Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Justin Trudeau: five problems with his pro-choice edict

A reader of my blog sent me a copy of a letter they wrote to Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, regarding his decree that pro-life persons would be disqualified from becoming Liberal candidates. I received permission from the writer to post the letter here.

The letter is quite long, but well worth the read.

November 8, 2014

Dear Mr. Trudeau,

First let me say, how thankful I am that you and all our MPs are safe after last month’s attack on Parliament Hill. The experience no doubt must have been terrifying. Such a threat is a sombre reminder of how precious are our lives as well as our democratic institutions in Canada. The brave men and women who put their lives at risk in defence of what we so often take for granted surely are beacons of light in dark times and an inspiration to all peace-loving Canadians.

The main purpose of my letter to you today is to express my grave concerns over your edict that “all Liberal MPs, regardless of their personal views, would be expected to vote pro-choice”i and over the narrative you have chosen to attempt to justify taking this stance.

In a nutshell, you say that “since 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that a woman’s right to a choice in this matter is a Charter right.” You make a special point of highlighting your Catholic upbringing and then go on to say that we must put the Charter and the defense of “people’s rights” and “fundamental rights” before our “personal views.”ii

With respect, Mr. Trudeau, there are five serious problems with your attempted justification:

Firstly, the Supreme Court did not recognize a Charter right to abortion in the 1988 Morgentaler decision.iii The Supreme Court has never recognized a Charter right to abortion. The Supreme Court has, on the other hand, recognized that the state does have an interest in the protection of the fetus, and on numerous occasions, including in Morgentaler, has said that it is Parliament’s responsibility to legislate fetal protection.iv

Secondly, your argument that in order to defend human rights (i.e. “people’s rights”) we must defend abortion rights, is a circular argument: it is premised on the assumption that the fetal child has no human rights to protect and that the only human being in the equation is the woman—this is the very thing under dispute in the abortion controversy. Those who oppose abortion do not do so because they oppose women’s human rights, but because they support human rights for both the preborn child and the woman.

Thirdly, your starting assumption that the preborn child has no human rights to protect is itself a “personal view.” I appreciate that you may genuinely believe that the child ought not to receive any legal protection before birth. But it is a personal view, a belief, an opinion. Everyone’s views about what is good for society come from somewhere. Our beliefs are informed by some underlying philosophy or worldview, even if we are unable to articulate exactly what that worldview is. Beliefs (i.e. views) about the preborn child that are informed by the Catholic/Christian faith are no more “personal” than beliefs informed by Atheism, for example.

Ultimately, the only beliefs we have are “personal” ones because they are our own. Each Member of Parliament will have their own personal beliefs, whether informed by the Judaeo-Christian tradition or some other religious faith or Secular Humanism, or Atheism, etc. Each of these belief systems will help to inform the MP’s understanding of the nature of the human person, and thus, the nature of abortion.

Fourthly, by highlighting your Catholic upbringing and then going on to say that we cannot let our “personal views” get in the way of defending “people’s rights” and Charter rights, you imply that the Catholic Church does not support human rights. Nothing could be further from the truth.

And fifthly, and perhaps most concerning, when you use your Catholic faith in this manner, you potentially lead other Catholics astray. As a political leader, your words carry a lot of weight. Those Catholics less informed about their faith may believe from your words that even faithful Catholics can, even must, support abortion rights. In this way, you overstep the bounds of your authority which is in the political realm, not the religious realm. Intentional or not, what you are doing amounts to using your position of political power to corrupt a Catholic person’s morals.

With respect, Mr. Trudeau, if you want to argue in favour of abortion rights, please be honest with Canadians. Please let Canadians know why you believe abortion is good for women and good for Canadian society (if this is what you honestly believe), without distorting the Supreme Court’s ruling in Morgentaler; without misrepresenting what the Charter requires; and without suggesting that the beliefs informed by the teachings of the Catholic Church ought not to inform public policy because they are just “personal” beliefs, when in fact all our beliefs are “personal.” And please make your case without misrepresenting and marginalizing the Catholic faith.

Mr. Trudeau, for some reason having nothing to do with what the Charter requires, you are willing to sacrifice one of our most fundamental Charter freedoms (freedom of conscience and religion) for the sake of an absolute abortion rights ideology. This is very disturbing. I believe this will have a detrimental effect not only on the individual MPs who violate their consciences, but on Canada as a whole.

We all watched in horror last month as two Canadian soldiers were attacked and killed and as Parliament was terrorized by a gunman. We may never know exactly what motivated the two killers, but we do know that there are Canadians and citizens of other Western countries as well who are being radicalized into the hateful and violent ideology espoused by ISIS. I’m sure all peace-loving and freedom-loving people cannot help but wonder what could lead civilized people into abandoning Western values and buying into such hateful propaganda. I’m sure there are several factors involved, but if we looked at root causes, I can’t help but think we’d find that a poorly formed conscience must play a role.

Our consciences guide us in moral decision-making. We have to make moral decisions every day. Some decisions will have far more serious consequences than others. Some will be decisions literally about life and death. It is thus imperative that as a society we respect conscientious reflection and decision-making and not institute policies that would punish people—including Members of Parliament—who act according to their deeply held conscientious beliefs that are rooted in respect for the dignity of the human person. 

Mr. Trudeau, while I don’t believe it was intentional, your policy to force all MPs to vote “pro-choice” effectively discriminates against faithful Catholics since it would force them to vote against what they believe about the dignity of the human person. You would be imposing upon them a certain belief system that is at odds with their own. This disenfranchisement of Catholics and other Christians from public life would not bode well for society. We are warned of the consequences of ignoring conscience in this excerpt from the “Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life”:

Living and acting in conformity with one’s own conscience on questions of politics is not slavish acceptance of positions alien to politics or some kind of confessionalism, but rather the way in which Christians offer their concrete contribution so that, through political life, society will become more just and more consistent with the dignity of the human person. 
In democratic societies, all proposals are freely discussed and examined. Those who, on the basis of respect for individual conscience, would view the moral duty of Christians to act according to their conscience as something that disqualifies them from political life, denying the legitimacy of their political involvement following from their convictions about the common good, would be guilty of a form of intolerant secularism. Such a position would seek to deny not only any engagement of Christianity in public or political life, but even the possibility of natural ethics itself. Were this the case, the road would be open to moral anarchy, which would be anything but legitimate pluralism. The oppression of the weak by the strong would be the obvious consequence. The marginalization of Christianity, moreover, would not bode well for the future of society or for consensus among peoples; indeed, it would threaten the very spiritual and cultural foundations of civilization.[26]v

Mr. Trudeau, if you can make your case for “pro-choice” honestly and leave your Catholic upbringing out of it and then respect each MP enough to give him or her the freedom to vote their conscience, you yourself will have garnered the respect that is impossible to attain by holding fast to your current edict and the narrative that surrounds it.

At a time when our world is increasingly being influenced and threatened by those bent on demolishing freedom and democracy and justice, I urge you, Mr. Trudeau, as one of Canada’s key political leaders, to make every effort to protect what is surely a crucial bulwark against injustice, violence and hate: freedom to act in accordance with one’s deeply held conscientious beliefs that are grounded in peace, love, and respect for the dignity of human persons.

If I may conclude by borrowing from the words spoken by the Right Reverend Michael Bird during the final blessing at Cpl. Nathan Cirillo’s funeral on October 28, may you and I and all Canadians remember always to “...live with courage, act with justice, and choose with love.”


iii The Supreme Court’s decision, profound as it was, did not create a right to abortion for Canadian women, nor did it offer any resolution of the abortion issue.”-- Gavigan, Shelley A.M., “Morgentaler and Beyond: Abortion, Reproduction, and the Courts,” in The Politics of Abortion, Oxford University Press, 1992, page 118.
The majority of the judges (5 of 7) had decided that Section 251 violated Canadian women’s constitutional rights to the security of the person. Only one, however, Madam Justice Bertha Wilson, declared that women had a right to an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. Moreover, all of the majority decisions conceded the state’s interest in protecting the foetus.”-- Brodie, Janine, “Choice and No Choice in the House” in The Politics of Abortion, Oxford University Press, 1992, page 59-60.

For an analysis of what the Supreme Court decided in the 1988 Morgentaler decision see this resource from the Library of Parliament: Abortion: Constitutional and Legal Developments, prepared by Mollie Dunsmuir, Law and Government Division, Reviewed 18 August, 1998.
iv  R v. Morgentaler [1988] 1 S.C.R.; Tremblay v. Daigle, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 530; Dobson (Litigation Guardian of)  v. Dobson, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 753; Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. DFG [1997] SCR 925

Saturday, December 27, 2014

Letters in the National Post: Killing in the name of medicine

Re: ‘The CMA’s Recent Change Of Heart On The Ethics Of Euthanasia,’ letters to the editor, Dec. 24.

Killing in the name of medicine, doctors speak out.
"For me to participate as a physician in euthanasia or assisted suicide would be to abandon my obligation to my patient to give them the best care I can. It would be to convert my action towards my patient from a conventional relationship of caring and scientific excellence, to that of a contractor who simply does what the patient requests for a fee." Paul Pitt, Toronto. 
"As a physician who has spent almost his whole career in joint hospital-based and family practice, I have never had reason to euthanize any of my patients, though I have been asked. Undoubtedly, some end-of-life patients suffer terribly, but there are adequate means to palliate this. 
My main objections to assisted suicide are two fold: One can never be certain that some apparently terminal patients may not recover and; in shared care, a doctor who plans to give a patient a few days to recover may discover that his or her patient has been euthanised while he or she was away, without the patient’s consent, because of pressure for beds. This has happened in Europe. This slippery slope pressure in going to increase with our increasingly aging population. 
If we are going to exterminate people, then we need a new trained professional. In the Hippocratic oath that we recited at graduation, we promised to never knowingly give a patient a deadly substance. It is, therefore, incompatible for a physician to do everything possible to cure a patient on the one hand, and assist with their suicide on the other." Terence Aitken, Stratford, Ont. 
"I feel betrayed by the Canadian Medical Association. It is are suffering from the delusion that you can have just a little bit of assisted suicide or euthanasia. There is no place for the physician in the deliberate ending of their patients’ lives. There is nothing dignified in this. Their role is to allow the patient to live with dignity until they reach a natural death." Anthony Kerigan, Dundas, Ont.

Friday, December 26, 2014

Conscience, Mind Manipulation, and the 4th “R”

Response to the Globe and Mail’s Dec. 11 editorial: "Ontario MDs should not refuse contraception out of religious belief"

By Jean Maloney

I found something quite outstanding about this editorial.

While it is clear the editorialist does not support physicians’ freedom to practice medicine according to conscience, what especially stands out for me is the lack of any cogent argument in defense of that position.

Let me say right off, I will not attempt in this article to defend freedom of conscience (although I do support it.) Rather, I will explain how the G&M’s attempt to justify its position against freedom of conscience is flawed. It behooves all of us to assess with a critical mind arguments put forward to justify a particular position on any controversial issue and not be misled by what might sound reasonable, but in fact, is either untrue or unsubstantiated.

To start with, there is an underlying false premise in the opening line: “A physician who is predisposed by faith or belief to make negative moral judgments about a patient is a bad doctor.” However, one needs to read the second paragraph before being able to put that opening line into context and thereby recognize the false premise. In the second paragraph we read: “The need for a new policy became clear when an Ottawa woman was turned away from a walk-in clinic last February after she attempted to get a refill on her birth-control medication – a rejection letter from one of the clinic’s doctors cited his ethical and religious objections.”

The G&M editorialist is in essence saying that the Ottawa doctor’s refusal to prescribe the birth-control pill to the woman amounts to that doctor making a “negative moral judgment about a patient.”

And that is false.

Although it is possible the woman may have felt that a negative moral judgment was being made about her, in fact, the physician was making a moral judgment not about her but about himself. He believed, for reasons having to do with medical judgment, professional ethics, and religious belief, that it would be wrong for him to prescribe the birth control pill, and thus to do so would make him culpable in an immoral act.

No one can get into the mind and heart of another person, and so no one is capable of judging the moral culpability of someone else, even if one might believe the action itself to be immoral. It would be up to the woman who wanted the pill to do her own conscientious reflection and morally judge herself. No one else can do it for her.

The G&M goes on to say “We turn to physicians to resolve our most intimate problems with wisdom and compassion and fairness, not to be rejected because we don't fit a sacred model.” But physicians who allow their moral/ethical code to inform their practice believe they are treating patients with “wisdom and compassion and fairness.” So it is clear that the G&M editorialist is using the words “wisdom” “compassion” and “fairness” to mean something entirely different than what conscientious physicians would mean by those terms. Yet without explaining what is meant by those three terms and showing how the physicians fall short of embodying the three qualities those terms express, the statement means nothing. And so it cannot advance the G&M’s argument (i.e. it carries no weight in defending the G&M’s position that physicians should simply give a patient the treatment they request, regardless of any objections the physician might have to that treatment).

Likewise with this statement: “But the College has refused to come down harshly on doctors who let their religious views get in the way of their duty to provide care.” The G&M has given no evidence that “religious views get in the way of [the Ottawa physicians’] duty to provide care.” The Ottawa physicians believe that prescribing the birth control pill is not a helpful form of care (why that is so is beyond the scope of this article). These physicians provide Natural Family Planning (NFP). That is the form of care they believe best comports with good medicine and respect for the dignity of their patients. And no doubt the Ottawa physician would have provided that care if the woman had requested it. Yet the G&M has given nothing to back up its claim that prescribing the birth control pill is good medical care, or why the alternative that the physicians do provide – NFP – is unacceptable medical care, or how the physician’s religious views got in the way.

Two more unsubstantiated claims that the editorialist makes are that conscientious physicians “confuse a religious judgment with a medical decision” and “substitute personal belief for science.” First of all, what does the editorialist mean by “religious judgment” and how is choosing not to prescribe the birth control pill an example of it? The editorialist doesn’t say. How is choosing not to prescribe the birth control pill not a medical decision? The editorialist doesn’t say. And how is prescribing the pill scientific but not prescribing it is not? Again, the editorialist doesn’t say.

Claim after claim made by the G&M editorialist is either untrue or unsubstantiated. If there is an argument to be made for forcing physicians to prescribe the birth control pill, the G&M hasn’t made it.

We arrive finally at what is so disturbing about this G&M editorial. It is not always easy to spot the lack of logically coherent arguments in opinion pieces. The reader may fail to recognize that a claim has not been backed up with evidence and may confuse opinion with fact. In the absence of sound reasoning, the reader may be swayed simply by emotionally evocative words and themes, for example, “wisdom and compassion and fairness,” “religious judgment,” “sinner,” “rejection,” “duty to provide care,” “dignity,” “personal belief vs science,” and so on.

This is disturbing. One would hope newspaper editorialists would feel duty bound, by their own professional code of ethics, to give a thoughtful reasoned argument in defence of their position, especially when something as fundamental as freedom of conscience is at stake, and when there is the potential for a whole class of citizens to be excluded from the medical profession if the draft policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is adopted.

Instead, the G&M editorialist has chosen to make misleading and unsubstantiated claims using language that can manipulate readers into bypassing their own logical thought processes.

The important lesson here for anyone who wants to protect their minds from being manipulated into accepting potentially dangerous ideas, is this: learn to think critically. Learn to spot logical fallacies / errors in reasoning. There are courses and books and articles, in print and online, on Critical Thinking /Argument /Logical Reasoning. Why such courses aren’t compulsory in school, is a mystery to me.

Along with the existing 3 “R’s” – Reading, wRiting and aRithmetic – we ought to add a 4th “R” to the core curriculum in our schools: Reasoning.

Equipped with the basic tools of logic, we will be better able to withstand the attempts by others, especially those in positions of power, to confuse and mislead us.

Thursday, December 18, 2014

What is Kathleen Wynne's hidden agenda?

We actually have a Canadian politician speaking out against the Kathleen Wynne's Liberals decision to hide all abortion statistics. Rod Taylor from the Christian Heritage Party:
"When governments try to cover up facts and statistics, it usually sends a signal that they are hiding something they are ashamed of, something that would prove embarrassing or hard to explain to voters and taxpayers. When they cover up the cover-up, that signal gets even louder."
Seems about right.

So exactly what is Kathleen Wynne trying to hide from Ontarians? Are abortion rates doubling? Are they tripling? If she had nothing to hide there would be no need to do this. What is she covering up from us?

Must be pretty awful or she wouldn't have to hide it.

Doctors shouldn't be forced to kill people

Doctors are healers, not killers

Should Canada ever find itself in the sorry state wherein assisted suicide is legal, it should not be up to the doctors to perform this task. Doctors went into medicine to save lives, not to end them. Doctors are healers, not killers.
Instead, there should be a new “death technician” job for euthanasia and assisted suicide. These people would be technicians who are trained in killing people. They can’t be doctors, because obviously, it is a conflict of interest to be a doctor and also to end people’s lives. When we see one of these “death technicians” walking the halls of the hospital, there would be no mistake as to what their duties are.
When and if I am ever in the hospital knowing that my life is nearing its natural end, I want to make sure that my doctor — who has my life in his hands — would never ever willfully aid in my demise. Conversely if I see the death technician enter my room, there would be no doubt as to why he’s there.
Patricia Maloney, Ottawa.
National Post

Monday, December 15, 2014

Trinity University - we need to support them

Read Hutchinson's excellent analysis of Trinity University:
"...This “little university that could” established a school of education, graduates of which the BC College of Teachers would only recognize if they completed an additional year at a public university. There was nothing wrong with TWU’s standard of education. In fact, TWU credits were fully transferable. The issue was the religious beliefs of the TWU community, summarized in a community covenant that was developed and agreed to by faculty, staff and students. TWU considered the College of Teachers’ position to be discrimination based on religious beliefs. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed, ruling in 2001 that the community covenant was appropriate for the private religious institution and that the professional body regulated only the behaviour of those academically qualified graduates who entered the profession, which TWU grads would be as long as the school met the academic standards established by the BC government and the College of Teachers. 
In 2004 the Supreme Court offered similar advice in its decision concerning same-sex marriage. The court noted Canada is a nation that constitutionally provides for a diversity of individual and institutional opinions on marriage, and Parliament had the constitutional authority to decide only a civil definition of marriage. Parliament recognized this diversity, and particular protection for religious individuals and institutions in the ”expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others,” in the 2005 legislation changing the definition of civil marriage to “the lawful marriage of two persons...” (emphasis added)
If it's good enough for the Supreme Court of Canada, then it's good enough for me

When politicians are pro-me

Christian Heritage Party (CHP):
"Canada's cultural and legal heritage are rooted in the Christian worldview which has provided freedom of speech and religion for all people. Increasingly, our governments have violated the 'separation of church and state', infringing on these guaranteed Charter rights. The Christian Heritage Party of Canada will protect Canadians' Charter rights and properly respect the separation of church and state." 
You know, I'm pretty disillusioned with politicians. Not too many of them will stand up for the unborn. Many of them, while saying they are pro-life, do nothing to show they are. In my books, that means you aren't pro-life, you're pro-me.

Yesterday I heard a story about a politician who lied. Bold faced lies. It made me realize that a lot of these people really only care about getting into power. How pathetic.

In Ontario politics, I can't even get a single politician to care about access to information on abortion services. Not one. How cowardly is that?

Last week I met with the leader of the Christian Heritage Party (CHP), Rod Taylor. What a breath of fresh air. Not only will he stand up for the unborn, but he also cares about smaller government AND freedom of Religion for all people. What a concept.

See Brian Lilley interviews with Rod here.

Maybe it's time to ditch the pro-me's and vote CHP.

Saturday, December 13, 2014

Open letter to Justin Trudeau - still waiting for a response

Dear Mr. Trudeau,

We still haven't heard back from you regarding the letter I sent you in back in October. As of today, that's 368 Canadians who are patiently waiting to hear from you, about this very important freedom of conscience issue.

I know that Christmas is coming up, and you must be very busy. But please Mr. Trudeau, we would like to have your response to our concerns as soon as possible.

I'm afraid if we don't hear from you soon, the number of people who are signing this letter and asking for a response, will just keep increasing. It's hard to know how many more people might sign it.

Looking forward to your response.

Patricia Maloney

Friday, December 12, 2014

IPPF: 45 million services, but no abortion?

You may recall that the $6 million funding Canada gave to IPPF through DFATD for Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Mali, Sudan and Tanzania, was not to go for abortion services.

In fact, in the ATIP document I received from DFATD, there are multiple assurances from IPPF that the money is not being used for abortion services.Yet all we really have is IPPF's word for it.

Below I have summarized all the services provided by IPPF in fiscal year 2013/2014.

As you can see, that's a lot of services, yet many are not at all well defined.

So I asked for some clarifications on some of these services.

For item 1128 (Provide other SRH medical services) which had 1,798,317 services, I asked for a further breakdown of what these services were.

DFATD response:
"Consultation - Bangladesh, Mali
Diagnostic tests - Bangladesh, Mali,Tanzania
Therapy/treatment - Bangladesh, Afghanistan
Surgery - Bangladesh, Tanzania
Other - Bangladesh, Tanzania, Sudan"
As you can see these breakdowns still don't tell us what kinds of services IPPF is providing. So I asked for an additional clarification.

DFATD response:
"IPPF does not have additional description for these services, but it should be noted that these services do not relate to HIV, STI, abortion, gynaecology, obstetrics, etc."
So IPPF has no idea what exactly, these almost 2 million services include--yet we are simply expected to take IPPF's word for it that they don't include abortion?

Then for item 1211 (Other family planning services for young people), of which there were 4,860,975 services, I asked for a description of each of these "family planning services" and their breakdown by numbers, for each different category of service.

DFATD response:
"All family planning services are provided to young people. Essentially the same methods as the other FP indicators, for clients under 25. No information about how DFATD funding relates to this."
I then asked DFATD, if IPPF is saying that they do not know how much DFATD money goes to giving FP services to young people?

DFATD's response:
"IPPF does not price consultations or staff member’s time - by either age group or service category, therefore they cannot earmark a specific amount for what was spent on youth family planning services. IPPF estimates the cash value based on salaries and clinic space as they are the two key drivers of price."
So IPPF provided almost 5 million services to young people, with no further breakdown. Again we just have to take IPPF's word for it. And what is the ages of these young people?

DFATD's response:
"Member Associations (IPPF's local partners) abide by the legal limits in the country it operates."
And what are the legal age limits in these countries? I'm waiting for an answer to that.

But there in a nutshell, is the real problem with all this. The Canadian people give their tax dollars to DFATD. DFATD then gives that money to IPPF. IPPF then gives that money to its "member associations" to provide in most cases--undefined services.

If IPPF can't break down these services any further (and they can't), then how do they know the member associations are not using the money for abortion? Do we just have to take their word for it? Apparently.

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Christine Elliott - does she care about open and transparent government?

Dear Christine,

I might be interested in your op-ed if I thought you really cared about holding Kathleen Wynne responsible for the Liberals attack on Freedom of Information in Ontario.

I've repeatedly asked you what you think about what Kathleen Wynne's government did with open and transparent access to government information.

I've also asked you if you became premier, would you repeal this harmful law that hides all abortion information, and its full frontal attack on democracy.

But all I get from you is--silence.

So no Christine, I didn't read your op-ed.

Thank you.

Patricia Maloney


Pat --

I thought you might be interested in my OpEd running in today’s National Post entitled “Kathleen’s war on jobs.”

I am holding this Wynne government to account and standing-up against her job killing pension plan.


Christine Elliott 

Monday, December 8, 2014

Pro-abortions fast tracking the slippery slope

Is this guy for real?
"Udo Schuklenk, a Queen’s University philosophy professor, argues that in rare cases of severely impaired, deeply suffering newborns, actively causing death is morally acceptable, if still illegal in this country.
He rejected the notion that allowing euthanasia in such cases would lead to a slippery slope where the idea is applied increasingly broadly."
Is he talking about the slippery slope he's already gone down?

The pro-abortions are so busy plying their radical trade, that they have become numb to any sane notion of human rights.

They can't get out of their own way fast enough, in their hurry to extend their slippery slope as far as it will go.

Thursday, December 4, 2014

Cause and effect video

Cause and effect video
 "How we ‘see’ people affects how we treat people. It’s cause and effect. If you don’t see the beauty and value in another person, it’s easy to treat them like an object. But imagine the effect if we saw every other person as equally amazing, equally important, equally valuable. Imagine how things might change.
In 24 years of ministry we [CAS] have assisted over 16,000 women in distress."
What a shame that an anonymous blogger was able to ensure that funding for a crisis pregnancy centre (Pregnancy Options and Support Centre in Sarnia) was revoked.

All because that anonymous person doesn't like crisis pregnancy centres, and has a personal vendetta against them. I feel sorry for her.

I hope she watches this video. She could use a dose of love in her life.

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

Ontario: 18,330 abortions done in doctors offices in 2010

Wendy Norman grossly underestimates the number of abortions done in Ontario each year. She says it's about 6,000. In 2010 there were actually over three times that many abortions done in Ontario in physician's offices.

That's a whopping 18,330 abortions performed in doctor's offices in that one year alone.

But don't expect to find out how many abortions are being done in doctor's offices in Ontario this year. Because you won't. Not since the Ontario government, under Kathleen Wynne's pro-abortion agenda, continues to make sure that all abortions performed in Ontario are of the top secret variety.

Below see my chart that I published in 2011. These numbers are based on doctor's OHIP billings. In fact, of all those abortions done in doctor's offices, not one of them was reported by CIHI (CIHI doesn't report on abortions done in private physician's offices).

2010 is the only year we will ever see those numbers.

Monday, December 1, 2014

Can a person be small?

Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC):
"Mr. Speaker, in light of the 85th anniversary of the Persons Case, I acknowledge the many Canadians who are working to ensure that all human beings are recognized in law. 
Canada truly is among the world's elite when it comes to valuing and protecting human rights, except that we are one of only three countries in the world with no legal protection for children before birth. Sadly, this includes unborn babies who are eliminated and have their precious lives ended just because they are girls. 
Britain knows it is wrong. Its Parliament declared sex-selection abortions illegal by a 181-to-1 vote.
Canada can fix this too. Let us start by having this Parliament condemn gender-selection abortion. What better day to recognize this than on Persons Day? 
As Dr. Seuss once said, “A person's a person. No matter how small.”
Leno Benoit is quite logical. Imagine that.

Filomena Tassi is pro-life?

"Filomena Tassi has clinched the federal Liberal nomination for the new Ontario riding of Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas".

I can tell you one thing. If I lived in Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas, I wouldn't be voting for Ms. Tassi.

Ms. Tassi is supposedly pro-life but is apparently willing to vote pro-choice on any bills that come up in Parliament.

Someone who says they have particular values on something, but in the next breath say that they are willing to flush those values down the toilet--for political expediency no less--is scary.

In fact if I was in that riding, and my only choice was to choose between a candidate who is pro-life and will vote pro-choice, and a candidate who is pro-choice and will vote pro-choice, I'd vote for the latter.

I get real queasy when people don't listen to their consciences. Especially politicians.

Of course I'm pretty queasy with Justin Trudeau too. If Ms. Tassi actually would vote pro-choice on a bill, then I guess they deserve each other.