NAF Canada gets $1.5 million to improve killing skills of abortion doctors

I finally received my ATIP regarding the $1,469,150 in funding given to the National Abortion Federation in 2022. It took Health Canada over a year to provide me with the information. (What is supposed to take 30 days took 450 days or 15 months.)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hLRlO2UdyeJmZBV9nTS24zPDt9HZA-1p/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CcKqwHvmgak7sQbqQloykiXs6LOA5F5A/view?usp=sharing

First. NAF is concerned that more women are getting medical abortions and less women are getting surgical abortions. They will train more doctors to do surgical abortions. They don't want this "skill" to vanish. 

Second. The document uses the term “pregnant people” throughout. It's not actually just women who get pregnant anymore. 

Third. The funding went to NAF under the THE HEALTHCARE POLICY AND STRATEGIES PROGRAM. The thing is, this program was meant for “home and community care; palliative and end of care; mental health care; and other Federal provincial territorial and emerging priorities”. So how does the government justify granting dollars for training abortion doctors to kill babies? By using a program designed for actual health care, and diverting the dollars into abortion programs. Read their wiggle words here:

“The 43.3 million for the new sexual and reproductive health initiative is is a new investment and is separate from the program (THE HEALTHCARE POLICY AND STRATEGIes PROGRAM ) core budget. This funding will be provided for the program using its existing authorities (i.e. we will just make it fit here). The terms and conditions of the program allow for contribution funding to flow to other levels of government, non-governmental and not-for profit organizations, who in turn may further distribute funding to third parties to conduct approved activities.”

The full description of the Health Care Policy and Strategies Program from their website. You won't see anything in here about using these funds for abortion programs. Never mind that this government already spends a gazillion dollars on all kinds of “sexual and reproductive health”. Apparently they need to spend more.

"The Health Care Policy and Strategies Program provides time-limited funding for projects to non-profit organizations and other levels of government for projects that aim to improve the accessibility, quality, sustainability and accountability of Canada's health care system. The program supports the federal government's commitment to maintain a strong and effective publicly funded health care system. Health Canada supports project proposals from organizations based on the program’s 4 priority areas: mental health care, home and community care, palliative and end-of-life care other federal, provincial/territorial and emerging priorities. One-time funding through contribution agreements supports projects that: increase understanding, knowledge and research on data, policies, best practices, products, technologies and processes including identifying gaps, needs and trends identify, develop, implement, assess and promote new or modified tools, approaches and models that promote people-centred health care systems identify, develop, implement, assess and promote new learning opportunities, skills development, standards, products and technological solutions. Projects should aim to increase opportunities for collaboration and coordination among federal, provincial and territorial governments, other health care policy makers, service providers, users, researchers and other stakeholders. The program cannot provide funding to individuals or for-profit organizations, and cannot fund the delivery of health care services. For more information, email the Health Care Policy and Strategies Program: hcpsp-ppsss@hc-sc.gc.ca."

Fourth. Other recipients of this (up to $25,168,166) cold blooded killing of children in the womb (future ATIPs perhaps?):

• Action Canada
• Community-Based Research Centre
• Canadian Centre for Gender and Sexual Diversity
• Centre for Sexuality
• Egale Canada
• Quebec
• Sherbourne Health Centre Corporation
• Sex Information and Education Council of Canada
• Trans Care BC

Fifth. Pages 279 and 342:

“research indicates there are key barriers and challenges related to in inequitable and variable access to sexual and reproductive health information and services in Canada. The availability of effective SRH interventions, in particular for populations for marginalized groups, including women (women are marginalized...who are they kidding?), youth, LGBTQ2 people, racialized Canadians, and indigenous populations, remains a gap across Canada.” 

Page 252 

"health care policy and strategies program (HCPSP) sexual and reproductive health fund (SRHF). INFORMATION SESSION FOR SRHF REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS OCTOBER 14TH, 2021. priority areas for action. "in some cases women, transgender and non binary individuals are required to travel considerable distances if they wish to access abortion services which can have significant accessibility and financial implications."

Page 332

"Those with multiple intersection identities face even higher barriers to access sexual reproductive health information services. Too often they do not receive the same quality of care particulate particularly if they are from under served communities. Key populations: Indigenous people. Inter sex people. LGBTQ2 people. Newcomers, immigrants, refugees, international students. People with disabilities physical sensory and cognitive. Under served populations. Seniors. Sex workers. Women. Youth." (seniors get abortions?)"

Where is their evidence for these subjective claims that  "in some cases" and "too often" there are "barriers and challenges" to getting abortions? None is provided. We are simply expected to believe that they exist, because the government says so. They make all kinds of statements of fact with absolutely no supporting evidence or research. It seems they just want to justify their preoccupation with abortion for every imagined underserved segment of the population.

P 487 and 488. 

Sixth. Here is a note from a possible Question period question: 

"If pressed on whether the government will provide funding to organizations offering alternatives to abortion (i.e. Continuing the pregnancy)"

"Answer: This fund will not support initiatives that discourage or are opposed to freedom of choice or attempt to override the individual right to make decisions about their own bodies."

The Government refuses funding to organizations that offer alternatives to abortion. Not a surprise of course, but seeing them write it in black and write that "continuing a pregnancy" isn't worthy of funding, is a stark reality of this abortion obsessed regime under Justin Trudeau. 

But if you want to kill your child, then we got money for you, and lots of it.

Finally, the Department of Health actually has a unit called the Sexual and reproductive health unit.

National Abortion Federation never reported Kermit Gosnell's clinic and now receives Canadian tax dollars

This story is frightening: Kermit Gosnell killed women and children. Ann McElhinney did a six part podcast on this real life horror story.

Kermit Gosnell was a serial killer, a major drug dealer, a fraudster, a liar and who knows what else. Not only did he kill women and snip the necks of born children, he taught his non-medical staff to provide copious amounts of drugs to women (illegally) before their abortions. He also taught them how to kill the babies. His staff would do this when Gosnell wasn't present, as he usually didn't come to work until the evening. That's when Gosnell did the very late abortions himself.

Here is the grand jury report on this story, 281 pages detailing all manner of evil.

The report details how numerous agencies and health professionals ignored/did nothing regarding this house of horrors when they should have. In particular:

• Department of Health lawyers at the Pennsylvania Department of State
• The Philadelphia Department of Public Health
• Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and its subsidiary, Penn Presbyterian Medical Center
• Centers for Disease Control
• Fellow doctors
• The National Abortion Federation

A few quotes from the report:

"We discovered that Pennsylvania’s Department of Health has deliberately chosen not to enforce laws that should afford patients at abortion clinics the same safeguards and assurances of quality health care as patients of other medical service providers. Even nail salons in Pennsylvania are monitored more closely for client safety... Most appalling of all, the Department of Health’s 138 neglect of abortion patients’ safety and of Pennsylvania laws is clearly not inadvertent: It is by design."

"The problem with the Departments of State and Health is not that they lacked authority to end the crime spree that Gosnell and his staff passed off as practicing medicine. The problem is that the state overseers preferred not to exercise their authority. They chose to look the other way.'"

"Supervisors in the Division of Disease Control ignored a nurse’s disturbing report about conditions in Gosnell’s clinic in 2008 and 2009." 

"The Philadelphia Health Department’s Environmental Engineering Section failed to follow through after receiving a complaint in 2003 about aborted fetuses stored in an employee refrigerator."

"FELLOW DOCTORS WHO OBSERVED THE RESULTS OF GOSNELL’S RECKLESS AND CRIMINAL PRACTICES FAILED TO REPORT HIM TO AUTHORITIES."

"After reviewing extensive and compelling evidence of criminal wrongdoing at the clinic, the Grand Jury has issued a presentment recommending the prosecution of Gosnell and members of his staff for criminal offenses including: • Murder of Karnamaya Mongar • Murders of babies born alive • Infanticide • Violations of the Controlled Substances Act • Hindering, Obstruction, and Tampering • Perjury • Illegal late-term abortions • Violations of the Abortion Control Act • Violations of the Controlled Substances Act • Abuse of Corpse • Theft by Deception • Conspiracy • Corrupt Organization • Corruption of Minors"

 Canadians should take particular note of the National Abortion Federation:

"A national association of abortion providers declined to admit the Women’s Medical Society [Kermit Gosnell's abortion clinic] as a member, finding it to be the worst facility its inspector had ever seen...the evaluator from NAF readily noted that records were not properly kept, that risks were not explained, that patients were not monitored, that equipment was not available, that anesthesia was misused. It was the worst abortion clinic she had ever inspected. Of course, she rejected Gosnell’s application. She just never told anyone in authority about all the horrible, dangerous things she had seen." (emphasis added)

In fact NAF supposedly:

"is an association of abortion providers that upholds the strictest health and legal standards for its members." (emphasis added)

Yet the NAF inspector didn't tell anyone about the problems she witnessed there.

And guess what? This year Health Canada gave funding to NAF Canada (NAF is now active here) in the amount of $1,469,150. Even though their inspector witnessed first hand problems with Gosnell's clinic, they never reported it to anyone. They just turned a blind eye. And now Canada is giving them our tax dollars.

I don't know about you, but I find this fact pretty disturbing.

NAF Canada rears its ugly head

The National Abortion Federation (NAF) registered in Canada as a "charity" in 2009. For 11 years NAF Canada's presence here had been pretty much non existent. Just check out their income statements at CRA.

The last time they reported to CRA in 2020, this was their income:

Receipted donations $45,000.00 (34.76%)
	Non-receipted donations $68,863.00 (53.19%)
	Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
	Government funding $4,599.00 (3.55%)
	All other revenue $11,012.00 (8.51%)

Total revenue: $129,474.00

In 2020 NAF had one full time employee who earned $108,829, and one part-time employee who earned 6,945. Like all pro-abortion organizations, compensation is very lucrative when your business is supporting/engaged in the killing of children in the womb. That's 84% of their revenue going to one salary. Can you imagine a pro-life group using 84% of their income to pay someone that much money? No, I can't either.

Previous to 2020, their only government funding was for two summer job program grants ($4,854 in 2021 and $4,654 in 2020). (Why did an inactive company even need those two interns? But I digress.)

Well that's all changed now. NAF Canada just received $1,469,150 in government funding in March 2022. Because clearly Canada needed more pro-abortion advocacy groups. 

It will be sad to see how the baby killing industry continues to expand in Canada under Canada's most pro-abortion prime minister we've ever had. 

Oh, and let's watch and see how many more high paying pro-abortions will be added to the ranks of NAF Canada.

Stay tuned. I'm watching you NAF Canada.

We know the world is upside down when this happens

The Coronavirus is here. We have people dying all over the world from this horrible pandemic. The world is shut down because of it. Financial markets are in free fall. People have lost their jobs. People of faith are prevented from attending their Church services, their Mosques and their Synagogues. Catholic Christians are prevented from receiving the sacraments including reconciliation, baptisms and the sacraments of the sick for the dying. We can't even enter our churches for private prayer, even if we follow all the social distancing rules.

So what are the pro-abortions up to here in Canada? Unlike many US states, Canada is pathetically still performing abortions. None of the rules the rest of us have to follow apply to killing babies.

In fact the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada has put out a fundraising call for Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights.

This pro-abortion group apparently needs funds "urgently". But the pro-abortions don't want to buy masks or ventilators for healthcare providers and the dying. They want more money to dismember, decapitate and disembowel more babies because the over $4 million dollars they have already received from taxpayers in the past four years was not enough.

Yes, their need is "urgent".

RU-486 can be lethal for women in remote areas

RU-486 (mifepristone) is a nasty drug. And Health Canada is considering approving it for abortions. 

The CBC thinks this is marvelous news:

"Approval of the drug would provide greater access to medical abortion for women in rural or remote parts of Canada."

And the Globe and Mail:

"NAF and other organizations that support bringing the medical abortion drug to Canada say it will make ending a pregnancy more discreet and widely available, especially in areas where services are scarce."

But this drug could be dangerous where "services are scarce" and in "remote parts of Canada".

If you look below where I post the possible side effects of this drug, you'll also notice that you must be near an emergency department because of the potentially very serious side effects, some lethal. 

"Visit your doctor, go to your nearest emergency department, or call for an ambulance if you experience any of the symptoms of serious complications described above during or after your medical termination."

So living in remote areas is a pipe dream imagined by the pro-abortions. And Canada is a huge country, with lots of remote and rural areas.

And for about 7 in 100 women, the drug fails.

Health Canada should think twice before they approve this drug. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Important side effects to consider

The side effects of mifepristone and misprostol are similar, but misoprostol is more likely than mifepristone to cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and headache. After taking these medicines, you may experience one or more of the common or very common side effects listed below, or you may not experience any of them:

• nausea
• vomiting
• diarrhoea
• dizziness
• abdominal cramps, pain or discomfort
• headache
• fatigue
• chills and fever (a temperature of 37.5°C or higher)
• fainting
• breast tenderness
• hot flushes, skin rashes or itching.

Talk to your health professional about possible side effects from these medicines before taking them.

If any of these side effects — or any other unexpected effects — concern you during the medical termination process, speak to your health professional.

Vaginal bleeding and abdominal pain and cramping are the expected effects of these medicines and, although unpleasant, they indicate that the termination is progressing as it should.

If you don’t experience vaginal bleeding, abdominal cramps and contractions of the uterus within 4 hours of taking misoprostol (the second medicine), this may indicate that the medical termination has failed. If this happens to you, visit a doctor urgently.

Signs of more-serious complications

If you experience a serious complication, you should be prepared and willing to access emergency medical help.

The following serious complications have been known to occur after termination of pregnancy with mifepristone/misprostol.

Persistent bleeding

Vaginal bleeding that is not heavy can continue for 10–16 days after a medical termination. If you continue to have bleeding after this, or if you are concerned about the amount or nature of bleeding at any time after having a medical termination, see your doctor.

If you experience heavy vaginal bleeding for more than 2 days after a medical termination, see a health professional immediately. Up to 4 in 1000 women will experience severe bleeding that requires a blood transfusion.

Infection

Infection of the organs or tissues in the pelvic region is an uncommon but serious complication that may occur in fewer than 1 in 100 women after a medical termination. If you have an infection, you may have some or all of the following symptoms:

• fever (37.5°C or higher)
• malaise (generally feeling unwell)
• lethargy
• nausea
• vomiting
• persistent abdominal pain or tenderness
• offensive-smelling vaginal discharge.

Failure of the procedure

There is a chance (about 7 in 100 women) that taking mifepristone/misoprostol will not result in a successful termination of pregnancy. About 2 in every 100 of these women will need further medicines prescribed by their doctor to complete the termination, and about 5 in every 100 women will need to have a surgical termination if the medical termination fails.

Continuing with a pregnancy if the medical termination has failed is strongly not advised because the developing embryo may have been harmed or deformed.

Unsuccessful termination can also lead to serious complications, so it’s important to get medical help urgently if you think this has happened. Ongoing bleeding, with or without signs of an infection, may suggest an unsuccessful termination. However, it's essential to have a follow-up visit with your doctor 14–21 days after the treatment — or sooner if requested by your doctor — even if you don’t have any signs of a complication.

Visit your doctor, go to your nearest emergency department, or call for an ambulance if you experience any of the symptoms of serious complications described above during or after your medical termination.
For a more-complete list of possible side effects, see the consumer medicine information (CMI)for Mifepristone Linepharma (mifepristone) and for GyMiso (misoprostol), available from your doctor, MS Health or through the NPS Medicine Finder.

If a side effect is described as very common, this means that in clinical trials at least 10 out of 100 people experienced that side effect.

If a side effect is described as common, this means that in clinical trials, more than 1, but fewer than 10 out of 100 people experienced that side effect.

A clinical trial is a research study conducted with patients that compares one treatment with one or more other treatments, to assess its effectiveness and safety.

Ask your health professional about the possible side effects of a medicine before you take it. Always tell your health professional about any changes to your condition.

Big abortion sticks their big nose into Canada's business

"The National Abortion Federation has presented a business case to the P.E.I. government with the aim to bring abortion services to P.E.I. 

Federation president Vicki Saporta says the plan would be cost-neutral for the province and that three doctors are willing to travel to P.E.I to perform the procedure."

Here's a thought. This Vicki Saporta seems to be very American to me. So why is she sticking her big nose into Canada's affairs? 

In fact in her recent statement she says she is "President of the National Abortion Federation and the National Abortion Federation Canada". How convenient. Just lump us both countries together into one big abortion pot.

Tell me Vicky, are these doctors offering to do these abortions for free? Or are you and they in this because big abortion is big money?

Just wondering.

What would the Martians think? (Part 4...why late-term abortions are not inconsequential)

In my Martian series, I wanted to write next about what Dawn Fowler Canadian Director, National Abortion Federation (NAF) says about late-term abortions.

Ms. Fowler says:
"According to data obtained through CIHI, 0.08% of abortions in 2004 were provided after 20 weeks gestation. This percentage does not support the notion promulgated by abortion opponents that women in Canada routinely obtain abortion care up to nine months of pregnancy. In fact, nearly 80% of abortions are provided during the first trimester (12 weeks) of pregnancy."

Then out of the sky drops Margaret Wente’s, tired timeworn throwaway pro-abortion comment regarding this very subject. Ms. Wente says "Virtually no late-term abortions – the rarest and most contentious kind – are performed here".

In other words, that pretty much takes care of the notion of late-term abortions--what other pro-life concerns can we dispense with?

Not so fast ladies.

Let’s look at the statistics from Statistics Canada. Ms. Fowler says that only .08 or 401 late-term abortions were done in 2004. (my more recent 2006 statistics say 464 so I will use these stats).

We know that Canada had at least 464 late-term abortions in 2006. That’s equivalent to a large elementary school of laughing screaming having fun children. Dead. Yanked out of their mother’s womb with a pick-ax to the brain or some such hideous "procedure" (another in a long line of pro-abortion euphemisms).

The reason I say "at least" is because--and you'll never hear an abortion advocate talk about this--Statistics Canada says in a foot note next to the number 55,006:
"Note the large number of induced abortions with an unknown gestation range."

That is correct. There were fifty-five thousand and six abortions in 2006 for which we do not know the gestational age of the fetus. How many of these were late-term abortions? Well it could be one. Or it could just as easily be that all 55,006 were late-term.

Dr. Paul Ranalli is a neurologist and brain physiology researcher at the University of Toronto. He testified as an expert witness on fetal pain before the House Judiciary. Dr. Ranalli worries about the pain felt by the unborn child in late term abortions, and in fact, Nebraska has approved a bill to ban abortion beyond 20 weeks gestation on the basis of fetal pain.

Tell me, pro-abortion people with your disinterested comments about late-term abortions--does the extreme pain suffered by these unborn children during their late-term abortions bother you even a little bit?

Our Martian friends asks incredulously:
"You mean to say, you destroy between 464 and 55,006 of your offspring yearly, that are fully formed viable human beings, in an excruciating painful manner, and then tell people it is of no consequence?" Yes.

Part 1...Women's "Rights"
Part 2...When the truth isn't the truth
Part 3...Translating Dr. Henry Morgentaler
Part 4...Why late-term abortions are not inconsequential

What would the Martians think? (Part 2...When the truth isn't the truth)

Vicki Saporta, President and CEO, National Abortion Federation (NAF) provided the opening remarks to the celebration of the 20th Anniversary of Regina v. Morgentaler Of What Difference? Reflections on the Judgment and Abortion in Canada Today.

Ms. Saporta stated: "This landmark decision has undoubtedly protected the health and saved the lives of countless women, and was named as one of the most important and influential Charter cases of the last 25 years."

To say that the lives of countless women have been saved because of abortion is not quite true. Less than 5% of all abortions are because of rape, incest, fetal and maternal problems. That means that 95% of abortions are performed as a means of birth control, not to save women's lives.

It is the lives of the unborn killed by abortion that women like Ms. Saporta never talk about. About 100,000 each year in Canada. Even if Ms. Saporta is referring to the lives of women who died before abortion was legal, those numbers (44 in the five years before 1969) doesn't come close to the 100,000 annual killing of fetuses.

Then Ms. Saporta says
"In fact, abortion is the only time-sensitive and medically necessary procedure excluded from the list of services on the inter-provincial billing agreement."

Abortion is excluded because as stated above at least 95% of them are not medically necessary. Abortion advocates will always say that abortions are medically necessary. I say, prove it.

Next she says:
"The Canadian Medical Association’s policy of allowing physicians to refuse to refer patients for abortion care is a clear violation of CMA’s own Code of Ethics, which requires physicians to:
• Consider the well-being of the patient;
• Practice medicine in a manner that treats the patient with dignity; and
• Provide patients with the information they need to make informed decisions
about their medical care.
The CMA’s policy treats women unfairly and impedes women’s access to care."

Jeff Blackmer of the CMA states:
"CMA policy states that "a physician should not be compelled to participate in the termination of a pregnancy." In addition, "a physician whose moral or religious beliefs prevent him or her from recommending or performing an abortion should inform the patient of this so that she may consult another physician."

Insisting that doctors be allowed to follow their conscience is a fundamental right for doctors. I would never want be advised by my doctor on any matter, knowing that he had parked his conscience at the door that morning.

What is disturbing about Ms. Saporta's comments, and others like her, is that they say things "like abortion is medically necessary" by simply slipping them into the conversation as if it were true. Then they repeat them over and over and eventually people just start believing they are true.

Take Dr. Bernard Nathanson for example. He was responsible for over 75,000 abortions before he finally had a change of heart. He said that slogans like "Women must have control over their own bodies." were made up. That they fabricated the results of fictional polls to simply show what they wanted us to believe.

I suggest you google Dr. Nathanson's name. You won't see his name come up on any pro-choice websites. I don't imagine the abortion advocates were too happy when he started telling the truth.

I think at this point, our Martian friend at the back of the room must be really confused. "You mean the truth isn't always the truth?"

Part 1...Women's "Rights"
Part 2...When the truth isn't the truth
Part 3...Translating Dr. Henry Morgentaler
Part 4...Why late-term abortions are not inconsequential