Dear Kathleen - Does this mean you will stop hiding abortion information?

Received this from Ontario's "Open Government initiative":

"Almost 800 votes were received from ideas submitted as part of our recent Open Government Consultation. We’ve tallied the votes and are excited to share the top-voted ideas in each category.

Category	Top-Voted Idea
Transparency	Adopt the international Open Data Charter and its 6 principles for all Ontario ministry and provincial agency data.
Accountability	Implement all of the recommendations made by the Open Government Engagement Team.
Public Participation	Create a way for constituents to communicate with their MPPs online, in order to be included in the decision-making process, such as through surveys of their views on what works best in each riding.
Technology Innovation	Create a dashboard to provide citizens with information about key government outcomes, metrics and initiatives.

Here is a ranked list of all your favourite ideas. 

Remember, the top ideas will be assessed during in-person and online workshops.  So register today to join civil society organizations, public servants and passionate members of your community to help us identify meaningful Open Government Commitments that can be implemented in 2017.

Workshops will be taking place on the following dates:

October 24 – Toronto – Ontario Trade Centre, 250 Yonge St. – 3:30 – 6:00 pm

October 25 – Online – Open ON Forum – 12:00 pm – 2:30 pm

October 26 – Ottawa – University of Ottawa – 3- 5:30 pm

(Full details will be sent out to those who register for the sessions)

Space is limited, so click on the session that works for you and let us know which workshop you want to attend.  Deadline to RSVP is Friday, October 21. Refreshments will be served.

Can’t make these sessions and really want to participate? Email us at Opengov@ontario.caand we will work something out.

Thank you in advance for your participation in this important initiative. 

Open Government Office"

Notice the top voted idea, is Transparency: "Adopt the international Open Data Charter and its 6 principles for all Ontario ministry and provincial agency data."

And the very first principle of this idea is "Open by default":

1. "We recognize that the term “government data” includes, but is not limited to, data held by national, regional, local, and city governments, international governmental bodies, and other types of institutions in the wider public sector. The term government data could also apply to data created for governments by external organizations, and data of significant benefit to the public that is held by external organizations and related to government programs and services (e.g. data on extractives entities, data on transportation infrastructure, etc.).
2. We recognize that free access to, and subsequent use of, government data is of significant value to society and the economy, and that government data should, therefore, be open by default.
3. We acknowledge the need to promote the global development and adoption of resources, standards, and policies for the creation, use, exchange, and harmonization of open data.
4. We recognize that open data can only be unlocked when citizens are confident that open data will not compromise their right to privacy, and that citizens have the right to influence the collection and use of their own personal data or of data generated as a result of their interactions with governments.
5. We will:
   a. Develop and adopt policies and practices to ensure that all government data is made open by default, as outlined in this Charter, while recognizing that there are legitimate reasons why some data cannot be released;
   b. Provide clear justifications as to why certain data cannot be released;
   c. Establish a culture of openness, not only through legislative and policy measures, but also with the help of training and awareness programs, tools, guidelines, and communication strategies designed to make government, civil society, and private sector representatives aware of the benefits of open data;
   d. Develop the leadership, management, oversight, performance incentives, and internal communication policies necessary to enable this transition to a culture of openness in all government departments and agencies, including official statistics organizations;
   e. Observe domestic laws and internationally recognized standards, in particular those pertaining to security, privacy, confidentiality, and intellectual property. Where relevant legislation or regulations do not exist or are out of date, they will be created and/or updated; and
   f. In accordance with privacy legislation and standards, anonymize data prior to its publication, ensuring that sensitive, personally-identifiable data is removed."

If this is what Ontario citizens want, I guess it means Kathleen Wynne and her secretive Liberal government will overturn their hiding of abortions information?

Kathleen Wynne still pretending "open government"

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 11

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 10

"In my view, to deny access to generalized, non-identifying statistics regarding an important public policy issue such as the provision of abortion services would have the effect of hindering citizens’ ability to participate meaningfully in the democratic process and undermine the government’s accountability to the public." Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2000

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 9

“Information sharing should not be impeded because of excessive classification rules …. we must work to extinguish the belief that those who collect information own it.” -- William P. Crowell, Markle Task Force on National Security in The Information Age, testifying before the House Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, 8 Nov. 2005

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 8

"After I had been confirmed as federal Information Commissioner, I met with the former Commissioner, John Grace, to get his advice.  One thing he said struck me in particular; he said that in his seven years as Privacy Commissioner and eight years as Information Commissioner (a total of 15 years spent reviewing the records which government wanted to withhold from Canadians) he hadn't seen a really good secret.  My experience is much the same over the first year of my term.  For the most part, officials love secrecy because it is a tool of power and control, not because the information they hold is particularly sensitive by nature." 

John Reid, 1999

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 7

"Government ought to be all outside and no inside. . . . Everybody knows that corruption thrives in secret places, and avoids public places, and we believe it a fair presumption that secrecy means impropriety." Woodrow Wilson"

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 6

"The overarching purpose of access to information legislation … is to facilitate democracy. It does so in two related ways. It helps to ensure first, that citizens have the information required to participate meaningfully in the democratic process, and secondly, that politicians and bureaucrats remain accountable to the citizenry." - Gerard LaForest, former Supreme Court of Canada Justice, in Dagg vs. Canada (1997)

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 5

"Government ought to be all outside and no inside. . . . Everybody knows that corruption thrives in secret places, and avoids public places, and we believe it a fair presumption that secrecy means impropriety." Woodrow Wilson

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 4

"I believe that a guarantee of public access to government  information is indispensable in the long run for any democratic society.... if officials make public only what they want citizens to know, then publicity becomes a sham and accountability meaningless." - Sissela Bok, Swedish philosopher, 1982

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 3

"A popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps both." - James Madison, 1832

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 2

"Secrecy and a free, democratic government don't mix." Pres. Harry Truman

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 1

"Every thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show it can bear discussion and publicity" - Lord Acton

How can we discuss abortion when we don't have data?

If you Google "how many abortions are done in Ontario each year?" the first link that comes up is a four page chart by pro-abortion Joyce Arthur.

So what does this chart reveal? It reveals there is a lot we don't know about Canadian abortion statistics in general, and Ontario abortion statistics in particular. Of course we already knew this right?

What is interesting about Arthur's charts is that she makes a lot of assumptions about the rate of abortion in Ontario. Which is fair; I always have to do the same. Because when you try and discuss anything without accurate data, you have to make assumptions--you have no choice.

I won't get into why I disagree with Arthur's assumptions, as I've already done that many times before, but right now, that isn't the point. Right now the point is that if you're trying to have a meaningful conversation about anything, never mind about something with as many political, social, and financial repercussions as abortion--well it's all kind of ridiculous, isn't it?

How can she and I even talk about the data and what it means, when we don't even have the data?

In fact, in Arthur's four page analysis, she devotes quite a bit of space to the assumptions she makes about Canada's statistics, including Ontario's abortion numbers based on my freedom of information requests for 2010, the last year we have decent Ontario abortion data. And she has to make assumptions. We all do, because our data is hidden at the whim of a government who did it for political reasons. A non-accountable, non-transparent, non-open government.

As a pro-life person, how can I meaningfully refute Joyce Arthur's assertions that abortions in Ontario are going down when I can't see the data? If someone out there in google land searches for Ontario abortion numbers in Ontario, they may think rates are going up, or that abortion rates are going down, depending on whose information they read. 

If abortions are really going down, or if they're really going up, and we know which, there would be no need to speculate or assume. All of us could then meaningfully comment on the facts we see, and then we could meaningfully discuss the implications of that reality.

This is why our Charter case is so very important.

If I was still able to get abortion information through freedom of information requests (based on OHIP billings), I would be able to tell you AND the pro-abortions the following facts about abortions in Ontario:

• How many abortions are done in doctor's offices
• How many medical abortions there are
• How many fetal reductions there are
• The total number of all clinic abortions
• Gestational age (weeks) of abortions done in clinics
• Gestational age (weeks) for the large "unknown" figure for hospital abortions
• Information on the method of abortion for clinic data
• The costs of abortion to the citizens of Ontario

And then I could meaningfully comment on the implications of these facts. Now I am only left guessing. And so is Joyce Arthur. 

When open and transparent government isn't

This is the best line I've read since I started my quest to get abortion statistics from the secretive Ontario government, who subsequently decided to hide that information.

“Our goal is to build Ontario up. That starts with leading an open and transparent government that is accountable to the people it serves. By making this legislation a priority, our government is moving forward with our commitment to lead the most open and transparent government in Canada.”

And it gets better. Who headed up this so-called "open and transparent" government initiative until just recently? Why none other than Deb-has-all-the answers-Matthews. Yes the very Deb Matthews who continually refused to answer my many questions to her about why she decided to hide abortion information in the first place. One and the same. I am not kidding.

Fixed toes would not be hidden under FIPPA

So this is what I don't understand. Why does Ontario health insurance pay to kill an unborn baby, but won't pay for a medically necessary operation on my toe? It cost me $900 to have an ingrown toenail surgically fixed. Luckily I have private insurance that will help with part of the cost.

Now we're not talking about cosmetic surgery here. And yes is was elective if you consider I could continue not having my toe fixed and put up with the pain every time I put on my shoe like I have for the past year. Sure you could call that elective surgery. If you must.

But if I were to have an abortion, well that would be fully funded. I could have one any time I want. And I could have as many abortions as I want too. None of them (or nearly none of them), medically necessary, all paid for courtesy of OHIP. Or should I say, courtesy the Ontario taxpayer.

And you know what else bugs me? If OHIP did cover the cost to fix my toe, well then, I would be able to find out how many Ontario toes are fixed each year, and how much those toes cost the taxpayer. I would simply do a freedom of information request. But I can't get the same information about abortions.

How's that for open, transparent and accountable government?

Hiding abortion information = unaccountable government

This story is interesting. For a couple of reasons: Mount Sinai Hospital’s refusal to eliminate one fetus from twin pregnancy triggers human rights battle

First of all, the story is about a woman who was refused an abortion on one of the two unborn twins she was carrying. Also known as a fetal reduction. Because she was refused, she hired lawyer Amir Attaran to file a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status. The woman wanted to see the policy of Mt. Sinai hospital:

"In an odd twist to the story, a recently prepared written policy on the issue — replacing the unwritten one followed at the time of the woman’s pregnancy last year — indicates the hospital has indeed reversed its position [on refusing the abortion].

"The policy — obtained by Attaran under Freedom of Information laws after hospital lawyers refused to divulge it — says elective fetal reduction is “ethically complex and divides many people,” but that patient autonomy should be given primacy in the area."

My radar immediately went up. How could Attaran obtain the policy from the hospital--a policy that is clearly about abortion--when all abortion related information in Ontario is excluded by the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act? So I checked with Mr. Attaran, and he confirmed for me that he did indeed obtain the information through an access to information request.

(As an aside, I contacted the hospital myself six days ago and asked them how this could happen. The hospital never responded to me.)

Second, so why was a lawyer able to get information, when I, a pro-life person, would not be able to get the same information? Because you may recall that I can no longer obtain access to abortion information from hospitals/government in Ontario. I don't know if Mr. Attaran is pro-choice or not, but I'm pretty sure the woman who hired him is pro-choice (clue: she had an abortion).

Third, this is a good example of pro-choice people also wanting to hold their hospitals/government to being open, transparent and accountable. Just like pro-life people want their hospitals/government to be open, transparent and accountable.

(Mind you if this woman and her lawyer were refused the information, I'm pretty sure the media would have been falling all over themselves with this story in a much broader way. After all, she was refused an abortion--the horror.)

Finally, guess how many fetal reductions there were in 2010? Seventy seven (77). Guess how many fetal reductions were done in 2011? We don't know. How many were done in 2012? We don't know. How many were done in 2013? We don't know. How many were done in 2014? We don't know. How many were done in 2015? We don't know.

Have fetal reductions gone up? Have they gone down? We have no idea. That's what happens when we allow our government to hide abortion information from us. Well, from some of us anyway.

Charter Challenge for Freedom of Expression goes to court

We've started to raise funds for our Charter Challenge against the Ontario government for hiding abortion information.

We also have our court date set for Feb 1, 2017.

If you can help financially that would be awesome.

Medically necessary help for autism and not abortion

In 2010, Ontario spent at least 70 million dollars on medically unnecessary abortions. (2010 is the last year we have accurate statistics for, because of the Ontario government's Official Abortion Secrecy Policy.)

Now we learn that there are parents with autism, who can't get treatment for their children, and have to pay for the treatment themselves, at great personal cost.

"Antonio and Linda Dimanbro have spent over $40,000 to help their son Anthony, 7, in the absence of provincial funding. They waited over three years for treatment, from Anthony’s diagnosis at the age of two-and-a-half until last year, when a fundraisers and friends and family helped fund his treatment. Kara Onofino and her husband have poured over $60,000 into support for their son Justin, 7 — but she also noted “it’s not fair” to families who can’t afford that."

Does this make any sense at all?

That 70 million could go a long way to helping families suffering from the lack of proper medical care for their children suffering autism, help that is actually medically necessary.

Kathleen Wynne should be ashamed of herself.

Pro-choice doctors want reporting of abortion services

Dear Health Minister Dr. Eric Hoskins,

I think you should read Monday's National Post, Censoring abortion statistics.

The article addresses what the Ontario Government is doing in Ontario: hiding abortion statistics:

"Despite abortion being a fully funded medical procedure, it is the only medical procedure where hospitals and clinics do not have to report statistics. This matters because transparency matters and, despite what governments and some media may tell you, Canadians are not united on the issue of abortion. In fact, up to 92 per cent of Canadians think there should be some restrictions on abortion, whether to eliminate late-term abortions, sex-selective abortions or other human rights violations."

According to (pro-choice) Canadian medical health researchers, Dr. Margaret A. Burnett and Dr. Jeanelle N. Sabourin,

“there is inconsistent and inadequate reporting of prevalence and complication rates of abortions in Canada, and improved reporting is necessary for quality assurance and to ensure safety.”
(M. A. Burnett and J. N. Sabourin, “A Review of Therapeutic Abortions and Related Areas of Concern in Canada,” Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 34, no. 6 (2012): 539.)

Clearly it's not only pro-life persons who care about abortion related information. Pro-choice doctors want it as well.

So why the censorship Mr. Hoskins?

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney