Unredacted ATIP reveals abortion advocate's disinformation

It is interesting what gets hidden in an ATIP. Usually of course you have no idea what they are hiding because the hidden information is redacted. But recently I had occasion to ask for two different ATIPs about the Abortion Rights Coalition that were about a year apart. I received some duplicate information from them. The first one contained certain redacted information that the second one did not redact. 

The unredacted information revealed that the redacted info from the first ATIP, was ARCC telling their usual unrelenting falsehoods about pregnancy care centres.

This is the text that was redacted from the first ATIP from a letter from ARCC to the Minister of Health on April 4, 2018:

"...Further, it would help to dispel harmful myths about abortion and mitigate the effects of misinformation spread by anti-choice groups. Over 290 anti-choice groups exist across Canada, including about 165 “crisis pregnancy centres” (CPCs)....Most agencies have websites or do other public outreach, and all provide misinformation about abortion and work to reinforce stigma. Further, CPCs often mislead or scare women seeking abortion while advocacy groups seek to recriminalize abortion, which would violate women's charter rights."

Redacted information about CPCs

Unredacted information on CPCs

Two questions. 

1) Why was this information redacted from the first ATIP? The three Information Act clauses cited don't seem pertinent (19 (1), 20 (1) (c), 20 (1) (b.1)) to the redaction. And if they should have been redacted, why weren't they in the second ATIP?

2) Were the bureaucrats embarrassed (as they should be) when they saw this disinformation about pregnancy care centres, so they redacted "all [CPCs] provide misinformation about abortion and work to reinforce stigma"?

Here is another statement from meeting notes ARCC had with MP Don Davies from July 4, 2017 that was redacted from the first ATIP, but not the second ATIP:

"...The idea is to have a central, reliable place that women can go to, mitigating the effects of misinformation provided by "crisis pregnancy centres" and anti-choice groups."

More libelous nonsense.

(Here's a true statement no one can argue with, and is definitely not a lie: All abortion clinics kill babies.)

Fun Fact: My first ATIP took them 442 days to process and contained 11 pages. The second one took 396 days to process and contained 20 pages and produced similar information as the first. Don't let anyone ever tell you that ATIPs are ever processed in 30 days.

19 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this Part that contains personal information.

• 20 (1) (c) information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to result in material financial loss or gain to, or could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of, a third party; or

• 20 (1) (b.1) information that is supplied in confidence to a government institution by a third party for the preparation, maintenance, testing or implementation by the government institution of emergency management plans within the meaning of section 2 of the Emergency Management Act and that concerns the vulnerability of the third party’s buildings or other structures, its networks or systems, including its computer or communications networks or systems, or the methods used to protect any of those buildings, structures, networks or systems

Constitutional rights for Christians

"A religiously affiliated health care facility's primary purpose is to provide health care. Religious beliefs should never interfere with a patient's health care choices; it is unconstitutional and compromises the patient's care when they are most vulnerable. We believe that a person should have access to all their end-of-life choices no matter where they access health care. Addressing this issue is long overdue, and it is incumbent on all of us to restore rights to patients, their loved ones and their clinicians." Helen Long, CEO, Dying With Dignity Canada

The pro-deathers at Dying with Dignity want their constitutional rights adhered to, yet refuse to acknowledge the constitutional rights (freedom of conscience and freedom of religion) of those who run Catholic hospitals. Talk about hypocrisy.

Participating in euthanizing another human being is against Catholic beliefs. For a Catholic doctor to euthanize a patient can put that doctor's eternal soul in grave danger. So no, Catholics do not want to kill people. The pro-deathers may not like these beliefs, but they are also guaranteed under our constitution.

If people ultimately decide to kill themselves, this is extremely tragic. But it is wrong to insist that others actively participate in that killing.

And now a word from our sponsor, Moses

Louisiana has become the first state to require that the Ten Commandments be displayed in every public school classroom

“If you want to respect the rule of law, you’ve got to start from the original lawgiver, which was Moses”

What a great idea. Instead of flying pride flags all over our Catholic schools, let's post the 10 commandments.

Dishing out grants to promote LGBTQ; protect boys from manosphere; to fight misogyny

Over $108 million in tax dollars was spent in 2022 on LGBTQ ideology.

In 2023 that number was $665,454,357. Definitely an improvement. But still $665,454,357 too much.

I'm not publishing 2024 grants as they haven't all been announced yet. 

Fun facts from Canada's grants and contributions database:

Misogyny: 7 records found $3,808,016 to fight misogyny

Misandry: 0 records found $0 to fight misandry

Manosphere: Les 3 sex* This so-called online-magazine is a charity and they received $433,103 "to target young boys who are vulnerable to the influence of messaging from the manosphere." 

You really can't make this stuff up.

Let's talk about real "substantial barriers", not pretend ones

In a memo to the Prime Minister from the PCO (from a previous ATIP that I did) was this statement:

(ie. as in, "substantial barriers" when it comes to getting an abortion)

To discover exactly what these "substantial barriers" were for transgender people I did another ATIP to the PCO and asked for copies of these studies. The PCO responded with this: 

"A thorough search of the records under the control of PCO was carried out on your behalf; however, no records relevant to your request were found. However, we recommend that you make the same request with Health Canada as they are more likely to hold material pertaining to the specifics of your request." (emphasis added)

The PCO advises the Prime Minister--allegedly based on studies--but they don't actually have any studies to back up their claim. What?

Next stop, I did an ATIP to Health Canada for these studies alleging that transgender people face "substantial barriers" to abortion services.

I received back two studies, both based on the same data. The title of the first study was "Abortion experiences and preference of transgender, non-binary, and gender-expansive people in the United States". The second was "Abortion attempts without clinical supervision among transgender, non-binary and gender expansive people in the United States."

(The United States? They couldn't find any studies in Canada?)

So what are these alleged "substantial barriers" to transgender people wanting to kill their pre-born children? From the first study:

"To improve accessibility and quality of abortion care for transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive patients, respondents most frequently recommended that abortion clinics adopt gender-neutral or gender-affirming intake forms, that providers use gender-neutral language, and that greater privacy be incorporated into the clinic." (emphasis added)

I'm trying to understand how not having a "gender-neutral or gender-affirming intake form" is a barrier to killing your pre-born child? I'm pretty sure that any woman in this country who wants to murder her pre-born child can do so. In fact, I'm 100% sure she can. 

The second study concluded:

"The reported experiences highlight systemic discrimination and barriers to abortion care for TGE individuals and that clinicians, researchers, policymakers and advocates must urgently work to address."

But I couldn't find anything in the study to corroborate this statement; there were no examples of "systemic discrimination and barriers".

The pro-aborts are constantly whining about poor abortion access in Canada. This country has the most unrestrictive, free for all abortion access in the entire world. Why they feel the need to constantly come up with made-up stuff about poor abortion access and barriers to abortion, is beyond me.

But there is a real barrier here. It is for the innocent, defenseless, tiny child in the womb to actually be born before she is murdered. Now that is a substantial barrier.