This illustrates why legislation surrounding the delivery of a prenatal Down syndrome diagnosis is so important. A prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome comes with shock, as the expectations and assumptions of expecting parents are overturned. When you don’t know the person yet, the child can get lost under the diagnosis.The time, support and information given to this couple made such a difference in their experience when they received a prenatal diagnosis halfway through their pregnancy. 

This story was generously shared with us by Will & Christina Dokter after they participated in a campaign started by the Down Syndrome Association of Ontario (DSAO). The DSAO is advocating for legislation that would give support and current information to parents faced with a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. It would also prevent a physician from recommending any medical procedure that perpetuates a negative stereotype of Down syndrome.

If you are an Ontario resident with a connection to the Down syndrome community, consider participating in this campaign by going here.

__________________________________________________________________________

We discovered that our baby boy had a heart defect at his 20-week ultrasound.  We were offered non-invasive testing for Down syndrome, which we accepted.  The results told us that our son had a 91% chance of being born with Down syndrome. This news was delivered in a neutral tone, with no apology or negativity. We met with the geneticist in London, Ontario, and she was lovely. She told us our son would do everything that typical kids do, just in his own time. She gave us resources and connected us with the local Down syndrome support group.  We were told that we had the option to abort, but it was never pushed or even encouraged. We rejected that option immediately and it was never brought up again.

Despite the fact that we are staunchly pro-life, that we believe God has a purpose and a plan, that we loved our unborn son, and that we were connected with support, it was still a scary and stressful time.  I had to accept the diagnosis before I was ready to accept the support that came with it. That took a bit of time, and for parents who are scared and vulnerable, a negative word from their doctor is tremendously powerful. I am amazed and appalled at some of the stories I’ve encountered online where parents have to fight to defend the value of their child constantly.

Once I was ready to reach out for help, other parents of little ones with Down syndrome were amazing. They were kind, encouraging and supportive, and they unanimously shared unqualified joy and delight in their special kids. I began to see that having a child with special needs is, in fact, a rare gift. Our son has opened up our eyes to things we didn’t know or see or experience before. He’s teaching his siblings empathy, joy, acceptance, appreciation for small accomplishments, thankfulness, and many other precious things.

He has been an expensive child, from a taxpayer’s perspective. He spent a week in the NICU at birth, 8 days in SickKids having his heart repaired at 5 months, endless weeks in the pediatric critical care unit dealing with complications that arose after his heart repair, and many other tests and appointments. He receives publicly funded therapy weekly, and is on a couple long-term medications which are covered as well. He will need support for the foreseeable future.  Perhaps this is one driving force behind the push to terminate these little ones – financially, they’re hard on the system.

But the question is, who determines the value of a life?  Do we only get to live if we tip the financial scales the right way?  Is this what society is saying?  Is it what they want to say?

Our son James is a fully human being, made in the image of God. His life is indescribably valuable. If he were not here, we would have lost the opportunity to learn so many things that only he could teach us. Experiencing life with an extra special person is to be enrolled in a school like no other.

People in the Down syndrome community are the first victims of the current state of affairs, but it is actually all of society that will lose if this continues. The value of human life cannot be measured on contributions, or on chromosomes. Thankfully, our story was one of support and encouragement to parent this child we were given. We want every family given an unexpected prenatal diagnosis to have that same experience.

We know that censorship is the new weapon of choice for those intent on preventing Canadians from knowing the truth about abortion. This decision is a huge victory for us and ensures that we can more effectively work to advance protections for pre-born children!

ARPA Canada, the parent organization of We Need a Law has put a lot of resources into this case. In fact, it was one of the reasons we went on the STOP CENSORSHIP tour earlier this year.

A quick recap:
In January 2012, the Government of Ontario amended the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) by adding Section 65 (5.7) which reads: “This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services.” In 2015, together with Pat Maloney, a pro-life blogger from Ottawa, the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada filed a notice of application asking the Ontario Superior Court to strike down this censorship provision.

The case was heard on February 1, 2017 where the applicants asked Mr. Justice Marc Labrosse to rule that Section 65(5.7) of the FIPPA was unconstitutional because it censored the residents of Ontario, indeed all Canadians, from having access to meaningful abortion related information.

From ARPA’s press release earlier today:
ARPA is very pleased that Justice Labrosse came to this conclusion. “This is a huge victory for freedom of expression,” said André Schutten, ARPA Canada’s director of law and policy. “It’s historic. There has never been a decision granting access to information from the executive branch based on the freedom of expression provision of the Charter. All disclosure orders to date have been made on a statutory rather than constitutional basis. Abortion is a matter of public importance and the courts have long recognized this. Abortion is also a recognized political issue, and political expression is at the core of protected speech under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

“This decision strengthens democracy,” continued Schutten. “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.”

The hard work of ARPA lawyers John Sikkema, André Schutten as well as outside counsel Albertos Polizogopoulos is to be commended! We also express deep appreciation for the perseverance and dedication of Ms. Maloney. Thanks Pat!

We are not sure how the Government of Ontario will respond to this decision. The court has given them a year to allow for the adoption of remedial legislation. Suffice to say, this case was about transparency and democracy. In our view, the actions of a democratic government and the money it spends should be open to scrutiny by the taxpayer and voter.

But more importantly, this case is about justice. It is a scientific fact that each abortion takes the life of a human being. Even if many wish to condone or even celebrate this, nobody can deny that a human life has been taken. The way to deal with this is not to censor all abortion-related information. Rather it is to allow the truth to be known, and then to engage in meaningful public discourse about how to address the over 100,000 abortions that occur in Canada every year. There must be documentation, recognition and, hopefully one day, public acknowledgement of the injustice of abortion and regulations put in place to limit it.

We hope you will join us in remaining diligent in ensuring that the state cannot simply hide information they feel is not in their political interest to discuss.

In 2012 the Government of Ontario quietly slipped in an amendment to FIPPA (Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act) that reads: “This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services.” This amendment was embedded in an omnibus bill – an omnibus bill is one that covers a large number of diverse and unrelated topics – and was never debated in the Legislature. It was only discovered after Pat Maloney, an Ottawa area pro-life blogger, had a Freedom of Information (FOI) request denied on the basis of the recently enacted amendment.

After careful consideration, and I emphasize ‘careful’ as we should never take it lightly when we file a lawsuit against the government, we made the decision to partner with Pat Maloney in requesting a judge to review the constitutionality of the amendment to FIPPA.

But why this fixation with statistics and freedom of information? This is a good question to ask; especially considering abortion is wrong no matter how many or for what reasons they occur.

We Need a Law is devoted to promoting grassroots political action. We know that for us to expect changes in public policy we will need to have strong enough public opinion. That is why we strive to give all citizens of Canada the tools they need to become politically engaged so they can be a voice for truth, justice, freedom, and human rights. But in order to do that properly, we need accurate information. Freedom of information is protected by the Charter’s freedom of expression guarantee because without access to government information, a citizen cannot meaningfully discuss, debate, scrutinize or make informed opinions on matters of public policy.

Statistics matter because, in addition to knowing how many pre-born children are aborted, they show how abortion really impacts women. How can we know abortion is safe if the government refuses to let the residents of Ontario know anything that pertains to the procedure? How many physical complications were there in relation to abortion?  How would anyone know whether or not women have been hurt psychologically in the process?

The reality is that without access to the statistics, no one knows the answers to these questions and this presents an incredible challenge in proposing solutions. When the government withholds very important and relevant information on abortion, women cannot make informed decisions, and advocacy organizations cannot carry out their missions.

If you live in Ontario and have not yet done so we ask that you take a few moments to send this email to your MPP. Ask them to repeal Section 65 (5.7) because censoring abortion data is no way to deal with an injustice that affects over 100,000 lives every year in Canada.

While George Orwell’s ‘1984’ was a warning, it has become a ‘how-to’ manual of sorts for cultural Marxists. Telling the truth requires knowing the facts and being free to talk about them openly.

The STOP CENSORSHIP TOUR will be hosting events throughout Ontario and you are invited to learn about how the Government of Ontario is actively hiding abortion statistics in order to frustrate the ongoing work of helping women and advancing pre-born human rights.

This event is free to attend and will feature John Sikkema, a lawyer with ARPA (Association for Reformed Political Action) Canada and Mike Schouten, Director of WeNeedaLAW.ca. The event will also feature Pat Maloney, a pro-life blogger from Ottawa who has been fighting for access to abortion data in Ontario.

There will be a financial appeal to support the ongoing efforts of WeNeedaLAW.ca.

Check below for a full listing of events, head to our Facebook events page for more details and to RSVP, or email Cassy Knegt at cassy@test.weneedalaw.ca for more information.

Dozens of similar incidents have occurred in cities and universities across Canada in recent years: attempts by abortion advocates to use the law to silence those with whom they disagree. But it’s not only individual citizens or special interest groups engaged in this censorship. Governments are guilty of it too.

This week, our organization, the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada, together with blogger Patricia Maloney, filed a notice of application asking the Ontario Superior Court to strike down section 65(5.7) of Ontario’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FIPPA). This subsection violates freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press, all of which are guaranteed under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In January 2012 this section was added to the FIPPA in a bill purporting to extend the FIPPA to healthcare institutions. It reads: “This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services.” Note that one of the FIPPA’s purposes is to guarantee access to government information to maintain transparency and accountability. The second purpose is to protect private and personal information. Yet the addition of section 65(5.7) undermines both of these purposes and was never debated in the Legislature. Why did the Government of Ontario quietly slip in an amendment that hides generic, non-personal statistical information?

For her part, our co-applicant, Ms. Maloney authors the blog “Run with Life” and in that capacity regularly submits freedom of information requests (known as FOI requests) to the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. When told that her requests were now denied because of the new legislation, she appealed the decision three times, finally receiving the information late last year. The government released this information to her “outside of the FIPPA process” mere days before her day in court. But the bad law remained on the books.

While we cannot know why the government decided to release this information to Maloney days before appearing in court and after opposing her three appeals for two and half years, a reasonable assumption is that the government did not want this issue in front of a judge. Maloney and ARPA Canada however, believe this section of the FIPPA is unconstitutional and do want this before a judge.

Freedom of information is protected by the Charter’s freedom of expression guarantee because without access to government information, a citizen cannot meaningfully discuss, debate, scrutinize or make informed opinions on matters of public policy.

This case is about transparency and democracy. In our view, every action of a democratic government and every dollar spent should be open to scrutiny by the taxpayer and voter. On this point alone, people from all sides of the political spectrum should join forces with us.

Perhaps more importantly however, this case is about justice. Justice requires accountability. It is a scientific fact that each abortion takes the life of a human being. Each one requires documentation, recognition and, hopefully one day, public acknowledgement of the injustice of abortion.

We often hear that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. In Canada, the procedure is already legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy and happens at least 100,000 times a year. Most abortion advocates have stopped pretending to care about keeping abortion rare. But how can we know abortion is safe if the government refuses to let the residents of Ontario know anything pertaining to the procedure? How many physical complications were there in relation to abortion?  How would anyone know whether or not women have been hurt psychologically? The reality is that without access to the statistics, no one knows and nothing can be done. When government withholds very important and relevant information on abortion, women cannot make informed decisions.

Provincial governments – Ontario is not alone in this; British Columbia has a similar censorship provision – have a responsibility to ensure that the citizens who elect them have access to the information needed to make good decisions about health policy. No matter what your thoughts are on pre-born human rights, this form of censorship is contrary to everything an open and democratic society should stand for. Our citizens deserve better. Our taxpayers deserve better. And our women deserve better.

Mike Schouten is campaign director for WeNeedaLAW.ca. André Schutten is a lawyer with ARPA Canada.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) is asking for public input as part of its regular review of policy guidelines. At issue in this current review is the right of doctors to refuse to provide certain treatments based on religious or moral grounds.

There will always be some tension between the moral convictions of an individual medical professional who adheres to his or her own worldview and the different procedures that are legally available in a pluralistic society. The current CPSO guidelines recognize this tension. In an effort to balance competing interests, the policy allows doctors to refrain from performing non-emergency procedures should the procedures violate their individual conscience.

It is always beneficial to review policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to the health and wellbeing of Canadians. But the current review and discussion over CPSO guidelines is not about improving care for residents of Ontario. Instead, it seems to be about forcing medical professionals to set aside their own worldview and adopt a conflicting one.

To be clear, we are not talking about providing health-care services where a patient’s life is at risk. No, when a discussion about conscience-protection takes place it is almost always surrounding issues such as like infant male circumcision, prescribed birth control, certain types of medications, medicinal marijuana, or an abortion procedure. In the future, this list may very well include euthanasia or assisted suicide.

On occasion, the tension between the conscience of a doctor and the desire of a patient is experienced in a tangible way. Kate Desjardins is a 25-year-old Ottawa resident who, earlier this year, entered a walk-in clinic to have her prescription for birth control renewed. However, this was not a routine visit. As Ms. Desjardins quickly found out, the doctor on duty did not prescribe contraceptives. Although Ms. Desjardins’ life wasn’t in danger and she could most certainly have secured a prescription renewal at any number of surrounding clinics, her experience has been highlighted by those pushing to have the conscience objection nullified by the CPSO.

Clearly this isn’t about adequate and timely access to health-care, both of which were still available to Ms. Desjardins. Essentially, this is about a patient’s right to access all medical services from any doctor of his or her choosing. It’s not about availability of services, but about imposing morality on all physicians, to the point where doctors need to violate their own conscience in order to serve their patients.

Justin Trudeau was chastised from a wide variety of Canadians when he decided to impose his worldview on the Liberal Party of Canada by forcing Liberal MPs to violate their consciences in the event that an abortion law ever made it to a vote in Parliament. The same principle applies in the present debate surrounding conscience protection for physicians. This is a battle about conflicting worldviews, not adequate access to healthcare. The target of leftist ideologues include all those who hold to a worldview (religious or otherwise) opposed to their own. So, who actually is forcing their religion on whom?

On the one hand, we have doctors arguing for their freedom of conscience, which is guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And on the other, we have patients who believe they have the right to a medical procedure from any physician of their choosing. If the object of the CPSO guidelines is to balance rights and obligations, then taking away conscience objections would throw balance out the window altogether.

Conscience-protection guidelines are vital if we are to have a well functioning and vibrant health care system. As Dr. Margaret Somerville, the founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University said recently, “Do you really want to be treated by a doctor who doesn’t care if he thinks that he’s doing something unconscionable or unethical or immoral?”

Canadians are not perishing because doctors won’t take part in elective, non-emergency medical procedures. That someone was offended because they had to walk a few extra blocks to renew their birth control prescription does not justify the CPSO forcing doctors to contravene their Charter-protected freedom of conscience.

National Post

Mike Schouten is the director of WeNeedaLAW.ca, a campaign to build support for laws protecting pre-born children.

Every year Guelph and Area Right to Life raises over $10,000 to pay for advertisements on transit buses. The ads are effective and reach thousands of people. Unfortunately they have resulted in two separate challenges from the pro-choice community this year alone.

The first challenge was put together by Heather Millman after she became ‘annoyed’ with the ads. At the time Karen Farbridge, the Mayor of Guelph said, “I appreciate that the Guelph & Area Right to Life advertisement may be seen as controversial, but refusing to post it could be seen as limiting freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

In spite of her first request to have the signage removed soundly rejected, Ms. Millman is pushing ahead with another attempt. She will be presenting 3,000 signatures at a Corporate Administration, Finance and Enterprise Committee meeting on July 7th.

REQUEST FOR ACTION:

We cannot assume the city will reject Ms. Millman’s demands a second time. We need all Guelph and area residents to either call or email the following three people!

To assist you we suggest using these two talking points:

1. Guelph Transit is a government entity. As such it may not censor the expression of views it doesn’t like. The charter (section 2(b) to be exact) protects every Canadian from unreasonable interference by the government in the expression of their opinions.
2. This issue has already been to the Supreme Court. In 2009 they ruled against the Vancouver Transit Authority, stating that Vancouver bureaucrats had no grounds to refuse to publish political messages on their advertising space. They explicitly stated that such a refusal was a violation of the charter.

Contact Information:

June Hofland (Chair of the Corporate Administration, Finance and Enterprise Committee)

• Phone: 519.822.1260 (ext.2505)
• Email: june.hofland@guelph.ca

Mayor Karen Farbridge

• Phone: 519.837.5643
• Email: mayor@guelph.ca

Mr. Phil Meagher (General Manager, Guelph Transit)

• Phone: 519.822.1260 (ext.3321)
• Email: phil.meager@guelph.ca

In addition to these talking points please express your support for the pro-life ads!

Check out the rest of the comic on Pat’s blog.

ACTION ITEM FOR ONTARIO RESIDENTS: Use this SimpleMail to let your MPP know you are not pleased that abortion data is kept hidden.

Pat says in her most recent blog post:

I asked her why the government put the abortion exclusion clause into FIPPA.

Ms. Meilleur responded:

“We amended the Freedom of Information Act at the request of the hospitals to maintain the quality and the privacy of the information, so it was not specific to abortion. It’s among other things [in the act]. I don’t think you would like your private information to be disclosed to the public.”

We have a CALL TO ACTION for our supporters from Ontario! Take a moment to send this customizable letter to your MPP asking for the facts on abortion.