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.

Frankly, this is tiring: Joyce Arthur working reality into a fictional story on abortion in Canada. Does she ever give it a rest? Apparently not.

I’ve already debunked her make-believe world here when I wrote on January 12, 2012 about 2009 Canadian abortion statistics, and here when I wrote on November 19, 2012 about 2010 Canadian abortion statistics.

So here we go again–now I’ll do it for 2012 abortion statistics.

1) Arthur says:

“Since 1988, when the Supreme Court of Canada threw out our abortion law as unconstitutional, the sky has not fallen, but our abortion rates have – we’ve witnessed a continuing decline since 2000 and now have a relatively low abortion rate compared to many other developed countries – about 14 abortions per 1000 women of childbearing age per year.” (emphasis added)

Arthur points to CIHI as proof that Canada’s abortions statistics have been declining since 2000. But how does she know this? She doesn’t. Because as CIHI themselves tell us their numbers are underestimated:

“…while this is probably an underestimate of induced abortions done in the country, it is currently the best way to produce pan-Canadian comparable data.”

That’s because CIHI’s numbers don’t record abortions done in private physician’s offices; don’t record medical abortions; and don’t record all clinic abortions, because many clinics choose not to report that information, and nobody makes them do it.

Arthur then says there are 14 abortions per 1000, but neglects to tell you, that that number is from Statistics Canada data from 2005–nine years ago. We have no idea right now how many abortions are committed per 1000 abortions, because our data is inaccurate. And even if it was accurate, you can’t use nine year old data to talk about today’s trends.

(In fact, discerning minds must question why CIHI reports at all–if their numbers are so woefully inaccurate? But that’s a question for another day.)

2) Arthur says

“90 per cent of abortions occur during the first trimester, and less than half a percent after 20 weeks.” (emphasis added)

For 2012, CIHI reported a total of 83,708 clinic and hospital abortions (and as stated above this is under reported). Of these abortions, a full 62,178* have “unknown” gestational age.

That means all 62,178*, or most of them, or some of them, or none of them, could be late term abortions. We. Do. Not. Know. That’s what “unknown” means. And we don’t know these gestational ages because most abortion providers don’t report them.

So concluding late-term abortions are “less than half a percent” is impossible.

3) Arthur says:

“The latter [after 20 weeks] are all for compelling reasons, such as fetal abnormalities incompatible with life or a serious threat to the woman’s health or life.”

How does Arthur know these late-term abortions are for compelling reasons? Because nobody else in Canada knows this. Arthur can’t know–since reasons are not reported.

We know for sure that in 2012 there were 563 late term hospital abortions (as reported by CIHI). And remember, we don’t know how many late term abortions were done in clinics because clinics don’t report late-term abortions. And since we don’t know the gestational ages of 62,178* abortions, Arthur’s conclusions are based on bad, wrong, missing, and or inaccurate information.

Even if Arthur can prove there are “only” 563 late abortions per year, are we supposed to take comfort in the fact that in relative terms there are so many fewer late term abortions than early abortions? That just means we have many, many, many, many, many, many early abortions.

4) Then Joyce gets creative, by actually redefining the medical term “fetal viability”:

“Much of the debate in the UK media has focused on the science of fetal viability and at what gestation they can survive on their own. This issue is totally irrelevant to women who need abortion care, as the survival ability of premature babies applies only to fetuses being carried to term. If a woman needs an abortion, then by definition, her fetus is not viable.” (emphasis added)

In other words, if you don’t like the definition of something, hey just change its meaning. That was easy.

5) Finally we get to the bottom of Arthur’s real worry. That darned fetus. Always gets in the way of a good abortion fairy tale. To solve this thorny issue of decapitating, dismembering and disemboweling another human being, we simply advise the reader to NOT focus on the fetus.

“When we focus on the fetus, we forget about the woman and her reasons for an abortion. Women don’t ask for an abortion because it’s their ‘right to choose,’ or because they don’t understand what’s inside of them. They request abortion because they can’t provide responsibly for a child (or another child) at this point in their lives. A woman’s abortion decision is about ensuring her future and that of her family, not about the current legal or moral status of her fetus. It’s about being the best mother possible when she’s ready – or maybe not becoming a mother at all if she knows she’s not suited to it. That is the very definition of conscientious decision-making. We can trust women to know what’s best for themselves and their families, without imposing punitive criminal laws against their private decisions.”

So many problems dissipate when we make up numbers, change definitions, and ignore the fetus. It’s easy, really. Just ask Joyce.

(* 62,178 unknown gestational age abortions is calculated using simple arithmetic: 83,708 total known abortions – 21,530 known gestational age abortions (see page 6 of CIHI’s 2012 statistics) = unknown gestational age abortions)

From Run With Life,

“This week I came across a joint statement by Campaign Life Coalition and Alliance for Life Ontario. It was titled “WHY THE CASE FOR GESTATIONAL ABORTION LAWS IS MORALLY AND LOGICALLY INCOHERENT”.

We have yet to see such a statement, but according to Run With Life it includes statements like,

“We will never propose or support a gestational abortion law for Canada.”

And a little further on,

“A deliberate decision to propose, support, or vote for a gestational abortion law is a behaviour that is in itself immoral.”

These two organizations fail to understand what political prudence is.

To quote Clarke Forsythe Senior Legal Counsel of Americans United for Life, “It is not immoral to be limited by obstacles beyond your control. You are not responsible for what you cannot achieve. You are responsible for what you can achieve.”

A statement such as this from Campaign Life Coalition and Alliance for Life Ontario requires further response. For now we leave you with these words from Pat Maloney, “If others do not believe in gestational legislation as a valid strategy, that is fine. But making up reasons that are untrue to argue one’s case, is not the way to persuade others to your viewpoint.”

As the abortion conversation becomes more mainstream will see more of this. Two more letters in today’s National Post.

Pat Maloney writes,

We create laws to protect the innocent; it is exactly why man invented criminal law. Preborn children are the prime victims in abortion and they are incapable of protecting themselves.

Her letter is followed by Johanne Brownrigg of Campaign Life Coalition who writes,

The unborn child, the fetus, needs protection and the remedy is found in law.

See the rest of their letters here.

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.

Nearly everyone who wrote to the Prime Minister regarding Roxanne’s Law, supported the bill. Only a tiny number who wrote, were actually against the bill.

In December 2012, I sent an Access to Information request to the Privy Council Office (PCO) looking for information on MP Rod Bruinooge’s Bill C-510.

I asked for: “all information relating to Bill C-510 including briefing notes, talking points, reports, emails, letters, and any other documents that reference bill C-510”.

The package I finally received contained 713 pages. Access to Information requests are never very quick and almost never take the legislated 30 days. This request took eight months to be received in its entirety.

Pages 1-4 were excluded because of “cabinet confidences”.

Pages 5-59 contained a complete list of “Senate Government Bills” and one entry identified Bill C-510, which is why the pages were included.

Pages 60-125 were all withheld, also because of cabinet confidences.

Pages 126-713 contained letters and emails from members of the public regarding their support or non-support for the bill, along with the PCO’s responses. All responses were identical and all personal information was blacked out.

There were three organizations (The Catholic Women’s League, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and Priests for Life Canada) and 423 letters from individuals, all who supported the bill. The Catholic Women’s League stated that they were writing on behalf of 106 of its members.

That’s at least 531 shows of support for the bill (e.g. 423 individuals, plus 106 individuals from one organization, and the other two organizations. I don’t know how many individuals belonged to the other two organizations).

There were a total of 17 letters written from individuals, who were not in support of the bill.

In other words, 97% of people who wrote to the Prime Minister regarding Roxanne’s Law, supported the bill and 3% of those who wrote to the Prime Minister, did not support the bill.

Clearly Parliament is out of step with the Canadian Public.

One “pro-choice” person wrote this letter to the Prime Minister:

“Thank you for supporting the Canadian public in encouraging your members to vote against Roxanne’s Law. I am not normally a supporter of the Conservative Party, but I believe that you are finally listening to the voices of Canadian women on this issue. Well done Mr. Harper.”

The irony of this letter of course, is that Mr. Harper did not in fact, listen to the voices of Canadian women on this issue.

And what was in those 69 pages I couldn’t see? Who knows? I could complain to the Information Commissioner but that would be pointless. Her office would not be able to review those pages either, as it has no authority to see the content of information excluded because of cabinet confidences.

It shouldn’t be this way. At the very least, the Information Commissioner should have the power to view “cabinet confidences” and rule for herself whether or not they should be legitimately excluded from the public’s view. She cannot. And remember that this wasn’t even a government bill. So why did the PCO invoke cabinet confidence anyway?

Look at what the Department of Justice wrote in a document called Strengthening the Access to Information Act:

“A statutory amendment could be enacted to grant the Information Commissioner a limited right of review of the issuance of certificates by the Clerk of the Privy Council, therefore ensuring the Information Commissioner’s review of the Cabinet confidence exclusion.”

This is a golden opportunity for an MP to introduce a private member’s bill to table such an amendment. One wouldn’t even have to be pro-life to support it. This would be about effective oversight to increase government accountability and transparency. It would get all party support.

(For more from Pat Maloney please visit her website Run with Life)

*Please note the correction from 99.7% to 97% (people who wrote in to the PMO in support of Roxanne’s Law)

To send an email to your MPP click here.

In order to formulate good public policy all relevant information is necessary. In March 2012 Ms. Patricia Maloney, an Ottawa pro-life blogger with Run With Life submitted a Freedom of Information request with the Ministry of Health and it was denied. She is not satisfied with this answer and neither should you!

Ms. Maloney has appealed this decision and is now seeking a Judicial Review of the Order by the Ontario Divisional Court.

You can help her and all residents of Ontario by sending the following email to your MPP. It will be cc’d to Premier Kathleen Wynne and Minister of Health Deborah Matthews.

Click here to send the customizable email right away!

Dear,

I think you will agree with me that the only way to build sound public policy is by ensuring all relevant information has been researched and considered. Considering this, I am concerned about missing information when it comes to important policy regarding women’s health during pregnancy.

In a recent edition of the National Post I read about a lawsuit filed against the Ontario Provincial Government by Patricia Maloney, an Ottawa area blogger. I share Ms. Maloney’s concern about the hiding of abortion related data and question the decision to amend the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

As Ms. Maloney says:

“I’m not interested in patient or physician names, or the identification of hospitals. I respect the dual purposes of freedom of information laws; to ensure government accountability by providing information to taxpayers while ensuring the privacy of Canadian citizens. But data relating to provincial trends and rates of a publicly funded medical procedure are fair game,” elaborates Maloney. “The government has not restricted this type of generalized data for any other medical procedure. This amendment is without precedent or justification. And without this data, how will we know if safe-sex campaigns are effective? Or the sex-education program that Premier Kathleen Wynne has promised to introduce?” Maloney asks. “Or if there is a sudden spike in tween or teen abortions? This is an important healthcare issue. And now the public is running blind on a government expenditure previously identified as costing as much as 30 to 50 million dollars each year.”

Honourable member, with all due respect, Ms. Maloney makes a valid point and it is baffling as to why the government would hide statistics which are imperative to enacting good policy. I encourage you to do all you can to correct this situation by complying with Ms. Maloney’s request as well as removing the appropriate amendment from Bill 122 which is preventing proper access to this information.

Sincerely,