Wednesday, January 27, 2021

The abortion bill: what a horrible way to die

The abortion pill is not a safe drug. Health Canada issued 40 adverse reaction reports on this drug. Of these, there were 26 individual women.

One woman died.

Two more experienced "life threatening" side effects.

23 women experienced "serious" side effects.

In 2017 there was one woman affected; in 2018 two women were affected; in 2019, it was six women. And in 2020 there were 16 women with serious side effects (Note that the report is only until July 31, 2020, so 2020 will undoubtedly have more serious problems reported).

Notice the trend here? As the abortion pill becomes more popular, even more women will suffer from its life threatening and possibly fatal side effects.

Not a safe drug at all.

Mifepristone (Search the database by active ingredient)

The woman who died was 27 years old. From the documented adverse reactions she experienced, it appears that her whole body, and all of her organs, went into extreme failure. Here were her symptoms:

Abdominal pain, Acidosis (a process causing increased acidity in the blood and other body tissues), Ascites (the abnormal buildup of fluid in the abdomen. Technically, it is more than 25 ml of fluid in the peritoneal cavity, although volumes greater than 1 liter may occur) Bacterial infection, Blood pressure decreased, Blood urea increased, Body temperature decreased, Cardiac arrest, Cardiovascular disorder, Chills, Dehydration, Dizziness, Endometritis, Gastritis haemorrhagic, Hyponatraemia (is a low sodium concentration in the blood), Hypoxia (is a condition in which the body or a region of the body is deprived of adequate oxygen supply at the tissue level), Leukocytosis (a condition in which the white cell is above the normal range in the blood. It is frequently a sign of an inflammatory response, most commonly the result of infection), Multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, Nausea, Oliguria (or hypouresis is the low output of urine specifically more than 80 ml/day but less than 400ml/day. The decreased output of urine may be a sign of dehydration, kidney failure, hypovolemic shock, hyperosmolar hyperglycemic nonketotic syndrome, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, urinary obstruction/urinary retention, diabetic ketoacidosis, pre-eclampsia, and urinary tract infections, among other conditions), Palpitations, Pelvic pain, Pleural effusion (is excess fluid that accumulates in the pleural cavity, the fluid-filled space that surrounds the lungs), Pyrexia (Fever, is defined as having a temperature above the normal range due to an increase in the body's temperature set point), Sepsis, Septic shock, Uterine spasm, Vaginal discharge, Vaginal haemorrhage, Vomiting

From the data file produced

CAVEAT: 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.

More information here on the abortion pill and its side effects. 

Wednesday, January 13, 2021

Information Commissioner orders 287 pages released from FOI on abortion Bubble Zone Law

As I told you back in 2018, I appealed the Attorney General's hiding of their alleged "evidence" for the need of an abortion bubble zone. Because there was nothing in the FOI I received that showed a need for the bubble zone:

"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."

So the abortion bubble zone was enacted purely on the basis of Joyce Arthur's say so, and not on any actual concrete police reports. Political? You bethca. Of course I had already learned that there were no police reports for Ottawa, through an FOI of the Ottawa Police. So not only were there no police reports for Ottawa, but now I learn that there were no police reports for the entire province of Ontario."

Recently I heard back from the Information Commissioner. They agreed with me that a large part of the information that was withheld from me, should not have been withheld:

"The adjudicator also upholds the ministry’s decision to withhold some information under the personal privacy exemption at section 21, but finds that portions of the withheld information are not “personal information” once identifiers are removed, and orders disclosure of that information."

Here are the 287 pages that the Attorney General wouldn't let me see because they said I might be able to figure out who wrote the emails. (The bolded statement above is exactly what I argued and the Information Commissioner agreed with me.)

What these 287 pages actually reveal, is that there were three times as much support against the bubble zone, as there was support for the bubble zone. (55 letters for, vs 154 against).

You can view those letters yourself.

Some interesting comments from these letters:

"If such a law is passed, then pro-abortions should not be able to organize rallies either."

"Our Charter protects our right to show the truth. Freedom of expression is fundamental to democracy. I hope you will publish my point of view as you have published that of the pro-aborts."

"We just keep getting more and more restrictions on the freedom to have a different point of view in our nation."

"Just because you don't have the same views doesn't give you the right to take away someone else's right to express their opinion in a peaceful way."

"Please rethink your opinion regarding above. Unborn cannot protest but are still human."

"I am not associated with either pro-life or pro-choice advocates...I urge you not to pass laws prohibiting abortion protests. Laws exist to deal with criminal forms of harassment, and these should be applied as warranted. The singular fact that a protest offends some people is completely unacceptable as a justification for banning the proponent's freedom of speech. We do not need liberties diminished issue by issue and one by one until we find ourselves unable to protest, express an opinion or offend someone."

Conclusion? We still have no evidence that the abortion bubble zone was needed. 

A small sample of the letters that I was refused access to on my original FOI.

Thursday, January 7, 2021

Update on donations for Fr. Tony's constitutional challenge

1) Cheques may be made payable to Philip Horgan in Trust, and sent to:

Philip H. Horgan Law Office
301 - 120 Carlton Street
Toronto  ON  M5A 4K2

2) Online donations can be made here:

Saturday, January 2, 2021

You can have an abortion but you can't go to church

Re: Houses of worship have a role to play in fighting COVID, Jamil Jivani, Dec. 22

Jamil Jivani says “If governments want to better engage front-line workers and families, they ought to partner with churches to help with communications and messaging concerning the pandemic, as well as the planning and execution of a vaccination strategy.”

I can’t imagine anything worse than my church becoming a mouthpiece for government policy on anything, and especially not on COVID. I can just imagine the government trying to convince our pastors to convince parishioners that they really do need to close the churches (wink wink). Last time our churches obediently acquiesced to the government and closed down. Now for the second time (in Ottawa) where COVID numbers are very low, we are shut down again. And just like before, we can still bump into people at Walmart and Costco, [and have an abortion -- notice that this clause was omitted from the NP publication of my letter] but not go to church. Safety protocols in churches are far more stringent than these stores. So why can’t we go to Mass?

Churches are essential for people of faith. Worship of God and receiving the Sacraments is as important to us as food is for the body.

Patricia Maloney, Ottawa