Canada pays for emergency contraception and abortion care in Afghanistan

Elizabeth Payne reported in today's Ottawa Citizen on my posting that revealed that CIDA/DFATD is funding emergency contraception in Afghanistan through IPPF.

What she didn't say, is that my ATIP also revealed that we are funding "safe abortion care".

The first thing that's worrisome about the Citizen article, is that NDP international development critic  Hélène Laverdière thinks that the emergency contraception used (Postinor-2) is not abortion.

“It’s not abortion, it is contraception". 

In fact the information provided by the manufacturer says that:

"Postinor-2 is not intended as a regular method of contraception." 

That's because, emergency contraception is an abortifacient if the egg has already been fertilized (i.e it prevents implantation in the uterus, killing the embryo). Wishful thinking, doesn't make it true.

Then Ms. Laverdière says:

"I don’t see why if it is a choice for Canadian women, it cannot be a choice offered to Afghan women.”

Now this is really out there. Shouldn't Ms. Laverdière, in her role as international development critic, know that abortion (including emergency contraception) is illegal in Afghanistan?

As I noted in that blog posting, the Population Research Institute says that:

"The current Afghanistan abortion law mandates a seven-year prison term and a monetary fine for each abortion performed. The only exception requires the written opinion of physicians, and a judicial review. According to strict and clear guidelines promulgated by the Ministry of Justice, this same law would apply to anyone who has prescribed “morning-after pills” or “emergency contraception” in Afghanistan, or even to anyone carrying these devices in the country."

And finally this from DFATD in the Citizen article:

"Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Amy Mills, quoting the World Health Organization. “WHO confirms that: ‘Levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive pills are not effective once the process of implantation has begun, and they will not cause abortion,’ ” she wrote in an email, adding, “DFATD funds are not used to fund abortion.”

I beg to differ. Canada is funding emergency contraception and abortion care in Afghanistan.

Abortion by any other name...

Thomas Mulcair and Nycole Turmel's "reproductive medicine" kills babies

Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP):  

[Translation]

    In developing countries, 800 women die every day from causes related to pregnancy, childbirth and unsafe abortions. Funding for reproductive medicine is key to putting an end to this tragedy. Nevertheless, the Conservatives refuse to give funding to groups that provide safe and legal medical procedures, even when those procedures are required because of war rape.

    Why are the Conservatives refusing to fund these basic health care services for women, when they know that 800 women are dying every day?

[English]

[Expand]

Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):  

    Mr. Speaker, it is important, and the Prime Minister deserves a significant amount of praise for the leadership he has demonstrated. We have got many other countries off the bench and into the game, providing a substantial amount of funding to support these mothers and support their young babies. Canadians can be very proud of our leadership initiatives.

 

Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP):  

    Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' ideological stubbornness is appalling. They refuse to contribute to the United Nations Population Fund because the fund supports family planning and reproductive health, which are topics that make their anti-choice friends unhappy. However, 800 women die every day in developing countries as a result of pregnancies, deliveries or botched abortions.

    Why do the Conservatives refuse to fund these groups that provide safe and legal treatment, particularly in the case of rape?

[English]

[Expand]

Hon. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights, CPC):  

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians believe in achieving results, not just in rhetoric, like what the New Democrats are talking about.

    Let me say what I just said. At this time, the Prime Minister is in Toronto with other world leaders talking about women's, newborns' and children's health.That initiative has saved the lives of over 1.3 million children and newborns as well as more than 60,000 young mothers. If that is not a result, then I do not know what is.

Big abortion sticks their big nose into Canada's business

"The National Abortion Federation has presented a business case to the P.E.I. government with the aim to bring abortion services to P.E.I. 

Federation president Vicki Saporta says the plan would be cost-neutral for the province and that three doctors are willing to travel to P.E.I to perform the procedure."

Here's a thought. This Vicki Saporta seems to be very American to me. So why is she sticking her big nose into Canada's affairs? 

In fact in her recent statement she says she is "President of the National Abortion Federation and the National Abortion Federation Canada". How convenient. Just lump us both countries together into one big abortion pot.

Tell me Vicky, are these doctors offering to do these abortions for free? Or are you and they in this because big abortion is big money?

Just wondering.

Pro-abortion "Knowledge Centre" for the Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Summit

Check out these links. They are for the Canadian Network of Maternal, Newborn and Child Health. These are the groups identified on the website that goes with the summit being held in Toronto right now (May 28-May 30, 2014).

At least three of these groups are of particular concern: International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and Action Canada for Population and Development (ACPD).

We already know that IPPF is a strong abortion supporter around the world and works tirelessly to make abortion legal everywhere around the globe. I have also written extensively on Canada's funding to IPPF.

Below are some quotes from the ACPD and UNFPA websites.

ACPD raises contradictions in Canada’s refusal to fund abortion service abroad in recently released Lancet article

Posted on May 12, 2014 

“Accountability in Canada’s Muskoka Initiative questioned” 

"Is the Canadian Prime Minster’s billion dollar initiative for maternal, newborn, and child health failing to meet the standards it has urged on the rest of the world? Paul C Webster investigates. 

It was a message that pleased many global health advocates; Harper’s conservative Christian power base liked the emphasis on mothers and children as well. To reassure some of its most ardently Christian supporters, the Harper government had previously terminated Canadian development support for abortion services, a move that not only contradicted domestic Canadian law but also the laws of most countries where Canada funds maternal health programmes, according to Sandeep Prasad, executive director, Action Canada for Population and Development." (emphasis added)

(Not true. In Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Mali, Sudan, and Tanzania, abortion is illegal.)

Embassy article: “Ghosts of abortion debate haunt maternal, child health summit”

"Sandeep EuroNGOs 2013ACPD featured in Embassy article by Kristen Shane on Canada’s upcoming Summit on Maternal, Newborn and Child Health.  

“The same concerns about a lack of funding for safe abortions and sexual and reproductive health that bubbled up four years ago when Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared maternal, child and new-born health his main development priority threaten to boil over again as Canada and the world look to recalibrate their commitments later this month in Toronto." 

Does UNFPA promote abortion?

"No. Guided by paragraph 8.25 of the Cairo Programme of Action, UNFPA does not support or promote abortion as a method of family planning. It accords the highest priority and support to voluntary family planning to prevent unwanted pregnancies so as to eliminate recourse to abortion. UNFPA supports governments to strengthen their national health systems to deal effectively with complications of unsafe abortions, thereby saving women’s lives (every year, an estimated 13 per cent of maternal deaths result from  unsafe abortions). 

How does emergency contraception work? 

According to the World Health Organization, emergency contraceptives prevent unintended pregnancies. Since they do not terminate pregnancy, their use is not a form of abortion. Women have the right to information and services on emergency contraception just as with all other safe and effective methods of family planning. (emphasis added)

(Except that emergency contraception is abortion.)

Memo to Justin Trudeau: personal and public beliefs are inseparable

John Pacheco supports Bishop Christian Riesbeck's comments regarding Justin Trudeau. So do I.

"Bishop Christian Riesbeck said that if the Liberal leader refused a meeting and continued to practise his Catholic faith in the form of receiving communion, it would be unseemly. 

“It’s the fact that he considers himself to be a devout Catholic but then adheres to, or advocates for, abortion,” said Riesbeck. “That is scandalous,” he said, as opposition to abortion has been a clear and unchanging teaching of the church. Riesbeck is also not convinced by the argument that the Liberal Party is the party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and will support women’s rights. “You know, if you look at Article 7 in the charter, it says that everyone has a right to life. It’s enshrined right there,” said Riesbeck. “Article 2 also speaks of freedom of conscience and religion. He seems to have undermined those values that all Canadians hold dear.” Riesbeck said that if Trudeau wanted to make things right, he would have to reverse course. “Ultimately, he would have to make a public retraction of his views,” he said."

Trudeau said this:

"My role is to stand up and defend all Canadians and my role in terms of that is separate from any personal religious views." 

I always get real fidgety when I hear a politician say this. A man or woman who tells me they are able to separate their personal beliefs from their public beliefs, means I instantly don't trust them. Conscience, values, morals, beliefs, whatever you want to call them, can't be separated from your personal and public life. They're a package deal. They go together and are intertwined in everything a person does, says, thinks and believes.

Trudeau should rethink this whole Liberal party pro-choice manifesto thing. It's not helpful to Liberals, or to pro-life Canadians. And it's not helpful to him as a leader, or as a Catholic.

The Ontario Liberals and Conservatives hidden agenda

I'm pretty sure there is a hidden agenda in the Ontario provincial election. And it is shared by leaders Kathleen Wynne and Tim Hudak.

This is what it says:

"Whatever happens, do not talk about the hiding of abortion statistics done by the Liberal government. No matter how much people pester you, under no circumstances should you answer the question. Got that? If you do talk about it, it I'll be forced to issue a Justin Trudeau manifesto that henceforth all candidates must be pro-choice. Okay? Do you understand?"

My riding in Ottawa Vanier is held by Liberal Madeleine Meilleur. Who I met with and asked why her government decided to do this. Of course she pretty much had no idea, and acted like a deer in the head lights when I brought it up. She solved the problem of not having a clue what I was talking about, by passing the buck to Deb-has-all-the answers-Matthews. Who funnily enough couldn't give me any answers. At least not that she'd share with me.

So I recently sent Ms. Meilleur another email, which of course she hasn't answered. Here is part of that email.

Hello Madeleine, 

"...can you please tell me what you will do if re-elected, about this decision to exclude abortion statistics from access to information requests? Will you actively work to restore our access to information rights in Ontario? Will you ensure that all medical services including abortion, will be open to public scrutiny? Will you work to drop this clause from FIPPA?"

I should have signed it, "the broken record".

Next I sent and email to the Conservative candidate Martin Forget, which said in part:

Hello Martin,

"...can you please tell me what you will do about this Liberal decision to exclude abortion statistics from access to information requests? Will you actively work to restore our access to information rights in Ontario? Will you ensure that all medical services including abortion, will be open to public scrutiny? Will you work to drop this clause from FIPPA?"

Of course, just because candidates won't answer these questions, doesn't mean we should stop asking them.

Justin Trudeau's discriminatory policy

Sun Media quoting Justin Trudeau:

"My position has been very clear. The Liberal Party is the party standing up for people's rights. And the Liberal Party will always be the party of the Charter. So we will continue to stand up for people's rights and not legislate them away...

I don't think the government should be in the business of legislating away people's rights. And that's why the Liberal Party is steadfast in this position." 

Trudeau says the Liberal party stands up for people's rights. But being officially "pro-choice", means his party is really "pro-abortion-choice."

This means that Trudeau only stands up for the rights of the people who agree with him--who are also "pro-abortion-choice". He does not stand up for the rights of those people who don't agree with him, and who are pro-life.

As well, "pro-abortion-choice" kills people. And their rights. So his party only stands for some people's rights and not all people's rights.

This is discrimination. Discrimination against pro-life people. Discrimination against very young people. Discrimination against defenseless people. Discrimination against female people. And discrimination against people with disabilities.

If that's what Trudeau means when he says he is standing up for people's rights, then there is something seriously wrong with his world view.

I returned from Poland on Friday. Where I went to Auschwitz-Birkenau.

Some people there had no rights either.

The canonical phrase “a woman’s right to choose”

Rex Murphy gets it in today's National Post with his insightful How Trudeau’s trendy ‘pro-choice’ secularism became the left’s new religion.

Murphy talks about the values of old, most often based on religious values:

"...as people have turned away from the religious framework, they have not jettisoned that interior certitude, that feeling of absolute confidence that used to be associated only with religious doctrine and belief. When people stop believing in God, they quickly find surrogate beliefs, construct surrogate values, and embrace a conviction that, in its force and depth, is no different, from that which had previously been supplied by religion. 

Does anyone doubt that the intensity with which people speak of and support “diversity” signals a sort of ersatz religious fervour? Does not the environmentalist’s regard for “the planet,” and her mystical view of every blade of glass, not have the same character as a nun lost in her devotions? 

When I hear Justin Trudeau defending unfettered access to abortion — he uses, of course, the canonical phrase “a woman’s right to choose” — he speaks in those perfect accents of assurance and certitude that used to belong only to religion. He speaks of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with something that sounds very much like Godly reverence. 

Other parties, including the NDP and Conservatives, hold certain of their core ideas with the same absoluteness. We “appoint” certain ideas as having an unchallengable place in our politics and discussions. Secularism, in fact, may place a stronger silent pressure to conform to accepted values than even religion could in its heyday. 

However, nothing is as plain to someone else as it may be plain to us. To try to place some matters out of the range of discussion — because they are so obviously “right” or so obviously in tune with the times — is hardly a form of coherent argument. 

It is very curious to see and hear the accents of the absolute spoken by the secular left with the same fervour we once heard in the chapels and cathedrals of the 1950s. There are as many ostensibly “sacred” topics today as there ever have been — even if the very concept of sacredness seems alien to Mr. Trudeau and his ilk."

I've just returned from a pilgrimage to Poland. While many may feel the notion of "pilgrimage" quaint in the 21st century, I suggest that rather, it is an antidote for the rampant secularism Murphy so aptly describes. It was a breath of fresh air to witness the humble devotion displayed by the people of Poland, as well as the pilgrims with whom I traveled.

I hope to be writing more about this pilgrimage on my faith blog in the upcoming days.

Treating Ontario voters like idiots

The Ontario election is drawing closer. There's been no discussion from any of the candidates regarding the Liberal's decision to hide abortion information.

Here is one person's letter to the Ontario MPP candidates regarding this:

"I would like to know what you will do, if re-elected, to restore access to information rights in Ontario. In what way will you work to return the ability of the ordinary taxpayer to have full access to all data concerning all medical services paid for by the taxpayer? This was recently stripped from us in a covert and undemocratic manner by the current Liberal government, all the while saying the right words about an "open & transparent government". 

I am now aware that the Ontario taxpayer, including myself, can not access information on selected medical procedures chosen by some. I as a taxpayer believe that I should be able to be informed of what my taxes pay for in ALL regards. To be clear, I am not interested in names or other personal details; that would be ridiculous in every way to suggest. Everyone is entitled to privacy. However, the statistics are another issue and do not violate anyone's privacy. 

Of course, I am referring to the number of abortions performed in this province on a yearly basis. Due to a personal preference of Deb Matthews and NOT at the request of the medical profession and NOT at the request of the facilities of medical facilities providing the services and NOT even at the specific request of a lobby group, the ability of the taxpayer to access statistics concerning abortion ended with the passage of the latest Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Section 65.(5.7). 

I am truly and utterly disgusted by this. If access can be denied on one thing, how long before the Liberals, in pursuit of further "openness & transparency" will exempt other issues from Freedom of Information requests? The answer to that, obviously, is "whenever it suits them". You know, as a taxpayer, I hate being treated like an idiot. 

If elected, what actions will you take to correct this un-democratic action? What actions will you take to ensure that another ON Minister doesn't decide, on personal preference, to exclude a topic under his/her Ministry from Freedom of Information requests? It causes me great concern about this thing we call democracy when people like Deb Matthews abuse her power so blatantly. 

I request a written response to this correspondence. Please tell me how someone/anyone was being harmed by the release of the statistics concerning the number of abortions performed in Ontario yearly? This is a great cause for concern among the public of Ontario."

Abortion doesn't solve anything

Tomorrow I leave for Poland so I won't be blogging for a while.

There was one more video I hesitated in posting from the March for Life, and ultimately decided not to. It was of a young "pro-choice" woman who was screaming at us. She seemed really really angry at us.

It made me pause and wonder. Why would she be so upset with us? We haven't done anything to her. She still has unfettered access to abortion. Abortions are still funded by the Canadian taxpayer including me. And I don't have any "choice" in saying I don't want to fund abortion. This young woman can obtain an abortion anytime she wants. So what does this rude lashing out behaviour mean?

Obviously I have no idea, but if I had to guess, I'd say she's had an abortion herself. And she needs to justify it to herself, and to everyone else. I think she especially needs to justify herself to pro-life people.

I felt very very sad for her. I hope if she has had an abortion, she will eventually heal from it. I think she needs our prayers.

In any event. Off to Poland. Where they aren't in love with abortion. Like Canada is.

Justin Trudeau will just have to do without me while I'm gone. But never fear. I'll be back.

Future candidates for the Federal Liberal party of Canada

More from the March for Life yesterday.

Notice how some don't even have the courage to show their faces. Are they ashamed of what they're doing?

They blocked our path so we forced had to go to the other side of the road. The policeman told me to be careful since the traffic hadn't been stopped in that direction (you can hear him).

And they say pro-lifers are violent.

Justin Trudeau's Liberal Charter of Values

Chris Selley on Trudeau's moral exhibitionism

"Are we really at a point where Liberal MPs must believe Norway’s abortion laws are a misogynist abomination? 

Odd as it is, it is what it is. There is clearly no political gain to be had for any party from engaging this issue — except by trying to out-pro-choice the others, or so the Liberals and New Democrats seem to believe. (NDP leader Thomas Mulcair is also touting a pro-choice-only rule, though this seems less surprising.) But if you want to run with Mr. Trudeau’s Liberals, it’s apparently not enough to be content to leave the abortion status quo alone. If you have the slightest appreciation for the abortion laws in the aforementioned feminist paradises, it seems you are unwelcome — because those governments, in Mr. Trudeau’s words, dare to limit “what a woman chooses to do with her body.” 

It’s a weird position. It seems totally unnecessary. It smacks of moral exhibitionism more than anything else. And I’m sorry, but I can’t quite get past this: Mr. Trudeau, you’re a practising Catholic. Are we really at a point where Liberal MPs must believe Norway’s abortion laws are a misogynist abomination, but are free every Sunday to give alms to one of the most powerful anti-abortion organizations on the planet? And if so, are their evangelical colleagues who disavow reopening the abortion debate also now free to worship? Or will they still hear the whispers of hypocrisy, hidden agendas and political conspiracies from across the aisle?"

I guess we can next expect Trudeau to come up with his very own Quebec style Charter of Values.

He can then dictate how all Liberals will be allowed to think, what their personal beliefs can be, how they should look, what they can wear, what they can eat and who they can associate with.

That'll fix em, eh Justin?

Educating Justin

The March for Life in Ottawa today was a huge success. I'm posting a few pictures below.

And I have a message for Justin Trudeau who told us yesterday that about how he won't allow pro-life candidates to run in the next election:

"We make sure that the people who are stepping forward are consistent with the Liberal Party as it is now, as it stands under my leadership and under the feedback we're getting from Canadians across the country."

What feedback is Trudeau talking about? Was it from the full house at St. Pat's Basilica in Ottawa this morning who were there to pray for an end to abortion in Canada? Or was it from the other full houses from the other Churches today? Or was it from the thousands and thousands of marchers we saw in Ottawa today, who took more than an hour to wind there way through downtown Ottawa?

Or was he talking about the handful of noisy protesters who stood chanting their pro-abortion nonsense slogans across the street from the Human Rights monument? Are those the people Mr. Trudeau was talking about? Are they the ones he is listening to?

Here's a thought that Mr. Trudeau might want to think about. And the rest of us too.

What would Mr. Trudeau think, if the leader of another party proclaimed that henceforth, candidates eligible to run in elections must be pro-life? That only those people could run for election? How would that sit with Mr. Trudeau?

In fact has Mr. Trudeau ever heard of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms? You know, that quaint thing his father was kind of involved in? It guarantees freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression.

Maybe somebody should tell him about it.

(I hope to have some video footage later from my sister Maureen who will be putting it together for me.)

Videos
Entrance into St. Patrick's Basilica. Cardinal Collins presided. The Church was so full that people were standing. There was also spill over into the basement.

The rest of the videos here.

Can Justin Trudeau really be a Catholic?

So which church does Justin Trudeau worship at? Is it the Catholic Church? Or is it the church where people worship is at the altar of abortion?

Because Justin Trudeau thinks he's a Catholic. Back in 2012 he was upset and was:

"offended by a Tory MP who publicly questioned his adherence to the Catholic faith and his suitability to speak to students at a Catholic school."

when Dean Del Mastro, said that it was “outrageous” the Catholic school board in Peterborough, Ont. had invited Trudeau to speak.

How can Trudeau profess to be a Catholic when he expects his MPs to park their pro-life views at home, and even worse, to insist his MPs publicly state that they follow the Liberal "pro-choice" philosophy?

It is outrageous.

The elder Trudeau's Catholicism has been well documented in biographies, including one book specifically on his faith. The former prime minister was educated by the Jesuits and admitted to going regularly to church up until the last years of his life. 

“I have to say, I'm really surprisingly upset. I didn't think I would be, but I am,” Mr. Trudeau told The Canadian Press on Tuesday evening. 

“For someone to start questioning my own faith and accusing me of being a bad Catholic, is something that I really take issue with. My own personal faith is an extremely important part of who I am and the values that I try to lead with.”

Well Mr. Trudeau, you can't be a good Catholic and also be "pro-choice". It simply doesn't work that way. So make up your mind.

Are you Catholic, or do you worship at that other altar?

It should not be a right to kill a human being

Listen to Father Dennis's homily from today. A beautiful testament to the pro-life cause.

"Abortion is really a terrible thing for men and women. It should not be a right to kill a human being. But why don't they see it? Because it's about freedom. And they prefer the darkness to the light."

The March for Life is tomorrow. I'll be there.

Justin Trudeau--what is he talking about?

This is rich.

Justin Trudeau just announced that the Liberal party is officially “pro-choice” and won’t allow any new candidates to run unless they are “pro-choice” said that no government can tell a woman what to do with her body.

"We are steadfast in our belief ... it is not for any government to legislate what a woman chooses to do with her body. And that is the bottom line."

Well, someone should tell Justin that the Supreme Court of Canada, in the 1988 Morgentaler decision, said that Parliament certainly could put restrictions on abortion because the state does have an interest in protection of the fetus. 

Is it even possible that Trudeau doesn't know this. Nah sure he does. I think he's just pulling our leg. He is right?

I have to say though, it really gets boring listening to people talk about 'not telling women what to do with her body'. They can't seem to grasp the very simple fundamental biological fact that a pre-born child is someone else's body. But I think Trudeau knows that. He'd just prefer to buy into the pro-abortion myth.

"We make sure that the people who are stepping forward are consistent with the Liberal Party as it is now, as it stands under my leadership and under the feedback we're getting from Canadians across the country."

Ah, he's never gotten that kind feedback from me, or did he forget? Thought police--here we come.

Apparently he was stumped when asked whether he would whip any future votes on abortion. 

"It is a tough one."

Poor Justin. He doesn't have a clue.

Action item for Ontario election

Since we are having an election, will you do me a favour? Will you ask your provincial candidate about the abortion exclusion clause?

Anyone who follows this blog, knows that the Liberals have been hiding Ontario's abortion statistics since 2012.

Here's a reminder, in case you forgot:

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act See section 65.(5.7) “This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services.” 

Bill 122: Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010 See Part VIII, section 24 (17) which amends FIPPA by adding subsection (5.7) to section 65. 

This amendment to FIPPA was not debated in the Ontario legislature, was not considered at committee hearings, and was passed into law without any input whatsoever from the public, and without any public comments by a single member of the Ontario legislature. The amendment goes against the spirit of Bill 122, which was supposed to increase accountability, not reduce it.

You will also know that Kathleen Wynne and her Health Minister Deb Matthews have both refused to give me the reasons why they are hiding abortion statistics. So we have to assume it's for ideological reasons.

Kathleen Wynne even had the audacity to launch an Open and Transparent Government initiative, at the same time she was refusing to answer my questions. How's that for irony?

My own MPP Madeleine Meilleur also can't tell me the reasons for the exclusion clause, and hasn't helped me get any answers either. She told me that Minister Deb Matthews has all the answer to my questions. Yet Ms. Matthews has been spectacularly useless in giving me any answers. Ms. Meilleur also thinks that the hospitals and doctors wanted the abortion exclusion clause, when there's absolutely no evidence of this at the public hearings held,

There is no question that the Liberals have got to go.

Yet, I've also tried unsuccessfully to get Conservative leader Tim Hudak to respond to my questions about why his opposition party did nothing to stop this from happening. He, and every member of his caucus, have also stayed mute on the subject. Even after I have emailed them numerous times.

So...I am hoping that every democracy loving person in Ontario will take a minute and ask the candidates in their riding a couple of questions. Because as I've noted before, this is not a pro-life vs pro-choice issue.

I'd like you to ask them if they would work to restore our access to information rights in Ontario? If they will work to ensure, that all medical services including abortion, will be open to public scrutiny?

Because if a government in power can--for purely ideological reasons--hide information on this medical service that we know costs us at least $30-50 million a year, what other services could a government hide in the future?

Something to think about.

I can guarantee you that the candidates won't be making this an election issue. It's up to us to make it one.

Cardinal Collins: limit abortion bit by bit

Thursday May 8, 2014 this week will be the annual March for Life.

Last year I wasn't at the March as I was out of the country. So I didn't hear Cardinal Collins homily at St. Patrick's basilica in Ottawa.

My sister taped it though and here is the link.

He advised us to do what we can to limit the evil, bit by bit. To fight for legal limits on abortion one step at a time, since we may not be able to accomplish it all at once.

"...We need to think clearly. We reflect upon how we best can be faithful in proclaiming the Gospel of Life. It's not enough simply to proclaim the Gospel of Life. That's necessary but it's not sufficient. We need to do it faithfully and effectively. We need to look to ways we can creatively help those people who cannot see the value of human life from conception 'til natural death. How can we help people see the truth? We have to look at ways, for example that we can find in the bills of Parliament, that we can limit abortion...more that's good...and then more that's better....then even more, that's better...we may not be able to do it all at once now, but it is far better to limit it, limit it, limit it, persistently, rather than say unless we can do it totally now, like that, we won't do it at all, we'll wait 'til we can do it perfectly.. God expects of us that we will think it through, not for our sake but for the sake of the people we serve."

Cardinal Collins is pretty clear that abortion incrementalism is how we accomplish fighting the evil that is abortion.

The murderer was only an abortion doctor

From Ezra Levant in the Toronto Sun.

"...Why were the benches in the courtroom, set aside for media, nearly empty, week after week? 

The answer is obvious: Because the murderer was an abortion doctor, in an abortion clinic, committing hundreds of late-term, partial-birth abortions and full-birth murders, usually of minorities, usually paid for by taxpayers. 

That sort of horror story would sell. Too well. Because it would undermine the official narrative that abortions can't be criticized, that late-term abortions are a myth, that it's all safe and sound and medically approved and happy. That happy left-wing pro-abortion narrative would be damaged by reports of a multimillionaire abortionist, getting rich off murder, operating in the system for decades. 

So, the story itself was aborted. 

Enter filmmakers Phelim McAleer, Ann McElhinney and Magda Segieda. They have decided to do what Big Hollywood won't: To make a true crime TV movie about Kermit Gosnell.
They're raising $2.1 million, not from Hollywood studios, but online. They're crowd-funding it, in thousands of little contributions from ordinary Americans and Canadians. 

Do you think this movie should be made? If so, you can help make it. Go to www.GosnellMovie.com. It's a story that must be told."

MP questions CIDA due diligence insuring IPPF isn't funding abortions

We now have more cause for concern regarding CIDA/DFATD's $6 million funding of IPPF.

In an ATIP to DFATD I asked for correspondence regarding the Muskoka initiative on maternal and child health.to the PMO and CIDA.

This yielded a few letters, but one in particular was noteworthy.

On October 27, 2011, in a very detailed letter from MP Maurice Vellacott to Stephen Harper, Mr. Vellacott voices his concerns to the Prime Minister by asking seven questions about the $6 million funding IPPF received as part of the Muskoka initiative. (see below for Mr. Vellacott's letter and the responses from Mr. Harper and Ms. Oda).

In a nutshell, Mr. Vellacott's questions what due diligence is in place to ensure the funding would not go to pay for any abortion services, as was stipulated by the contribution agreement between CIDA and IPPF. All pertinent questions I thought, some of which I've also asked myself to CIDA/DFATD. (For all my links to the CIDA/IPPF funding see this page.)

The Prime Minister doesn't answer any of Mr. Vellacott's questions. Not one. And then the PM simply forwards Mr. Vellacott's letter on, to then Minister Bev Oda, who also doesn't answer any of his questions. Not one. In fact Ms. Oda's reply is obviously a form letter, since it is exactly the same as all of her responses to the other letters in the package.

So why were Mr. Vellacott's questions never answered?

Canadian money to IPPF for funding "safe abortion care" and "emergency contraception" in Afghanistan

Despite assurances by the Federal government that no Canadian money given to IPPF would go towards abortion, my latest ATIP to CIDA/DFATD revealed that IPPF is buying "emergency contraception" (34,000 units of the Abbot drug Postinor -2 (Levonorgestrel)). They are also providing "safe abortion care" in Afghanistan.

As we know, "emergency contraception" is taken after sexual intercourse for the purpose of "preventing" pregnancy, but it functions as an abortifacient if fertilization has already occurred (it prevents implantation of the embryo, thus destroying the life of the newly conceived human being.)

(See below for page 30 from the IPPF Annual Report Year 2 (1 April 2012 - 31 March 2013) and page 88 from the IPPF Midyear Report (1 April to 30 September 2013).

In fact, according to this medical leaflet, Postinor-2 is only used as emergency contraception:

"Postinor-2 is an emergency contraceptive only. Postinor-2 is not intended as a regular method of contraception. It is used to prevent pregnancy when taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse. It is estimated that Postinor-2 will prevent 85% of expected pregnancies. 95% of expected pregnancies will be prevented if taken within the first 24 hours, declining to 58% if taken between 48 hours and 72 hours after unprotected intercourse."

Not only that. Apparently AFGA's abortion services "needs improvement." (Afghan Family Guidance Association is an associate member of International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and receives funding from IPPF).

Why is AFGA providing abortion care, when we aren't even supposed to be funding abortion services in these countries?

This is what the Population Research Institute says about the legality of abortion, and emergency contraception in Afghanistan:

"The current Afghanistan abortion law mandates a seven-year prison term and a monetary fine for each abortion performed. The only exception requires the written opinion of physicians, and a judicial review. According to strict and clear guidelines promulgated by the Ministry of Justice, this same law would apply to anyone who has prescribed “morning-after pills” or “emergency contraception” in Afghanistan, or even to anyone carrying these devices in the country."

IPPF states in their annual report that this funding is directed towards:

"women, girls, men and boys who need access to reproductive health services and information. Clients reached throughout this project are female, male, young and old, couples and families in five countries (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Mali, Sudan and Tanzania). The project prioritizes vulnerable individuals and groups, and also young people, especially young women. Seventy per cent of all the clients served through the project are poor, marginalized, socially excluded and/or underserved, while 33% of all clients are young people, aged between 15-25 years."

Are these poor, marginalized and vulnerable young women, even told what emergency contraceptive is? That it doesn't necessarily prevent conception--i.e. that if fertilization (conception) has occurred, it destroys that newly conceived life by preventing implantation. In other words, are these poor, marginalized and vulnerable clients giving their informed consent?

By all accounts, this is a pretty clear indication to me, that we are providing abortion services in Afghanistan. Abortion services that are specifically excluded from the terms and conditions of the $6 million dollar grant we gave to IPPF.

This should cause us grave concern.