CIDA funding to IPPF - the series

Here are all my writings on the funding CIDA (now called DFATD or Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada) has given to IPPF (International Planned Parenthood).

Monday, July 20, 2015
IPPF - Menstrual Regulation or Erratic Regulation?

Monday, February 16, 2015
IPPF and Depo-Provera: what about informed consent?

IPPF: 45 million services, but no abortion?
Friday, December 12, 2014

Government of Bangladesh dismisses board of FPAB
Tuesday, October 7, 2014

DFATD and IPPF - the numbers don't add up
September 23, 2014

DFATD and IPPF - check your numbers
September 22, 2014

DFATD and IPPF - 45,118 people not sterilized in Tanzania
September 22, 2014

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MP questions CIDA due diligence insuring IPPF isn't funding abortions

May 4, 2014

Canadian money to IPPF for funding "safe abortion care" and "emergency contraception" in Afghanistan
May 2, 2014

IMPLANON in Sudan: tip of the iceberg?
April 15, 2014

So how much has CIDA given IPPF anyway?
March 31, 2014

Jadelle not purchased for Tanzania - instead purchased for Mali
March 30, 2014

CIDA does IPPF site visits in only two of five countries

Dec 10, 2013, 2013 

What's going on in Bangladesh?

Oct 15, 2013 

CIDA and IPPF and abortion - Fact Sheets

Oct 04, 2013 

CIDA - when due diligence isn't diligent

Sep 28, 2013

What's not good enough for us is good enough for Tanzania

Sep 14, 2013

Run With Life: ATIP: CIDA and IPPF (Part 4)

Jan 23, 2012

ATIP: CIDA and IPPF (Part 3)

Jan 23, 2012 

ATIP: CIDA and IPPF (Part 2)

Jan 23, 2012 

Run With Life: ATIP: CIDA and IPPF (more to come...)

Jan 21, 2012

Gestational abortion laws are moral and logical

Alliance for Life Ontario has responded to the gestational legislation approach to abortion.

I am concerned with this statement. Many pro-life people do support a gestational approach, an approach that is clearly not intrinsically immoral, as Archbishop Miller has already stated, and confirmed by Cardinal Collins, and Priests for Life Canada. Yet AFLO continues to say there is something morally wrong with this approach.

 Archbishop Miller said:

"Under the conditions articulated in Evangelium Vitae, n. 73, it is morally licit to work for and to vote for legislation, including gestational legislation, which limits the harmful effects of an unjust legal regime that permits abortion. 

At the same time, it is also morally licit to withhold support for gestational legislation — and other incrementalist legislative strategies intended to limit access to abortion — if, after prudent reflection, one is convinced that it is an unwise legislative strategy. 

The conditions articulated in Evangelium Vitae, n. 73 can be applied to the situation in Canada today with regard to gestational legislation. The Catholic faithful are free to support such legislation in good conscience. This does not mean, however, that Catholics are compelled to support gestational legislation. 

We pray that the prolife movement may not be divided in spirit by disagreements regarding the practical wisdom of gestational legislation. We implore all within the movement to refrain from questioning the good will or motives of those who have taken a different stand from their own on this issue."

Respected spiritual leaders have told us that a gestational approach is not an inherently immoral strategy, but a matter of prudential judgement. AFLO/CLC continues to contradict this. Saying that a gestational approach is immoral and intrinsically evil, judges these spiritual leaders as acting immorally. It also judges my actions as being immoral. That is what it means to support an immoral act: one is acting immorally. This is troubling.

In this latest statement, AFLO brings up a drowning baby analogy and says:

"Some supporters of gestational legislation have compared the present abortion situation in Canada with the scenario of two drowning children. “Aren’t you going to save one?” they ask. This is so misleading."

I don't know what is misleading about this at all. I actually think the analogy doesn't go far enough. Let me expand upon it.

I am standing by a river with a friend. We see two babies drowning.

I know that I will probably only have time to save one baby so I want to jump in and save her. I do this knowing that the other baby will probably drown. At least I know I can probably save one of them.

But my friend believes it would be immoral to save only one of those babies because both babies equally deserve to live. So when I attempt to save one baby, my friend pulls me back because she knows there is only time to save one baby and she believes it’s wrong to save only one baby.

Not only does my friend not help me to save the one baby, but she also actively intervenes to prevent me from saving the one baby. As a result, both babies drown. I could  probably have saved one of them if my friend did not believe that it was intrinsically immoral to save only one baby.

My friend has actively thwarted my efforts to save a drowning baby’s life. I am devastated.

This is exactly how I feel when anti-gestational pro-lifers try to persuade other pro-lifers that gestational limits are intrinsically immoral; I feel like they are thwarting our efforts to save lives.

I urge those who believe setting a gestational limit on abortion is intrinsically evil and immoral, to re-read Archbishop Miller's entire statement and discern for themselves how they regard gestational legislation.

Ontario Government is still pretending

Dear Ms. Wynne (and to Mr. Milloy Minister of Government Services),

I am still waiting to hear from you regarding my question from October 2013.

That's rather interesting, especially since I notice that in your press release from today that you will be:

"Setting a high standard for accountability and transparency is part of the government's plan to make it more open and accountable to the people of Ontario."

Since I am one of those people residing in Ontario to whom your government is supposedly open and accountable to, frankly, I am having a lot of difficulty in comprehending how this can in fact be true. Especially since I have now waited almost five months for an answer from you regarding a very simple question indeed.

I look forward to hearing back from you at your earliest possible convenience.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Creating embryos using DNA from three people

Scary scary scary:

"The provocative notion of genetically modified babies met the very real world of federal regulation Tuesday, as a government advisory committee began debating a new technique that combines DNA from three people to create embryos free of certain inherited diseases."

98% of Canadians supported Motion 312

My latest ATIP to the Privy Council Office revealed that Motion 312 had 98% support from Canadians who wrote to the Prime Minister.

That is, 1033 of the 1054 letters, written to Stephen Harper, supported Stephen Woodworth's Motion which:

"asked that a special committee of the House of Commons be appointed and directed to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth. 91 members showed support for the bill asking that the special committee be appointed. Unfortunately, 203 members voted against the appointment of the special committee."

Rod Bruinooge's Bill C-510 had 97% support
Mark Warawa's Motion 408 had 99.7% support

Once again, we see a Prime Minister completely out of step with the Canadian public he supposedly serves.

Back as far as 2001 we had politicians playing the run-away-from-anything-relating-to-abortion game, when Alberta Premier Ralph Klein did it:

"Discussing the possibility of defunding abortion, Klein said in a press conference that “The chances, I believe, are slim and none.” The Edmonton Sun reported that when pressed on whether the issue was open to debate, Klein said, “No, it’s not. Not at all. No. Full stop.” In the legislature, Klein went further, saying “My position is that this is a matter between a woman, her doctor and her God.”

Now it's almost all politicians who play this game. Apparently there's not a backbone in the lot of them.
 
So what is it exactly is going on here? Is it that our fearless leader Mr. Harper is in fact fearful of a very tiny minority of pro-abortion extremists? Or is it that Mr. Harper is simply the de facto pro-choice leader in Canada?