Monday, February 24, 2020

UPDATE The facts about abortions statistics in Canada

(UPDATE March 22, 2010. Quebec Health (RAMQ) has confirmed that their abortion numbers do not include medical abortions.)

The media has it wrong: New data suggests Canadian clinics and hospitals performing fewer abortionsSo does Joyce Arthur.

Why? Because what people always report are CIHI's numbers. And CIHI is missing a lot of data based on freedom of information requests I've done.

It is a well known fact CIHI under reports abortion numbers because they do not collect data based on fee for service records (i.e. OHIP billings in Ontario).
"CIHI captures administrative, clinical and demographic data on induced abortions performed in Canadian hospitals. Data is supplied by provincial and territorial ministries of health, hospitals and independent abortion clinics in Canada. Clinic data is submitted voluntarily to CIHI. Counts in the following tables include induced abortions performed in a hospital or clinic setting in Canada. Due to variations in use of fee-for-service (FFS) payments for induced abortions across the country, these figures are not based on pan-Canadian FFS data."
What we do know about CIHI's data:
  • abortions performed in physician's office are not reported (only hospitals and clinics are reported). (UPDATE March 2, 2020 Correction: CIHI apparently does a calculation to increase their accuracy  *** However they are still under reporting see below)
  • clinic abortion data is under reported because of its voluntary nature
  • medical abortions (the abortion pill RU-486) are not reported (for the most part they are prescribed through physician offices)
  • CIHI hospital abortion data is accurate
  • the only accurate data available for all abortions comes from FFS or doctor's billing records (OHIP in Ontario RAMQ in Quebec)
I have received data from Ontario billing records over the years. Recently I received Quebec billing recordsBoth of these sources are fairly accurate because they are based on FFS records.

Ontario: In 2017/2018 MOHLTC reported 42,853 abortions compared to 2018 CIHI reported 29,513 abortions in Ontario. A difference of 13,340 unreported abortions.

(UPDATE March 2, 2020): in 2017/2018 MOHLTC reported 42,853 and in 2017 CIHI reported 35,587. In the calculation above I used CIHI's 2018 numbers instead of 2017 numbers. The confusion comes from the fact that CIHI reports a calendar year, and MOHLTC reports a fiscal year of April 1, 2017- March 31, 2018. So it makes more sense to compare MOHLTC numbers to CIHI's calendar year. Therefore Ontario: In 2017/2018 MOHLTC reported 42,853 abortions compared to 2017 CIHI who reported 35,587 abortions in Ontario. A difference of 7,266 unreported abortionsThis means CIHI under reported Ontario's abortions by 20.42%. I will be doing more comparisons in a later post.)

Quebec: Recently I reported numbers for the first time from Quebec

In 2018 RAMQ reported 26,979 compared to 22,093 from CIHI = 4,886 unreported abortions

This means CIHI under reported Quebec's abortions by 22%.

Quebec and Ontario are the largest provinces in Canada. Therefore they perform the most abortions. So total numbers of abortions reported by CIHI are probably somewhere between 22% and 45% lower than the actual totals.

CIHI reported 85,195 in 2018 for all of Canada. Quebec and Ontario abortions make up 65% of that number. If we assume all provinces have similar under reported abortion numbers, it's fair to say that the percentages would be somewhere between 22% or 45% higher than CIHI reports.

This means the total number of abortions done in Canada in 2018 can reasonably be expected to be somewhere between 103,937 to 123,532. Not 85,195.

UPDATE March 2, 2020 from CIHI: "The report you shared (42,853) includes seven fee codes, however CIHI reports only using two fee codes. If you limit your comparison to the 2 surgical fee codes (S752 and S785), the total numbers presented in the MOH report are very close to CIHI’s reported numbers (32,795 vs 29,513 respectively). In addition, CIHI reported for calendar year 2018 while the other report appears to be based on fiscal year 2017/18 data."

To which I responded: "So why doesn't CIHI use all the fee codes used by Ontario, since those are abortions as well? There is a big 45% difference between CIHI's numbers and Ontario's numbers. Ontario reported 42,853 and CIHI only reported 29,513. I realize there is a difference in the two reporting periods, because MOHLTC reports using a fiscal year, CIHI uses a calendar year, but there is no way to get a completely equivalent time frame, so I must compare the two years in this manner."

*** This is included on CIHI's annual reports on abortion ***

The methodology to estimate induced abortion volumes for Ontario is consistent with the enhanced methodology that was introduced in the 2015 report. Total volumes were derived by using the total abortion volumes reported to the National Physician Database (NPDB) at CIHI and adding both hospital-based abortions for non-Ontario residents and hospital-based medical-method-only abortions for Ontario residents (as reported to the Discharge Abstract Database and the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System). For Ontario, volumes reported in the column Number of induced abortions reported by clinics include services from non-hospital settings. Volumes for non-hospital settings (clinics/surgical facilities/physician offices) were estimated using the total abortion volumes as described above and subtracting hospital-based abortions. This methodology results in induced abortions occurring in physician offices and in clinics being included in non-hospital settings volumes. This estimation approach for non-hospital volumes was required because information on the location where the service is rendered (e.g., clinic, hospital, physician’s office) may not be included in the NPDB data.

Update March 3, 2020 from OMHLTC: 

"Health Services Branch has confirmed that medical abortions would be captured under A920A." This means that medical abortions are being captured under A920. But so are missed abortions. As well, there are other methods to deal with missed abortions which do not include RU486What a dog's breakfast abortion statistics are.

UPDATE March 4, 2020, comparison of Ontario and CIHI's data for the past four years.

Friday, February 14, 2020

Update on Francis Barrett being carded by Ottawa Police

"After watching me from across the street (in front of 65 Bank) they [the police] came across the street, stood behind me (see picture below), said nothing for a couple of minutes until I turned and said, is there a problem? That is when he [one of the police officers] said you're breaking the bubble zone law. I said your joking, can't you see the sign right beside me? Don't you know were the bubble zone is?" Francis Barrett
It is abysmal how pro-life people are treated in Ontario. 

First we were prevented from praying in front of the abortion site with the abortion bubble zone law. This forced Fr. Tony Van Hee to bring a Charter Challenge against the government for this discrimination

Now Francis Barrett has been carded

He first complained to the Ottawa Police about the treatment he and others received at the abortion site (outside the bubble zone). After multiple meetings, phone calls, emails, and four months of waiting, Mr. Barrett never received an apology for his treatment.

He then complained to the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD). The OIPRD is an "independent" group in charge of complaints against the police:
"OIPRD is responsible for receiving, managing and overseeing all public complaints about municipal, regional and provincial police in Ontario. As an independent civilian oversight agency, we make sure that public complaints about police are dealt with in a manner that is transparent, effective and fair to both the public and the police." 
What did the OIPRD do with Mr. Barrett's complaint? They dismissed it:

Not 'transparent'. Not 'effective'. Not 'fair'.

Even though these peaceful pro-life persons, acting within the law, were asked for ID for no reason, and subsequently intimidated by the Ottawa Police, the appeal was dismissed. (The OIPRD reports to the Attorney General's office. How can an appeal board be independent when they report to a government bureaucracy?).

Mr. Barrett was also told that there is no other appeal, and that his only other recourse was to go to Judicial Review, ie, go to court. All he wanted was an apology for their behaviour. They wouldn't give him one.

(When I had my own Charter Challenge with the Attorney General, the judge who ruled against the AG for hiding abortion information actually noted that the only recourse a citizen has in these circumstances, is to go to court. That this was unfair. We see this exact same behaviour today: A citizen must go to court--at great personal expense--to get justice in Ontario against the AG and its army of highly paid lawyers.)

"the officers were acting in their authority in checking the permission of the group to be there." 
So I asked. What authority is that? They refused to answer my question.

"The circumstances outlined in his complaint do not suggest that the police were engaging in that prohibited activity at the time they requested his identification." 
The police were definitely engaging in a prohibited activity. It's called carding
"This regulation describes the limitations and duties of police officers when collecting identifying information (also known as “carding” or “street checks”).The regulation applies if a police officer asks a person for identifying information or to see an identifying document while:
  • Looking into suspicious activities
  • Gathering intelligence
  • Investigating possible criminal activity
During these interactions officers must inform the person of their right to not provide identifying information and provide a reason for requesting identifying information. The reason cannot be:
  • Arbitrary
  • That the person declined to answer a question or attempted to end the interaction
  • Based on race or solely because that individual is in a high-crime location"
None of these conditions apply here. Again I asked, which of these was Francis Barrett and his small group of seniors doing that required this harassing behaviour?

No answer.

To add insult to injury we have this:
"the police have a discretion as to the nature of the identification that they may accept, and absent evidence that police exercised the discretion improperly, it is unlikely that an investigation would result in grounds to believe misconduct occurred."
Except the police had absolutely no grounds to ask Mr. Barrett for ID in the first place. So the kind of ID they would accept is entirely moot. They weren't supposed to ask for ID in the first place. 

"it is unlikely that an investigation would result in grounds to believe misconduct occurred."
The OIPRD is actually admitting here that they didn't even bother to investigate Mr. Barrett's complaint. Presumably they just unilaterally decided it wasn't valid. Prejudice: 'preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience'.

And "lead to tensions"? What does that mean? The only tensions that day were the tensions caused by the police, not the peaceful senior citizens silently praying outside the bubble zone. They were intimidated for no reason. They were carded for no reason. They deserve an apology.

Peaceful protest in Ontario is only allowed if you are not pro-life.

Tuesday, February 4, 2020

Update from Fr. Tony on his constitutional challenge

The civil case challenging the constitutionality of the bubble zone law is taking longer than expected so we have agreed to delay the criminal case against me from July 2020 to July 2021.

With much gratitude for your support, daily prayers, and God's Blessing+,

Fr Tony

P.S. Something early for Mother's Day.

"The Most Important Person is a mother. She cannot claim the honor of having built Notre Dame Cathedral. She need not. She has built something more magnificent than any cathedral--a dwelling for an immortal soul, the tiny perfection of her baby's body... The angels have not been blessed with such a grace. They cannot share in God's creative miracle to bring new saints to Heaven. Only a human mother can. Mothers are closer to God the Creator than any other creature. God joins forces with mothers in performing this act of creation...What on God's good earth is more glorious than this: to be a mother." Joseph Cardinal Mindzenty

(From a prayer card with no further information)

Saturday, February 1, 2020

Pro-abortion Planned Parenthood Toronto received $11,448,591 from governments

Remember how the pro-abortions had their knickers in a twist about pro-life groups receiving $1.8 million from the Canada Summer Jobs Program? Well Planned Parenthood Toronto received over $11 million from governments. ($11,448,591 to be exact). That's one organization compared to 56 organizations.

Can you say 'Discrimination much'?

And look at what compensations are like for Planned Parenthood Toronto. Almost $3 million in one year. With the top pro-abort earning between $120,000 to $159,999. Compare that to say, the top gun at Toronto Right to Life who makes $39,999And receives no government funding.

What more can I say?

PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF TORONTO Reporting period ending: 2019-03-31

RIGHT TO LIFE ASSOCIATION OF TORONTO AND AREA Reporting period ending: 2019-03-31