A Christmas message for Justin Trudeau

This letter to Justin Trudeau and Chandra Arya, Patty Hajdu, Rachael Harder was forwarded to me.

December 18, 2017

The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau,
Prime Minister of Canada

Dear Justin,

As Christmas approaches, we are reminded of a young woman 2000 years ago who was about to give birth to her Son. But Mary and Joseph could find no room at the Inn, and so Jesus was born in a lowly stable.

This story touches the hearts of all people of goodwill, regardless of our faith backgrounds, because we intuitively know that a woman carrying an unborn child is in a vulnerable position. A new life is about to be born into the world, and we all want to give her the comfort and support she needs to give her child the best start possible.

I was so impressed when I read an article that appeared in Convivium magazine last year about how you and Sophie were financially supporting the good work of La Maison Bleu, a maternal-child healthcare centre in Quebec. You obviously recognize the importance of supporting pregnant moms in need. Some women have no family to support them through their pregnancies, and so the centres that support women and their babies (materially, emotionally, physically, etc.) address such an important need in our society.

Besides La Maison Bleu, there are many other organizations that support pregnant women in need. They are variously described as Crisis Pregnancy Centres, Pregnancy Care Centres, Birthright, etc. They do not make abortion referrals. Rather, they support women through their pregnancies and will also support women after their abortions.

Given you obviously do support efforts to help pregnant women deliver their children safely, I don’t understand why the Liberal Government (through Minister Patty Hajdu) would disqualify pregnancy care centres (such as the two in MP Rachael Harder’s riding) from the Canada Summer Jobs Program simply because these centres don’t make abortion referrals https://globalnews.ca/news/3914528/canada-summer-jobs-anti-abortion-anti-gay-groups/.

I fully understand that abortion-rights advocate Joyce Arthur has made numerous allegations against pregnancy centres, but such allegations are completely unfounded and have been thoroughly refuted in the document, “Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada Deceitful on Crisis Pregnancy Centres,” available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QDsYLWnwO6MFo3VlR6b2lFbkk/view.

Many young people across various faith traditions do not support abortion. Many would want to help pregnant women in need, but would feel that they could not work at a place that supports abortion. The Liberal Government prides itself on respect for diversity.  Respecting the diversity of opinion on the abortion issue by allowing these young people to benefit from the Summer Jobs Program would show that “respect for diversity” is not just empty Liberal rhetoric, but a value that you and your Cabinet honestly support and are willing to defend.

And what about respecting the diverse views of pregnant women themselves? You cannot deny that there are at least some pregnant women in need of assistance who would want the support of people who share their values on the inherent dignity of all human life. Should we not treat these women with the same respect we treat other women and allow “pro-life” centres to receive government funding as well?

If your answer is that the Canadian Charter forbids the Government from enacting any policy that would protect pregnant women and their unborn children, I can respectfully assure you that you are mistaken. In the Supreme Court Morgentaler decision, all seven Supreme Court Justices agreed that Parliament has a state interest in the protection of the fetus. The Court struck down the specific abortion law that was on the books in 1988, not abortion laws per se and not because it found a Charter right to abortion. The Court made it clear that Parliament could enact legislation that would properly balance the interests of women and unborn children. This is, in fact, acknowledged by legal experts and pro-choice academics (see: http://www.morgentalerdecision.ca/notable-quotes/) --it is not simply “pro-life” or “anti-abortion” rhetoric.

As our Prime Minister, you have the power to ensure that vulnerable pregnant women in Canada will be given the best chance possible to bring their children safely to term. One way of doing this is by not excluding these pregnancy centres from the Canada Summer Jobs Program.

We Canadians are compassionate people. My hope is that our Government’s policies will reflect this and ensure there is always “room at the Inn” for pregnant women in need.

May the Peace and Joy of the Christmas season be with you, Justin, and Sophie, Xavier, Ella-Grace, and Hadrian; and may all that is True and Good guide you and your Ministers in 2018.

Merry Christmas!
Joyeux Noël!

BM

Global Affairs ATIP Part 3 - Bill Clinton - do we believe the women or not?

Global Affairs ATIP Part 2 - Canadians are safer when the world shares our abortion values

Part 3

From Bill Clinton: A Reckoning:

"The most remarkable thing about the current tide of sexual assault and harassment accusations is not their number. If every woman in America started talking about the things that happen during the course of an ordinary female life, it would never end. Nor is it the power of the men involved: History instructs us that for countless men, the ability to possess women sexually is not a spoil of power; it’s the point of power. What’s remarkable is that these women are being believed." (emphasis added)

So. Do we believe the women when they tell us that they were raped, sexually assaulted, etc. by Bill Clinton? If we do believe them, why is Canada doing business with the Clinton Health Access Initiative whose founder is President William J. Clinton. You do remember Bill?

"Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States (1993–2001), has been publicly accused of sexual misconduct by three women: Juanita Broaddrick accuses Clinton of raping her in 1978; Kathleen Willey accuses Clinton of groping her without consent in 1993; and Paula Jones accuses Clinton of exposing himself to her in 1991 and sexually harassing her. The Jones allegations became public in 1994, while Willey's and Broaddrick's became public during the 1998-99 time period, toward the end of Clinton's second term as president."

From Juanita Broaddrick's profile on her twitter account:

"Author, "You'd Better Put Some Ice On That" a rape survivor of Bill Clinton, retired RN, business owner mother, grandmother and tennis player. No More Silence replied."

"In 1999, Juanita Broaddrick burst into the public consciousness when she accused President Bill Clinton on national television of raping her in 1978 as he ran for governor in Arkansas. It was a TV appearance she dreaded and never wanted, but felt compelled to squash the rumors: it was rape. 

Now, with award-winning former investigative journalist Nick Lulli, she tells her story of survival; from the assault at the hands of the future president, to the veiled threats by a seemingly complicit presidential wannabe Hillary Rodham Clinton; Broaddrick believes now is the time to set the record straight and ensure victims everywhere are believed."

Kathleen Willey, like Broaddrick, has also written a book. It is about both Clintons, and how they nearly destroyed her:

"Kathleen Willey's explosive new book details how her life was changed - and nearly destroyed - by Bill and Hillary Clinton. Target contains never-before-released details of the intimidation campaign launched to silence Kathleen...one way or the other. It provides new insight not just into the death of Kathleen's husband - on the same day that Bill Clinton assaulted Kathleen in the Oval Office - but into Bill's sexual addiction and Hillary's compulsive enabling, a dangerous combination with power. The Clintons' terror and harassment continue. Over 2007 Labor Day weekend, Kathleen's home was burglarized. Instead of taking jewelry or computers, the thief took the manuscript for Target, with its explosive revelations that could damage Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. It was a break-in all too reminiscent of an earlier incident in which Kathleen was threatened by a stranger just two days before she was to testify against President Clinton in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. It's deju vu all over again - and a timely reminder of how cunning and ruthless the Clintons' desire for power remains."

Then there's Paula Jones who sued Clinton for sexual harassment and settled out of court for $850,000.

Then there's Leslie Millwee. What Clinton allegedly did to Millwee is too disgusting to repeat here.

There are others of course.

So I ask again. If we believe these women, why is Canada funding the Clinton organization?

Global Affairs ATIP Part 2 - Canadians are safer when the world shares our abortion values

Part 1 on my ATIP to Global Affairs Canada regarding $650M funding for reproductive rights: A women has economic power when she chooses abortion

Part 2

This may surprise you. But did you know that Canadians are safer when the world shares our abortion "values"? That these abortion values form the "core of our foreign policy"? That these abortion values are a "basic justice and also basic economics"?

I did not make this up.

Here is what Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland said when introducing Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy:

"It is worth reminding ourselves why we step up—why we devote time and resources to foreign policy, trade, defence and development: Canadians are safer and more prosperous when more of the world shares our values. 

Those values include feminism and the promotion of the rights of women and girls.

It is important—and historic—that we have a prime minister and a government proud to proclaim themselves as feminists. Women’s rights are human rights. This includes sexual and reproductive rights—and the right to access safe and legal abortions. These rights are at the core of our foreign policy. 

I am delighted my colleague the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie is launching Canada’s first Feminist International Assistance Policy, which targets gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls. We are positioning Canada at the forefront of this global effort. This is a matter of basic justice and also basic economics. We know that empowering women, overseas and here at home, makes families and countries more prosperous. 

Now is the time to rise to the great challenges of this century. As I said in the government’s foreign policy statement, our job today is to preserve the achievements of previous generations, and to build on them, as we are doing through Canada’s first Feminist International Assistance Policy."" (emphasis added)

The Honourable Chrystia Freeland
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Global Affairs ATIP Part 3 - Bill Clinton - do we believe the women or not?

Global Affairs ATIP Part 1 - A women has economic power when she chooses abortion

Part 1

I've been working on an ATIP I did to Global Affairs Canada regarding the $650 million dollars to fund Canada's vision for reproductive rights in Africa, when I came across this nonsensical tweet by Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau.

The Liberals really are scary. Do they really believe this stuff they come up with?

First of all Canada doesn't "firmly believe" this nonsense--Liberals "firmly believe" it. Many Canadians, myself included, do not.

Second, there is no such thing as a fundamental right to choose. This "right" is a made up right.

Third, does anyone believe--besides Liberals--that "economic empowerment" is the same as the mythical pro-abortion construct known as a "fundamental right to choose"? Even if the right did exist, the statement still doesn't make sense.

Here is Minister Bibeau's full quote on the government's website:

“Canada firmly believes that a woman’s fundamental right to economic empowerment cannot be distinguished from her fundamental right to choose. When sexual and reproductive health and rights are respected, other rights become more accessible. With its Feminist International Assistance Policy and partners like UNFPA, Canada is committed to a comprehensive approach to the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women and girls globally.”

- Marie-Claude Bibeau, Minister of International Development and La Francophonie

I'll write more later on what I learned from the ATIP.

Part 2 here

Catholic universities don't need to defend illegal abortions

My letter in the National Post last Friday:

Re: Tories accused of selective bias. Marie- Danielle Smith, Nov. 28

Science Minister Kirsty Duncan thinks the Tories should comment on the cancelling of the pro-abortion film Vessels at St. Paul’s University for free speech reasons.

First of all, this movie is about a doctor who takes her abortion trade to the open seas. Why? So she can provide abortions to women on a ship in offshore waters. Why? So she can bypass the country’s abortion laws and provide the abortion pill RU486 to women. This doctor is engaging in illegal activities to bypass the laws of sovereign countries.

Second, St. Paul’s University is a Catholic institution. Catholic institutions don’t condone abortion because Catholicism believes that abortion is an immoral act and is harmful to the woman and her family.

Duncan’s press secretary stated: “In a free society, we may disagree with a person’s views, but we must defence (sic) their right to hold them — unless those views promote hate.”

What about when those views promote illegal activities? Should we defend those views as well? I hope not. 

Patricia Maloney, Ottawa

Throwing social conservatives under the Smart car - can Patrick do it again?

Happy to be a pro-life dinosaur

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.

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.

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

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;

• "I believe that government data belongs to the people of Ontario and so we will make government data open by default, limiting access only to safeguard privacy, security and confidentiality"; 

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

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

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.

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)

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.

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

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

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.

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

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