Monday, June 30, 2014

Canada gets it but Justin Trudeau doesn't

Ah, Justin Trudeau. He's so predictable. At yesterday's pride parade in Toronto he said:
“I’ve seen so many people from every corner of the world, literally,” Mr. Trudeau said, adding that he’d spoken with people from Australia, South Africa and Jamaica earlier in the day. “[Canada] is a place that actually gets it, that stands up for human rights around the world and welcomes people in.” (emphasis added)
Trudeau believes in human rights. For lesbian people. For gay people. For bisexual people. For transgender people.

But Trudeau doesn't believe in those same Canadian human rights for pre-born human beings. They are excluded from Trudeau's human rights list.

I wonder how many LGBT people are aborted every year in Canada? They'll never get to be a candidate for the Liberal party. Because they don't have human rights when in the womb.

For more Justin Trudeau  and his unique belief system on excluding pro-life people from "his" party:

Friday, June 27, 2014

Freedom of Information case moves forward

Today we issued our Factum and Book of Authorities with the ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT.

This is for my Judicial Review of the Ontario government's decision to exclude all abortion services from access requests made under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

More information here.

Contact information here.

Thursday, June 26, 2014

Reggie Littlejohn and human rights pursuit in China

Activist Reggie Littlejohn discusses the communist country’s current stance toward human rights.
"It has been 25 years since the Tiananmen Square massacre, and China is still far from enjoying religious liberty, civil freedom or democracy. The Catholic Church must still worship underground, and the country’s one-child policy continues to cause widespread human rights atrocities, particularly against women. Forced abortions continue, and the government has even reverted to placing the children of dissidents in detention.
One dissident was Zhang Lin, a nuclear physicist who has been detained nearly half a dozen times over the past 13 years. A fearless champion of human rights, Lin wasn’t at Tiananmen but led protests as part of the pro-democracy movement in his hometown. He currently remains behind bars for speaking out against the Chinese Communist Party. 
But his 10-year-old daughter, Anni, managed to escape China last year, and is being taken care of by Reggie Littlejohn, founder of the group Women Rights Without Frontiers, which has long been campaigning for an end to the one child policy and forced abortion in China. She is also looking after Lin’s older, 19-year-old daughter, Ruli..."

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Repeating untruths doesn't make them true

Frankly, this is tiring: Joyce Arthur working reality into a fictional story on abortion in Canada. Does she ever give it a rest? Apparently not.

I've already debunked her make-believe world here when I wrote on January 12, 2012 about 2009 Canadian abortion statistics, and here when I wrote on November 19, 2012 about 2010 Canadian abortion statistics.

So here we go again--now I'll do it for 2012 abortion statistics.

1) Arthur says:
"Since 1988, when the Supreme Court of Canada threw out our abortion law as unconstitutional, the sky has not fallen, but our abortion rates have – we’ve witnessed a continuing decline since 2000 and now have a relatively low abortion rate compared to many other developed countries – about 14 abortions per 1000 women of childbearing age per year." (emphasis added)
Arthur points to CIHI as proof that Canada's abortions statistics have been declining since 2000. But how does she know this? She doesn't. Because as CIHI themselves tell us their numbers are underestimated:
"...while this is probably an underestimate of induced abortions done in the country, it is currently the best way to produce pan-Canadian comparable data."
That's because CIHI's numbers don't record abortions done in private physician's offices; don't record medical abortions; and don't record all clinic abortions, because many clinics choose not to report that information, and nobody makes them do it.

Arthur then says there are 14 abortions per 1000, but neglects to tell you, that that number is from Statistics Canada data from 2005--nine years ago. We have no idea right now how many abortions are committed per 1000 abortions, because our data is inaccurate. And even if it was accurate, you can't use nine year old data to talk about today's trends.

(In fact, discerning minds must question why CIHI reports at all--if their numbers are so woefully inaccurate? But that's a question for another day.)

2) Arthur says
"90 per cent of abortions occur during the first trimester, and less than half a percent after 20 weeks." (emphasis added)
For 2012, CIHI reported a total of 83,708 clinic and hospital abortions (and as stated above this is under reported). Of these abortions, a full 62,178* have "unknown" gestational age.

That means all 62,178*, or most of them, or some of them, or none of them, could be late term abortions. We. Do. Not. Know. That's what "unknown" means. And we don’t know these gestational ages because most abortion providers don't report them.

So concluding late-term abortions are "less than half a percent" is impossible.

3) Arthur says:
"The latter [after 20 weeks] are all for compelling reasons, such as fetal abnormalities incompatible with life or a serious threat to the woman’s health or life."
How does Arthur know these late-term abortions are for compelling reasons? Because nobody else in Canada knows this. Arthur can't know--since reasons are not reported.

We know for sure that in 2012 there were 563 late term hospital abortions (as reported by CIHI). And remember, we don't know how many late term abortions were done in clinics because clinics don't report late-term abortions. And since we don't know the gestational ages of 62,178* abortions, Arthur's conclusions are based on bad, wrong, missing, and or inaccurate information.

Even if Arthur can prove there are "only" 563 late abortions per year, are we supposed to take comfort in the fact that in relative terms there are so many fewer late term abortions than early abortions? That just means we have many, many, many, many, many, many early abortions.

4) Then Joyce gets creative, by actually redefining the medical term "fetal viability":
"Much of the debate in the UK media has focused on the science of fetal viability and at what gestation they can survive on their own. This issue is totally irrelevant to women who need abortion care, as the survival ability of premature babies applies only to fetuses being carried to term. If a woman needs an abortion, then by definition, her fetus is not viable." (emphasis added)
In other words, if you don't like the definition of something, hey just change its meaning. That was easy.

5) Finally we get to the bottom of Arthur's real worry. That darned fetus. Always gets in the way of a good abortion fairy tale.

To solve this thorny issue of decapitating, dismembering and disemboweling another human being, we simply advise the reader to NOT focus on the fetus.
"When we focus on the fetus, we forget about the woman and her reasons for an abortion. Women don’t ask for an abortion because it’s their ‘right to choose,’ or because they don’t understand what’s inside of them. They request abortion because they can’t provide responsibly for a child (or another child) at this point in their lives. A woman’s abortion decision is about ensuring her future and that of her family, not about the current legal or moral status of her fetus. It’s about being the best mother possible when she’s ready – or maybe not becoming a mother at all if she knows she’s not suited to it. That is the very definition of conscientious decision-making. We can trust women to know what’s best for themselves and their families, without imposing punitive criminal laws against their private decisions."
So many problems dissipate when we make up numbers, change definitions, and ignore the fetus. It's easy, really. Just ask Joyce.

(* 62,178 unknown gestational age abortions is calculated using simple arithmetic: 83,708 total known abortions - 21,530 known gestational age abortions (see page 6 of CIHI's 2012 statistics) = unknown gestational age abortions)

Friday, June 20, 2014

Justin Trudeau - the ghost of Daddy past

Good coming from Maternal, Newborn and Child Health

My mother told me to always give credit where credit is due. Today I am doing that.

Today's credit goes to Stephen Harper and the Maternal, Newborn and Child Health summit held May 28-May 30.

Don Hutchinson also wrote about the Summit which he attended about this iniative.

This initiative has funded University of Guelph's Chris Charles "Lucky Iron fish". This is just one of many projects that has come out of the government's Maternal, Newborn and Child Health initiative.
"The little “Lucky Iron Fish,” now in growing use by cooks in Cambodia, has proven effective in reducing rampant iron deficiency among women – the cause of premature labour, hemorrhaging during childbirth and poor brain development among babies. Initial local reluctance to using a loose piece of iron in cooking pots was overcome by a clever design tapping into Cambodian folklore about a fish species that brings good fortune. In partnership with small businesses across Cambodia, plans for this year and next call for production and distribution of 60,000 lucky iron fish, made from recycled material at a cost of about $5 each, which provide health benefits for roughly three years."
From  the CBC:
"The Lucky Iron Fish is a grassroots project from an Ontario-based company started by PhD student Chris Charles at the University of Guelph. 
Cooking food with an iron fish helps reduce anemia, and in Cambodia this is meeting with more acceptance than iron supplements. (Grand Challenges Canada/Flickr) 
"I was visiting Cambodia and saw first-hand the far-reaching effects of how anemia had crippled the country," says Charles, who developed the project as his PhD thesis and lived in Cambodia for almost five years during the initial studies and attempts to distribute the fish to villages."
Watch the video to see how Charles came up with his idea of the Lucky Iron Fish.

The Lucky Iron Fish was funded through "Grand Challenges Canada".
"Grand Challenges Canada is dedicated to supporting Bold Ideas with Big Impact® in global health. We are funded by the Government of Canada and we fund innovators in low- and middle income countries and Canada. The bold ideas we support integrate science and technology, social and business innovation – we call this Integrated Innovation®. We focus on bringing successful innovation to scale, catalyzing sustainability and impact. We have a determined focus on results, and saving and improving lives. 
And what's really exciting about this initiative, is that this is only one of many life saving initiatives funded through this group, Grand Challenges Canada. There are many others.

I'm not usually supportive of government funded anything. But this is different. Why? Because it brings together amazing ideas that real people have for saving lives in developing countries. And it links those people with organizations who will then fund their initiative. So organizations are investing in these developing countries as well as the taxpayer. This means the tax payer's portion of the funding is used to leverage companies' investment--up to 30 times. Impressive.

How Funding for the Lucky Fish came about.

The Lucky fish instructions come in the language of the country receiving it.

Instructions below in English

And no, we aren't funding abortions in these countries. We are improving and saving the lives of babies and their mothers. That too is impressive.

Thursday, June 19, 2014

Priests for Life Canada support incremental legislation

Priests for Life Canada supports incremental legislation. They also support the campaign.

As far as I know Campaign Life Coalition and Alliance for Life Canada still do not support incremental legislation. It's too bad they don't.

It would be nice if we could all work together to obtain some legal limits for the pre-born children of this country. I would love to see a ban on late-term-abortions in Canada. Or on sex-selection abortions. Of course we will continue to work for accomplishing this. With CLC and AFLO, or without them.

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

For goodness sake, vote tomorrow

I just got back from having lunch with a good friend. She told me she wasn't voting tomorrow. And neither was her husband. I was appalled.

Canada is one of the wealthiest, most beautiful, terrific countries in the world (except of course, for our horrific, evil, any time any reason abortion law).

But we do have full democratic rights that some people in this country actually choose not to practice. It's called voting in elections.

In May I visited Poland. Where I toured Auschwitz. Where millions of people had no rights. Where people were treated worse than animals and slaughtered. Because of an evil and corrupt political regime. That people voted into power.

Here we are in Canada and some of us choose not to vote in our elections. This is beyond comprehension. Last election Ontario had a pathetic voter turn out rate of 48%. I think that is disgusting that half of grownups in Ontario can be so apathetic that they didn't bother to vote. They can't be grownups.

In my opinion, if you don't vote, then you don't get to complain. Don't come crying to me and tell me that you don't like the Liberals. Or you think Kathleen Wynne and Tim Hudak are both wieners. Or that you don't vote because they're all crooks. Or they're slimy. Or you don't trust them.

If you don't vote you have no right to say any of these things. If you don't vote you should be ashamed of yourself.

If you do vote, you can say all these things and I'll listen to you. Otherwise I'll block my ears and say "lalala I can't hear you".

So whatever you do or don't do tomorrow, for heaven's sake, go out and vote.

Friday, June 6, 2014

Ontario politicians treat voters like idiots

Remember this letter where a citizen asked their MPP what they would do regarding the killing of access to information rights in Ontario?
"I would like to know what you will do, if re-elected, to restore access to information rights in Ontario. In what way will you work to return the ability of the ordinary taxpayer to have full access to all data concerning all medical services paid for by the taxpayer? This was recently stripped from us in a covert and undemocratic manner by the current Liberal government, all the while saying the right words about an "open & transparent government".
They received a reply which said:
"Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the release of abortion statistics in Ontario. As you know, a limited number of amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act came into force in January 2013. These amendments were developed to assist hospitals maintain quality of care and protect the safety of both staff and patients, and they were reviewed by the Standing Committee on Social Policy and debated and passed in the Legislature.   
The Ontario Liberals are committed to an open and transparent government, and our progress on this front has allowed Ontario's residents access to an ever-growing amount of data. To date we have made 212 data sets available to the general public, and we continue to add more. You can browse through what's available here:"
To which the letter writer responded:
"...just a couple of notes regarding your response. 
Perhaps your staffer didn't read my email where I said I hate being treated like an idiot. 
Your answer treats me like an idiot. Hmmmm, most idiots would notice that you didn't answer my question. When I ask you "what time is it?" and you respond "the sky is blue", you didn't answer my question. Perhaps you thought I wouldn't notice. See [first paragraph].   
Not Getting MY vote"
It's pretty sad how politicians disrespect and demean the very people who put them into power in the first place. Pathetic really.

I'm actually embarrassed for them. Oh wait, it passed.

Thursday, June 5, 2014

Liberal's "values" aren't Ontario's values

Ontario is having an election. Who should we vote for?

The Liberals have squandered our money for political gain (you know the sordid story I don't have to repeat it here).

Then they began the process of dismantling our access to information rights with their abortion exclusion clause. What's next, we don't know, but it will be something because we can't trust them. Then Dalton McGuinty jumped ship before the poop hit the fan and covered him with sewage.

Andrea Horwath supported the despicable Liberals until their use to the NDP soured and Ms. Horwath decided curdled milk wasn't her style anymore.

The Conservatives were soundly snoring when the Liberals snuck the abortion exclusion clause into FIPPA, and are still asleep and refusing to admit they never saw it coming or even that it came.

We know the Liberals haven't a clue about much, and I couldn't trust them as far as I could throw them. The NDP are lefty personified although the Liberals give them a good run for their money--or should I say our money. And the Conservatives refuse to acknowledge the abortion exclusion clause hoping I'll just go away I guess (wait until they see how I pester them if they win they ain't seen nothing yet).

So who the heck are we supposed to vote for?

I agonized over this for some time now. I have come to only one conclusion. I have to vote Conservative. No person in Ontario should vote Liberal.

The clincher for me was when Madeleine's re-election brochure came in my mail. This is what it said:
"The Liberal Party of Ontario has a strong program to promote economic recovery and ensure social progress in our province while at the some time keeping the focus on balancing our budget. I am proud to be part of Kathleen Wynne's team. She has guided our government with values that are shared by Ontarians. I know that under her leadership we can meet the challenges of the future. (emphasis mine)."
I. Am. Not. Kidding.

Monday, June 2, 2014

Justin Trudeau further explains Liberal policy

More wise words from Justin Trudeau
“This is about democracy...this is about choice, and protecting that choice.” 
“People are allowed to have their personal views, and are, of course, encouraged to have a wide range of personal views, But when it comes to legislating away a woman’s right to choose, the Liberal Party simply will not accept that. No vote by the Liberal Party can ever take away those fundamental rights that women need to enjoy in Canada.” 
“We need to stand up and defend women’s rights and Charter rights.”  
“This is not a position about trying to gain votes or trying to play a certain angle. This is very much a position of principle.
"I am personally pro-choice."