ATIP to Finance: revoking charitable status to Pregnancy Care Centres Part 4

So what evidence did I find of "misinformation" from Pregnancy Care Centres in this ATIP? Well, none so far. (I've only looked at the the second half of the ATIP).

On page 73 we have an example of "misinformation" provided by Joyce Arthur. This can be safely ignored as Arthur's evidence of Pregnancy Care centres misinformation has been refuted many times.

Then there is this statement by the NDP; can also be safely ignored because it's just the NDP parroting Joyce Arthur.

Pages 199-282 are US legal cases on "misinformation".  

So there are lots of pages of attempts to justify "misinformation". There are lots of redacted information. The government is clearly looking for reasons (and doing cartwheels) to get ammunition to persecute and target pregnancy care centres for "misinformation". But other than Joyce Arthur and NDP MPP Leah Gazan's claims of misinformation, I could not find any actual evidence or proof of Canada's pregnancy care centres indulging in "misinformation".

What does the Ontario NDP party REALLY stand for?

I sent the email below to the NDP candidate in my riding Lyra Evans, along with NDP leader Andrea Horwath.

I noticed that one of the anarchists who blocked our March for life was carrying an NDP election sign for Lyra Evans. The sign is clearly visible in the video below.

The stated intention of these counter protesters--many of them cowardly covering their faces--was in fact to "End the March for Life". They carried a banner stating this at the front of their sorry bunch.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, in the picture in this article by Jonathon Van Maren on the March, it looks like NDP candidate Lyra Evans is actually holding that anti-democracy sign. That also contains a hammer and sickle. 

 From the Ottawa Citizen

As Jonathon writes on what the hammer and sickle actually represents is pretty scary:

"The Soviet Union wracked up a death toll of over twenty million, with nearly two million people perishing in the gulags and nearly a million being summarily executed in the first years of Stalin’s rule. Mao’s Red China took it even further, with an estimated 45 million Chinese perishing during the Great Leap Forward—which was actually fewer dead bodies than Mao had been anticipating. He originally thought that 52 million peasants would have to die in order for Communism to be sufficiently implemented. The flag that flapped over these staggering death counts was the Hammer and Sickle, a flag now proudly waved by those purporting to protest totalitarianism."

Is this what Andrea Horwath and her party stand for? A ban on free speech rights, freedom of assembly rights for pro-life people--and maybe even worse? I hope not.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Lyra,

I live in Ottawa Vanier.

I noticed at the March for Life there was a counter protester with one of your election signs. This group's purpose is to end the March for Life, a legal, peaceful protest done against abortion in Ottawa every year.



This group illegally stopped our March from continuing.

Can you please tell me if you support freedom of speech rights, and freedom of assembly rights for all citizens including pro-life people?

Thank you.

Patricia Maloney

Is Jagmeet Singh pro-life or pro-choice?

By all accounts the NDP's new leader Jagmeet Singh is a practicing Sikh: here, here and here.

And Sikhism is pretty much against abortion except in a couple of circumstances:

"While Sikhism denounces abortion, allowance in circumstances such as when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have serious defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. In all other cases such as unfit parents, rape, failed contraceptive, social and economic factors abortion is wrong. Those who are unable to raise a child because of number of different reason; adoption is a wonderful alternative that should be considered."

Sikhism is also against female gendercide through abortion:

"Unfortunately abortion is portrayed as a quick and easy process, however the reality of the operation is not covered. Abortion is not a benign procedure. It is the violent and unnatural destruction of a living human being. It not only harms the baby but psychologically impacts the mother.

It is common in Indian culture, to prefer the birth of boys over girls. As a result of this, families put pressure on women to abort females in pursuit of having boys. This is a great epidemic in particularly amongst the Panjabi community in India, however it is also practiced by people living abroad who will sometimes go back to India to have a sex scan if they are refused one in UK."

So. How does Jagmeet Singh reconcile these Sikh values with the NDP party's being officially "pro-choice"?

Immature people remove election signs - twice

I have been volunteering for Elizabeth de Viel Castel's campaign the past two weeks for the Stop the new Sex Ed Agenda party.

I put her election sign up on public property on Saturday. Monday morning the sign went missing. Monday afternoon I installed a new sign. This morning the sign was again missing.

The sign is situated right next to a Liberal sign and an NDP sign.

Who removed the signs? I don't know.

You know, this is not how democracy is supposed to work. If you, whoever you are, don't like what we stand for then don't vote for the party. Even better, run yourself. But to steal an election sign during an election is simply wrong, and frankly childish, although I'm pretty sure a child didn't do this.

This is the sign as it was on Sunday.

This is the missing sign Monday.

This is the sign re-installed Monday.

And today the sign is gone again.

FOI Charter Challenge helps pro-abortions too

I can't write about abortion statistics. Neither can NDP MP Kennedy Stewart:

“That’s [Therapeutic Abortion Survey] been collected since 1970. And then they cancel it. They cancelled the publication, the tables, and the survey,” he said. “We should look into it more. Again, we’ve had a lot of news reports about how abortions are hard to obtain in different provinces. Once you get rid of this tracking, it makes it very, very difficult to do things like enforce the Canada Health Act.

Nobody else in this country can write or comment about abortion statistics either, because you can't write or comment on something (especially on something as political as abortion) if you don't have the facts to back you up.

The abortion statistics we do have from CIHI, are woefully inaccurate. And we know too well that Ontario has chosen to exclude and hide all Ontario abortion statistics from any and all Freedom of Information requests. BC isn't doing any better.

So our Charter Challenge will benefit even the NDP. You're welcome Kennedy Stewart.

The inconsistencies of Justin and Thomas

First we had Justin Trudeau and his own relentless war on science, while saying that a Liberal government would end the war on science. Now we have Thomas Mulcair saying this about his $15 a day daycare:

"Starting a family is not only good for that couple, it's good for the economy."

So if starting a family is good for the couple and the economy, why does Mr. Mulcair support abortion?

Why doesn't he instead help women choose birth over abortion? Why doesn't he instead really help women and outlaw abortion coercion? Why doesn't Thomas Mulcair do something good for women, for families and for the economy?

Imagine if instead of aborting 100,000 Canadians every year, Canadian women gave birth to them? Now that would be growing the economy.

(Note that this study by IMF shows that universal daycare harms children.)

Thomas Mulcair as Prime Minister - maybe it's not all bad

So what would happen if Thomas Mulcair becomes Canada's next Prime Minister?

Now there are some definite problems with this. Saving Canada Post's door to door delivery, $15 a day daycare, and a $15-per-hour federal minimum wage, to name just a few big NDP government spending nightmares.

But maybe it's not all bad.

For starters, I, and many other Canadians, are very tired of Mr. Harper and how the party itself has fared under him. Mr. Harper is a control freak. He won't allow discussion on abortion in Parliament. He's completely standoffish, refusing to engage with ordinary people or the media. Maybe he cares about the average Canadian, but if he does, he doesn't show it. It seems to be only about power for power's sake.

As far as Justin Trudeau goes, he scares me to death. Really, would I trust the country to someone who has said and done so many dumb things? Who won't respond to a letter from Canadians signed by 395 people? Who actually thinks a woman has a charter right to abortion; etc, etc.?

On the plus side of the Conservative party, we know that it is the only party of the three main parties, that will allow MPs to have a choice on whether or not they are "pro-choice", never mind the irony of that fact. But that never seemed to actually help them do anything pro-life as long as Mr. We-Don't-Talk-About-Abortion-Harper is leader of the Conservatives.

So what's the not so bad part of Mr. Mulcair as Prime Minister? Because it frees up pro-life Conservative MPs to do something while in opposition. We know that both Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Mulcair won't even allow pro-life persons to be a candidate in the election. And as long as Mr. We-Don't-Talk-About-Abortion-Harper is leader of the Conservatives and they are in power, no pro-life MP will ever be successful with any pro-life motion or bill brought forward in Parliament anyway.

But if the Conservatives don't get into power then Mr. We-Don't-Talk-About-Abortion-Harper won't be leader anymore. Conservative MPs in opposition, will at least be be free to speak out on abortion. And bring forward pro-life private member's bills or motions.

Who knows how this could turn out? At the very least it will be a very interesting election.

That pesky thing called conscience

From MP Ed Komarnicki:

M-590 — March 26, 2015 — Mr. Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain) — That, in the opinion of the House, all Members of Parliament should be allowed to vote freely on all matters of conscience.

So how will the Liberals and NDP vote on this motion? I guess we'll find out.

"...the safest course is to do nothing against one's conscience. With this secret, we can enjoy life and have no fear from death." Voltaire

RU-486 is a bad idea

We should be very cautious about approving the abortion drug RU-486 in Canada. There are health concerns about this drug, and this alone should cause us grave concern. But what about our democratic rights? As Mike Schouten at weneedalaw.ca says:

"The Conservative government along with all the political parties in Ottawa have denounced any attempts at debating abortion in the House of Commons. That Health Canada could approve RU-486 through the proverbial backdoor is contrary to democratic principles that should allow for an abortion discussion"

And speaking about democracy (or lack there of) what about the fact that in Ontario right now, no person can do a Freedom of Information request on anything related to abortion services?

This would mean that any and all information (in Ontario) regarding this new drug, like how many abortions occurred using the drug, what complications women are experiencing from the drug, how many deaths are attributable to it, etc. would now be completely hidden from us.

Since most abortions in Canada are done in Ontario, and if RU-486 is approved, we can extrapolate that most of the RU-486 abortions will also be done in Ontario. And because everything related to abortion is now hidden in Ontario, any complications, how many prescriptions doctor's write, etc.--all will be hidden under a cloak of secrecy. By allowing RU-486, the federal government will be just exacerbating the abortion cover-up in provinces like Ontario (and BC to a certain extent as well).

In Ontario, in 2010 there were at least 44,000 abortions performed in Ontario. That's 53% more than officially reported by the Canadian Institute of Health Information (CIHI) (CIHI only reported 28,765). 

CIHI already does not report medical abortions, as well as abortions done in doctor's offices. And now with RU-486, none of those abortions will be reported either.

Women will be getting more and more access to abortion, while we get less and less information about these abortions. This is a deadly combination for women.

The other grave concern we should have with RU-486 for the women taking it, is for those women who may live in remote areas of the country, and/or places where abortions are not currently available.

In this article by the CBC, Dawn Fowler, the Canadian director of the National Abortion Federation, says it can take a day or two for women in rural and remote communities to travel to a bigger centre to have an abortion. She says that this is "about delivering safe, quality care". 

Yet in remote parts of our country, like reservations, there are very good reasons why this drug should not be made available to women because it won't be safe. If a women has a serious problem while taking this new drug, and if she is in need of expert medical care to treat her for that problem, that care may not be readily available to her in these remote or unserviced places, putting the women at great personal risk.

We already know that--contrary to what abortion advocates like to tell us--abortion is already not safe. Many say that abortion complication rates are less than 1%. Yet Echo, an Ontario government "pro-choice" agency, informs us that complication rates for abortions are actually between 6.95% and7.70%:

NDP MP Libby Davies says approving RU-486 is important to a lot of women who do not have access to reproductive choice. My goodness, Ms. Davies is a woman and a Member of Parliament. Surely she can get out of the way of her own ideology to see the potential danger this drug can have on women.

With this kind of advocacy for this deadly drug coming from the powerful National Abortion Federation, and from the ideological NDP, women's health will take a back seat to the abortion industry's and pharmaceuticals' profits.

RU-486 is bad for all of us. This drug should not be approved.

Henry Morgentaler

Brian Lilley's thoughts on the recent death of Henry Morgentaler (see full video below). Lilley says:

"Henry Morgentaler was not a great man, he was a mistaken man. He brought great evil to this country."

...while Heather Mallick is worried about women being "frozen in shock" and crying on their keyboard.

Oh dear. My keyboard is dry.

Debate: Should physicians provide, or refer for, abortion? (who declined to debate)

A "pro-choice" commenter to my blog said that:
"this debate was a total set-up. no one from the pro-choice community in ottawa was asked to participate in the debate. while it was nice that jovan accepted the non-invitation, he did not have the background or experience to argue from the perspective of the pro-choice movement and ended up making some pretty oppressive and ineffectivley thought-out arguments. stephanie spends her entire career articulating these issues, of course she "won". but the pro-life side certainly didn't gain any credibility for such a poorly run event."

So I checked it out, to see exactly who was invited to debate Stephanie Gray.

Here is the list of people who either declined, or did not reply, or ignored the organizers' invitations.

i. Dr. Henry Morgentaler (declined to debate)

ii. Heather Mallick ("pro-choice" columnist for the Toronto Star) (no reply to invitation)

iii. Hon. Dr. Hedy Fry (MP) (declined to debate)

iv. Hon. Dr. Carolyn Bennett (MP) (declined to debate)

v. Dr. Kathryn Treehuba, Uof Ottawa professor (Obs-Gyn), and Ottawa-area abortion provider (no reply to invitation)

vi. Dr. Fraser Fellows, UWO professor (Obs-Gyn), and London-area abortion provider (no reply to invitation)

vii. Federation of Medical Women of Canada (declined to debate)

viii. Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada- Joyce Arthur (declined to debate)

ix. NDP Party (no reply to invitation)

x. Canadians for Choice (declined to debate)
xi. Action Canada for Population Development (no reply to invitation) 

xii. Hon. Dr. Keith Martin (MP) (No reply to invitation)
xiii. Planned Parenthood Ottawa (Heather Holland - Executive Director- Declined to debate)
xiv. Canadian Federation for Sexual Health (no reply to invitation) 
xv. Professor Sanda Rodgers (University of Ottawa) (declined to debate)
xvi. Professor Wayne Sumner (University of Toronto) (declined to debate)

If the "pro-choicers" were not happy with Jovan Morales representing their position, they have only themselves to blame. They were given plenty of opportunity to participate, and declined to.

I guess they thought they could shut down the debate this way. Well, how well did that work out for them? Not too good I'd say.

Maybe they'll think twice next time, before rejecting or ignoring invitations to debate.