Action item for Ontario election

Since we are having an election, will you do me a favour? Will you ask your provincial candidate about the abortion exclusion clause?

Anyone who follows this blog, knows that the Liberals have been hiding Ontario's abortion statistics since 2012.

Here's a reminder, in case you forgot:

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act See section 65.(5.7) “This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services.” 

Bill 122: Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010 See Part VIII, section 24 (17) which amends FIPPA by adding subsection (5.7) to section 65. 

This amendment to FIPPA was not debated in the Ontario legislature, was not considered at committee hearings, and was passed into law without any input whatsoever from the public, and without any public comments by a single member of the Ontario legislature. The amendment goes against the spirit of Bill 122, which was supposed to increase accountability, not reduce it.

You will also know that Kathleen Wynne and her Health Minister Deb Matthews have both refused to give me the reasons why they are hiding abortion statistics. So we have to assume it's for ideological reasons.

Kathleen Wynne even had the audacity to launch an Open and Transparent Government initiative, at the same time she was refusing to answer my questions. How's that for irony?

My own MPP Madeleine Meilleur also can't tell me the reasons for the exclusion clause, and hasn't helped me get any answers either. She told me that Minister Deb Matthews has all the answer to my questions. Yet Ms. Matthews has been spectacularly useless in giving me any answers. Ms. Meilleur also thinks that the hospitals and doctors wanted the abortion exclusion clause, when there's absolutely no evidence of this at the public hearings held,

There is no question that the Liberals have got to go.

Yet, I've also tried unsuccessfully to get Conservative leader Tim Hudak to respond to my questions about why his opposition party did nothing to stop this from happening. He, and every member of his caucus, have also stayed mute on the subject. Even after I have emailed them numerous times.

So...I am hoping that every democracy loving person in Ontario will take a minute and ask the candidates in their riding a couple of questions. Because as I've noted before, this is not a pro-life vs pro-choice issue.

I'd like you to ask them if they would work to restore our access to information rights in Ontario? If they will work to ensure, that all medical services including abortion, will be open to public scrutiny?

Because if a government in power can--for purely ideological reasons--hide information on this medical service that we know costs us at least $30-50 million a year, what other services could a government hide in the future?

Something to think about.

I can guarantee you that the candidates won't be making this an election issue. It's up to us to make it one.

Cardinal Collins: limit abortion bit by bit

Thursday May 8, 2014 this week will be the annual March for Life.

Last year I wasn't at the March as I was out of the country. So I didn't hear Cardinal Collins homily at St. Patrick's basilica in Ottawa.

My sister taped it though and here is the link.

He advised us to do what we can to limit the evil, bit by bit. To fight for legal limits on abortion one step at a time, since we may not be able to accomplish it all at once.

"...We need to think clearly. We reflect upon how we best can be faithful in proclaiming the Gospel of Life. It's not enough simply to proclaim the Gospel of Life. That's necessary but it's not sufficient. We need to do it faithfully and effectively. We need to look to ways we can creatively help those people who cannot see the value of human life from conception 'til natural death. How can we help people see the truth? We have to look at ways, for example that we can find in the bills of Parliament, that we can limit abortion...more that's good...and then more that's better....then even more, that's better...we may not be able to do it all at once now, but it is far better to limit it, limit it, limit it, persistently, rather than say unless we can do it totally now, like that, we won't do it at all, we'll wait 'til we can do it perfectly.. God expects of us that we will think it through, not for our sake but for the sake of the people we serve."

Cardinal Collins is pretty clear that abortion incrementalism is how we accomplish fighting the evil that is abortion.

The murderer was only an abortion doctor

From Ezra Levant in the Toronto Sun.

"...Why were the benches in the courtroom, set aside for media, nearly empty, week after week? 

The answer is obvious: Because the murderer was an abortion doctor, in an abortion clinic, committing hundreds of late-term, partial-birth abortions and full-birth murders, usually of minorities, usually paid for by taxpayers. 

That sort of horror story would sell. Too well. Because it would undermine the official narrative that abortions can't be criticized, that late-term abortions are a myth, that it's all safe and sound and medically approved and happy. That happy left-wing pro-abortion narrative would be damaged by reports of a multimillionaire abortionist, getting rich off murder, operating in the system for decades. 

So, the story itself was aborted. 

Enter filmmakers Phelim McAleer, Ann McElhinney and Magda Segieda. They have decided to do what Big Hollywood won't: To make a true crime TV movie about Kermit Gosnell.
They're raising $2.1 million, not from Hollywood studios, but online. They're crowd-funding it, in thousands of little contributions from ordinary Americans and Canadians. 

Do you think this movie should be made? If so, you can help make it. Go to www.GosnellMovie.com. It's a story that must be told."

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

We now have more cause for concern regarding CIDA/DFATD's $6 million funding of IPPF.

In an ATIP to DFATD I asked for correspondence regarding the Muskoka initiative on maternal and child health.to the PMO and CIDA.

This yielded a few letters, but one in particular was noteworthy.

On October 27, 2011, in a very detailed letter from MP Maurice Vellacott to Stephen Harper, Mr. Vellacott voices his concerns to the Prime Minister by asking seven questions about the $6 million funding IPPF received as part of the Muskoka initiative. (see below for Mr. Vellacott's letter and the responses from Mr. Harper and Ms. Oda).

In a nutshell, Mr. Vellacott's questions what due diligence is in place to ensure the funding would not go to pay for any abortion services, as was stipulated by the contribution agreement between CIDA and IPPF. All pertinent questions I thought, some of which I've also asked myself to CIDA/DFATD. (For all my links to the CIDA/IPPF funding see this page.)

The Prime Minister doesn't answer any of Mr. Vellacott's questions. Not one. And then the PM simply forwards Mr. Vellacott's letter on, to then Minister Bev Oda, who also doesn't answer any of his questions. Not one. In fact Ms. Oda's reply is obviously a form letter, since it is exactly the same as all of her responses to the other letters in the package.

So why were Mr. Vellacott's questions never answered?

Canadian money to IPPF for funding "safe abortion care" and "emergency contraception" in Afghanistan

Despite assurances by the Federal government that no Canadian money given to IPPF would go towards abortion, my latest ATIP to CIDA/DFATD revealed that IPPF is buying "emergency contraception" (34,000 units of the Abbot drug Postinor -2 (Levonorgestrel)). They are also providing "safe abortion care" in Afghanistan.

As we know, "emergency contraception" is taken after sexual intercourse for the purpose of "preventing" pregnancy, but it functions as an abortifacient if fertilization has already occurred (it prevents implantation of the embryo, thus destroying the life of the newly conceived human being.)

(See below for page 30 from the IPPF Annual Report Year 2 (1 April 2012 - 31 March 2013) and page 88 from the IPPF Midyear Report (1 April to 30 September 2013).

In fact, according to this medical leaflet, Postinor-2 is only used as emergency contraception:

"Postinor-2 is an emergency contraceptive only. Postinor-2 is not intended as a regular method of contraception. It is used to prevent pregnancy when taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse. It is estimated that Postinor-2 will prevent 85% of expected pregnancies. 95% of expected pregnancies will be prevented if taken within the first 24 hours, declining to 58% if taken between 48 hours and 72 hours after unprotected intercourse."

Not only that. Apparently AFGA's abortion services "needs improvement." (Afghan Family Guidance Association is an associate member of International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and receives funding from IPPF).

Why is AFGA providing abortion care, when we aren't even supposed to be funding abortion services in these countries?

This is what the Population Research Institute says about the legality of abortion, and emergency contraception in Afghanistan:

"The current Afghanistan abortion law mandates a seven-year prison term and a monetary fine for each abortion performed. The only exception requires the written opinion of physicians, and a judicial review. According to strict and clear guidelines promulgated by the Ministry of Justice, this same law would apply to anyone who has prescribed “morning-after pills” or “emergency contraception” in Afghanistan, or even to anyone carrying these devices in the country."

IPPF states in their annual report that this funding is directed towards:

"women, girls, men and boys who need access to reproductive health services and information. Clients reached throughout this project are female, male, young and old, couples and families in five countries (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Mali, Sudan and Tanzania). The project prioritizes vulnerable individuals and groups, and also young people, especially young women. Seventy per cent of all the clients served through the project are poor, marginalized, socially excluded and/or underserved, while 33% of all clients are young people, aged between 15-25 years."

Are these poor, marginalized and vulnerable young women, even told what emergency contraceptive is? That it doesn't necessarily prevent conception--i.e. that if fertilization (conception) has occurred, it destroys that newly conceived life by preventing implantation. In other words, are these poor, marginalized and vulnerable clients giving their informed consent?

By all accounts, this is a pretty clear indication to me, that we are providing abortion services in Afghanistan. Abortion services that are specifically excluded from the terms and conditions of the $6 million dollar grant we gave to IPPF.

This should cause us grave concern.