report for estimating the volume of induced abortions in Ontario incorporates NPDB (1) data selected using two fee codes for surgical abortions only. The report you shared includes seven fee codes and CIHI reports using two....the data sources for CIHI’s report are DAD, NACRS, and NPDB, while it appears that the Claims History Database was the source for the report you shared [from the MOHLTC]. (2)
If we only compare CIHI with MOHLTC for the same two codes that CIHI reports, we get CIHI at 39,679 abortions, and MOHLTC at 37,806 abortions. for a difference of 1,873 more than MOHLTC.

Neither CIHI nor MOHLTC could explain these differences.

Therefore CIHI reports 4,751 overall less than MOHLTC, but reports 1,873 more than MOHLTC if we only look at the same two codes.

Very confusing I know.

MOHLTC full fee code descriptions here.
___________________________________________________________________________

Additional Notes

Both CIHI and MOHLTC use these two codes:
S752A and S785A (surgical abortions)

The five codes not used by CIHI data, but are used in MOHLTC data are:
A920A (MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF EARLY PREGNANCY - 5933)
P001A (MEDICAL MGMT FETAL DEMISE BETWEEN 14‐20 WKS GESTATION - 556)
P054A (fetal reductions - 115)
S770A CORPUS UTERI‐HYSTEROTOMY (16)
S783A CORPUS UTERI‐HYSTEROTOMY WITH TUBAL INTERRUPTION (4)

Those five additional codes used at MOHLTC add up to 6,624 abortions (115+16+4+556+5933). The Ministry also tells us that the S770A and S783A codes can be used for procedures other than abortions, but give me no indication as to which of these codes are not abortions. When I asked the Ministry to clarify medical abortions and identify which diagnostic codes are used for them, I was informed that:
"The OHIP claims system does require a physician to submit a fee code for payment however it is optional for a physician to submit a diagnostic code with the fee code and there is no rule that the diagnostic code needs to relate to the fee code."
Therefore it looks like the diagnostic codes are useless. So until the Ministry can tell me otherwise, I will assume that all of these additional procedures are also for abortions.

A920A and P001A codes are both used for medical abortions (556+5933=6,489 medical abortions), and CIHI isn't capturing these numbers. CIHI is also not capturing P054A for fetal reductions (115)

Note that CIHI doesn't report "medical" abortions or "fetal reduction" abortions.

That's 6,624 additional abortions being performed in Ontario for 2015/2016 (i.e. the five missing codes), than is officially being reported by CIHI.

(1"The National Physician Database (NPDB) is a CIHI database that contains physician billings for publically funded insured medical services. Physicians do not report to it directly.  Physicians submit claims to the Provincial/Territorial medical care plans to be paid.  All provinces submit data from their claims systems to the National Physician Database." personal correspondence July 12, 217 with CIHI
(2) personal correspondence June 23, 217 with CIHI

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Tolerance isn't for pro-life people

Regarding the bubble zone at the Morgentaler facility in Ottawa.

Yesterday I spoke with constable Chuck Benoit at the Ottawa Police Service. There were two "level 1" assaults at the facility in three and a half years. One on October 25, 2016 and one on May 28, 2017. All the other incidents were run of the mill police work.

I was told that neither of these assaults resulted in injuries, and no one was charged with anything. So why do we need this bubble zone? Why did Jim Watson initiate this law? Because he doesn't like pro-life people. He prefers to treat us like second class citizens. If we try and discuss pro-life concerns with him, either by email or in person, his disgust for us is clear.

Is Jagmeet Singh pro-life or pro-choice?

By all accounts the NDP's new leader Jagmeet Singh is a practicing Sikh: here, here and here.

And Sikhism is pretty much against abortion except in a couple of circumstances:
"While Sikhism denounces abortion, allowance in circumstances such as when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have serious defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. In all other cases such as unfit parents, rape, failed contraceptive, social and economic factors abortion is wrong. Those who are unable to raise a child because of number of different reason; adoption is a wonderful alternative that should be considered."
Sikhism is also against female gendercide through abortion:
"Unfortunately abortion is portrayed as a quick and easy process, however the reality of the operation is not covered. Abortion is not a benign procedure. It is the violent and unnatural destruction of a living human being. It not only harms the baby but psychologically impacts the mother.
It is common in Indian culture, to prefer the birth of boys over girls. As a result of this, families put pressure on women to abort females in pursuit of having boys. This is a great epidemic in particularly amongst the Panjabi community in India, however it is also practiced by people living abroad who will sometimes go back to India to have a sex scan if they are refused one in UK."
So. How does Jagmeet Singh reconcile these Sikh values with the NDP party's being officially "pro-choice"?

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Pierre Trudeau: abortion not enshrined in Charter

Reprinted with permission from CLC

September 29, 2017

The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2

Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

I expect you will appreciate my bringing to your attention, some very serious allegations you are frequently making, in regard to abortion.

Abortion is not a ‘Charter right’, and it is not a ‘human right’.

In the early 1980’s, Campaign Life Coalition worked very hard to have the right to life enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Prime Minister at the time, your father, assured us that the Charter would have no impact on the abortion question.

In a letter regarding a suggested amendment, dated July 6, 1981, to Archbishop MacNeil of Edmonton, the President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Prime Minister wrote: “The arguments advanced to show that the Charter will create an entitlement to abortion on demand have been clearly refuted in the opinion given by the Department of Justice. In my view, the need of an amendment has not been clearly demonstrated.”

Earlier, in June 1981, the Prime Minister stated: “Because the public is evenly divided on the subject of abortion it was the government’s ‘considered view’ that a position favouring one side should not be enshrined in the charter. The Government feels the issue is not one which should be defended by the Constitution.”

Over the years, your father's words have proven to be true, as abortion has never been declared to be a ‘Charter right’ by the Supreme Court of Canada. In fact, the Court has specifically held that there is a legitimate right for Parliament to legislate on the issue, should it so choose.

Additionally, for as long as the United Nations has existed, consensus has never been reached on the issue of abortion as a human right. Where abortion is alluded to in agreed conclusions (non-binding normative documents which are adopted at various UN commissions), it is cast in a negative light. For example, states should discourage abortion, it should not be promoted as a method of birth control and it should be exclusively addressed in national legislation. Although several UN agencies may agree with you, the majority of the 193 member states that make up the United Nations do not share your personal view that abortion is a human right.

It was quite clear by the authors of the Charter and continues to be clear by the United Nations that abortion isn’t a ‘right’, and it is unbecoming for the Prime Minister of Canada today, to deliberately utter a falsehood and to keep repeating it.

In future, we respectfully request that you refrain from either stating or implying that abortion is a ‘Charter right’, a ‘human right’ and is synonymous with ‘women’s rights’ as it is clearly not.

Regards,




Jim Hughes
National President
Campaign Life Coalition

Sunday, October 8, 2017

To feminist Justin Trudeau from a real feminist

I received a copy of another letter to Justin Trudeau on the SOW nonsense.
Hello Mr. Trudeau, MP and Prime Minister,  
I can not address you in the normal way that one addresses the Prime Minister of Canada.  You are neither right, nor are you honourable. 
You have more than once referred to abortion as a "woman's right" or a "charter right".  Perhaps you need to check your source on that. The Canadian Charter of Rights does not include a woman's right to abortion. Saying so many times, even by the Prime Minister, does not make it so. Just cause something is not illegal does not make it a right -- you get that, don't you? Then, stop. 
But then again, why would I be surprised at your lack of knowledge on that aspect of abortion? Your knowledge on so many topics that are crucial to Canadians is dust-deep.  I said it during your election campaign and you have been good enough to confirm it repeatedly. 
Particularly not honourable, Mr. Trudeau, was the recent shunning of the Conservative MP because of her pro-life values. From the party who purports to be "inclusive" and "feminist"​?​http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/liberals-ndp-walk-out-after-tories-nominate-pro-life-mp-to-head-status-of-women-committee
A life long feminist myself, during my 30 year military career both in the ranks and as a commissioned officer holding an Honours History degree from the Royal Military College of Canada, I was known as the one to see issues from a perspective of "how does this affect the serving women?" and to raise the points many preferred not to. On retirement, I worked for three+ years as the Shelter Manager in a women's shelter where my understanding of feminism was greatly increased because everything we did was based on feminism. You will be surprised to learn, Mr. Trudeau, that feminism places equal value on input from everyone, not just those who agree with you.  What your MPs did to Rachael Harder who has the courage to stand by her principles was non-inclusive to say the least and certainly not how a feminist organization would deal with those in the group who held differing viewpoint. 
Sometimes, you are good enough to make me laugh, Mr. Trudeau.  Like when you appoint a cabinet of 50% females even though 50% of the MPs are not female "because it's 2015". One unfortunate fall-out of selection based on gender is that no female cabinet member knows if she was selected for her education, knowledge and experience or just because she was female.  From this female, thanks but no thanks; I got where I got based on my own merits, not on a misguided effort to promote because of gender.  I've said it before and I'll say it again ~~ you just don't get it.  
Mr. Trudeau, I know that my opinion means very little to you.  And I'm quite certain that any email expressing a difference of opinion will swiftly hit the ol' trash can.  And I'm good with that. Cause the reverse is also true. 2019 can't come fast enough.
Have a happy Thanksgiving, Mr. Trudeau.  We Canadians have much to be thankful for; we live in a land of bounty. On this Thanksgiving weekend, I remain truly thankful that I live in a country where this kind of communication is possible, albeit maybe not welcome.  
Sincerely,

Thursday, October 5, 2017

FOI report from Morgentaler facility shows no need for bubble zone

Yesterday the Ontario government introduced the Bill to Create Safe Access to Abortion Services under the "Protecting a Woman's Right to Choose" banner.

So why do we need this legislation? Evidence shows we don't.

I received a report through freedom of information from the Ottawa Police that details all the police incidents at the Morgentaler abortion facility on Bank St for the period of January 1, 2014 to June 1, 2017.

There were a total of 64 police reports for this period most of which most were false alarms, cancelled calls, administrative issues, and other minor issues. In this three year, five month period, there were exactly two level 1 assaults (minor injury or no injury). It is unknown if the assaults were perpetrated against pro-life or against pro-choice people.

I witnessed pro-choice violence myself at our Life Chain on Sunday. A women jumped out of her car, ran over to people showing non graphic signs screaming at them, ripped one sign in half, threw two other signs on the ground, then ran across the street to scream and harass other pro-life people with her continued loud profanity laced speech. Maybe we need a bubble zone around us?

What the FOI report does tell us, is that clearly the Ottawa police are doing their job of responding to calls at the abortion facility. This the police's job. Are we to now put up bubble zones every time someone is yelled at, harassed, or has their sign ripped up?

In other words, exactly why is this new law even necessary? It isn't. This is just one more example of discriminating against pro-life people.

Status of Women committee and the law of unintended consequences

John Ivison and Andrew Coyne in today's National post.

Even the Globe and Mail is standing up for Rachael Harder, and point out the ludicrous behaviour of Justin Trudeau and his feminists friends:
"Think of it this way: Were Rachael Harder, the Alberta MP in question, fired from a job in a private company, or from the public service, for the same reason, she would be the victim of a violation of her Charter rights."
They really don't have a clue do they. As someone pointed out to me, making an issue of this just shines a bright light on how dumb a move this was:
"It is highly ironic that by storming out of the committee meeting and making a federal case of it, that these women may have transformed Rachel Harder into a martyr of sorts for the prolife cause, talk about the law of unintended consequences. If the committee had debated the motion for her leadership, and quietly voted against it would anyone have even known about it? Look at all the media coverage during the last several days."
I agree. Trudeau's actions have back fired. How nice.

And then there's Joyce Arthur and her merry band of radical pro-abortion groups who also spoke out against Rachael Harder. Just shows their own intolerance and extreme position on everything related to abortion even when it isn't about abortion. They even have the nerve to mention the Charter. Do these people ever listen to themselves?

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Liberals and NDPs acting out - Part 3

Another letter to the SOW committee.
"Dear Members of the Status of Women Committee, 
Rachael Harder, like all Canadians--and all Parliamentarians--has a right to be treated with respect. Walking out on her for holding views about abortion that are contrary to the views of a majority who sit on your Committee, is not only disrespectful to her as a person, but it is disrespectful to all women.  
It is disrespectful to all women because it sends the message that women are not allowed to think for themselves, that they must conform to the views of the majority and those who hold power, and if they do not, then they shouldn't bother getting involved in political life. "Group think" is not healthy for society. I would have hoped that by the 21st Century, we would have adopted the view that disagreements--especially in Parliament-- can be settled with respectful discussion and dialogue.  
As a woman, I would have especially hoped that women would be treating other women with the kind of respect they themselves have fought hard for. Is not the "Status of Women" Committee meant to represent all Canadian women? Is not Parliament meant to represent all Canadian women? 
Like Rachael Harder--and importantly, like the Supreme Court in the 1988 Morgentaler decision--I too believe that preborn human life should receive some protection. While I do not agree with everything the Supreme Court said in 1988, I do agree with the unanimous opinion expressed by the seven SCC justices that Parliament has an interest in the protection of fetal life. And I am very concerned that some Parliamentarians (including our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau) continue to misrepresent what the Supreme Court actually said in 1988. The Supreme Court did NOT recognize a constitutional right to abortion, as even pro-choice academics have acknowledged (see  http://www.morgentalerdecision.ca/notable-quotes/ ). And so it makes it all the more unfathomable why Members of your committee would display such disrespect and contempt for those who don't support an unrestricted "right to abortion." 
While some of you, or maybe even most of you, may believe that the "right to abortion" is fundamental to women's rights, it is nonetheless an opinion. It is not a fact. Some women, including myself, don't hold that opinion. And Parliament is a place where our elected representatives should be able to work collegially together and debate the diversity of views Canadians hold. And they should be able to do so as respectful adults, not as schoolyard children who pick up their toys and walk away because they don't get their own way. 
Can we not treat our elected MPs, and by extension, the Canadians they serve, with the dignity and respect we all would want for ourselves? 
Walking out of the Status of Women committee meeting to protest Rachael Harder's nomination as Chair was not becoming of a Parliamentarian in the year 2017. And it was not becoming of a woman. 
I sincerely hope that the Members of the Status of Women Committee who walked out will apologize not only to Rachael Harder but to all the Canadian women who were made to feel like second-class citizens by your actions." 
BM
Well it seems the bullies got their way. Today the SOW committee elected Conservative Karen Vecchio as chair. Vecchio didn't want to be chair. What a pathetic bunch of Liberals and one NDP.

I wonder if these women teach their children to be bullies also?