Saturday, 14 January 2017

BREAKING: YOU Are Subsidizing Anti-Choice Fake Clinics

Canada has a feminist Prime Minister, a gender-balanced cabinet, and a promise from said PM to stand up for feminism and diversity against the rising tide of intolerance and repression to the south.

So people would probably be surprised to learn that religious agencies whose sole purpose is to thwart the exercise of Canadians' right to reproductive choice get both direct and indirect government subsidies, yes?

Well, it's true. And the numbers are pretty shocking.

Following up on its study of the largely fraudulent online claims of Crisis Pregnancy Centres (CPCs) (or as they are more correctly called, Fake Clinics), Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) last week released a new report examining the online tax filings of 112 such operations that, incredibly, have been allowed charitable status by the federal government.

(We'll get to the abomination of such status in a minute.)

ARCC volunteers pored through tax filings for the period 2011 to 2015.

The bottom line: fake clinics are bilking you and me of millions of dollars.

MATH WARNING: Ciphering is about to occur. If this is a problem skip down to below ************.

First, the direct funding. Over five years, these operations received $3.5 million in cash from various levels of government -- over half a million from the federal level, mostly through their enthusiastic embrace of the Canada Summer Jobs program. Of the remainder, $2.6 million came from the provinces, the rest from municipalities and regions. The grants come from various programs, not easily tracked down, and as we will see, not always properly reported.

Next, the indirect funding. Canadian taxpayers subsidize the anti-human rights work of fake clinics in two ways, both of them operational purely because of their charitable status.

As registered charities, fake clinics pay no income taxes. Over the period studied, fake clinics had a combined revenue of $65.8 million, totally exempt from taxes.

So, that's lost tax money that has to be made up by someone. And you know it's not the oil companies.

The other way allows donors to shield income from taxes through tax receipts. As registered charities, fake clinics are allowed to issue receipts that donors use to exempt some income from tax. If you've ever done your own taxes, you know that there are two levels of exemptions. For donations under $200, the rate is 15%; everything over $200 is discounted by a generous 29%.

Over 2011-15 fake clinics issued nearly $38.2 million in such receipts. At the minimum rate of 15%, this represents a drain on federal tax coffers of at least $5.7 million, with provinces facing similar losses. In Ontario, the rates are 5.05% and 11.16%.

Let's pretend for a moment that all the money was donated in Ontario. At minimum, that would represent another $2 million.

At the maximum rate, these tax receipts represent a potential loss of $11 million, again with cash-strapped provinces losing too.

So, while it's impossible to say what proportion of donations were discounted at which rate, it is safe to say that the amount lost at the federal level alone is somewhere between $5.7 and $11 million. And at least another $2 million at the provincial and territorial level.

And there's another wrinkle. Through the magnificent generosity of the registered charity program, charities can give money to each other. Fake clinics received a further $11.8 million from other registered charities which had issued their own tax receipts.

There's another $1.8 lost to federal income tax, with proportional loses to the provinces.

******************************************************

Bottom lines:
Direct government funding: $3.5 million

Money sucked out of federal tax coffers: At least $7.5 million and as much as nearly $13 million.

Money sucked out of provincial tax coffers: At least $2 million.

The bottomer-bottom line: That lost money is made up by you and me. WE are actively subsidizing these fake clinics.

******************************************************

Is that a lot of money?

I think one red cent is a lot of money for organizations that use misinformation and deceit to further their goal of recriminalizing abortion and contraception.

But in a country where $3.3 billion a year in tax money for the oil industry raises nary a hair yet $16 for a glass of orange juice causes mass hysteria, who the hell knows?

One more point before I leave the ARCC study. Volunteers found many anomalies in the filings. For example, nearly 60% of groups receiving government money -- 34 fake clinics -- misreported that funding. ARCC has asked CRA to initiate reviews of these irregularities.

For me the bigger question is -- as I've asked many, many times -- WHY THE HELL DO THESE GANGS HAVE CHARITABLE STATUS IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE?

Most people suppose that because the Government has accredited a group as a "registered charity" that group must be on the up-and-up, with noble purpose, working for the greater good of the whole community.

As we pointed out recently, generous people like the One Hundred Who Care Movement include "charitable status" among their required criteria, on the blithe assumption that no fraudsters would make it past the vigilance of the revenuers.

Ha.

CALL TO ACTION

We have a feminist government. After the cabinet shuffle, we have three women heading ministries that could do something about this.

Diane Lebouthillier is the Minister of National Revenue in charge of CRA and its awesome power to award or strip groups of charitable status as well as to examine the books of said groups. Diane.Lebouthillier@parl.gc.ca @DiLebouthillier

Patty Hajdu is the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, in charge of the Canada Summer Jobs program, so successfully milked by fake clinics. Patty.Hajdu@parl.gc.ca @PattyHajdu

Maryam Monsef is the new Minister of Status of Women. In a feminist *cough* government, one might think the Status of Women minister might have something to say about anti-choice outfits being subsidized by taxpayers. (And maybe regain some credibility.) Maryam.Monsef@parl.gc.ca @MaryamMonsef

I sent some tweets the other day.







I forgot to use hashtags. These would be good: #ExposeFakeClinics #ExposeCPCs

For those who like to see for themselves and those who like to play with spreadsheets, we got you covered. All that and more -- like the letter sent to CRA -- here.


ARGGH: Forgot to credit the indefatigable and indomitable Kathy Dawson for heroic work. You can say thanks to her on twitter @blueskies366.

Thursday, 29 December 2016

Righteous! Fetal Gore Gang LOSES Lawsuit!

The Fetal Gore Gang believes it has the right to force its misleading anti-choice messages and gory images on everyone. And to threaten people who resist with lawsuits. And of course their central demand is that people with uteruses be denied basic human rights and forced to continue unwanted pregnancies.

Force, threats, demands, and coercion. It's all bullies got.

So isn't it grand when bullies get their asses handed to them?

Just before xmas, the Fetal Gore Gang got pwned. By the City of Grande Prairie, Alberta.

Here's some background.

The bullies wanted to run this ad on city buses.


Grande Prairie said: nope.

Bullies said: we'll sue.

Grande Prairie said: bring it.

Unlike the craven bunch in Peterborough who caved at this point.

Madame Justice C.S. Anderson found for the city.
“I find the City’s decision to reject this particular ad was reasonable. I find the ad is likely to cause psychological harm to women who have had an abortion or who are considering an abortion. It is also likely to cause fear and confusion among children who may not fully understand what the ad is trying to express... (This ad may cause emotional reactions that could) create a hostile and uncomfortable environment,” wrote Anderson in her decision, adding by creating such an environment it would go against the city’s objective of having a safe and welcoming transit system.

The city's lawyer, Robert McVey, had also argued that the ad constituted hate speech.
The city rejected CCBR’s advertisement because it would have promoted hatred against “an identifiable class: women who have chosen to exercise their legal right to have an abortion,” according to the judge’s written statement.
(There is no online link to the judgment yet. I'll post it when it's available.) (ADDED: Judgment.)

Madam Justice Anderson did not find that the ad constitutes hate speech. While she looked favourably on the argument, she saw no need to determine whether it did or not represent hate speech. For the purpose of this case, it was enough to determine that Grande Prairie's decision to refuse the ad was a reasonable limit on free speech.

But for the sane people who oppose these lying shock tactics, that she looked favourably on the hate speech argument is exhilarating.

The judge also cited the Advertising Standards Canada Code, which the fetal gore gang has several times fallen afoul of and thumbed their noses at. While the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has a very high bar for reasonable limitations on free speech, the Code is more flexible. The judge said the city was justified in using those standards.

One more very encouraging sign. Madam Justice cited an option called "judicial notice" wherein judges may, in essence, do their own research. She went to the website on the ad and quoted a couple of the more outrageous statements (with words like "slaughter" and "evil"). She wrote: "These are strong statements that vilify women who have chosen, for their own reasons, to have an abortion; they are not merely informative and educational," as the fetal gore gang claimed. Ooh, they lie?

Of course, this is not over. Forcing transit companies to run their ads is what they *do* (when they're not endangering drivers with banner drops over highways, shoving yucky postcards in suburban mailboxes, or hanging around street corners with gigantic bloody fetus signs.)

I wrote about their detailed plan here.

Under "Conventional Advertising," the plan says: "We will develop ads that primarily emphasize the website and make use of vague messaging that intrigues the listener/viewer to check the site out."

Well, we hope people -- and future judges -- do check the site out, as Madam Justice Anderson did. And come to their own (reasonable) conclusions.

That these are lying, manipulative bullies who seek to criminalize a common medical procedure by holding ordinary people -- patients and providers alike -- up to ridicule, hatred, and perhaps violence.

As far as we know, there is still a pending situation in Hinton, AB. (Anybody know what's going on there? Let me know.)

And since it's the fetal gore gang's plan to target all of us with their bullshit, I expect there are other campaigns afoot.

For now, let's celebrate a win. And congratulate the City of Grande Prairie. I found a general email: citizencontactcentre@cityofgp.com. And a Twitter account @CityofGP. In particular I'd like to congratulate Transit Manager Jason Henry.

It is always righteous to stand up to bullies.

Sunday, 18 December 2016

"Fake News" Is Old Hat in My World

So much about "fake news" in the regular news lately.

For example, today a poll was published revealing that 52% of Republicans "incorrectly" believe that Trump won the popular vote. (ICYMI, they're still counting but Clinton is 2.8 million votes ahead at the moment.)

As a long-time blogger about matters reproductive and, perforce, follower of Big Fetus™, I've been chuckling over the outrage some are expressing over the insane shit people will believe.

Big Fetus™ was the original fake news peddler.

Abortion causes breast cancer. Abortion causes post-abortion syndrome. Abortion causes infertility. Abortion causes substance abuse. Abortion causes child abuse. Abortion causes mental illness.

That last one has been debunked many, many times, most recently last week. In fact, not only does having an abortion NOT cause depression, the opposite is actually true. Being denied an abortion -- being FORCED to remain pregnant against one's will -- is actually a tad more harmful to one's mental well-being.

Who woulda thunk?

Here's another oft-repeated tweet from LieShite. Planned Parenthood sells "baby parts."


I saw the tweet again today. That lie was definitively debunked over a year ago. (The fetus freak illustrator needs an anatomy lesson.)

But it doesn't matter how often or how authoritatively these things get trashed. They are Zombie Lies.

In fact, there's a Big Fetus™ Fake News Industry devoted to creating and perpetrating fake news. We've reported on it a lot calling it BAD (biased, agenda-driven) Science.

Rewire, formerly RH Reality Check, has a terrific series called "False Witnesses" on the most prominent scientists willing to lie for fetus freak funding.

But here's a good thing: All this wailing about "fake news" seems to be making people pay more attention.

In France, politicians are debating a bill to ban anti-choice websites from spreading "false information" about abortion.
"Freedom of expression should not be confused with manipulating minds," Socialist Family Minister Laurence Rossignol said as the debate kicked off.
(Isn't that a refreshing notion?)

In even better news, fetus freaks are feeling the heat.

Dig the headline: "Facebook’s push to snuff out fake news poses threat to pro-life, traditional values reporting"

Translation: Facebook will stop hosting our lies! Waaaah!
Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg said Thursday that the website had the responsibility to make sure it “has the greatest positive impact on the world.” He added that “with any changes we make, we must fight to give all people a voice and resist the path of becoming arbiters of truth ourselves.”

But Facebook’s partnership with Snopes, Factcheck.org, ABC News and PolitiFact to manage fact checking in this new initiative raises the question of who will determine what constitutes “fake news.” That leads then to the issue of whether information on Facebook will be censored to fit a particular worldview.
Um, yeah. That worldview is called reality.

Fetus freaks and their allies should create their own version of Facebook, where they don't have to be troubled by True Facts.

Oh wait. They did that when they got mad at Wikipedia for its "reality bias." They created Conservapedia, which, if you've never partaken, you need to.

Here are the first three sentences in the entry for abortion.
Abortion is the induced termination of a pregnancy,[1] often causing fetal pain. Abortion has two victims: the unborn child, and the mother who can never forget the loss she caused. Breast cancer rates increase by more than six times for women who have abortion, according to a recent study.
Of course that "recent study" is one of the oft-debunked ones.

So, I'd like to think that reality will battle back. That people who care about truth will win. But I really think that fake news is here to stay.

Because people who believe it cannot be argued with. They are not rational.

Friday, 18 November 2016

Canadian Taxpayers Subsidize Priests for Life

There are many whackadoodles among the fetus fetishist set, but Frank Pavone of Priests for Life is one of the whackier.

He was one of the vultures hanging around not-quite-dead Terri Shiavo and practically did a jig when Dr. Tiller was assassinated.

He's been in trouble with his titular bosses, the Catlick Church, for among other things, financial improprieties.

But just before The Tragedy, he outdid himself.
Ahead of Tuesday’s presidential election, the Rev. Frank Pavone took an aborted fetus, laid it upon an altar Sunday and posted a live video on Facebook. Pavone, a Catholic priest who heads New York-based Priests for Life, said the fetus was entrusted to him by a pathologist for burial.
There's a five-minute clip of the video here.

Not knowing anything about things sacred or profane, I was simply appalled at the disrespect and well, just plain tackiness. But it's worse than that to Catlicks. It was sacrilege.

Okey-dokey.

Why am I going on about this? Because you, dear readers, and I have given these offensive nutbars more than $75K over the last five years.

Here are Priests for Life Canada's Canada Revenue Agency filings.


Look at that nice acid green. That's us. (Graph from 2015 filing.)

From 2011 to 2015, Priests for Life in 11 constituencies (one in Alberta, ten in Ontario) applied for and received $76,784 in funding from Employment and Social Development Canada under the Canada Summer Jobs program.

Here's the listing for Ontario. Irritatingly, they list grants by province and riding.

On their CRA filing, Priests for Life specify their purpose as running convents and monasteries.

So, why the fuck are they hiring kids? And what the fuck kind of "meaningful work experience" do the kids get? And why the fuck are we paying for it?

From the eligibility page of the program.
The job must provide meaningful work experience for the student. It must not contribute to the provision of a personal service to the employer (e.g. the job must not involve gardening, domestic services, child care services, etc., for the employer).
I've been feeling pretty helpless these past ten days, but this I can do something about.

UPDATE (November 25/16): Patricia Maloney, aka the Amateur Statistician, commented. Says Priests for Life Canada is totally different from Pavone's gang. Yeah. Except for the shared name and goals and the fact that one gets to the Canadian outfit through a link called "International" on the US site.

All of which does not matter much. Because the fact remains that Canadian taxpayers are being scammed by eleven different branches of this misogynist "charity" for five years that we know of. For a total of more than $76K.

The Cdn gang furiously back-pedalled away from Pavone's dead-fetus-on-the-altar stunt. Not because they were disgusted, but because it was a big no-no to the sky fairy. Or something.

Who cares? I care about the money, the lies, and the misogyny.


Monday, 7 November 2016

Charitable Status Is Key: "100 Who Care" Update

I said back here that I would report on any replies from the "100 Who Care" groups I blogged about.

Only one has. And I had a private conversation with a member of another group in Atlantic Canada.

The first thing to know: not all groups operate the same way.

I got a reply from an organizer of 100 Women Who Care Ottawa, who used only her first name. In my initial email I advised that I would be blogging further on the topic so any responder should consider herself on the record. Since I'm not sure she she understood that, I won't use her name. (I'll send her a link to this blogpost and update as necessary.)

She said that the Ottawa group "votes with their money (instead of a global vote so one charity ends up with all the funds)." Members are free to write their cheques to any of the three charities selected to make pitches, as their "Charities" page shows.

I asked about vetting charities, specifically the fake clinic, First Place Options. She said:
We do indeed vet the charities to see if they fit our criteria, which you will find on our website. The steering committee struggled with this one, but in the end, we decided that if one of our members nominated them in good faith and if they met our criteria, we had no grounds to eliminate them because of our own beliefs.


As for whether members are given time to do their own vetting, she said charities are selected and announced at one (quarterly) meeting and make their pitches at the next. So, members have three months to decide which charity to support.

Good. That all seems reasonable and responsible.

A different story was told to me by a member from a similar group in Atlantic Canada.

She said that the charities selected to pitch are not announced in advance. The first members hear about them is at the pitch meeting.

I asked whether there was any discussion among members before voting. Nope. Just vote and all write cheques to the "winner."

What happens if individual members don't approve of the winner? She didn't know. As far as she knew, it hadn't happened.

Upshot: The Ottawa group has a better procedure both in informing their members of the nominees in advance and in allowing them to dissent from the majority decision.

The point -- and the big draw, I expect -- of such groups is efficiency. Busy people show up, listen to pitches from three randomly chosen local charities, vote, write cheques, and they're done.

I've since looked at websites for several such groups and the two common criteria for a charity's eligibility for nomination by a member are:

• Charitable registration, i.e. able to issue tax receipts directly to members; and

• Location and services must be local.

Nothing about ethics. Or lack of them.

The charitable registration is key.

So, I ask again: WHY are fake clinics -- whose aim is to dissemble and manipulate in the service of their anti-choice/anti-abortion mission -- allowed to be registered as charities?

How can striving to curtail a targetted population's rights NOT be political?

If you think it is, Canada Revenue Agency is holding an online consultation on "charities' political activities." Let them know what you think. The deadline is November 25, 2016.

Friday, 4 November 2016

New Kind of Fake Clinics

My, my. It seems that there is a "Wild West" of unlicensed, unregulated fake clinics offering bogus advice and treatment.

Ha. You thought I was talking Fake Abortion Clinics.

Nope. Fake Concussion Clinics.


It seems anyone can start a hotline, or set up a clinic offering to treat concussions, a brain injury. There is no active federal or provincial oversight. It's an essentially unregulated field, where massage therapists, chiropractors and nurses can hang out a shingle pitching their expertise in concussion management.

Health services in Canada are governed through a system of self-regulation. Health professionals are licensed by professional associations, and those associations are responsible for limiting the scope of practice. When we asked the Ontario Ministry of Health about the appropriateness of a concussion hotline, we were told to ask the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons. The college told us that, unless someone complains, it has no problem with it.

But some medical experts do have a problem with the hotline. They're concerned that the hype around concussions is getting out of control.

Golly gee. Just like Fake Abortion Clinics. But here, people are making money.
Dr. Michael Ellis, a neurosurgeon, runs Manitoba's only provincially sponsored concussion clinic. He is appalled at the proliferation of unregulated concussion clinics popping up across the country, offering a variety of treatments, including meditation, massage, acupuncture and even hyperbaric oxygen therapy. A quick count reveals more than 200 concussion clinics across Canada.
Funny. There are about 200 totally unregulated, unlicensed, unsupervised Fake Abortion Clinics in Canada. And just about all of them lie to advance their mission to dissuade pregnant people from their right to abortion.


The lies are very well documented.

And sane people have been complaining about them for years. But unless such outlaw operations cut into the bottom line of members of the various colleges of physicians and surgeons, the powers that be are good with the bullshit.

We're not.

Grand merci to Alison @ Creekside for fabulous graphics.

Thursday, 3 November 2016

Ruckus Raising Time. Again.

Up here in smug Canada -- and getting smugger by the minute as the US election approaches -- it's not often that the US has us beaten on any aspect of abortion care.

Well, they've got us all beat to hell on medical abortion.

Although many limitations remain, innovative dispensing efforts in some states, restricted access to surgical abortions in others and greater awareness boosted medication abortions to 43 percent of pregnancy terminations at Planned Parenthood clinics, the nation's single largest provider, in 2014, up from 35 percent in 2010, according to previously unreported figures from the nonprofit.

To recap, the abortion pill, aka mifepristone or RU486, was just approved in Canada in July 2015, a mere three decades after France approved it and two decades after the US did.

Juxtapose this. A year later, in July 2016 the assisted dying bill became law.

Estimated number of assisted deaths in the three months since, about 200.

Number of medical abortions in the fifteen months since the abortion pill's approval: ZERO.

There has been unconscionable fuckery associated with the abortion pill.

Looooong approval process, stupid dispensing requirements, mandated online training for physicians, weird bureaucratic hurdles for its inclusion in provincial drug plans.

But assisted dying? No such rigamarole. Law is passed. Doctors offer it. Patients want it. So.

In sensible places with universal healthcare, medical abortion is recognized for the boon it is -- both to patients and to the system. Like Australia.

But here, the regulators and politicians are kow-towing to the minuscule -- but LOUD -- anti-choice fringe who call the abortion pill "human pesticide".

It's time to do something about this idiotic situation.

An NDP MLA in Manitoba is calling for the province to cover the abortion pill.
A new resolution from St. Johns MLA Nahanni Fontaine describes the Mifegymiso pill as an essential medicine for women that should be easily accessible.

And it's not just Ms Fontaine who describes it as essential medicine. The World Fucking Health Organization listed it on its List of Essential Medicines in 2005.

Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights has a new campaign to help persuade the powers that be to get the damned lead out and make this essential medicine available.

Check it out.

Under Take Action there are five steps you can take.

1. Write and/or meet with your local MPP, MP, Provincial/Territorial Minister of Health, and/or Federal Minister of Health.
2. Write an op-ed or pitch the story to local news outlets.
3. Take to social media! 
4. Engage your community: host an event, share information through your networks. 
5. Encourage your physician to become a medical abortion provider of Mifegymiso.

After all, provincial healthcare plans fund surgical abortion. Why would they not embrace this earlier, quicker, less expensive alternative?

Wednesday, 26 October 2016

The Uberization of Charitable Giving


Like most "disruptive" new ideas, at first the "100 Who Care" movement -- if it can be called that -- seems marvellously simple.

There's a good cause in your community. It needs a dose of cash. Call a few friends, who call a few friends, you get the idea. All get together and each writes a cheque directly to the worthy cause and BAM!

Done.

That's what a woman named Karen Dunigan did.

The first 100 Women Who Care group was formed in November 2006 by Karen Dunigan of Jackson, Michigan, USA. At their first one-hour meeting, the Jackson 100 Women Who Care group raised $10,000 to buy 300 new baby cribs for an organization in their city! Their membership has now grown to nearly 300 members and many other cities across the United States and Canada have formed groups as well.

Indeed, now there's an alliance of these 350 loose groups.

While it started with women, now there are men who care, kids who care, and people who care groups.

Here is an account from the Star on 100 Women Who Care Toronto.

In describing the meeting, the writer says: "Think Dragon’s Den meets crowdfunding."

Local charities -- they must be registered charities for the tax receipts -- are nominated by members. Three charities are chosen at random to make their pitch to the assembled group. They vote, one is chosen, and they all whip out cheque books and BAM! $10,000 (or $100 times the number of members) is raised.

Direct, efficient, laudable.

But there's a problem. We call it the uberization of charitable giving.

By cutting out vetting, oversight, and ethical guidelines, and relying solely on the charities' pitches -- and their government-sanctioned charitable status -- these groups may achieve efficiency at the cost of responsibility and accountability.

I'm sure everyone walks out feeling great, but do they all know exactly what they're supporting?

We have identified five fake clinics, aka crisis pregnancy centres, who have benefitted from these groups.

We reported a few days ago on 100 Guys Who Share - Yarmouth County who donated $11,600 to the Tri-County Pregnancy Care Centre.

Since then, we've found four more.

Women Who Care Norfolk were persuaded by a fake-clinic pitch. (Look how the work is described.)
Outstanding!  The Norfolk Pregnancy Centre will receive $14,600 to purchase additional programming material and expand their services into Delhi. This organization provides leadership, guidance and support to young women and men as they embark on a new phase of life.  Professional volunteers are available to offer assistance on an as needed basis.
[I wonder what a "professional volunteer" is.]

Women Who Care Stouffville chose the Markham/Stouffvillle Crisis Pregnancy Centre for a windfall gift.

Sunrise Pregnancy Centre was the recipient of a donation from Women Who Care Uxbridge

And Women Who Care Ottawa picked First Place Options, also the choice of the ill-fated fundraiser by the wives and girlfriends of the Ottawa Senators.

Given that Canada is overwhelmingly pro-choice, we have to question whether all these good, generous people understood that their hard-earned dough was going to anti-choice, anti-contraceptive, religious gangs who lie to and manipulate pregnant people out of choosing abortion as a response to a "crisis pregnancy."

Revisiting the Ottawa Senators' schmozzle, under the title Donor Beware, we pointed out that people need to check out what their money is supporting.

And the other important take-away is WHY THE HELL DO THESE FAKE CLINICS HAVE CHARITABLE STATUS AT ALL?

Most people see a charitable registration number and think "OK, fine. This group has been checked out by the government. It is accountable to the Canada Revenue Agency, who monitors its activities and finances."

And they write their cheques (under a bit of group pressure perhaps).

Maybe they all did know exactly what they were supporting. Great.

But we seriously doubt it.


ADDED (October 27/16): I wrote to the 100 Women Who Care groups in Norfolk, Stouffville, Uxbridge, and Ottawa to ask about their pre-pitch vetting. The email to Norfolk came zinging back with a fatal error. We wait on the others. I'll report.

UPDATE (October 31/16): 100 Women in Ottawa kindly replied with some more information. I want to wait a bit longer to see if any of the others do too.

Sunday, 23 October 2016

Taking Over Riding Associations For Life

[Alternate title from the Star link in the update below: The revenge of the so-cons.]



Remember Liberals for Life?

Liberals for Life was a pro-life advocacy group that worked within the Liberal Party of Canada during the 1980s and early 1990s. Some of its members were also affiliated with the Campaign Life Coalition, and, as such, the group was often accused of entryism.

According to its members, Liberals for Life was created after the national victory of Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative Party in the 1984 federal election. The organization attracted little attention until the early 1990s, when it endorsed Tom Wappel in his bid for the party leadership, and gained control of several riding associations.

The Liberal Party's constitution was amended to allow the leader to appoint candidates in certain ridings in 1992. Jean Chrétien defended the change as necessary to prevent "single-issue groups" from taking over the Liberal Party. It was generally understood that Liberals for Life was the primary target of this remark.

The movement effectively dissolved in 1993 after the Liberal Party formed government.
We do.

It's a favourite tactic of fetus fetishists. And it's happening again.

Here's the mission of a gang called
Right Now.
RightNow exists to nominate and elect pro-life politicians by mobilizing Canadians on the ground level to vote at local nomination meetings, and provide training to volunteers across the country to create effective campaign teams in every riding across Canada. It is only when we have a majority of pro-life politicians in our legislatures, that we’ll see pro-life legislation passed in our country.
They admit that they're sick of losing. *snerk*

In addition to stacking nomination votes, they have a list of anti-choice laws they want passed.

All the usual anti-choice restrictions: outright criminalization, term limits, "unborn" victims of crime, defunding, parental consent, and a new one on me, a law requiring pre-abortion ultrasound. (Which might not work out the way they think. See More Ultrasounds = More Abortions.)

So, last night a 19-year-old in Niagara West-Glanbrook, named Sam Oosterhoff, stunned the Ontario Conservative Party by beating out party president and former MP Rick Dykstra to take the the nomination. (It's Tim Hudak's old stomping ground.)

The only supporter listed on his campaign page is
Dominionist MP and anti-choicer Arnold Viersen.

Sam spouts the usual blahblah about family, but we strongly suspect he is a fetus freak.

Here's Right Now's co-founder Alissa Golob crowing last night:





And Right Now's account:



And Campaign Life:



Would someone in the media please ask him about his Dominionist ties and his position on abortion and sex education?



UPDATE: The Star is on it.

“I will never waver in my support of parents as primary educators, and I will strive to ensure that parental rights are respected in education,” said Oosterhoff, echoing the concerns expressed by opponents of Premier Kathleen Wynne’s updated health syllabus that includes lessons about gender expression, same-sex relationships, and the risks of sexting.

Some of the teenager’s supporters marched with pro-life placards at voting locations on Saturday and distributed pamphlets with dead fetuses on them to suggest his rivals for the nomination backed abortion rights.

The religious right helped propel Oosterhoff, briefly a junior staffer on Parliament Hill, to victory with 662 votes to 501 for Dykstra, 245 for businessman Mike Williscraft, and 235 for Niagara regional councillor Tony Quirk, who is also a PC Party vice-president.
....

“It’s the revenge of the so-cons,” fumed another high-ranking Tory.

Indeed, Oosterhoff’s decisive win comes weeks after Brown denounced social conservatives in the wake of the party’s bungling during PC MPP Raymond Cho’s victory in Scarborough-Rouge River last month.