Showing posts with label Dr. Wendy Norman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dr. Wendy Norman. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 7, 2025

Abortion researchers giddy about abortion dollars

UBC researchers lead national project to strengthen access to abortion care.

UBC Faculty of Medicine researchers have received more than $4.3 million from the Government of Canada to address barriers to abortion access for underserved populations.

The nerve of Dr. Wendy Norman and health minister Marjorie Michel. Look at the smiles on their faces. Smiling about getting money for research into the killing of unborn children. This is disgusting. 

And what kind of nonsense is this about there being barriers to abortion access in Canada? Canada has the most liberal abortion access in the entire world. Paid for by you and me. And now we are giving more money to this death cult. 

Mark Carney's government is clearly continuing Justin Trudeau's pathetic abortion agenda.

Sunday, February 19, 2023

We need to defund the biased CBC

Pierre Poilievre wants to defund the CBC. You can sign his petition here. I did.

I had my own experience with the CBC back in 2015/2016. They aired an interview with abortion doctor Wendy Norman (and other pro-abort doctors and pro-abort people), on the abortion pill. They interviewed only one pro-life doctor. Quelle surprise. Their bias is blatant.
"Of the four people Anna Maria interviewed, three of them were "pro-choice" (Dr. Rebecca Gomperts, Dr. Joel Lexchin and Dr. Sheila Dunn) and only one was a pro-life doctor (Dr. Donna Harrison). Dr. Gomperts actually performs abortions on women who live in countries where abortions are illegal. Dr. Joel Lexchin wonders if "[the holdup to approve the drug] is a political decision, in other words, if this is pressure coming from the anti-abortions members of the conservative government to not approve this product". And Dr. Sheila Dunn easily sails through her questions, and is not interrupted by Anna-Maria--unlike the pro-life doctor, who is also asked, if her reasons for not supporting mifepristone, are based on ideology. Whereas none of the three "pro-choice" doctors are asked the same question."
The pro aborts LOVE the abortion pill. Never mind that it kills women.

Thursday, February 18, 2021

4 reasons Ontario does not need an abortion bubble zone

I have repeatedly said that there is no need for an abortion bubble zone in Ontario. This is based on the following facts. (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

First, from abortion doctor Wendy Norman from her 2012 study of Canadian abortion clinics. These are the different texts she wrote in this study pertaining to harassment at abortion places, where she explicitly says that there is little to no pro-life harassment at abortion facilities.

Page e209

"We identified 94 Canadian facilities providing abortion in 2012, with 48.9% in Quebec. The response rate was 83.0% (78 of 94). Facilities in every jurisdiction with services responded. In Quebec and British Columbia abortion services are nearly equally present in large urban centres and rural locations throughout the provinces; in other Canadian provinces services are chiefly located in large urban areas. No abortion services were identified in Prince Edward Island. Respondents reported provision of 75 650 abortions in 2012 (including 4.0% by medical abortion). Canadian facilities reported minimal or no harassment, in stark contrast to American facilities that responded to the same survey."

Page e209

"More than half of all abortion providers in Canada are family physicians or general practitioners. Medical abortion is rare, as is harassment of facilities."

Page e212

"Facilities reported very little harassment (Table 4). No Canadian facility reported a resignation of an abortion provider–physician or any staff member owing to harassment. Only a single facility reported any resignation of an allied health professional staff member, and in this case the facility specified that the one resignation was not owing to violence, fear, or threats. Similarly, two-thirds of reporting facilities (49 of 74, 66.2%) indicated no episodes of harassment or violence in 2012, with a further 28.4% (21 of 74) reporting solely picketing without interference. Among 7 facilities reporting “other” episodes of harassment, half specified only receipt of harassing e-mail."

Page e215

"Canadian abortion facilities reported rare harassment. In contrast, among American abortion facilities sampled concurrently 83% reported substantial episodes of harassment, and 10% reported staff resignations owing to harassment."

Page e216

"Conclusion. Equitable access to abortion service varies by region across Canada. Medical abortion is rare, as is harassment of facilities. Provincial government leadership in BC and Quebec has demonstrated effective strategies to address inequity. Regulatory advances that could improve abortion service access include improved access to mifepristone for medical abortion; provincial leadership supporting abortion services through policy and legislation; implementation of routine training in surgical and especially medical abortion within family medicine residency programs; and regulations to broaden the scope of practice for nurses, midwives, and other allied health professionals to include abortion provision. Health policy and service improvements have the potential to address current abortion access inequity in Canada."

Second, an FOI I did to the Ottawa Police, identified no arrests and no charges in a period from 2010 to June 1, 2017. Then with a subsequent conversation with the Ottawa Police, this was confirmed for me.

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

I was told that neither of these assaults resulted in injuries, and no one was charged with anything."

Third, besides Ottawa's lack of any problematic police reports, the fact that there were no other police reports in the entire province of Ontario, to support a bubble zone law. The Attorney general of Ontario quite unbelievably has no police reports from anywhere in Ontario to support this unconstitutional law against our freedom of expression rights.

"One of my other complaints was the glaring omission of any police reports to support the need for a bubble zone in the first place. You know, like actual evidence for the need for a bubble zone? When I asked the information commissioner about this, I was told:

"with respect to the police reports, I had followed up earlier with the ministry [attorney general] and they advised there were no police reports."

Finally, the Ontario government has never provided an actual reason for the need of a bubble zone.

Conclusion, there is no need for an abortion bubble zone in Ontario. Not now. Not ever. This legislation is purely about pro-abortion ideology that permeates the powers that be.

Sunday, August 18, 2019

The scandal of raking in tax dollars (part 2)

“ . . .there’s no moral equivalence between anti-choice groups and pro-choice groups." Joyce Arthur August 2019
Further to my previous report on government funding to organizations who signed the Options letter, there is even more government funding going to these kinds of organizations that promote/support/fund abortion. Many of them are foreign companies, but also Canadian companies.

(This letter was initiated by Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights.)

This post uncovers some of that funding to these organizations.

(Other funding to Canadian organizations will be disclosed in subsequent posts.)

Today I can tell you that Justin Trudeau's Liberals are funding at least 1,398,412,544 dollars to groups who promote/support/fund abortion. That is $1,007,110,155 as reported by Global affairs plus an additional $391,302,389 going to many of these same international organizations (for some reason not reported by Global Affairs), along with Canadian feminist organizations. All in the name of reproductive choice.

(Notice this caveat at the Global Affairs link: “All data is preliminary and will be updated regularly as more information becomes available through project implementation. Given operational sensitivities certain projects contributing SRHR are not included in this list.” Why not? What are they hiding from us?)

If you are a feminist organization, the Canadian government's pockets' are very deep.

A couple of interesting things in the data jumped out at me:
  • Abortion doctor Wendy Norman received $2,434,814
  • The Clintons received $19,950,000 for Sexual and Reproductive Health for Women and Adolescents in Northern Nigeria. (Abortion is generally illegal in Nigeria.)
  • Aga Khan Foundation Canada received $19,449,291 for Advancing Sexual and Reproductive Health in Cabo Delgado. (Aga Khan of Justin Trudeau's first conflict of interest fame)
  • More Canada summer job funding
  • Over one million to Regroupement fĂ©ministe du Nouveau-Brunswick inc (good work if you can get it)
Most of these Canadian dollars go to abortion in Africa and Central America, where for the most part, abortion is illegal. Over one billion dollars worth of reproductive choice.

Obianuju Ekeocha in her book Target Africa – Ideological neocolonialism in the twenty-first Century tells us that Africans do not want abortion. That Africans love big families. That Africans value all human life. That most Africans are against abortion. She should know, being born and raised in Kenya:

“A 2014 Ipsos study found that 87 percent of Kenyans oppose abortion on demand...The vast majority of Africans said that abortion was morally unacceptable: 92 percent of Ghanaians, 88 percent of Ugandans, 82 percent of Kenyans, 80 of Nigerians, and 77 of Tunisians said they considered abortion to be morally wrong.”

She tells us about the Maputo Protocol which was supposed to bring rights to African women. This is what Obianuju Ekeocha says about article 14 of the Protocol:

“It is obvious that article 14 was incorporated into the Maputo Protocol in order to open the door to legal abortion throughout the continent...it has become the most lobbied, campaigned, and promoted by Western-funded feminist organizations across Africa. Millions of dollars have been given to weaponize the forty words of the article that provide a license to kill Africa's unborn children.” [Are you listening mister feminist Prime Minister Justin Trudeau?]

Obianuju Ekeocha also argues against accepting the billions of dollars in aid given to Africa. She says that aid is tied to

“control over many aspects of African life, including sexual behaviour and reproduction rates.”

She concludes with this:
“So why is it acceptable for wealthy Westerners to send along contraceptives with their humanitarian aid after a hurricane or another natural disaster? Trying to stop people in the developing world from having children should be considered appalling, especially since doing it is not a development strategy. It is an invasion strategy, and that is why Africa must walk away from aid.”
That's now a total of $1,550,884,070 ($152,471,526 from my last post + 1,398,412,544) Canadian taxpayer funding to organizations that promote/support/fund abortion. And counting...

In case you had any doubt that abortion is big business. 

Thursday, June 1, 2017

Double standard alive and well for pro-life people

By Patricia Maloney

Mayor Jim Watson and my councillor Tobi Nussbaum never had the courtesy to answer my question as to why our rights of peaceful protest were ignored when the Ottawa Police re-routed the March for Life. Mind you I'm used to politicians not answering my questions since apparently we don't deserve the same respect as other people.

Now Watson is asking for a bubble zone. Christie Blatchford's take on this in today's National Post:
"Let it never be said that the state is shy about using an elephant gun to kill a flea.
I give you the latest musings of Ontario Attorney General Yasir Naqvi, who this week announced that next fall, his government is going to legislate “safe access zones” around abortion clinics to “help ensure the safety and privacy of women, visitors and health-care workers travelling to and from these facilities.”
Naqvi, who represents a downtown Ottawa riding where a Morgentaler Clinic is located, alluded to recent “serious instances of intimidation, harassment and even assault” towards patients there. Urging the province to act were Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson and Catherine Macnab of Planned Parenthood Ottawa.
Perhaps there’s a real issue in Ottawa, though there has been little hard reporting of it. Some protesters there wear sandwich boards featuring photos of lurid and cut-up bodies, and yell at patients that they are killing their babies, clinic staff say."
Good point. If there's been so many problems at the Morgentaler facility, where is all the reporting of it? And if there are bone-fide problems why don't the police deal with them? Like they do everywhere else there are harassment problems?

In fact in 2012 abortion doctor Wendy Norman said this in her study Abortion health services in Canada:
“Facilities reported very little harassment. No Canadian facility reported a resignation of an abortion provider–physician or any staff member owing to harassment. Only a single facility reported any resignation of an allied health professional staff member, and in this case the facility specified that the one resignation was not owing to violence, fear, or threats. Similarly, two-thirds of reporting facilities (49 of 74, 66.2%) indicated no episodes of harassment or violence in 2012, with a further 28.4% (21 of 74) reporting solely picketing without interference. Among 7 facilities reporting “other” episodes of harassment, half specified only receipt of harassing e-mail.”
So if one of Canada's premier abortion doctors says there is virtually no harassment or problems at abortion facilities, why is Yasir Naqvi and Jim Watson using an elephant gun to to kill a flea? It's because there are two sets of standards in "civilized" society today. One set for pro-life people. And one set for everybody else.

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Government wrong when it says "large body of scholarly works on abortion policy"

Another argument that the government's lawyer, Dan Guttman made as to why I don't need access to abortion statistics through FOI requests, is that there is already data publicly available:
"There is a large body of scholarly works on abortion policy."

He identifies two public documents written by abortion doctor Wendy Norman along with some other doctors. 

Guttman also brings up CIHI as a source of data. We already know that CIHI's data is grossly under reported (not all clinics report and no doctor's offices report abortions at all). Now we learn that the two additional reports by Dr. Wendy Norman (Abortion Health Services in Canada and First-trimester medical abortion practices in Canada) also under report abortion data, one of them actually reports less abortions than CIHI does.

1) Abortion health services in Canada (Objective: To determine the location of Canadian abortion services relative to where reproductive-age women reside and the characteristics of abortion facilities and providers.)

This paper is based on a national survey of abortion providers. It reports that 75,650 abortions were done in 2012. CIHI reported 83,708 abortions in 2012:
"We report the first detailed data on abortion facilities and providers in Canada, including data on facilities providing 90.4% of the total number of Canadian abortions (83,708) reported to the Canadian Institute for Health Information for 2012".
The report makes no mention of the fact that the 83,708 CIHI number is also an incorrect under reported number, but the statement leads the reader to believe that CIHI's numbers are accurate when they are not. My calculations based on my 2010 FOI requests show that OHIP numbers were 53.28% higher that CIHI's numbers that year. And since every year since 2010 we have not had accurate data, I've had to estimate the numbers.

And now we know, my 53.28% number is probably even higher based on what we learned from the government during our court appearance.

2) First-trimester medical abortion practices in Canada (Objective: To understand the current availability and practice of first-trimester medical abortion (MA) in Canada):
"A strength of this study was the high response rate, allowing it to capture 90.4% of the terminations reported to CIHI in 2012.1 It also presents the first picture of MA in Canada and can provide a basis for further evaluations. However, we recognize that it might not be completely representative; physicians were recruited from publicly advertised sites providing surgical abortion services, which might have introduced a lower response rate from hospital-based services and from MA providers not associated with an advertised abortion facility. Another potential limitation is the low response rate observed in Ontario (56.3%), a high-population area; thus, the results of this survey might not be generalizable to every province, especially Ontario."
Another problem is that these reports are not published annually. And there is no guarantee that they would be published every year, and most probably won't be. Since these two Wendy Norman reports are for 2012 stats, but were only published in 2016 (four years later), it's pretty certain that these reports are probably a one off. Reports that are published occasionally or only once, are not a good argument for telling someone there is already abortion information out there. And two public one-off reports that are known to under report abortion data, does not qualify as a "large body of scholarly works", wouldn't you say?

Monday, December 5, 2016

CBC - big abortion's mouthpiece - Part 3

(Part 1)
(Part 2)
"I cannot understand the need for that. There isn't a medical reason we would need that." Dr. Wendy Norman
So let's look at these strict accessibility guidelines for RU-486 (mifepristone), based on the US example, a country ten times the size of Canada.

Is there a "medical reason" for these guidelines or isn't there?

The CBC has interviewed Dr. Norman at least six times, and each time she questions why Canada has chosen to only allow doctors to dispense this drug, and not pharmacists. Dr. Norman calls this behaviour "strange and bizarre", "highly unusual", an "absolutely inexplicable regulation" and "demeaning".

Decide for yourself.

All the information and links below are from the US's Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Approved Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS). (All emphasis in red added)

I. GOAL

The goal of the Mifeprex REMS is to mitigate the risk of serious complications associated with Mifeprex by:
a) Requiring healthcare providers who prescribe Mifeprex to be certified in the Mifeprex REMS Program.
b) Ensuring that Mifeprex is only dispensed in certain healthcare settings by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber.
c) Informing patients about the risk of serious complications associated with Mifeprex 

II. REMS ELEMENTS

A. Elements to Assure Safe Use

1. Healthcare providers who prescribe Mifeprex must be specially certified.
  a. To become specially certified to prescribe Mifeprex, healthcare providers must:
  i. Review the Prescribing Information for Mifeprex.
  ii. Complete the Prescriber Agreement Form. By signing the Prescriber agreement Form, prescribers agree that:
    1) They have the following qualifications:
      a) Ability to assess the duration of pregnancy accurately
      b) Ability to diagnose ectopic pregnancies
      c) Ability to provide surgical intervention in cases of incomplete abortion or severe bleeding, or to have made plans to provide such care through others, and ability to assure patient access to medical facilities equipped to provide blood transfusions and resuscitation, if necessary.
    2) They will follow the guidelines for use of Mifeprex (see b.i-v below).
  
b. As a condition of certification, healthcare providers must follow the guidelines for use of Mifeprex described below:

  i. Review the Patient Agreement Form with the patient and fully explain the risks of the Mifeprex treatment regimen. Answer any questions the patient may have prior to receiving Mifeprex.
  ii. Sign the Patient Agreement Form and obtain the Patient’s signature on the Form
  iii. Provide the patient with a copy of the Patient Agreement Form and Medication Guide.
  iv. Place the signed Patient Agreement Form in the patient's medical record.
  v. Record the serial number from each package of Mifeprex in each patient’s record.
  vi. Report any deaths to Danco Laboratories, identifying the patient by a nonidentifiable reference and the serial number from each package of Mifeprex.

c. Danco Laboratories must:

  i. Ensure that healthcare providers who prescribe Mifeprex are specially certified in accordance with the requirements described above and de-certify healthcare providers who do not maintain compliance with certification requirements 
  ii. Provide the Prescribing Information and Prescriber Agreement Form to healthcare providers who inquire about how to become certified. 

The following materials are part of the REMS and are appended:
• Prescriber Agreement Form
• Patient Agreement Form

2. Mifeprex must be dispensed to patients only in certain healthcare settings, specifically clinics, medical offices, and hospitals, by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber.

  a. Danco Laboratories must:

    i. Ensure that Mifeprex is available to be dispensed to patients only in clinics, medical offices and hospitals by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber.
    ii. Ensure that Mifeprex is not distributed to or dispensed through retail pharmacies or other settings not described above.

3. Mifeprex must be dispensed to patients with evidence or other documentation of safe use conditions.
  a. The patient must sign a Patient Agreement Form indicating that she has:
    i. Received, read and been provided a copy of the Patient Agreement Form.
    ii. Received counseling from the prescriber regarding the risk of serious complications associated with Mifeprex.

B. Implementation System

1. Danco Laboratories must ensure that Mifeprex is only distributed to clinics, medical offices and hospitals by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber by:
  a. Ensuring that distributors who distribute Mifeprex comply with the program requirements for distributors. The distributors must:
    i. Put processes and procedures in place to:
      a. Complete the healthcare provider certification process upon receipt of the Prescriber Agreement form.
      b. Notify healthcare providers when they have been certified by the Mifeprex REMS Program.
      c. Ship Mifeprex only to clinics, medical offices, and hospitals identified by certified prescribers in the signed Prescriber Agreement Form.
      d. Not ship Mifeprex to prescribers who become de-certified from the Mifeprex Program.
      e. Provide the Prescribing Information and Prescriber Agreement Form to healthcare providers who (1) attempt to order Mifeprex and are not yet certified, or (2) inquire about how to become certified.
    ii. Put processes and procedures in place to maintain a distribution system that is secure, confidential and follows all processes and procedures, including those for storage, handling, shipping, tracking package serial numbers, proof of delivery and controlled returns of Mifeprex.
    iii. Train all relevant staff on the Mifeprex REMS Program requirements.
    iv. Comply with audits by Danco Laboratories, FDA or a third party acting on behalf of Danco Laboratories or FDA to ensure that all processes and procedures are in place and are being followed for the Mifeprex REMS Program. In addition, distributors must maintain appropriate documentation and make it available for audits.
    b. Ensuring that distributors maintain secure and confidential distribution records of all shipments of Mifeprex.

  2. Danco Laboratories must monitor distribution data to ensure compliance with the REMS Program.
  3. Danco Laboratories must audit new distributors within 90 calendar days after the distributor is authorized to ensure that all processes and procedures are in place and functioning to support the requirements of the Mifeprex REMS Program. Danco Laboratories will take steps to address distributor compliance if noncompliance is identified.
  4. Danco Laboratories must take reasonable steps to improve implementation of and compliance with the requirements of the Mifeprex REMS Program based on monitoring and assessment of the Mifeprex REMS Program.
  5. Danco Laboratories must report to FDA any death associated with Mifeprex whether or not considered drug-related, as soon as possible but no later than 15 calendar days from the initial receipt of the information by the applicant. This requirement does not affect the applicant's other reporting and follow-up requirements under FDA regulations.

C. Timetable for Submission of Assessments
Danco Laboratories must submit REMS assessments to FDA one year from the date of the initial approval of the REMS (06/08/2011) and every three years thereafter. To facilitate inclusion of as much information as possible while allowing reasonable time to prepare the submission, the reporting interval covered by each assessment should conclude no earlier than 60 days before the submission date for that assessment. Danco Laboratories must submit each assessment so that it will be received by the FDA on or before the due date.
_________________________________________________________________________

What do participants need to know?

Healthcare Providers who prescribe and dispense Mifeprex must To be able to prescribe:
  • Review the drug’s prescribing information.
  • Complete and submit the Prescriber Agreement Form.
Healthcare Providers who prescribe and dispense Mifeprex  must Before dispensing
  • Review the Patient Agreement Form with the patient and fully explain the risks of the Mifeprex treatment regimen.
  • Provide the patient with the Medication Guide.
  • Complete the Patient Agreement Form with the patient. Provide a completed copy of the form to the patient and retain a completed copy in the patient’s record.
  • Complete the Patient Agreement Form with the patient. Provide a completed copy of the form to the patient and retain a completed copy in the patient’s record.
Patients who are prescribed Mifeprex Before receiving
  • Review the Patient Agreement Form.
  • Complete the Patient Agreement Form with the prescriber.
  • Receive counseling from the prescriber on the risks associated with Mifeprex.
Distributors that distribute Mifeprex must To be able to distribute
  • Establish processes and procedures to ensure that the drug is distributed only to clinics, medical offices, and hospitals identified by certified healthcare providers.
  • Establish processes and procedures to maintain a distribution system that is secure and confidential.
  • Establish processes and procedures to maintain a system for proper storage, handling, shipping, tracking package serial numbers, proof of delivery and controlled returns of Mifeprex.
  • Train all relevant staff involved in distribution of Mifeprex on the REMS Program requirements.
Distributors that distribute Mifeprex must At all times
  • Maintain confidential distribution records of all shipments of Mifeprex.
  • Cooperate with audits carried out by the application holder to ensure that all processes and procedures are in place and are being followed.
Patient must fill out this form (1 page):

Doctor must fill out this form (2 page):

Medication guide for patient (4 pages) 

FDA warning:
"You should not buy Mifeprex over the Internet because you will bypass important safeguards designed to protect your health (and the health of others). 
Mifeprex has special safety restrictions on how it is distributed to the public. Also, drugs purchased from foreign Internet sources are not the FDA-approved versions of the drugs, and they are not subject to FDA-regulated manufacturing controls or FDA inspection of manufacturing facilities
To learn more about buying drugs safely, please see Buying Prescription Medicines Online: A Consumer Safety Guide"
Mifepristone U.S. Postmarketing Adverse Events Summary through 04/30/2011 (including deaths, hospitalizations, blood transfusions, ectopic pregnancies and infections):

Sunday, December 4, 2016

CBC - big abortion's mouthpiece - Part 2

CBC can't see how biased they are. I have detailed their bias here in part 1 as it relates to the abortion pill RU-486.

The Ombudsman thinks that I am concerned about Health Canada's position on the drug:
"the CBC covered the introduction of Mifepristone into Canada over a period of time and on multiple platforms and programmes. Many of those did adequately represent the position of Health Canada and its reasons for the regime required for use of the drug in Canada."
My complaint made no mention of Health Canada. Yet the Ombudsman talks about their story being balanced as regards to Health Canada, which I never mentioned in my complaint. Rather my complaint was about the fact that the CBC chose only ever to ask an abortion doctor her opinion as to why the drug was being dispensed this way [by doctors and not pharmacists]. The CBC did not ask that question of a pro-life doctor. Why not? If the CBC had asked a pro-life doctor, I'm pretty sure they would have received quite a different answer.

The Ombudsman said my complaint was not about the safety about the drug but rather accessibility of the drug. My point was that you cannot properly discuss the accessibility of the drug, if you don't also discuss its safety. That is because accessibility is directly related to the fact that the drug is so dangerous. What part of this does the CBC not understand?

The person the CBC chose to interview on accessibility is an abortion doctor who naturally has a vested interest in abortions. And RU-486 is abortion. The CBC did not interview a pro-life doctor on accessibility, and I can guarantee if they had, that doctor would have brought up the important issue of the dangers of the drug. But the CBC did not do this. And as I already pointed out in the first installment on this, the CBC didn't do this over time either. Nearly all their reporting on this drug has been biased for abortion as they only ever interview people from the abortion industry.

Why doesn't the CBC interview someone not from the abortion industry and let the reader make up their own mind?

Let's look at another controversial issue which is currently being debated and a recent decision made this week by the government: pipelines. CBC interviews people on both sides of that debate, those who oppose the proposed pipelines and those who support them. The CBC would never think of interviewing only those people who support pipelines or only those who oppose pipelines when covering the government's decisions regarding the Kinder Morgan and the Northern Gateway pipelines. Like pipelines, RU486 is controversial. Both involve government's decision whether to approve or not and both involve regulations if/when they are approved,  Those who oppose pipelines will be more likely to focus on the negative things that result from allowing the pipelines to be built; those who support pipelines will be more likely to downplay the negative aspects of the pipelines and highlight the positive. Surely the CBC can see that if they interviewed only people who held the former position, or only those who held the latter, they would be biased. No different with RU-486: If someone supports RU-486 in the first place, their views on accessibility will be coloured by that, as will someone who opposes it.

The Ombudsman also seems to issue with my calling Dr. Norman an "abortion doctor":
"You describe her as an “abortion doctor”. As Ms. Hiscox mentioned in her introduction her qualifications are extensive in the field of public health as well as family planning. According to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (the federal funding agency for health research) website, she is also the Applied Public Health Chair of that organization."
That's because:
"Dr. Norman has been a family physician since 1985 and has practiced exclusively in the area of abortion since 1997". (emphasis added)
More later...

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

CBC - big abortion's mouthpiece - Part 1

I complained (again) to the CBC Ombudsman that their coverage of the abortion drug RU-486 was biased. After waiting three months for a response; after three follow up emails; after a telephone call; I finally received a response this week.

Here is the result of that complaint to the CBC Ombudsman Esther Enkin:

As expected, the decision was that the CBC is not biased.

(NOTE: the CBC Ombudsman's role is supposed to be independent ("The ombudsman acts as an appeal authority for complaints about journalistic standards and is independent of CBC program staff and management.) But the position is as a CBC employee, who also happens to be a career CBC employee. Why isn't this role given to someone who is at arm's length from outside of the CBC?)

Let's discuss the Ombudsman's conclusions.

Ombudsman:
"The Managing Editor for CBC News Network, Jennifer Harwood, replied to your complaint. She stated that the interview was not a debate about the safety of the drug. Rather it was about the issue of accessibility. She said that in “that context, it is my view that the coverage was fair and balanced.”"
Jennifer Harwood said the interview was not about the safety of the drug, but accessibility. My point was that it is precisely because the safety of the drug is dangerous, is exactly why accessibility should be more difficult. This point is ignored by the Ombudsman. And since there are issues about the drug's safety, which was the whole basis of my complaint--that is why doctor's must dispense it and not pharmacists. I contend that this is the exact reason the US insists that doctors dispense it and not pharmacies. So my whole point is ignored, so how can the coverage be fair and balanced?

Ombudsman: Regarding Dr. Norman's "strange and bizarre" comment that I took issue with:
HEATHER HISCOX 
You’ve used a couple of interesting words – you called this very unusual regime around this, you said “have bizarrely put in place”. Why do you think they’ve put this extra layer or these extra additional requirements around this particular drug?
Dr. Wendy Norman 
"Well, this is a gray question, Heather, and I think it is a little bit inexplicable, a little bit hard to explain. In Canada, for many years, the safety mechanisms for drugs have required pharmacists to dispense them and even some of our most concerning drugs, for example, methadone, pharmacists are able to dispense this drug, so for all of a sudden out of the blue to have a normal woman’s health medication such as Mifepristone, the RU-486, requiring this very unusual mechanism, is strange."
"all of a sudden, out of the blue"? I don't think so. After much evidence that the drug is dangerous, this was decided by Canada, and the US did the same. And RU-486 isn't really like Methadone though is it? I contend that allowing doctors only to dispense RU-486 is not "bizarre and strange" at all. If a first world country (like the US) that is ten times the size of Canada does it this way (for safety reasons), that is something to heed, and Canada followed suit. Sounds prudent to me and not "bizarre and strange". 

Ombudsman:
"The host of CBC News Morning Live introduced the interview with Wendy Norman in this way:
Canadian doctors say Health Canada’s strict guidelines will limit access to the abortion drug RU-486... "The host says that Canadian doctors say..." 
This statement implies that "[ALL] Canadian doctors say..". Bias again. Not all doctors say this, only some doctors. More precisely, some abortion doctors. Did the the interviewer try and find any doctors who disagreed with this statement? Apparently not. 

Dr. Norman calls Mifepristone a "Normal woman’s health medication". I fail to see what is normal about a drug that has killed women, causes excessive hemorrhaging, and the multitude of serious side effects "normal". Again, my whole point is about the danger of the drug, a point the Ombudsman has neglected to address. In fact these side effects are mentioned in only two of the CBC writings on the subject. There truly is nothing "normal" about RU-486. This is why Health Canada felt it important to have doctor's dispense it, just like it is done in the US (my US point was also not addressed by the Ombudsman).

Ombudsman:
"On issues of controversy, we ensure that divergent views are reflected respectfully, taking into account their relevance to the debate and how widely held these views are. We also ensure that they are represented over a reasonable period of time."
So the CBC represents a "widely held views...over a reasonable period of time"? I beg to differ. I googled "RU486 and CBC" and "abortion pill and CBC".

Below are all the links that came up. I found 20 CBC links related to RU-486 (there could be more). The first four might be said to be somewhat neutral, so let's ignore those articles. 

The remainder 16 CBC articles on RU-486 all quote only pro-abortion advocates, and no alternate pro-life viewpoints, with Dr. Wendy Norman a seemingly favourite of CBC journalists. Dr. Norman is quoted six times. 

The CBC gets millions and millions of dollars a year from the taxpayer. It should be impartial on such controversial subjects like abortion. But is the CBC biased for abortion or not? You be the judge.

Part 2 here

________________________________________________________________________________


3) Vicky Sapporta (National Abortion Federation) and Mary Ellen Douglas (Campaign Life Coalition)

4) Dr. Laura Lewis (Ontario family physician and a Canadian Physicians for Life board member)
5) Joan Dawkins (executive director of Women's Health Clinic)

6) Dr. Wendy Norman and Dr. Ellen Wiebe (abortion doctors)

7) Dr. Kelly Monaghan (of abortion Clinic 215 in St. John)

8) Dr. Wendy Norman (abortion doctor)

9) NDP MLA Nahanni Fontaine (NDP is officially pro-choice)

10) Leigh Anne Caron, (team manager of health services at Women's Health Clinic in Winnipeg)

11) Dr. Wendy Norman (abortion doctor)

12) Dr. Wendy Norman (abortion doctor)

13) Lyndsey Butcher (executive director at Planned Parenthood Waterloo Region)

14) Dr. Wendy Norman (abortion doctor) and Judith Soon (assistant professor in the faculty of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of British Columbia)

15) Vicki Saporta (president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation and its Canadian offshoot, NAF Canada), Dr. Erika Feuerstein, family physician at Women's College Hospital and Bay Centre for Birth Control in Toronto and Rebecca Cook, a law professor in the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program at the University of Toronto


17) Dr. Wendy Norman (abortion doctor)

Saturday, August 27, 2016

Will the CBC ever get it?

I received this email from the CBC yesterday. My response is below it.

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

August 26, 2016

Dear Ms Maloney,

Thank you for your e-mail of July 23rd, addressed to Esther Enkin, CBC Ombudsman, drawing our attention to an interview on CBC News Network with Dr. Wendy Norman on July 6th about government restrictions placed on the dispensing of the RU-486 abortion pill. 

Since CBC News Network is my responsibility, Jennifer McGuire, General Manager and Editor in Chief of CBC News, asked me to reply.  

In your complaint about the interview by Heather Hiscox, you wrote that the segment was "another example of CBC abortion bias". You countered Dr. Norman's views that the restrictions are "unusual' and "bizarre", by saying that RU-486 is a "dangerous drug" and pointing to regulations in the United States making RU-486 available only in "certain healthcare settings, specifically clinics, medical offices and hospitals, by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber." 

I would argue that the interview was not presented as part of a debate as to whether the drug is safe for use in Canada.  Had it been, it would have been reasonable to hear from an opponent of the drug on that basis.  

The interview was, instead, focused on access to the recently approved drug.  In that context, it is my view that the coverage was fair and balanced.  

In the online story on this matter, it's pointed out that the Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities of Canada wrote to Health Canada to express concerns about the rules and accessibility of RU-486 writing, "dispensing by physicians is not normal practice (and could be a conflict of interest) and has the potential to create additional barriers for patient access." 


I would add that in the interview on CBC News Network, Dr. Norman herself explains why she used the words "unusual" and "bizarre" saying that "in Canada for many years the safety mechanisms for drugs have required pharmacists to dispense them" and she went on to use the example of methadone being dispensed by pharmacists rather than by physicians. 

Thank you again for your e-mail. I appreciate you taking the time to write with your views to CBC News Network. 

It is also my responsibility to tell you that if you are not satisfied with my response, you may wish to ask Esther Enkin, CBC Ombudsman, to review the matter. The Office of the Ombudsman, an independent and impartial body reporting directly to the President, is responsible for evaluating program compliance with the CBC's journalistic policies. The Ombudsman may be reached by mail at Box 500, Terminal A, Toronto, Ontario M5W 1E6, or by fax at (416) 205-2825, or by e-mail at ombudsman@cbc.ca.

​Yours sincerely,​

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

Dear CBC Ombudsman Esther Enkin,

I would like to make a complaint about what I believe is bias with the reporting of the story on RU-486 as detailed below.

(As an aside, Jennifer Harwood disagreed with me and noted that I could make an official complaint, as this is apparently her responsibility she stated. I find this surprising, since the last time I made a complaint of CBC bias on your RU-486 reporting, I was never told that my complaint was not with the Ombudsman, when I assumed that it was, since I had actually sent that complaint to the Ombudsman in the first place. I see this time, this fact was explicitly brought to my attention.)

Ms. Harwood says that the interview in question was not part of a debate. This is a disingenuous argument. To mention in a news article on anything relating to abortion--always a politically and emotionally charged subject that elicits huge controversy every time it is mentioned--and not provide commentary from the opposing viewpoint is biased. CBC knows this. When Dr. Norman stated that the restrictions are unusual and bizarre (and CBC reiterated these adjectives in their tweet on the show when they stated: "It's very strange." reproductive health expert reacts to "bizarre" restrictions on #RU486 home abortion pill @cbchh), it seems clear to me that the CBC should have asked someone else to please explain this "strange bizarre unusual" behaviour, since Dr. Norman in the seven minute interview couldn't explain it.

Would this not have possibly shed some light on the "strange bizarre unusual" behaviour to put additional restrictions on this drug?

In fact the CBC has rarely if ever discussed any of the many dangers of RU-486. Here is some information about the dangers of this drug for an upcoming interview:
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2015/02/ru-486-myth-1-drug-is-safe-and-effective.html
http://www.nps.org.au/publications/consumer/medicine-update/2013/mifepristone-misoprostol#sideeffects
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2015/02/ru-486-myth-2-private-way-to-end.html
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2015/01/more-reasons-why-ru-486-is-very-bad-idea.html

I suggest if the CBC would interview Dr. Renate Klein who wrote the book RU486: Misconceptions, Myths and Morals, to learn why this drug is dangerous and why this "strange bizarre unusual" behaviour to put additional restrictions on this drug are not actually "strange bizarre unusual" at all.

I look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney