Taxpayer funded pornography

In case you were wondering where Planned Parenthood got their funds to print and distribute their pornographic cards to school children... they got it from you, the taxpayer. To the tune of $1.8 million over the past three years. From all three levels of government.

Canadian abortion statistics 2015-2019

I continue to receive abortion statistics from my access to information requests from the provinces and territories of Canada.

I am only missing Northwest Territories. I will post NWT once I receive the information.

Below are all of my most recent posts on abortion statistics in Canada from this year.

PEI
Yukon
Nunavut
New Brunswick (Part 1)

Gaining insight into New Brunswick's abortion statistics (Part 2)

Newfoundland and Labrador
Nova Scotia
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
British Columbia
Canadian abortion statistics: who does, and who does not, report medical abortions
Canada abortion rates by province
The never ending story of abortion statistics in Canada
Alberta abortion codes
UPDATE: Alberta abortion statistics for 2015/2016 to 2018/2019
UPDATE The facts about abortions statistics in Canada
2018 abortion numbers - are they going up or down?
Late term live-birth abortions in Canada - the Series

"Pro-choicers" attempt to kill conscience rights

Maurice Vellacott, MP
Saskatoon-Wanuskewin

Saskatchewan physicians to be forced

to participate in killing their patients

For Immediate Release January 29, 2015

OTTAWA – “The assault on freedom of conscience that is spreading across our country ought to be of grave concern to every freedom-loving Canadian ,” MP Maurice Vellacott said upon learning of yet another province (this time his own) that plans to force physicians to participate in morally objectionable procedures, including those that kill. “No health care worker should be forced against their will to take part in the killing of another human being. It would be a grotesque violation of their human dignity.”

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan (CPSS) has adopted in principle a policyⁱ which it basically “cut and paste” from the Conscience Research Group’s (CRG’s) Model Policy on Conscientious Objection in Medicine.ⁱⁱ

Mr. Vellcott asked a series of questions that paint a disturbing picture of the process, or lack thereof, that went into CPSS’s adoption of this objectionable policy: “Was the CPSS aware that the drafters of the Model Policy, notably Professor Jocelyn Downie of Dalhousie University, are abortion and euthanasia activists? Did the CPSS solicit input from anyone other than Professor Downie and her team at the CRGⁱⁱⁱ before adopting this policy? Did the Saskatchewan College let on to anyone else that it was even considering this issue? Is the CPSS aware that this policy was rejected by the Canadian Medical Association (CMA)?”

Mr. Vellacott explained: “Professor Downie and co-author Sanda Rodgers, in a 2006 guest editorial in the CMA Journal, ignited a firestorm of controversy when they falsely claimed that CMA policy requires physicians to make abortion referrals regardless of their conscientious/religious beliefs. As Sean Murphy, Administrator of the Protection of Conscience Project, points out in his recent news release, that claim was repudiated by the CMA and vehemently rejected by physicians. And partly as a result of that negative response, Professor Downie turned her attention to the regulatory Colleges to try to convince them to impose mandatory referral.”^iv

Earlier this month, Mr. Vellacott spoke out against a similar draft policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO). At that time, he expressed concerns that if the Supreme Court of Canada strikes down Canada’s current ban on euthanasia or assisted suicide, then CPSO’s policy would mean Ontario’s physicians would have a ‘duty to refer’ patients for these life-ending procedures. He stressed that no other jurisdiction that currently allows euthanasia or assisted suicide imposes such an obligation. ^v

“While the CPSO policy is not identical to the CPSS/CRG Model Policy, in principle it is the same—a coercive attempt to involve physicians in the killing of some of the most vulnerable members of our human family,” Mr. Vellacott said. “The sheer fact that these Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons feel that a coercive policy of referral for these controversial procedures is necessary, is itself testament to the fact that there is something inherently problematic about these procedures in the first place. If they were procedures just like any other medical procedure, there’d be no need to coerce physicians into sacrificing a fundamental part of who they are—their very consciences—in order to provide them.”

“No good can come from forcing a doctor to practice medicine in a way they find morally reprehensible. Killing the consciences of our medical doctors will cause inestimable harm to the people of Canada and society as a whole.”

“One cannot help but wonder, what is the real motivation of those pushing us down this dangerous path? And will we have the courage and wisdom and foresight to stop it?”

For information on providing input to CPSS on its draft policy, visit: http://www.cps.sk.ca/CPSS/CouncilAndCommittees/Council_Consultations_and_Surveys.aspx

– 30 –

For further information and comment, call (613) 992-1966 or (613) 297-2249; email: maurice.vellacott.a1@parl.gc.ca

i The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan (CPSS) is currently seeking input on a conscientious objection policy dubbed “Conscientious Refusal,” which it has adopted in principle. This policy would require physicians who object to providing certain “legally permissible and publicly-funded health services” to “make a timely referral to another health care provider who is willing and able to accept the patient and provide the service.” In cases where the patient’s “health or well-being” would be jeopardized by a delay in finding another physician, the physician would be forced to provide the service even when it “conflicts with physicians’ deeply held and considered moral or religious beliefs.” See: http://www.cps.sk.ca/Documents/Council/2015%201%2019%20Conscientious%20Objection%20policy%20approved%20in%20principle%20by%20Council.pdf

ii http://carolynmcleod.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/04_Downie-McLeod-Shaw.pdf

iii http://conscience.carolynmcleod.com/meet-the-team/

iv “Saskatchewan physicians to be forced to do what they believe to be wrong,” Protection of Conscience Project news release, Jan. 27, 2015, 

http://consciencelaws.org/blog/?p=5548

v See Jan. 8, 2015 news release at: http://www.mauricevellacott.ca/2003%20MV%20Speaks/Jan.%208,%202015%20-%20MV%20Release%20-%20No%20legal%20%27duty%20to%20refer%27%20for%20euthanasia%20or%20assisted%20suicide%20anywhere%20in%20the%20world.pdf ; and Backgrounder at: http://www.mauricevellacott.ca/2003%20MV%20Speaks/Jan.%208,%202015%20-%20MV%20Release%20-%20No%20legal%20%27duty%20to%20refer%27%20for%20euthanasia%20or%20assisted%20suicide%20anywhere%20in%20the%20world%20-%20Backgrounder.pdf

Practising Catholic does not an NDP make

This is one for the books.

The Star Phoenix tells us that Saskatoon doctor Ryan Meili is running for the leadership of the Saskatchewan NDP. Meili is a doctor, and says he is a practicing Catholic. And he says that his position on abortion is not at odds with being a Catholic. Interesting:
"To put it simply, I am a practising Catholic, but I'm also a practising physician and a practising New Democrat," Meili said. "That means I've probably had more practice than most actually digging into this issue and it is an issue on which I still have my own personal beliefs."

I'm having some problems with his statement "I am a practising Catholic, but I'm also a practising physician and a practising New Democrat".

One can be a non-practising Catholic, a practising physician and a practising New Democrat.

Or one can be a practising Catholic, a practising physician and a non-practising New Democrat (well, maybe).

But a practising Catholic, a practising physician and a practising New Democrat? Dr. Meili, make up your mind. Practising Catholics are against abortion, and New Democrats are not against abortion. Simple really.

Then the good doctor says:
"But I recognize the distinction between personal beliefs and political and legal policy and what I see in terms of policy around this is this (abortion) is a legal procedure and it should remain so and it should be (part of) a full spectrum of reproductive health services from education to contraception to termination for those who choose and all the other options for those who choose other options."

I always get woozy when I hear someone say they make a distinction between their personal beliefs and political policy. How can there be a distinction between the two? It reminds me of the philosophy, "I'm personally against abortion, but would never tell a woman she couldn't have one." How can abortion be morally wrong for myself, but not morally wrong for someone else? What if I told you I was personally against lying, but that lying was fine for the rest of the population? Does that make sense?

I think the doctor has some issues. I hope he figures them out soon.