I’m late to post my photos, but here are a couple.

This is a very newsworthy subject, that I suspect few journalists will pick up on (with some exceptions). Never-the-less, it deserves all the attention in the world.

Blogger Patricia Maloney filed a freedom of information request about abortion statistics in the Province of Ontario and received the following response:

Please be advised that effective January 1, 2012, section 65 of the Act (Application of the Act) was amended to exclude records relating to the provision of abortion services. The effect of section 65 (5.7) of the Act is that individuals no longer have a right to make access requests under Part II of FIPPA to an institution for records in the custody or under the control of that institution relating to the provision of abortion services.

“Individuals no longer have a RIGHT to make access requests … relating to the provision of abortion services.”

This is a government agency talking about a tax funded (to the tune of $70 million a year) procedure and ‘they’ (apparently “Mr. Don Young, Assistant Deputy Minister, was responsible for this decision...”) refuse to release any information to the public.  As Patricia points out in her blog post, where was the public discussion about this decision?  There was no debate at Queen’s Park, no committee struck to assess how tax dollars are going to be tracked for a procedure that will now be done in total secrecy.

This hiding of facts is truly “Orwellian.”  I kind of liked this definition from Wikipedia:

“Orwellian” describes the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free society. It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past… practiced by modern repressive governments.

Yup, sounds about right.

I’ve been tracking with this blog for a long while and today there is an article in the Toronto Star about the family. Lindsey Yeskoo, quoted in the article, is mother to Emily, after whom Emily’s House is named.

Lindsey Yeskoo is one of those parents. Her daughter Emily has a rare neurodegenerative disease (metachromatic leukodystrophy) for which there is no cure. At the age of 10, she was given a maximum of three years to live. But Emily’s story didn’t unfold as expected. For one thing, she is still alive at 19. For another, she has become the inspiration for Toronto’s first pediatric hospice.

Moved by her fierce will to live and her desire to make life better for other kids with life-limiting conditions, people who knew her or had heard about her came together to raise $5.5 million (on top of the province’s $2 million) to build “Emily’s House.” It will offer terminally ill children a bridge between the hospital and home. It will offer parents who care for these fragile youngsters a chance to take a break for an afternoon or a day or a weekend. It will give kids an opportunity to laugh and learn and play no matter what their prognosis.

It’s a construction site right now, part of the redevelopment of the historic Don Jail in Riverdale. But in December the doors of the long-derelict Governor’s House — once the stately residence of the “head gaoler” — will reopen as Emily’s House, with a modern three-storey addition to meet current medical standards.

Yeskoo hopes her daughter will be there. So does Emily. But she can’t plan; she can only wish.

Lindsey and Emily Yeskoo are a tremendous inspiration to me through their blog. Lindsey seems to have a grace that regular folks (namely me) don’t have.

Kudos to Rebecca Richmond, a fine young woman heading up the National Campus Life Network.  Her response in a Toronto Star article really made National Post’s Chris Selley think. He writes:

[she] said something moderately interesting in explaining the movement’s supposed appeal to young people. “We grew up since the 1988 Morgentaler decision (when criminal laws regulating abortion were thrown out) and so I think that our generation is starting to question this,” she told the Star. “A quarter of our generation lost their lives to abortion.”

Indeed, Mr. Selley does his math and finds that she is “spot on.” According to Stats Canada, between 1991 and 2005,

1.6 million abortions [were] performed over that period. By my count, it’s fair to say that 23% of fetuses that came into being over that time were aborted.

“Is that a lot?” he asks.  Gee, 1.6 million of anything would be considered a lot – based on some definitions, I would consider it a verifiable genocide.

_____________________

Andrea adds: Funny. Selley makes fun of the pro-lifers quoted in that Toronto Star article. Meanwhile, last night when speaking at the National Campus Life Network dinner, I made a point which I’d like to reiterate here. It’s the mainstream media who came a calling, trying to identify “something new” in the pro-life movement. They called, they wrote the story. The people the reporter talked to simply answered the questions. There’s not a pro-lifer across the country who thinks these tactics are “new.” Media in this case are arriving at this movement having never examined it before. They are ill-informed. That’s partly the pro-life movement’s fault. In no small part it’s their own blinders. In any case, before making smart-ass comments, if I were media these days trying to write a story about abortion, I’d start by doing some solid research. Good old fashioned reading. From the time before Twitter, say. How about it, journalists?

_____________________

Andrea adds one more thing: All of the students I met at the dinner last night were incredibly articulate. Puts me to shame, actually. I feel someone else should have given the keynote address. Rebecca, in particular, did a great job. It was a lovely event.

A montage of faces and voices who were on the Hill for the march today, including yours truly. I was slightly more more frank than I realized. When asked if I’m “disappointed in Stephen Harper” I reiterated how I have not been disappointed in him because of my exceptionally low expectations. Did that not once, but twice. Hey, at least no one can accuse me of being partisan.

Hats off to Brian Lilley for heading to the Hill to cover this and get the real, unedited voices of pro-lifers.

Véronique did a great job on CBC Radio in Ottawa today talking about how to debate the abortion debate. Click here to listen. (Segment is called Debating the Abortion Debate, May 10)

View the results here, and click here (scroll down, right hand side) to cast your vote:

Which statement most closely reflects your view on abortion?

Abortion should be outlawed in Canada. (19 %) 49

Abortion should be permitted only in cases of rape and incest. (16 %) 43

Abortion should be permitted only when the mother’s life is in jeopardy. (17 %) 45

Abortion should be available to any woman who wants it. (30 %) 79

Abortion should be available as it is now. (18 %) 46

Yes, I realized too that the last two questions were the same question.

You may think I’m talking to others, but no, that’s my advice for myself to remain zen in face of horrible media coverage.

Today the Ottawa Citizen ran a pretty bad story, with a photo of a man wearing a hockey mask holding up a plastic doll–from Spain. I gather they had to use aggressive and unrepresentative photos from across the globe because they’ve never covered the Ottawa march before–no Canadian footage on file.

I also love how the media think they’ve hit on something new:

No longer are grey-haired grandparents wearing sandwich boards outside abortion clinics the only faces of the anti-abortion movement; youth are getting involved too, Golob said.

What is coming soon? I genuinely don’t know. But I’ll still post this YouTube clip that was sent my way.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agOgHmEygFI]

Knock me over with a feather. This is a good report from the Toronto Star about the youth element of the pro-life movement. If you can, send the Star a note thanking them. Their “contact us” page is here.