QAnon, Xenophobic, Pro-Trump, Pro-Life types, racists, etc.

This is how CBC reporter Radheyan Simonpillai "reviews" the movie The sound of Freedom:

QAnon conspiracy theorist; part of the so-called Freedom movements; Xenophobic, Pro-Trump, Pro-Life types, racists, regular among church groups; or you regularly watch Fox News; or if you follow right-wing personalities.

Do CBC employees ever listen to themselves speak? Simonpillai barely touches on the point of the movie itself, which is to shine a light on the horrible billion dollar industry of child sex trafficking. We went today to the 3:20 sold out showing. It's been showing since July 3rd in Canada and is still going strong.

Instead Simonpillai attacks the movie-goers. He says the movie is "competent" (It is excellent). "You never heard of this movie" he says. (That's because news organizations like the tax-payer funded CBC refuse to tell you about it.)

From Andrew Kozak at the True North:

In a recent interview on CBC Radio, pop culture columnist Radheyan Simonpillai described the success of the new hit film “Sound of Freedom” can be attributed to “Xenophobic, Pro-Trump, Pro-Life types.”

“We can’t say that the movie itself is made by QAnon types,” said Simompalli on the podcast, which aired on CBC Listen. “But certainly, their political goals make it something that QAnon conspiracy theorists would rally behind.”

“Just like racists rallied behind Trump without him having to say anything overtly racist.”

“You would have only heard about this movie if you are a regular among church groups, or you regularly watch Fox News, or if you follow right-wing personalities,” said Simonpillai. “Or if you are a QAnon conspiracy theorist or part of the so-called Freedom movements.”

“But make no mistake,” Simonpillia continued. “The movie’s success has a lot to do with it being a dog whistle for Xenophobic, Pro-Trump, Pro-Life types.”

“It’s not just QAnon types rallying behind this movie,” he said. “There were people who attended it because they were encouraged by their online freedom rally groups.”

The plot is based on the true story of Tim Ballard who broke up sex trafficking rings. The movie was fast paced, had a gripping story line, and the acting was excellent. Child sex trafficking is Evil with a capital E. Why couldn't Simonpillai talk about that? 

The CBC should be ashamed of their disgraceful so-called "coverage" of an extremely important film. Attacking theatre goers with ad hominem attacks, instead of actually reviewing the movie, is about as low as you can get. 

CBC, I am truly embarrassed for you on your behalf.

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.

I complained to the CBC ombudsman, and got nowhere. Of course. 

http://run-with-life.blogspot.com/search?q=big+abortion%27s+mouthpiece&max-results=20&by-date=true

http://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-worse-thing-about-cbc-bias-is-they.html

http://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2015/02/ru-486-myth-3-benefit-to-women-in.html

http://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2015/02/ru-486-myth-4-more-on-safety-and-remote.html

CBC. Biased. Biased. Biased. The CBC Ombudsman disagreed with me. Naturally. 

And you and I pay through the nose for their biased work. Yes, let's defund the CBC.

CBC doesn't report Pierre Lemieux's pro-life news

A couple of days ago CPC leadership candidate Pierre Lemieux announced that he would make sex-selection abortion illegal.

Good. A politician making an unambiguous stand against one type of abortion: The kind that targets baby girls. So nice to see principled and politician in the same sentence.

So off I went to see how the media was reporting on this news. What did I find? Well there seems to be one article out there in the mainstream media, all from the Canadian Press: Toronto Star, National Post, Huffington Post, CTV, Global News, as well as a bunch of local newspapers.

The Globe and Mail didn't bother to publish anything at all. They are always biased against anything pro-life, so this wasn't a surprise.

But what is really interesting, is that the CBC also didn't bother to publish anything. That would be the same CBC who thinks they aren't biased towards abortion. But they are, as I have written many times.

So why didn't the CBC, our publicly funded, national broadcaster, not report to their national listeners that there is a very vocal CPC leadership contender out there, who will make sex-abortion illegal?

Can you answer that for us CBC? We really want to know what excuses you'll make this time.

Welcome to Liberal Canada

God help Canada.

First off today we have a disgusting CBC segment on This Hour has 22 minutes where the actor begins by taking the Lord's name in vain in a crude manner like someone from the proverbial locker room. I know this is fine with some people but pretty disgusting behaviour that I can't imagine our tax-payer funded broadcaster would ever get away with if the object of their ridicule were Muslims. The actor then proceeds to ridicule and make fun of the fact that new MPP Sam Oosteroff is against abortion. So very funny (apparently). Naturally anyone who is anti-abortion must be made fun of, right?

And the CBC says they are not biased for abortion? I'd like to see the CBC make fun of pro-choice people. Haha.

(If you are so inclined, and I hope you are, I suggest you send in your complaint to the CBC Ombudsman Esther Enkin at ombudsman@cbc.ca)

Then we have the media being totally moronic about insisting that new MPP Sam Oosterhoff answer their questions about same-sex marriage. Oosterhoff kept insisting he had already answered their questions the day before. Not good enough. Oosterhoff actually remained very gracious in his attempts to focus on his first day as an MPP by celebrating with friends and family. But the ignorant media were having none of that. I would not have been as kind as Oosterhoff. I'm pretty sure.

Last but not least, we learn that a teenager doesn't feel "safe" because her teacher said he was against abortion. The un-named teacher said:

“I find abortion to be wrong...but the law is often different from our personal opinions.”

This is where the story gets really scary:

"A little later, the class had a five-minute break, and when it resumed, several students didn’t return, among them a popular young woman who had gone to an administrator to complain that what the teacher said had “triggered” her such that she felt “unsafe” and that, in any case, he had no right to an opinion on the subject of abortion because he was a man."

What happened next was outrageous. The teacher first apologized, but this wasn't enough. He was fired.

The girl feels unsafe? Are you kidding me? Babies in the womb are not safe. The teacher who was fired for believing that slaughtering unborn babies was wrong...was not safe. Now the teacher's family is not safe because their dad lost his job because he believes that abortion is wrong. That's not safe.

Remember Nazi Germany? When Jews were persecuted? When Jews were not safe? When Jewish academics and others were prevented from working?

This is where Canada has got to. Except now it's Christians.

When Justin Trudeau said that pro-life people can't belong in his party, the rot started at the top. And now it's making its way downward.

Wake up people. This will only get worse.

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):

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/rems/Mifeprex_2016-03-29_Patient_Agreement_Form.pdf

Doctor must fill out this form (2 page):

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/rems/Mifeprex_2016-03-29_Prescriber_Agreement_Form.pdf

Medication guide for patient (4 pages) 

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/UCM088643.pdf

FDA warning:

Do Not Buy Mifeprex Over the Internet

"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):

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/UCM263353.pdf

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...

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:

http://www.ombudsman.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/complaint-reviews/2016/balance-and-controversial-issues/

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

________________________________________________________________________________

1) Michelle Wyand, P.E.I. College of Pharmacists

https://www.google.ca/search?q=cbc+abortion+pill&rlz=1C1CHMO_enCA568CA568&oq=cbc+abortion+pill&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3.11137j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=cbc+abortion+pill&newwindow=1&start=10

2) http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ru-486-s-approval-comes-at-bad-time-for-conservatives-1.3174061

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

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/abortion-drug-decision-pushed-back-by-health-canada-1.2899723

4) Dr. Laura Lewis (Ontario family physician and a Canadian Physicians for Life board member)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ru-486-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-recently-approved-abortion-pill-1.3173657

5) Joan Dawkins (executive director of Women's Health Clinic)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/doctors-approach-limits-access-1.3712205

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

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/new-abortion-pill-bc-1.3668080

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

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/abortion-pill-nl-1.3676798

8) Dr. Wendy Norman (abortion doctor)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/abortion-pill-still-unavailable-in-canada-1.3668100

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

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/abortion-pill-pharmacare-manitoba-ndp-1.3834932

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

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/abortion-pill-s-approval-could-help-manitobans-in-rural-remote-places-1.3174952

11) Dr. Wendy Norman (abortion doctor)

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/the180/pharmacists-should-dispense-ru-486-a-noticeable-silence-on-chief-wahoo-and-non-sport-related-concussions-1.3812701/health-canada-rules-will-keep-abortion-from-the-women-who-need-it-most-1.3812867

12) Dr. Wendy Norman (abortion doctor)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/abortion-pill-restrictions-mifegymiso-1.3547582

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

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/ru-486-pill-to-improve-abortion-access-in-waterloo-region-1.3174825

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

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/abortion-pill-dispense-1.3808150

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

16) http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/ru-486-abortion-pill-approved-by-health-canada-1.3173515

17) Dr. Wendy Norman (abortion doctor)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ru-486-abortion-pill-canada-1.3665865

18) http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2672836959 (Srinivasan Krishnamurthy, director of gynecology at the Royal Victoria Hospital)

19) Jill Arkles (from the Sexual Health Centre in Saskatoon)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/do-you-agree-with-health-canada-approving-the-ru-486-abortion-pill-1.3174093

20) Sandy Kershaw, executive director of the Mokami Status of Women Council

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/ru-486-could-grant-labrador-women-easier-access-to-abortion-1.3181684

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." 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ru-486-abortion-pill-canada-1.3665865 (July 6, 2016)

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

CBC and its obvious bias on RU-486

Typical that the CBC keeps complaining about how RU-486 will be dispensed. They keep finding doctors who complain about the rules of the drug, which by the way, are there in the first place because this drug is so dangerous. And if you go to the CBC link above, you'll find more links to even more CBC articles, also complaining about RU-486.

Is it not at all possible for them to find even one doctor out there who thinks that RU-486 is not good for women? Because I'm pretty sure they're out there. Maybe they should do their job properly and find a few of those doctors who will tell the CBC of all the different risks this drug poses to women.

CBC, have you made any effort at all to do this? No? I thought so.

Pro-abortion doctor can't articulate dangers of RU-486

Here we have another grand example of CBC's abortion bias.

Heather Hiscox on CBC News interviews Wendy Norman (the abortion doctor/researcher) complaining about restrictions on dispensing the RU-486 abortion pill, legal in Canada as of July 1.

Wendy Norman says that the rules for dispensing the dangerous drug RU-486 are very unusual and were "bizarrely put in place", because doctors will have to dispense them to women, and that this will cause difficulty for women in remote areas.

First of all, here are the rules for dispensing RU-486 in the US. Seems like the US is doing exactly what Canada is doing, ie RU-486 must be dispensed by doctors.

"Mifeprex is supplied directly to healthcare providers who meet certain qualifications. It is only available to be dispensed in certain healthcare settings, specifically, clinics, medical offices and hospitals, by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber. It is not available in retail pharmacies, and it is not legally available over the Internet."

So Dr. Norman, maybe our rules are not really that "bizarre" after all?

In fact, there are actually a truckload of dangers associated with RU-486, especially in remote areas. But when Hiscox asks Dr. Norman why these dispensing precautions, Dr. Norman has no idea. I am not kidding. She basically she says she doesn't know why, that this is "very strange".

Has Dr. Norman never read any of the evidence on the dangers of this drug, especially when one considers women taking it in rural areas? Not a single word about the dangers come out of Dr. Norman's mouth. What she does say is this:

"We are hopeful that the extraordinary degree of evidence available around the world on this medication, it really only stops a pregnancy from growing in a safe and effective manner. (Notice Dr. Norman's euphemism for killing an unborn child but I digress)".

Finally, the last time I complained to CBC about their abortion bias, they wrote me off. Which I expected and wasn't surprised they did. This time they didn't even make any pretense about not being biased. Dr. Norman was the only person interviewed in an entire seven minute segment.

Nobody else who could actually speak of the dangers of this scary drug, was even bothered to be interviewed. Why am I not surprised?

The worse thing about CBC bias, is they can't admit it

I think CBC is biased when it comes to abortion.

I complained to the CBC that Anna-Marie Tremonti's interview on RU-486 was clearly anti-pro-life, and that the interview on a whole was biased against the pro-life viewpoint.

The response I received from CBC takes the position that the interview was not biased.

Instead of including the entire email exchange below, I'm only including the last email I sent them.

I transcribed the entire interview here and here.

I first said this in my blog post, and then complained to the CBC, and sent them my posts.

"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."

Here is the final exchange we had on their bias.

CBC: When I hear a complaint about bias, I take it seriously and examine the coverage. What I’m looking for primarily is whether the various sides are reflected accurately and fairly so that someone listening, reading or watching can decide for themselves whose position they choose to accept. While I take note of the number of speakers, or the lengths of their interviews, that is far too blunt a measure to use to weigh fairness or balance. Those things need to be considered over time, and in a broader context. Equitable coverage is not the same thing as equal coverage...Although the segment had four voices, two were brief clips [So those two extra "pro-choice" voices don't count? If they don't count then why include them?]

Me: I agree with some of what you say here. But one still must take the entire interview in context, with itself, since that one interview may be all any one person may hear on any one subject. For instance, the two short clips you mention, were both undeniably pro-ru486. Along with those two clips, was the in depth pro-Ru486 interview with Dr. Dunn, but there was only one voice anti-ru486: the in depth interview with pro-life Dr. Harrison. That is still three votes for the drug, and one vote against the drug. By any measure, that is not balanced: 3 to 1. Why wasn't there 2 short clips against the drug instead? Ah, but again, that would not be balanced either, would it? As well, Anna-Marie interrupted Dr. Harrison at least four times while she was speaking. She did not do that with Dr. Dunn. Why didn't she? Why didn't she simply allow both guests to answer the questions, without interrupting? If you want equitable, then treat all interviewees with the same respect. The interruptions were clearly not warranted, why didn't she simply let Dr. Harrison finish her thoughts without jumping in?

CBC: You believe Anna Maria did not treat Dr. Harrison with respect. You are, of course, free to believe that. [Note: CBC does not address my point of AMT interrupting Dr. H. 4 times] But it does not necessarily make it so, either. It is your gut feeling. [Not gut feeling, actual evidence] It is not one i share. I can't stress enough how normal it is for people who feel passionately about a subject to hear things differently than others do...

Me: The clip from Dr. Lexchin wonders if

"based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever, my other speculation is that this is a political decision, in other words, this is pressure coming from the anti-abortions members of the conservative government to not approve this product and that's what's holding it up but as I said I have no actual evidence to back that up." 

Why was this statement included in the segment at all? It is pure speculation on his part, and by his own words, he has no evidence to support his claim. His statement is a clear pro-abortion viewpoint. His pro-abortion bias was clear and added nothing to the interview, except to show another pro-abortion bias.

CBC: Dr. Lexchin is a pretty smart guy with expertise on pharmaceutical patents and experience working with various levels of government. That's why the show went to him. I understand you think he's full of malarkey on this subject. That is your right to feel. It does not make his perspective meaningless. [Again, CBC doesn't address Dr. L's conjecture about anti-abortion MPs and Dr. L.'s obvious ideology. He may be smart but his statement should have been cut. It wasn't.]

Me: Anna-Marie asks Dr. Harrison if her views are based on ideology. None of the other guests were asked that same question. Why weren't they? And in fact it is clear from Dr. Harrison's answer, that her views are not based on ideology. Not an equitable question.

CBC: Dr. Harrison expresses her ideology in her title, and the organization she represents. Asking her about it allowed her to explain to listeners who may not share her view how the medical opinion she expresses aligns with the ideological view she expresses. I would see that as an opportunity for her to persuade others of her reasonabless, rather than simply preaching to the converted. You call the question unequitable. I believe you are mistaken. [Again, CBC does not answer my question of why the "pro-choice" speakers weren't asked about their ideology. Also note that Dr. Rebecca Gomperts provides medical abortions to women in countries where abortion is illegal.]

Me: You feel my blog wasn't entirely fair in that I only mentioned one tweet, and not the second tweet that was more informational. You are right. My bias was showing. But as well, I don't pretend not to be biased about abortion, I am clearly pro-life. That being said, when I saw the quote from Dr. Dunn which said the drug was safe, without a corresponding quote from Dr. Harrison saying it wasn't safe, I felt that Dr. Dunn's opinion was being highlighted, while Dr. Harrison's was ignored. The CBC is supposed to be not biased though.

CBC: I agree with you, the CBC is supposed to be unbiased. I disagree with you that these tweets display any bias whatsoever. [CBC puts out one neutral tweet and one pro-abortion tweet--that's bias] I suggest the reason you perceive this is as bias is because you feel so strongly about the issue. And it is such a tiny set of words and characters from which to derive a slant, it is grossly unfair to the producers of the program to draw the conclusions you do. [Grossly unfair to conclude that CBC is biased?]

Me: What cannot be gleaned from the interview, from someone not actually knowledgeable about this drug, is how harmful it potentially is to women. I suggest you read the book called "RU486: Misconceptions, Myths and Morals" by Renate Klein. This book goes into meticulous detail about these dangers, all based on studies and scientific evidence. I read the book before I listened to the interview, and Dr. Harrison basically corroborated everything Klein says about the drug. Here are some of the issues she raises detailed in a series of blogs I did on the book, if you care to read them. The book is an eye opener.

CBC: As mentioned, I have not had time to read this material. I have plenty of respect for you and your cause. And I regret that you think CBC News displays a bias in its coverage of the issue. We try very hard not to do that. I also ask you not to draw conclusions because I can't maintain the back and forth ad nauseum [I draw conclusions because my questions are not answered, when I show clear examples of bias] The number of issues that come up every day is enormous [as they should be since the CBC is a tax payer funded broadcaster], and the number of Canadians who engage with us for the very reason that we do pay attention and respond is wonderfully high [except CBC can't admit they are biased and insist they are not]. But I have a ton on my plate, and there's a point at which it's clear that our arguments are getting circular.