Run With Life

Dear Mr. McGuinty, It's time to defund abortion in Ontario

2012-01-30T08:15:00.000-05:00

Thank you for your letter of January 27, 2012 responding to my email of January 26, 2012, where I stated that it was time to defund abortions in Ontario.

With all due respect Mr. McGuinty, you seem to be confused about the status of abortion in Canada.

In your letter you wrote:
“You may be aware that, in 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed the constitutional validity of abortion. The court ruled that a woman in our country has the legal right to a timely, accessible abortion as an insured service. In compliance with the Supreme Court decision, abortion remains a publicly funded procedure in Ontario.”

First, the 1988 Morgentaler decision did not give women the constitutional right to abortion in Canada.

Second, it did not require that abortions be publicly funded.

The Supreme Court said that the procedural requirements laid out in the abortion law caused extensive delays and unequal access to therapeutic abortion committees (TACs). It was the TACs which provided women with a valid defence to a criminal charge of abortion. So if a woman whose life or health was endangered by the pregnancy couldn’t access a TAC, she would be committing a crime if she proceeded with the abortion. And the Court said this was a violation of her Charter 7 right to ‘security of the person.’ Essentially, she had to choose between either obeying a criminal law or protecting her life/health, but not both. That is why the court struck down the law. (See here )

The Court also left open the possibility for Parliament to enact a new law to replace the old one.

Chief Justice Dickson in the majority decision said that the protection of the fetus:
“does relate to concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society and which, pursuant to s. 1 of the Charter, justify reasonable limits to be put on a woman’s right.”

In other words, it is reasonable to put some restrictions on abortion because protection of the fetus is a legitimate government objective.

You can read the1988 Court decision here.

Another argument people sometimes use in favour of funding of abortions is that the Canada Health Act requires it. This is untrue. As you know, the CHA only requires that medically necessary procedures be funded. Most abortions are not done for medical reasons.

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute (a research affiliate of the abortion-rights advocacy group, Planned Parenthood Federation of America), nearly all abortions are done for socio-economic reasons, not medical ones.

Did you know that when polled, 91% of Ontarians were unaware how much money your government spends to subsidize abortions in Ontario?

And did you also know that according to a 2011 Environics poll commissioned by LifeCanada, 71% of Ontarians oppose government funding of non-medically necessary abortions?

So, Mr. McGuinty, can you please tell me why Ontarians are paying approximately $35 Million a year on abortions (about 44,000 abortions per year for at least $800 per abortion) when it is likely that most of that money is going towards non-therapeutic abortions—abortions that are done for social reasons that have nothing to do with health care? The Canada Health Act does not require it, the Supreme Court has never ruled on it, and the majority of Ontarians are against it.

One must assume there is a reason, and the people of Ontario, myself included, deserve to know why we continue to pay for abortions.

If your government has no reason, then why are we paying for something for no reason when Ontario is in debt for $16 billion?

I look forward to hearing your answers soon.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

ATIP: CIDA and IPPF (Part 4)

2012-01-23T13:02:00.000-05:00

Attached are the appendixes which provides the details of the proposed deliverables by IPPF for the Muskoka initiative on maternal and child health initiative.

Click on each picture, print, then place them side by side to get the full table.

ATIP: CIDA and IPPF (Part 3)

2012-01-23T12:33:00.000-05:00

Below I have scanned the Programme Goals and Objectives of the proposal to CIDA from IPPF for funding from the Government’s Muskoka initiative on maternal and child health initiative approved by Minister Oda (pages 7, 8, 9, part of page 10, and part of page 12).

I also referred to some of what is below, in my previous entry.

Sorry for the length of this entry.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Programme Goal
All people, particularly the poor, marginalized, the socially excluded, and underserved are able to exercise their right, to make free and informed choices about their SRH, and have access to SRH information, sexuality education and high quality services, including family planning, all of which are stigma-free, sensitive to gender dynamics and sexual diversity, and offer a positive approach to sexuality. (10)

Objectives
1. To ensure access to IPPF quality-assured, client-oriented, rights-based and integrated package of SRH services including family planning, ante-natal care, STI prevention and care including HIV;
2. To ensure affordable community based outreach services and easy access to services, with a focus on the poor, marginalized and socially-excluded, stigmatized and underserved women and young people;
3. To ensure contraceptive and RH commodity security and to promote under-utilized and new contraceptive technologies;
4. To strengthen health systems through strong partnerships

Expected Results (11)
In partnership with CIDA, IPPF will deliver a comprehensive response to the Muskoka Initiative at two levels - globally and at country level. Globally, IPPF will drive the delivery of expected results and contribute to:
o Preventing the deaths of 1.3 million children under five years of age;
o Preventing the deaths of 64,000 mothers;
o Giving access to modern methods of family planning for 12 million couples

Through funding from the Government of Canada, IPPF's network of service delivery MAs based in 5 ountries (12) will deliver:
• 307,273 unintended pregnancies averted; (13)
• 1,229,092 CYPs provided by method including 98,971 IUD, 191,450 sterilization, 623,706 oral contraceptive pills, 140,511 condoms, 134,104 Injectables, 28,964 Implants, 10,438 Other Barrier Methods, 89 Other Hormonal Methods;
• 3,676,063 SRH services (excluding family planning) and provided by type of service: 186,623 gynaecological, 1,551,019 maternal and child health, 476,518 STI and RTI, 697,166 HIV and AIDS, 436,459 other SRH medical, 571 urological, 35,161 infertility;
• 5,738,052 SRH services including 3,245,485 family planning services provided to young people under age 25;
• 7,090,090 family planning (FP) services provided by method provided by type of service: 37,943 IUD, 19,192 sterilization, 5,196,801 oral contraceptive pills, 1,190,709 condoms, 511,674 Injectables, 67,440 Implants, 18,256 Other Barrier Methods and 568 Other Hormonal Methods;
• 1,321,938 HIV-related services provided along the prevention to care continuum
• 70 estimated percentage of Member Association's clients who are poor, marginalized and/or socially excluded.

A Logical Framework is presented at Annex 1 to demonstrate the programme's goal, objectives, idicators, targets, and contribution to the MDGs. Annex 2 includes a breakdown of these figures by member Association.

Strategy and Approach
IPPF proposes to scale-up services focused on delivering a core set of health outputs in 5 countries. We will drive the delivery of expected results in line with the Muskoka Initiative through IPPF's strategic Goal on Access. Our approach builds on IPPF's global experience of comprehensive family planning programming and the provision of integrated services, lessons learned and best practice hared among our network of MAs.

Objective 1: To ensure access to IPPF quality-assured, client-oriented, rights-based and itegrated package of SRH services including family planning, ante-natal care, STI prevention and care including HIV

Over 31 million clients, men or women, married or unmarried, young or old visit our 64,500 service delivery points every year. Every client visiting an IPPF service delivery point can expect to receive a holistic and integrated package of services. Clients arriving at our clinics for contraceptive services will typically be informed about other common SRH issues. They will also be offered the choice to be asked a set of rapid and standardized screening questions to elicit STI symptoms, safer sex practice, including condom use and voluntary counselling and testing (VCT), risks of gender-based violence, and as appropriate reproductive cancer screening history, such as cervical cancer. Additionally, every client coming to the service delivery points for non-contraceptive services will be asked about their contraceptive practices, family size and child-spacing desires. These services are essential integrated package of SRH services that IPPF MAs endeavour to make available at the primary level of care.

Our service delivery points are designed to be non-intimidating, as well as user and youth-friendly. They offer a safe space free from stigma and judgment. Our SRH information and services emphasize a positive approach to sexuality. In settings with a shortage of doctors, and whenever safe and effective, we train and provide supportive supervision to community-based health workers and mid-level providers to deliver specific procedures. This ensures that clients in resource-poor settings are still able to access high quality services from trained service providers.

• Quality-assured, client-centred care
Quality-assured and client-centred care means that clients' needs guide the planning and implementation of our services. IPPF services meet clinical standards, which require the commitment and expertise of clinic managers and service providers. We believe that clinic and programme tanagers, service providers and clients, all play a role in achieving quality-assured, client-centred care.

IPPF will strengthen the quality of care at service delivery points, taking into account our commitment to a holistic, no-missed opportunity and stigma-free approach through providing:

o Updated self-assessment checklist tool to reflect most recent technical developments.
o Guidelines and job-aids based on current global standards (WHO Medical Eligibility Criteria, Selected Practice Recommendations, or Decision Making Tool for Family Planning, including the tool for people living with HIV)
o A revised Quality of Care tools through revised edition of `IPPF Medical Service Delivery Guidelines, (14) which complements 'IPPF's Global Handbook on Family Planning. (15)

Objective 2: To ensure affordable community based outreach services and easy access to ervices, with a focus on the„poor marginalized and socially-excluded, stigmatized and underved women and young people

IPPF MAs are committed to ensuring easy access to services by using an integrated model of service delivery points, which are conveniently available to everyone, especially to the poor, marginalized, socially-excluded, stigmatized and underserved. All services are of quality, free of unnecessary administrative and medical barriers. People can choose from a wide range of SRH services and a large mix of contraceptive methods.

• Innovative outreach channels
Our MAs offer services through multiple channels, including static and mobile clinics, community-based distributors, retail outlets and other public and private-sector providers. IPPF's community-based health workers offer information and education as well as contraceptives such as condoms and oral contraceptives. They refer people to clinics for other contraceptives and SRH services. IPPF offer clients a larger mix of contraceptives, and in particular long-acting and reversible contraceptives (LARC), such as IUDs and implants, through mobile clinics.

We build the capacity of primary health care public and private-sector providers on new contraceptive technologies, supply them with contraceptive commodities where needed, and offer them regular technical support and supportive supervision. As grassroots organizations part of the national health system, IPPF MAs are committed to strengthening the health care system where they operate.

• Information and education
IPPF's high quality and accessible services are pointless if people do not know about them or want them. Demand generation will be conducted through a combination of channels, such as mass media, interpersonal and community channels, in order to maximize the effect of behaviour change communication (BCC). Instead of one-time BCC campaigns, we will ensure sustained healthy behaviour through continuous communication materials and campaigns.

Objective 3: To ensure contraceptive and reproductive health commodity security and to promote under-utilized and new contraceptive technologies

IPPF aims to deliver a continuous supply of a variety of contraceptives, so that clients can choose their preferred method without interruption whenever they want. Other SRH commodities needed to implement the integrated SRH package, such as antimicrobials for STI treatment, will also be secured. IPPF and our MAs will promote and offer under-utilized and new technologies:

o Oral contraceptives, emergency contraceptive pills and condoms are known to be challenging to use perfectly and consistently. These short acting methods will be readily available and accessible to people using such methods, including young people. J
o LARC (16) and surgical methods such as IUDs, vasectomy and bilateral tubal ligation, based on the needs of communities and the training needs of service providers.
o We will continue to participate in research and development initiatives with partners such as the World Health Organization (WHO), by piloting new service delivery models and contraceptive technologies, such as the Uniject injectable contraceptive that will be available by 2012. (17)

Objective 4: To strengthen health systems through strong partnerships.

IPPF MAs will continue to build on partnerships with key agencies, including Ministries of Health
(MOH), and UNFPA Country Offices to strengthen health systems. Most is participate in me annual planning meetings of their respective UNFPA Country Office and MOH, and play an important role as their implementing partner. (18) Many MAs play a critical role as national service providers on behalf of the government, with whom they have contractual arrangements.

Throughout the proposed initiative, IPPF MAs will continue to partner with key agencies, including
MOH and UNFPA Country Offices. In addition we will strengthen our collaboration with other national partners, such as:

o The national branch of the International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (FIGO), with whom IPPF also has a global Memorandum of Understanding. Many of our MAs' volunteers belong to the national FIGO branch, and will provide technical assistance through competency-based training on new contraceptives or quality of care supervision to our service providers;
o Public and private-sector providers will play an important role as implementing partners of the social franchising of our integrated SRH delivery models. We will give emphasis on training them on under-utilized and new contraceptive technologies;
o Training institutions, including nursing, midwifery, medical schools and MOH, to ensure that their pre-service training curricula are up-to-date with regard to contraceptive and SRH technologies, and quality of care standards.

10 IPPF Strategic Framework Goal 4: Access to SRH services.
11 The program expected results are based on expected results in 5 countries as presented in the Logical Framework Analysis at Annex 1
12 Member Associations selected work in OECD DAC recipient countries
13 Number of Pregnancies Averted is currently calculated using the impact calculator. The Impact Calculator is currently being used by the Futures Group to harmonize Couple Years of Protection conversion. Multiples of the three are generally used worldwide by USAID, WHO, and MSI. IPPF uses the lowest values so as to not inflate performance. If IPPF used the highest, its CYP would be 45 per cent higher.
14 'IPPF Medical Service Delivery' can be accessed at
http://www.ippf.org/en/Resources/Guides-toolkits/IPPF+Medical+and+Service+Delivery+Guidelines.htm
15 Global Handbook on Family Planning' can be accessed at
http://www.ippf.org/NR/rdonlyres/E8AA38AE-AE7A-4D35-BD57-A55D2B4BE7A5/0/Family_Planning_Global_Handbook.pdf
16 LARC and surgical methods are known to be more cost-effective in terms of couple years of protection (CYP) than short-term methods, such as condoms, Injectables and oral contraceptive pills. LARC methods may be suitable for many clients but require frequent repeat visits.
17 Uniject has an integrated hypodermic needle and a small squeezable bubble-like container, Uniject has the potential to improve the safety and acceptability of injectable contraceptives given by service providers, and in particular by community-based distributors. Uniject will be easier for clients to self-administer their injectable contraceptive in the privacy of their home, which is in line with the demedicalization philosophy of IPPF.
18 UNFPA-IPPF collaboration is backed up by a global Memorandum of Understanding and action plan that was updated in July 2010 by both agencies.

(and this from page 12):

Eligible Countries
IPPF will deliver a comprehensive response to the Muskoka Initiative at the country level in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Mali, Sudan and Tanzania. IPPF's Secretariat, through joint collaboration with Central and Regional Offices, will drive expected results globally in line with the Muskoka Initiative through IPPF's Strategic Goal on Access. The Secretariat will also manage the programme through offering technical expertise on comprehensive family planning and other SRH services, and the development, harmonization and implementation of the programme's main components. Central Office and Regional Offices will also support selected MAs in terms of technical assistance and capacity building. The Secretariat will support implementation in areas such as financial and human resources management, resource mobilization and monitoring and evaluation. 75 per cent of the programme budget will be allocated to MAs to deliver health outcomes in the 6 countries. The 6 MAs all fall into the list of 49 low-income countries identified in the Taskforce on Innovative International Financing for Health Systems (22) the Muskoka Initiative (23) and CIDA priority countries.

IPPF will ensure that no MA will use Canadian funds for abortion activity. In the past certain Governments have placed various legislative or policy restrictions on the use of funds, including for induced abortion services. IPPF has procedures in place that can immediately be reinstated to ensure that no funds from the Government of Canada are used for abortion services. This includes he holding of funds in a separate bank account.

22 The Taskforce on Innovative International Financing for Health Systems identifies 49 low-income countries where investments in national health systems would save four million children and babies annually, and up to 322,000 maternal deaths, and 193,000 adult HIV deaths.
23 The Muskoka Initiative is focused on achieving significant progress on health systems strengthening in countries with high burdens of maternal and under-five child mortality and an unmet need for family planning.

ATIP: CIDA and IPPF (Part 2)

2012-01-23T11:29:00.000-05:00

Further to my last entry on my Access to Information and Freedom (ATIP) request to CIDA...

I actually made two ATIP requests.

My first request asked for the signed funding agreement between CIDA and IPPF for the $6 Million funding IPPF would receive, as part of the Government’s Muskoka initiative on maternal and child health initiative approved by Minister Oda. I was informed that the agreement hadn’t been signed yet.

So I revised my first ATIP request, and asked to see the actual IPPF proposal itself, since we had heard that IPPF would receive $6 million.

I received back the 54 page proposal. It came with the following qualification in CIDA’s covering letter:
"For your information, IPPF's recent proposal does not reflect the terms of the approved program and CIDA has not yet signed a funding agreement with IPPF."

We do know that IPPF asked for $6 million, and news reports said they will get $6 million. Therefore, I imagine the funding agreement will be pretty close to the proposal but that remains to be confirmed.

Sprinkled throughout the proposal, is the mention of all kinds of contraceptives, emergency contraceptives and IUDs, including charts of how many of these will be provided.

Many consider emergency contraceptives and IUDs to be abortifacients.

On Page 12, I learned that:
"IPPF will ensure that no MA [member association] will use Canadian funds for abortion activity. In the past certain Governments have placed various legislative or policy restrictions on the use of funds, including for induced abortion services. IPPF has procedures in place that can immediately be reinstated to ensure that no funds from the Government of Canada are used for abortion services. This includes the holding of funds in a separate bank account."

What I'd like to know is, what mechanisms will be in place on the ground, to ensure that abortion services are not provided or referred?

On Page 7 under Program objectives and Components, Programme Goal:
"All people, particularly the poor, marginalized, the socially excluded, and undeserved are able to exercise their right, to make free and informed choices about their SRH [Sexual Reproductive Health], and have access to SRH information, sexuality education and high quality services, including family planning, all of which stigma-free, sensitive to gender dynamics and sezual diversity, and offer a positive approach to sexuality."

This above type of wording permeates the entire proposal.

On Page 8 under Program objectives and Components, Quality-assured, Client Centred care:
"IPPF will strengthen the quality of care at service delivery points, taking into account our commitment to a holistic, no-missed opportunity and stigma-free approach through providing:

Updated self-assessment checklist tool to reflect most recent technical developments.

Guidelines and job-aids based on current global standards (WHO Medical Eligibility Criteria, Selected Practice Recommendations, or Decision Making Tool for Family Planning, including the tool for people living with HIV)

A revised Quality of Care tools through revised edition of `IPPF Medical Service Delivery Guidelines, (14) which complements 'IPPF's Global Handbook on Family Planning. (15)"

Another question I have: If abortion services are not being provided, then why would they provide these manuals which discuss all aspects of abortion, at the "service delivery points"?

Here are a few interesting items from these guidebooks (Note that the guidebooks themselves are not part of the proposal, they are only referred to in the proposal. With a total of 840 pages in these two guidebooks, I'm sure there are a lot of other pieces of fascinating abortion information tidbits):

Chapter 10 is on "Emergency Contraception". Note this: "Mode of action (some clients may need reassurance that emergency contraception is not an abortion)."

Chapter 11 is on "Diagnosis of Pregnancy": "In the event of pregnancy, determination of the gestational age is important to give the woman an estimated date of delivery. This determination is also useful in the diagnosis of certain pregnancy complications (e.g. ectopic pregnancy or threatened abortion). When a client is considering an abortion, information about gestational age helps the woman to make a decision, and where legal, is essential for selection of the appropriate technique."

Chapter 12: "Safe Abortion": "In circumstances where abortion is not against the law, health service providers should be trained and equipped to offer a safe and accessible service. Provision of, or referral for, abortion services is an essential part of women’s sexual and reproductive healthcare: fulfilment of a woman’s right to choice should be a high priority for such programmes. As with all sexual and reproductive health services, the client’s right to confidentiality and privacy must be sustained."

Chapter 13 is on "Options for unintended pregnancy":
"HIV does not necessarily have a negative impact on the pregnancy but might have an adverse effect on the health of the mother especially if her CD4 count is low and ARVs are not available. HIV also leads to increased rates of complications after delivery and is associated with an increase in maternal mortality. If the client is currently pregnant but does not wish to continue her pregnancy, she should be referred to safe abortion services, where legally permitted. Postpartum contraception should be offered as an option for those who do not wish to become pregnant again".

These paragraphs from the guide books, guide the IPPF people (or MAs) on how to refer for abortion, where legal. But when abortion is not legal, what kind of advice do the IPPF people give to their clients?

My next entry will disclose more information from the IPPF proposal.

ATIP: CIDA and IPPF (more to come...)

2012-01-21T18:07:00.001-05:00

There is a best way to get money from CIDA--and there is a worst way.

The best way involves telling CIDA you’ll give out lots and lots and lots of condoms to third world countries. International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) did this, along with promising all kinds of other contraception methods/abortifacients including emergency contraception and IUDs.

According to a recent Access to Information Request I did with CIDA, I learned that in IPPF’s proposal for $6 million of funding, IPPF promised to deliver :

1,229,092 Couple years of protection (CYP)

7,090,090 family planning services (FP)

3,738,052 sexual reproductive health (SRH) services (excluding family planning) and

5,738,052 SRH services provided to young people under the age of 25 (including family planning)

The worst way to get funding is to be MaterCare. Their applications for funding, have now been denied for eleven years in a row.

In their 2004 refusal from CIDA, MaterCare were told that one of the reasons their funding request was refused was because—are you ready for this? Because their project [West African regional Birth Trauma Centre in Ghana] was:
“aimed at curing the problem rather than preventing it from taking place”.

MaterCare was trying to cure a problem of maternal child mortality. Oh my goodness, what were they thinking?

In Matercare’s 2008 refusal, CIDA said:
“there was concern that MaterCare’s approach to the subject matter is not consistent with CIDA’s policies on maternal health.CIDA's approach to improving maternal health and reducing maternal mortality includes access to reproductive health care and family planning, themes that were not addressed in MaterCare’s proposal...”

Why? Because MaterCare won’t give out lots and lots and lots of condoms. Simple really.

And how does birth control save women’s lives? They don’t, not according to MaterCare:

“Abortion and birth control are irrelevant to reducing maternal mortality as most deaths occur during the last 3 months of pregnancy, during labour and delivery and one week afterwards. It is egregious to suggest to mothers that in order to save their own lives they must kill their babies, rather than to provide them with safe comprehensive maternity care. Early abortion is being promoted, by oral medication, and surgical means using manual vacuum aspirators (MVAs). The problem with these procedures is that having been given the pills or having undergone and MVA, the mother is sent home where bleeding or infection may result but she has no access to medical follow-up. Many African mothers are anemic due to malnutrition and malaria and with post abortion haemorrhage or infection death may well occur. In addition, these MVA kits are supposed to be for one time use only but as we know with injection needles and AIDS there is no assurance that they will not be used again, and as they cannot be sterilized, further use may result in spreading infection and leading to more maternal deaths.

To deny the provision of essential obstetrics is a form of violence against women. Violence may be by commission i.e. a person is physically assaulted in some way, or by omission i.e. by culpable negligence not to have done what is necessary – in this case, providing essential care during pregnancy and childbirth.”

See here for MaterCare’s full statement released in October last year on how they continue to be banned from receiving funding from CIDA.

Which brings me back to IPPF and my recent ATIP, on which I will write more later.

Feminists: author of their own demise

2012-01-21T11:57:00.001-05:00

In response to this in the Toronto Sun:
Conceal baby's sex to reduce sex-selective abortions in Canada: Journal

I wrote this letter which was published yesterday:

Risking ‘gendercide’
Re “Conceal baby’s sex to reduce sex-selective abortions in Canada: Journal” (Jan. 17):

Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada executive director Joyce Arthur says banning sex selection abortion is a “dangerous road to go down” and reeks of “paternalism.”

One would think feminists would want to ensure the protected continuation of the female members of the human species.

The Economist reported in 2010 that about 100 million girls have already been aborted world wide because of gendercide. So, the “dangerous road” is the one we are already travelling, where female gendercide continues unabated.

The irony is that if feminists like Arthur continue to refuse to condemn sex-selection abortions, they could very well be the author of their own demise.

Patricia Maloney

The Sun's response:
("But she doesn’t see it that way — abortion rights at all costs is the feminist way")

MaterCare - Background on CIDA refusing funding (more to come...)

2012-01-20T21:10:00.001-05:00

(This was released by MaterCare last year)

MATERCARE INTERNATIONAL

SUMMARY OF DISTRIBUTION OF

MUSKOKA FUNDING OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA

FOR MATERNAL HEALTH CARE

- 11^TH TIME MCI HAS BEEN DENIED

10 October 2011

The funding announced on September 22^nd, by Prime Minister Harper, of $82 million for 28 NGO’s as part of the G8 Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Initiative went as expected to the "big" agencies for "maternal health and family planning" which included IPPF - $6 million and UNFPA - $40 million, both non Canadian organizations. As far as we can see there is little, if any, funding for essential obstetrics, which the Muskoka initiative was supposed to deliver, and only one for the drought area of east Africa e.g. Kenya. However there are 23 other agencies not listed.

In May of last year MaterCare International (MCI) was invited to the P.M’s office to meet with a senior policy advisor, about the work of MCI in west and east Africa since 1981. The meeting focused on MCI’s maternal health essential obstetrical projects, which met with the objectives of the Muskoka initiative. Also discussed were the reasons MCI’s has been denied funding for all its last applications since 2002 i.e. 11 times.

Reproductive health (abortion and birth control) has been the ideology of Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) for years, which it is determined to impose throughout the developing world, especially sub-Saharan Africa, now despite the intent of the Muskoka G8 initiative. The way it is distributing these funds favours large abortion/birth control/population agencies, which have little interest in providing essential obstetrics as that is not their prime interest.

Abortion and birth control are irrelevant to reducing maternal mortality as most deaths occur during the last 3 months of pregnancy, during labour and delivery and one week afterwards. It is egregious to suggest to mothers that in order to save their own lives they must kill their babies, rather than to provide them with safe comprehensive maternity care. Early abortion is being promoted, by oral medication, and surgical means using manual vacuum aspirators (MVAs). The problem with these procedures is that having been given the pills or having undergone and MVA, the mother is sent home where bleeding or infection may result but she has no access to medical follow-up. Many African mothers are anemic due to malnutrition and malaria and with post abortion haemorrhage or infection death may well occur. In addition, these MVA kits are supposed to be for one time use only but as we know with injection needles and AIDS there is no assurance that they will not be used again, and as they cannot be sterilized, further use may result in spreading infection and leading to more maternal deaths.

MCI applied to CIDA for Muskoka funding for a comprehensive rural obstetrical project for the severely affected drought district of Kenya, which has been badly neglected by government and NGOs. MCI’s proposal has been turned down twice. The first time was due to a CIDA technical issue in uploading our proposal to their site. We were told that we had not pressed a “submit” button however there was no indication that this was required especially as CIDA confirmed it had received the 29 page proposal/budget and 27 other documents. Thus as the application was complete, a project number was assigned. We challenged this reason on the grounds that process was flawed, which CIDA later agreed. If we had not done so, we would have been unfairly denied. MCI was then told that the application had been found and was being “decoded”.

This had happened to other NGOs also.

Having followed the guidelines for funding, we understood that of the total budget of $2,917,968 MCI was required to raise 25% of the total budget with CIDA providing the remaining funding up to a maximum 75%. The proposal was then turned down, for a second time on the grounds that MCI had not met the requirement that:

"The average total annual revenues of the organization over the past three years or total unencumbered financial assets under the financial control of the applicant (e.g. endowments) must be greater than the average amount requested from PWCB per year of the project)."

MCI was asked for further explanation and were told that of the $2,917,968 total MCI had to raise over the 3 years of the contract, the amount of the CIDA contribution of $2,188, 476 (75% of the total) from Canadian sources but of this MCI would have to contribute only $729,492 (25% of the total). This would, however, then leave MCI with an unused surplus of $1,458,984 which leads to the problem that as a charity MCI has to follow strict guidelines as to the use of funds received and these this funds being designated had to be used for the Kenya project purpose. This the funding process makes it impossible for smaller NGOs to obtain CIDA funding. This is the 11th time MCI has been denied project funding by CIDA since 2001. We were told in writing that as MCI did not provide “reproductive health services”, it would never receive funding and also verbally that MCI was “too Catholic” and “too close to the Pope”! Other reasons have been mostly technical/process ones but never on the substance of our proposals.

MCI has developed a model of comprehensive rural (where most of the deaths take place) obstetrics that takes into account not only the obstetrical causes of death and provides prenatal care, treatment for life threatening complications and postnatal care, but also other obstructions to survival, e.g. lack of transport, poor roads, lack of infrastructure and trained personnel. During the last three years MCI has provided $1.2 Million to build and equip a 28 bed obstetrical hospital in the town of Isiolo, Kenya capable of treating all life threatening complications; built a rural maternity clinic in Merti, district some 225kms from Isiolo; provided an emergency transport 4 X 4 ambulance for providing long distance safe transport for severely ill mothers, provided two motorbike ambulances for the villages; and trained over 100 traditional birth attendants. This area of Kenya is located in the drought region where in some areas there has been no rain for 6 years and where there has been no health care at all. The communities served are nomadic pasturalists, who have lost many of their cattle and goats due to the drought; internally displaced refugees; and those from Somalia, the border is 200 kms and Isiolo town is a transit centre. Thus the maternal mortality and morbidity is one of the highest in sub - Saharan Africa.

Our application to CIDA was for operating costs for the hospital, for refurbishing and equipping five rural maternity centres. The project would have been a unique demonstration project conceived and implemented by an experienced Canadian NGO in partnership with a Kenyan NGO and with Kenyan colleagues. The hospital and clinic are both ready to provide care. This has been achieved by generous donations from Canadians individuals, foundations and women’s groups as well by government and private donors in the UK, Italy, Australia, Poland, and the US.

The problem with CIDA is that it functions in a typical bureaucratic way from the top down and not from the bottom up, and thus fails to consider the needs of those whom it is supposed to be helping. It more concerned with its form rather than function and is CIDA is blinkered by its own ideology. It is without the health professional input it had 20 years ago and has especially an antipathy towards smaller NGOs “there are too many of them”, especially those which are faith based. NGOs such as MCI are more efficient; they are closer to the people; their expertise is invited not imposed; they listen to, live and work within the communities which they serve and are thus more acceptable.

So now there is a project which will save mother’s lives in a drought area of Kenya conceived and developed by a Canadian NGO with provides essential obstetrics in a maternity hospital with one rural clinic, all built by generous, after tax, donations from individual Canadians including many seniors, as well as Canadian foundations and the Canadian Catholic Women’s League but is denied operating funding from the Muskoka initiative, even though the P.M’s office sought advice from MCI and which congratulated it for what it had achieved. This could be a major embarrassment for the Canadian Government.

Dr R. L. Walley

Executive Director

Professor Emeritus of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

The great pro-abortion urban legend

2012-01-12T15:51:00.000-05:00

I watched the recent exchange between Joyce Arthur and Don Hutchinson on the CBC; precipitated by Stephen Woodworth's wanting to discuss our 400 year old law that excludes preborn children from the definition of “human being.”

Arthur says that late-term abortions are only done in "exceptional circumstances".

Arthur also says that abortions after 20 weeks gestation are "extremely rare".

How does Arthur know the gestational ages of these abortions and the reasons for them? Because the rest of us don't know.

What do we know?

We know that for 2009, CIHI reported a total of 93,755 clinic and hospital abortions. Of these abortions, 70,069* have "unknown" gestational age.

That means all of those 70,069, or most of them, or some of them, or none of them, could be late term abortions--we just don't know. That's what "unknown" means. And we don’t know these gestational ages because most abortion providers choose not to report them.

We also have no idea what the reasons were, since reasons are not reported.

We do know that in 2009 there were at least 552 late term hospital abortions.

We also know that there were actually more abortions performed in Canada than the total 93,755 reported by CIHI. In fact the total could be 30% - 50% higher.

It is certainly possible that Joyce Arthur knows all the gestational ages of these abortions and what their "exceptional circumstances" are. If she does, then the onus is on her to divulge this information to CIHI so CIHI can report it to the public; if she chooses to keep secret the evidence she supposedly has, we can only assume she doesn't in fact have any evidence at all to substantiate her claims. Somehow, I think the latter is the case. But I'd be very happy if Ms. Arthur could prove me wrong.

Even if Arthur can prove there are "only" 552 late abortions per year, does that mean late abortions are "extremely rare"? As a percentage of the total number of abortions, it might seem "rare". But a small percentage of a large number, is still a large number in absolute terms--552 viable babies killed every year. Are we supposed to take comfort in the fact that in relative terms there are so many fewer late term abortions than early abortions? That just means we have many, many, many, many early abortions.

(* 70,069 unknown gestational age abortions = 93,755 total known abortions - 23,686 known gestational age abortions)

Spiritual battle

2012-01-10T15:59:00.000-05:00

In today’s Gospel in the first chapter of Mark (1:21-28), the Devil makes his first appearance. One of Satan’s followers has taken possession of a child of God and cries out in panic at Jesus’ approach:

“’What do you want with us Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are: the Holy one of God’. But Jesus said sharply, ‘Be Quiet! Come out of him!’ And the unclean spirit threw the man into convulsions and with a loud cry went out of him. The people were so astonished that they started asking each other what it all meant. ‘Here is a teaching that is new’ they said’, with authority behind it: he gives orders even to unclean spirits and they obey him.”

This is what John Bartunek in his book The Better Part says about evil:

“The devil is real, and he is interested in counteracting the work of grace. In one sense, accepting this fundamental truth, and keeping it always in the back of our minds, can comfort us tremendously: it helps us make sense of all the unpleasant influences at work in and around us...we are engaged in a spiritual battle. If we believe in Jesus Christ, we also believe in the devil - doomed as he is, he would love to take as many souls as he can along with him...how many souls are enslaved to sin unknowingly under Satan’s evil spell - confused, depressed, headed for destruction?”

Freedom of choice

2012-01-08T13:48:00.000-05:00

This was in my Church Bulletin this morning. It discusses why the change was made in the Roman Missal from "for all" to "for the many".

"Another change in the Eucharistic Prayers, occur when during the consecration of the wine into the Blood of Christ, the priest prays: "...the Blood of the New Covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins".

This is a change for an important theological reason from "for all" that we are accustomed to hearing. Jesus Christ suffered and died on the Cross so that all humanity might be redeemed from the power of sin and death we brought on ourselves through Adam because of original sin. We all are redeemed because of our personal worthiness but we do not get a 'free pass' into heaven.

The choices we make in this life have eternal consequences and when we reject God's grace and refuse to repent of our sins, we separate ourselves from God. So, Jesus' suffering and death is not a guarantee that all will automatically be saved regardless of our choices but rather it provides the freedom for us to choose for or against God.

This change in the Eucharistic Prayers makes it clear that our freedom to choose for or against God matters and that Christ's death is not a guaranteed `free pass into heaven for all' because God respects our free will and our choices."

http://www.annunciation-ottawa.org/

Canada's no abortion debate

2012-01-07T16:58:00.000-05:00

My mother used to tell me when I was young, that I should always give credit where credit was due.

Today's thank you goes to the National Post and Charles Lewis who placed a story about the lack of any Canadian abortion debate on the front page of a national newspaper, albeit below the fold.

Pro-lifers have a tough task being heard in an increasingly pro-abortion world where the killing of unborn children has become so normalized, and even celebrated, that it is difficult to get any air time at all if you dare speak out for the unborn, who by the way, are not part of a woman's body. I never did understand that argument.

We all know that the pro-abortion lobby in this country, holds a score of 10, while pro-life people continue to hold the longest running zero score ever held in a first world country when it comes to abortion restrictions-debate-media-coverage-you-name-it-abortion progress, or lack thereof.

I also want to say something on the subject about how that other national newspaper deals with abortion, but my mother also told me if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all. I'll shut up now Mom.

Rob Nicholson is the man

2012-01-05T18:42:00.000-05:00

I finally figured out why Mr. Harper won’t let us debate abortion in Canada. You can fool me five or six times but I eventually get it. I’ve been sending my emails to the wrong person. Duh.

I should be sending them to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Rob Nicholson. Wow I really am as thick a as brick. Why I couldn’t figure this out on my own, I have no idea.

You see every time I send an e-mail to Mr. Harper, his office keeps responding to me with a variation on this:
“In your e-mail, you raised an issue that falls within the portfolio of the Honourable Robert Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Please be assured that your comments have been carefully noted. I have taken the liberty of forwarding your e-mail to Minister Nicholson. I am certain that the Minister will wish to give your views every consideration.”

(sometimes it's Bev Oda, or some other MP, but usually Rob Nicholson is the main forwardee)

So there you have it folks. From now on, make sure you send all those cards and letters and emails, about how we want an abortion debate; or how we want legal protection for our pre-born citizens; or how we need to re-examine that archaic 400 year old law that says an unborn child is not a human being--on to Mr. Nicholson.

Just make sure you send a copy to Mr. Harper as well. You don’t want Mr. Harper to feel out of the loop or anything. You know. It might be bad for his ego.

Rob.nicholson@parl.gc.ca
stephen.harper@parl.gc.ca

And another MP speaks out: Jeff Watson

2011-12-24T05:23:00.000-05:00

Debate abortion, unborn's human rights says Tory MP Watson

According to the CBC:

Watson said human rights for the unborn and abortion don't necessarily go hand-in-hand but said "there could be links between the two."

"I’d love to hear the debate on this. What are the various permutations and implications if human rights are extended to the unborn?" Watson said. "Parliament is exactly the place to have that discussion. If it doesn’t happen in Parliament, where do we have these discussions?"

"Obviously, the government has been extremely clear it is not going to reopen any debate. But the rules of Parliament are such that individual members of Parliament, if they want to discuss these issues, can bring them forward for discussion.

"And I think it's clear how the government will vote on those issues, too."

Watson admitted "it's no secret" he is a pro life member of Parliament and believes the "old debate" about abortion should be re-examined.

"I think there’s more that can be done with respect to that issue," Watson said.

He said the government could provide more social and financial support to women who experience unplanned pregnancies. Citing a college student as a hypothetical example, he said a young woman today would not have to choose between education and being an unexpected mother.

"With the right supports you could have both," Watson said. "There’s more to this discussion than the old debate."

Good on Jeff Watson. The debate continues. With or without Stephen Harper.

Could there be a better Christmas present than this--pro-life MPs speaking out in defence of our pre-born Canadians?

Merry Christmas to all.

Is this 400 year old law outdated?

2011-12-21T17:24:00.000-05:00

Tory MP boldly calls for abortion debate with statement that avoids using the word abortion

If Scott Stinson wants us to call what MP Stephen Woodworth is doing: "obfuscating", does it matter?

I say this is just one more gutsy principled Conservative MP in a growing list of similarly gutsy principled Conservative MPs. Good for them.

Just because the other Stephen doesn't want to have a debate using that word, well, we'll simply have the debate without Mr. Harper.

Woodworth said in his press release:
"Canadian law provides no human rights protection whatsoever for children before the moment of complete birth. This results from an unusual Canadian statute which defines a human being as a child who has completely proceeded in a living state from the mother’s body, whether or not the child has breathed.

This means that in Canada a child is legally considered to be sub-human while his or her little toe remains in the birth canal, even if he or she is breathing. This law was first formulated prior to the seventeenth century, when an early version of it was recorded in Coke’s Institutes of Law. In those times, medical science and principles of human rights were not sufficiently advanced to challenge such a law.

The important question is whether this 400 year old Canadian law is supported by 21st century medical science and principles of human rights. Perhaps Canadians should at least examine this question. MP Stephen Woodworth proposes that Parliament has a responsibility to lead that examination."

Yes I agree heartily with Stephen Woodworth. Let's examine this question.

Yonder breaks a new and glorious morn

2011-12-20T16:02:00.001-05:00

This year I gave away my tiny little Nativity scene that I kept in my office. I had bought it at the dollar store a couple of years ago, and every year I would place it on my desk at Christmas, because, as everyone knows, Christmas is about the birth of Jesus Christ.

Since I didn't have it anymore I knew I'd have to get another one. So off I went back to the same dollar store. They didn’t have any. There were lots of bells and Santa Claus, ribbons and angels and other things we have come to associate with Christmas. But no Nativity scenes.

I then proceeded to go to gift shops, card shops, one department store, and saw lots more bells, Santa Claus, ribbons and bows, and tree ornaments. Nothing even remotely resembled a Nativity scene. I did actually find one porcelain Nativity scene--for $85. That seemed a bit rich, considering Jesus was born in, you know, a stable; with the sheep and the hay and the cows.

I even found a s'more in a manger. This is not a joke. This is for real. This would be a marshmallow in a manger. You know, like spun sugar and gelatin in a manger sitting on top of a graham cracker. Apart from the fact that I was offended, it was really rather pathetic. Move on, I thought, don't let it get you down. Don't lose sight of what you're looking for, a Nativity scene with Baby Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

Finally I found it in another dollar store. Three figurines: a baby Jesus lying in a manger with a little baby sheep beside him, Mary too, and a man with a staff. I think the man figurine was actually a shepherd, but he looked close enough to Joseph that I grabbed him. When I asked my sister who she thought he was, she that yes, he was probably a shepherd and not Joseph, since Joseph usually knelt beside baby Jesus.

That was fine. At least, I said, my Joseph is not a marshmallow.

My Nativity scene is complete. I am ready for Christmas.

Pro-life experts need not apply

2011-12-17T16:47:00.000-05:00

The government agency Echo, has decided Ontario women need more access to abortions in a report called: Recommendations to Improve Abortion Services in Ontario: Report from the Expert Panel.
(Echo is a non-profit organization completely funded with Ontario tax dollars. Their revenue came from government grants of $2,338,423 in 2010, and $1,373,999 in 2009.)

So how did Echo conclude this? Well they asked a panel of "experts" to study abortion access in Ontario. The only problem is that, of all the experts they asked, none of them oppose abortion. No pro-life experts were consulted.

But here’s what else bothers me. It’s that Ontario abortion doctors are already performing way more abortions than we expected in 2010 at a cost of about 35 million dollars. Isn’t that enough? As well, Echo says they represent all Ontario women, but not all Ontario women are pro-abortion. So how can Echo say that they represent all of us? Clearly they can’t.

Their “expert” panel consisted of:

“a cross-provincial Abortion Expert Panel, who based the recommendations on their own expertise, key stakeholder consultation, and the findings of an Ontario based-study undertaken by Dr. L. Ferris through the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. The panel, assembled by Echo: Improving Women’s Health in Ontario, has been meeting over the past year to articulate clear recommendations and to assist in the development of the release strategy for key information from the study findings. The recommendations have implications for the health care, regulatory and training systems.”

I asked Echo’s CEO Pat Campbell if the "cross-provincial Abortion Expert Panel that was consulted with, had also consulted with medical professionals/other experts, who oppose abortion? Her answer was:

“None of the expert panel members oppose abortion.”

The report's “vision” is to:

“ensure accessible, safe, appropriate, timely, and non-judgmental abortion services for Ontario women through an integrated and sustainable sexual and reproductive health system.”

Some background on Echo comes from their Strategic plan and Reflecting Women’s voices.

Their stakeholders include the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the premier’s office, Members of Provincial parliaments, policy makers, and Ontario Women. This means this “pro-choice” group has the ear of not only your Premier and your MPP, but also your Ministry of Health. In fact Echo's mandate is to :

“provide input to government policy” and to “Act as a provincial advisor on women’s health to the Minister, the government and stakeholders; and Provide expert advice and recommendations in response to Minister and Government requests.”

Their “Health Issue focus” includes “Abortion Availability”. But there is no mention anywhere, in any of these three reports, on focusing on adoption availability/promotion, or on focusing on crisis pregnancy centres, two very important other choices for Ontario women.

Echo says it will:

“be the organization that...the women of Ontario seek out with their questions, ideas, options and support on issues of women’s health, equity and access.”

But will pro-life women go to Echo “with their questions, ideas, options and support on issues of women’s health?” I don’t think so.

Echo's conclusion from this "expert panel" is that:

“Ontario women benefit from access to well trained, committed service providers that do this important work in a generally effective and safe manner. The recommendations in this report are intended to continue to support the development of a system of care that supports improved quality and equity of access [to abortion].”

So what is our take away from this?

It is that in Canada’s biggest province, a 100% publicly funded organization, that supposedly “reflects all Ontario women’s voices”, but doesn’t bother to consult with pro-life voices, and that does not advocate for crucial pro-life choices, can conclude that women need more abortion access, when Ontario’s abortion doctors are already killing a whopping 44,000 babies a year and spending a fortune doing it. Do we really need to kill/spend more?

May I suggest you write a letter to Mr. McGuinty (dmcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org ) and your MPP?

(MPP contact information here)

You could tell them that you aren’t really interested in your tax dollars buying more abortions.

Even better, you could tell them that you’d like to see an expert panel formed to study, support and advise Ontario women on Crisis pregnancy centers and adoption agencies.

In fact maybe Mr. McGuinty could throw $35 million at these choices. That would indeed be money well spent.

CIHI clarification on abortion statistics

2011-12-12T19:08:00.000-05:00

Last week I posted abortion statistics from OHIP records for 2010.

I noted the discrepancy between this FOI information I received, and what CIHI published for 2009. (My FOI asked for 2010, but CIHI hadn't published 2010 yet, so I made some general comparisons to previous years 2009, 2008, and 2007).

OHIP records showed at least 31% more abortions than what CIHI typically reports.

So I decided to ask CIHI if they could explain this discrepency.

This is what CIHI told me:

"Thank you for bringing this to our attention. As you know, CIHI just took over reporting on induced abortions from Statistics Canada last year. We are committed to improving the data quality, and have already made strides in areas such as increased accuracy regarding abortion methods and the number of complications associated with in-hospital procedures. We’ve also expanded coverage as a whole.

Currently, our Ontario data on abortion comes from hospitals and clinics. Hospital-based abortions are from administrative data and represent actual number of procedures; they are not based on OHIP billing data. In the case of clinics, we receive records from the provincial ministry that are based on OHIP data. They are for the two billing codes—S752 and S785—that most accurately reflect the scope of our induced abortion database.

We are investigating the information you have provided in order to better understand the discrepancies, and will continue to incorporate any information which will improve our data quality."

I've asked CIHI for some further clarification. I'll keep you posted.

Wanted: love and compassion

2011-12-12T08:22:00.001-05:00

I recently made a donation to the Miriam Centre of Ottawa, for which I received a beautiful thank you note. The note said in part:

"Your generosity allows us to welcome with love and compassion, mothers who are facing a difficult pregnancy. On behalf of all our mothers and their families, we wish to thank you from the bottom of our hearts for your gift."

The Miriam Centre's services are provided without federal, provincial or municipal funding, and are funded only with donations.

Their goal is:

"to minister love and compassion to all mothers and also to those involved in their pregnancies.

Mothers, single or married, regardless of age or situation, are welcomed to the Centre before and after the birth of their child.

Miriam Centre offers assistance to mothers who have already given birth and are having difficulty adjusting to their new lives. Thus they are more confident of their future and that of their child."

It got me thinking.

On the one hand, here is an organization; run by a handful of staff members and some volunteers; whose only source of revenue are donations from the public; who receives no government funding; whose goal is to help a woman with a crisis pregnancy.

On the other hand, Ontario doctors performed at least 44,000 abortions last year; publicly funded by the taxpayer; at an average cost of $800 dollars per abortion.

That's about $35,000,000 Ontarians paid in 2010; for a procedure that is not medically necessary; that is harmful to women and their families; that doesn't help society; that destroys innocent human beings; in a time where every health dollar spent in Ontario is crucial.

Is it only me, or is there something wrong with this picture?

When the medical profession normalizes abortion

2011-12-11T07:50:00.001-05:00

An article in the New England Journal of Medicine is claiming that abortion has virtually no negative effect on women.

The article says:

"Few long-term sequelae are evident after abortion, and the morbidity and mortality are lower with induced abortion (either medical or surgical) than with pregnancy carried to term."

How depressing.

We have normalized abortion to such a degree now that it seems we don't even think of other alternatives like adoption anymore. How tragic for the women who have unwittingly or wittingly bought into this pro-abortion viewpoint.

But it is not surprising that women have succumbed to this philosophy, when on the one hand she is influenced by the extreme minority who tell women they should be "pro-choice". And on the other hand, she can read something like this in a medical journal, where the entire article is written from the assumption that the taking of the life of an unborn person, is as normal and acceptable as some minor surgery. But abortion is not the same. A woman will remember and suffer from an abortion for the rest of her life. She is as much a victim as the child is.

Why can't the medical profession be truly compassionate with women and offer them support and counselling to encourage them to find another option and save the child inside of her? They would also be saving the life of the mother.

Whatever happened to the doctor's creed to first do no harm?

Putting an end to abortion

2011-12-09T17:58:00.000-05:00

The pro-abortions hate it when we bring morality into the abortion debate. Their comeback is usually the forgettable "Against abortion? Don't have one." This week's We want the Debate poster puts that line in its proper perspective.

I think the topic of morality makes pro-abortions queasy. Like, what if there really is something morally questionable about destroying a little defenceless human being, for no other reason than it's my self given right to do so?

To assuage their icky feelings, they may read something from a hard line pro-abort, like "the only moral abortion is my abortion", with the hope that this will ease their conscience. I wonder if it actually does?

Over time, I suppose, they may convince themselves that abortion is perfectly okay, that it doesn't harm the woman at all. And the unborn child, what do they think of her?

The thing is, what do the pro-abortions think the criminal code is based on, if not morality? Don't murder, don't steal, don't rape. The list goes on.

So why are we against abortion? Because abortion hurts a woman, it hurts her family, it hurts society and it hurts a child. There are better ways for a woman to deal with an unplanned pregnancy, like getting support from a crisis pregnancy centre, or putting the child up for adoption. Why is it that the pro-abortions never talk about adoption?

Thank goodness we finally put an end to slavery.

We will put an end to abortion too.

Ontario abortion doctors very busy in 2010

2011-12-05T10:41:00.000-05:00

I recently submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term care for 2010 abortion OHIP billing information. This is what I asked for:

1) How many procedures, and how many dollars, were billed for all abortion clinics in Ontario, for each of the following codes:

S752, S785, P053, P054, S770, S783

2) How many procedures, and how many dollars, were billed for all private physicians' offices in Ontario, for each of the following codes:

S752, S785, P053, P054, S770, S783

3) How many procedures, and how many dollars, were billed for all hospitals in Ontario, for each of the following codes:

S752, S785, P053, P054, S770, S783

(Procedure descriptions here and here and are also included in my graph below. The graph also contains a compilation of the statistics that I received from the Ministry.)

There were 77 selective fetal reduction procedures done in Ontario in 2010.

There were at least 43,997 procedures performed in 2010 in Ontario for a base cost of $5,470,562.36.

(Note: this is only what doctors billed for. See Ministry notes 2 and 3 below regarding costs. Therefore this base cost does not appear to reflect the total cost of an abortion to the taxpayer, which has been estimated at an average cost of about $800/abortion)

CIHI had reported that in 2009, there were 30,268 abortions in Ontario; that in 2008 there were 32,150 abortions, and in 2007, 32,331abortions.

We have suspected that CIHI/Statistics Canada abortions have been under reported. These 2010 figures from these OHIP billings, are actually about 31% higher than the CIHI figures for 2009 and seems to confirm that abortions are being under reported in Ontario.

(The following three notes were included in the response I received back from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term care for this 2010 abortion OHIP billing information.)

(1) The total procedures corresponds solely to the volumes of these procedures as per listed fee schedule codes.

(2) The total billed is based on the billed amount submitted on the claim and does not necessarily represent what was approved and paid for the claim (emphasis included). For example facility fees for specific TA clinics are not included in the fee billed total. The total billed measure includes billed amounts for the professional component volumes as well as the anaesthesia and/or surgical assist components where applicable.

(3) Both fee-for-service as well as globally funded claims were included and restricted to Ontario physicians, in-province claims only. Any potential out-of-province, out-of-country claims were not included.

Click on the graph below and it will enlarge.

Who decides if I will live or die?

2011-11-28T14:56:00.000-05:00

I am not afraid of dying. But I am deathly afraid of dying in a hospital.

The one thing that must never be allowed to be part of our health care system, is the ability for a health care person to have any power to decide whether I will live or I will die.

I have been up close and personal to: negligent, complaining, arrogant, lying, non-caring, rude "health care professionals". No, they are not all like that. Many of them are not negligent, never complain, are humble, tell the truth and care.

But it's the former group I worry about, should they ever be able to practice euthanasia.

Here's what else I've encountered:

I've been told a loved one needs to vacate their bed because it is costing $1600 dollars a day.
One nurse complained to me that she was working without a signed contract and all I could think was, "and what does this have to do with the care of my loved one? You're still being paid right? Oh you are, so then why would I care that you don't have a signed contract?"
I've had a loved one be sent home from emergency only to return the following night to the very same emergency department with the very same problem.
I've had a loved one die from what I believed was a lack of care and neglect. A subsequent complaint to the regulatory body involved, concluded that no, there was no negligence and guess what? "The care provided this patient by Dr. X not only met, but in several instances exceeded the standard of practice expected in the profession." Exceeded? I think not.

I know that working in the health care profession can be hard, and that some are overworked, etc. Fine, that may or may not be true, some of the time, or all of the time, maybe for some and not for others.

Check out what Derek Miedema from the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada has to say on the subject. He gives some startling evidence of euthanasia and assisted suicide gone horribly wrong:

"In Belgium, one-third of euthanasia deaths done by doctors occur without the explicit request of the person killed, according to a 2010 study of euthanasia in Belgium. Why? Some doctors decided for the patient that euthanasia was the best option. Though hard to believe, others thought the conversation about dying would be too stressful for the patient, so they killed them instead.

In Switzerland, a 23-year-old rugby player, paralyzed as a result of a training accident, was depressed. Who wouldn't be? He was euthanized despite research that shows people with a spinal cord injury can and do create a satisfying quality of life with time and proper societal and family support.

Reports from the Netherlands indicate that 500 people died without their consent in 2005 alone. A woman in the advanced stages of dementia was recently euthanized there. A long-time supporter of euthanasia, doctors killed her even though she was incapable of deciding for or against the euthanasia decision at the time of her death.

In Oregon, the law requires that patients get opinions from two doctors before they are approved to die. The problem here is that 58 of 61 patients who died under the law in one year got their second opinion from an activist doctor tied to the group pushing for legal assisted suicide all over the U.S."

In the end, all I know is, I don't want anyone from that profession deciding whether I can live or I can die.

PEI leads Canada in refusal to provide abortions

2011-11-16T16:28:00.001-05:00

Good for PEI in refusing to cave in to the pro-abortions.

According to Tamsin McMahon at the National Post:

"Keith Dewar, CEO of Health P.E.I., the arms-length agency created to oversee health-care administration after the government abolished community hospital boards last year, said changes to provincial abortion policy would be up to the government. The province's Health Minister, Doug Currie, said the government has no intention of reopening the debate.

"Abortion is a complex and sensitive issue that was broadly debated and litigated on Prince Edward Island in the mid-1990s," the Health Minister wrote in an email to the Post. "We have no plans to change the current policy or programming."

Abortion is just one of several medical procedures that aren't performed on the island because they are too expensive, including some heart surgeries, cancer treatments and hip replacements, Mr. Currie has said. "To me, it's not about the political discussion, it's more about another service," he told the Charlottetown Guardian last week. "And the more services you add to the health-care system, obviously there's going to be more cost to that."

Doug Currie is right. With scarce financial resources already available for real life saving medically necessary procedures, why would his province decide to fund abortion, a life ending procedure? Abortion is expensive and is almost never medically necessary. So why should taxpayers fund it?

I think Ontario and the rest of Canada need to take the same stance as PEI and defund abortion.

PEI’s “life sanctuary” needs to spread westward and envelope all of Canada.

Debate: Should physicians provide, or refer for, abortion? (who declined to debate)

2011-11-14T13:17:00.002-05:00

A "pro-choice" commenter to my blog said that:
"this debate was a total set-up. no one from the pro-choice community in ottawa was asked to participate in the debate. while it was nice that jovan accepted the non-invitation, he did not have the background or experience to argue from the perspective of the pro-choice movement and ended up making some pretty oppressive and ineffectivley thought-out arguments. stephanie spends her entire career articulating these issues, of course she "won". but the pro-life side certainly didn't gain any credibility for such a poorly run event."

So I checked it out, to see exactly who was invited to debate Stephanie Gray.

Here is the list of people who either declined, or did not reply, or ignored the organizers' invitations.

i. Dr. Henry Morgentaler (declined to debate)

ii. Heather Mallick ("pro-choice" columnist for the Toronto Star) (no reply to invitation)

iii. Hon. Dr. Hedy Fry (MP) (declined to debate)

iv. Hon. Dr. Carolyn Bennett (MP) (declined to debate)

v. Dr. Kathryn Treehuba, Uof Ottawa professor (Obs-Gyn), and Ottawa-area abortion provider (no reply to invitation)

vi. Dr. Fraser Fellows, UWO professor (Obs-Gyn), and London-area abortion provider (no reply to invitation)

vii. Federation of Medical Women of Canada (declined to debate)

viii. Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada- Joyce Arthur (declined to debate)

ix. NDP Party (no reply to invitation)

x. Canadians for Choice (declined to debate)
xi. Action Canada for Population Development (no reply to invitation)

xii. Hon. Dr. Keith Martin (MP) (No reply to invitation)
xiii. Planned Parenthood Ottawa (Heather Holland - Executive Director- Declined to debate)
xiv. Canadian Federation for Sexual Health (no reply to invitation)
xv. Professor Sanda Rodgers (University of Ottawa) (declined to debate)
xvi. Professor Wayne Sumner (University of Toronto) (declined to debate)

If the "pro-choicers" were not happy with Jovan Morales representing their position, they have only themselves to blame. They were given plenty of opportunity to participate, and declined to.

I guess they thought they could shut down the debate this way. Well, how well did that work out for them? Not too good I'd say.

Maybe they'll think twice next time, before rejecting or ignoring invitations to debate.

Debate: Should physicians provide, or refer for, abortion? (the video)

2011-11-14T08:20:00.001-05:00

Seventy-two percent of Canadians surveyed in a September National Omnibus poll support legal protection for unborn babies. Most (62%) want protection from conception, or two or three months' gestation on. Another ten percent favor protection from 6 months on (Source: Environics poll commissioned by LifeCanada).

The majority of Canadians clearly do want legal protection for our unborn children.

So why won't Mr. Harper allow us to debate abortion in Canada?

We still don't know the answer to that question so I guess we'll just have to start the debate without him.

Perhaps Mr. Harper might want to watch Stefanie Gray (CCBR) debating Jovan Morales (Atheist Community of the University of Ottawa) at the University of Ottawa on November 11.

The topic was "Should physicians provide, or refer for, abortion?"

Mr. Harper might want to get involved, and learn something that is extremely important to many of the people he is Prime Minister to. He might even learn something new. Or he can ignore us.

It's your choice, Mr. Harper.

University of Ottawa - abortion debate Nov 11, 2011 from Jeannie on Vimeo.

Debate: Should physicians provide, or refer for, abortion?

2011-11-12T06:15:00.000-05:00

The University of Ottawa Students for Life and University of Ottawa Medical Students for Life organized a great debate last night between Stephanie Gray (CCBR)and Jovan Morales (Atheist Community of the University of Ottawa) at the University.

The topic was "Should physicians provide, or refer for, abortion?"

The debate may have never happened because the organizers spent four months looking for someone to debate Stephanie. Ten people were asked, including Joyce Arthur and Dr. Henry Morgentaler. All declined except Jovan (kudos to Jovan for his attempt to be a worthy debating partner to Stephanie.)

There was some rather annoying noise of the rude and heckling variety, but we were able to pretty much block it out. For the most part, the debate was fantastic.

I'm hoping we get a video loaded up to youtube for those of you not able to make it.

Stephanie was the clear winner.

World Abortion Laws

2011-11-10T17:09:00.000-05:00

(This article was published in the September/October 2011 issue of LifeCanada News)

Canada is one of only six countries out of 196 countries--that allows unrestricted abortion up until fetal viability and beyond.

In a paper published on March 24, 2009, American law professor, Randy Beck of the University of Georgia Law School discussed case law in Gonzales, Casey and the Viability Rule as it pertains to abortion. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1008303

Beck argues that the:

"The [American] Supreme Court has an unmet obligation to account for the significance accorded to fetal viability in its abortion jurisprudence...Even if one assumes that the Constitution protects a right to terminate a pregnancy, the Court has never offered a principled explanation for its conclusion that the right endures until the fetus can survive outside the womb."

Beck goes on to discuss fetal viability with three arguments.

But it is his third argument that Canadians should take special note. It is his argument of Viability in International Perspective.

Beck complains that "by allowing abortion for any reason until viability, the Court has pushed U.S. abortion law far outside the international mainstream." That “the vast majority” of countries “forbid abortion after 12 weeks gestation.”

Beck says: "Other nations terminate or constrict abortion rights at various points in pregnancy, typically at a much earlier stage in fetal development" and that it makes the US "one of only six countries that allow abortion on demand until the point of viability.”

Not only does Canada allow unrestricted abortion rights until viability, we also allow unrestricted abortion rights until birth. If the US’s abortion law is “far outside the international mainstream”, what does this say for Canada’s situation?

Beck gets his data from the Center for Reproductive Rights, an abortion rights group which identifies five levels of international abortion permissibility:

http://reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/pub_fac_abortionlaws2008.pdf

I. To Save the Woman’s Life or Prohibited Altogether (68 countries)

II. To Preserve Physical Health (35 countries)

III. To Preserve Mental Health (23 countries)

IV. Socioeconomic Grounds (14 countries)

V. Without Restriction as to Reason (56 countries)

So who does Canada share company with on abortion rights? Well China for starters:

"only six nations on the list allow unrestricted abortion to the point of viability or without any specific time limitation—Canada, China, Netherlands, North Korea, United States and Vietnam. A seventh country, Singapore, sets a limit of 24 weeks, which approximates the current viability threshold in the United States."

Beck notes the viability rules for these six countries:

"Most of the nations that join the United States in permitting such unrestricted late-term abortions make for dubious company. Communist China’s efforts toward population control clash with the theory of reproductive rights underlying the Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence, and have led to coerced abortions in parts of that country. With respect to the other two Communist regimes on the list, Vietnam also places legal limits on family size, and North Korea is not viewed as a leader in human rights. The medical culture of the Netherlands appears to be generally less protective of fetal life than other nations, quite apart from the abortion issue. For instance, doctors in that country are much less willing than their European neighbors to provide life sustaining treatment to premature but potentially viable infants."

Dubious company indeed. Canada shares this "distinction" with three Communist regimes, China, Vietnam and North Korea. This is nothing to be proud of.

Beck says:

"Canada might seem a more conventional companion for the United States on legal questions. the current absence of an abortion law in Canada may be less a reflection of national sentiment than a result of Parliament’s failure in attempts to enact a statute meeting standards imposed by the Canadian judiciary".

I agree.

We know that every poll ever taken in Canada, regarding protection for the unborn, tells us that a majority of Canadians want some legal protection. Yet Parliament continues to abdicate its responsibility in bringing forth any such legislation.

And still Mr. Harper refuses to allow any abortion debate.

If the Prime Minister believes Canada requires unrestricted, publicly funded abortions right up until birth--an abortion regime significantly less protective of fetal life than almost every other nation in the entire world, even though our Supreme Court clearly said it is up to Parliament to come up with an abortion law--then Mr. Harper needs to explain to Canadians why he believes this.

He has never offered a principled reason for censoring a public discussion on abortion in this country. If not now Mr. Harper, then when?

We sure do want the debate

2011-11-04T18:24:00.001-04:00

I agree with Andrea Mrozek and her three cheers for We Want the Debate.

What I don't understand is--that press release issued by the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada's entitled Abortion: There’s Nothing to Debate.

Why would anyone issue a press release, that says there's nothing to debate, then debate the very thing, they say there's nothing to debate about?

Maybe it's because the debate they don't want to debate, is actually a really good topic to debate.

Maybe it's something like when Jean Chretien said:
"It's a proof. A proof is a proof, and when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."

I didn't understand that either.

The face of the abortion debate

2011-11-01T16:07:00.001-04:00

We Want the Debate

Will this be Harper's legacy?

2011-10-31T16:33:00.001-04:00

In response to Local organization wants national debate on abortion and Alliance For Life Ontario's We Want the Debate campaign, I wrote the following letter to the Guelph Mercury:

Canada needs an abortion debate

October 31, 2011

We need a national debate on abortion. The reality is that if we shut down this debate, we shut down freedom of speech and we harm our democracy.

When our political leaders refuse to debate an issue that 52 per cent of Canadians want to have we, wittingly or unwittingly, are causing harm to our country. That the subject matter is abortion should make no difference. If the subject matter were murder, rape, women’s rights or what we teach our children in school, would we censure those debates? Of course not. Then why are we not allowed to debate abortion?

If Stephen Harper does not allow Canadians to have the abortion debate that we want to have, he is complicit in jeopardizing our democracy. This, in fact, may result in the law of unintended consequences and Harper may end up as being known as the prime minister who shut down democracy in Canada.

Somehow I don’t think Harper would be very pleased with a legacy such as this.

Patricia Maloney, Ottawa

Educating Francoise

2011-10-29T11:33:00.002-04:00

On Sept 29, MP Françoise Boivin (NDP) said some curious things in the House of Commons, regarding the funding of International Planned Parenthood and the infamous "Women's rights" ideology:

She started with this:

"Mr. Speaker, women's rights should not be open for debate, yet members of the government seem to think they are. The Supreme Court of Canada has clearly ruled that access to abortion is a fundamental right."

Actually...the Supreme Court ruled no such thing. The Morgentaler decision never stated that abortion was a fundamental right at all. And they most assuredly didn't say it was a constitutional right.

Then Ms. Boivin said:

"Either the Prime Minister has lost control of his caucus or his government's new policy is to outlaw abortion and turn back the clock on women's rights. Which is it?"

Well...it's neither. I think we all know that Mr. Harper never loses control of his caucus. Come on, you know that. And outlaw abortion? For someone like Mr. Harper, who categorically refuses to even think about abortion, never mind discuss it, it would be kind of difficult to outlaw it, don't you think?

Then this:

"Mr. Speaker, I have the impression today that we have literally gone back 20 years to a time when another Conservative government wanted to again criminalize abortion. This is not the first time that a member of the Conservative caucus has attempted to attack women's rights. This is becoming routine. Will the Prime Minister put an end to these attempts and guarantee, once and for all, women's right to choose?"

I thought we covered this Francoise. How can the Prime Minister guarantee a woman's right to choose to kill her unborn child, when no such constitutional right exists?

Then on Oct. 3 Ms .Boivin tried again:

"Mr. Speaker, last week, a Conservative member of Parliament said that his government was in the process of successfully modifying its approach to the abortion issue. On Friday, another Conservative MP said exactly the same thing. Is this government changing women's rights against their will or is the Prime Minister unable to control his caucus?"

Hmmm...I'm a woman. And last time I checked, nobody's changing my rights, either against my will or with my will.

And what about Mr. Harper losing control of his caucus? Well Francoise, like I said before, that's sort of impossible. Mr. Harper wouldn't know how to lose control of his caucus.

Mr. Harper to caucus:

"Who’s the boss?"

Caucus:

"you're the boss."

Mr. Harper:

I can't hear you! Who’s the boss?"

Caucus:

"YOU'RE THE BOSS!!"

Mr. Harper:

"That's better."

Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP):

"Three Conservative MPs are trying in a roundabout way to reopen the debate on abortion. In Canada, abortion has been legal for decades. Clearly, some Conservative MPs do not accept that, even though a majority of Canadians do."

Well, you have that, um, wrong again. The majority of Canadians, unlike you Francoise, are not afraid of having an abortion debate." In fact 52% of Canadians said we should not be afraid of an open debate on abortion.

And did you know Francoise, that a majority of Canadians (61%) oppose government funding of all abortions? And that 72% of Canadians want legal protections for the unborn according to a recent Environics poll?

I bet you didn't know that either, did you? I was afraid of that.

And last but not least:

"Can the Prime Minister assure us that he will not allow a private member's bill on abortion to be introduced?"

Oh dear, now I'm really confused. Is it possible that a member of Parliament does not know the definition of a Private Member's Bill? Well just in case, I'll help you out...thanks to...well...to Parliament...you know....that place where you work?

"Public bills initiated by a Minister are referred to as "government bills", while those initiated by private Members are called "private Members' bills".

In other words, a private member's bill is for a member to introduce and not for a government to introduce. So Mr. Harper would have absolutely no say in allowing a private member's bill to be introduced or not. Understood?

So I'm just wondering Francoise, have you considered going back to school?

Our society has chosen the evil

2011-10-28T17:15:00.000-04:00

Mark Peninga at the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada, does an all-encompassing and reasoned look at abortion legislation (or lack thereof) in Canada in Saving some is not a compromise - The case for advancing abortion legislation in Canada one step at a time

It's fairly lengthy at about 12 pages but well worth the read. A few notable quotes below.

Regarding the political efforts in Canada around abortion legislation:

"The bottom line is that Canadians would be shocked at how few people there are working in the genuinely political realm. There is very little strategy or long-term vision."

and this

"When pro-life politicians in this country have tried to do what is possible by advancing legislation, they are given very little support by the key organizations representing the political arm of the pro-life movement. These politicians are often singled out as "compromisers." With immense opposition from pro-abortion activists, the media, and even their own party, is it any wonder that after 20 years of this, most MPs, even pro-life MPs, are hesitant to touch the issue?"

Regarding the reality that some pro-life groups do not support "incremental legislation":

"Just because part of the pro-life community does not support many pro-life laws does not mean that we should avoid those laws and concentrate on those they do support. Although it sounds considerate, we end up trying to be nice rather than do what is really best for the unborn. Prudence requires the right law at a specific time and in a specific context. We have to be wise in those situations and boldly advance abortion legislation that would be effective in limiting evil. With lives at stake we can't devote all of our time to talking to ourselves. There are some foundational differences within the pro-life community (our view of human nature, the role of government, the end times, etc) that we will debate as long as we live. That debate should happen, but we can't put aside our political responsibility while doing so."

this

"If we did boldly advance abortion legislation that is in keeping with public opinion today, well over 500 lives could be saved every year"

and this

"By supporting incremental legislation, we are not in any way compromising. We are working to abolish all abortion by taking the steps humanly possible in this sin-filled and limited world. By promoting a law that bans abortion after 18 weeks, for example, we are not in any way condoning abortion up till 18 weeks. The pro-life leader quoted earlier who opposed gestational limits wrongly believes that such a law would mean we are allowing some evil to save some children. But we aren't allowing the evil. Our society has chosen the evil. The train is hurtling down the tracks whether we like it or not. Our sin-filled human hearts have chosen the evil. Our government has the responsibility to limit that evil as much as possible. If a ban on abortion is not humanly possible in such an evil society but restrictions on abortion are possible, it is the moral duty of government to enact those restrictions, to begin to engage the brakes on the train. We may not be able to stop the train dead in its tracks, but we should begin to apply the brake."

I encourage anyone who believes that "politics is the art of what is possible" to read this paper.

No international right to abortion exists

2011-10-27T16:52:00.000-04:00

The Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations Anand Grover wrote a paper called Right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

Grover believes that women around the world should have full abortion “rights”.

But there is no such thing as an international right to abortion.

The San Jose articles--signed by a group of human rights lawyers and advocates, scholars, elected officials, diplomats, and medical and international policy experts--refutes this notion:

“It is now commonplace that people around the world are told there is a new international right to abortion.

Those who receive this message are people who have the power to change abortion laws; parliamentarians, lawyers, judges and others.

Those delivering this message are influential and believable people; UN personnel, human rights lawyers, judges and others.

The assertion they make is false. No UN treaty makes abortion an international human right.”

The San Jose articles can be downloaded here.

As one would expect from an abortion manifesto such as Grover’s, there is no reference made to the object of these “women’s rights”: the destruction of unborn persons.

The pro-abortions never want to talk about that simple equation: abortion rights = dead fetuses

Abortion rights can only exist, because the pro-abortions deny that unborn persons have any value. Abortion rights become problematic when value is assigned to the fetus.

The pro-abortions also like to say the fetus is not a human being and therefore it has no rights. They can say whatever they like. It does not make it true. The unborn person is human. That is fact.

Grover never mentions the unborn child or the fetus in his 20 page document.

But Grover does talk about The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which ironically, states that:

“Bearing in mind that the need to extend particular care to the child has been stated in the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1924 and in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly on 20 November 1959 and recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (in particular in articles 23 and 24), in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (in particular in article 10) and in the statutes and relevant instruments of specialized agencies and international organizations concerned with the welfare of children, the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth. (emphasis added)"

Grover even quotes The Convention on the Rights of the Child in his document, but conveniently ignores its above guarantee to provide legal protection to the unborn.

No international right to abortion exists.

Eventually the media will get it

2011-10-25T19:49:00.000-04:00

All kinds of leaders

2011-10-23T16:27:00.000-04:00

We have pro-life leaders and we have pro-choice leaders.

We have political leaders and we have spiritual leaders.

Some leaders are good leaders. Some leaders are not so good.

Some leaders use hate to lead. Some leaders use love.

Some leaders tell lies. Some leaders tell the truth.

Some leaders let the power of leadership go to their heads. Some leaders are able to resist that power and remain humble.

John Bartunek, in his book The Better Part, says this about leadership:

"The power and esteem that goes with leadership can be intoxicating. It can lead to a reversal of values: instead of using one's influence strictly for the good of others, you begin to care more about simply staying in power. Then the truth — and the true good — inevitably takes a backseat to expediency. And the worst aspect of all is that it's almost irreversible. The Pharisees had completely lost touch with what was right, because they were completely fixated on what was useful to themselves. Every leader, including the leaders of Christ's Church, must be on their guard "against the leaven of the Pharisees," because in the end the truth will come out.

Wise words, don't you think?

CIHI to release 2009 abortion statistics on Oct. 28

2011-10-21T16:21:00.000-04:00

I recently sent the following email to the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI):

"I understand from your website that the next release [of the Therapeutic Abortions Data] was supposed to be: 2009 (hospital data – spring 2011; clinic data – summer 2011).

Can you please tell me when they will be released because I couldn't find them?"

It took a few tries, but I finally got a response. This is what I was told:

"I understand you were inquiring about the availability of 2009 abortion data published by the Canadian Institute for Health Information. The public release of this data has just been confirmed for October 28. The release will include three years of data – 2007/2008/2009 – as our analytical team has done a lot of work to try to fill in at least some of the information gaps from previous years as well.

For example, the three years of data will include more comprehensive data on the total number of abortions performed in clinic as well as hospital settings.

We apologize for the outdated information on our website - and are working to have our web page refreshed to reflect the new release timeframe. Thank you for bringing this to our attention."

Keep your eyes peeled for October 28, 2011. Hopefully the statistics will be released as promised.

And more comprehensive data? Well let's see.

We want the debate

2011-10-17T04:54:00.001-04:00

More Canadians want an abortion debate, than voted in Mr. Harper. Mr. Harper, We want the debate.

Mr. Harper, tell us why you are funding Planned Parenthood

2011-10-16T16:28:00.000-04:00

I sent a letter to Mr. Harper asking him not to fund IPPF. His office sent me a response (see below) that frankly, is insulting.

The Prime Minister's Office tells me that I "raised an issue that falls within the portfolio of the Honourable Beverley J. Oda, Minister of International Cooperation." and so his office has "taken the liberty of forwarding [my] e-mail to Minister Oda. I am certain that the Minister will wish to give your views every consideration."

I really don't think any Canadian, myself included, is under any illusions about who is running the show here. Even though the PMO's office tells me my letter should rightly go to Minister Oda, we all know it is Stephen Harper who calls the shots, so who are we kidding?

The decision to fund IPPF, after Canadians were assured that abortions would not be included in the Maternal health initiative, rests with Mr. Harper.

Mr. Harper needs to own up to Canadians and explain why our tax dollars are being given to an organization whose goal is to make abortion legal around the world.
--------------------
Dear Mr. Harper,

I am asking you to change your decision to fund International Planned Parenthood federation. Their mandate is to make abortion legal everywhere in the world. IPPF also lobbies to make abortion an international human right.

Instead we should fund organizations that help women and their children like Matercare, who has been refused funding 11 times. Why is that anyway? Matercare helps women and their unborn children, and IPPF destroys unborn children and greatly harms their mothers.

With your majority government you have the unique opportunity to help woman and their unborn children, here and abroad. I ask that you do that and a good first step would be to stop funding IPPF.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney
-------------------
Dear Ms. Maloney,

Thank you for writing to the Prime Minister. In your e-mail, you raised an issue that falls within the portfolio of the Honourable Beverley J. Oda, Minister of International Cooperation.

Please be assured that your comments have been carefully noted. I have taken the liberty of forwarding your e-mail to Minister Oda. I am certain that the Minister will wish to give your views every consideration.

For more information on the Government's initiatives, you may wish to visit the Prime Minister's Web site, at www.pm.gc.ca.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to write.

Mr. Harper, do not fund Planned Parenthood

2011-10-13T18:35:00.000-04:00

The Canadian Bishops have written to Stephen Harper asking him to end funding to International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). See letter here.

Now it’s your turn to write to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of International Cooperation Bev Oda, and to your own MP.

Tell them you do not want your tax dollars to fund abortion in third world countries. Tell them you want your money to go to organizations that help women (like Matercare who have been refused funding 11 times). Tell them you do not want your tax dollars going to organizations that hurt women and their unborn children.

Remind Mr. Harper, Ms. Oda and your MP that they work for you. That they do not work for themselves and they do not work for IPPF. Remind them that they are accountable to you the taxpayer.

I’m sure you can come up with ten more good reasons why the Government of Canada--or should I say you the tax payer--should not fund IPPF.

Send your letter by email to:

Stephen.harper@parl.gc.ca

Bev.oda@parl.gc.ca

Find your own MP’s email address here:

Or send your letter by regular mail to (no postage required):

Name of Member of Parliament

House of Commons

Ottawa, Ontario

Canada

K1A 0A6

It's important that you write to them right now.

We reap what we sow

2011-10-11T15:44:00.000-04:00

Dear Mr. Hudak,

The Ontario election is over. What a disaster. Only 49% of Ontario voters voted. It's quite possible that people stayed home--because there was no clear difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals.

May I suggest to you Mr. Hudak, that had you stood by your previously stated pro-life principles (you were once pro-life, right?) perhaps more people would have voted. Maybe pro-life voters stayed home because there was no party who represented the unborn. Maybe you could have won the election. Maybe you could have been premier of Ontario.

But no, none of this happened. We are stuck with another Liberal government. For four more years. How sad. You had your chance. But you didn't use it.

What do you think Mr. Hudak? Did you gamble and lose? Did you even care? Or were you just one more leader in a long line of I-will-not-reopen-the-abortion-debate leaders who turns their back on our unborn children?

Of course we will never know, will we? But I thought I'd just put it out there. That maybe you could have won. Maybe our unborn children could have won. It would have been real nice to have a leader who cared about them. Maybe next time.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

The Dictatorship of Relativism

2011-10-10T13:34:00.000-04:00

By Fr. Terry Donahue, CC – October 9, 2011 – www.companionscross.org

Homily for the 28th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year A – Isaiah 25:6-10, Phil 4:12-14,19-20, Mt 22:1-14

Today I’d like to speak with you about what Pope Benedict XVI calls the Dictatorship of Relativism. But first let’s define relativism, and in particular, moral relativism.

What is Moral Relativism?

Some truths are relative. For example, if I say, “Chocolate ice cream is delicious. It’s the best!” that is a statement about my personal tastes, so it is subjective. Taste can vary according to the individual, and I won’t fault someone for liking vanilla better! Subjective truths are based on internal preferences. They can change according to our feelings.

Other truths are absolute. For example, if I say, “2+2=4” and someone else says, “I believe that 2+2=5!” I can say “I’m right and you’re wrong.” Because that’s an objective truth from mathematics. Objective truths are realities in the external world that we discover. We cannot change them according to our internal feelings.

Moral relativism holds that all moral truths (about what is right and wrong) are subjective, like our personal taste in ice cream. A moral relativist believes that there are no universal moral rules that apply to everyone, everywhere.

The opposite of moral relativism is moral absolutism, which holds that there are moral rules which are universally binding on everyone, which are not a matter of personal conviction, but are objective truths that we discover. (Francis J. Beckwith & Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-air, 1998, p. 28)

Moral Relativism on Campus

Moral relativism is running rampant in our society, especially in universities, colleges and even high schools. Many university students see relativism as a necessary condition for a free society. “The goal isn’t to correct your mistakes and really be right. The goal is not to think that anyone is right at all.” (Relativism, p. 73)

In their book Relativism, Francis Beckwith & Gregory Koukl offer the following dialogue between a high school teacher and her student Elizabeth (based loosely on a real-life exchange):

“Teacher: Welcome, students. This is the first day of class, and so I want to lay down some ground rules. First, since no one has the truth, you should be open-minded to the opinions of your fellow students. Second… Elizabeth do you have a question?

Elizabeth: Yes, I do. If nobody has the truth, isn’t that a good reason for me not to listen to my fellow students? After all, if nobody has the truth, why should I waste my time listening to other people and their opinions? Only if somebody has the truth does it make sense to be open-minded. Don’t you agree?

Teacher: No, I don’t. Are you claiming to know the truth? Isn’t that a bit arrogant and dogmatic?

Elizabeth: Not at all. Rather I think it’s dogmatic, as well as arrogant, to assert that no single person on earth knows the truth. After all, have you met every person in the world and quizzed them exhaustively? If not, how can you make such a claim? Also, I believe it is actually the opposite of arrogance to say that I will alter my opinions to fit the truth whenever and wherever I find it. And if I happen to think that I have good reason to believe I do know the truth and would like to share it with you, why wouldn’t you listen to me? Why would you automatically discredit my opinion before it is even uttered? I thought we were supposed to listen to everyone’s opinion.

Teacher: This should prove to be an interesting semester.

[The class clown chimed in…] Ain’t that the truth!” (Beckwith & Koukl, Relativism, p. 74)

As Catholics we believe that we have the fullness of the truth, not because we’re so smart and have figured it out for ourselves, but because we have received the truth as a gift from a higher authority, from God, the source of all truth, through Jesus Christ. So our claim to know the truth is not arrogance, but in fact requires humility. It takes humility to submit your life to the truth when you discover it.

The Dictatorship of Relativism – Pope Benedict XVI

Cardinal Ratzinger spoke of relativism in his homily during the Conclave in 2005, at a Mass for the election of a new Pope (just before he was elected Pope Benedict XVI). He said that once relativism is embraced by a large portion of society, it then becomes imposed by the state:

“We are building a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.” (Cardinal Ratzinger, Deacon of the College of Cardinals, Homily for Mass for the Election of the Roman Pontiff, 18 April 2005, http://www.vatican.va/gpII/documents/homily-pro-eligendo-pontifice_20050418_en.html)

In a dictatorship of relativism, relativism is imposed by the state through force of law. Let’s look at an example of how this is playing out in Canada.

Linda Gibbons and “Bubble-Zone” Laws

Have you heard of “Bubble zone” laws? They are laws in Toronto and Vancouver that make it illegal to protest or speak about abortion within a certain distance of an abortion clinic (50m or 18m depending on the location – for more details see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_protection_of_access_to_abortion).

In August 1994, a civil court ordered a temporary injunction against picketing too close to Toronto abortion clinics. Since then, Linda Gibbons has been arrested over 20 times for staging illegal protests in front of Toronto abortion clinics, and has spent nine of the past 17 years in jail. What exactly was her crime? Here is a description of her most recent arrest in August 2011:

“Ms. Gibbons can be seen holding up a poster of a healthy infant with the words: ‘Why Mom? When I have so much love to give.’ She remained silent while five police officers spoke to her about the court order. Ms. Gibbons was then handcuffed and taken into custody.”

(Charles Lewis, “Activist against abortion back in jail,” National Post, see www.youtube.com/watch?v=buNsf73CIPc and http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/08/09/serial-abortion-clinic-protester-linda-gibbons-back-in-jail/)

Much of the rhetoric of the pro-choice movement is about “Don’t impose your morality on me.” But now the same people are using the coercive power of the state to enforce their morality upon Linda Gibbons and the rest of Canada. It is proponents of the “tolerant” pro-choice view who locked her up in jail for years for peacefully standing on a public sidewalk and advocating for the life of the unborn. That is the Dictatorship of Relativism.

Morality and the Wedding Feast

In the parable of the Wedding Banquet in today’s Gospel (Mt 22:1-14), the King is clearly not a moral relativist! He judges those who killed his servants as “not worthy” to enter the wedding feast (Mt 22:8). At the end of our lives, we will be held accountable for our actions, based on how we responded to the invitation, to the graces we received from God.

Sincere seekers can enter the Kingdom of God!

Sometimes when Catholics hear a priest like me railing against relativism, they can think “Well, I’m a Catholic. I’m in the exclusive club, so I’m good. All these warnings of Jesus don’t apply to me, do they?” Well, Catholics shouldn’t be too quick to assume that…

In a recent homily given in Germany, Pope Benedict XVI commented on Matthew 21 where Jesus says tax collectors and harlots will enter the Kingdom of God before the Pharisees. Benedict translated Jesus’ statement into the present, saying that agnostics (who don’t know if God exists) but are seeking to find out, “those who long for a pure heart but suffer on account of their sin, are closer to the Kingdom of God than believers whose life of faith is ‘routine’ and who regard the Church merely as an institution, without letting… the faith touch their hearts.”

(Pope Benedict XVI, Homily at Touristic airport, Freiburg im Breisgau, 25 Sep 2011, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2011/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20110925_freiburg_en.html)

The Kingdom of God is not some exclusive club just for Catholics! The Kingdom is radically inclusive of anyone who is sincerely seeking the truth and willing to submit to it when he finds it.

A Call to Action

1) If you realize that your moral compass has been demagnetized by moral relativism, today can be a wake-up call for you.

- Get answers to your nagging moral questions from authoritative sources, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church instead of just going along with the crowd or doing what “feels” right to you.

- Some of you may need to get right with God. Fall on the mercy of the Saviour by repenting of serious sin and make a good confession.

2) Learn how to recognize arguments from moral relativism in speeches, or even in conversation around the water cooler at work. Don’t let the sloppy reasoning of relativism slide by. Challenge it and expose the weakness of relativist arguments.

3) Teach your children that there are moral absolutes – that some things are really right (such as defending the life of the innocent) and some things are really wrong (such as punishing the innocent precisely because they are innocent).

Conclusion

When Linda Gibbons dies and faces judgment seat of God, she will be vindicated. Because she will finally face a just judge who will not condemn her for speaking out in defense of the innocent, who will not imprison her for years for siding with the helpless unborn being dragged off to die.

On that day, the Just King will deliver all those who have been oppressed, maltreated, abandoned and forgotten.

He will “destroy the shroud that is cast over all peoples” (Isaiah 25:7).
He will “wipe away the tears from all faces” (Isaiah 25:8).
On that day, they will say with one strong voice: “This is our God. We have waited for him, so that he might save us” (Isaiah 25:9).

Real choice

2011-10-08T11:34:00.000-04:00

It was disturbing to learn yesterday, that for the eleventh time, CIDA has refused funding to Matercare International because they refused to provide “reproductive health care” for the Conservatives's maternal health initiative.

We already know that CIDA is funding IPPF even though abortion is not included in the Maternal health initiative. If we choose to believe that IPPF will not advocate for their abortion ideology with this money, we are at best, blind.

IPPF’s states on their website:
“We aim to reduce the number of abortions worldwide that are unsafe. Our Member Associations are committed to identifying actions that will increase a woman’s right to access abortion-related services, including counselling and post-abortion care, as well as safe abortion services. We believe that a woman has the right to choose and access safe abortion services and we advocate for changes in legislation to support this. This is one of the priority concerns of our work.” (emphasis added).

These two funding decisions are the exact reverse of what Canada should be doing. We should fund Matercare and we should not fund IPPF.

Yesterday at Mass, the reading was Luke 11:14-26, Jesus and Beelzebub. This reading reminded me of one of the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius called the Two Standards.

Some background on the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius:

St. Ignatius created these exercises to aid all persons in realizing their ultimate goal in life:
“Man is created to praise, reverence, and serve God our Lord, and by this means to save his soul.”

These exercises are done under the direction of a spiritual director, to gain a deeper understanding of our role here on Earth, and help us to eventually spend eternity with Christ the Lord.

This particular exercise helps us to imagine, to contemplate and to pray about whose authority (or standard) we would like to fall under:

Would it be Christ the Lord or would it be Lucifer?

I was going to paraphrase the Two Standards, but I think Ignatius says it pretty well himself. So I will let St. Ignatius explain this exercise for you in his own words.

TWO STANDARDS

The one of Christ, our Commander-in-chief and Lord; the other of Lucifer, mortal enemy of our human nature.

Prayer. The usual Preparatory Prayer.

First Prelude. The First Prelude is the narrative. It will be here how Christ calls and wants all under His standard; and Lucifer, on the contrary, under his.

Second Prelude. The second, a composition, seeing the place. It will be here to see a great field of all that region of Jerusalem, where the supreme Commander-in-chief of the good is Christ our Lord; another field in the region of Babylon, where the chief of the enemy is Lucifer.

Third Prelude. The third, to ask for what I want: and it will be here to ask for knowledge of the deceits of the bad chief and help to guard myself against them, and for knowledge of the true life which the supreme and true Captain shows and grace to imitate Him.

PART I THE STANDARD OF SATAN

First Point. The first Point is to imagine as if the chief of all the enemy seated himself in that great field of Babylon, as in a great chair of fire and smoke, in shape horrible and terrifying.

Second Point. The second, to consider how he issues a summons to innumerable demons and how he scatters them, some to one city and others to another, and so through all the world, not omitting any provinces, places, states, nor any persons in particular.

Third Point. The third, to consider the discourse which he makes them, and how he tells them to cast out nets and chains; that they have first to tempt with a longing for riches—as he is accustomed to do in most cases—that men may more easily come to vain honor of the world, and then to vast pride. So that the first step shall be that of riches; the second, that of honor; the third, that of pride; and from these three steps he draws on to all the other vices.

PART II THE STANDARD OF CHRIST

So, on the contrary, one has to imagine as to the supreme and true Captain, Who is Christ our Lord.

First Point. The first Point is to consider how Christ our Lord puts Himself in a great field of that region of Jerusalem, in lowly place, beautiful and attractive.

Second Point. The second, to consider how the Lord of all the world chooses so many persons—Apostles, Disciples, etc.,—and sends them through all the world spreading His sacred doctrine through all states and conditions of persons.

Third Point. The third, to consider the discourse which Christ our Lord makes to all His servants and friends whom He sends on this expedition, recommending them to want to help all, by bringing them first to the highest spiritual poverty, and—if His Divine Majesty would be served and would want to choose them—no less to actual poverty; the second is to be of reproaches and contempt; because from these two things humility follows. So that there are to be three steps; the first, poverty against riches; the second, reproaches or contempt against worldly honor; the third, humility against pride. And from these three steps let them induce to all the other virtues.

First Colloquy. One Colloquy to Our Lady, that she may get me grace from Her Son and Lord that I may be received under His standard; and first in the highest spiritual poverty, and—if His Divine Majesty would be served and would want to choose and receive me—not less in actual poverty; second, in suffering reproaches and injuries, to imitate Him more in them, if only I can suffer them without the sin of any person, or displeasure of His Divine Majesty; and with that a Hail Mary.

Second Colloquy. I will ask the same of the Son, that He may get it for me of the Father; and with that say the Soul of Christ.

Third Colloquy. I will ask the same of the Father, that He may grant it to me; and say an Our Father.

I think we need to reconsider these decisions to fund IPPF and to not fund Matercare.

We need to listen to what is written on our hearts. We need to decide whose standard we choose to follow.

It's okay to kill a baby in the womb...when?

2011-10-03T13:24:00.001-04:00

"You should never kill Jews but I think others should have the right to do it..."

This documentary by Ray Comfort, discusses Hitler's holocaust, and the similarities between it and abortion. But not in the way that pro-lifers usually discuss the two.

Comfort created the video based on interviews he did with ordinary people (most of them young) as he discussed Hitler, his holocaust, abortion, morality, and Jesus Christ.

By the end of this half hour video, Comfort makes his interviewees rethink their position on abortion, and even changes their minds.

It may change your mind.

It's only 33 minutes.

How Harper hid his agenda that was hidden

2011-10-02T18:47:00.000-04:00

In a bold move yesterday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper held a press conference in support of three back bench Conservative MPs. He was also surrounded by his entire 165 member caucus. He issued this statement:

I just want to tell all Canadians, that Brad Trost, Maurice Velacott and Leon Benoit, who spoke out against International Planned Parenthood, did this on their own.

What they did, one after the other, in quick succession, quickly and decisively, was to protect me from those who would accuse me of reopening the abortion debate. I have always kept my promise not to reopen the abortion debate. I said this from day one. That I would not reopen the abortion debate. I have kept this promise.

This is how I accomplished it.

When I was first elected in 2006, pro-choice Canadians kept saying I had a hidden agenda. They said that if I were elected, I would reopen the abortion debate. I said I would not reopen the abortion debate. I held firm and did not reopen the debate. I refused to talk about abortion. I was elected Prime Minister, albeit with a minority government, and I continued to promise not to reopen the abortion debate.

You may recall that in January of 2010 I announced my maternal and child health initiative to help mothers and their children in third world countries. This initiative did not include abortion. Shortly thereafter, the Liberals insisted abortion be included in the initiative and they brought forward a motion to include abortion in my initiative.

I, of course, as already stated, did not want to reopen the abortion debate. In fact in March of 2010, I clearly recall saying "we do not want a debate, here or elsewhere, on abortion." I remember I said that. I then instructed my caucus to vote against the motion. The motion was defeated. Even though abortion was on the table, it wasn't me who put it there. The Liberals did. I did not reopen the abortion debate.

Then this year, before I received my first ever majority government, one that I really, really wanted, I continued to tell everyone I would not reopen the abortion debate. I repeated this. Many times. Over and over again. I held firm to this promise.

Last week, Minister Bev Oda, promised International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) $6 million for family planning in third world countries. As many of you know, IPPF is one of the world's largest abortion providers. Their goal is to make abortion legal around the globe and to make abortion an international human right. Again, the abortion debate was on the table, this time opened by my faithful servant, Oda. But notice, once again, I did not reopen the abortion debate. Once again I did what I said I would do. I stuck to my guns so to speak (small pun there).

Now I stand before you, with my entire caucus, with my coveted majority government, and I say to you: I never once reopened the abortion debate. I still have no intention of reopening the abortion debate. I will never reopen the abortion debate. The abortion debate will never be reopened by me.

Abortion is now on the table, it has been unhidden from where it lay hidden all these years. And still I stand firm with my promise never to reopen the abortion debate.

I can never be accused of reopening the abortion debate. I have kept my promise.

Thank you.

DISCLAIMER: All characters and events portrayed in this posting are a satirical examination of the abortion debate in Canada. Some readers may not share this sense of humour.

Pro-life MP speaks out (part deux)

2011-09-30T15:24:00.000-04:00

Maurice Vellacott, MP
Saskatoon-Wanuskewin

The Dupes of Hazard Reruns - International Planned Parenthood’s Weasel Words, Dishonesty, Deceit and Death

For Immediate Release September 30, 2011

OTTAWA – Member of Parliament Maurice Vellacott commented today on IPPF’s deceitful language on abortion to con the Canadian government for taxpayer dollars under the Muskoka Maternal/Child Health initiative.

IPPF had revised and resubmitted its funding proposal to CIDA after the 2011 election. http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2011/09/22/pol-planned-parenthood-funding.html

“The IPPF is trying to dupe us into believing that because Canadian taxpayer dollars are going to countries where abortion is supposedly illegal, the money won’t be spent on abortions,” says Vellacott.

“But we know in Bangladesh, for example, where Canada is funding, this nefarious organization will do early abortion which they euphemistically call ‘menstrual regulation’ by vacuum suction. If a woman hasn’t had her period in 8 weeks, they will do a ‘menstrual regulation’ – that’s an early abortion by another name.

“In this way, IPPF will be using Canadian taxpayer dollars for funding abortions directly or, to use other deceptive language, they will be ‘establishing non-pregnancy in the first trimester.’ http://www.ipas.org/Library/News/News_Items/Ipas_launches_country_program_in_Bangladesh.aspx

“So funding IPPF in these 5 countries contradicts a criterion for Prime Minister’s Stephen Harper’s noble initiative to save the lives of women and children in developing countries.

“Even in those countries where abortion is technically illegal, it’s naïve to think that Canadian tax dollars are not being used to promote abortion. One of IPPF’s main publicly stated goals is to aggressively dismantle abortion laws in each country around the globe and have abortion recognized as a universal human right. “Sexual Rights: An IPPF Declaration” http://www.ippf.org/NR/rdonlyres/0DB48DF8-921A-47D3-AB23-A21CE2FB83EB/0/IPPFsexualRightsPocketsize.pdf

“Under the guise of ‘education’ Canadian taxpayer dollars will be used to advance IPPF’s unfounded claims that abortion is necessary to prevent maternal deaths, when in fact abortion does great harm to women. http://www.mauricevellacott.com/Newsroom/March%205,%202010%20-%20AAPLOG%20letter%20re.%20Joyce%20Arthur%20assertions%20on%20abortion.pdf

“In addition, 6 million Canadian taxpayer dollars to IPPF frees up money from other sources to fund abortions directly.”

Vellacott continued: “Earlier this week we heard that a US Congressional Committee is investigating the national chapter of IPPF in America, for financial irregularities and concerns about the cover-up of sex trafficking of women. http://www.lifenews.com/2011/09/27/congress-to-investigate-planned-parenthood-abortion-business/ PPFA has also covered up cases of incest and the rape of minors. There are also reports of their racial/ethnic targeting, for example, against Blacks and Hispanics. http://www.blackgenocide.org/planned.html ^, http://www.lifenews.com/2011/08/29/report-proves-planned-parenthood-targets-blacks-hispanics/

“IPPF has come a long way in sanitizing its language to disguise its true agenda since the days of its founder, Margaret Sanger, the leading exponent of the modern eugenics movement. Sanger was much more direct about her motives. Sanger freely criticized charitable programs that helped poor pregnant women and their children whom she referred to as ‘dead weight of human waste.’ “The Pivot of Civilization,” by Margaret Sanger, Chapter 5: “The Cruelty of Charity” at http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/abortion_eugenics/sanger/sanger_05.html And her ‘plan for peace’ included ‘a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation’ for those she deemed ‘unfit.’“A Plan for Peace,” by Margaret Sanger, Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108) at http://roaringrepublican.com/blog/2010/08/21/text-of-a-plan-for-peace-by-margaret-sanger/

“But Planned Parenthood’s coded language today doesn’t fool me,” Vellacott concluded. “This controversy over funding will in the end have a positive effect. It will have exposed the lies and destructiveness of IPPF’s agenda, and it exposes what this abortion giant is surreptitiously trying to achieve worldwide.

“It’s still not too late to stop this 6 million dollar misappropriation of Canadian taxpayer funds, because IPPF does not meet the criteria of our commendable maternal and child health care initiative. IPPF will be doing abortions by another name.”

– 30 –

For further comment, call (613) 992-1966 or (613) 297-2249

1 http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2011/09/22/pol-planned-parenthood-funding.html

2 http://www.ipas.org/Library/News/News_Items/Ipas_launches_country_program_in_Bangladesh.aspx

3 “Sexual Rights: An IPPF Declaration” http://www.ippf.org/NR/rdonlyres/0DB48DF8-921A-47D3-AB23-A21CE2FB83EB/0/IPPFsexualRightsPocketsize.pdf

4 http://www.mauricevellacott.com/Newsroom/March%205,%202010%20-%20AAPLOG%20letter%20re.%20Joyce%20Arthur%20assertions%20on%20abortion.pdf

5 http://www.lifenews.com/2011/09/27/congress-to-investigate-planned-parenthood-abortion-business/

6 http://www.blackgenocide.org/planned.html

7 http://www.lifenews.com/2011/08/29/report-proves-planned-parenthood-targets-blacks-hispanics/

8 “The Pivot of Civilization,” by Margaret Sanger, Chapter 5: “The Cruelty of Charity” at http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/abortion_eugenics/sanger/sanger_05.html

9 “A Plan for Peace,” by Margaret Sanger, Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108) at http://roaringrepublican.com/blog/2010/08/21/text-of-a-plan-for-peace-by-margaret-sanger/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some pretty interesting reading there on Margaret Sanger and her "legacy", International Planned Parenthood. Quite the pair those two.

It's time to stop giving Canadian tax dollars--that would be my tax dollars and your tax dollars--to IPPF for abortion promotion.

Pro-life MP speaks out

2011-09-28T19:41:00.000-04:00

All I can say is that MP Brad Trost is both gutsy and pro-life. What a delightful combination: Response to Federal Government's Decision to Fund IPPF

Regarding the government's decision to fund International Planned Parenthood, Trost says:

"People have asked how funding IPPF squares with the repeated statement that Canada will not fund abortion internationally. The PMO attempts to square this circle by only permitting IPPF funding to go into countries that ban abortion.

Considering that promoting abortion internationally is central to the identity of IPPF, this sort of political hairsplitting only seems to make sense in the Ottawa bubble. This is a position I totally reject."

What a breath of fresh air wafting over from Parliament Hill, that stodgiest of stodgy places.

Trost continues:

"The battle over the IPPF continues.

Pro-Life politicians have been taught a lesson.

The government only responds to Pro-Life issues and concerns when we take an aggressive stance.

We will apply this lesson."

I'm really liking your plan there Mr. Trost. All we need to do now is get a few more of those pro-life MPs to hop on the horse and run that IPPF stagecoach out of town.

The six million dollar miracle

2011-09-23T17:45:00.000-04:00

So Canada is giving 6 million dollars to International Planned Parenthood Federation. To provide sex education and contraception in developing countries in Africa. Where abortion is currently illegal.

Where do I begin?

How about, with one of IPPF's main goals? That would be,"to make abortion legal and safe everywhere."

IPPF also promotes abortion access as a woman’s right, in fact as a human right in international law. IPPF says:
“sexual and reproductive rights should be internationally recognized as human rights and therefore guaranteed for everyone.”

As everyone who knows anything about IPPF knows, "sexual and reproductive rights" includes "abortion rights."

So let's see. If I was IPPF, and I advocated to make abortion legal everywhere, and I had 6 million dollars to provide sex education to countries where abortion is illegal, don't you think I might, you know, do some self promoting of abortion, in those very same countries to make abortion legal? So that I could drum up some more business?

Remember that IPPF admits their goal is to make abortion legal all over the world. That's the business Planned Parenthood is in. Abortion. You can't separate the goals from the money.

And what about last year when the Liberal motion to fund abortion in the Maternal Health initiative was defeated? I thought Canadians were assured by Mr. Harper, that there would be no funding for abortion in the third world? That our tax dollars would not fund abortion in the developing world?

Or do I have that wrong?

But of course that was all before the election. Before the Conservatives under Mr. Harper won their majority. The majority that couldn't have been won without the support of social conservatives.

Well now Mr. Harper has his coveted majority. So really, who needs those pesky social conservatives anyway? Who needs those irritating pro-lifers who are always complaining how Canada is virtually the only country in the world with legalized abortion right up until birth, and how we have that darned-dubious-distinction of being the most abortion tolerant country in the world?

So here's a thought. What if Mr. Harper decided to give money to IPPF for a very strategic reason? After all, we all know that Mr. Harper is no dummy.

What we do know is that, with more money, IPPF can continue to spread their gospel of abortion. To every corner of the globe. Right around the world. Everywhere. Resulting in more countries converting to legalized abortion for all nine months. For any reason. Or for no reason. Just like Canada.

Now we would share our darned-dubious-distinction with other countries. Maybe the whole world. And Mr. Harper wouldn't have to listen to pro-lifers complain anymore about how Canada is the most abortion accepting country in the world. Because the rest of the world would have limitless abortion just like us.

So I'm just wondering. Was this the agenda Mr. Harper had all along? Hidden until he got his majority?

Politics cannot be separated from morality

2011-09-17T15:41:00.000-04:00

It was only a matter of time until it happened in Canada, and now it has. As Mark Steyn put it, we now have "fourth-trimester abortion".

Canada's moral compass, let free to swing wildly in any and all directions as far as abortion is concerned, has simply regressed to the point where fully tax funded abortion for all nine months of pregnancy wasn't enough.

The case of course, is about Katrina Effert, who in 2005, gave birth and then strangled her baby boy.

Judge Joanne Veit said in her ruling of the case:
“While many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support,” she writes… “Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother.”

In a country where abortion is already fully legal until the precise moment of birth, we've finally taken the step over the precipice into that inevitable moment after birth.

Nobody should be surprised though. Not with political "leaders" who stick there fingers in their ears, squeeze their eyes shut, cover their mouths, and dance the hear no evil, see no evil, say no evil, abortion-rights-dance, round and round the mulberry bush.

Thomas More, patron saint of those same politicians taught us "by his life and his death that man cannot be separated from God, nor politics from morality."

Alas, Thomas More never came to Canada.

Is there a beam in your eye?

2011-09-13T16:42:00.000-04:00

Open letter to Canadian Members of Parliament

Dear political leaders,

Next week you go will back to work. You will lead. But before you can lead, you must see. And before you can see, you must ask yourself the following question: Is there a beam in your eye? The beam of prejudice. Against the unborn.

May I suggest you set aside 25 minutes and listen to Father Frank Pavone's recent sermon on leadership? It's well worth the listen.

Fr. Pavone's sermon is based on Luke 6:39-42. Don't worry if you aren't a Christian, that's okay. Jesus is pretty easy to understand:

JESUS TOLD HIS DISCIPLES A PARABLE: Can a blind person guide a blind person? Will not both fall into a pit? No disciple is superior to the teacher; but when fully trained, every disciple will be like his teacher. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me remove that splinter in your eye,' when you do not even notice the wooden beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! Remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter in your brother's eye.

Fr. Pavone starts his story by telling us about a particular leader, Saint Peter Claver, a Jesuit priest.

Fr. Claver ministered to the slaves as they arrived in the slave ships in Cartagena, Colombia during the slave trade. Fr. Pavone tells us that some people criticized Father Claver and what he was doing. They said to him:

"they are just slaves, why are you getting so worked up about slaves?"

Fr. Pavone answers the question:

"...leadership means you must take the beam out of your eye first before you can see. The blind can't lead the blind. See first, then lead. We have beams in our eyes. We have to take them out. One of those beams is the beam of racial hatred. Racial hatred is just one category of hatred in general...we judge entire groups of people...we put them lower than other groups of people. This is a persistent mistake in human history and in the human heart."

So why are people so blind to it--that beam in their eye called prejudice? Because:

"It's so powerful, it's so subtle, it's so persistent, we are blinded by it. We try to be politically correct: Some will pride themselves and say oh yea, we got to be against racism...I hate racism, we got to eradicate it... and meanwhile they think about the unborn children and they say--oh it's only a fetus..."

This is what Fr. Pavone thinks about these politically correct people:

"You hypocrite...can a blind person guide a blind person? Will not both fall into a pit? Equality! Social justice! Freedom for all! Legal abortion! You hypocrite. You blind guide. You fool. How and why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, and do not perceive the wooden beam in your own? Prejudice."

Are we hypocrites? Is Father Pavone right? Do we say we stand for equal rights for all--except the unborn? Are we leaders? How big is that beam in our eye? Can we lead with the beam intact?

I really hope you listen to it. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

They will have no heart

2011-09-02T16:24:00.003-04:00

I've been thinking. Is there a politician in Canada today, who would be willing to part with his or her head, because of a higher principle?

I've been, you know, cogitating and ruminating, and scratching my own (attached) head and pondering, and staring out the window and waiting for the light bulb to come on. And I can't come up with any names.

I'm not saying there isn't anyone like this, there very well could be. I'm just saying, I don't know of such a person.

And to boot, what if that person was someone who was also a an educated person, a lawyer and chief advsior to one of the most important heads of state in the civilized world?

Well, there was such a man many years ago, and his name was Sir Thomas More. More was born in 1478 and was Lord Chancellor to King Henry the Eighth.

What was More's higher principle? Well, he refused to swear an oath on the Bible, saying that he publicly approved of King Henry's marriage to Ann Boleyn, after the King had divorced his first wife Catherine.

This story is documented in the 1966 movie and play by Robert Bolt, a Man for all Seasons.

Bolt tries to make us understand the reason More couldn't bring himself to take this oath:
“Unfortunately his approval of the marriage was asked for in a form that required him to state that he believed what he didn’t believe, and required him to state it as an oath".

You see, More was a man who deferred to a higher power. King Henry was More's earthly master. But More was a Christian and a Catholic. He knew that ultimately it was God to whom he must answer.

Bolt was intrigued by More's story. He was attracted to More, even though he himself was not a Catholic "nor even in the meaningful sense of the word a Christian."

Bolt explains:
"So by what right do I appropriate a Christian Saint for my purposes? Or to put it another way, why do I take as my hero a man who brings about his own death because he can’t put his hand on an old black book, and tell an ordinary lie?”

Then Bolt tells us why:
“A man takes an oath only when he wants to commit himself quite exceptionally to the statements, when he wants to make an identity, between the truth of it and his own virtue; he offers himself as a guarantee.”

Bolt is taken by the integrity of this man whose principles are so unshakable that he cannot be coerced into saying something that is against his deeply held principles. More believes that the oath he is asked to swear to, is against what forms the basis of his very being. He is being asked to sanction the marriage of his king, a marriage he cannot condone because it is is not licit in the eyes of his God. And he is being asked to swear that the marriage is licit, so help him, as God is his witness. More cannot do this. He holds this principle so highly that he is prepared to die for it.

Bolt was also attracted to More because of his social context. This was not just some ordinary citizen:
"He was a scholar, a lawyer, he corresponded with the greatest minds of Europe, as the representative and acknowledged champion of the New Learning in England”.

More was a family man and was also a friend of the King. According to Bolt, his "visitor’s book at his home would have been a who’s who of the sixteenth century."

Bolt asks the obvious question:
“But why did a man so utterly absorbed in society, at one particular point disastrously part company from it?” Because, Bolt says “The English Kingdom, his immediate society, was subservient to the larger society of this Church of Christ, founded by Christ, extending over Past and Future, ruled from Heaven.”

The story tells us that More is banished to the Tower of London and that his family pleads with him to take the oath. It details his subsequent trial and execution.

Finally, even when More must take part in his own kangaroo court trial, fully knowing the eventual inevitable outcome, and exhausted from the ordeal, we witness his still sharp mind take on his accusers. At the end of the trial More is asked if he has anything more to say:
"To what purpose? I am a dead man. You have your desire of me. What you have hunted me for is not my actions, but the thoughts of my heart. It is a long road you have opened. For first men will disclaim their hearts and presently they will have no hearts. God help the people whose Statesman walk your road."

Which brings me back to my ruminating about our own politicians, who by the way, More is the patron saint of.

We know in Canada we have a lot of pro-life MPs/MPPs/MLAs. Some are publicly pro-life. Some used to be publicly pro-life but have gone eerily silent on the subject. From the outside looking in, what has happened to their pro-life principles? Have they changed their mind and now believe abortion is okay? Have they abandoned their principles for political reasons? Have they "disclaimed their hearts and presently they will have no heart?"

Who knows the answers to these questions? Well, they know. And God knows.

Interesting story don't you think?

Why does Canada have no laws protecting unborn children?

2011-08-29T16:28:00.001-04:00

I'm looking at two documents. One is American, and is called A reason to celebrate: 80+ pro-life laws passed this year.

The second is Canadian, and is called "Striving for a pro-life law".

I look at one, and then the other. I ask myself, what's wrong with this picture? Why do the Americans have pro-life laws and we do not?

The “reason to celebrate” article details pro-life legal successes in the United States this year, of which there were many. Like Nebraska's ban last year on late-term abortions. Like outlawing abortions after 20 or 21 weeks of pregnancy in Kansas Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, and Oklahoma. In fact, US state legislatures have passed more than 80 bills this year, restricting access to abortion, up from 23 such laws enacted last year.

Wow, I thought, how wonderful.

Then I look back at the other paper: "Striving for a pro-life law" written by Campaign Life Coalition.

I realize that Canada has accomplished nothing to create legal protection for the unborn. We have no laws. We have no successes. None. After more that 20 years.

What are we doing wrong?

So I start reading CLC's paper to see if they can answer this question. CLC describes themselves as:

"Canadian national pro-life organization working at all levels of government to secure full legal protection for all human beings from conception to natural death."

The paper provides background on the topic of legal protection, and two different definitions of possible legal protection.

First, is what CLC calls “Compromise” legislation, and they define this as:

“any type of legislation that would explicitly or implicitly accept or admit that killing any category or class of unborn children as lawful, or that unborn children may be lawfully killed in any specified circumstances, whether or not the existing law already permits abortion in these cases. This would include gestational legislation permitting an abortion to be committed based on the age of the developing human being. An example would be legislation that would prohibit all abortions after 15 weeks gestation. This would at the same time be legislative approval for all abortions up to that date.”

CLC seems to be saying in this example, that because such a law would only protect babies older than 15 weeks gestation, and not those under 15 weeks, that such a law would condone abortion for babies under 15 weeks. Therefore, CLC would not support this type of legislation.

Okay, I understand that viewpoint.

But then I say to myself, but our current legal situation is such that abortion is already legally sanctioned for all babies under 15 weeks and older than 15 weeks. So if we had a law that protected those babies over 15 weeks, at least some of the existing inequity would be solved, right? Some babies would be protected. Isn't that better than no babies?

Then CLC gives their definition of an “Incremental Law”. They believe this is:

“any type of law, other than compromising legislation, which would help to stop or curtail abortion or would help to generate a culture of respect for human life, from conception to natural death. An example would be one carefully crafted legislation making it illegal to coerce a woman into having an abortion”.

(Many pro-life people say that CLC’s definition of "compromise" law is really "incremental" law because they see each incremental gain as adding more and more protection to the unborn, one step at a time.)

Last year MP Rod Bruinooge introduced Roxanne's Law, a Bill that would make coercing an abortion a criminal offence. So I wondered, did CLC support this bill? Well Jim Hughes, president of CLC, seemed to say they did.

But then the Interim reported this:

"CLC also took exception with the wording of the bill that conceded the permissibility of abortion (Section 4), that states it "does not apply in the case of a physician who attempts to convince a pregnant female person to have a medical intervention that results, or may result in the death of the child when, in the physician's best medical judgement, that medical intervention is necessary to prevent a serious threat to the female person's physical health." Hughes said CLC cannot support a bill that acknowledges abortion as a permissible option for Canadian women. He told The Interim that he wished that Section 4 was not in C-510."

Again, this is a situation where it is already legal to abort all children, so a law such as C-510 would improve what we currently have today. Isn’t that progress?

Then I asked myself if CLC isn't happy with such laws as these two examples, maybe they should propose some laws themselves? They could in fact even provide the exact wording of a law that they could support, and find an MP willing to table that law.

If they were to come up with such an “Incremental” law as they define it, as long as it would have broad public support, maybe Canada could finally move forward in legally protecting the unborn.

How do we get from where we are now, to our goal of full legal protection, if we don't take small incremental steps along the way? It seems to me that we can't get there from here if we continue on the path we've chosen so far.

We need to work together constructively. We need to propose bills that all pro-life people can support. More important I think, we need to get the people in the mushy middle on side too. How about banning all abortions over 24 weeks? Even the most extreme pro-choicers would have difficultly publicly saying they didn't support such a bill.

I don't think "striving for a pro-life law" will get us anywhere until we change our strategy. It was Albert Einstein who gave us his definition of Insanity:

"doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

It's been over 20 years since the Morgentaler decision and we've still had no successes in bringing forth any laws to restrict abortions. The United States has. We have to do something different.

Complicated ethics - not

2011-08-19T15:42:00.001-04:00

I am still puzzling why pregnancy reductions, along with sex-selection abortions, could or would, cause any consternation among "pro-choice" people.

Abortion advocates always tell us that abortion is all about it being a "woman’s choice" to end any pregnancy, whenever she chooses, and for any reason she chooses. So why would these two reasons for abortions be any worse than any other myriad of choices a woman can have to abort a child? This strikes me as rather illogical.

But I think I’ve come to actually understanding it. It is because these two particular "reasons" themselves have, or are becoming, widely known. And the reasons don’t sit right with everybody including some "pro-choicers".

In other words, if we ignore these two reasons for having an abortion, all other reasons a woman can have are usually private, so they don’t get put into a public "reason".

"Pro-choicers" simply rationalize a woman’s choice to abort as being a choice she made, but we don’t usually know what the reason was for that choice. We only know she has "chosen" to terminate her pregnancy. And "pro-choicers" will say, that a woman has a "right" to do that.

As an example, there are any number of other reasons women choose to have an abortion. For instance, because she can’t raise a child herself. Or because she is poor. Or because she forgot to take birth control. Or because she will not be able to go to the prom.

Now if we were to take any one of these other reasons and all of a sudden say "We now know that many women are aborting their unborn babies because it will interfere with a woman’s ability to attend her prom", there would be (like in a pregnancy reduction) a lot of "complicated ethics" coming into play here, because now we have provided an actual reason why a subset of women are aborting their babies.

We rightly judge that reason as being valid or not. And many people, even those of the "pro-choice" persuasion, get uncomfortable, depending on that reason.

As long as we stick to that convenient euphemistic "choice" word, it’s much easier to trick our moral compass into thinking any abortion is okay. In fact, we really don’t want to know the reason do we?

No pink for me

2011-08-08T08:03:00.000-04:00

I responded to Thinking pink may impede breast cancer support: study with this letter in the National Post:

Why I am not thinking pink
National Post · Jul. 30, 2011
Re: Thinking Pink May Impede Breast Cancer Support, July 28.

There are two reasons why I refuse to purchase any products with the pink ribbon, even though I know women who have had breast cancer.

The first is that the whole "pink ribbon" thing has come to symbolize what has become a huge industry in and of itself. According to Charity Intelligence, breast cancer receives 36 times more money from donors than colorectal cancer. And those dollars have little impact on breast cancer prevention.

Charity Intelligence also tells us that breast cancer is the most funded cancer in Canada and receives 28% of all Canadian cancer funding, even though breast cancer represents fewer than 10% of all cancer deaths.

The second reason is that the breast cancer industry refuses to acknowledge the possibility of a link between abortion and breast cancer. It categorically refuses to even consider any evidence in that area. And it refuses to inform women of that possible link as well.

So I refuse to "think pink".

Patricia Maloney, Ottawa.

-----------------------------------------------------------

This elicited a response from Dr. Gail Erlick Robinson, University of Toronto director, Women's Mental Health Program University Health Network, Toronto.

Dr. Robinson says in 2003 the National Cancer Institute and a panel of 100 experts assessed the ABC studies. They concluded there was no link between having an abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer, reaffirming this in 2010.
"Despite this strong statement, anti-abortion groups continue to claim there is a relationship."

-----------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Robinson's letter elicited this letter from Joel Brind
Abortion and cancer link (II)
National Post · Aug. 5, 2011

Re: No Abortion and Cancer Link, letter to the editor, Aug. 3.
Letter-writer Dr. Gail Erlick Robinson cites the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) to claim there is no abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link. Specifically, Dr. Robinson cites the NCI's 2003 "panel of 100 experts" who concluded so. I was one of those experts, but my minority report was only cited by the NCI without disclosing where to find it (It is posted on bcpinstitute.org.) My report exposed that panel - organized as a so-called "workshop" - as a political sham.

Dr. Robinson further states: "This finding [of no link] was reaffirmed in 2010." True, but the reaffirmation on the NCI's website was merely a response to the organizer of the 2003 "workshop" who was caught with her proverbial pants down, when she co-authored a paper in 2009 that reaffirmed the ABC link.

Joel Brind, professor of biology and endocrinology, Baruch College, City University of New York, New York.

----------------------------------------------------------

and from Dr. Angela Lanfranchi:
National Post · Aug. 5, 2011

Despite the NCI's conclusion after its 2003 workshop that abortion is not a risk for breast cancer, that conclusion flies in the face of widely known reproductive risks. An abortion does not turn back the clock and make a pregnant woman "unpregnant." If she chooses to have a full-term pregnancy, she will have a lower risk of breast cancer. Since it was first reported in 1743 that nuns have a higher breast cancer risk, medicine has known that a pregnancy lowers a woman's risk of breast cancer.

If she chooses an induced abortion, she will either remain childless, a well-established risk of breast cancer, or delay her pregnancy until she is older, also a well-established risk of breast cancer. In fact, for each year she delays a full-term pregnancy, she increases her risk of premenopausal breast cancer 5% and postmenopausal cancer 3%.

The NCI also disregarded the cigarette lung cancer risk until the 1960s, 30 years after the first study linking the two was published.

Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, clinical assistant professor of surgery, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, N.J.

---------------------------------------------------------

Yesterday three more letters were published on the National Post's website.

Dr. Andrew Caruk, Kitchener, Ont. Dr. Karuk says in part:
"It seems that no amount of common sense, scientific reason or past experiences will persuade anti-life people to see the truth."

Jakki Jeffs, executive director, Alliance for Life Ontario, Guelph, Ont. Ms. Jeffs says in part:
"Seventy epidemiological studies dating from 1957 have been conducted, and approximately 80% report a correlation between having an abortion and increased breast cancer risk."

Denise Mountenay. Ms Mountenay sums it up nicely:
"The evidence is clear, we hold the cancer society’s accountable for not informing women about the link, and demand them to do their homework and begin a massive education campaign that will truly prevent women from getting breast cancer. That is to promote motherhood and breastfeeding and renounce induced abortions to save lives of women and their children. If only they would remember that one ounce of prevention, is worth a ton of cure. No pink for me!"

I guess I'm not the only person who refuses to think pink.

Just as the unborn cannot speak

2011-08-07T19:08:00.000-04:00

LifeSiteNews tells us that Linda Gibbons has been arrested again. This time in front of the Morgentaler clinic in Toronto. Steve Jalsevac tells us:
"Linda’s long, now over 8-years total time in jail resumes again. How many more months or years in jail remains to be seen. Her young, very determined current lawyer has notably advanced her cause, although it is still an uphill battle. Linda does not speak in the court, just as the unborn cannot speak as they are destroyed."

Linda is a true Canadian hero. God bless her.

If men ruled the world

2011-08-05T18:05:00.000-04:00

Regarding the book Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men by Mara Hvistendahl: Frankly, I'm puzzled.

Why is abortion for sex-selection any more horrific than abortion because of any other "choice"? There is no difference. Once we allow "choice" to be normalized, which we have done now for over 40 years in Canada, it's all kind of moot.

A woman can abort her child for any reason she chooses, and sex-selection is simply one more of the myriad of choices a woman can make.

She can choose to have an abortion because it is inconvenient, or because she forgot her pill, or because she needs to finish her degree, or because she broke up with her boy friend. Or because...whatever.

Once we started sliding down the slippery slope of choice abortion, all choice abortions are legitimized, sanctioned and yes, even celebrated.

So I was wondering why some women like Mara Hvistendahl seem to bet be getting kind of antsy about the whole sex-selection abortion thing--when all other kinds of choice abortions are completely acceptable.

And then I looked at the title of her book, and I had an ah-ha moment. It's the men. Those darn misogynist men are trying to run the world and if we start aborting all the women, well, there won't be any of us left. And without women, there will be no babies. And without babies, well, the world will end. And the feminists won't be able to run the show anymore. Because there won't be any.

Okay, so back to the drawing board.

Hear ye, hear ye, all ye feminists, especially ye uber-feminists: You can have a choice abortion for any reason, except, you know, that one. You can't choose to abort a child if she's a female. Spread the word.

Wanted: pro-life party leader

2011-07-29T16:37:00.001-04:00

I thought we finally had a political leader, ready willing and able, to take on the pro-abortions in this country. Someone who was actually going to stand up and take a principled stand on abortion and call for it to be defunded.

But no, Tim Hudak, who I thought was pro-life, has changed his tune.

Yet there are good reasons why we should defund abortion.

In a recent "pro-choice" editorial on this story, the Ottawa Citizen made some misleading comments on the defunding of abortion:
"Abortion will continue to be funded in Ontario for the foreseeable future; to de-list it would likely violate the Charter - as would other legislation that blocked a woman's access to abortion. Furthermore, abortion is deemed a fundamental health-care service under the Canada Health Act."

First of all, the Charter never gave a woman a constitutional right to abortion, so defunding abortion couldn't violate the Charter. The ruling only struck down the existing law as unconstitutional, and the Court left it to Parliament to bring about a new law, which of course, it has never done. Since Parliament has never come up with a new law, abortion is allowed in Canada with no restrictions right up until birth. Abortion is legal but it isn't a charter right by anybody's definition except maybe the pro-abortions'.

Second, the Canada Health Act covers services that "are medically necessary for the purpose of maintaining health, preventing disease or diagnosing or treating an injury, illness or disability". Abortion isn't medically necessary in most cases, so why do we publicly fund it? Pregnancy is a perfectly natural and healthy condition, without which, humankind would become extinct. Heart bypass operations, cutting out cancerous tumours and appendectomy's are all medically necessary because they save lives. These procedures should be, and are, covered by the Canada Health Act. Abortion only takes lives.

Third, the Canada Health Act makes no such claim that abortion is a "fundamental health-care service".

Finally, what do Canadians think about funding something that isn't medically necessary and isn't a fundamental health-care service? According to a recent poll commissioned by Sun Media taken by Abacus Poll Inc., only 45% of Canadians believed that legal abortions should be covered entirely by the public health care system. Another 22% felt that the public health care system should fund them only in extreme cases while 20% believed that they should be paid for by the patient.

It's too bad that Mr. Hudak wasn't advocating to defund abortion because a lot of people would support him. Instead, he chose to rip out a page from Stephen Harper's "I won't reopen the abortion debate because I want to win the election" hand-book.

I am looking forward to the day when we have a Canadian political leader who will stand up publicly, look Canadians in the eye, and say "Hey, I'm running for leadership -- and by the way -- did I tell you I'm pro-life and I will stand up for our unborn citizens?"

The day will come when this will happen. It's just too bad that it's taking so long.

What Canada can learn from Poland

2011-07-17T12:04:00.001-04:00

Canada can learn some valuable lessons from Poland and their fight against abortion.

Just like Poland once did, Canada has no legal restrictions on abortion. Also just like Poland, our own government still refuses to debate abortion and our own media is heavily biased in favour of abortion.

The similarities are striking. Yet Poland is about to make all abortions illegal.

It began in 1980 when the Polish people set out to abolish their existing abortion law. It was a very difficult task, especially because of communism. According to Dr. Eng. Antoni Zięba:
"The regime in force at that time promoted abortion and made any public debate on this subject impossible – through media censorship and the ban on publishing not only magazines or materials but even leaflets about it... Doctors and nurses who refused to perform abortions lost their jobs....officially in the year 1980 we had 138,000 abortions per year, but in reality it was 3 or 4 times more. We posses some scientific estimations speaking about 600,000 abortions in Poland a year. These tragic numbers shocked us, forced us to act. But it was the communists propaganda which worried us the most, because of it the social consciousness concerning the evil of abortion was alarmingly low."

(Dr. Zięba's lecture is quite amazing. I suggest you read it.)

So what could be done within this repressive Communist Polish regime? Well the Poles had a powerful arrow in their quiver. Although this tool is readily available to all people everywhere, I would hazard to guess that people of the "pro-choice" persuasion, don't use it too often.

The Polish people had prayer. And the Polish people started to pray.

In 1979 Pope John Paul II visited his homeland and told the people of Poland:
“You need to pray always, and never stop. Jesus said to pray and form your life through prayer ... I express the wish and I always pray for this, that the Polish family may beget life and may be faithful to the sacred right to life” (Nowy Targ 8 June 1979).

What were the goals of this prayer initiative? Two things.

The first goal was to change Polish social consciousness regarding abortion:
“the social consciousness concerning the killing of unborn children and sensitize our society to the value of life and responsibility for each conceived human being..."

It seemed to be working. Opinion polls started to show that the objection to abortion was increasing:
"from about 35% in 1991 to 50% in 2010...this year, about 53% of Poles stood for the constitutional strengthening of the protection of human life, and around 33% of them were against."

The second goal was to create legal protection:
"to pray in the intention of abolishing the Abortion Law of 27 April 1956 and of recognizing the right to life for all conceived children...This law, let me remind you the overall number, resulted in the death of over 20 million Polish children."

By 1993 the existing abortion law was changed. Now there were now only three exceptions:
"when the life or the health of mother is endangered, when the foetus was seriously malformed and when there is suspicion that the pregnancy was a result of a criminal act".

(This law did not punish the women, but rather the doctor. Something else for Canada to think about.)

The latest success story in Poland's abortion story came at the beginning of this July.

After a successful 600,000 signature petition, which included obstetricians, gynaecologists, lawyers and journalists among its signatories, Poland’s government voted to tighten their abortion laws further by an overwhelming vote of 254 – 151 with 11 abstentions.

The fact that Poland's medical profession, lawyers and journalists were so supportive of this initiative, is key to Canada's situation too. We must get them on side.

The new law would:
"protect the right to life from the moment of conception in all circumstances by removing all exceptions from the nation's abortion laws. The law currently permits abortion for matters dealing with maternal health, rape and incest and fetal disability, which has been interpreted to include treatable issues such as cleft palate. The measure is most likely to be referred to a commission prior to the October election."

Canada can do like Poland did. We can pray. We can change social consciousness. We can blog. We can start our own grass roots movement. We can start our own petition. Maybe a petition all Canadians can agree on--like one that would ban all third-trimester abortions. We can write letters to Mr. Harper, to our MPs and to our newspapers. Repeatedly. Until they listen.

We can do it. Just like Poland did.

Does consensus make abortion moral?

2011-07-15T17:19:00.001-04:00

A common myth in Canada's abortion debate, is that there is consensus that the debate is settled. Of course, we all know that the abortion debate is far from settled.

But even if there was consensus--and all of us agreed with our fully-funded-restriction-free-access-to-abortion--would that make it moral?

Thomas D. Williams says no.

In his book Knowing Right from Wrong, Williams writes:
"The fact that a law is democratically passed doesn't mean it is morally right. Democratically determined legislation bears no guarantee of moral infallibility any more than other edicts or decrees. It must be judged according to its conformity to the objective moral law. Nor does the acceptance of a given behavior by the majority of persons confer moral goodness. Consensus has never been a good measure of morality. As Yahweh commanded the Israelites: "You shall not follow a majority in wrongdoing" (Exod. 23:2)."

"We know from historical experience, after all, that the majority can be mistaken as easily as an individual. Remember, for instance, that Adolf Hitler himself was elected democratically. Slavery, too, was embraced by a majority for many years, and abolitionists—whom we now look upon as heroes—were seen as fanatics at the time. Future generations will no doubt look back upon our own and regard certain "legal" practices like abortion and euthanasia as vestiges of a darker age and wonder incredulously how a supposedly "enlightened" society could have permitted such unspeakable barbarities: The majority has no monopoly on truth, nor guarantee of infallibility.

As Pope John Paul once wrote: "Everyone's conscience rightly rejects those crimes against humanity of which our century has had such sad experience. But would these crimes cease to be crime if, instead of being committed by unscrupulous tyrants, they were legitimized by popular consensus"? (Evangelium Vitae 70)".

Williams tells us about St. Thomas Moore. Moore was chancellor of England from 1529 to 1532 and:
"was beheaded by his "good friend" King Henry VIII for refusing to take an oath recognizing Henry as head of the church in England. For Moore it was a question of conscience. Though he was afraid of dying, Thomas Moore couldn't bring himself to swear to something he knew not to be true."

Thomas Moore is the patron saint of lawyers and statesmen. Williams continues:
"He provides a moving example of fidelity to truth and God's allegiance to God's law over human pressures, even at the cost of one's own life. How much better the world would be today if we had more politicians of this integrity and moral caliber, truer to their moral convictions than to volatile popular opinion."

There are some politicians in Canada who have brought forward and/or supported--bills that would protect the unborn and their mothers. These brave men and women have stood by their moral convictions regarding the unborn.

Yet each time these bills are introduced, they are defeated because of lack of support from other MPs.

We need to remind all our political leaders what we expect them to do. That we want them to support bills that would provide legal protection for our unborn children and for their mothers.

We should remind them that by not providing this legal protection--is not a morally neutral position.

Canadians demonstrate civic rights to speak for pre-born citizens

2011-07-08T17:33:00.000-04:00

(This article appeared in the May/June 2011 issue of LifeCanada News)

This year's March for Life signals a turning point for the pro-life movement. I believe a shift has occurred.

The first notable occurrence was the increase in media reporting of the event this year.

Two years ago when I attended my first march, there was little mainstream media reporting.

In a letter I wrote to the Ottawa Citizen at the time, I commented on the irony that the Parliamentary pro-life Caucus's press conference--entitled "pro-life free speech suppressed in Canada"--was not covered by the press.

This year the mainstream print media, like the Toronto Sun, Vancouver Sun, National Post (even writing an editorial), Global and CTV, all covered the March. But even more remarkable, was that the more left leaning media like the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star and the CBC covered the march as well. The earth shifted a fraction of an inch.

The second subtle shift was when Ottawa's Mayor Jim Watson weighed in with his declaration of ‘Respect for Life Day’. What is doubly notable about Mr. Watson's statement is that, a) even though the proclamation has occurred annually since 2002, it actually became a news item this year. And, b) it was from a mayor who publicly states he is pro-choice.

Mr. Watson said “The rights of the people of Canada including the unborn, the elderly and those with handicaps are gradually being eroded,” that “the community needs to get involved to ensure the rights of all people are respected and upheld.”

When a politician who is pro-choice, publicly states that the "rights of all people are respected and upheld", the shift is a unmistakeable. And it is newsworthy.

Third, a poll commissioned by Sun Media taken by Abacus Poll Inc (1) told us that:

27% of Canadians believe that human life should be protected from the moment of conception, 21% believe human life should be protected after three months of pregnancy, 11% believe human life should be protected after six months of pregnancy
Only 45% of Canadians believed that legal abortions should be covered entirely by the public health care system. Another 22% felt that the public health care system should fund them only in extreme cases while 20% believed that they should be paid for by the patient.
52% of Canadians said they are not afraid of a public debate about abortion while 26% believe it is an issue that should be left alone.

No real surprises there. (except perhaps, the fact that only 26% of Canadians say they want to leave the abortion debate alone. Politicians keep telling us that nobody wants to debate abortion. This is clearly not the case.)

Poll after poll has told us this for years. It is the consistency of the responses over the years that is newsworthy.

Even though Mr. Harper has repeatedly said since he came to power that he will not reopen the abortion debate; even though University pro-life groups are shut down across the country; even though pro-choice people say the debate is closed--Canadians still tell us time in, and time out that yes, that they want legal protection for the unborn. They say yes, we should reconsider public funding for abortions. They say yes, we should have an abortion debate. That is newsworthy.

Fourth, MPs continue to speak out in support of the unborn.

Even though few MPs were in Ottawa for the March (we had just had an election and MPs were still in their ridings with Parliament not resuming until early June), we still saw four pro-life MPs on the Hill (Scott Reid, Royal Galipeau, Stephen Woodworth and David Sweet).

And former MP Pat O'Brien told us that "Although the prime minister has said he's not interested in opening the debate, well newsflash prime minister, the debate is on. These people say so".

Last year Rod Bruinooge brought forward Roxanne's Law, and Brad Trost brought forward a petition to defund Planned Parenthood.

Pro-life MPs consistently and with conviction, stand up for the unborn, over and over again.

Finally, Father Tom Lynch, of Priests for Life Canada told us that "with every new Parliament, with every new government, we have a moral duty and we have a civic right to be able to express our opinion to be able to achieve changes in public policy."

Then we looked out the window, into downtown Ottawa, and what did we see?

We saw thousands and thousands of Canadians, marching just like they did in previous years, with their ranks swelling each time they set out. These Canadians obviously feel they had a "moral duty" and a "civic right" to stand up for the unborn.

It's time for restrictions on abortion to become real. It's time for a strong pro-life MP to again take a principled stand, like many have done before.

Canadians may finally be ready for a law that would place some restrictions on abortion. Perhaps a law that would ban late-term abortions. Or maybe a law that would defund abortions.

The shift has begun and it is newsworthy.

Footnotes:

(1) http://abacusdata.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Abortion-Report-May-11-2011.pdf

The abortion conundrum

2011-06-30T16:05:00.000-04:00

In this article (it also appeared in the National Post today) by Ross Douthat, Douthat takes aim at the pro-choice movement’s conundrum of the 160 million baby girls aborted through sex-selection gendercide.

In discussing Mara Hvistendahl's book called Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men. Douthat says:
"This places many Western liberals, Hvistendahl included, in a distinctly uncomfortable position. Their own premises insist that the unborn aren’t human beings yet, and that the right to an abortion is nearly absolute. A self-proclaimed agnostic about when life begins, Hvistendahl insists that she hasn’t written “a book about death and killing.” But this leaves her struggling to define a victim for the crime that she’s uncovered."

Douhat points out the problems facing "pro-choicers".

Problem number one: The unborn aren’t human beings yet
This is at the core of the "pro-choice" philosophy, that the unborn are not human beings yet. If we can say that the unborn child is not a human being, then of course it is much easier to abort them.

Problem number two: When does life begin?
Why it begins at conception, when else would it begin? Again "pro-choicers" get all weird on this question.

Problem number three: It isn't a book about death and killing.
Of course it is about death and killing. That is what abortion is.

The pro-abortions have to make stuff up about what a fetus is; about when life begins; about how abortion isn't killing. All so that they can keep that coveted "right" to abortion. That's the only way it can work.

So who is the victim of this gendercide? Well, the baby and her mother of course, but so is society. The tragic irony is that these 160 million dead unborn children are women--yet this is all about the so-called "woman's right to have an abortion."

I really don't get it.

Canada's no-abortion law

2011-06-24T17:54:00.000-04:00

Supreme Court Justices in Canada hold an awful lot of power. Five of seven judges changed the course of Canadian history forever when they struck down our abortion law. In essence they legalized abortion.

When you peel back the legalize about who those five people were, you realize that they were basically just people like any other Canadian citizen. Yes they were judges, but so what? And they were not elected, they were appointed. Why do we give them all that power? They put their pants on each morning the same way you and I do, one leg at at time. Yes they are learned, but so are many other Canadians. And we the people didn't pick them to make our laws and we didn't pick them to strike down our laws. A politician did.

What if different men and women had been on the bench that year? Different Canadians with a different set of values. Maybe if instead of only two people dissenting on that infamous case, there had been five of them willing to look past Henry Morgentaler and his pro-abortion crusade. Maybe if those five different people were unborn children advocates, maybe things would be different now.

Our no-abortion law is nothing to be proud of. It is something to be very sad about indeed.

A political party is called to serve a people

2011-06-20T18:59:00.000-04:00

Father De Souza's message to the Conservative Party that "all laws make moral choices" is a key factor in the abortion debate we aren't allowed to have in this country.

Fr. De Souza says:
"It is also incorrect to set up a false category of so-called "moral issues" -as if all political choices were not just that -and bestow on them a special untouchable status. This is in fact impossible, for in the realm of moral choices, not to choose is itself a choice. Morality shapes politics, and to choose not to choose is a political choice. The magistrate is not permitted to wash his hands as if it were possible to remain neutral between good and evil, right and wrong."

Fr. De Souza makes a lot of sense. Legal protection for the unborn will eventually happen in Canada. It is inevitable for the simple reason that, it is what Canadians want. By Hr. Harper choosing to refuse to allow us to have that abortion debate, means he has not remained neutral. He cannot wash his hands.

As Fr. De Souza also says,"A political party is called to serve a people". With Mr. Harper's quashing debate, he is not serving the people, he is serving himself. That is not what a leader is supposed to do.

The right thing to do--especially now that we have a majority government--would be for Mr. Harper to call a commission to allow all Canadians to present their viewpoints on abortion.

Mr. Harper needs to stop for a moment. He needs to seriously consider this moral guidance so generously offered by Father De Souza.

United Way still funds Planned Parenthood

2011-06-17T18:15:00.001-04:00

Last April we learned that United Way Ottawa had decided to stop funding Planned Parenthood. Which is a good thing.

So I thought I'd just make sure that this was in fact the case, and I sent an email to United Way and asked the following questions:

1) Does United Way fund Planned Parenthood, and if so, how much? Your website says that you do still fund Planned Parenthood.

2) Does United Way fund other organizations that supports or procures abortions? If so, how much?

My first email resulted in the following response from an unnamed person:
"I would like to direct your inquiry to the appropriate person. Can you tell me if you are a donor or inquiring as a member of the public or someone from the media?"

That's odd I thought, why did it matter who I was? Would I get a different response depending on my answer to that question?

Then I heard from their Media Manager. He and I proceeded to exchange a series of emails, played some telephone tag, but I still had no answers to my questions. I got the distinct impression he didn't want to provide an answer in writing; he said he would, but he never did.

So I sent a letter to the President and CEO and asked him my questions.

You know, it seems rather ridiculous that it was this difficult to get a straight answer. You'd think a charity as big as the United Way, that collects millions of dollars every year, would welcome questions about how those charitable donations are spent, and which organizations receive the money. It would have taken a couple of minutes to write up the answers in an email response to me. And in the end I did receive my answer.

Here it is:

"Re. Question 1:
In 2010, we provided $47,281 to Planned Parenthood for their "Community Education Program" (note we do not fund agencies per se, but we do fund their programs). This program recruits and trains volunteers to deliver workshops and to staff kiosks on sexual and reproductive health issues for youth and adults. The workshops are available to schools and community organizations. If you'd like more information on the program, the community investment directory linked to our home page provides a more complete description.

We announced last year that we were sharpening our focus and working with the community to achieve clear, measurable goals. This led to an open and competitive Call for Proposals that invited agencies to submit proposals for United Way support of programs and initiatives that contribute to the achievement of these goals. At the time, we also made a commitment to provide transition funding to previously-funded programs that would not be supported in 2011 through the Call for Proposals. This was intended to help ease the transition for agencies whose programs we funded in the past. Transition funding is at 50 per cent or less of the previous year's funding, based on a range of factors.

In 2011, we will provide transition funding to Planned Parenthood's Community Education Program. I can't yet say what the amount will be, as we do not yet have a signed funding agreement. The amount will be 50 per cent or less of last year's funding.

Re. Question 2:
To the best of my knowledge, we are not funding any programs that have as a mandate the procurement of abortions."

Two interesting things here.

First, note the "note we do not fund agencies per se, but we do fund their programs".

Frankly, saying United Way does not fund agencies "per se" is absurd. Either United Way gave money to a group that advocates for abortion, or United Way did not give money to a group that advocates for abortion. And United Way clearly did give money to Planned Parenthood.

Second, surprise...in 2011 Planned Parenthood will be getting approximately 50% of last year's funding.

I didn't see that tidbit in the news, did you?

Abortion incrementalism (continued)

2011-06-05T14:26:00.000-04:00

Jeannie Hedley says:
"Are we not the Educational Arm of the Pro-Life movement? Our role then is to educate. As we accomplish that job, and do it well enough, and by the grace of God, the people’s hearts will change. How often have we heard, “The laws will not change until the people’s hearts have changed”? We need to change hearts by education and by prayer."

I agree that prayer and education are of the utmost importance. But it is only part of the solution.

Providing legal protection for the unborn is as important as education and prayer, and it is another vital strategy we cannot ignore. Legal protection also defends the defenceless.

There is a also another very subtle but extremely key reason why legal initiatives are so imperative.

It is the actual debate itself--which ensues when an abortion law is introduced--that is key. I am sure you have noticed that most of the time in Canada when there is no law on the subject matter of abortion on the table, that there is also nothing being written or discussed in the mainstream media on the topic of abortion. Everything goes completely quiet.

How do we change hearts and minds when the public is not even talking about abortion? The last two bills in Canada that would have limited abortion in some circumstances were Bill C-484 and C-510. Both of these bills produced lots of mainstream media attention. People were talking about abortion; letters to newspapers were being written. Articles were being written and being read by the public at large.

Now all is quiet in Canada in the mainstream media. Not a peep. How will this deafening silence help change hearts and minds? Yes we can educate and we can pray, but if nobody outside the world of pro-lifers is talking about abortion, little will change.

As far as compromising is concerned, we are not compromising with incremental legislation. We are being realistic. If a Member of Parliament introduced a law that would ban abortions outright, although he or she would be very brave indeed, he or she would also be the laughing stock of the country. And the law would have absolutely no chance at ever being passed.

We need to take note about what our American neighbours are doing. They are continually introducing laws that would in some way limit abortions. There is always abortion related discussion in the US and there is always discussion in the media. Americans are always debating abortion.

Canadians on the other hand, allow themselves to be led like sheep to the slaughter, by Prime Minister Harper's un-abating mantra of refusing to reopen the abortion debate. We supposedly live in a country where freedom of speech is enshrined in our Constitution. Yet we are told continually and ad nauseum by our politicians, that there will be no debate on abortion. Introducing legal protection for the unborn allows us to have that abortion debate--the very debate our politicians refuse to let us have.

And if we do not engage in the abortion debate across our country by all citizens, what does this mean for us?

It means that in Canada, a woman will continue to be able to have an abortion at any time during her pregnancy up until the moment she gives birth. It means that in Canada, a woman will continue to be able to have an abortion for any reason at all--or for no reason whatsoever. It means that in Canada, a woman can still have an abortion that will continue to be 100% paid for, by you and by me, and all other pro-life people, whether we like it or not.

Yes "every life has infinite value and dignity". That is exactly why we must fight this battle on all fronts: education, prayer, changing hearts, and most definitely last, but certainly not least, we must provide legal protection for these little souls.

Hopefully can do all of this with great love for the unborn, and with great love for each other.

If ABC is real, what then?

2011-06-04T15:19:00.000-04:00

Today I discovered that WonderBra also supports the Breast Cancer Industry (BCI). So I sent them my letter.

The Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation also lists all the products that support the BCI. And they have a shaving cream load of products too. Of course all one needs to do, is look for that little pink ribbon on product packaging.

I just had a crazy thought. Imagine the following scenario.

It's some time in the future. Research finally, and conclusively tells us that, yes indeed, abortion is a contributing factor to breast cancer. What will happen to all those women who have had an abortion, but never knew of the possible ABC link, because nobody ever told them about it?

(Think about it. If ABC is possible, any woman who chooses to have an abortion, should at the very least, obtain more breast cancer screening and/or mammograms, than women who have never had an abortion.)

Maybe they will get real cranky pants, and you know, launch a class action suit against the Industry and/or the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. Sort of like what people did with the tobacco companies. For not telling them about the risks of smoking.

That would be interesting, don't you think?

More on abortion incrementalism

2011-06-02T18:07:00.000-04:00

MaryCatherine said:
"I may be wrong but I think most prolife groups in Canada supported Bill C-510."

I replied to her comment with this:

This link shows how numerous pro-lifers opposed the bill. One in particular is Geoff Cauchi, who as this article says, is an adviser to Campaign Life Coalition (CLC). Cauchi is also president of Alliance for Life Ontario (AFLO) and AFLO never came out in support of the bill. This article also says that "Hughes said CLC cannot support a bill that acknowledges abortion as a permissible option for Canadian women":
http://www.theinterim.com/features/bill-c-510-creates-controversy-within-pro-life-community/

CLC later said that CLC recommended MPs vote for C-510, but that CLC wanted to amend the wording of the Bill when it went to committee. In other words, they did not support the bill as it was written. They wanted it to go to committee so it could be changed to their liking. And how realistic would that be, given how many pro-abortion MPs we have in Canada? See this link:
http://www.lsn.ca/news/first-hour-of-debate-on-roxannes-law-takes-place-in-canadian-parliament/

See these two articles by Cauchi as well, they are long, but leave no doubt that Cauchi did not support Bill-C510:
http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_1037.shtml
http://catholicinsight.com/online/political/abortion/article_1091.shtml

I can only conclude from all of this, that there really wasn't the necessary support--at least not from the "political arm of the pro-life movement"--that would have helped the bill to pass. Given the pro-abortion opposition we face, it takes a lot more enthusiastic and active support than this to have any chance of success.

The following groups did campaign proactively in support of c-510:

Priests For Life Canada,
http://www.priestsforlifecanada.com/English/News_Events/Roxannes_Law/Roxannes_Law_Parish_Letter_EN.pdf

Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada,
http://arpacanada.ca/index.php/action-items/current-action-requests/966-1-action-item-support-bill-c-510-roxannes-law

Evangelical Fellowship of Canada,
http://www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/page.aspx?pid=7516

4MyCanada
http://4mycanada.ca/Emails/

And yes you are correct, the Bill was defeated in the House of Commons. Canada still has no legal restrictions on abortion.

Abortion incrementalism

2011-05-27T16:02:00.002-04:00

I love the Americans. They talk about abortion. A lot.

Every day, day in and day out, my Google alerts tell me this. Americans are always blogging about abortion and there are always new abortion laws in the works.

But Google alerts hardly ever show abortion discussion in Canada. And as far as new abortion laws...well of course...we have no abortion laws. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

And every time an MP introduces any bill that would in any way restrict abortion, well the government comes out and says it won't support the bill. Like what happened with Roxanne's Law introduced last year by MP Rod Bruinooge. (Bill C-510 which would have provided additional protection to a woman from being coerced into having an abortion she didn't choose to have.)

Fine. If Stephen Harper doesn't want to support private member's bills on abortion, that's his choice. Hopefully his refusal to debate, discuss or even think about abortion, doesn't affect how other MPs vote. Because clearly such bills are a matter of conscience.

But what I can't understand is this. Why would we get opposition to such a bill from people who are actually in the pro-life community?

Apparently it's because some people are against the philosophy, that if we can't protect all babies, well then, they won't support a law that would protect only some babies.

In other words, some pro-life people do not support abortion incrementalism.

Here are two excellent discussions on this idea of abortion incrementalism (from an American of course), Dr. Gerard M. Nadal here and here.

The way I see it, is this. The next time a back bench MP introduces a private member's bill on the subject matter of abortion, we have two options:

A) We all support such a bill that restricts abortion in some way. We save some lives. (a recent poll commissioned by Sun Media taken by Abacus Poll Inc told us that 27% of Canadians believe that human life should be protected from the moment of conception, 21% believe human life should be protected after three months of pregnancy, 11% believe human life should be protected after six months of pregnancy. So we know that there would be public support for such a bill)
or
B) We wait for that perfect law that criminalizes all abortions.

I say we choose option A. At least some of our pre-born children might have a fighting chance at life.

Or, we can wait for option B. But just between you, me, the lamppost and this side of heaven--it isn't going to happen.

And I was the child

2011-05-23T17:49:00.000-04:00

Breast cancer prevention

2011-05-22T14:07:00.000-04:00

Not only does the Breast Cancer Industry receive 36 times more money from donors than colorectal cancer, but those dollars have little impact on breast cancer prevention.

On page 38 of Charity Intelligence Canada's report Cancer in Canada there is a graph that identifies the Opportunity for Donor Impact of the top cancers in Canada.

Under the prevention column you see there are no dollar signs for Breast Cancer. According to the legend on the graph, this means there is:
"Limited or no opportunity for donor impact".

Page 41 says:
"Breast Cancer in Canada: Donor opportunity for impact – Very Low, due to saturation and past success"

And yet we know there is evidence that points to a possible link between breast cancer and abortion, a link the Breast Cancer Industry refuses to acknowledge.

The report also summarizes some of other cancers and their donor impacts:
"Pancreatic Cancer: Donor opportunity for impact – Very High
Lung Cancer: Donor opportunity for impact – High
Colorectal Cancer: Donor opportunity for impact – High
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: Donor opportunity for impact – Moderate to High
Ovarian Cancer: Donor opportunity for impact – Moderate to High"

On page 41 the report summarizes breast cancer funding in this way:
"Breast cancer is the most funded cancer – receiving 28% of all Canadian cancer funding, despite representing fewer than 10% of cancer deaths or PYLL [potential years of life lost]. Breast cancer receives 3 times the average of the other 9 top killers: more than $10,000 per breast cancer death. With 45 charities focused on breast cancer and high support from general cancer charities – and the resulting high survival rates – breast cancer has a low funding need relative to other cancers."

If breast cancer "has a low funding need relative to other cancers", why do we see that little pink ribbon on so many consumer products?

So, let's go out on a limb here.

Let's assume just for one tiny moment (work with me on this), that yes, there just might actually be an increase in the incidence of breast cancer for women who have had one or more previous abortions.

If we then started telling women about this evidence, letting them decide for themselves if it had merit, I wonder what might happen?

Maybe some women might opt out of choosing to have an abortion. Maybe some women might choose to keep their baby. Maybe some women would choose to put their baby up for adoption instead.

I wonder how much breast cancer prevention we might see then?

Breast cancer industry won't tell you about ABC

2011-05-15T16:39:00.002-04:00

The Ottawa Citizen's Randall Denley tells us that:
"colorectal cancer killed an estimated 9,100 Canadians last year. It’s the second-deadliest cancer, after lung cancer. Breast cancer took 5,400 lives and has an 89-per-cent survival rate, and yet breast cancer received 36 times more money from donors than colorectal cancer."

Not only does the breast cancer industry get all that money from individual donors, but all manner of household products now endorse the breast cancer industry with their pink ribbon logo.

The breast cancer industry also refuses to inform women about the possible link between breast cancer and abortion (ABC). So I've decided to start boycotting these companies when I see the pink ribbon on their products.

Recently I sent an email to Kruger and to Country Harvest Bread because of the pink ribbon.

This is what I wrote to Country Harvest Bread:

I used to purchase your bread products frequently.

However recently I note that all of your bread products support the Breast Cancer Industry with the pink ribbon logo on your packaging. So I have decided to boycott your products because of this, and will encourage others to do the same.

You see, the Breast Cancer Industry refuses to acknowledge the possible link between abortion and breast cancer (ABC). Many studies have shown evidence for a link between abortion and Breast Cancer, evidence the Breast Cancer Industry continues to dismiss. For further information please see:

http://www.bcpinstitute.org/nci_minority_rpt.htm
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.ca/
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.ca/Abortion%20and%20Breast%20Cancer%20-%20The%20Link%20That%20Won't%20Go%20Away.pdf
http://www.difficultchoices.org/2011/01/a-link-between-abortion-and-breast-cancer/
http://www.pinkmoney.org/criteria_causal_a_bc.htm

Should you decide to
a) stop supporting the Breast Cancer Industry,
or
b) acknowledge the possible ABC link,
I will again start purchasing your products.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney