Saturday, October 21, 2017

Abortion bubble zone goes after Catholics - part 2

From the Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL):

  • The CCRL’s opposition to Bill 163 focuses on the following:
  • The government has failed to identify or address any need for the intrusion and limitation into the constitutional right to freedom of expression
  • The bill’s penal sanctions are an intrusion into the federal power over criminal law, and present a lowering of the thresholds typically required to constitute the offence of “harassment” under the Criminal Code
  • All parties by their support of the bill are engaging in political suppression of dissenting viewpoints, with the invention of the need for broad areas of “no go” zones, the total effect of which (conceivably, bubble zones around all pharmacies in urban areas), the bill engages in overreach to impose its dubious objectives
This is what Catholics won't be able to do anymore: Pray peacefully and silently at the abortion facilities across Ontario. 


Please sign the petition. 

Then send an email to Attorney General Yasir Naqvi, Premier Kathleen Wynne, PC leader Patrick Brown, and NDP leader Andrea Horvath telling them to respect our freedom of conscience rights, freedom of religion rights. freedom of assembly rights and freedom of expression rights.

kwynne.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
ynaqvi.mpp@liberal.ola.org
patrick.brown@ontariopc.com
ahorwath-qp@ndp.on.ca

Friday, October 20, 2017

Abortion bubble zone goes after Catholics

Don't kid yourself. This new bubble zone legislation isn't about the supposed harassment that goes on at abortion facilities by pro-life persons. It's about discrimination against Christians.

And we have Strawberry Social Jim Watson to thank for this stupidity.


We already know that there is no need for a bubble zone. My FOI on police reports at 65 Bank Street revealed no assaults where a charge was laid.

This is what the bubble zone will do:
3 (1)  While in an access zone established under section 6 for a clinic or facility, no person shall,  (a)  advise or persuade, or attempt to advise or persuade, a person to refrain from accessing abortion services;  (b)  inform or attempt to inform a person concerning issues related to abortion services, by any means, including oral, written or graphic means;   (c)  perform or attempt to perform an act of disapproval concerning issues related to abortion services, by any means, including oral, written or graphic means;  (d)  persistently request that,           (i)  a person refrain from accessing abortion services, or          (ii)  a protected service provider refrain from providing, or assisting in the provision of, abortion services;  (e)  for the purpose of dissuading a person from accessing abortion services,           (i)  continuously or repeatedly observe the clinic or facility or persons entering or leaving the clinic or facility,          (ii)  physically interfere with or attempt to physically interfere with the person,         (iii)  intimidate or attempt to intimidate the person, or         (iv)  photograph, film, videotape, sketch or in any other way graphically record the person;   (f)  for the purpose of dissuading a protected service provider from providing, or assisting in the provision of, abortion services,           (i)  continuously or repeatedly observe the clinic or facility or persons entering or leaving the clinic or facility,          (ii)  physically interfere with or attempt to physically interfere with the provider,         (iii)  intimidate or attempt to intimidate the provider, or         (iv)  photograph, film, videotape, sketch or in any other way graphically record the provider; or  (g)  do anything prescribed for the purpose of this clause.

Notice this clause:
(i)  continuously or repeatedly observe the clinic or facility or persons entering or leaving the clinic or facility,
I am not kidding. You cannot OBSERVE an abortion facility.

Are Kathleen and friends serious? The only "observing" I've ever seen done at the abortion facility is when people stand across the street silently praying and "observing" said abortion facility. Which Catholics do. Which I have done. Which I will do. During this year's 40 days for life. And at other times. You can't do that. Anymore.

What about my religious right to say the rosary? Is that banned too? Is that what Kathleen and friends have in store for us next?

I'm not even talking about the gross trampling this law will have on our rights to freedom of speech, freedom or assembly, freedom of conscience and freedom of expression.

This is a sneaky witch hunt against practicing Catholics. Of course the Liberals are good at sneaky. They wrote the book on sneaky.

Will the leader of the opposition Patrick Brown speak up for us? I doubt it.

Monday, October 16, 2017

A letter to Patrick Brown - I don't support you

From: Jennifer Snell
To: Garfield Dunlop <Thomas.DeGroot@ontariopc.com>
Cc: Patrick Brown <patrick.brown@pc.ola.org>; MPP Monte McNaughton <monte.mcnaughton@pc.ola.org>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: Jennifer, Here is your invitation to a fundraiser at the Wilcoxs'

To whom is reading this reply: 

I worked very hard to have Patrick Brown elected as leader of the PC party in Ontario. This is something I very much regret doing. 

Patrick is not the leader that he promised to be. He has betrayed people like me. His support of the many liberal policies makes me very very upset. I don't need to list the issues as I'm sure you get the picture. I am a Catholic and live by the teachings of the Catholic Church. I will not support the evil of the current liberal party nor that of the current PC party. 

Please understand this is not personal attack against the good people who remain in the PC party but an indication that thousands of social conservatives like myself will not support the PC party of Ontario under its current leader. In my opinion there is no difference between the liberal party under Kathleen W. and the PC party under Patrick B. 

May God protect Ontario and Canada.

Jennifer Snell

Friday, October 13, 2017

CIHI is still under-reporting abortion statistics

Abortion statistics are getting more confusing.

The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) reported a total of 44,430 abortions for 2015/2016.

CIHI reported a total of 39,679 abortions for 2015.

That's a total difference of 4,751 abortions for one year.

To add to the confusion, MOHLTC reports using seven abortion codes (S752A, S785A, P054A, S770A, S783A, P001A, A920A)while CIHI reports using only two abortion codes (S752A and S785A):
"The enhanced methodology implemented in CIHI’s 2015 report for estimating the volume of induced abortions in Ontario incorporates NPDB (1) data selected using two fee codes for surgical abortions only. The report you shared includes seven fee codes and CIHI reports using two....the data sources for CIHI’s report are DAD, NACRS, and NPDB, while it appears that the Claims History Database was the source for the report you shared [from the MOHLTC]. (2)
If we only compare CIHI with MOHLTC for the same two codes that CIHI reports, we get CIHI at 39,679 abortions, and MOHLTC at 37,806 abortions. for a difference of 1,873 more than MOHLTC.

Neither CIHI nor MOHLTC could explain these differences.

Therefore CIHI reports 4,751 overall less than MOHLTC, but reports 1,873 more than MOHLTC if we only look at the same two codes.

Very confusing I know.

MOHLTC full fee code descriptions here.
___________________________________________________________________________

Additional Notes

Both CIHI and MOHLTC use these two codes:
S752A and S785A (surgical abortions)

The five codes not used by CIHI data, but are used in MOHLTC data are:
A920A (MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF EARLY PREGNANCY - 5933)
P001A (MEDICAL MGMT FETAL DEMISE BETWEEN 14‐20 WKS GESTATION - 556)
P054A (fetal reductions - 115)
S770A CORPUS UTERI‐HYSTEROTOMY (16)
S783A CORPUS UTERI‐HYSTEROTOMY WITH TUBAL INTERRUPTION (4)

Those five additional codes used at MOHLTC add up to 6,624 abortions (115+16+4+556+5933). The Ministry also tells us that the S770A and S783A codes can be used for procedures other than abortions, but give me no indication as to which of these codes are not abortions. When I asked the Ministry to clarify medical abortions and identify which diagnostic codes are used for them, I was informed that:
"The OHIP claims system does require a physician to submit a fee code for payment however it is optional for a physician to submit a diagnostic code with the fee code and there is no rule that the diagnostic code needs to relate to the fee code."
Therefore it looks like the diagnostic codes are useless. So until the Ministry can tell me otherwise, I will assume that all of these additional procedures are also for abortions.

A920A and P001A codes are both used for medical abortions (556+5933=6,489 medical abortions), and CIHI isn't capturing these numbers. CIHI is also not capturing P054A for fetal reductions (115)

Note that CIHI doesn't report "medical" abortions or "fetal reduction" abortions.

That's 6,624 additional abortions being performed in Ontario for 2015/2016 (i.e. the five missing codes), than is officially being reported by CIHI.

(1"The National Physician Database (NPDB) is a CIHI database that contains physician billings for publically funded insured medical services. Physicians do not report to it directly.  Physicians submit claims to the Provincial/Territorial medical care plans to be paid.  All provinces submit data from their claims systems to the National Physician Database." personal correspondence July 12, 217 with CIHI
(2) personal correspondence June 23, 217 with CIHI

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Tolerance isn't for pro-life people

Regarding the bubble zone at the Morgentaler facility in Ottawa.

Yesterday I spoke with constable Chuck Benoit at the Ottawa Police Service. There were two "level 1" assaults at the facility in three and a half years. One on October 25, 2016 and one on May 28, 2017. All the other incidents were run of the mill police work.

I was told that neither of these assaults resulted in injuries, and no one was charged with anything. So why do we need this bubble zone? Why did Jim Watson initiate this law? Because he doesn't like pro-life people. He prefers to treat us like second class citizens. If we try and discuss pro-life concerns with him, either by email or in person, his disgust for us is clear.