RU-486 can be lethal for women in remote areas

RU-486 (mifepristone) is a nasty drug. And Health Canada is considering approving it for abortions. 

The CBC thinks this is marvelous news:

"Approval of the drug would provide greater access to medical abortion for women in rural or remote parts of Canada."

And the Globe and Mail:

"NAF and other organizations that support bringing the medical abortion drug to Canada say it will make ending a pregnancy more discreet and widely available, especially in areas where services are scarce."

But this drug could be dangerous where "services are scarce" and in "remote parts of Canada".

If you look below where I post the possible side effects of this drug, you'll also notice that you must be near an emergency department because of the potentially very serious side effects, some lethal. 

"Visit your doctor, go to your nearest emergency department, or call for an ambulance if you experience any of the symptoms of serious complications described above during or after your medical termination."

So living in remote areas is a pipe dream imagined by the pro-abortions. And Canada is a huge country, with lots of remote and rural areas.

And for about 7 in 100 women, the drug fails.

Health Canada should think twice before they approve this drug. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Important side effects to consider

The side effects of mifepristone and misprostol are similar, but misoprostol is more likely than mifepristone to cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and headache. After taking these medicines, you may experience one or more of the common or very common side effects listed below, or you may not experience any of them:

• nausea
• vomiting
• diarrhoea
• dizziness
• abdominal cramps, pain or discomfort
• headache
• fatigue
• chills and fever (a temperature of 37.5°C or higher)
• fainting
• breast tenderness
• hot flushes, skin rashes or itching.

Talk to your health professional about possible side effects from these medicines before taking them.

If any of these side effects — or any other unexpected effects — concern you during the medical termination process, speak to your health professional.

Vaginal bleeding and abdominal pain and cramping are the expected effects of these medicines and, although unpleasant, they indicate that the termination is progressing as it should.

If you don’t experience vaginal bleeding, abdominal cramps and contractions of the uterus within 4 hours of taking misoprostol (the second medicine), this may indicate that the medical termination has failed. If this happens to you, visit a doctor urgently.

Signs of more-serious complications

If you experience a serious complication, you should be prepared and willing to access emergency medical help.

The following serious complications have been known to occur after termination of pregnancy with mifepristone/misprostol.

Persistent bleeding

Vaginal bleeding that is not heavy can continue for 10–16 days after a medical termination. If you continue to have bleeding after this, or if you are concerned about the amount or nature of bleeding at any time after having a medical termination, see your doctor.

If you experience heavy vaginal bleeding for more than 2 days after a medical termination, see a health professional immediately. Up to 4 in 1000 women will experience severe bleeding that requires a blood transfusion.

Infection

Infection of the organs or tissues in the pelvic region is an uncommon but serious complication that may occur in fewer than 1 in 100 women after a medical termination. If you have an infection, you may have some or all of the following symptoms:

• fever (37.5°C or higher)
• malaise (generally feeling unwell)
• lethargy
• nausea
• vomiting
• persistent abdominal pain or tenderness
• offensive-smelling vaginal discharge.

Failure of the procedure

There is a chance (about 7 in 100 women) that taking mifepristone/misoprostol will not result in a successful termination of pregnancy. About 2 in every 100 of these women will need further medicines prescribed by their doctor to complete the termination, and about 5 in every 100 women will need to have a surgical termination if the medical termination fails.

Continuing with a pregnancy if the medical termination has failed is strongly not advised because the developing embryo may have been harmed or deformed.

Unsuccessful termination can also lead to serious complications, so it’s important to get medical help urgently if you think this has happened. Ongoing bleeding, with or without signs of an infection, may suggest an unsuccessful termination. However, it's essential to have a follow-up visit with your doctor 14–21 days after the treatment — or sooner if requested by your doctor — even if you don’t have any signs of a complication.

Visit your doctor, go to your nearest emergency department, or call for an ambulance if you experience any of the symptoms of serious complications described above during or after your medical termination.
For a more-complete list of possible side effects, see the consumer medicine information (CMI)for Mifepristone Linepharma (mifepristone) and for GyMiso (misoprostol), available from your doctor, MS Health or through the NPS Medicine Finder.

If a side effect is described as very common, this means that in clinical trials at least 10 out of 100 people experienced that side effect.

If a side effect is described as common, this means that in clinical trials, more than 1, but fewer than 10 out of 100 people experienced that side effect.

A clinical trial is a research study conducted with patients that compares one treatment with one or more other treatments, to assess its effectiveness and safety.

Ask your health professional about the possible side effects of a medicine before you take it. Always tell your health professional about any changes to your condition.

CBC offensive to Catholics

Our public broadcaster--the one and only CBC--discriminates against Catholics by offending them in a disgusting manner.

According to Brian Lilley:

"On Wednesday CBC actually showed several cartoons including one of Pope Benedict. It was the cover after Benedict announced his resignation and it show him embracing a male Swiss Guard and saying Enfin Libre, or free at last. The implication being that Benedict resigned to be with his gay lover. 

But David Studer, the head of journalism standards and practices at CBC, sent a note to staff saying they would not offend Muslims. 

"We are not showing cartoons making fun of the Prophet Mohammad. Other elements of Charlie Hebdo's content and style are fine, but this area should be avoided as, quite simply, it's offensive to Muslims as a group," Studer wrote. 

So CBC's standards include offending Catholics but keeping Muslims happy."

I have emailed the CBC Ombudsman and complained about this.

You can too at: ombudsman@cbc.ca

Ontario PCs pretend to be for open and transparent gov't

See my email exchange with Jim Wilson, interim leader of the Conservative Party. Start at the bottom.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Jim,

I notice you haven't responded to my email. This is the same response I get every time I raise this issue with an MPP. Silence. And that was what I was talking about in my original message.

Not one MPP has the courage to speak out publicly about what the Liberals did when they changed the law to do this. So how can you or any other MPP be really for open and transparent government, when you refuse to speak publicly about this? If the Liberals can hide information on abortion, they can hide information on anything. The slippery slope is endless.

Even though I am a conservative, probably more conservative than you are, I will continue to speak up against your party and your members as long as this silence continues. I realize I am only one voice, but at least my conscience is clear that I did not stay quiet about this deceitful and despicable act by the Liberals, even when the Conservatives did and said nothing.

So I repeat, speak out against the Liberals attack on open and transparent government, and then we can speak.

Thanks
Pat

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject:	Re: End of Fall Legislative Session
Date:	Thu, 08 Jan 2015 14:48:33 -0500
From:	Pat Maloney
Reply-To:
To:	Wilson, Jim <jim.wilson@pc.ola.org>

Thanks Jim. I looked through the results but couldn't find anything on the Liberals decision to hide abortion information. Have you spoken out on that because that was what I was referring to?

I've written extensively on that, some of it is at this link:
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2012/08/ontarios-stealth-attack-on-foi-series.html

Pat

On 08/01/2015 1:17 PM, Wilson, Jim wrote:

Hi Pat: If you search the word “accountability” all articles containing the word will come up.  Here is a link to my last article,  http://www.jimwilsonmpp.com/newsroom/press-releases/733-premier-s-pattern-of-behaviour-let-down-ontario-in-fall-legislative-session .

Best Regards,

Jim

--

Jim Wilson, MPP
Simcoe-Grey

Interim Leader of the Official Opposition

Email: jim.wilson@pc.ola.org

Phone: 416-325-2069

From: Pat Maloney
Sent: January-08-15 1:03 PM
To: Wilson, Jim;
Subject: Re: End of Fall Legislative Session

Hi Jim, Can you please send me the actual link on your site where you speak about this? I couldn't find it.
Thanks
Pat

On 08/01/2015 12:36 PM, Wilson, Jim wrote:

Thank you for your email Pat. My PC Party colleagues and I have spoken out a lot about this issue and encourage you to visit my website to view my efforts, www.jimwilsonmpp.com . 

Best Regards,

Jim

--

Jim Wilson, MPP
Simcoe-Grey

Interim Leader of the Official Opposition

Email: jim.wilson@pc.ola.org

Phone: 416-325-2069

From: Pat Maloney
Sent: December-16-14 8:31 AM
To: Wilson, Jim;
Subject: Re: End of Fall Legislative Session

Dear Jim, speak out against the Liberals attack on open and transparent government, and then we can speak.
Thanks
Pat

On 15/12/2014 10:32 AM, Jim Wilson, Interim Ontario PC Leader wrote:

Pat,  

As the Fall Legislative session ended, the Ontario PC Party was tied with the Liberals in the latest polling. The reason for our growing momentum is the outstanding work of our strong leadership candidates and our Caucus. 

Throughout the Fall, our united Ontario PC team continued holding the Liberals to account for their incompetence, lack of accountability, and hollow words. 

Our five-week campaign for a standing committee to address sexual harassment in the work place and protect victims of sexual harassment from further harm overcame Kathleen Wynne’s stubborn resistance when she finally reversed her stance. 

The most scathing Auditor General’s report I have ever seen in my 24 years as an MPP confirmed that the Ontario PCs were right in our opposition to smart meter tax machines and the sneaky Global Adjustment secret tax that is costing each household an extra $1,000 each year on our hydro bills. It also confirmed we were right in pointing out the harm all Ontarians face from increasing debt, interest payments, spending and failure to deliver services. 

During the Fall session, our Ontario PC team held the Liberals to account for shutting down the investigation into the destruction of documents in their billion dollar gas plant scandal; for failing to be open or transparent about mismanagement of the failed MaRS real estate project that will cost taxpayers almost $400 million; and for failing to provide oversight in the Ornge air ambulance scandal. 

A government can only rise to the challenges faced by the people of Ontario if it truly respects them. This can only happen if a government is accountable and transparent. The Ontario PCs will continue to fight for answers and accountability on behalf of the people of Ontario. 

Jim Wilson
Interim Leader

When the media supports a pro-life worldview

Last week on the year end review on CFRA, Steve Madely spoke about how when the Morgentaler decision came down in 1988, the Supreme Court Justices said that Parliament needed to enact a new law on abortion. He noted that Parliament never did do that. Steve went on to say that more recently, the Supreme Court judges ruled that Parliament needed to enact a prostitution Law, and they did do that recently.

The difference in the latter case of course, is that the SCJs gave Parliament a one year time limit to create a prostitution law. Parliament did this. But the SCJs did not impose a time limit in the 1988 ruling and no new law has ever been enacted in Canada. Every attempt to rectify this lack of a formal abortion law has failed, mostly thanks to political cowardice.

This makes the pro-abortions happy.

Today John Robson slipped into an on-air conversation that wasn't about abortion, how women want the right to do what they want with their body, except that the fetus is not her body. (The worn-out illogical argument about a "woman's right to do what she wants with her body" never ceases to amaze me.)

So what's my point exactly? It's just that it is so lovely to hear a radio personality actually willingly bring up abortion in this way. Because it hardly ever happens.

I remember years ago arguing with someone who knew a whole lot more than I did about media bias about abortion. When they told me that the media was biased, I relied, of course they aren't biased. I thought the person was just being overly dramatic and paranoid. Surely they are balanced, I said. Right? It took me a while but I finally realized I was very naive.

That was then. Now I see the media bias towards the pro-abortion worldview, and expect it at all turns, where "pro-choice" is "progressive". The "pro-choice" worldview believes it's just the way it is if you care about women, which ironically, is so opposite to reality.

That's why it always startles me when a media person actually says something on air that either raises the topic in a neutral but probing way (like Steve did) or actually puts forth a pro-life worldview (like John did).

I know that it's up to us pro-lifers to keep on doing what we are doing to change the conversation, since we can't expect the mainstream media to help. So every tidbit we get from the media is a small step in the right direction and we have to take what we can get. For this, I am thankful.

CPSO: Changing the definition of discrimination

College of Physicians, please stand up for religious minorities

JANUARY 2, 2015 BY FAYE SONIER LEAVE A COMMENT

*Dr. Gabel is Member of Council and Past President of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. He is the chair of the College’s policy working group which issued the draft “Professional Obligations and Human Rights” policy.

Faye Sonier

Dear Dr. Marc Gabel,

I just read this article which was published in the Catholic  Register. You were quoted in the piece. Here is an excerpt:

Catholic doctors who won’t perform abortions or provide abortion referrals should leave family medicine, says an official of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

“It may well be that you would have to think about whether you can practice family medicine as it is defined in Canada and in most of the Western countries,” said Dr. Marc Gabel, chair of the college’s policy working group reviewing “Professional Obligations and Human Rights.”

The Ontario doctor’s organization released a draft policy Dec. 11 that would require all doctors to provide referrals for abortions, morning-after pills and contraception. The revised policy is in response to evolving obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code, Gabel said.

There have been no Ontario Human Rights Tribunal decisions against doctors for failing to refer for abortion or contraception.

Gabel said there’s plenty of room for conscientious Catholics in various medical specialties, but a moral objection to abortion and contraception will put family doctors on the wrong side of human rights legislation and current professional practice.

“Medicine is an amazingly wide profession with many, many areas to practice medicine,” he said.

Yes, medicine is “an amazingly wide profession.” Thankfully, it is also a profession which attracts an “amazingly wide” array of Canadians. Of those Canadian physicians are some who share my pro-life perspective. They may refuse to refer for abortion due to their conscience, but they may also refuse to refer due to their religious beliefs (or both – we’re working out what this means under the Charter). They may be Christian, Muslim, Jewish or atheist physicians but they have an issue with abortion or contraceptives. For them, to refer for this procedure or these drugs is to be complicit in the actions and their consequences.

I am an Ontario resident. I’m a cancer survivor. I’m a mother.  I have spent far more than my fair share of time in Ontario hospitals and clinics being treated by wonderful Ontario doctors.

Over the last few years, I’ve gone out of my way to work with pro-life physicians who share my perspective. I reject the notion that killing and dismembering unborn children is medicine, and I wanted to work with physicians who share my values regarding human life and human dignity.  Due to the “amazingly wide” practice of medicine in Ontario, I was able to find a few, and become their patient. I am so thankful for their care.

But due to your working group’s proposed new policy, I might lose my family physicians. They will choose to practice medicine in a province that respects both their skills and their rights, rather than sacrifice their conscience or their sincerely held religious beliefs.

I’m also a human rights lawyer. The College’s reasoning for stripping physicians of their conscience and religious rights is not based on law. Your working group received a number of submissions on that point, so I’ll leave you to review them with your legal counsel. The doctors seeking to exercise their freedoms have a leg to stand on. Heck, they have Canadian and Ontario human rights law on their side.

Of great concern to me is the definition of “discrimination” which you provided when interviewed:

“We’re saying that the discrimination occurs when you are not acting in the best interest of the patient,” said Gabel. “When you are not communicating effectively or respectfully about this with the patient, when you’re not managing conflicts, when you differ from the patient and when you are not respecting the patient’s dignity and ensuring their access to care and protecting their safety. That’s the issue.”

Dr. Gabel, this is not the definition of “discrimination” at law. If someone chooses to make up definitions for words, they are free to do so. (My son, for example, seems to think that “babagaba” is a verb which means “to chew on mommy’s ankle.”)

However, for a body like the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to create a new definition of “discrimination” which will result in the stripping of legal and human rights of some of their members is shocking, and this new definition will not stand up in a court of law. I urge the College to abide by Canadian and Ontario law.

Dr. Gabel, I suspect you are well intentioned and a kind and caring psychotherapist, like so many of the wonderful doctors who have treated me over the years. But please don’t force my physicians from the province with your policy. My family depends on their expertise and professionalism. I like to see my own values reflected in the “amazingly wide” practice of medicine in Ontario. For someone like myself, a religious minority, this is very important.

The membership of your College is broad and wide enough to include some family physicians who happen to hold pro-life positions. If it is not, it should be.

Sincerely,

Faye Sonier