EWTN - Standing up for Life in Ottawa

Last night I attended the EWTN taping of the first ever national Pro-life round table event at St. Brigid's Church. The event was excellent.

There were four different panels who spoke on pro-life issues including assisted suicide, conscience rights, political advocacy and what the future holds.

The show will be broadcast sometime in August I think they said.

And today is the annual March for Life in Ottawa. The forecast is perfect, sunny and a high of 20. A perfect day to tell Canada, and especially our politicians, that we want protection for our pre-born children.

2nd trimester D&E abortion - affirming her right to choose

Dr. Anthony Levatino used to be an abortion doctor. He isn't any more. Below he describes a second trimester abortion.

"Imagine if you can that you are a pro-choice obstetrician/gynecologist like I once was. Your patient today is 24 weeks pregnant. At twenty-four weeks from last menstrual period, her uterus is two finger-breadths above the umbilicus.

If you could see her baby, which is quite easy on an ultrasound, she would be as long as your hand plus a half from the top of her head to the bottom of her rump not counting the legs. Your patient has been feeling her baby kick for the last 2 months or more but now she is asleep on an operating room table and you are there to help her with her problem pregnancy.

The first task is remove the laminaria that had earlier been placed in the cervix to dilate it sufficiently to allow the procedure you are about to perform. With that accomplished, direct your attention to the surgical instruments arranged on a small table to your right. The first instrument you reach for is a 14-French suction catheter. It is clear plastic and about nine inches long. It has a bore through the center approximately ¾ of an inch in diameter.Picture yourself introducing this catheter through the cervix and instructing the circulating nurse to turn on the suction machine which is connected through clear plastic tubing to the catheter. What you will see is a pale yellow fluid that looks a lot like urine coming through the catheter into a glass bottle on the suction machine. This is the amniotic fluid that surrounded the baby to protect her.

With suction complete, look for your Sopher clamp. This instrument is about thirteen inches long and made of stainless steel. At the end are located jaws about 2 ½ inches long and about ¾ of an inch wide with rows of sharp ridges or teeth. This instrument is for grasping and crushing tissue. When it gets hold of something, it does not let go. A second trimester D&E abortion is a blind procedure. The baby can be in any orientation or position inside the uterus. Picture yourself reaching in with the Sopher clamp and grasping anything you can.

At twenty-four weeks gestation, the uterus is thin and soft so be careful not to perforate or puncture the walls. Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard–really hard. You feel something let go and out pops  a fully formed leg about six inches long. Reach in again and grasp whatever you can. Set the jaw and pull really hard once again and out pops an arm about the same length. Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs.

The toughest part of a D&E abortion is extracting the baby’s head. The head of a baby that age is about the size of a large plum and is now free floating inside the uterine cavity. You can be pretty sure you have hold of it if the Sopher clamp is spread about as far as your fingers will allow. You will know you have it right when you crushed own on the clamp and see white gelatinous material coming through the cervix. That was the baby’s brains. You can then extract the skull pieces. Many times a little face will come out and stare back at you.

Congratulations! You have just successfully performed a second trimester Suction D&E abortion. You just affirmed her right to choose.

If you refuse to believe that this procedure inflicts severe pain on that unborn child, please think again.

Before I close, I want to make a comment on the necessity and usefulness of utilizing second and third trimester abortion to save women’s lives. I often hear the argument that we must keep abortion legal in order to save women’s lives in cases of life threatening conditions that can and do arise in pregnancy.

Albany Medical Center where I worked for over seven years is a tertiary referral center that accepts patients with life threatening conditions related to or caused by pregnancy. I personally treated hundreds of women with such conditions in my tenure there. There are several conditions that can arise or worsen typically during the late second or third trimester of pregnancy that require immediate care. In many of those cases, ending or “terminating” the pregnancy, if you prefer, can be life saving. But is abortion a viable treatment option in this setting? I maintain that it usually, if not always, is not."

The worse thing about CBC bias, is they can't admit it

I think CBC is biased when it comes to abortion.

I complained to the CBC that Anna-Marie Tremonti's interview on RU-486 was clearly anti-pro-life, and that the interview on a whole was biased against the pro-life viewpoint.

The response I received from CBC takes the position that the interview was not biased.

Instead of including the entire email exchange below, I'm only including the last email I sent them.

I transcribed the entire interview here and here.

I first said this in my blog post, and then complained to the CBC, and sent them my posts.

"Of the four people Anna Maria interviewed, three of them were "pro-choice" (Dr. Rebecca Gomperts, Dr. Joel Lexchin and Dr. Sheila Dunn) and only one was a pro-life doctor (Dr. Donna Harrison). Dr. Gomperts actually performs abortions on women who live in countries where abortions are illegal. Dr. Joel Lexchin wonders if "[the holdup to approve the drug] is a political decision, in other words, if this is pressure coming from the anti-abortions members of the conservative government to not approve this product". And Dr. Sheila Dunn easily sails through her questions, and is not interrupted by Anna-Maria--unlike the pro-life doctor, who is also asked, if her reasons for not supporting mifepristone, are based on ideology. whereas none of the three "pro-choice" doctors are asked the same question."

Here is the final exchange we had on their bias.

CBC: When I hear a complaint about bias, I take it seriously and examine the coverage. What I’m looking for primarily is whether the various sides are reflected accurately and fairly so that someone listening, reading or watching can decide for themselves whose position they choose to accept. While I take note of the number of speakers, or the lengths of their interviews, that is far too blunt a measure to use to weigh fairness or balance. Those things need to be considered over time, and in a broader context. Equitable coverage is not the same thing as equal coverage...Although the segment had four voices, two were brief clips [So those two extra "pro-choice" voices don't count? If they don't count then why include them?]

Me: I agree with some of what you say here. But one still must take the entire interview in context, with itself, since that one interview may be all any one person may hear on any one subject. For instance, the two short clips you mention, were both undeniably pro-ru486. Along with those two clips, was the in depth pro-Ru486 interview with Dr. Dunn, but there was only one voice anti-ru486: the in depth interview with pro-life Dr. Harrison. That is still three votes for the drug, and one vote against the drug. By any measure, that is not balanced: 3 to 1. Why wasn't there 2 short clips against the drug instead? Ah, but again, that would not be balanced either, would it? As well, Anna-Marie interrupted Dr. Harrison at least four times while she was speaking. She did not do that with Dr. Dunn. Why didn't she? Why didn't she simply allow both guests to answer the questions, without interrupting? If you want equitable, then treat all interviewees with the same respect. The interruptions were clearly not warranted, why didn't she simply let Dr. Harrison finish her thoughts without jumping in?

CBC: You believe Anna Maria did not treat Dr. Harrison with respect. You are, of course, free to believe that. [Note: CBC does not address my point of AMT interrupting Dr. H. 4 times] But it does not necessarily make it so, either. It is your gut feeling. [Not gut feeling, actual evidence] It is not one i share. I can't stress enough how normal it is for people who feel passionately about a subject to hear things differently than others do...

Me: The clip from Dr. Lexchin wonders if

"based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever, my other speculation is that this is a political decision, in other words, this is pressure coming from the anti-abortions members of the conservative government to not approve this product and that's what's holding it up but as I said I have no actual evidence to back that up." 

Why was this statement included in the segment at all? It is pure speculation on his part, and by his own words, he has no evidence to support his claim. His statement is a clear pro-abortion viewpoint. His pro-abortion bias was clear and added nothing to the interview, except to show another pro-abortion bias.

CBC: Dr. Lexchin is a pretty smart guy with expertise on pharmaceutical patents and experience working with various levels of government. That's why the show went to him. I understand you think he's full of malarkey on this subject. That is your right to feel. It does not make his perspective meaningless. [Again, CBC doesn't address Dr. L's conjecture about anti-abortion MPs and Dr. L.'s obvious ideology. He may be smart but his statement should have been cut. It wasn't.]

Me: Anna-Marie asks Dr. Harrison if her views are based on ideology. None of the other guests were asked that same question. Why weren't they? And in fact it is clear from Dr. Harrison's answer, that her views are not based on ideology. Not an equitable question.

CBC: Dr. Harrison expresses her ideology in her title, and the organization she represents. Asking her about it allowed her to explain to listeners who may not share her view how the medical opinion she expresses aligns with the ideological view she expresses. I would see that as an opportunity for her to persuade others of her reasonabless, rather than simply preaching to the converted. You call the question unequitable. I believe you are mistaken. [Again, CBC does not answer my question of why the "pro-choice" speakers weren't asked about their ideology. Also note that Dr. Rebecca Gomperts provides medical abortions to women in countries where abortion is illegal.]

Me: You feel my blog wasn't entirely fair in that I only mentioned one tweet, and not the second tweet that was more informational. You are right. My bias was showing. But as well, I don't pretend not to be biased about abortion, I am clearly pro-life. That being said, when I saw the quote from Dr. Dunn which said the drug was safe, without a corresponding quote from Dr. Harrison saying it wasn't safe, I felt that Dr. Dunn's opinion was being highlighted, while Dr. Harrison's was ignored. The CBC is supposed to be not biased though.

CBC: I agree with you, the CBC is supposed to be unbiased. I disagree with you that these tweets display any bias whatsoever. [CBC puts out one neutral tweet and one pro-abortion tweet--that's bias] I suggest the reason you perceive this is as bias is because you feel so strongly about the issue. And it is such a tiny set of words and characters from which to derive a slant, it is grossly unfair to the producers of the program to draw the conclusions you do. [Grossly unfair to conclude that CBC is biased?]

Me: What cannot be gleaned from the interview, from someone not actually knowledgeable about this drug, is how harmful it potentially is to women. I suggest you read the book called "RU486: Misconceptions, Myths and Morals" by Renate Klein. This book goes into meticulous detail about these dangers, all based on studies and scientific evidence. I read the book before I listened to the interview, and Dr. Harrison basically corroborated everything Klein says about the drug. Here are some of the issues she raises detailed in a series of blogs I did on the book, if you care to read them. The book is an eye opener.

CBC: As mentioned, I have not had time to read this material. I have plenty of respect for you and your cause. And I regret that you think CBC News displays a bias in its coverage of the issue. We try very hard not to do that. I also ask you not to draw conclusions because I can't maintain the back and forth ad nauseum [I draw conclusions because my questions are not answered, when I show clear examples of bias] The number of issues that come up every day is enormous [as they should be since the CBC is a tax payer funded broadcaster], and the number of Canadians who engage with us for the very reason that we do pay attention and respond is wonderfully high [except CBC can't admit they are biased and insist they are not]. But I have a ton on my plate, and there's a point at which it's clear that our arguments are getting circular.

Sticking to the facts and evidence on abortion statistics

I learned this week that Fake Person supports our Charter challenge with this tweet.

Makes sense, because we know officially reported abortion statistics in Canada aren't very useful. They are grossly under-reported (by at least 45% in Ontario alone). They aren't based on medical billings, but rather, on hospital records. So all abortions performed in doctor's offices are not reported, and it's not mandatory for clinics to report them, so many don't. Hence their inaccuracy.

So it's very important to be able to get accurate abortion information, hence our Charter challenge.

I write a great deal on this topic. I have published statistics based on doctor's billing records, information I have received from CIHI, from Stats Canada, etc. I'd say my track record for abortion statistics is pretty sound.

But this is what I don't understand. In this blog entry which was linked from her tweet above, Fake Person makes fun of me, and pro-lifers in general, using our charter challenge as a kick off point to launch into one of her typical ridiculing spree of us.

What is the point of that? If she agrees with what we are doing, what is the need to make fun of us?

Then she says this:

As a fan of facts and evidence, DJ! generally supports the release of information, provided the safety of patients and providers is guaranteed.

So she's a fan of "facts and evidence", but is worried about the safety of patients and providers? Since I never ask for private information, she can rest assured that this isn't the case. And that fact has been published numerous times by me, and by others.

Then she ends her piece by linking to Joyce Arthur's abortion stats, which are a compilation of CIHI's (self acknowledged) inaccurate stats.

I notice that in her chart, Arthur publishes a chart showing the gestational age of abortions from CIHI for years 2007 to 2013.

These numbers are for abortions done after 21 weeks, and range from 537 to 564 a year. What Arthur doesn't tell you, is that these numbers are based on only a small subset of all abortions, for which the gestational ages are known.

Arthur frequently concludes, that late term therefore are only performed in "exceptional circumstances" and are "extremely rare". But as I've shown on at least three occasions before, her "facts and evidence" on late-term abortions are wanting. As I detailed in the following posts below, there is no way Arthur can know if abortions are performed only in "exceptional circumstances" and are "extremely rare".

The actual late-term abortion numbers could very well be a lot higher.

For 2009 CIHI statistics.
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2012/01/great-pro-abortion-urban-legend.html

For 2010 CIHI statistics.
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2013/02/we-dont-know-what-were-talking-about.html
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2012/11/anti-abortion-laws-are-unjust-harmful.html

For 2012 CIHI statistics.
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2014/06/repeating-untruths-doesnt-make-them-true.html

Sticking to the "facts and evidence" is a good thing. I intend to keep doing that.

Access to information laws protects information seekers

Two weeks ago, in a press conference at Queen’s Park, I announced my Charter challenge against the Ontario government’s amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FIPPA).

Together with my co-applicants, the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada, we will argue that our Charter right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of the press, is violated by this Act.

Some information is routinely made public by the government, and some of it is not. In order to protect citizens' rights to see information that isn't publicly available (e.g., communications between government officials on how they came to a decision, or how much they spent on a particular project) we have access to information laws. 

In Ontario, the purpose of this law, (called the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act or FIPPA), is twofold. It protects citizens' privacy. It also stipulates under what conditions information must and must not be made available to citizens.

Access to information requests are an extremely important mechanism to hold governments accountable to the electorate. As Pierre Trudeau once said:

"Democratic progress requires the ready availability of true and complete information. In this way people can objectively evaluate their government's policy. To act otherwise is to give way to despotic secrecy."

The media regularly makes Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to break stories on government spending, decision-making or other action. 

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I also make FOI requests regularly and that I can't do that anymore in Ontario. Because in 2012 the Ontario Government changed FIPPA to exclude one medical service from FOI requests, and one medical service only: abortion services. They added clause 65(5.7) 

"This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services.”

(I only ever ask for aggregate numbers, and never ask for personal information, like doctor's or patent's names.)

So I can't comment anymore on doctor's OHIP billings for abortion services.

I took the government to court, and after two and a half years, they released the two page document I was looking for. So I should be happy right? Wrong. Because they released the document outside the Act, I was not protected by the Act. It also means that although in theory I may still be able to obtain information on abortion, there is no guarantee of my obtaining such information. The government can arbitrarily refuse me.

It is far preferable that information be released through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That's because the government must follow its own rules in releasing information. But there are no rules for releasing abortion information outside the Act. And if they refuse to give me the information I am looking for, I have no recourse. 

When information is subject to FIPPA, not only do I have recourse (for instance if I am refused information), but the act also offers guarantees of response rates (like 30 days), etc. And if information is not released within the required 30 days, they must tell me why there is a delay.

So the Act protects my rights. When information is released outside the Act, I am literally at the mercy of the government. They can just say "no", with no explanation, since no reason is required. When information is refused inside the Act, I must be provided with an explanation as to why it was refused. For example, cabinet confidences, or legitimate privacy concerns. 

Releasing information inside the Act, although far from perfect, does ensure a lot more accountability from the government, and more protection for me. 

FIPPA ensures that the government is accountable to all of us, and that includes the media, with the information it holds on our behalf. This clause is a bad law and it must be struck down.

More information:

The ARPA Canada FIPPA challenge - FAQs

Our case