Tuesday, September 14, 2021
From John Ivison in the National Post today.
“I’m going to let him [Erin O'Toole] and his proxies in the anti-vax movement, in the gun lobby, in the anti-choice crowd to continue to attack me. I’m going to stay focused on Canadians” Justin Trudeau
I am totally disgusted with Justin Trudeau. He just insulted half of the Canadian population who call themselves pro-life. He uses Joyce Arthur's description of pro-life people, calling us "anti-choice". We are not anti-choice; we are anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia. We are for all choices, but the choices we support must be moral.
And Mr. Trudeau saying he is "focused on Canadians" is a lie, as long as he disrespects pro-life Canadians.
Sunday, September 12, 2021
I asked the People's Party of Canada's Ottawa-Vanier's candidate Jean-Jacques Desgranges, his views on social conservative issues. I received the following responses.
From PPC Spokesperson Martin Masse:
The PPC has no official position on issues of conscience such as abortion and assisted dying. Candidates can defend the position they want based on their own beliefs. If we had MPs there would be free votes on these issues.
Mr Bernier has publicly stated he personally opposes sex-selection abortion and would support banning late-term abortion, as a majority of Canadians do. Contrary to other parties the PPC is open to having these debates.
We support doctor’s conscience rights but this is a provincial issue, not a federal one.
From Ottawa-Vanier PPC candidate Jean-Jacques Desgranges:
In essence, my view on social conservative issues like abortion, euthanasia and doctor's conscience rights remain, well, conservative. But conservative in the true sense and not that of the Party that now calls itself the Conservative Party of Canada.
With respect to abortion my view (and I trust the view of almost all Canadians) is that abortion is wrong. Abortion, like euthanasia goes against our ingrained purely human values of the protection of life from conception to natural death. Though I cannot call myself pro-choice from a conscience perspective, I do respect a person's choice to undergo (or not undergo) the procedures they feel is necessary for them. This is a personal choice as is the decision to get a flu vaccine or to be injected with the so-called COVID19 vaccine.
However, as the PPC's four pillars state, the individual freedom allowed by a collectivity is coupled with personal responsibility, which is to say that a person's choices are bound by the responsibilities that may ensue. For example, a woman who chooses to obtain an abortion must understand that this may give rise to future health complications including infertility and mental health problems. I believe there are data to support this assertion. In my view, governments must limit its involvement in solving these problems, in particular in situations where the person was clearly apprised of the risks. Sadly, our institutions (of provincial jurisdiction - health and education) have been highjacked by ideologists that choose NOT to inform our youth of likely consequences of certain choices...
...given that life is sacred, I have the same view as it applies to euthanasia, euthanasia, defined as being an act of a doctor that causes the death of an incurable person to stop suffering an agony implies the participation in cessation of life. As such, it cannot inscribe itself as being correct in our society. That said, I can understand why a doctor may choose to assist patients towards death when those who are under long term suffering and agony choose to put an end to their life. Note that I impose the responsibility of opting out of life on the patient and not the health professionals. There must be very clear guidelines as to what is "long-term" suffering and agony. Abuses will (and probably have) otherwise become common place. Governments should strive to avoid this at all costs.
Given the above, you will have understood that I am in total support of doctors' conscience rights to refuse to perform abortions or euthanasia. It is difficult for me to fathom how a doctor whose conscience opposes abortion and/or euthanasia, can continue to properly administer medical care. Having been forced to carry out the procedure, he/she may thereafter suffer mental trauma to the extent that he can no longer effectively practice medicine feeling that he/she has abandoned his/her hippocratic oath. Or, he/she has become totally desensitized to the sacredness of life and thus stops exercising restraint and due diligence in carrying out either procedure.
Frankly, it is my view that under circumstances where a government allows either of the above life cessation procedures and that proper and strict guidelines are elaborated and implemented, the job should be left to those doctors of the utilitarian mindset. The choice of any doctor who, by reason of conscience, chooses not to abort or euthanize (including assist suicide) must be respected.
The above is said, of course, with due consideration that health matters (as they have been defined by the Supreme Court of Canada) are a provincial matter, and that the federal government can only act marginally on these issues. On this aspect, I refer you to the PPC's policy on Health Care which speaks specifically to the blind distribution of your tax dollars to provinces under the guise of "health transfers" but are not necessarily used for that.
I trust this allows you to understand where I stand on those issues...
Thursday, September 2, 2021
Directly from the Liberal policy platform:
"In 2021, women’s rights should not be up for debate. Yet the Conservatives want to roll back abortion access.
Meanwhile, anti-choice organizations are actively working to spread misinformation about abortion, putting the health and safety of young people and vulnerable women at risk.
Provide up to $10 million to Health Canada to develop an easily accessible portal that provides accurate, judgement-free, and evidence-based information on sexual and reproductive health and rights, which will include a section that counters misinformation about abortion.
No longer provide charity status to anti-abortion organizations (for example, Crisis Pregnancy Centres) that provide dishonest counseling to women about their rights and about the options available to them at all stages of the pregnancy." (emphasis added)
This sounds like something out of Joyce Arthur's playbook. Arthur began going after Crisis Pregnancy Centres (CPCs) as far back as 2009 with her "report" Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia. She absolutely hates these organizations which support women in crisis pregnancy situations. Her "report" was exposed for its gross misinformation in this detailed rebuttal by the organization Arthur was going after.
It seems now that her inaccurate and hateful venom has seeped its way into Justin Trudeau's policy platform.
More on Arthur's CPC witch hunt here.
Let's hope the media does its job and exposes Justin Trudeau's adherence to the lies about crisis pregnancy centres that made their way into his election platform.
Monday, August 30, 2021
I recently received a copy of a letter that a Canadian recently sent to Erin O'Toole. The letter pretty much speaks for itself.
Dear Mr. O'Toole,
Mr. Trudeau can't have it both ways. If he's pro-choice then he has to support choice for both. To support the choice to have an abortion, but not the choice to refuse to facilitate an abortion, is, logically, and by the common sense definition of "choice," not pro-choice. He is pro-choice only in one case, anti-choice in the other. So, clearly, choice is not the issue for Mr. Trudeau; abortion is the issue. And when the two choices come into conflict, he chooses the choice of abortion. Hence, he is pro-abortion.