Government of Canada buys into misinformation about Crisis Pregnancy Centres

According to a recent ATIP I did, the government of Canada says that Crisis Pregnancy Centres:

disseminate abortion myths to pregnant individuals in crisis...Research by XXXXXX (probably Joyce Arthur) and colleagues of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (2023) has consistently found that in presenting information, these groups fail to explicitly disclose their religious agenda and anti-abortion sentiments. CPCs spread false medical information...

For the record, I and others have consistently found that ARCC's reports are full of misinformation and disinformation. (see links below for these rebuttals)

My ATIP to Health Canada:

"What evidence does the Public Health Agency have to issue a warning that "Crisis pregnancy centres ... often look like clinics or support centres, but they are designed to discourage people from getting an abortion"? Also please provide me with your evidence that Crisis pregnancy centres "are designed to discourage people from getting an abortion" (emphasis added)

The government of Canada has also posted statements on their official websites based on these untruths.

From Health Canada's website:

Crisis pregnancy centres

Crisis pregnancy centres are usually run by anti-abortion organizations. They often look like clinics or support centres, but they are designed to discourage people from getting an abortion. (emphasis added)

From the department of Finance we have this statement:

concerns have been raised that some registered charities that offer reproductive health services to women, including pregnancy options counselling—and that are provided federal supports under the tax system—may be spreading misinformation by presenting themselves as a neutral, full-service pregnancy support service organization, when they are in fact anti-choice organizations that push women away from accessing the reproductive care of their choice. By concealing the true nature of their services, these organizations, known as crisis pregnancy centres, are restricting the rights of vulnerable pregnant women to choose the reproductive care appropriate to them and their circumstances...According to the Abortion Rights Coalition, there are about 157 anti-choice crisis pregnancy centres in Canada, of which 90.5 per cent are operated by registered charities. (emphasis added)

My ATIP identifies ARCC's reports that spread myths about Crisis Pregnancy Centres, and all of these reports are used as the government's "evidence" against CPCs. These myths have been refuted many times. Yet still the lies are spread and our Canadian government buys into them. The ATIP also references studies from the United States, based on the American experience of CPCs, which of course have nothing to do with the Canadian experience, so these references can be and should be ignored.

Did the government of Canada make any effort at all to read the reports that refute the mythical allegations of the pro-abortion idealogues? There is not one word in the ATIP that would confirm that they did.

Below are the links the government of Canada has chosen to ignore about Crisis Pregnancy Centres preferring to take the word of the pro-abortions.

Part 1 - Pro-abortion report - anti-Christian hate speech?

Part 2 - Pro-abortion report - uses US experience of PCCs

ABORTION RIGHTS COALITION OF CANADA DECEITFUL ON CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTRES A Critique to ARCC’s “Review of Crisis Pregnancy Centre Websites in Canada”

October 2022 Pregnancy Care Centres in Canada:  A Necessary Rebuttal 

Crisis Pregnancy Centres In British Columbia A Respectful Rebuttal to a Disrespectful Report 

CPCs a target for calumny -- they won't refer for abortion refutes this Crisis Pregnancy Centers in Canada and Reproductive Justice Organizations’ Responses (Li references the Abortion Rights Coalition numerous hit jobs on CPCs. Of course she does.)

Slides from ATIP repeating the misinformation and disinformation from the pro-abortion ARCC

The Cart Access Project from a slide show: Page 413 Beware of Fake clinics...Crisis pregnancy centres ... actively mislead patients (For the record CART received tax payer funding of $4,387,931).

 

Why does an already completed ATIP need to be re-examined?

Canada's Access to information is dysfunctional to say the least (ie I still have two outstanding ATIPs way over the pretend 30 day rule: one with Finance at 475 days old, and one with Health at 486 days old, with no end in sight for either one).

I have now encountered a new indication of just how messed up the system is. 

But first...a good thing about the system is that a person can request documents from ATIPs somebody else has already asked for: Completed Access to Information Requests. I have used this feature a number of times and usually within a couple of days I will receive the information requested. 

However recently when I requested this document, nothing was forthcoming. When I inquired why this was the case this is what I was told:

Because your request is being processed informally, it is not subject to the statutory deadlines, complaint mechanisms, or other formal requirements set out in Part 1 of the Access to Information Act. However, we will make every effort to process it as promptly as possible. 

Please note that the records responsive to your request are quite extensive, which may affect the time required to review and prepare them for release. We appreciate your patience as we work through the material, and we will provide the records to you as soon as we are able.

In response I asked this logical question:

Since the ATIP has already been completed, I don't understand why a further analysis of the info must be done? There were only 47 pages in the package. Can you please explain the delay? 

Their response:

While the records have previously been released and the volume is not large, some time is still required to properly process an informal request. This includes confirming that all information remains appropriate for disclosure, verifying that any applicable exemptions or redactions remain appropriate, and ensuring the records are accurate and complete before being shared again. 

The necessary internal and administrative steps must still be complete to ensure accuracy and consistency.

 

In addition, we are currently processing multiple informal and formal access to information requests, and we must balance and prioritize these requests accordingly to ensure all are handled fairly and appropriately.

So five weeks later and counting, it sounds like the bureaucrats are starting at the beginning of the request, all over again, why? Is it a stalling tactic? Did they make mistakes the first time? Whatever their reasoning, it is just stupid. It's like the government has come up with a new way to hinder access to information requests. Which I guess shouldn't surprise me.

Helen Long of Dying with Dignity is still cozying up to Ministers

Helen Long of Dying with Dignity writes to Ministers a lot. Here are some of her previous letters to Ministers. This one below is from 2023.

August 16, 2023

Hon. Ya'ara Saks

Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health

Room 1150 Valour Building

House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario KIA 0A6

Dear Minister Saks,

This is just a short note to congratulate you on your appointment as the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. This is an important role at a time (post-Pandemic) when mental distress and illnesses have widely been reported to be on the rise among segments of the general population across Canada.

I and my board colleagues have enjoyed a very constructive and pleasant working relationship with your predecessor in this role, Carolyn Bennett, and we are very eager to renew that relationship with you, Minister.

As you and your colleagues in the Health and Justice portfolios work through the outstanding human and Charter rights issues that remain to be addressed in the context of Canada's medical assistance in dying laws, we believe that there are further sensible, safe, and compassionate enhancements to our MAID rules that can and should be undertaken. These changes will both extend the legitimate and reasonable end-of-life rights of persons across Canada who suffer grievously, while at the same time, affording prudent protections to the most vulnerable among us.

I hope we might have an opportunity to meet in person in the near future to discuss these matters. In the meantime, Minister, I wish you all the best as you assume your new responsibilities.

Sincerely,

Helen Long

CEO

Excuse me while I do a little rant. The above information comes from my most recent ATIP to Health Canada. It took them 23 months to respond to me, therefore the information is very old. I have two other outstanding ATIPS to Health Canada. They are 198 days and 360 days old.

Government used to talk about the notion of open, transparent and accountable government, something we never hear about anymore. That's because they don't do it, never have and I guess they never will. I just found this gem on open government CANADA’S NATIONAL ACTION PLAN ON OPEN GOVERNMENT 2022-24. 

The document is clearly old, it talks about covid (yawn), and there is nothing out there since then on the subject of open government. Are you listening Mark Carney?

The document includes a message from my MP Mona Fortier which is ironic as she is the master of non-open government--the very same MP who never answers my emails.

In any event, it would be wonderful if open, transparent, accountable government was actually a thing.

Okay I'm done.

Focusing on only one group to revoke charitable status "dangerous precedent and unnecessary"

I received access to this ATIP to CRA - A-2023-162975: 

Records related to the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) policies and decision-making mechanisms when an organization applies for charitable tax status, and how the CRA makes decisions to conduct audits after receiving a complaint. As well all records related to the 2021 Liberal Party promise to no longer give charitable tax status to anti-abortion groups from October 29, 2022, to May 25, 2023.

It seems that a senior policy analyst had some serious concerns with the government's [read Justin Trudeau's] witch hunt against pro-life organizations, and in particular pregnancy care centres.

From: Ainslie, Camille, Senior Policy Analyst / Planning and Legislation Division / Canada Revenue Agency 

Sent: January 17, 2023 12:12PM

To: Wehbe, Suzanne

Subject: RE: 2023 Bl Report- call for topics

I believe you have extended the deadline for suggestions, but wanted to send you my thoughts so far:

How do other common law regulators of charity explain their approach to regulatory and risk framework, and what can we learn from them? [This is how I view Sharmila's question about balancing resources devoted to up front review (ADM) with downstream review (Compliance), we achieve the balance by focusing on risk]

In the era of fake news, do other common law of charity regulators (in the US, Australia, England and Wales, New Zealand), provide any guidance to charities about the regulatory consequences of circulating mis-information, and if so, what can we learn from this?

Driver: Ministerial mandate letters touch on mis-information regarding anti-abortion organizations. Given the concerns expressed by the TIWG about focusing on one type of group, perhaps we should look more generally at this issue (there are high profile media reports of other organizations spreading mis-information such as those denying the issues at residential schools, or spreading incorrect information about vaccine impacts). (emphasis added)

Identify if, and how, common law regulators of charity in other countries provide guidance to charities on how breaking the criminal law will impact charitable registration...

Then there's this repeated four times in the document:

In April 2022,TIWG, we heard from the roundtable: • There are concerns that the anti-abortion legislation targets only one type of charities [sic] for providing miss information [sic]. This is a dangerous precedent and unnecessary. The Agency already has the tools to address organizations providing miss information (emphasis added)

Government targeting just one group of charities for ideological reasons is never a good idea.

ATIP to Finance: revoking charitable status to Pregnancy Care Centres Part 5

Here is my review of the first half of my recent ATIP to Finance. 

I wrote about the second half, here, here, here and here.

This first half contains many references to US statues and US information discussing ways to go after Crisis Pregnancy Centres. It appears that the government was looking for something they could hang their coat on, to justify allegations of misinformation coming from pregnancy care centres. I guess they knew that there was nothing in Canada that helped their case. And any comments made on these statutes were redacted.

And of course, there were more letters from Joyce Arthur. Arthur writes a lot of letters to the government. They were included. 

I've counted the number of exclusions it contains. There are 270 of them.

Section 20 12 times

Section 19 14 times

s.17 62 times

s.19 10 times

Section 69 86 times

s.69 27 times

Section 23 10 times

s.16 49 times

So here's the thing. Why don't we just get rid of the Access to Information Act altogether? I am dead serious. Anything of substance in my request is redacted or withheld. So why do we keep pretending that the Act is working? It is not.

This ATIP took 19 months for me to get information back. Clearly a lot of bureaucrats spent a lot of time reading documents, and making sure nothing of substance was revealed. What a waste of time for bureaucrats. What a waste of time and money, especially for tax payers.

Or, we could make access to information real and allow information to be disclosed. As in, stop redacting and excluding information that the client is looking for. Stop pretending that the Access to information is a real thing. It is not.

ATIP to Finance: revoking charitable status to Pregnancy Care Centres Part 4

So what evidence did I find of "misinformation" from Pregnancy Care Centres in this ATIP? Well, none so far. (I've only looked at the the second half of the ATIP).

On page 73 we have an example of "misinformation" provided by Joyce Arthur. This can be safely ignored as Arthur's evidence of Pregnancy Care centres misinformation has been refuted many times.

Then there is this statement by the NDP; can also be safely ignored because it's just the NDP parroting Joyce Arthur.

Pages 199-282 are US legal cases on "misinformation".  

So there are lots of pages of attempts to justify "misinformation". There are lots of redacted information. The government is clearly looking for reasons (and doing cartwheels) to get ammunition to persecute and target pregnancy care centres for "misinformation". But other than Joyce Arthur and NDP MPP Leah Gazan's claims of misinformation, I could not find any actual evidence or proof of Canada's pregnancy care centres indulging in "misinformation".

Joyce Arthur: lobbying, grants ($78,792) and brothels

It's common knowledge that Joyce Arthur advises the government on all things pro-abortion revealed through numerous ATIPs that I've done. (i.e. her lobbying to remove funding for summer jobs program for pro-life groups, her relentless attacks on Pregnancy Care Centres, which began with her $27,400 government grant to write a witch hunt of a report against pregnancy care centres, to name just two examples)

Here are a few other examples of her lobby efforts to government:

1) From this government document Family-centred maternity and newborn care: National guidelines, under a chapter on Loss and Grief, they actually refer to Arthur's Why women have abortions. The document is supposed to be about maternity and newborn care, and all of a sudden we're talking about why women have abortions. Why is the government referring to a pro-abortion document from Arthur when the government document is supposedly about family centred maternity and newborn care? 

2) Joyce Arthur's 2021 election spending of $9,984.00. Most of the money went to salaries for her and her pro-abortion friends. More pro-abortion lobbying during an election.

https://www.elections.ca/fin/oth/thi/advert/tp43/TP-0100_ecr.pdf

3) Next we have Joyce Arthur advocating for four brothels at the 2010 Olympics. I am not kidding. Thankfully saner heads prevailed when the Conservative government said that it was

"not in the business of legalizing brothels" 

and would not approve the initiative.

https://www.securitepublique.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/wntr-gms-2010/index-en.aspx#s6a

4) Joyce Arthur the lobbyist: From here you can see that she received funding of $11,000 in 2023 from SSHRC. 

When I did an ATIP on this to Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), I was told that

"Joyce Arthur did not receive funds from SSHRC. Joyce Arthur was listed as a collaborator on a Partnership Engage Grant (PEG) and a Knowledge Synthesis Grant (KSG)". 

But I was unable to find which grant she was collaborating on for this $11,000 amount. I'm waiting for a clarification from the ATIP office.

I did find three other SSHRC grants where Arthur was a collaborator or a partner. Notice that the first one is with Dying with Dignity the pro-death lobbying group.

1) Exploring the impact of belief-based denial of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) on those seeking services: A multi-methods qualitative study in Canada (emphasis added).

2) Exploring the impact of belief-based denial of contraceptive or abortion care on those seeking services: A multi-methods qualitative study in Canada (emphasis added)

The pro-deathers are getting government grant money to target belief based (read Christian) non-acceptance of killing children in the womb and old sick people. I can tell you why Christians don't believe in killing people in one short sentence. You don't need $50,000 to figure it out. Just ask us: Killing people is wrong, evil, unethical and immoral.

3) Abortion Attitudes and Access: Building A Canadian Framework for Reproductive Justice 

What kind of stupidity is this? We have so much freaking 'reproductive justice' in this country with the pro-aborts already getting gazillions of dollars in government funding, plus fully funded free on-demand abortions, that now they just have to come up with new and ridiculous made-up reasons to get more tax-payer money to fund their pro-death ideology. Welcome to Canada.

Unredacted ATIP reveals abortion advocate's disinformation

It is interesting what gets hidden in an ATIP. Usually of course you have no idea what they are hiding because the hidden information is redacted. But recently I had occasion to ask for two different ATIPs about the Abortion Rights Coalition that were about a year apart. I received some duplicate information from them. The first one contained certain redacted information that the second one did not redact. 

The unredacted information revealed that the redacted info from the first ATIP, was ARCC telling their usual unrelenting falsehoods about pregnancy care centres.

This is the text that was redacted from the first ATIP from a letter from ARCC to the Minister of Health on April 4, 2018:

"...Further, it would help to dispel harmful myths about abortion and mitigate the effects of misinformation spread by anti-choice groups. Over 290 anti-choice groups exist across Canada, including about 165 “crisis pregnancy centres” (CPCs)....Most agencies have websites or do other public outreach, and all provide misinformation about abortion and work to reinforce stigma. Further, CPCs often mislead or scare women seeking abortion while advocacy groups seek to recriminalize abortion, which would violate women's charter rights."

Redacted information about CPCs

Unredacted information on CPCs

Two questions. 

1) Why was this information redacted from the first ATIP? The three Information Act clauses cited don't seem pertinent (19 (1), 20 (1) (c), 20 (1) (b.1)) to the redaction. And if they should have been redacted, why weren't they in the second ATIP?

2) Were the bureaucrats embarrassed (as they should be) when they saw this disinformation about pregnancy care centres, so they redacted "all [CPCs] provide misinformation about abortion and work to reinforce stigma"?

Here is another statement from meeting notes ARCC had with MP Don Davies from July 4, 2017 that was redacted from the first ATIP, but not the second ATIP:

"...The idea is to have a central, reliable place that women can go to, mitigating the effects of misinformation provided by "crisis pregnancy centres" and anti-choice groups."

More libelous nonsense.

(Here's a true statement no one can argue with, and is definitely not a lie: All abortion clinics kill babies.)

Fun Fact: My first ATIP took them 442 days to process and contained 11 pages. The second one took 396 days to process and contained 20 pages and produced similar information as the first. Don't let anyone ever tell you that ATIPs are ever processed in 30 days.

19 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this Part that contains personal information.

• 20 (1) (c) information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to result in material financial loss or gain to, or could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of, a third party; or

• 20 (1) (b.1) information that is supplied in confidence to a government institution by a third party for the preparation, maintenance, testing or implementation by the government institution of emergency management plans within the meaning of section 2 of the Emergency Management Act and that concerns the vulnerability of the third party’s buildings or other structures, its networks or systems, including its computer or communications networks or systems, or the methods used to protect any of those buildings, structures, networks or systems

Canadian government unable to justify its persecution of pro-life charities

My ATIP to the Privy Council Office (PCO):

“Regarding this letter from the PMO to the Finance Department https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/mandate-letters/2021/12/16/deputy-prime-minister-and-minister-finance-mandate-letter which says: "Introduce amendments to the Income Tax Act to make anti-abortion organizations that provide dishonest counselling to pregnant women about their rights and options ineligible for charitable status..." I am requesting all the supporting documentation to and from the The Privy Council Office and to and from any other government department including the PMO, that supports this need to make anti-abortion charities lose their charitable status. This would also include all documented materials from external persons or organizations and government departments that provided evidence of this "dishonest counselling" to the PCO. I would also like to see the criteria that will be used to dis-qualify the affected organizations for losing their charitable status. In other words, how will Revenue Canada decide that these organizations are engaging in "dishonest counselling"?” My request would be from Jan 1, 2020 to the present day”.

It took almost eight months to receive a miniscule 10 pages. From what little I did receive, and based on how long it took to receive it, I must conclude that they looked really hard to find something, anything at all, that would support their persecution of pro-life organizations. But they couldn't find a thing:

• I received no supporting documentation that supports the 'need' to make charities lose their charitable status.
• I received no supporting documentation from external persons or organizations of evidence of any 'dishonest counseling'.
• I did not receive the 'criteria' that would be used to disqualify these organizations from losing their charitable status.

What I did receive, was an admission that there is no legal right to abortion in Canada:

"Although abortion was decriminalized in 1988 as a result of R. v. Morgentaler, there is no legal right to abortion in Canada.

The mandate to remove the charitable status from pro-life groups by this Liberal government is based purely on ideological reasons, not on any evidence, and not on any facts.

Federal public servants get $75,000 to transition to a different gender

"August 11, 2015: MONTREAL – Canadians deserve an open, transparent government that will focus on their real priorities – economic growth that works for everyone, said the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Justin Trudeau, today. “Only Liberals have a plan for real change that will restore trust in our democracy, and ensure an open and transparent government.”" Justin Trudeau 2015

(This blog entry isn't actually about the above myth, it just came to me as I was writing about my current ATIP waiting game, where ATIPs and Information commissioner complaints, can take up to almost two years to receive. ATIPs always take longer than the promised 30 days. Never mind all of the redacted information that accompanies every response. The wheels of information release--when they actually turn at all--go way slower than the millions dished out by the Trudeau government's numerous and favourite ideological causes, that turn at warp speed....and now onto my other important news...)

If you work for the Federal public service and decide you don't like being a man or woman, you can get "gender affirming procedures" performed for up to $75,000 all free of charge--paid for by the public service healthcare program, as in, paid for, by you the tax payer. 

My question is: what if I decide to de-transition because I realize I've made the biggest mistake of my life--and my heart sincerely goes out to these people--will I then get another $75,000 benefit to fix my mistake?

I submitted an ATIP to ask this exact question, to learn what information, if any, they have on paying for de-transitions. I haven't received a response yet. They're stalling: My ATIP request went out on May 2. On May 23 I was informed they needed another 90 days extension. Of course they do.

Canada's independent media and how to do FOIs and ATIPs

This is an excellent resource with links to pretty much all of Canada's independent media groups. Much better to check them out instead of going to the usual pinko CBC/Global News/CTV/Toronto Star bunch, all of which get government funding and really really really don't like conservatives/pro-life people.

Non-legacy news outlets in Canada

And one of the links I got from the site was this one:

It gives information on doing Freedom of Information requests (provincial), and Access to Information requests (federal). I already know how to do these, and do a lot of them, but this page details all the links you need in one place, a very handy resource.

Part 2 - CRA ATIP petitions from three MPs

Part 1 here.

Here the ATIP revealed that MP Garnett Genuis's petition was read in the Commons. Good.

"Yesterday's Hansard indicates that a petition was submitted to the House of Commons relating to the direction given by the Prime Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance in his Mandate Letter to introduce amendments the Income Tax Act to make anti-abortion organizations that provide dishonest counselling to pregnant women about their rights and options ineligible for charitable status:

"CHARITABLE STATUS Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am tabling notes the Liberal Party's commitment in its 2021 platform to deny charitable status to organizations that hold convictions about abortion, which the Liberal Party views as "dishonest". Petitioners are concerned that this may jeopardize the charitable status of hospitals, houses of worship, schools, homeless shelters and other charitable organizations that do not agree with the Liberal Party on this issue for matters of conscience. It notes that many Canadians depend on these charitable organizations and that previous attempts by the government to impose a values test on charities and deny them funding or charitable status as a result have certainly been poorly received. Petitioners are highlighting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the freedom of conscience it guarantees. They call on the House of Commons to protect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis without discrimination on the basis of political or religious values and without the imposition of another values test and also to affirm the right of Canadians to freedom of expression."

Then on March 23, 2022, we have three more petitions.

"Multiple petitions were tabled in Parliament yesterday on the issue of no longer providing charitable status to anti-abortion organizations. These petitions are to contest this proposed policy.

Garnett Genuis Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr Speaker, the next petition I am tabling highlights with great concern a commitment from the Liberal election platform saying that it would deny charitable status to organizations that have convictions about abortion that the Liberal Party views as "dishonest." It is noted that charitable status rules already contain a prohibition against dishonest behaviour, and this particular targeting of groups based on political views is a form of political discrimination. It is the application of another values test tied to charitable status, and it is the politicization of charitable status. The petitioners note as well that this is similar to the discriminatory values test that the Liberals tried previously to associate with the Canada summer jobs program. [we remember it well].

The petitioners are calling on the government to protect Canadians’ charter rights to freedom of expression and freedom of opinion without discrimination. They call on the House to protect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis without discrimination on the basis of political and religious values and without the imposition of another values test, and to affirm the right of Canadians to freedom of expression.

Kelly Block, "Petitions" on March 23rd, 2022 I open parliament.ca Kelly Block Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek; SK

Mr Speaker, I also have the honour of tabling a petition calling on the government to protect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis, without discrimination on the basis of political or religious values and without the imposition of another values test, and to affirm the right of Canadians to freedom of expression.

I thank these Canadians for their engagement on these important issues Damien Kurek, "Petitions11 on March 23rd, 2022 1 open parliament.ca 

Damien Kurek Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, the second petition, again signed by folks from across our country, calls upon members of Parliament to do everything in their power to prevent, block, organize against and vote against any effort by the government to revoke the charitable status of pro-life organizations in Canada, as we have seen the government be willing to do."

(All emphasis added) 

Good for these three MPs. I thank God that there are some good and faithful servants of the people of Canada, who speak out against the tyranny pro-life people are subject to from a government that discriminates against, on a continual and unabated basis, forever coming up with new and creative ways to attack and marginalize us at every turn.

To them I say thank you, thank you, thank you.

Part 1 - CRA ATIP - two bureaucrats question pro-life charitable status policy

The Liberals latest witch hunt against anything and everything pro-life is a really bad idea for pro-life charities. We all know this.

In my latest ATIP to CRA I asked for: 

"All records including but not limited to internal/external correspondence, memos, briefings, work plans and meeting notes related to the Liberal campaign promise to no longer provide charitable status to anti-abortion organizations."

(My last ATIP to CRA on this subject is here.)

Most of the correspondence I received back, were copies of media articles and letters to the editor about the proposed changes. There are also a couple of pro-life letters/articles in the package. But most of what is included are media articles from progressives. 

There is one letter to the editor where we are compared to the Taliban. Really. 

There is one long article that is not unfavourable to our position, and the author makes some noteworthy points.

What is absent from the ATIP is any proof of the so-called "dishonest counseling" from any pro-life organizations. To date the our prime minister has failed to give us any proof of his allegations. That's because this is a totally made up idea, dreamt up by him to continue his unrelenting attack on pro-life groups.

A few excerpts below. More to come later.

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

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Mandate Letter states:

• "introduce amendments to the Income Tax Act to make anti-abortion organizations that provide dishonest counselling to pregnant women about their rights and options ineligible for charitable status, and to expand the Medical Expense Tax Credit to include costs reimbursed to surrogate mothers for IVF expenses. You will be supported in this work by the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth [no kidding]."

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

Minister for Women and Gender Equality [what a ludicrous name for a department] and Youth Mandate Letter states:

• "Support the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance in introducing amendments to the Income Tax Act to make anti-abortion organizations that provide dishonest counselling to pregnant women about their rights and options ineligible for charitable status..."

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

Notice how the DPM and the Minister of Women and Gender Equality fall into lock step with the PM, agreeing without question, this discriminatory policy

But I do like the following comments below embedded in the ATIP. They are notes taken from a meeting of bureaucrats. No names. Only initials. But have a look at BM's and DW's comments. These are about the only comments I found in the document where a bureaucrat questions this stupid policy from our you know who.

BM • "Talking at Muttart about proposed amendment r.e. anti-abortion groups, giving dishonest info refused charitable status. Concern about naming one type of organization can set a dangerous precedent. Becomes a subjective discussion about what's dishonest info, future gov'ts might target pollution, or critical race theory. Does CRA not have tools around providing dishonest info already?" (emphasis added)

DW • "Mandate letter was concerning, especially given provisions in ITA to deal with dishonesty, and subjectivity around dishonesty (environment, anti-abortion,etc.) Nothing in B2022, but no clarity or further statements about what's happening." (emphasis added)

And DW again:

DW • "Mandate letters re ITA, and anti-abortion orgs providing dishonest counselling. Concerns about status being dependent on certain views, and the linking of gov't funding and those views. No consultation or info on the details. (emphasis added)

Did BM and DW not get the memo? Ouch. 

More later.

Linepharma, Mifegymiso, adverse reactions, and profit

This is my final post in this five part series on Linepharma, who markets, distributes, sells and profits from abortion in over 25 countries, including Canada. 

I've only documented a few of the adverse reaction cases from the 195 page ATIP package I received. You can view the other cases here from my Health Canada ATIP.

https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2022/01/improving-womens-health-one-abortion-at.html

https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2022/01/mifegymiso-case-17-year-old-serious-and.html

https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2022/01/mifegymiso-case-37-year-old-life.html

https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2022/01/mifegymiso-case-36-year-old.html

I cross referenced the 195 page report to the Canada Vigilance Summary of Reported Adverse  (43 records for MIFEGYMISO). Notice this from the first page of the summary report

"CAVEAT (from the report): This summary is based on information from adverse reaction reports submitted by health professionals and laypersons either directly to Health Canada or via market authorization holders. Each report represents the suspicion, opinion or observation of the individual reporter. The Canada Vigilance Program is a spontaneous reporting system that is suitable to detect signals of potential health product safety issues during the post-market period. The data has been collected primarily by a spontaneous surveillance system in which adverse reactions to health products are reported on a voluntary basis. Under reporting of adverse reactions is seen with both voluntary and mandatory spontaneous surveillance systems. Accumulated case reports should not be used as a basis for determining the incidence of a reaction or estimating risk for a particular product as neither the total number of reactions occurring, nor the number of patients exposed to the health product is known. Because of the multiple factors that influence reporting, quantitative comparisons of health product safety cannot be made from the data. Some of these factors include the length of time a drug is marketed, the market share, size and sophistication of the sales force, publicity about an adverse reaction and regulatory actions. In some cases, the reported clinical data is incomplete and there is not certainty that these health products caused the reported reactions. A given reaction may be due to an underlying disease process or to another coincidental factor. This information is provided with the understanding that the data will be appropriately referenced and used in conjunction with this caveat statement."

Lots of wiggle room there. Notice this statement: 

"Under reporting of adverse reactions is seen with both voluntary and mandatory spontaneous surveillance systems." (emphasis added)

Presumably there are many adverse reactions that are never reported to Health Canada. How many? We will probably never know. But women who take this deadly pill are really on their own. They go home, take the pills, and who knows what consequences these women will suffer? And will they be reported?

Medical abortions really just add another whole level of evil to the already abhorrent reality of abortion.

Mifegymiso case 36 year old, hospitilization, sepsis, missing information

This report for a 36 year old woman who suffered from sepsis after a Mifegymiso abortion, bears a strong similarity to some of the other reports.

It contains a lot of unknown information about her case.

A 36-year old female patient, unspecified weight and height, with unknown medical history, was administered Mifegymiso...unspecified dosage for induced abortion. Time frame was unknown. Time of gestation was not provided.

Concomitant treatment was not reported.

Corrective treatment, if any, was not reported.

The patient recovered from the event on unspecified date.

The health authority evaluated the case as serious (Hospitalization), coded sepsis as adverse reaction, suspected Mifegymiso and did not assess the causal relationship between Mifegymiso and the adverse reaction. (but I think we know the answer to this one)

Seriousness: -sepsis: yes (hospitalization) 

Causality assessment: Very poorly documented case, time frames and dosage of mifepristone administration were not provided. Chronology was unassessable.

Missing information: Confirmation of misoprostol administration.

More than one of these reports contain this lack of information. Why is that? Why isn't Health Canada following up with the person who reports the adverse reaction, to obtain this information? Isn't that a kind of crucial aspect of this reporting system?

Mifegymiso case 37 year old, life threatening and involved or prolonged inpatient hospitalization

In 2017 a 37 year old woman suffered "life threatening and involved or prolonged inpatient hospitalization".

From her Adverse Reaction Report:

"Report received [date]. 37 year old woman with unknown medical history. Received Mifegymiso. Patient was 45 days gestation.

Patient presented for follow-up appointment with heavy bleeding and vasovagal (See below). Ultrasound scan detected retained product of conception in and around cervix that physician attempted to remove. An assessment of stat hemoglobin was ordered, then patient called at home to [be] given results at 130. A date for dilation and curettage was booked by clinic. Patient reported passed large clot size of an orange on way home and felt much better. 

On [date], nurse called in the morning and patient said bleeding was only spotting and she felt better and cancelled dilation and curettage.

On [date], patient reported being admitted to hospital with hemorrhage and loss of consciousness on date with low hemoglobin and iron. She underwent emergency dilation and curettage and blood transfusion."

Reactions:

"Loss of consciousness, Low hemoglobin, Low iron, Hemorrhage, Transfusion, D&C, Syncope vasovagal, Retained product of conception, Heavy bleeding"

Notice the use of Retained product of conception. A human being by any other name.

"Vasovagal syncope (vay-zoh-VAY-gul SING-kuh-pee) occurs when you faint because your body overreacts to certain triggers, such as the sight of blood or extreme emotional distress. It may also be called neurocardiogenic syncope.

The vasovagal syncope trigger causes your heart rate and blood pressure to drop suddenly. That leads to reduced blood flow to your brain, causing you to briefly lose consciousness."

Mifegymiso case 17 year old, serious and life threatening

"Linepharma is a pharmaceutical company committed to improving sexual and reproductive health through expanding access to safe medication abortion."

Further to my last post about the company whose only product kills babies, I did an ATIP to Health Canada on the abortion drug Mifegymiso. My request:

"I would like to obtain the total number of medical abortions (mifepristone and misoprostol) dispensed in Canada since the drug became legal in 2017. I would also like to see any reports of adverse affects  attributed to these medical abortions in Canada since the drug became legal in 2017."

I am still waiting for the first part of my request, and received info back on the second part about adverse effects.

The first woman I will discuss who suffered from this dangerous drug was 17 years old. There are records for her from 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 in the system. I have no idea how long she suffered from her abortion, but there was a lot of paper work done on her.

Her case was classified as serious, life threatening.

This woman suffered the following horrible reactions to this drug.

Loss of consciousness, Hemoglobin low, Iron low, Hemorrage,Transfusion, Dilation and curettage, Retained products of conception, Heavy bleeding, Large clot, Toxic shock syndrome, Off label use, Escherichia sepsis (E. coli), Septic abortion, Abortion infected, Cardiovascular collapse, Circulatory collapse, Percutaneous cardiopulmonary support, Lung assist device therapy

Case Narrative: "Septic shock secondary to septic aabortion from incomplete medical abortion - was provided mifegymiso at 11-2 GA (well out of recommended gestational age); E.coli identified in blood cultures and from uterine contents; patient presented in cardiovascular collapse to local hospital, was transferred to other hospital level 2 center, urgent D&C carried out and ICU admission required with respiratory/cardiovascular support required, developed septic cardiomyopathy; recovered with extensive antibiotic coverage and intensive care; ultimately was discharged home with close followup."

This case was flagged as off-label use because:

"She had unknown relevant medical history. 11 Weeks 2 days gestation (79 days) patient received Mifegymiso beyond 63 days gestation." (emphasis added)

Interesting that 63 days number. Because from this Canadian Medical Abortion Dispensing Guide it says up to 70 days. So what is it Linepharma, 63 days or 70 days? And how do you make sure that women don't take it past this time like this girl did?

On one of the reports was the following comment.

"The case was reported by a physician to Health Canada on 22-Mar-2018 and retrieved by Linepharma on 16-Dec-2019."

Linepharma took a 21 full months to retrieve the information about this poor girl. You'd think that they would be a tad more interested in knowing about this horror story. And the other horror stories of women taking this dangerous drug. That they produce, market, make money from, and send around the world. 

How many people in countries not as advanced as Canada suffer from similar reactions? And what will happen if we start sending Mifegymiso to Africa? God only knows.

Canadian abortion statistics 2015-2019

I continue to receive abortion statistics from my access to information requests from the provinces and territories of Canada.

I am only missing Northwest Territories. I will post NWT once I receive the information.

Below are all of my most recent posts on abortion statistics in Canada from this year.

PEI
Yukon
Nunavut
New Brunswick (Part 1)

Gaining insight into New Brunswick's abortion statistics (Part 2)

Newfoundland and Labrador
Nova Scotia
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
British Columbia
Canadian abortion statistics: who does, and who does not, report medical abortions
Canada abortion rates by province
The never ending story of abortion statistics in Canada
Alberta abortion codes
UPDATE: Alberta abortion statistics for 2015/2016 to 2018/2019
UPDATE The facts about abortions statistics in Canada
2018 abortion numbers - are they going up or down?
Late term live-birth abortions in Canada - the Series

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

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

Part 3

From Bill Clinton: A Reckoning:

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

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

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

From Juanita Broaddrick's profile on her twitter account:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are others of course.

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

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

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

Part 2

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

I did not make this up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Honourable Chrystia Freeland
Minister of Foreign Affairs

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