Monday, April 24, 2017

Doctors need conscience protection please help if you can

This is extremely disturbing. This 6 minute video shows how doctors are being pressured into being involved in MAID.

Canadian Physicians of for Life is making a financial appeal to support the court challenge in support of doctor's conscience rights. If you can make a donation I urge you to do so.

Sunday, April 23, 2017

How pro-choice people get it wrong

Dear Heather Mallick,
Last week in the Toronto Star you wrote a story about an abortion protester outside the Morgentaler clinic in Ottawa. You think abortion protesters are "creepy, some unwell, and some threatening". You make all sorts of nasty unproven allegations in your opinion piece.
Cyril Winter's responded to your article here when he called into Mark Sutcliffe's radio show. Winter says he doesn't spit on anyone and doesn't speak to anyone unless he is spoken to. He says he is peaceful.
Dear Carol Anne Meehan,
You believe that people who peacefully protest outside abortion clinics are "religious fanatics" (as you said to Mark Sutcliffe on 1310 news radio on Friday). 
To both of you I would like to say this. We have rights in this country called freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and freedom of religion. In a democracy these rights are given to us all--and this may shock both of you--but these rights are even given to pro-life persons. When we encounter injustice to pre-born human beings we protest, we speak, and some of us may even depend on our religious beliefs to peacefully act thus.

You seem to think that pro-life people do not care about the women who have an abortion. You could not be more wrong. If this is what you honestly believe you have no idea of what being pro-life is all about.

Patricia Maloney

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Abortion information - ask and you shall receive?

I have now asked the Ontario Minister of Health and Long Term care for abortion information starting back on Feb 2, 2017 (that's over 10 weeks ago) and my fourth request was yesterday.

Dr. Hoskins doesn't respond to my requests.

I was in court on February 1, 2017 and was told by the Government's lawyer Dan Guttman, that all I had to do was ask for this information, and I would receive it. Mr. Guttman said this to judge Marc Labrosse who was listening to my charter challenge case against the Ontario government for hiding abortion information.

Contrary to Mr. Guttman's statement though, this is not a case of ask and you shall receive

Was Mr. Guttman speaking falsehoods to judge Labrosse? Was Mr. Guttman misinformed by Kathleen and Eric? Was Mr. Guttman hoping to dupe the judge into ruling against my case because, hey we'll just tell that Maloney person she can get this abortion information outside of FIPPA and maybe if we just tell her this she'll just shut up already?

I can't answer these questions, but they are pretty darn good ones even if I do say so myself.

In the meantime, I wait. And I wait. Hopefully the cows will come home soon.

Thursday, April 13, 2017

Woman's right not to have someone murder her unborn child

I watched this video today. It shows NDP MP Sheila Malcolmson speaking about Cassie and Molly's Law.

Malcomson says that Cassie was an exception, and therefore the law should ignore her choice--her daughter's life in the charges against the person who killed them. Cassie was killed by a stranger and she is an "exception".

"I will not support this bill."
The pro-abortions can't get out of the way of their blind abortion ideology. Everything is about abortion even when it isn't. It supersedes logic, compassion and reason. It's the only way they can rationalize not supporting this common sense legislation of protecting a woman's unborn child she has chosen to keep.

Read Jeff Durham's latest post on Arianna Goberdhan who was murdered along with her unborn child. Just like Cassie, the mother of Molly, Jeff's daughter.

Sunday, April 9, 2017

Pierre Lemieux - a woman's right to be a mother

The only people who could "strongly dislike" this kind of legislation are people like Joyce Arthur and her pro-abortion friends. Unbelievable but true. Can you even imagine not supporting a bill that would protect an unborn child that a woman has chosen to give birth to? No I can't imagine it either.

Kudos to Pierre Lemieux for announcing this.

Introducing legislation that protects expectant moms and their unborn children will be a priority in a Lemieux government. 
How do you feel about this position? 
I love it
I like it
I am indifferent
I have concerns
I strongly dislike it
Government has the duty to protect our country’s most vulnerable - to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

And yet for a mother who has chosen to bear her child, there is no law that recognizes that the life of her unborn baby was violently taken from her against her will if she is the victim of a violent assault.

Under current Canadian law, if an expectant mother is assaulted and her child dies as a result, the charge is assault against the mother.  Her baby’s life was taken from her through a criminal act - and yet the loss of her baby’s life is not recognized under the law.

It is a grave injustice that there is no legal recognition of the loss of an expectant mother’s unborn baby through a violent criminal act. 

When a woman chooses to become a mother, no one should have the right to take that away from her.

I will show actual leadership by addressing this injustice with a government bill. Private Members have done incredible work trying to advance this through the House, but simply allowing a Private Members Bill to proceed is no longer enough.  

As leader and as future Prime Minister of Canada, inspired by previous bills introduced by Conservative MPs, I will introduce legislation that will criminalize the killing of unborn children against the will of expectant mothers.

With this law, an offender will be charged not only with assault on the expectant mother, but also with the death of her unborn child.  
Legislation such as this is supported by Canadians, including many of my fellow leadership candidates - even those with different views on when life begins.

Introducing and passing this legislation will unite Conservatives and Canadians - and is necessary to protect the rights of expectant moms. 

Let me know what you think by clicking the survey above.


Wednesday, April 5, 2017

Ont. Gov't still has no conscience protection in Bill 84

Dear Dr. Hoskins,

On April 2, 2017 you are quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying:

“Many of these same people, when they express their concern, they ask us to implement what’s sort of being referred to as the Alberta model...We are implementing the Alberta model.”

I understand that this is NOT the case. The Alberta model does not require any physician involvement – it does not require an effective referral, and the model is entirely patient accessed.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario still requires an effective referral from doctors if requested by a patient – even though a care coordination service has been created.

Many Members of Provincial Parliament and Ministers have been confused by this statement and are now under the incorrect impression that an effective referral is no longer needed with the model the government has implemented.

To protect conscientiously objecting doctors and health care providers here in Ontario we must implement a conscience amendment in Bill 84.

Can you please ensure that proper a conscience clause is inserted into Bill 84?

Thank you.

Patricia Maloney
cc Nathalie Des Rosiers
Kathleen Wynne

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

Gov't still not addressing "duty to refer" clause in Bill 84

After complaining to our MPP Nathalie Desrosiers about the "duty to refer" clause as it relates to Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID), a group of us received a response.

Nathalie does not respond to our "duty to refer" concern.

I responded to her with this letter:
Dear Nathalie,
Thanks very much for your email reply to us. 
However I notice that you did not specifically address our very important concern regarding "duty to refer" as it relates to MAID. 
Can you please do so? 
This is a very important issue for all of us. It is also a very important for the doctors whose entire livelihood, and the livelihood of their families, depend on in that they do not want to be forced refer patients to be killed through MAID. 
If they are forced to "refer" patients, many good doctors will leave the profession. This is not what the citizens of Ontario want or need. 
As well, if we are assured of this provision being safeguarded, it also gives us the peace of mind that when we go to a hospital or doctor, that there WILL be doctors who are NOT participating in MAID, and we can feel safe and secure in that knowledge that, we will not be encouraged to prematurely end our lives by killing ourselves. 
We look forward to hearing back from you at your earliest convenience. 
Patricia Maloney 
cc Kathleen Wynne
Dr. Eric Hoskins Minister of Health and Long Term Care

Monday, April 3, 2017

CPCs pose threat to abortion cartel’s bloodthirsty cause

"... the abortion lobby has zero to show for its 40-year effort to expose pregnancy help centers as the hives of scum and villainy “they” would have us—or in many cases, legislators—believe. 
It’s not for lack of trying either. Every one of the 2,600 pregnancy help locations in the U.S. poses an immanent threat to the abortion cartel’s bloodthirsty cause. The abortion lobby is well aware of that fact, and has been fighting tooth and nail against pro-life alternatives to abortion ever since the late 1960s, as abortion was legalized at state levels prior to Roe v. Wade. 
In 2000, the nation’s leading abortion lobby group, NARAL Pro-Choice America, released a pamphlet entitled, “Unmasking Fake Clinics,” which has set the trajectory for every attack on pregnancy centers since. Periodically released national and state-level attacks (see examples herehere and here) have appeared ever since, rehearsing the same tired and baseless claims that uniformly fail to point out any wrongdoing on the part of a pregnancy center.
Just pro-lifers serving women with free, community-supported, life-affirming care. Nothing to see here. Thanks for stopping in, officer..."
Here in Canada we have our very own pro-abortions do their darnedest to do the same here in Canada. Read the whole article. Worth the read.

Saturday, April 1, 2017

Reported abortions in Canada are up

CIHI total reported abortions numbers are up in Canada. I say "reported" because we know what is reported, is under reported.

In fact hospital abortions are down while reported clinic abortions are up by about 30%.

And I still haven't heard back from Health Minister Eric Hoskins yet where I asked him for the total number of abortions broken down by hospitals, clinics and doctor's offices. What's he waiting for, the cows to come home?

Sunday, March 26, 2017

The bogus health and safety argument and our Charter right to protest abortion

More on my previous post about what the IPC said about our charter challenge against the Ontario government's decision to exclude abortion information from freedom of information requests when the IPC said this:
"Broad exclusions from the Acts, such as the ones proposed in Bill 84, can prevent the public from accessing information that poses no health or safety risk. For example, in 2012, the Ministry denied a freedom of information request for province-wide statistics on the number of claims and amounts billed for abortion services. It did so on the basis of the abortion records exclusion in section 65(5.7) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act,3 even though disclosure of this information posed no health or safety risk. In fact, the 2 Similar provisions exist in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. 
3 That decision was upheld by my office in Order PO-3222.
4 Ministry ultimately disclosed this information outside the scope of the statute after the requester commenced a court application. 
Finally, the IPC notes that access to information should not be limited in order to stifle legitimate and peaceful protest. The right to protest and express criticism of government decisions is an integral component of any democracy and is protected by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees everyone freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association."
Re: this statement:
"Ministry ultimately disclosed this information outside the scope of the statute after the requester commenced a court application."
So if health and safety was really a concern for the Government regarding my requested abortion information, why would they release the information only after I initiated court proceedings? Clearly they wouldn't have released it if they were truly concerned about the health and safety of...someone...we don't know who because there was no private information requested.

The fact that they did release it proves that there were no health and safety concerns at all, they were just hoping I would go away which I did not.

Re: This statement:
"Finally, the IPC notes that access to information should not be limited in order to stifle legitimate and peaceful protest. The right to protest and express criticism of government decisions is an integral component of any democracy and is protected by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees everyone freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association."
This statement was expressed as it pertains to people protesting medical aid in dying (MAID). But it also holds true for abortion as well. In a democracy where people protest abortion (which is paid for out of those pro-lifers taxes), those people also have a 
"right to protest and express criticism of government decisions is an integral component of any democracy and is protected by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees everyone freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association".
It is truly mind boggling how this Liberal government in Ontario tramples on so many fundamental rights of citizens and makes stuff up to satisfy their own abortion agenda.

Information and Privacy Commissioner says no health and safety concerns in releasing abortion information

Now this is super interesting. 

This document Comments of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario on Bill 84 [Bill 84, Medical Assistance in Dying Statute Law Amendment Act, 2017] details the IPC's opinion on excluding the names of medical facilities that provide medical assistance in dying, from freedom of information requests.

In this submission the IPC is saying this MAID exclusion from FIPPA goes too far and that the public should have a right to know in which facilities MAID is being carried out.

So by logical extension, one would conclude that the IPC would hold the view that we also have a right to know in which facilities abortions are being carried out: I think the same arguments apply.

In our Charter Challenge against the Ontario Government for hiding abortion information, the Information and Privacy Commissioner didn't take a position on whether abortion records should or should not be disclosed, but did mention how MAID records were being handled in Bill 84 as a possible way the government could deal with abortion.

In this paragraph the IPC actually states that there was no Health and Safety risk in our case (our case is not specifically identified but the description is obviously our case since it is the only case like it). Yet the health and safety angle was the Ontario Government's main argument:
"Broad exclusions from the Acts, such as the ones proposed in Bill 84, can prevent the public from accessing information that poses no health or safety risk. For example, in 2012, the Ministry denied a freedom of information request for province-wide statistics on the number of claims and amounts billed for abortion services. It did so on the basis of the abortion records exclusion in section 65(5.7) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 3 even though disclosure of this information posed no health or safety risk. In fact, the 2 Similar provisions exist in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. (emphasis added)
3 That decision was upheld by my office in Order PO-3222.
4 Ministry ultimately disclosed this information outside the scope of the statute after the requester commenced a court application."
I've already shot down that health and safety argument:

Now the IPC has just shot down the health and safety argument too. Let's hope Judge Labrosse agrees with us.

Finally as far as MAID goes:
"The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) wishes to focus on a single aspect of Bill 84. The bill proposes to amend the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and its municipal counterpart, the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Acts), to provide that these statutes do not apply to identifying information relating to medical assistance in dying. “Identifying information” is defined in Bill 84 to include information that identifies persons or facilities that provide services relating to medical assistance in dying and persons receiving such services. The IPC objects to the exclusion of information that identifies facilities providing services related to medical assistance in dying (facilities) from the application of the Acts. The rationale for this objection and the amendments proposed by the IPC are summarized in this submission  (emphasis added)
Excluding information that identifies facilities from the application of the Acts: 
• hinders transparency, accountability and meaningful public debate,
• is inconsistent with the transparency purpose of the Acts, and
• is not based on any evidence of harm.
Inconsistent with the Transparency Purpose of the Act
One of the key purposes of the Acts is to provide the public with a right of access to information under the custody or control of institutions, which include both public and private hospitals and municipally run long-term care homes, in accordance with the principles that information should be available to the public and any exemptions from the right of access must be limited and specific and clearly justified. As a general rule, the IPC closely scrutinizes any legislative changes that reduce the public’s right to know. (emphasis added)
No evidence has been provided, including evidence of harm, that would justify a broad exclusion from the right of access to information that identifies facilities." (emphasis added)
I'm happy to see the Information and Privacy Commissioner making his views public about what's happening with MAID. It's good to see him raising transparency issues, right to know issues, right of access to public and hospital institution information issues, etc.

I hazard to guess that when the Ontario government conducted their first assault on access to information rights regarding abortion, that the Information and Privacy Commissioner didn't even know what the government was doing. Nobody else knew, so how would the Information and Privacy Commissioner know? Was he consulted on the abortion exclusion clause? There is no indication that the commissioner knew anything about the clause's existence. Just like the rest of us.

This time with MAID, the Information and Privacy Commissioner was forewarned because of how the government went about with their secret assault on our rights last time. And this time, the Commissioner is on the offensive. Good for him.

Saturday, March 25, 2017

Tell your MPP you want doctor's conscience rights protected

Yesterday I called my MPP Nathalie Des Rosiers' office regarding Bill 84 Medical Assistance in Dying Statute Law Amendment Act. She was in Queen's Park so this is what I said to her assistant:
"Regarding Bill 84, Medical Assistance in Dying Statute Law Amendment Act: when Nathalie spoke in the legislature on this bill, I noted that there is no mention about a provision in the bill to ensure that conscience rights are protected. That's because there is no such provision in the bill. In fact The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is forcing doctors to make "effective referrals" which is against many physicians' freedom of conscience. This is of great concern to me."
I then told her assistant to make sure she relayed my concerns to Nathalie. She told me many people had already called her. Her assistant also told me that on Thursday March 20th there will be committee hearings in Toronto on this, and that people can request to call in to it to express their concerns about the lack of protection for doctor's conscience rights.

People can also send in a written submission to Peter Milczyn, MPP, Chair, Eric Rennie, Clerk 
Interested people who wish to be considered to make an oral presentation on Bill 84 on Thursday, March 30, 2017 should provide their contact name, mailing address, phone number, and email address to the Clerk of the Committee by 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 28, 2017.
Requests to present via teleconference will be accommodated.
Those who do not wish to make an oral presentation but wish to comment on the Bill may send a written submission to the Clerk of the Committee at the address below by 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 30, 2017.
Telephone: (416) 325-3506 (Collect calls will be accepted) Facsimile: (416) 325-3505 TTY: (416) 325-3538 
Please call your own MPP (Nathalie's email is and tell them you want doctor's conscience rights protected. And send an email to the committee at

It is very important we make our views known to the politicians. If we don't, we are in real danger of losing our doctors who will be forced into referring people for assisted suicide, or leave their practice. 

We must make sure doctor's conscience rights are protected.

Friday, March 24, 2017

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth

Dear Dr. Eric Hoskins, Minister of Health and Long Term Care of Ontario

On Feb 1 2017 in a court of law (Ontario Superior Court of Justice), on behalf of your government (Ontario), in front of a judge (Judge Marc Labrosse), your lawyer (Dan Guttman) said: 
"  ...if there is an exclusion [as there currently is with abortion information] you are entitled to ask government and when you ask government for that information, the government has to weigh the decision just like in any other make the request and if the request is denied you have the decision by the court. And we are saying we are going to give out this information."
On Feb 2, 2017, I asked you for abortion information as described by your lawyer above. Not only have I still not heard back from you, but I haven't even received an acknowledgement letter.

Surely you intend to honour your lawyer's commitment to send me this information, right? Surely we can trust that what he said was the truth? 

You know when I was cross examined by this same lawyer, a representative of your government, I had to swear to tell the truth. On a Bible. I took that oath very seriously.

I don't know, but surely I can expect the same kind of truth from your very own representative Dr. Hoskins? In a court of law? In front of a judge? Don't you think?

I look forward  hearing back from you soon, along with the abortion information I requested from you.

Patricia Maloney

Monday, March 20, 2017

Minister Joly interview on CBC's Power & Politics regarding "Islamophobia" motion

I received a copy of this letter from a Canadian citizen to Mélanie Joly, Minister of Canadian Heritage, regarding the "Islamophobia" Motion. Well worth the read. 

The Minister doesn't seem to grasp the problem with the motion as it currently stands.

Interview here.


Dear Minister Joly,

I just finished watching Terry Milewski interview you on Power & Politics regarding the "Islamophobia" motion. 

He asked you why you would not consider changing the word "Islamophobia" in the motion to "hatred of Muslims" for example. Irwin Cotler apparently also made the same suggestion to you, as did some Conservative MPs.

And yet, you did not explain why you refused to make that change, which members of all parties would probably agree with. Terry Milewski repeated a few times that "Islamophobia" means (at least for some people) fear of the religion, Islam, and not fear/hatred of the Muslim people. In other words, fear of the ideas that Islam espouses (for example, death to infidels.) And in the debate in Parliament today, I heard Conservative MPs make this distinction as well.

With respect, Minister Joly, you did not seem to grasp what Mr. Milewski was saying. You do not seem to grasp this important distinction. You kept going back to examples of hatred against Muslims. And yes, we can all agree that is WRONG. So why do you not then change the word "Islamophobia" in the motion to "hatred against the Muslim people"?? That is exactly what Mr. Milewski was asking, as have people like Irwin Cotler. And, with respect, you have not given a coherent response to that question.

I urge you, Minister Joly, to watch for yourself the interview you gave to Terry Milewski. You will see that you are not addressing his questions regarding the distinction between "Islamophobia" and "hatred of Muslims." 

You go on to say you don't want to curtail free speech. Well, if a person criticizes an Islamic idea such as "death to infidels," then they could be considered "Islamophobic" (since there's no definition of that term in M-103) and because M-103 condemns "Islamophobia" then you are effectively saying you want to condemn people who make legitimate criticisms of ideas like "death to infidels."

I sincerely hope, Minister Joly, that you/the PMO/Ms Khalid will amend M-103 accordingly. Otherwise, we can only conclude that the Liberal government really does intend with M103 to condemn people who validly criticize the religion of Islam, thus putting a chill on freedom of expression which will also undermine freedom of religion in this country. 

I have to assume you want to do the right thing, Minister Joly, for Muslims and indeed for all Canadians. Then please, try to understand what Terry Milewski was getting at and what Irwin Cotler and some Conservative MPs were explaining was the problem with M103. Please don't discount what someone is saying, just because they are not part of your Liberal government. I would hope, in the spirit of inclusiveness, you would listen to what is reasonable, regardless of who it is coming from, and not continue down this divisive path, purely for the sake of partisan politics. 

Thank you for considering my remarks, Minister Joly, and I hope to hear from you soon.

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Don Martin and Pierre Lemieux - let's talk about abortion

Dear Don Martin,

Mr. Lemieux speaks for many many social conservatives in this country with his strong stand against abortion (he's not afraid to say he's against abortion) and for free speech rights. I myself am very concerned with both these issues.

Like Mr. Lemieux I am opposed to abortion, and am currently awaiting a ruling from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Ontario on our Charter Challenge against the Ontario government for hiding abortion information. Our case is based on freedom of speech rights: how can I practice my freedom of expression rights in commenting meaningfully on how many abortions are performed in Ontario, and their cost, when the Ontario government prevents me from seeing that information?

I can't really think of two more important Canadian values, than the right of life for ALL Canadians including the pre-born, and the very old. And Freedom of Speech itself is the cornerstone of Canadian democracy. 

Mr. Lemieux stands for both of these values. I will be voting for him, and I thank him sincerely for his standing for what I believe in.

Patricia Maloney

Monday, March 13, 2017

Conservatives and Pierre Lemieux

Great Facebook post by Pierre Lemieux at a function in Ottawa Vanier. Too bad I couldn't attend but I'm not currently in Ottawa.

Lemieux reads a note from former Liberal supporter Colleen Fogarty who supported Pierre Trudeau. No more. She is now supporting Pierre Lemieux.

Lemieux discusses how he supports life. And Justin Trudeau pays for taking life with his abortion stand (and his recent $650 million funding for sexual and reproductive health and rights).
"If there is any party who is absolutely fixated on taking the lives of unborn babies and with abortion, it is the Liberals."
Lemeux encourages us to write to the Prime Minister ( or and tell him we don't want out tax money to go to paying for abortion overseas. This is part of the anti-life culture we are shipping overseas. That many of those countries don't support abortion at all. It is a western solution to problems in those countries.
"Social Conservatives are absolutely making an important contribution to the Conservative race."
Lemieux is for freedom of speech, the need of a healthy democracy, on being against polictical correctness, and says that social conservatives have a rightful place in our Canadian society.

Lemieux says he has always had the same values that he has today, even when he was elected 10 years ago. Pretty solid Conservative candidate. He doesn't change his values as he goes along. Same values 10 years ago, and same values now. What you see is what you get. Can't say that of most politicians.

Buy a Conservative membership for $15 to be able to vote for the next leader.

Justin Trudeau and abortion and Fatima

Cardinal Collins is now speaking out to Justin Trudeau about his "sexual and reproductive health" $650 million funding going to poor countries:
"I am writing to express my deep concern and disappointment at your government's decision to provide $650 million to support "sexual and reproductive health programs" globally. While it is commendable and necessary to foster initiatives that further the rights of women and young girls worldwide, your public comments suggest that unless a woman has access to abortion or contraception, she is not empowered or able to realize her full potential. 
I simply remind you and your colleagues that we have no rights at all unless we are afforded the right to life. That decision was made for you and for each one of us by a woman, determined and committed to bring a new life into this world."
The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops have already spoken to the Prime Minister.

Trudeau calls himself a Catholic, and even likes to tell us he was raised as a strict Catholic:
"I had an extraordinary example in a father who had deeply, deeply held personal views that were informed by the fact that he went to church every Sunday, read the Bible regularly to us, and raised us very religiously, as Catholics," Trudeau wrote. 
Since Trudeau is a Catholic, he knows the story of Our Lady of Fatima.

I already knew the story of Fatima of course (all Catholic children do) but am now reading a book on Fatima. It is quite the eye opener to read the whole story from beginning to end.

(Here is an online version of a similar book to the one I'm reading, by the same author Father by John de Marchi, I.M.C. THE TRUE STORY OF FATIMA )

In a nutshell, our Lady appeared to three peasant children in Fatima Portugal, Jacinta, Lucia and Francisco in 1917. She appeared to them on the 13th of each month for six months, beginning in May 1917 and ending in October 1917, when a miracle she promised took place, the Miracle of the Sun. Our Lady spoke about the need for repentance and for prayer. She also spoke of Hell. Our Lady also showed the children what Hell looked like.

This year is the 100th anniversary of these apparitions.

There are a lot of evils in this world including abortion and euthanasia.

I can't think of anything worse than having legal abortion and legal euthanasia in one's own country, except perhaps exporting and paying for thousands and thousands of abortions in other countries.

Heads up to Justin Trudeau: you may want to brush up on the Fatima story. Or you may prefer not to believe the story. Your choice really.

Saturday, March 11, 2017

Politicians and Catholic people

To be Catholic is to be pro-life. There is no ambiguity on the topic. In reality there are Catholics who are not pro-life. This is a contradiction in terms. But it happens. Hopefully these people have a conversion experience before the end of their life. We should pray for them.

Bernard Cardinal Law said:
"That is what Catholics are called to: to be unconditionally pro-life. There is no ambiguity in the words of Peter's successor. To be Catholic is to be unconditionally pro-life. To support abortion, to advocate the right to choose an abortion can in no way be considered a catholic option. ..."
We also know that the current Liberal government under Justin Trudeau is a pro-abortion party, First Trudeau forbid pro-life people from becoming members of his party. Now it gets worse when he has pledged $650 million to fund "sexual and reproductive health and rights".

So are Catholics allowed to vote for the Liberals in the next election? No. I'm pretty sure though that there are Catholics who do vote Liberal. But as Catholics we cannot vote for a politician that is for abortion and funds abortion. This would be a very serious matter for a Catholic.

Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi said:
"It is never permissible for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate because the candidate is pro-abortion. Such a vote would be formal cooperation in the serious sin of the candidate who, upon being elected, would vote for legislation making possible the taking of innocent human life through procured abortion."
Catholics must be pro-life.

Friday, March 10, 2017

Justin Trudeau and his reprehensible policy of Western cultural imperialism

Prime Minister,
On 8 March 2017 the Government of Canada announced $650 million over three years for “sexual and reproductive health and rights". According to a backgrounder provided to the media, a major part of the funding will be toward removing "judicial and legal barriers to the fulfillment of sexual and reproductive health and rights". As cited by the Globe and Mail on 9 March 2017, a federal official has confirmed "these barriers include the anti-abortion laws in many countries."
Such a policy is a reprehensible example of Western cultural imperialism and an attempt to impose misplaced but so-called Canadian "values" on other nations and people. It exploits women when they are most in need of care and support, and tragically subverts true prenatal health care. It negates our country's laudable efforts to welcome refugees and offer protection to the world's homeless, when the youngest of human lives will instead be exterminated and the most vulnerable of human beings discarded as unwanted human tissue.
Your policy and vision, contrary to the fundamental ethic of protecting the most vulnerable and assisting the weakest, are in conflict with the principles instinctively shared by the majority of the world's population and consistently upheld by the Catholic Church: to defend and protect human life from conception to natural death.
On behalf of all the bishops of Canada I thank you for your consideration and I remain
(Most Rev.) Douglas Crosby, OMI
Bishop of Hamilton
President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops

Thursday, March 9, 2017

Funding abortion overseas - #notmyprimeminister

Theresa Winchester sent this letter to Justin Trudeau. I suggest we all send him our own letter @JustinTrudeau

Why must I as a Canadian taxpayer fund abortion in Canada?  Oh, let's extend that.  Why must I as a Canadian taxpayer fund abortion in the whole world?

Like the early feminists, I can not condone killing children in any stage of their lives which has now become the acceptable "choice" of killing girl babies in the womb simply because they are female.  Your claim to be a feminist is as fallacious as so many other of your claims.  I was a feminist before you were conceived and hearing you say that you are a feminist makes my skin crawl.

Mr. Prime Minister, please educate yourself.  If you knew how unborn children were killed in the womb, you might have some understanding of the horror that is abortion.  If you understood that the unborn child who is a surprise or inconvenient or might be challenged develops in the womb day by day exactly the same as those who are wanted, you might have some understanding from the child's point of view.  If you knew about the number of women who sincerely regret their abortion every single day of their remaining lives, you might have a glimmer about the disservice that ready, free and unrestricted access to abortion is to women.  But then again, to understand anything about abortion, you would have to research and contemplate something other than the noisy people who scream "it's a woman's choice" while ignoring the fact that a human life ends with every abortion.  You only hear one voice, Mr Prime Minister, the one that agrees with your uneducated and firmly closed opinion.  Like so many other pro-choice people, you have never looked beyond the 10 second sound byte.  

I challenge you, Mr Prime Minister, while knowing full well that you will NEVER do it.  I challenge you, on the day of the National March for Life, May 11 2017, to have a look at the numbers of Canadians who totally disagree with your one voice.  I challenge you, on that day, to actually talk to some of them -- the idea of you doing that actually brings on a giggle!  The marchers are not religious whack jobs.  They are not attempting to control Canadian women and put them back barefoot into the kitchen.  They are not old white guys.  They are attempting to save the lives of Canadian human beings who have not yet been born but had no choice in being conceived and will have no choice in being terminated.  Even as I type this, I laugh; you don't have what it takes to do anything except what you have always done.  

Mr Prime Minister, some day when the world rights itself, and it will, you will be remembered in the same way that we now view the former pro-slavery leaders of countries.  

Please do not respond to my email with a platitude about valuing the input of all Canadians.  It is perfectly obvious to a blind man on a galloping horse that you value only those opinions that match with your own view of the world.  


Theresa Winchester

Sunday, March 5, 2017

When the Conservatives act like Liberals

You know Pierre Lemieux makes a really good point in his latest email to his supporters. When the pro-abortion Liberals decided to spend more of our tax dollars on abortion in poor countries, why haven't we heard anything against this from the Conservative party?
"You may have missed a significant announcement last week. 
The Liberals announced that they are giving $20 million this year to help International Planned Parenthood provide more abortions overseas. 
If you missed it, it wasn’t because the Liberals tried to hide it. They’ve been pre-positioning it for weeks. 
Rather, it is because Conservatives, as Opposition, are saying nothing."
Why the silence? Do the Conservatives condone this spending? Surely not. Aren't the Conservatives all about fiscal prudence? We have a 635 billion dollar debt in this country, and no Conservatives are talking about this shameful waste of money. Oh it's about abortion, is that it? Can't be seen as opposing anything to do with abortion?

Seems like the Conservative party is becoming an awful lot like the pro-abortion Liberals when they refuse to hold the Liberals to account to us for this shameful spending on killing unborn children in poor countries:
"When life issues are “out of bounds” for us as Conservatives, the Liberals are able to implement their agenda without any accountability or challenge."
Here's the question then. Why do we need a Conservative party at all? When the Conservative party we thought we had is really just a Liberal party?

Thursday, March 2, 2017

Monte Mcnaughton - Dr.'s conscience rights survey

MPP Monte McNaughton (the only MPP who I've heard speak out on this issue) has a one question survey on his website regarding doctor's conscience rights.

Please fill it out.

Thank God for one principled MPP.

The rot starts at the top - Canadians fund abortion overseas

This is sickening. We are going to give $20 million for "Reproductive Rights" which of course includes abortion.

My tax dollars and yours. It's not enough that we fund abortion right here in Canada. Now we want to fund it elsewhere.

So how much debt are we currently in in Canada anyway? $635 billion:
"Federal debt is also assumed to cross the $1 trillion mark around 2031. It is currently $635 billion."
And now we will add to that pathetic number so we can kill more unborn babies in other countries.

I think what International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau has done highlights the rot in this Liberal government and I plan to tell her this. This is not responsible government. On any level.

Write to the Minister and tell her what you think of her spending our tax dollars on overseas abortions. And copy her pro-abortion boss Justin Trudeau.

Monday, February 27, 2017

Ministry of silly walks has nothing on the Ontario Government

Our charter challenge against the Ontario government has been full of details, large and small, that probably to many people are kind of dry and boring.

I myself frequently grow weary of the nonsense we have to deal with when trying to understand the silliness of what the government did when they decided to play what they thought was a trump card with pro-life people who use freedom of information requests to uncover just how many abortions are done in this province every year and what those pre-natal killings cost tax payers--by simply striking those FOIs that uncovered those abortion numbers off the books once and for all.

Easy peasy. Good-bye you pesky pro-lifers. We don't want you commenting on this any more so we'll just shut you down it's none of your business anyway. Kill democratic rights. Kill transparency. Kill openness. Kill accountability. Kill the babies and make sure nobody knows how many babies are being killed.

They thought they were geniuses.

And as I've shown again and again they have made no sense in anything they've said and argued.

For instance. In this blog entry I talk about how the government's lawyer argued to the judge that there was already "a large body of scholarly works on abortion policy" so that should be good enough and I don't need any other information. Which is nonsense in itself, since that argument is really just about censorship and in a democracy censorship of government information should not be allowed unless safety and security is an issue and in this case safety and security is not the issue even though they say it is. Never mind that the "scholarly work" itself grossly under reports what we're looking for..

In fact if we dig a little deeper into the public document that the government points to, the document that the government says should be enough for me and I don't need FOIs on abortion, we learn something that actually argues against their very own safety and security argument.

It's amazing how you can tie yourself up in knots when your arguments are illogical. And silly.

So what is it in that document that works against their S&S argument? Well it's this. According to abortion doctor Wendy Norman there is "minimal or no harassment" of facilities:

"Facilities reported very little harassment (Table 4). No Canadian facility reported a resignation of an abortion provider–physician or any staff member owing to harassment. Only a single facility reported any resignation of an allied health professional staff member, and in this case the facility specified that the one resignation was not owing to violence, fear, or threats. Similarly, two-thirds of reporting facilities (49 of 74, 66.2%) indicated no episodes of harassment or violence in 2012, with a further 28.4% (21 of 74) reporting solely picketing without interference. Among 7 facilities reporting “other” episodes of harassment, half specified only receipt of harassing e-mail."

Or their argument that hey, we're going to give you information outside of FIPPA all you have to do is ask is ask for it. Right. On Feb 2, I sent an email to Minister Eric Hoskins asking for more data. Three weeks and a half later and I still haven't even received an acknowledgement from the Minister.

Never mind that there is no policies, no gudelines, nothing at all that ensures that they will give us the information. Oh but we do have the word of the government that we can get the information. Well then. That's comforting.

And why don't they want this information to be given to us? Because we might want to defund abortion. Well yes we do but what has that got to do with freedom of expression rights? Nothing.

So what is this bogus safety and security argument anyway? Just one more of the boring silly arguments the government made in an effort to shut down free and open access to information for those pesky pro-lifers who keep asking for information on abortion and the powers that be don't want the public to know so we'll just keep making up silly arguments and wear them down.

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Government wrong when it says "large body of scholarly works on abortion policy"

Another argument that the government's lawyer, Dan Guttman made as to why I don't need access to abortion statistics through FOI requests, is that there is already data publicly available:
"There is a large body of scholarly works on abortion policy."

He identifies two public documents written by abortion doctor Wendy Norman along with some other doctors. 

Guttman also brings up CIHI as a source of data. We already know that CIHI's data is grossly under reported (not all clinics report and no doctor's offices report abortions at all). Now we learn that the two additional reports by Dr. Wendy Norman (Abortion Health Services in Canada and First-trimester medical abortion practices in Canada) also under report abortion data, one of them actually reports less abortions than CIHI does.

1) Abortion health services in Canada (Objective: To determine the location of Canadian abortion services relative to where reproductive-age women reside and the characteristics of abortion facilities and providers.)

This paper is based on a national survey of abortion providers. It reports that 75,650 abortions were done in 2012. CIHI reported 83,708 abortions in 2012:
"We report the first detailed data on abortion facilities and providers in Canada, including data on facilities providing 90.4% of the total number of Canadian abortions (83,708) reported to the Canadian Institute for Health Information for 2012".
The report makes no mention of the fact that the 83,708 CIHI number is also an incorrect under reported number, but the statement leads the reader to believe that CIHI's numbers are accurate when they are not. My calculations based on my 2010 FOI requests show that OHIP numbers were 53.28% higher that CIHI's numbers that year. And since every year since 2010 we have not had accurate data, I've had to estimate the numbers.

And now we know, my 53.28% number is probably even higher based on what we learned from the government during our court appearance.

2) First-trimester medical abortion practices in Canada (Objective: To understand the current availability and practice of first-trimester medical abortion (MA) in Canada):
"A strength of this study was the high response rate, allowing it to capture 90.4% of the terminations reported to CIHI in 2012.1 It also presents the first picture of MA in Canada and can provide a basis for further evaluations. However, we recognize that it might not be completely representative; physicians were recruited from publicly advertised sites providing surgical abortion services, which might have introduced a lower response rate from hospital-based services and from MA providers not associated with an advertised abortion facility. Another potential limitation is the low response rate observed in Ontario (56.3%), a high-population area; thus, the results of this survey might not be generalizable to every province, especially Ontario."
Another problem is that these reports are not published annually. And there is no guarantee that they would be published every year, and most probably won't be. Since these two Wendy Norman reports are for 2012 stats, but were only published in 2016 (four years later), it's pretty certain that these reports are probably a one off. Reports that are published occasionally or only once, are not a good argument for telling someone there is already abortion information out there. And two public one-off reports that are known to under report abortion data, does not qualify as a "large body of scholarly works", wouldn't you say?