Monday, June 19, 2017

One Year Later, the reality of Medical Assistance in Dying

By Michael Swan June 9, 2017

Ontario doctors challenge policy forcing referrals for medically assisted dying
College's rules infringe on doctors' right to object on conscientious, religious grounds, groups argue
Amanda Pfeffer · CBC News
June 15, 2017

CBC Ottawa Morning Radio Live:  June 15, 2017 with Hallie Cotnam - Interview with Dr. Sephora Tang and Dr. David Rouselle from the CPSO

Sunday, June 18, 2017

Rex Murphy's excellent advice to Justin Trudeau on his feminist foreign aid policy

Poor Fern Hill. She just couldn't bring herself to watch Rex Murphy discussing Justin Trudeau's feminist foreign aid policy.


I guess Rex just made too much sense.

We still don't know number of late-term abortions in Canada

By Patricia Maloney

Pro-abortion activist Joyce Arthur thinks that only 0.59 percent of all abortions performed in Canada for 2015 are late-term.

There is no way Arthur can know this, since very few late-term abortions are reported to CIHI. All we know for sure is, that based on the 19,039 hospital abortions for which we have a gestational age, there were 587 late-term hospital abortions in Canada in 2015. (an excel spreadsheet will be downloaded to your computer, see Table 4)

I've discussed this a few times before, links here

So let's do it again for 2015.

CIHI reported 100,104 abortions in 2015. Of these 100,104 abortions, the gestational age is only reported for 19,039 of the abortions (7,330 performed on fetuses <=8 weeks, 8,701 on fetuses 9-12 weeks, 1,585 on fetuses 13-16 weeks, 836 on fetuses 17-20 weeks, 587 on fetuses 21+ weeks). Note that these known gestational age abortions are reported only for hospital abortions--we have no gestational ages for abortions done in clinics or physician's offices. And 4,522 of these hospital abortions have an unknown gestational age.

Therefore, there were at least 81,065 (100,104 minus 19,039) abortions performed in 2015 with an unknown gestational age. This means all of those 81,065 abortions, or most of them, or some of them, or none of them, could be late term abortions--we do not know. And we don’t know these gestational ages because most abortion providers don't report the gestational ages of abortions. 

In other words of the 100,104 known abortions we only know gestational ages for 19,039 of them.

If all of the unknown gestational age abortions were in fact late term abortions, then the percentage  of late term abortions could be as high as 81%. But we don't know do we? To say that only .59% of abortions are late-term is unknowable. It is also misleading.

Even if the rate of late-term abortions was linear, then that would mean that there could be 3,103 late-term abortions and not 587 (587 is 3.1% of 19,039, therefore 3.1% of 100,104 is 3,103).

And as Suzanne Fortin wisely noted regarding the possible rarity of late term abortions:
"So what if they're [late-term abortions] rare? They HAPPEN! Murder is rare too. One is too many."

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Ottawa Citizen - Freedom of expression wins

Judge strikes down law that blocks access to information about abortion in Ontario

Published on: June 12, 2017 | Last Updated: June 12, 2017 7:05 PM EDT

An Ontario judge has thrown out a law that prevents the public from knowing how many abortions are being performed in the province, saying it impedes meaningful discussion and criticism about abortion services “which is a matter of public interest.”

The Association for Reformed Political Action, which challenged the law, called the ruling by Justice Marc Labrosse of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice a “huge victory” for freedom of expression.

“This decision strengthens democracy,” said André Schutten, ARPA Canada’s director of law and policy. “The question at the heart of this case was whether governments can avoid accountability on a particular matter simply by excluding information related to that matter from the access to information law. We are very pleased that the court has struck this censorship provision down.”

In his ruling, Labrosse said the law, which excludes information about abortion services from Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy, is too broad and was passed with virtually no debate. He ruled that the section in question is unconstitutional.

The province has 12 months to put remedial legislation in place before the current law becomes invalid.

Labrosse said Ontario relied on concerns of the Ontario Hospital Association that disclosing information about abortions could put the safety and security of patients, hospitals and staff at risk. But the law also excludes general statistical information on abortion, which was once available.

“The evidence in these proceedings leads me to conclude that in order to have a meaningful public debate, the available information to allow for a meaningful public debate certainly needs to go beyond some of the basic statistical information offered by Ontario … the information provided to date is clearly insufficient.”

Schutten said the motivation of his organization — which opposes abortion — was to “make sure we can comment and lobby with accurate numbers. We have never been interested in patient or doctor identifiers or individual names. All we are looking for is statistical general information.”
The ruling could have implications beyond abortion.

Ontario passed similar, although less broad, legislation preventing information from being made public about which health institutions are providing medically assisted death.

Dying with Dignity says such information is crucial to an informed public debate about access to and availability of medically assisted death.

Dying With Dignity Canada CEO Shanaaz Gokool said she sees similarities between the ruling on abortion statistics and her organization’s objection to restrictions on access to information about medical assistance in death.

Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner Brian Beamish argued that banning access to information about where assisted death was being performed “hinders transparency, accountability and meaningful public debate,” and is not based on any evidence of public harm.
Beamish also intervened in the court ruling about records related to abortion services.

Gokool said her organization has asked the ministry whether the ruling on access to abortion information changes anything when it comes to limits on access to information about assisted death.
“The decision seems to say that withholding information from Ontarians about health care services limits the ability to have full public and social policy discussions.

“The province has to take another look at what they have passed. To do otherwise would be problematic.”

ARPA, which opposes assisted death, is also interested in information about the provision of services in the province, said Schutten.

“This is the interesting thing. Our organization has grave concerns about vulnerable people. But in this case we would agree with Dying With Dignity. We want to be able to know how many people are being killed and by what means.

“We can handle the information … and a good, robust debate.”
epayne@postmedia.com

Monday, June 12, 2017

A doctor speaks out about conscience rights

By An Ontario Doctor

I received a copy of this letter from a doctor. The doctor is writing about health care workers' conscience rights.

To my Member of Provincial Parliament of the Liberal Party,

I am deeply disappointed by the Liberal Party's willful disregard of the conscience rights of health care professionals when they voted in unison to defeat Bill 129 (An Act to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991).

I realize now the utter powerlessness that minority citizens, like myself, have in the face of governments who have differing ideals.  I depended upon my elected member of parliament to speak for me, to be my voice and my vote on the one issue over which I have agonized for the past two years, an issue that has affected not only my freedom in how I practice my craft, but also the well being of countless patients (among whom you and I will be counted one day) who will be affected by the ramifications of this shift in health care policy.  I cannot help but to feel let down by both federal and provincial governments that have decided to play a political game based on faulty arguments which you and I both know are untrue.  For example, the argument of the patient who is so isolated and helpless that they cannot telephone to self-refer for MAID, is a fictitious patient that does not exist - but if on the rare occasion that such a patient actually did exist, then helping them to get on a pathway to be euthanized is perhaps the wrong immediate focus before other supports have been put into place first!

Which is why I don't understand the argument so often used by the Liberal party to discount conscience rights -  that upholding conscience rights would somehow limit access to service.  This argument is false, as has been shown in other jurisdictions that have allowed euthanasia and assisted suicide while still respecting conscience rights.  However, if the belief is that upholding conscience rights does in fact limit access to service, then this stated belief is incoherent with other statements made that conscience rights is already protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Preamble of C-14.  If conscience rights are, as stated, already protected, then what would be the harm of upholding these rights in legislation?  It is precisely because these rights are NOT sufficiently protected in light of the Carter decision that there is a need for explicit legislative protection, and which the Federal Government expected provinces to enact provincially.  Instead, the Ontario government has shirked its responsibility of protecting fundamental freedoms that are being eroded with seemingly no consequence to regulating colleges keen to impose policies that violate human rights due to their own faulty understanding of what it means to respect conscience rights.

Not enacting laws that protect freedom of conscience is analogous to saying, at the Federal level, that because everyone has a Charter Right to Life, there is no need for a law prohibiting murder because a person's right to life is already protected under the Charter.  Charter rights are guiding foundational principles upon which laws are created and by which they must abide.  Nowhere has there been any evidence produced that demonstrates upholding the Charter rights of Freedom of Conscience in Legislation infringes upon another person's right to life (which was the reason why physician-assisted suicide was permitted).  Furthermore, the Care Coordination System which the government has agreed to create (thank you very much) resolves the public fear of potential restrictions to access.  

A Charter of Rights and Freedoms is effective in granting rights only in so far as those words are respected in action, which, on this issue, has not been the case.

It is clear from the Liberal party's stance that it sides with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), which the Canadian Medical Association has stated holds an "impoverished" understanding of conscience, and which does not respect differences of conscience.  Just because one might believe it is okay to do something a certain way does not mean that another person believes the same.  And it is wrong to coerce another person in doing what they deeply believe to be wrong even if one may think it is for a perceived good (in this case, the death of a suffering person), no matter how hard one tries to justify this coercion by looking to other people who may have reconciled their own consciences with the objectionable act.  This is where differences in conscience plays out, and so far, the Liberal government has firmly decided it would only protect the conscience rights of some, but not all, health professionals in trying to achieve that "balance" so oft spoken.

What your party has demonstrated by word and action is that it is okay to not respect those who cannot participate in an effective referral for the death of their patient.  If this is not what you believe, and only what your party has asked you to support, then I am truly sorry that you are placed in a position in which you must contort your own words and actions so as to align yourself with what has been asked of you, without the freedom to voice what you truly believe.  And if your words and actions are indeed a true representation of what you believe and stand for, then I am saddened that you are unable to see the truth behind the harms that your beliefs and position will cause for the greater society.  One of the best, most comprehensive speeches I have heard on the subject was given by Cardinal Müller.  You may wish to read the full text here.

When the voice of reason became overshadowed by political antics on an issue that should never have become a victim of partisan politics, I came to the clear realization that if the majority government espouses values that are fundamentally different from my own, elected members of provincial parliament will only do what their Party dictates, and not, as I had previously supposed and hoped, what we elected them to be, as a voice for their constituents.  In casting my vote at the next election, I will bear this in mind, and favour a party (and not any one individual), that has demonstrated a commitment to upholding the fundamental freedoms upon which our democracy rests.

Despite my deep disappointment and sadness over a situation that remains incomprehensible to me, I just want you to know that I think of you and pray for you often, for your well-being, and for your good.  I ask that perhaps you might also do the same for me, and keep me in your prayers.

Sincerely,
your local physician

Friday, June 9, 2017

Charter challenge - we won - you can't hide abortion information

The Judge ruled in our favour. See judgement here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QDsYLWnwO6ODBUTGM3d1liNG8/view?usp=sharing

We were successful and the portion of the law excluding abortion-related information was struck down.

CPCs are there for the woman - before, during, and after pregnancy

By Rebecca Peters

Pregnancy care centres have been accused of being anti-choice with hidden, secret agendas. Let’s take a look at the situation.

Most local pregnancy care centres are faith-based. But what does that mean? Quite simply, it means that everything they do is based on their love for God and the truth of the Bible – that all life has value. That’s it. Everyone that works at a centre, whether staff or volunteer, shares these beliefs. They don’t preach them. They simply live them, by loving and honouring all life and every person that walks through the door, regardless of that person’s age, race, gender, or religion.

Pregnancy care centres offer medically accurate information on all three options available to a woman when she is pregnant – abortion, adoption, and parenting. The information is presented in a straightforward and unbiased way, because centres believe that when given accurate information, women are smart enough and fully capable of making the best decision for themselves. The only suggestion made to a woman facing a pregnancy decision is – take the time needed to make this important life decision.

Pregnancy care centres are not political. In fact, they are very careful in their words and their actions to stay away from controversy and politics. What they care about is meeting a woman where she is at and walking alongside her. No politics, no agendas. Centres provide a non-judgemental and confidential, safe place to be real and be heard. They offer resources, referrals, material supports, and programs. All for free, all regardless of the woman’s decision.

Pregnancy care centres are actually very much pro-woman. They are there for the woman – before, during, and after pregnancy … even if that pregnancy ends in abortion. Pre-pregnancy: education is provided on healthy relationships. During pregnancy: information is offered and support is given in the form of prenatal education and free maternity clothes and baby supplies. Post-pregnancy: centres provide a safe and supportive community, either in the form of parenting classes or post-abortion groups and support.

Yes, the staff and volunteers at pregnancy care centres love babies. But they love the woman too. Because they know it’s not easy, some of them have worn the exact same shoes … the shoes that walk into a doctor’s office with dread and walk out of an abortion clinic with a broken heart.

Pregnancy care centres believe every woman has the right to make a well-informed choice, with all of the facts and unconditional love and support.

This article originally appeared at Faith Today. Reprinted with permission by the author.

Rebecca Peters is Communications Liaison for the Canadian Association of Pregnancy Support Services (www.capss.com), an affiliate organization of The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, publisher of Faith Today (Canada’s Christian magazine).

Thursday, June 1, 2017

Why was this column in the Toronto Star even published?

I don't get it. This article by Emma Teitel in the Star is based on the now proven to be false statement that Andrew Scheer referred to a same-sex marriage bill as “abhorrent.” In fact at the very top of the article the Star published a correction to the article whose entire premise begins with a false allegation.
"Correction – June 1, 2017: This column mistakenly states that Andrew Scheer referred to same-sex marriage bill as“abhorrent.” In fact, Scheer’s statement referred to the treatment of Roman Catholic Bishop Fred Henry being called before a Human Rights Tribunal for speaking out about the Catholic Church’s position on same-sex marriage. In his speech, Scheer said: “To think that a Catholic bishop must answer to a civil authority over matters of faith is abominable. It is abhorrent to me, to other Catholics and to every member of every faith community. It is abhorrent because the very essence of being a religious official is to teach the faith and instruct the faithful. There is an inherent right for religious officials to do so.”
So why did the Star publish the article at all? Is it because it's just too much fun to trash social conservatives?

Now I don't usually read the Star but Michael Coren--now a good friend of the Star--tweeted it. Coren thought it was a "very good column".

Can a column be very good when it's based on a falsehood? What am I missing here?

Double standard alive and well for pro-life people

By Patricia Maloney

Mayor Jim Watson and my councillor Tobi Nussbaum never had the courtesy to answer my question as to why our rights of peaceful protest were ignored when the Ottawa Police re-routed the March for Life. Mind you I'm used to politicians not answering my questions since apparently we don't deserve the same respect as other people.

Now Watson is asking for a bubble zone. Christie Blatchford's take on this in today's National Post:
"Let it never be said that the state is shy about using an elephant gun to kill a flea.
I give you the latest musings of Ontario Attorney General Yasir Naqvi, who this week announced that next fall, his government is going to legislate “safe access zones” around abortion clinics to “help ensure the safety and privacy of women, visitors and health-care workers travelling to and from these facilities.”
Naqvi, who represents a downtown Ottawa riding where a Morgentaler Clinic is located, alluded to recent “serious instances of intimidation, harassment and even assault” towards patients there. Urging the province to act were Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson and Catherine Macnab of Planned Parenthood Ottawa.
Perhaps there’s a real issue in Ottawa, though there has been little hard reporting of it. Some protesters there wear sandwich boards featuring photos of lurid and cut-up bodies, and yell at patients that they are killing their babies, clinic staff say."
Good point. If there's been so many problems at the Morgentaler facility, where is all the reporting of it? And if there are bone-fide problems why don't the police deal with them? Like they do everywhere else there are harassment problems?

In fact in 2012 abortion doctor Wendy Norman said this in her study Abortion health services in Canada:
“Facilities reported very little harassment. 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.”
So if one of Canada's premier abortion doctors says there is virtually no harassment or problems at abortion facilities, why is Yasir Naqvi and Jim Watson using an elephant gun to to kill a flea? It's because there are two sets of standards in "civilized" society today. One set for pro-life people. And one set for everybody else.

Monday, May 29, 2017

Trudeau shares Pope Francis's faith?

Justin Trudeau and Pope Francis from 1310 news:
"Trudeau, a religious Catholic, says the meeting was also an opportunity to have a deeply personal discussion with the leader of his faith."

Trudeau as a religious Catholic? You know, Francis wasn't born yesterday.

Michael Coren earns his liberal creds

By Patricia Maloney

Brian Lilley interviews the new Conservative leader Andrew Scheer. Scheer isn't scary. Really.


Unlike Justin Trudeau who bans pro-life people from his party, Andrew Scheer, and in fact all Conservatives, don't ban any group from their party. Social conservatives are welcome. Fiscal conservatives are welcome. Even Libertarian Maxime Bernier is welcome. Heck Bernier almost won. A real big tent party. Not the Liberals. They pretend they are inclusive when they're exclusive. The Liberals are inclusive only as long as you are not pro-life.

Of course I also expected our Liberal media to be all over Andrew Scheer since he is pro-life. And I wasn't disappointed. The first piece I read by our liberal media was Michael Coren, who has now made his transition complete to being a full fledged member of the liberal media.

You see, a lot more work comes your way when you belong to the pro-choice media.

Coren attempts to analyze Scheer 's becoming leader in light of the fact that he is a social conservative. This  of course gives Coren a nice sounding board to trash social conservatives who he says are neither "sensible" nor "informed". And of course Coren buys into the mandatory fable no good liberal can be without: "woman's right to control her own body". No Michael the unborn child is another person's body though I'm pretty sure you know that.
"Most sensible and informed people in Canada believe in a woman’s right to control her own body and reproduction, and even those who may have some moral reservations about abortion accept the legal and political status quo.
And this:
"In other words, the argument is over."
Another pro-choice fallacy.

And what else are we according to Coren?
Fringe, irrelevant, eccentric, mostly ignored, zealots and hysterical.
He calls us "pro-lifers" in quotes. Is it because Coren thinks he's picking up a soiled piece of trash and has to hold his nose? And for the cherry on top Coren takes a pot shot at Roman Catholics (who he used to be) and Dutch Calvinist Churches.
"Members of this movement are usually Roman Catholic or from one of the various Dutch Calvinist churches; they are generally young, often with a home-schooled or private Christian education background; they are politically right wing on a number of causes; and they have jettisoned the moderation of some of their elders, and also learned lessons from “pro-lifers” south of the border."
Yep. Coren's transition is complete.

Friday, May 26, 2017

How peaceful prolife people are treated

By Patricia Maloney

Since I couldn't get my councillor Tobi Nussbaum or mayor Jim Watson to answer my questions about why the March of life was rerouted, I asked Chief Bordeleau.

He replied:
"What I can tell you with respect to the demonstration is that the Ottawa Police Service is present during demonstrations to ensure the safety and security of all participants and observers.
Although routes are pre-approved, officers on the ground may be required to make decisions to deviate from a planned route for a number of reasons including for reasons associated with public safety.
Demonstrations are dynamic in nature and officers must make decisions on site which were required that day."
My subsequent reply:

Dear Chief Bordeleau,

First I would like to thank you for responding to my letter. As I have mentioned already, my councillor Tobi Nussbaum and mayor Jim Watson have not responded to my question.

Second I am confused by your response. The counter protesters were originally stationed at the corner of Elgin and Slater on the East side of Elgin.



Then they began to cross to the west side of Elgin, stopping in the middle of the street, and then they stood in the middle of the street, all the while the police enabling this action, and not insisting that they stay put, and out of the path we were approved to take.


So...we were then diverted because the police were allowing the counter protesters to force us to change routes. Why instead were the counter protesters not kept back to their original spot? Why were the police's actions being dictated by a handful of masked angry protesters? At the expense of our 14,000 peaceful protesters? It is important to us to march past the Human Rights monument because we support human rights for all Canadians including unborn children, and this is why we take this route.

Why were we diverted because these others were allowed to prevent our charter right to peacefully protest and express our pro-life views? Why didn't the police divert them instead? 

With all due respect Chief Bordeleau, I will answer that question for you since I have no allusions that you will provide me with an answer that makes sense.

It is because there is a double standard in Ottawa. It is because there is a double standard in Canada. There are millions of pro-life people, and there is everyone else. Because we stand up and defend pre-born Canadians who are unable to defend or protect themselves--we are marginalized; we are shunned; we are spat on; we have profanities yelled at us; we get the finger as if we are some kind of disgusting human being. And we get angry masked protesters too cowardly to show their faces, threaten us. That's what it's like to be pro-life. And the police protect these other people instead of protecting the peaceful pro-life people.

Here's a thought  experiment for you. Imagine the gay pride parade going down Elgin St. Then imagine a group of 50 people counter protesting the gay pride parade. Would your police officers divert the gay pride parade because of these counter protesters? I guarantee you that they would not. If they did, there would be outrage in the land.

And now our mayor is asking for a bubble zone around the abortion clinic. Why? Because allegedly there were a few individuals who behaved improperly. If they did, why weren't they dealt with by the police when they did it? No the solution to the possibility of a few individuals behaving inappropriately, is for our Mayor to send a Tomahawk missile to curtail our rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. That's how we are treated. 

And make no mistake. 99.9 % of pro-life people do not condone or would never engage in any kind of aggressive, abusive behaviour; they wouldn't dream of behaving this way. If some people did behave this way then deal with it with your police officers.

Once again Chief Bordeleau, I would like to thank you for having the courtesy and respect for a citizen of Ottawa--albeit a pro-life person quite used to not receiving replies--to reply to my email.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Friday, May 19, 2017

Ottawa Citizen agrees to change policy regarding pro-life letters

I think it's time we insist that newspapers use the word "pro-life" to describe us. Newspapers usually call us "anti-abortion". I took issue with this policy last week when I wrote a letter to the Ottawa Citizen after they changed a letter I wrote where I used "pro-life" to "anti-abortion"

I then contacted the Citizen and explained that I had a big problem with this change.

Then ensued a correspondence between myself and Christina Spencer, the editorial pages editor. She said they would review their policy of using the word "anti-abortion" instead of pro-life" after I explained how unfair this policy was to us, since we call ourselves "pro-life". And that, just like how editors call themselves editors and not "word-changers", we like to be called "pro-life" and not "anti-abortion".

In putting forth our position on calling ourselves "pro-life" I then explained:
"Cardinal Collins never used the word abortion in his homily. He used the words "Sanctity of Life", Gift of Life", "Cause of Life", "March for Life", etc. He also spoke about euthanasia and assisted suicide: our view is much broader than anti-abortion, it is about the sanctity of ALL life: 
"anti-abortion" is not what I wrote and definitely not what I meant. If it is the Citizens policy to use that word instead of the word we use ourselves--and the word I always use--the Citizen is manipulating my/our message. 
For someone to read my letter as it stands, who knows little or nothing about life issues, will believe that I/we call ourselves "anti-abortion" when this is simply untrue, misleading to readers, and unfair to us. 
Surely it is not the Citizen's goal to mislead/misrepresent their readers/letter writers? 
...another argument is this: It is one thing for the OC to use the word "anti-abortion" in articles written by staff members (and I don't agree with this either), but it is another thing entirely to change a letter that I have written to use the word "anti-abortion", when clearly the letter should be in my voice, not in the voice of the OC. And the same goes for Cardinal Collins: I was writing about what he said, it wasn't OC staff writing about what he said."
The Citizen has now agreed that:
"letter-writers should be given their own voices as much as possible, regardless of our other style protocols around the issue. As a result, I’ve gone in to our web file and updated your letter to use the term “pro life” where you used it."
I think this is very good news for us at the Ottawa Citizen. Now we need to educate other newspapers in Canada where this policy is practiced.

My letter with the word "pro-life" put back in.

Really boring videos - prelude to Ontario election

Do you want to be bored silly? If yes then watch this video. Kathleen Wynne and company recently discovered youtube. Now she is posting really boring videos on youtube.



Somehow I ended up on a mailing list to tell me that Kathleen is live broadcasting these really boring videos.

Today's installment is about light rail in London.

The first 23 minutes of the video consists of a sign, a microphone and some trees. Blowing in the wind. 23 minutes of this. Like I said. Really boring. I am not kidding.


I wonder if there were any actual people at the announcement other than politicians?

Of course we aren't idiots in Ontario. We all know the point of these really bring videos: the Ontario election is next year. Oh, and the best part? You paid for this really boring video. Along with all those Liberal commercials the Ontario government is airing on the radio. Also paid for by your tax dollars.

Liberal strategy: Announce spending of tax dollars. Tell taxpayer how great we are. Force taxpayer to pay for us to tell them how great we are. Really boring. But effective. Brilliant really.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Jim Watson - Why did you divert our March for Life?

Jim Watson's response to my letter about his decision to take down the pro-life flag.

If you wrote, you probably received the same form letter response.

And notice how he doesn't answer my question about why the March for Life was diverted from its approved route.

I've now asked him this question three times.

Dear Ms. Maloney,
Thank you for your email with respect to the March for Life flag raising. 
The process for issuing proclamations and approving flag raisings is overseen by the Office of Protocol to ensure that the City’s policies are interpreted without a political lens and in keeping with the Ontario Human Rights Code.  As the request from the March for Life group met the test of both policies, the proclamation was issued, as it has been for many years.  This is the first year the request has been made for a flag raising.  It was granted on the same basis as the proclamation. 
While the City’s Flag Protocol Procedures mirror the City’s Proclamation Policy in many ways, a review of this matter by the City Clerk has determined that the request for the flag raising was made by an individual.  This does not meet the criteria and, when this was discovered, the flag was taken down under the authority of the City Clerk. 
With respect to proclamations, all proclamations issued by the City of Ottawa are in accordance with a Policy adopted in 2002.  The provisions in this policy reflect the law in Ontario with respect to proclamations, which ensures that the City’s practices are in line with Ontario’s Human Rights Code.  The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that, because proclamations issued by Mayors in Ontario are a service subject to the provisions of the Human Rights Code, the refusal of a Mayor to issue a proclamation may constitute a contravention of the Human Rights Code if the decision of the Mayor was based on any reason that is protected in the Code or by case law related to the Code. 
Therefore, based on the requirements of human rights law, most municipalities in Ontario have chosen to either eliminate the use of proclamations altogether or issue them using broad criteria.  For this reason, the City of Ottawa’s Policy specifically indicates a Proclamation “should not be interpreted as an endorsement by either the Mayor or the City of Ottawa.’’ 
I have requested that the City Clerk review the Flag Protocol Procedures and the City’s Proclamation Policy, and report back. 
Thank you for your feedback, 
Jim Watson 
Mayor
City of Ottawa

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

March for Life 2017 - a letter to Jim Watson

I'm pretty sure a lot of people have written to our mayor about his decision to remove the pro-life flag from City Hall. Here is one such letter that was sent to me.

To: Jim Watson, Mayor, City of Ottawa

cc: Michael Qaqish, Councillor Ward 22 - Gloucester - South Nepean

Dear Mr. Watson (copy to my City Councillor, Mr. Qaqish),

I was so proud of you and the City of Ottawa last week when I heard that the Pro-Life flag would be flying at Ottawa City Hall on the day of the National March for Life.

At the pro-life rally on Parliament Hill, again, I was so proud of you and the City when your proclamation in honour of Respect for Life Day was read out loud to the cheering crowd of Canadians who came from across our great country to stand up for all those in our society who are too vulnerable to stand up for themselves.

That pride and joy I experienced turned into confusion and disbelief when the police blocked us from continuing down our pre-approved route past the Human Rights Monument. The police chose instead to give in to the demands of a few protesters (probably less than 100 from what I could tell) and refused to let us proceed towards the Human Rights Monument. This happened last year, and so I thought for sure the police would be prepared to not let this happen again this year. (And I know that the police were warned that protesters would be there.)

Then later, when I read the letter of complaint signed by seven city Councillors (Catherine McKenney, Diane Deans, Marianne Wilkinson, Tobi Nussbaum, Jeff Leiper, Jan Harder, and Mathieu Fleury) and learned that you had actually apologized for allowing the pro-life flag to be raised and ordered it taken down, I felt like I had been punched in the gut. 

Mr. Watson, why do you (and the signatories to that offensive letter) hate us so much?

Why won't you defend the rights of those who support laws that would protect vulnerable human beings such as preborn children? (Even if you don't personally agree with that viewpoint, it is a valid one to have in a free and democratic society.) Why do you allow a handful of protesters to take away our freedom to peacefully walk along a pre-approved route in solidarity with the women who have been harmed by abortion? Why do you fly the flag for those who are proud of their LGBTQ lifestyle, but treat with contempt those who are proud of their belief in the sanctity of human life? Why the double standard?

Mr. Watson, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Codes apply to all Canadians. Why are you treating us like second-class citizens?

I do not know if you failed last Thursday to uphold our freedoms because you personally agree with the pro-abortion/anarchist protesters who intimidated the police into diverting our March. And maybe you personally agree with the seven Councillors who signed the discriminatory letter that contained the lie that access to abortion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, demanding the pro-life flag be taken down. (In fact, all seven Supreme Court justices in the 1988 Morgentaler decision agreed that the state has an interest in protecting the fetus; they all agreed Parliament could come up with a new abortion law to balance the interests of both women and unborn children). 

Or maybe you acted as you did because you did not have the courage to defend our democratic freedoms in the face of controversy. If that is the case, then, with respect, Mr. Watson, that is not leadership. 

But if the former--if you acted as you did because you agree with the pro-abortion/pro-euthanasia status quo in our country, that is, that there should be no legal protection at all for children in the womb; that abortion must remain fully funded by the taxpayer; that physicians should be coerced into collaborating with abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide against their deeply held religious and/or conscientious convictions; that a violent criminal who assaults a pregnant woman and intentionally kills the baby she did NOT choose to abort should face no consequences for killing her beloved child--if you acted as you did because you personally hold such views, then you have allowed your own personal views to cloud your judgment and take priority over your responsibility to uphold the democratic freedoms of a whole segment of Canadian society (the thousands who attended the March, and the millions across the country whom we represent).

Regardless of your motives, Mr. Watson, I'm now asking that you apologize to all who took part in the March last Thursday, and to all Canadians across the country who share our pro-life values, for the discriminatory actions taken by the City of Ottawa: the removal of the pro-life flag, your misplaced apology for allowing the flag to be raised in the first place, and the refusal by police to allow us to proceed along our pre-approved route past the Human Rights Monument.

I am especially disheartened that this discriminatory behaviour by the City of Ottawa would happen when we are celebrating our great country's 150th Anniversary. I thought we would have reached the point where our governments would treat everyone in Canada (including in Ottawa) equally and respectfully. There's nothing to celebrate about the way the City treated pro-life Canadians last week.

An apology from you, Mr. Watson, and a promise not to allow this to happen again is in the interests of the common good. It will send a clear message that our Nation's Capital is a city that respects freedom and justice, not just for some, but for all. Everyone benefits in that kind of a society.

And it will show true leadership on your part, Mr. Watson.

Thank you, and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely, 
BM

Monday, May 15, 2017

City of Ottawa council - that's what's "outrageous"

I am still waiting for a response from my counsellor Tobi Nussbaum and from Mayor Jm Watson.

Read from the bottom.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Patricia Maloney <maloneyp64@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, May 12, 2017 at 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: Pro-life flag
To: "Nussbaum, Tobi" <Tobi.Nussbaum@ottawa.ca>
Cc: "Watson, Jim (Mayor/Maire)" <Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca>, Patricia Maloney <maloneyp64@gmail.com>


Dear Tobi,

You say it is about personal conviction. This is NOT merely the conviction of one person. This is the conviction of millions of Canadians so it is not a personal conviction at all, but an entire group of people who are pro-life but who are discriminated against continually, and our rights are not protected.

Second, there is no constitutional right to abortion, and the Canada Health act does not demand abortion be covered. Please see http://www.morgentalerdecision.ca/

Third, you have not responded to why we were forced to deviate from our approved route and protected by our police force because of a handful threatening masked counter protesters.

Fourth. Tell me. Who speaks for the personal conviction of the unborn? They can't. So we do it for them. And we are silenced.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney



On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Nussbaum, Tobi <Tobi.Nussbaum@ottawa.ca> wrote:
Dear Patricia,

Thank you for writing to me about this important issue. I understand that people have different opinions on what happened yesterday, and it’s good to hear from all sides of the issue. I wanted to make my viewpoint clear to you.

The flag raised at city hall yesterday represented a position that includes a conviction that women should not have the right to access legal and safe abortion services in our country. It was the first time this had ever happened on public grounds at City Hall – and it should not have been allowed to happen.

The City of Ottawa’s policy on proclamation which led to the flag-raising yesterday is clear: “a proclamation will not be issued for matters that politically or religiously motivated or represent individual conviction”. The flag and proclamation that led to it clearly represented an individual conviction, and therefore had no place on public grounds.

I was proud to join my colleagues yesterday in demanding that the flag be taken down (see attached). Shortly after we released that statement, the flag was removed. 

I want to be clear that I also strongly support the right to protest and demonstrate on any political or personal issue within the bounds of what is legally permitted - as we saw in Ottawa yesterday with the annual pro-life rally. 

I hope that helps clarify my position.

Signed,

Tobi Nussbaum



Tobi Nussbaum
Councillor/Conseiller, Rideau-Rockcliffe
City of Ottawa | Ville D’Ottawa
Tel/Tél: 613-580-2483

20150115_NUSSBAUM_email-signature_Tobi-v3-150-ppi
  

From: Patricia Maloney [mailto:maloneyp64@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 12:00 PM
To: Deans, Diane; Wilkinson, Marianne; Nussbaum, Tobi; Watson, Jim (Mayor/Maire); Leiper, Jeff; jan.harder@ottawa.ca; Fleury, Mathieu
Subject: Pro-life flag

Dear Jim Watson,

I was very disappointed regarding your decision yesterday to lower the pro-life flag over city hall yesterday.

As pro-life people supporting the rights of preborn human beings, we are continually marginalized and discriminated against. This was just one more example of this kind of sanctioned behaviour.

The flag was a small symbol of what we stand for, and you bent to pressure to remove it, after allowing it to be raised. It's bad enough that Mr. Trudeau has banned pro-life people from his party; now you feel you must "apologize" for allowing us to fly our flag.

Your efforts would have been far better used in controlling the aggressive masked counter protesters, who blocked our way during our city approved March for Life. In fact can you please explain to me why these counter protesterswere allowed to block us and not reigned in?

I am so disappointed in this council for these actions, especially you and my own city councillor Tobi Nussbaum.

And please do not tell me that women have a constitutional right to abortion. This is an untruth that has been spread so often that some people still believe it is true.

We speak for preborn children who have no voice and have no protection as long as they are in the womb. These children are not a part of a woman's body and for those who say otherwise are wrong.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Sunday, May 14, 2017

Clinic/physician office and hospital abortions performed in Ontario for 2014/2015

Well I finally received the abortion statistics I had asked for from Health Minister Eric Hoskins. Here they are:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QDsYLWnwO6QWs1NzAwY1NGWTg/view?usp=sharing

The chart includes (direct) costs. These amounts are what the doctor bills OHIP for, but there are other costs associated with abortions.

The numbers are broken down by Hospital (18,491 abortions) and Clinic/Physician Office (27,082 abortions).

Notes from the table:

1) The figures provided are limited to the fee codes for abortions in Ontario for fiscal year 2014-2015 based on the following codes:

a. A920A - MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF EARLY PREGNANCY - INITIAL VISIT
b. P001A - MEDICAL MGMT FETAL DEMISE BETWEEN 14-20 WKS GESTATION
c. S752A - FEM.GENITAL SYST.-INDUCED-CURRETINTRA-AMNIOTIC INJ.(COMP.)
d. S785A - FEM.GENITAL SYST.-INDUCED-INTRA-AMNIOTIC INJ. (INCOMP.)
e. P054A - FETAL MANAGEMENT-SGL/MULT-INTRACARDIAC KCL INJECTION
f. S770A - CORPUS UTERI-HYSTEROTOMY.
g. S783A - CORPUS UTERI-HYSTEROTOMY WITH TUBAL INTERRUPTION.

Note: S770A and S783A may be claimed for purposes other than Therapeutic Abortion

2) 2014 Abortion Number of Services based on the list of codes above = 45,573

(Note that I originally reported 45,471 abortion which is the number the Ministry gave me in court. I assumed the difference (102) must be because of codes S770A and S783A as noted above, but when you look at the chart, there were only a total of 24 procedures done under these two codes, so that's not it. I will try and get an answer from the Ministry of Health--no easy task.)

3) 2014 Abortion Fee Billed based on the list of codes above = $5,690,931.99
4) Service Location - Hospital Services: report the services that based on the claims submission were rendered in a hospital setting.

5) Service Location - Physician Office (PHY): report the that based on the claim submissions were rendered in non-hospital settings (Clinics/Physician offices) 

Sources:
a) Claims History Database: billing data Data for Fiscal Years 2014/15 is M7 data (complete data.) 
b) Schedule of Benefits Physician Services under the Health Insurance Act, Ministry of Health and Long Term Care

Saturday, May 13, 2017

Ottawa Citizen: we call ourselves "pro-life"

Dear Editors and publisher of the Ottawa Citizen,

Today you published my letter in your paper. Thank you.


However a very serious error was made in the publishing of my letter. I used the word "pro-life" twice in my letter. And twice that word was changed to "anti-abortion".

Pro-life people call themselves pro-life for a reason. We do this because we are pro-unborn-babies-life, pro-toddlers-life, pro-teenage-life, pro-elderly life, and pro-sick-and-dying-life.

We do not call ourselves anti-abortion. We call ourselves pro-life.

Not only did the letter (with my name on it) put words in my mouth that I did not and would not say (anti-abortion flag), but it also appears that I am misrepresenting what Cardinal Collins said. He did not say that we should use our talents for the anti-abortion cause, he said said we should use our talents for the pro-life cause. So it sounds like I am misrepresenting what Cardinal Collins said.

I believe it is a sign of respect to call people what they call themselves. For instance, you call yourselves editor. It would be rude of me to call you "word changer" or other such label, because you do not call yourselves "word changer". It would also be disrespectful of me to call you that. 

So as a sign of social etiquette and respect, people should call other people by their preferred labels that identify the work that they do.

I am a pro-life writer/advocate.

Will you please replace the two "anti-abortion" words in the online version of my letter, and instead use the "pro-life" word?

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney