Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Top Trillium executive on Sunshine list

Suzanne Fortin makes a good point.

So what does COHEN BARRACK, ANDREA, CEO of Trillium make? A nice big whopping $209,572 a year. Not bad I must say.

And I wonder what she also makes as Chairperson of International Planned Parenthood for Canada?

Fake Person doesn't want any public money to go to crisis pregnancy centres.

But I guess it's just fine and dandy that the CEO of the very same organization that doles out our money, makes over 200,000 a year, but revokes money from an organization that helps support women through crisis pregnancies.

Good grief.

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

So who quashed funding for CPC?

Remember when Fake Person complained to Trillium, and then Trillium revoked funding to Pregnancy Options and Support Centre in Sarnia?

Guess who the CEO is of the Ontario Trillium Foundation? Andrea Cohen Barrack

And guess who the Chairperson is of International Planned Parenthood for Canada? Andrea Cohen Barrack

The one and the same person.

So let's see.

A government organization, that doles out our tax dollars, is headed by someone, who also just happens to head up an organization, that promotes abortion as a valid and neutral choice. And then the former organization revokes funding for another organization who does not promote abortion.

Isn't that the interesting little story?

Friday, April 10, 2015

That pesky thing called conscience

M-590 — March 26, 2015 — Mr. Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain) — That, in the opinion of the House, all Members of Parliament should be allowed to vote freely on all matters of conscience.

So how will the Liberals and NDP vote on this motion? I guess we'll find out.
"...the safest course is to do nothing against one's conscience. With this secret, we can enjoy life and have no fear from death." Voltaire

Thursday, April 9, 2015

941 stillbirth and livebirth abortions done in 2013-2014

Below are numbers for late-term stillbirth and livebirth abortions (Code P96.4 "Termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus and newborns") from CIHI for 2013/2014.

I reported on this information previously here and here for 2010/2011.

It's important to note that there are two different outcomes for these late-term abortions coded with P96.4 "Termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus and newborns". Some of the babies were delivered stillborn (780). And some were delivered alive (161).

Notice that Quebec reports neither stillbirths nor livebirths for code P96.4, so we have no idea how many are being done in Quebec. Last time I did receive numbers for the livebirth abortions for Quebec but not for the stillbirth abortions. CIHI told me this is because:
"Quebec data is not included. As part of the Agreement between the Government of Quebec and the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), the data transmitted by Quebec and held by CIHI may only be used for the mandate given to CIHI by Quebec. Therefore, CIHI is not authorized to provide you with the requested data for Quebec."
When I asked for clarification on this,CIHI said:
"Data transmitted to us by a jurisdiction still belongs to the jurisdiction in question. We are authorized to provide Québec’s aggregate data or information only when the request falls within the mandate in the agreement between CIHI and the Government of Québec. Media requests do not fall within the mandate."
Notice that the numbers of livebirth abortions this time, i.e. for 2013/14 (161) are higher than last time, i.e. for 2010/11 (158) and don't even include Quebec numbers (there were 21 livebirth abortions reported in Quebec in 2010/2011).

Both stillbirth and livebirth abortions are on the increase in Canada. Last time CIHI reported 727 stillbirth abortions compared to 780 this time.

As for the livebirth abortions, we can assume that at least some of these babies were probably aborted because of serious fetal abnormalities, as reported in this National Post story at 5 months gestation.

And the National Post also reported that:
"many hospitals make it a policy to first terminate the fetus in-utero, perhaps using lethal injection... Dr. Wendy Norman, a clinical professor at the University of British Columbia, confirmed in an email to the Post that abortions “performed intentionally in major centres for pregnancies over 20 weeks would almost certainly include a technique … to induce fetal demise PRIOR to the delivery of the fetus.”
If what Dr. Norman says is true, this would mean the child would die before it exited the mother's body, which means it would not be classified as a livebirth abortion. Yet these current stats confirm doctors are still performing abortions resulting in livebirths, so what is going on here?

I suspect that some of these babies are born alive because they are not giving the baby the injection first to stop its heart. But I am only guessing.

In fact all we have is speculation, since there are no reasons attached to any of these deaths. Are these livebirth babies tossed aside and left on their own, struggling to survive until they die? Are they done on compassionate grounds so the mother can hold her child before the child dies? If so, then why isn't the child allowed to be born at term and placed in perinatal palliative care? Is it because we don't offer perinatal palliative care to pregnant women in these difficult situations? That would be true compassion. And if we don't offer this option, why not?

And why won't Quebec let us see their livebirth abortion stats? If I could speak French I would request the information from the Quebec government through access to information.

What we do know about these babies who are subject to late term abortions, is that some of them are born alive (161), then they die. What are the reasons for these abortions? Why are the numbers increasing?

And of course CIHI is not ATIPable, so whatever CIHI won't divulge is completely hidden from us. If the data still resided with Statistics Canada, I could do an access to information request and ask to see this agreement with Quebec. But I can't do that with CIHI.

Lots of questions, very few answers.

Monday, April 6, 2015

The intolerance of the progressives

There are a lot of seriously not nice people out there in the twitter sphere ready to draw and quarter MP James Lunney because of his views on evolution.

So what do these people say? Read for yourself, some of it's pretty disgusting: Me smart you dumb.

I think it must make them feel important. Or something. A lot of people really can't stand the fact that some people have different beliefs than they do. Why is that? Are they so unsure of their own beliefs that they need to make fun of someone else's beliefs?

And why is this intolerance so often directed towards Christians. Why do these people hate Christians so much?

This seems to be a mob mentality that these people somehow feel obliged to follow.

Maybe they feel like they belong to an elite group who knows better than those stupid backward Christians. Maybe they get a self-righteous kick out of denigrating someone else's beliefs. Pathetic.

And the "progressives" like to talk about tolerance. What a bunch of hypocrites.