Globe and Mail - your bias is showing

I just read this by ELIZABETH RENZETTI about the closing of the Morgentaler clinc in New Brunswick

Abortion in New Brunswick: The vise tightens, and activists push back

"With a provincial election looming in September, New Brunswick Liberal Leader Brian Gallant has promised a “review” of the province’s abortion policy if his party wins, but that is hardly a ringing call to equal access for all, or a promise to get rid of Regulation 84-20, which prevents women in the province having the same rights as women across the country. 

The fight for reproductive freedom in New Brunswick has been long and bitter, even before then-premier Frank McKenna laid down his challenge: “If Mr. Morgentaler tries to open a clinic in the province of New Brunswick, he’s going to get the fight of his life.” Now, 25 years later, Dr. Morgentaler is gone and the clinic that bears his name is on the verge of disappearing, too. That is, unless some generous people across the country decide that this is a fight worth digging deep for, in the understanding that when some of us lose our rights, we all do."

"reproductive freedom" , "lose our rights", "equal access for all", "prevents women in the province having the same rights as women across the country."

It's all there. The "pro-choice" manifesto key-words for beginners.

So then I went to the three links on the same page under the title:

MORE RELATED TO THIS STORY

• KONRAD YAKABUSKI Does a doctor’s religion trump your prescription?
• GLOBE EDITORIAL Don’t try to separate abortion from maternal health
• GOLDENBERG Trudeau’s pro-choice decree is democratic, not dictatorial

More "pro-choice" dogma, all of them.

So I went searching on the Globe's site for maybe, you know, a pro-life viewpoint? Nope. There is none. Two more "pro-choice" pieces:

Outside big cities, abortion services still hard to find

Canada must do more to prevent unsafe abortions (by Niki Ashton and HÉLÈNE LAVERDIÈRE)

"Access to safe abortion doesn’t just save lives. The evidence is irrefutable – women and girls who have access to the full range of family planning services are healthier, better educated and contribute more to their national economies and societies. Canada needs to lead with a comprehensive approach to gender equality that is evidence-based and centered on empowering women and girls. 

For New Democrats, access to safe abortion is a human right. We know that family planning and reproductive choice play a crucial role in the well-being of women. Women who have access to the full range of family planning options are empowered to make better decisions about caring for their family. It also gives women an opportunity to realize their full potential by allowing them to fully participate in their economies and communities."

Now I did find this by Margaret Wente, which was at least somewhat balanced:
Spare me the abortion absolutism

Then I found this video:
Is ‘Emily’s Abortion Video’ an accurate depiction of what it’s like to have an abortion?

It broke my heart. Emily says:

"I don't feel like a bad person. I don't feel guilty. I feel in awe that I can make a baby, That I can make a life. I knew that what I was going to was right. It was right for me and no-one else."

All I could think about when watching the video, was that a very young child just lost her life. While the cameras were rolling. All in the name of a women's rights. They don't talk about that at the Globe and Mail.

Violation of freedom of expression rights

Our case in a nutshell

It's that the government, and the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC), have misinterpreted FIPPA.

Our position is that section 65(5.7) of FIPPA cannot mean a ban on all materials related to the provision of abortion services, but must mean a ban on materials related to the provision of abortion services which contain personal information.

Remember that FIPPA has two goals: to make government documents public, and to protect personal privacy.

The amount of abortions and the cost of those abortions, is not personal information, and so keeping those private, do not match up with the goals of FIPPA.

Section 65(5.7) must then mean, and must have been intended, to cover only materials related to the provision of abortion services which contain personal information. This position supports a constitutional interpretation of FIPPA. Section 2(b) of the Charter protects your right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

As a blogger, I benefit from freedom of the press.

In order for me to use my freedom of expression, and comment on issues of public importance, such as abortion and the use of taxpayer dollars, I need access to these documents.

The government and the IPC’s interpretation of section 65(5.7) results in a violation of my freedom of expression. It cannot therefore be a proper interpretation.

Educating conservatives

Listen to John Robson's excellent rant on how Conservatives in Ontario, and Federally, aren't really conservative at all. It was aired on June 30, 2014 on CFRA.

Starts around 17 minutes into the segment.

On the Ontario Conservatives and Tim Hudak:

"[The Conservatives] are not hard right--if you go any further left, you'll bump your head on Kathleen Wynne."
"Hard right [for the Conservatives] is to imitate Dalton Mcguinty."

On Tim Hudak:

"what did he say about abortion? Nothing. What did he say about religion? Nothing...what did he say about anything other than money. That's not right wing. That's demented neo-liberalism progressivism. What did he say about law and order? Nothing?..."

On Stephen Harper:

"Here's a guy who won't touch the moral issues with a 39 and a half foot pole...has dramatically increased government spending, talks a good game on the military but has actually gutted it--that's not conservatism. Conservatism would take a stand on things other than 'money buying you happiness'...they're all progressive and no conservative already..."

This audio should be mandatory listening for all of our Conservative MPPs, and MPs. Not that they would. But they should.

Human rights belong to everyone

Graphic abortion flyers anger neighbourhood

People in Ottawa don't like graphic abortion flyers at their door. That's because graphic abortion pictures show us a truth that people would prefer not to know.

"Parents can't shield their kids from everything, said Ruth Shaw, a stay-at-home mom who founded the local group and as a Carleton University student was arrested for trespassing for demonstrating on campus with graphic images of aborted fetuses. 

"In that moment, there's a great teaching opportunity to teach our children that we shouldn't hurt children, that everyone deserves rights and we should do what we can to stop other people from being hurt," she said."

This teaching opportunity is also really needed for the children's parents. Because many parents don't get that human rights belong to all of us. Even the preborn child.

Doctors and the right of freedom of conscience

John Carpay and a doctor's right to follow his or her conscience in treating or not treating patients:

"...If a doctor, based on her experience and research, believes that liberation therapy (dilating and opening blocked neck veins) is not a good option for patients suffering from multiple sclerosis, must she provide that therapy simply because the patient demands it? 

What about a doctor who is convinced that anti-cholesterol pills do more harm than good? What if a doctor refuses to prescribe birth control pills because she believes, apart from any religious teaching, that they compromise women’s health? Should this physician disregard her own research, analysis and conclusions and prescribe what she considers to be a dangerous product? 

Does it really matter whether the doctor’s belief is characterized as scientific, religious, metaphysical, conscientious, or something else? 

Certainly a doctor’s beliefs about what is, or is not, good medicine will sometimes inconvenience a patient. But what would be the consequences of forcing doctors to abandon their professional judgment and violate their conscience in order to pander to patients’ wishes? If the government compels doctors to supply whatever patients demand, this presupposes that a patient’s knowledge, training and judgment is at least equal to that of the doctor’s. And if so, why bother with a medical profession in the first place? If individual doctors don’t have the right to reach their own conclusions as to what is good or bad, why bother to distinguish doctors from those who are not doctors? 

These same questions apply to other professions and occupations. Would Jim Prentice (who is a lawyer) impose this same standard on lawyers who refuse to act for a client, or who decline to take a particular case, because the lawyer’s conscience says that doing so would be wrong? Our legal system is as public as the medical system. Why not remove from lawyers their current right to refuse to advance a cause that the lawyer believes to be unjust? Should lawyers be permitted to inconvenience prospective clients by telling them to find another lawyer? Shouldn’t clients be entitled to receive from a particular lawyer whatever services they demand?...

...If Jim Prentice respects the freedom of lawyers to decline cases and clients, he should support the right of doctors — and everyone else — to do likewise. That would be consistent with the free society of which Albertans are rightfully proud."