Dear Justin Trudeau,
"First, people may disagree with Judeo-Christian ethics on abortion. But Christian thinking, historically and theologically, is unabashedly pro-life. Second, the “good reasons” land decisively on not supporting abortion as a Christian conviction."
Brian Norton has written this very detailed free booklet BEING HUMAN Abortion and the Church to explain the historical context (including copious references) of abortion from the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christian Churches.
Norton felt called to write and publish this booklet after a friend asked his opinion on a blog written by a theologically liberal pastor. This was the pastor's conclusion about abortion:
"This is not to say there are not exceptions about the ethics of abortion by various theologically liberal or progressive individuals. In fact, there are a number of mainline Protestant denominations which are permissive about abortion, including the United Church of Canada, the United Church of Christ, and the Episcopal Church (USA)."
The audience for the booklet:
"A booklet designed for Jesus followers who are “pro-choice” or “undecided” on abortion, or uncertain about the Christian legacy and beliefs on abortion"
A quote from Peter Kreeft on abortion:
"Our contemporary West has moved decidedly away from baseline moral absolutes (inherent with Judeo-Christian belief) to postmodern moral relativism. Christian ethicist Peter Kreeft observes that this worldview says that “only some humans are persons, for those who are given rights by others (that is, by those in power).” Consequentially, Kreeft laments, “‘Hard pro-choice’ denies the sanctity or inviolability of all humans; ‘soft pro-choice’ denies the humanity of the fetus.”"
From a pregnancy care centre on how they accompany women on their journey through an unexpected pregnancy -- the Christian virtue of love on full display from these centres:
“If a client of our centre obtains an abortion, we love her. If she carries to term, we love her. If she releases a child in an adoption, we love her. If she grieves after the abortion, with zero judgment we will mourn with her. If she is in need during parenting, we will care for her. If she struggles after the adoption, we will support her.”
On POST-ABORTION STRESS:
"From a 2023 study, women who experience pressure from partners, family members, employers, or healthcare providers, “reported more negative emotions; more disruption of daily life, work, or relationships.”76 (David Reardon and Tessa Longbons, “Effects of Pressure to Abort on Women’s Emotional Responses and Mental Health,” abstract, Cureus 15(1), (January 31, 2023): e34456, doi:10.7759/cureus.34456.
Women who experience negative emotions convey the following reactions: sadness, guilt or shame, emotional numbing, depression, nightmares, thoughts of self-harm, and alcohol or drug abuse.77" (Priscilla Coleman, “Abortion and mental health: Quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995-2009,” British Journal of Psychiatry 199(3), (September 2011): 180-86; and D.M. Fergusson, J.L. Horwood, and Joseph Broden, “Abortion and mental health disorders,” British Journal of Psychiatry 193(6), (December 2008): 444-451; and Natalie Mota, Margaret Burnett, and Jitender Sareen, “Associations between abortion, mental disorders, and suicidal behaviour in a nationally representative sample,” Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 55(4) (April 2010): 239-247.)
Finally, Christian organizations that do adhere to Christian beliefs about abortion:
"If you wish to know about Christian international ministries which embrace a consistent life ethic, here are some examples: Caritas Internationalis, Catholic Climate Covenant, Evangelical Environment Network, Heartbeat International, International Orthodox Christian Charities, MaterCare International, Missionaries of Charity, Samaritan’s Purse International, The Salvation Army International, World Evangelical Alliance, and World Vision International"
When someone gets an abortion, because they say they can't afford to have a child, then proceeds to make money from that abortion, I have a problem with this. This is what Rachel Cairns did.
Cairns tells her story via her podcast and website about her abortion in particular, and all things "reproductive rights" in general. She also has a one man stage show talking about said abortion.
Cairns also interviews Joyce Arthur on her podcast, repeating Arthur's pro-abortion talking points as if they are somehow credible, especially when it comes to Arthur's vitriol and hatred for pregnancy care centres. In other words, Cairns buys into the dissemination of misinformation and fabrications about these centres.
Finally, Cairns has this to say when someone asked her if she was going to have somebody on the podcast from the other side, as in, a pro-life person:
”Should we even bother arguing with them? Should we even give them airtime? Or feed the narrative that abortion is up for debate?"
The irony here is clear. Cairns quotes Stephanie Gray Connor extensively on her podcast. But she clearly has no intention of debating someone like Gray Connor. “Not up for debate” to Cairns really means "I don't want to look like a fool if I debate her, because I would lose". It's difficult trying to defend the killing of a child in the womb, especially in a debate. So no. The pro-abortions do not want a debate on abortion.
So how much money has Cairns made from the abortion she had because she couldn't afford to have a child? So far she has pulled in $106,000 from the federal and provincial arts councils. This does not include dollars from the Toronto arts council (which hasn't been reported yet, but we know she got a grant because her website says so).
Ontario Arts council:
2022 Cairns, Rachel, Toronto, $14,500
2020 Cairns, Rachel, Toronto, $9,000
Canada Council for the Arts: $82,500
Total of $106,000
Choice quotes from Rachel Cairns:
"I also didn’t decide to get pregnant, so in that sense, this was fairly straightforward: just-a-ball-of-cells kind of abortion. A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question: to be or not to be a parent."
"There was a parasite inside my body"
Statistics Canada continues to report live birth abortions. There were 410 of them from 2018 to 2022. Code is P96.4 Termination of pregnancy affecting fetus and newborn.
Dear Mayor Olivia Chow, Renfrew Catholic School board Superintendent Jennifer Barnes, Toronto Police Chief Myron Demkiw, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Premier Doug Ford,
mayor_chow@toronto inquiry@rccdsb.ca Officeofthechief@torontopolice.on.ca Jagmeet.Singh@parl.gc.ca doug.fordco@pc.ola.org justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca
I finally received my ATIP regarding the $1,469,150 in funding given to the National Abortion Federation in 2022. It took Health Canada over a year to provide me with the information. (What is supposed to take 30 days took 450 days or 15 months.)
First. NAF is concerned that more women are getting medical abortions and less women are getting surgical abortions. They will train more doctors to do surgical abortions. They don't want this "skill" to vanish.
Second. The document uses the term “pregnant people” throughout. It's not actually just women who get pregnant anymore.
Third. The funding went to NAF under the THE HEALTHCARE POLICY AND STRATEGIES PROGRAM. The thing is, this program was meant for “home and community care; palliative and end of care; mental health care; and other Federal provincial territorial and emerging priorities”. So how does the government justify granting dollars for training abortion doctors to kill babies? By using a program designed for actual health care, and diverting the dollars into abortion programs. Read their wiggle words here:
“The 43.3 million for the new sexual and reproductive health initiative is is a new investment and is separate from the program (THE HEALTHCARE POLICY AND STRATEGIes PROGRAM ) core budget. This funding will be provided for the program using its existing authorities (i.e. we will just make it fit here). The terms and conditions of the program allow for contribution funding to flow to other levels of government, non-governmental and not-for profit organizations, who in turn may further distribute funding to third parties to conduct approved activities.”
The full description of the Health Care Policy and Strategies Program from their website. You won't see anything in here about using these funds for abortion programs. Never mind that this government already spends a gazillion dollars on all kinds of “sexual and reproductive health”. Apparently they need to spend more.
"The Health Care Policy and Strategies Program provides time-limited funding for projects to non-profit organizations and other levels of government for projects that aim to improve the accessibility, quality, sustainability and accountability of Canada's health care system. The program supports the federal government's commitment to maintain a strong and effective publicly funded health care system. Health Canada supports project proposals from organizations based on the program’s 4 priority areas: mental health care, home and community care, palliative and end-of-life care other federal, provincial/territorial and emerging priorities. One-time funding through contribution agreements supports projects that: increase understanding, knowledge and research on data, policies, best practices, products, technologies and processes including identifying gaps, needs and trends identify, develop, implement, assess and promote new or modified tools, approaches and models that promote people-centred health care systems identify, develop, implement, assess and promote new learning opportunities, skills development, standards, products and technological solutions. Projects should aim to increase opportunities for collaboration and coordination among federal, provincial and territorial governments, other health care policy makers, service providers, users, researchers and other stakeholders. The program cannot provide funding to individuals or for-profit organizations, and cannot fund the delivery of health care services. For more information, email the Health Care Policy and Strategies Program: hcpsp-ppsss@hc-sc.gc.ca."
Fourth. Other recipients of this (up to $25,168,166) cold blooded killing of children in the womb (future ATIPs perhaps?):
Fifth. Pages 279 and 342:
“research indicates there are key barriers and challenges related to in inequitable and variable access to sexual and reproductive health information and services in Canada. The availability of effective SRH interventions, in particular for populations for marginalized groups, including women (women are marginalized...who are they kidding?), youth, LGBTQ2 people, racialized Canadians, and indigenous populations, remains a gap across Canada.”
Page 252
"health care policy and strategies program (HCPSP) sexual and reproductive health fund (SRHF). INFORMATION SESSION FOR SRHF REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS OCTOBER 14TH, 2021. priority areas for action. "in some cases women, transgender and non binary individuals are required to travel considerable distances if they wish to access abortion services which can have significant accessibility and financial implications."
Page 332
"Those with multiple intersection identities face even higher barriers to access sexual reproductive health information services. Too often they do not receive the same quality of care particulate particularly if they are from under served communities. Key populations: Indigenous people. Inter sex people. LGBTQ2 people. Newcomers, immigrants, refugees, international students. People with disabilities physical sensory and cognitive. Under served populations. Seniors. Sex workers. Women. Youth." (seniors get abortions?)"
Where is their evidence for these subjective claims that "in some cases" and "too often" there are "barriers and challenges" to getting abortions? None is provided. We are simply expected to believe that they exist, because the government says so. They make all kinds of statements of fact with absolutely no supporting evidence or research. It seems they just want to justify their preoccupation with abortion for every imagined underserved segment of the population.
P 487 and 488.
Sixth. Here is a note from a possible Question period question:
"If pressed on whether the government will provide funding to organizations offering alternatives to abortion (i.e. Continuing the pregnancy)"
"Answer: This fund will not support initiatives that discourage or are opposed to freedom of choice or attempt to override the individual right to make decisions about their own bodies."
The Government refuses funding to organizations that offer alternatives to abortion. Not a surprise of course, but seeing them write it in black and write that "continuing a pregnancy" isn't worthy of funding, is a stark reality of this abortion obsessed regime under Justin Trudeau.
But if you want to kill your child, then we got money for you, and lots of it.
Finally, the Department of Health actually has a unit called the Sexual and reproductive health unit.
Joyce Arthur and her Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) are registered lobbyists. I wondered. What kind of lobbying are they doing?
So I submitted an ATIP to Employment and Social Development. What I found out was shocking but not surprising. It seems that ARCC is having big feelings--writing to two different ministers and the Prime Minister--that a pro-life organization received a paltry $3,362 in 2021 through the Canada Summer Jobs program (when I checked I saw that they actually received $3,383 in 2022).
Let's compare that to what another charity--the pro-abortion charity--Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights, received in 2022 in government funding: $3,003,355. That's 888 times as much as the pro-life charity received.
ARCC apparently didn't like that a pro-life charity received this miniscule grant. Because ARCC demanded of ESDC, that this charity:
I don't believe one needs to comment on these demands made by ARCC. Other than they are both ridiculous and petty.
The pro-life charity paid out a total of $3,455 in salaries for two part-time employees. That's a $1,727.50 salary per employee, which was covered by this itsy-bitsy, teeny-weenie grant the pro-life group received. For comparison purposes, Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights's total compensation paid to employees that year was $2,175,492, five of whom made between $80,000 and $119,999, and five of whom made between $120,000 and $159,999. The $3,003,355 received by Action Canada in government funding, would have more than covered these exorbitant salaries, with almost a million left over to use to promote their pro-abortion agenda.
Lobbying the government is one thing. But for a pro-abortion group to lobby the government against giving a pocket-change sized grant to a pro-life charity is pretty low even for a pro-abortion group.
You may recall that Federal public servants can now get $75,000 to transition to a different gender.
So I asked the next logical question in an ATIP:
"I would like to see all briefing notes, emails, etc. that pertain to public servants who wish to detransition, and whether or not they will also receive this $75,000 benefit."
"The gender affirmation benefit will not provide coverage for...reversal of gender affirmation procedures"
And this:
"All procedures must me performed in Canada and considered medically necessary"
Reminds me of abortion, where they tell us that abortions are medically necessary when they never are.
So if you decide you made the biggest mistake of your life by changing genders in the first place, well that is not covered, because it is (presumably) not medically necessary. This is how we twist ourselves into pretzels trying to create our own truth.
In response to my last blog on Dying with Dignity (I always cringe when I repeat those words--how can you die with dignity when someone kills you?) below are some comments I received from Fr. Tony Van Hee. With Fr. Tony's permission I post them below.
"It seems to me that it [the paper] is rife with wokeism, in the sense that it replaces objective reality with subjective reality.They define "the relevant type of harm as the subjective experience ...", and "one's subjective well-being ... as one of the central justifications for MAID", in their "argument from harm reduction."Although they use the word subjective only once in the rest of the article, namely, "Trusting a person with a disability's subjective reports ... (p. 4, top para, column b.), their whole concept of autonomy is subjective.As long as their is a semblance of "meaningful", "self-determination", "hope", "self-governance", "choice", "option", "self-trust", self-worth", "what one cares about", "what matters to them", "agency", autonomy not being "entirely undermined", "capacities and self-regarding attitudes", "the ability to understand, appreciate the consequences of their choice, the capacity to value, the ability to reflect on the values guiding their decision, as well as the attitudes of engaged hope, self-worth and self-trust", "the 'most salient dimensions' of autonomy ... competency and authenticity", etc., etc., as long as there is a semblance of any of these, regardless of unjust social conditions, these persons have sufficient personal autonomy to choose to have themselves killed by MAID.That is replacing objective reality with subjective reality.In regard to being deceived "under the guise of good," I refer to Ignatius' Rules For Discernment Of Spirits II, 332:"It is a mark of the evil spirit to assume the appearance of an angel of light. He begins by suggesting thoughts that are suited to a devout soul, and ends by suggesting his own. For example, he will suggest holy and pious thoughts that are wholly in conformity with the sanctity of the soul. Afterwards, he will endeavor little by little to end by drawing the soul into his hidden snares and evil designs."I find this very relevant to these industrious and determined people, such as these two authors, and Joyce Arthur.Ultimately, we are really up against Satan, and we are no match for his cunning.In my opinion, our only hope is to be able to expose his cunning by the discernment of spirits.I know for a fact that even very intelligent good people, faced with the same facts, can come up with directly opposite conclusions.There has to be something other than reason by which we decide what is true and what is false.The only tool I, personally, have is the [St. Ignatius of Loyola's Spiritual Exercises] discernment of spirits. I don't know of any other reliable tool.329 of the above rules helps me:"It is characteristic of God and His Angels, when they act upon the soul, to give true happiness and spiritual joy, and to banish all the sadness and disturbances which are caused by the enemy."It is characteristic of the evil one to fight against such happiness and consolation by proposing fallacious reasonings, subtilties, and continual deceptions.""Fallacious reasonings, subtilties, and continual deceptions" are what I experience when I read Joyce Arthur, these authors, and others like them."
I've just received my third ATIP from Health Canada regarding Dying with Dignity. At first it didn't look like I received much. Until I read the one email, and a copy of a paper from the University of Toronto that was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
This is what I had asked for:
"All records related to meetings, emails, documents, etc. between Canadian not for-profit "Dying with Dignity Canada" and Health Canada officials between January 19, 2023 and the present day.""
"Here is the paper that was recently published which I mentioned today. Take care, Helen"
"unjust social circumstances as circumstances in which people do not have meaningful access to a range of options to which they are entitled."
... should be eligible for MAID.
"Here is the "justification" for euthanasia of the poorest...Is it curious ethics to invoke autonomy so that society discards some people as "worthless lives", shoving them into desperate situations and "respecting" their choice? free?"
"I read the eugenics MAiD paper with my partner last night. He’s an academic and agency is a topic he’s an expert on. We had to stop reading multiple times in horror at the wrongheadedness or audacity of the arguments."
"Cases are now emerging of individuals opting for MAiD when they are unable to find adequate social supports to relieve the burden of their day-to-day existence. When a society devolves to the point where it redefines every kind of social injustice as a “medical problem” such that MAiD is a legitimate or even preferred option, society in general and bioethicists in particular must consider the moral options. Either we challenge the legal and moral processes that now sanction such desperate actions, or we perform the moral and intellectual gymnastics necessary to justify those tragic “choices”. These authors chose the latter."
...Bill C-7 drove a wedge between the end of life and suffering, thus co-opting the medical profession into providing a solution for individuals facing all manner of social injustice. These authors are complicit in this process by driving another wedge between persons and the tragic choices they feel compelled to make. By then describing these forced decisions as “meaningfully autonomous” they make it more important to respect the putative “choice” than to respect the persons driven to make them. Elsewhere I’ve described such sophistical reasoning as “moral nonsense”.
Toward the end of their paper Wiebe and Mullin change gears and offer a consequentialist consideration, ostensibly in support of their rationale for honoring such tragically “autonomous” choices. Honoring them, they contend, will result in harm reduction. That is, rather than forcing people to suffer through their circumstances by refusing them MAiD, thus furthering the harms their unjust social circumstances have already inflicted upon them, we should end their suffering by killing them (MAiD). All things considered, they argue, this would be a lesser harm. We cannot discuss all the potential chilling sequelae of such creeping consequentialism in the context of an expansive and ever expanding MAiD regime such as we have in Canada. A closer reading might conclude that such consequentialist reasoning is really the core argument here: the attempt to salvage some notion of “autonomy” is intended to make it more palatable. It is just such reasoning that keeps the disability community awake at night."
Canada's MAID regime just keeps rolling forward. There doesn't seem to be any way to stop this deadly runaway train.
Last time I checked in 2021, the highest earner at Dying with Dignity earned between $160,000 to $199,999.
For 2022 it seems that this person gave themselves a raise. Now he/she earns between $200,000 to $249,999.
Apparently there's good money to be had in the promotion of killing people.
I hope I do not ruin your weekend with the information I am about to divulge to you. This was not my intention. But you need to know. It is in regard to policies of the Conservative Party of Canada. It is quite distressing, but I think we all need to reflect on how this information could affect its citizens, should the Conservatives ever come to power.
These particulars have been shared by one of Canada's leading organizations. A group who specializes in telling us the truth about these matters. These people have never, ever, been involved in spreading misinformation or disinformation.
Here they have helpfully "paraphrased to make clear the intended or likely meaning" of these shocking Conservative policies that would harm our democracy:
• "Compelling universities to allow anti-choice expression and hate speech on campuses" (Imagine. Allowing pro-life groups the right to their freedom of speech rights, on university campuses no less.)
• "Allowing healthcare workers to refuse to participate in or refer patients for abortion or medical assistance in dying." (Imagine. Not forcing doctors and nurses to kill their patients.)
• "Opposing the right to medical assistance in dying" (Imagine. Actually being against killing people.)
• "Prohibiting research using embryos" (Imagine. Being against using human embryos in research where these tiny humans can be dissected, discarded, or whatever else suits someone's purpose.)
• "Excluding abortion from Canada’s maternal and child health programs abroad." (Imagine. Being against killing other countries pre-born children.)
• "Condemning sex-selection abortions." (Imagine. Being against the killing of pre-born children who are female.)
• "Amending the human rights code to allow faith-based organizations to discriminate based on their beliefs" (Imagine. Allowing Canadian citizens to practice their freedom of religion rights.)
• "Changing the criteria for Canada Summer Jobs to make anti-choice groups eligible for funding again." (Imagine. Ceasing to discriminate against pro-life people and people of faith in receiving government grants.)
• "Supporting legislation to grant fetal personhood by making it a separate crime to harm or kill a fetus during a crime against a pregnant person." (Imagine. Supporting the enactment of a separate crime when someone kills a wanted pre-born child.)
• Supporting legislation to mandate “life-saving care” and “intensive care” for fetuses born alive after an abortion." (Imagine. Supporting the provision of actual care to a child born alive after an abortion.)
• "Opposing the rights of sex workers and the decriminalization of prostitution." (Imagine. Declaring that "human beings are not objects to be enslaved, bought or sold.")
I hope I haven't unduly shocked you, but please please, take the time to reflect on how these policies would affect our dear Canada. We simply cannot, must not, let these policies ever see the light of day.
Update to Alberta's MAID deaths for FY April 1 2022 to March 31 2023. I now have the total number of killings at 1,309, up from 973 in 2021/2022. That's an increase of 34.5% deaths.
If you thought MAID was as bad as it could get, you would be wrong. We are also transplanting the organs of people killed in hospitals. Next step: allowing those euthanized at home to be transferred to the hospital to harvest their organs.
This is from the Canadian Medical Association: Deceased organ and tissue donation after medical assistance in dying: 2023 updated guidance for policy
"In a case in Ontario, the patient received the MAiD procedure at home.16 When the family was ready, the patient was transferred to an ambulance, where death was confirmed. Intubation was performed and an orogastric tube was secured [This is to empty the contents of the stomach of the dead person] before the patient was placed prone on the ambulance stretcher. The rest of the protocol for lung protection during the absence of circulation was applied before the patient was transferred to the hospital for organ recovery.17“
(16. Organ donation after medical assistance in dying (MAID) has only been possible for patients having the MAID procedure performed at a hospital facility due to prohibitive warm ischemic times. Herein, we describe a protocol for lung donation following MAID at home and demonstrate excellent postoperative outcomes. Lung donation following MAID at home is possible and should be considered by transplant programs.)
Note these troubling remarks in the guidelines:
"This guidance does not address the ethics of MAiD, questions regarding eligibility or assessment for MAiD, or provision of MAiD. It focuses on organ donation for those patients who have been assessed and found eligible for MAiD through established processes in Canada." (emphasis added)
And this:
"international experience with donation after MAiD is limited, and therefore, we found limited data to inform our recommendations. There was potential bias among forum participants, given that they were generally supporters of the current deceased donation and transplantation system, as well as donation after MAiD. (emphasis added)
Of course there was bias in this exercise, since everyone involved were MAID supporters, including MAID patients and family partners who were included as participants for the forum.
Yet strangely, the authors actually do mention the ethical challenges of organ donation after MAID:
"The purpose of this updated guidance is to continue to inform the development of policies and practices of donation after MAiD. This will help clinicians navigate the medical, legal and ethical challenges that arise when they support patients pursuing donation after MAiD."
So how do we manage to kill someone at home, and successfully extract their lungs for transplant? Well, we have a flow chart for that:
1) First we kill the patient. Make sure patient is dead.
2) Paramedics transfer (dead) patient to the ambulance.
3) Next we pump the (dead) patient's stomach to remove messy contents. Reconfirm (dead) patient is dead.
4) Inflate lungs.
5) Reconfirm (dead) patient is dead. (Do this multiple times. Just to make sure dead patient is truly dead. Just to be sure.)
6) Transfer (dead) patient to hospital.
7) Recover lungs at hospital.
"CASE REPORT
In advance of his death, the donor provided written consent to describe the details of his case.
A 48-year-old man with Huntington's disease was referred to TGLN by the patient's MAID provider. He understood that at this time only lungs and tissues could be donated if he died at home but he did not wish to die in the hospital. Consent to organ donation after MAID at home was provided. Following confirmation of medical suitability, a date and time for MAID were obtained.
Unfractionated heparin (1000 units per kg) was administered 5 minutes prior to the procedure. The MAID combination of medications resulted in sedation (midazolam), local anesthetic effect on the vein (lidocaine), the induction of general anesthesia (propofol), muscle paralysis (rocuronium), and cardioplegia (concentrated potassium chloride) leading to virtually immediate cardiac arrest. The family was prepared to spend some time with the body after death. When the provider and family were ready, the patient was transferred to a pre-arranged ambulance and attached to a cardiac monitor. Apnea, pulselessness, and asystole were observed for 5 minutes. Death was declared by the MAID provider and confirmed by a second physician, as required by law.
The patient was then intubated, an orogastric tube was secured, and the patient was placed prone on the ambulance stretcher. After a minimum of 10 minutes, the lungs were inflated to a continuous positive airway pressure of 20 cm H2O using medical air and asystole once again was confirmed. The protocol of lung protection during the absence of circulation was developed within our uncontrolled DCD program and proven to be feasible.5 Nonurgent transport to the hospital ensued. Given that this patient was a police officer, an unplanned police escort and honor guard was provided en route to the hospital and operating room.
The lung retrieval team recovered the organs in standard fashion. Time from cardiac arrest to flush of the organ was 62 minutes. Lungs were transferred to Toronto General Hospital and ex vivo lung perfusion for 3 hours and 47 minutes confirmed excellent lung function (Table 1). Total preservation time from cold flush in the donor to reperfusion in the recipient was 12:27 and 15:29 hours for the first and second lungs, respectively.
The recipient was a 68-year-old woman with end-stage lung disease from interstitial lung disease. She was small for the donor lungs and thus bilateral lower lobe transplantation was performed on central venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Due to preexisting donor-specific antibodies, intraoperative plasmapheresis was performed prior to lung reperfusion as part of our clinical protocol.7 Separation from ECMO was uneventful and the patient was extubated 8 hours following transplant. She was briefly reintubated overnight on postoperative day (POD) 12 for clearance of a mucus plug by bronchoscopy and was discharged home on POD."
I received the dollars spent on euthanasia in Alberta for 2022-2023. Total cost was $1,055,399.10. That's an increase of 32.56% over dollars spent in 2021-2022 ($796,166.00).
This is how CBC reporter Radheyan Simonpillai "reviews" the movie The sound of Freedom:
QAnon conspiracy theorist; part of the so-called Freedom movements; Xenophobic, Pro-Trump, Pro-Life types, racists, regular among church groups; or you regularly watch Fox News; or if you follow right-wing personalities.
Do CBC employees ever listen to themselves speak? Simonpillai barely touches on the point of the movie itself, which is to shine a light on the horrible billion dollar industry of child sex trafficking. We went today to the 3:20 sold out showing. It's been showing since July 3rd in Canada and is still going strong.
Instead Simonpillai attacks the movie-goers. He says the movie is "competent" (It is excellent). "You never heard of this movie" he says. (That's because news organizations like the tax-payer funded CBC refuse to tell you about it.)
From Andrew Kozak at the True North:
In a recent interview on CBC Radio, pop culture columnist Radheyan Simonpillai described the success of the new hit film “Sound of Freedom” can be attributed to “Xenophobic, Pro-Trump, Pro-Life types.”
“We can’t say that the movie itself is made by QAnon types,” said Simompalli on the podcast, which aired on CBC Listen. “But certainly, their political goals make it something that QAnon conspiracy theorists would rally behind.”
“Just like racists rallied behind Trump without him having to say anything overtly racist.”
“You would have only heard about this movie if you are a regular among church groups, or you regularly watch Fox News, or if you follow right-wing personalities,” said Simonpillai. “Or if you are a QAnon conspiracy theorist or part of the so-called Freedom movements.”
“But make no mistake,” Simonpillia continued. “The movie’s success has a lot to do with it being a dog whistle for Xenophobic, Pro-Trump, Pro-Life types.”
“It’s not just QAnon types rallying behind this movie,” he said. “There were people who attended it because they were encouraged by their online freedom rally groups.”
The plot is based on the true story of Tim Ballard who broke up sex trafficking rings. The movie was fast paced, had a gripping story line, and the acting was excellent. Child sex trafficking is Evil with a capital E. Why couldn't Simonpillai talk about that?
The CBC should be ashamed of their disgraceful so-called "coverage" of an extremely important film. Attacking theatre goers with ad hominem attacks, instead of actually reviewing the movie, is about as low as you can get.
CBC, I am truly embarrassed for you on your behalf.
Dr. Stefanie Green is the founding President of the Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers and a MAID provider. This is a group of doctors who euthanize their patients. She also incredibly believes that to get MAID...
"There is no need to be close to death and no need to have tried other options to relieve suffering, or even have them available."
She wrote a book called This is assisted dying, a Doctor's story of empowering patients at the end of life. I think it's safe to say Dr. Green likes her job. She's clearly proud of the book she wrote:
"What a huge thrill to see the Korean edition of This is Assisted Suicide now available!!"
And
"What a thrill! New York City, 5th Ave Barnes and Noble, and look what I found!!" [Her book]
So many thrills. And this:
"One year ago today, this book was launched......I remain grateful for all who have supported it's "delivery"."
Thrilled and grateful are not words I would use to talk about a book that discusses the killing of weak, troubled, poverty stricken or ill people. Rather I would use the words depressing or heart-breaking or beyond sad.
Date: Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 7:43 PM
Subject: All Canadians deserve to be respected
To: Justin Trudeau <justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca>
Cc: Poilievre, Pierre - M.P. <pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>, <Jagmeet.Singh@parl.gc.ca>, Maxime Bernier <info@maximebernier.com>, Mona Fortier <Mona.Fortier@parl.gc.ca>, <Yves-Francois.Blanchet@parl.
Dear Justin Trudeau,
I have a question for you Mr. Prime Minister and it is a sincere question that I would really like an answer to. I am concerned about the divisiveness of many of your policies towards many Canadians. Are you aware of how your policies affect the people you govern?
I first started to notice this nine years ago, before you even became Prime Minister. I wrote to you about your policy to exclude pro-life people from belonging to the Liberal party. https://run-with-life.
As the years passed, it seemed to me that there were many Canadians whose values you didn't share. It felt like you wanted to punish them by enacting policies that disrespected and marginalized these people you didn't agree with, or that didn't agree with you.
You seem to have taken a particular dislike to pro-life people, and this continued when you denied them government funding for the Summer Jobs Program. And more recently, by threatening to remove the charitable status from pro-life organizations. You said that there were groups like pregnancy care centres who provide women with dishonest counseling. But you could never provide any evidence that this happens. Yet you gave out, and continue to give out, millions to the people who support and celebrate abortion.
Then there was the pandemic. If people chose not to get the shot, you called them names. You closed the churches but kept the abortion clinics open. People were really hurt by your policies; people went bankrupt; people lost their jobs; families were separated; mental health issues soared; people couldn't get medical treatment. You fired public servants who refused to get vaccinated. You wanted people to do what you wanted them to do. If they didn't, you called them names and punished them.
Currently, parents who are concerned about gender ideology being forced on them and their children, are called "far-right". There are millions of Canadians who do not agree with this ideology, yet we are forced to look at pride flags everywhere, for not just one day; not just one month; but now for an entire season. This makes no sense. While all Canadians deserve respect, why are we now being forced to "celebrate" an ideology that is against our sincerely held values and beliefs? Catholics and Muslims, and others, do not share this ideology. But it is being forced upon us everywhere we turn. I do not ask you to celebrate my Catholicism or my being pro-life. But you insist on me "celebrating" pride in all of its forms.
It seems you want all Canadians to agree with you on everything. But we don't. And we should not be forced to. We are also Canadians Prime Minister, and we deserve to be respected and treated with dignity.
I hope you will watch this video of Jordan Peterson's interview with Tamara Lich. https://open.spotify.
Tamara is a Canadian hero. She headed a movement that brought all Canadians together. The trucker convoy was not divisive. People from coast to coast to coast supported it; of all ethnicities; of all faith backgrounds; from all walks of life; they came together and asked that you listen to them. Tamara said of the movement: "People were proud to be Canadian again." But you would not meet them. You would not listen to them. Instead you called them names, invoked the emergency act and froze their bank accounts. You wouldn't even talk to them. I heard you went to the Laurentians to ski when the emergency act was invoked, while Canadians were fighting for their livelihoods, yet you refused to listen to their concerns. You called people 'racist,' 'misogynistic,' and the unvaccinated were a “small fringe minority” with “unacceptable views.” The truckers kept Canada running during the pandemic. Yet you had no time for them, or their concerns.
Canadians have different values and different beliefs. I will respect your beliefs, but please respect mine, and please respect the beliefs of all the Canadians whose beliefs and values are different from yours. Please stop calling us names. Please stop penalizing us. Please stop marginalizing us. Please stop punishing us. Please respect us.
I ask you, I beg you, please stop being divisive.
Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney
The document I received through an FOI for MAID deaths in BC.
Deaths from 2017 to 2021 is 6,510 according to Canada's official MAID deaths and from the document I received. Official numbers only report until 2021. What I received from BC, also reports dollars spent up until April 30, 2023 on MAID. Therefore I assume that is one extra year of dollars spent. Total dollars spent is $8,665,735.
If we assume at least another 2 to 3 thousand additional killings for 2022 (since the numbers increase every year), that would be at least a total of 8,510 deaths at a cost of $8,665,735. Or about $1000/death. That sounds a whole lot cheaper than keeping sick/disabled/poverty stricken people alive.
In case you were wondering where Planned Parenthood got their funds to print and distribute their pornographic cards to school children... they got it from you, the taxpayer. To the tune of $1.8 million over the past three years. From all three levels of government.
