CV #66(B): Health Authorities Fine With Vaccinating Pregnant Women, While Admitting No Testing Done

Bad medical advice is all too common. However, several “reputable” health authorities seem content to raise the stakes even more. They recommend — or at least don’t oppose — vaccinating pregnant women, despite openly admitting a serious lack of testing and longitudinal studies.

1. Who Are These “Reputable” Organizations?

  • World Health Organization
  • American Society of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists
  • U.S. Center for Disease Control
  • U.K. National Health Services
  • Royal College of Physicians of Ireland
  • Australian Department of Health
  • Canadian Society of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists

A disclaimer: this is certainly not all of them. More organizations could easily be added to this list.

2. World Health Organization

Should pregnant women be vaccinated?
While pregnancy puts women at higher risk of severe COVID-19, very little data are available to assess vaccine safety in pregnancy.
.
Nevertheless, based on what we know about this kind of vaccine, we don’t have any specific reason to believe there will be specific risks that would outweigh the benefits of vaccination for pregnant women.
.
For this reason, those pregnant women at high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (e.g. health workers) or who have comorbidities which add to their risk of severe disease, may be vaccinated in consultation with their health care provider.

The World Health Organization, or WHO, has very little data (or no data), concerning pregnant women and the risks of vaccination. Nonetheless, they don’t see a problem with this going ahead.

3. Society Of Obstetricians/Gynaecologists, US

-ACOG recommends that COVID-19 vaccines should not be withheld from pregnant individuals.
-COVID-19 vaccines should be offered to lactating individuals similar to non-lactating individuals.
-While a conversation with a clinician may be helpful, it should not be required prior to vaccination, as this may cause unnecessary barriers to access.
-Vaccines currently available under EUA have not been tested in pregnant women. Therefore, limited safety data specific to use in pregnancy is available. See details about the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) EUA process below.
Unfounded claims linking COVID-19 vaccines to infertility have been scientifically disproven.
-ACOG recommends vaccination for all eligible people who may consider future pregnancy.

It’s interesting that this group claims the link between COVID-19 vaccines and infertility has been scientifically disproved, considering they admit no testing has been done.

4. US Center For Disease Control

There are limited data about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines for people who are pregnant
Until findings are available from clinical trials and additional studies, only limited data are available on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, including mRNA vaccines, administered during pregnancy:
.
Limited data are currently available from animal developmental and reproductive toxicity studies. No safety concerns were demonstrated in rats that received Moderna COVID-19 vaccine before or during pregnancy; studies of
-the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine are ongoing.
-Researchers have studies planned in people who are pregnant.
-Both vaccine manufacturers are monitoring people in the clinical trials who became pregnant.

Getting vaccinated is a personal choice for people who are pregnant
.
People who are pregnant and part of a group recommended to receive COVID-19 vaccine, such as healthcare personnel, may choose to be vaccinated. A conversation between pregnant patients and their clinicians may help them decide whether to get vaccinated with a vaccine that has been authorized for use under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). While a conversation with a healthcare provider may be helpful, it is not required prior to vaccination.

The U.S. Center for Disease Control (USCDC) shrugs off the vaccinating of pregnant women as a “personal choice”, despite there being no studies done on it. When they say “limited data”, it actually means that they have no data.

5. UK, National Health Services

COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy
There is no known risk with giving inactivated virus or bacterial vaccines or toxoids during pregnancy or whilst breast-feeding. However, the COVID-19 vaccines have not yet been tested in pregnancy, so it has been advised that until more information is available, pregnant women should not routinely have these vaccines. As a matter of caution, COVID-19 vaccine is therefore not routinely advised in pregnancy but there are some circumstances in which the potential benefits of vaccination are particularly important for pregnant women. This may include women who are at very high risk of catching the infection or those with certain medical conditions that put them at high risk of suffering serious complications from COVID-19 infection. In such circumstances, a woman may choose to have COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy following a discussion with her doctor or nurse.

Evidence so far reviewed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the UK regulatory agency responsible for licencing medicines including vaccines, has raised no concerns for safety in pregnancy.

The data for each licensed COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy is limited because pregnant women are not included in vaccine trials. This is not because of any specific safety concerns but as a matter of caution, like that applied to trials of most other medicines.

There is some deliberate word games here. The United Kingdown (Britain) tries to reassure the public that these vaccines are safe, while admitting that testing such as on pregnant women is non-existent. If no testing has been done, how can there be “limited evidence” available?

Also note: the UK doesn’t prohibit or recommend that pregnant women not be given this vaccine. Instead, they say that it shouldn’t COMMONLY be happening. Not the same thing.

6. Royal College Of Physicians Of Ireland

COVID-19 vaccines have not been studied in pregnancy and breastfeeding
.
You may get some side-effects from getting the vaccine.

What are the negatives of this option?
1. COVID-19 vaccines have not been studied in pregnant and breastfeeding people
We do not know for sure if there are negative impacts of giving COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy.
However available information is reassuring and there are no current safety concerns about these vaccines in pregnancy.
2. You may get some side-effects from getting the vaccine.
Common side effects are reported in more than 1 in 10 people and include fatigue, headache, sore arm, fever and muscle or joint
pains. These are more common after the second dose and usually resolve within 2 days.

Despite not being tested on pregnant women, it is presented in Ireland as a serious option to consider. Considering all the hype about the health risks of this virus, this groups comes across indifferent as to the side effects of these injections.

7. Australian Department Of Health

How do I know that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe?
All vaccines are thoroughly tested for safety before they are approved for use in Australia. This includes careful analysis of clinical trial data, ingredients, chemistry, manufacturing and other factors.

Can I get the vaccine if I am pregnant?
In preparation for vaccine rollout, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) is currently finalising clinical advice for health care providers on the use of COVID-19 vaccines in Australia in 2021. This is likely to include advice in relation to pregnant women. This advice will be provided as soon as it is received.
.
Clinical trials for new medicines do not typically include pregnant or breastfeeding participants. Each country that is or has hosted clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccine candidates has different guidance regarding use of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy based on the benefits, risks and uncertainties in the context of the prevailing pandemic situation.

Australia claims it is still finalizing its guidance. Fair enough. However, the lack of testing on pregnant women should be a huge red flag for any advice that might come out in favour of this. But that isn’t really what they are saying.

8. Society Of Obstetricians/Gynaecologists, CA

Consensus Statement: Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding should be offered vaccination at any time during pregnancy if they are eligible and no contraindications exist.
.
This decision is based on the women’s personal values and an understanding that the risk of infection and/or morbidity from COVID-19 outweighs the theorized and undescribed risk of being vaccinated during pregnancy or
while breastfeeding
. Women should not be precluded from vaccination based on pregnancy status or breastfeeding.

Pregnant and breastfeeding women were excluded from the available Phase II and Phase III studies for the PfizerBioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. However, for Pfizer-BioNTech, there were 23 individuals (12 in the vaccine arm and 11 in the placebo arm) who reported pregnancies during the trial and are being followed for pregnancy outcomes with no reports of adverse effects to date. For the Moderna trials, there were 13 women (6 in the vaccine and 7 in the placebo group) who reported pregnancies during the trial without report of adverse effects to date. Recently V-safe CDC registry which includes pregnant women reported no differences in the rates of adverse events or pregnancy complications for those women who were pregnant and received either the PfizerBioNtech vaccine or the Moderna vaccine. The Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity (DART) animal studies for the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines are ongoing. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (ACOG), no major safety signals have been identified.

Similarly, breastfeeding women were also excluded from the Phase III trials available at present. Therefore, there is no data on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in lactating women or the effects of mRNA vaccines on the breastfed infant or on milk production. Because mRNA vaccines are not considered live virus vaccines, they are not hypothesized to be a risk to the breastfeeding infant.

Pregnant and breast feeding women were not part of the AstraZeneca trials either. It seems that this piece of information should be front and center of any discussion or recommendation.

Decades of experience with other vaccines administered during pregnancy would suggest that we could expect a similar efficacy for the COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women compared to non-pregnant women. Vaccines in general are immunogenic, safe, and efficacious when delivered to pregnant women. While there have been no red flags or hypothesized mechanisms for potential harm associated with the administration of an mRNA non-replicating viral vector vaccine during pregnancy, until more data is available, the potential risks of vaccination to a pregnant woman and her fetus remain unknown and only theoretical. What is known, however, is that an unvaccinated pregnant woman remains at risk of COVID-19 infection and remains at heightened risk of severe morbidity if infected compared to non-pregnant counterparts. Severe infection with COVID-19 carries risks to both maternal, fetal and neonatal health. While pregnancy itself does not appear to increase the risk of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, pregnant individuals may be in work-related (e.g., health-care worker, front line workers etc.) or community situations (e.g., caregiver, indigenous communities, outbreak setting, etc.) where the risk of infection is considerable. Owing to maternal age or underlying comorbidities, some pregnant women are at high risk of severe COVID-related morbidity.

So we don’t actually have any data on pregnant women being studied. But looking at OTHER vaccines, we assume the risk is similar.

NACI has advised “that a complete vaccine series with a COVID-19 vaccine may be offered to pregnant individuals in the authorized age group, without contraindications to the vaccine, if a risk assessment deems that the benefits outweigh the potential risks for the individual and the fetus, and if informed consent includes discussion about the absence of evidence on the use of COVID-19 vaccine in this population (Discretionary NACI Recommendation)”.

We recommend that pregnant and breastfeeding women who are eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine due to exposure risk, medical status, or other circumstances should be able to make an informed decision by having access to up-to-date information about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine (including clear information about the data that is not yet available) and information about the risks of COVID-19 infection for them. The concern around vaccination in the absence of evidence of safety in pregnancy has been debated in the literature. The PREVENT Working Group state, “the absence of evidence and the mere theoretical or even documented risk of fetal harm is generally not sufficient to justify denying pregnant women access to a vaccine in an outbreak or epidemic.” During an epidemic, the default should be to offer vaccines to pregnant women alongside other affected populations

Individuals contemplating pregnancy
For an individual planning a pregnancy, it is recommended to complete the entire COVID-19 vaccination series (where possible) to achieve maximal vaccine efficacy ahead of pregnancy. It is not known whether an individual should delay pregnancy following receipt of the vaccine and a risk-benefit discussion for those planning pregnancy should occur similar to the discussion for pregnant and breastfeeding women.

It’s recommended that women anticipating pregnancy get vaccinated first. Interesting. It seems that studies have been done on the reproductive problems, or possible sterility.

This entire article is filled with such nonsense. Pregnant women should be offered vaccination, however, the risks are downplayed, as is the lack of real testing. Also, it’s fair to assume that the overwhelming recovery rate of this “virus” is either minimized, or ignored entirely.

Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act allows for the Health Minister to sign an Interim Order allowing untested vaccines to be approved. Public officials don’t discuss this. Nor do they mention the fact that they don’t do any testing; they just review the documentation.

In SOGC’s statement (see backup), they see nothing wrong with giving pregnant women — or nursing mothers — these “vaccines”. The reasoning behind it is convoluted and twisted.

These examples are hardly the only ones. However, it’s disturbing to see these seemingly legitimate organizations pushing vaccines on pregnant and nursing women — when they weren’t tested on them in the first place.

TSCE #13(E): Gates, Trudeau Using Other People’s Money To Finance Genocide Globally

It’s bad enough that successive Governments waste the public’s money. It’s far worse when used to finance the genocide of babies, both domestically and abroad. Instead of being direct about this, it’s cloaked in misleading labels like “reproductive health”. Here are some specific cases.

Bill Gates believes there are too many people on the planet. It’s also the case that aborted fetal tissue, (from dead babies), is also used in manufacturing vaccines. If only there was a common solution to all of these problems.

See this article for more background information.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Gates Funds Planned Parenthood Groups

DATE GROUP AMOUNT
April 1998 PP Federation Of America $115,000
April 1998 PP of Western Washington $500,000
June 1998 PP Federation Of America $2,600,000
August 1998 International PP Federation $1,730,000
November 1998 International PP Federation $1,492,400
August 1999 PP Canada $569,000
April 1999 PP Federation Of America $5,000,000
August 1999 International PP Worldwide $2,845,268
November 1999 International PP Federation $1,492,400
June 2000 PP of Central Washington $75,000
October 2000 PP Federation of America $3,000,000
January 2001 International PP Worldwide $8,865,000
November 2002 International PP Worldwide $800,000
December 2002 International PP worldwide $800,000
September 2005 PP of Western Washington $1,000,000
November 2005 International PP Europe $3,024,011
June 2006 International PP Worldwide $10,000
December 2006 PP Of Western Wshington $200,000
July 2007 International PP Europe $7,023,160
July 2007 International PP Worldwide $14,990,698
September 2008 International PP Europe $23,000
November 2010 International PP Europe $7,298,377
October 2011 International PP Worldwide $250,000
October 2013 International PP Europe $6,973,371
November 2014 International PP Europe $431,947
August 2016 International PP Europe $11,021,872
July 2018 International PP Worldwide $490,000
September 2018 International PP Worldwide $99,000
October 2018 International PP Worldwide $250,000
October 2018 Shanghai Institute of PP Research $1,628,290
July 2019 International PP Worldwide $500,000
October 2019 International PP Europe $599,221
March 2020 International PP Worldwide $500,000

These dates and amounts are available directly from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation website. They’ve been at this for over 20 years now. And in case someone thinks that this doesn’t financially cost Canadians, we pay for groups like GAVI.

3. Canadian Taxpayers Funding Abortion Abroad

DATE ORGANIZATION AMOUNT
Oct. 1, 2014 MCPHAIL, Deborah $230,130
Apr. 15, 2020 International Rescue Committee $1,900,000
Jul. 1, 2015 Loutfy, Mona R $1,586,064
Dec. 15, 2015 UN Population Fund $54,200,000
Jan. 20, 2016 Plan International Canada $59,406,343
Feb. 8, 2016 ADRA – Adventist $25,820,973
Mar. 8, 2016 World Vision Canada $46,185,312
Mar. 10, 2016 L’Oeuvre Léger $8,975,663
Mar. 15, 2016 Primate’s World Relief $19,683,960
Mar. 17, 2016 CARE Canada $22,217,442
Mar. 10, 2017 Ministry of Finance (Tanzania) $87,300,000
Mar. 30, 2017 University of Saskatchewan $16,986,886
May 1, 2017 Carew, Jenna N. $17,500
Jan. 29, 2018 CCISD $8,799,485
Feb. 26, 2018 CCISD-CHUM $20,850,786
Feb. 28, 2018 Pathfinder International $18,500,000
Mar. 2, 2018 UN Population Fund $25,000,000
Mar. 23, 2018 UN Population Fund $21,354,000
May 7, 2018 Action Against Hunger – Spain $2,000,000
Aug. 9, 2018 Oxfam Canada $17,959,000
Oct. 22, 2018 The George Small Project Foundation Inc $19,912
Mar. 1, 2019 Money, Deborah M $24,906
May 3, 2019 Doctors Without Borders $1,000,000
May 4, 2019 Canadian Red Cross $1,500,000
May 6, 2019 UN Population Fund $1,000,000
May 7, 2019 Action Against Hunger $3,000,000
May 29, 2019 CARE Canada $2,500,000
May 30, 2019 International Rescue Committee $4,000,000
Jul. 3, 2019 Partners In Health Canada $11,149,825
Jul. 25, 2019 UN Population Fund $10,000,000
Sep. 9, 2019 UN Population $57,000,000
Sep. 30, 2019 Canadian Red Cross $9,000,000
Oct. 30, 2019 CAUSE Canada $1,903,735
Dec. 3, 2019 Ghana Rural Integrated Development $1,331,880
Dec. 20, 2019 WHO – World Health Organization $2,000,000
Dec. 20, 2019 Canadian Red Cross $9,000,000
Jan. 31, 2020 Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights $10,887,328
Feb. 19, 2020 World Relief Canada $4,000,000
Feb. 24, 2020 CARE Canada $4,500,000
Feb. 25, 2020 World Vision Canada $2,000,000
Mar. 10, 2020 Doctors of the World Canada $4,500,000
Mar. 11, 2020 University of Calgary $3,449,579
Mar. 27, 2020 Action Against Hunger $3,000,000
Mar. 27, 2020 CCISD $19,970,246
Mar. 28, 2020 Development and Peace $2,000,000
Mar. 20, 2020 CARE Canada $4,800,000
Mar. 30, 2020 UN Population Fund $4,650,000
Mar. 30, 2020 UN Population Fund $4,650,000
Apr. 6, 2020 Université de Montréal $19,998,232
Apr. 15, 2020 International Rescue Committee $1,900,000
Apr. 21, 2020 UN Population Fund $1,500,000
Apr. 23, 2020 Doctors Without Borders $1,000,000
Apr. 23, 2020 CARE Canada $1,250,000
May 13, 2020 Doctors Without Borders $2,600,000
May 13, 2020 Doctors Without Borders $1,500,000
May 13, 2020 Doctors Without Borders $1,000,000
May 18, 2020 Rise Up Feminist Digital Archive $24,990
Jul. 9, 2020 UN Development Programme $3,000,000
Sep. 4, 2020 UN Population Fund $1,000,000
Nov. 10, 2020 World Health Organization $2,236,000

While these groups do serve other purposes, they will often include terms like “sexual rights”, or “reproductive care”. These are euphemisms for abortion most times.

4. Conservative Cuckery On Abortion

This is the sad state of “conservatism” in Canada. There’s no moral or ideological objection to infanticide. Instead, they choose to virtual signal about how it’s wrong to do if it’s based on sex. Apparently being viewed as a misogynist is worse than being a murderer.

Males and females are to be treated equally, and apparently that applies to them being equally expendable.

5. Euthanasia, Medical Assistance In Dying

DATE GROUP AMOUNT
Jul. 20, 2017 Canadian Association for Community Living $399,895
Mar. 9, 2018 Western Canada Livestock Dev. Corp. $854,250
May 1, 2018 Moon, Christine $150,000
Oct. 1, 2018 Li, Madeline $818,550
Nov. 30, 2018 ADJEF, NB $14,000
Sep. 1, 2019 Western Canada Livestock Dev. Corp. $854,250
Sep. 2, 2019 ADJEF, NB $49,626

While we’re at it, let’s see what has been spent Federally on the topic of MAiD, or medical assistance in dying, or euthanasia. 2 of the grants apparently cover mass euthanasia of cattle, and other farm animals.

Definitely some strange uses of taxpayer money.

TSCE #14(D): Hypocrisy On Politicians Condemning Chinese Human Rights Abuses

While Canadians’ lives and livelihoods are destroyed by Governments using the false narrative of a “global pandemic”, Conservatives take the time to virtue signal about their disgust with China. While it’s abhorrent what goes on there, human rights abuses locally are ignored.

The ironically named “Official Opposition” complains about forced sterilization and genocide in China. However they support mass vaccination of Canadians, even though it may cause something similar.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Parliamentary Petitions: February 5, 2020

https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20210205/-1/34651

Seriously, how many of these petitions are needed to signal how evil China is? This is just grandstanding at this point. 9 were introduced in just one day of Parliament.

Now, even though all of these motions are excessive, it’s possible that politicians will strongly condemn the abuses that have happened in Canada and abroad this last year, right? Surely, they are outraged about the loss of freedom and opportunities that Canadians have suffered through no fault of their own. Well, it’s not so simple.

3. Bill S-240: Travelling To Obtain Organs

February 26, 2019 — House Committee

February 27, 2019 — House Committee

Bill S-240 would make it a crime for Canadians to go abroad to purchase or obtain organs for transplant, if there was a lack of consent. Specifically, this is designed at cutting down organ trafficking, and stopping the financial incentives for doing this.

Surely, politicians this committed to combatting human rights abuses must also want that applied at home, right? They would want their own citizens to have their rights protected, and be free victimization, correct? As it turns out, that is not really the case.

4. CPC Silence Canadian Human Rights Abuses

MOTION TEXT
That the Standing Committee on Health be instructed to undertake a study on the emergency situation facing Canadians in light of the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that this study evaluate, review and examine any issues relevant to this situation, such as, but not limited to:
.
(a) rapid and at-home testing approvals and procurement process and schedule, and protocol for distribution;
.
(b) vaccine development and approvals process, procurement schedules, and protocol for distribution;
.
(c) federal public health guidelines and the data being used to inform them for greater clarity on efficacy;
.
(d) current long-term care facility COVID-19 protocols as they pertain solely to federal jurisdiction;
.
(e) the availability of therapeutics and treatment devices for Canadians diagnosed with COVID-19;
.
(f) the early warning system, Global Public Health Intelligence Network (GPHIN);
.
(g) the government’s progress in evaluating pre- and post-arrival rapid testing for travellers;
.
(h) the availability of paid sick leave for those in need, including quarantine and voluntary isolation;
.
(i) the adequacy of health transfer payments to the provinces, in light of the COVID-19 crisis;
.
(j) the impact of the government’s use of World Heath Organization (WHO) advice in early 2020 to delay the closure of borders and delay in the recommendation of wearing of masks on the spread of COVID-19 in Canada;
.
(k) the Public Health Agency of Canada’s communication strategy regarding COVID-19;
.
(l) the development, efficacy and use of data related to the government’s COVID Alert application;
.
(m) Canada’s level of preparedness to respond to another pandemic;
.
(n) the availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) in Canada and a review of Canada’s emergency stockpile of PPE between 2015 and present;
.
(o) the government’s contact tracing protocol, including options considered, technology, timelines and resources;
.
(p) the government’s consideration of and decision not to invoke the federal Emergencies Act;

That Motion was voted on in the the House of Commons on October 26, 2020. Notice that at no time is any concern shown for the people (Canadians) whose human rights have been abused under this false pretense of a viral pandemic.

No question about the validity of the virus isolation itself. Do public health officials even know what they are looking for?

No question about the extremely high false positive rates of the RT-PCR test. Sure, they may not work at all, but let’s get them out faster.

No question about the bogus and fraudulent modelling, used by opportunistic people to generate fear and coerce compliance.

No question about the serious possibility of data and privacy breaches from this “contact tracing” system.

No question is raise “why” Canada is part of the WHO, when its dictates are legally binding on Canada. No issue with the erosion of national sovereignty.

Even on quarantine itself, the Conservatives seem to have no problem with this happening. The only concern raised is one of paid leave.

No mention (even outside of Parliament), of tyrants like Doug Ford, Brian Pallister and Francois Legault imposing draconian measures on their residents.

No concern for the people who have died — unnecessarily — in large part because hospital and preventative medical care has been delayed or cancelled.

No concern for the deteriorating mental health of Canadians, the suicides, the loneliness and isolation, all caused by perpetuating this hoax.

Politicians feign outrage at people being unable to practice their religion in China, but shutting down religious institutions is fine when done within Canada.

4. Infanticide Okay If Applied Equally

How’s this for mental gymnastics? Abortion — or infanticide — is not banned because it is immoral, or ethically reprehensible. That said, as long as all babies are free to be aborted (and not because of their sex), there’s nothing wrong with it in the eyes of “conservatives”. Private Member’s Bill C-233 would have done exactly that.

Mass murder is okay, as long as it’s done without any consideration of race or sex. Equal opportunity chance for death. Sounds pretty communist.

5. FIPA Treaty With China Wasn’t A Problem

China may have a long history of human rights abuses. But that apparently is no reason not to sign a 31 year treaty with them, FIPA, one which erodes Canadian sovereignty.

6. Selective Concern For Human Rights

What about the Reserves in Canada? What about the Indian Act, which is itself removing people’s rights to autonomy and self-governance? What about lack of clean water and health care available?

What about Canadian military veterans who aren’t having their benefits agreements honoured, despite risking their lives for the country?

What about a growing amount of Canadians who live in poverty, or the working poor? What about children growing up that way?

What about ensuring that Canadians have basic rights during this so-called “pandemic”? Offering to implement the same agenda isn’t really opposition.

It’s sickening to see such level of virtue signaling under the guise of “human rights” over in China, when there seems to be no concern for it back home.

TSCE #13(D): Forums of Parliamentarians on Population and Development, Global Alliance To Kill Babies

New Zealand announced in March 2020 that it was drastically loosening its abortion laws. In the middle of a “pandemic”, the priority is making it easier to kill babies. As horrible and Satanic as Jacinda Ardern is, there are much bigger problems that just her.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

While abortion is trumpeted as a “human right” in Western societies, the obvious questions have to be asked: Why is it a human right? Who are these groups benefiting financially, and why are so they so fiercely against free speech? Will the organs be trafficked afterwards? And aren’t these groups just a little bit too coordinated?

2. Important Links

New Zealand Bill To Water Down Abortion Laws
Parliamentarians Against Human Trafficking
Family Planning New Zealand
NZPPD (Parliamentarians On Population & Dev), New Chair
Australian Parliamentary Group on Population and Development
Australia’s Global Network
Canadian Ass’n Of Parliamentarians On Population & Development
European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual & Reproductive Rights
Asian Forum of Parliamentarians on Population and Development (AFPPD)
NZPPD’s Facebook Page
Family Planning New Zealand’s Twitter Account
Life News: NZ Pushing Sex-Ed On 5 Year Olds
WHO On Population And Reproductive Rights
1994 Cairo Conference On Population Demoraphics
South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem: Protect Down Babies

CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention.
CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan.
CLICK HERE, for UN Kalergi Plan (population replacement).
CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974.
CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.

3. Cognitive Dissonance On Human Trafficking

Have to love the mental gymnastics here: Parliamentarians “claim” that they oppose human trafficking. However, there are also a lot of them who see no issue with promoting mass abortions. After all, those organs are often sold to others. It’s human trafficking, just on a piecemeal basis.

4. Abortion Aids Population Replacement Agenda


One thing to keep in mind, many of the same people pushing for fewer local births are also advocating increased immigration rates. These seemingly contradictory steps seem counterintuitive at first.

[1] Have less children here, more abortions
[2] More migration because of declining birth rate.

In short, this is the population replacement agenda. Get locals having few (or no) children, and then use it as a pretext for bringing more people over. The same group who touts abortion as a “human right” also champions “replacement migration”, to fix declining populations.

5. NZ Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development

New Zealand Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development (NZPPD)
The New Zealand Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development (NZPPD) is open to any New Zealand MP and focuses its work mainly in the Pacific. The group looks at issues around sexual and reproductive health, women’s rights, and development issues.
.
The group was established in 1998 in response to the International Conference on Population and Development and its programme of action.
.
Barbara Kuriger MP is the current Chair of the group, with Family Planning acting as its secretariat.
.
Follow the group’s Facebook page for more information and updates.

Apparently, working towards the destruction of the family, and the abortions of girls — who would grow up to become women — is considered women’s rights, empowerment, and feminism. It’s difficult to grasp who such a harmful ideology can be passed off as something beneficial to society.

6. Australian Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development

The Australian Parliamentary Group on Population and Development is part of a regional network of similar groups – the Asian Forum of Parliamentarians on Population and Development, and works with other similar parliamentary groups around the globe.

The Australian Parliamentary Group on Population and Development, as a cross-party group, has for 25 years worked collaboratively to champion gender equality, and sexual and reproductive health and rights in international development.

The APGPD’s remit is guided by the Sustainable Development Goals and the landmark 1994 International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action, which recognise gender equality and women’s empowerment as global priorities, integral to eradicating deprivation and injustice.

This group’s agenda, which includes a pro-abortion stance, is in line with the UN Sustainable Development Agenda. It’s alarming to see this nonchalant attitude towards the lives of the most vulnerable.

7. Canadian Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development

The Canadian Association of Parliamentarians on Population and Development (CAPPD) provides a forum for the exchange of ideas on population, sexual and reproductive health, human rights and development issues. Formed in 1997, CAPPD is open to all sitting Senators and Members of Parliament.

CAPPD coordinates efforts with several parliamentary associations throughout Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe to encourage governments to keep their commitments to reproductive health and women’s rights, as agreed by 179 countries at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo, Egypt.

A group of politicians in Canada are also committed to the agenda. Just another branch of the global alliance to promote this depopulation agenda.

  • Pam Damoff
  • Hedy Fry
  • Irene Mathyssen
  • Elizabeth May
  • Marilou McPhedran
  • Raj Saini
  • Anita Vandenbeld

These are sitting Members of Parliament from the Greens, NDP and Liberal Parties. A cross-party commitment to making “reproductive services” available to all.

8. EU Forum for Sexual & Reproductive Rights

We are stronger when we speak with a single voice. Amplifying the unified voice of MPs committed to SRHR is central to our mission. EPF provides a venue for parliamentarians to coordinate common statements on international developments related to SRHR.

Typically, these statements urge action from governments and international organisatons; or call on states to place women’s empowerment at the centre of key international agreements.

Over the years, EPF has built good relations with SRHR champions through the European All-Party Parliamentary Groups, the European Parliament working group MEPs for SRR and the Global Parliamentary Alliance for Health, Rights and Development.

Within the European Union, there are efforts to get pro-abortion politicians together in order to promote what they call “human rights”. A major “right” as they call it, is the right to abortion.

9. Asian Forum of Parliamentarians on Population and Development

The Asian Forum of Parliamentarians on Population and Development (AFPPD) is a regional non-governmental organization based in Bangkok, Thailand. AFPPD serves as a coordinating body of 30 National Committees of Parliamentarians on Population and Development.

AFPPD engages with parliamentarians from Asia and the Pacific to champion policies on population and development. AFPPD educates, motivates, involves, and mobilizes parliamentarians on the linkages between increasing population and development issues such as reproductive health, family planning, food security, water resources, sustainable development, environment, ageing, urbanization, migration, HIV/AIDS, and gender equality.

Asian politicians are also being consulted by this “population and development” group, which pushes for more abortion, and easier access to it.

10. Population Summit In Cairo, 1994

Referring to the 1994 Cairo Conference on Population and Development, she said that revolution acknowledged that people –- women and men, mothers and fathers –- and not governments were the best judges of how many children to bring into the world, and where and when. A broader theme that ran through the Conference was the realization that, in talking about curtailing population growth and the complex relationships between population and development, or population and the protection of the environment, women had to be a central factor.

At “Cairo+10” [the 10-year anniversary of Cairo], she said, the same wide range of people and opinions heard in Cairo were beginning to be heard again. Some inside the United Nations system feared that a lobby led by an unlikely combination of conservative Middle Eastern nations, the United States and the Holy See would mount a major drive to dilute or undo the language. Others were more optimistic, as Cairo had been a seismic shift not easily reversed.

The Commission also addressed its agenda item “Programme implementation and future programme of work of the Secretariat in the field of population”. Mr. Chamie, introducing the Secretary-General’s report on “Programme implementation and progress of work in the field of population in 2003: Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs” (document E/CN.9/2004/5), and a note by the Secretary-General on the “Proposed strategic framework for the period 2006-2007” (E/CN.9/2004/6), said demographics were not merely about numbers. It was about development of human society. Development, in turn, related to low mortality, which was an indicator of the well-being of a society.

He then highlighted several activities of the Population Division, including production of a document on world population policies, a report on urbanization and two wall charts –- one on urban agglomerations and one on urban/rural movements. A chart on world contraceptive use was also available, he said, as well as an extensive database on trends in marriage since 1960.

A major idea of the 1994 Conference was to get countries having less children, and artificially drive down the birth rate. Instead, the focus would be on a better quality of life for those who were there. Abortion and contraception were heavily promoted as population control methods.

But remember: the United Nations (and many NGOs), promote a lower birth rate in Developed Nations. They also call for a replacement population to be imported to make up the difference.

This sort of thing should be considered genocide, should it not?

And why the recent focus on allowing later and later abortions? It wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the organs would be more developed, and thus worth more money, would it?

11. South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem urged state lawmakers Tuesday to protect unborn babies with Down syndrome from discrimination by passing new pro-life legislation.

In her state of the state address, the pro-life Republican governor said legislation to ban abortions on unborn babies based on a Down syndrome diagnosis will be one of her top priorities for the year.

“Children with Down Syndrome are a gift to us all,” she wrote on Twitter. “I am asking the South Dakota legislature to pass a law that bans the abortion of a preborn child, just because that child is diagnosed with Down Syndrome. We must stand for the right to life of every preborn child.”

Prior to her address, Noem appeared on Fox and Friends with Fox News contributor Rachel Campos-Duffy and her husband, former Wisconsin Congressman Sean Duffy, and their daughter Valentina who has Down syndrome.

Let’s end this on a positive note: the Governor of South Dakota recently made a public call to protect babies with Down Syndrome from being targeted for abortion. Someone who actually values life.

CV #19(C): Brian Lilley Mentions Global Canada Piece On Lockdowns, Omits Group Is Gates Funded

A group called Global Canada is proposing extremely strict lockdowns (a.k.a. martial law), in Canada, for a limited time. At least they claim it will be a limited time. Of course, there is more to this than meets the eye, and we will get to their paper soon enough.

And Brian Lilley, a so-called “journalist” with the Toronto Sun, can’t be bothered to do even a small amount of research on this group.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; and the International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Important Links

Brian Lilley’s Toronto Star Article On Proposed Lockdown
Global Canada Proposes Complete Lockdown
Global Canada Proposes Total Lockdown
https://twitter.com/brianlilley/status/1346454136640974850
https://global-canada.org/
https://global-canada.org/supporters/
https://global-canada.org/team/
https://archive.is/JzFdL
https://archive.is/SETfE
https://archive.is/hGLwi
http://www.18millionwomen.ca/
Family Planning Initiative Calls For Money

3. Conservative Inc.’s Brian Lilley Reports

While I agree that they have diagnosed several problems with our current system correctly, the prescription isn’t one I can get wholly behind.

The group smartly says we do need effective border controls, including testing of air travelers and proper quarantine methods.

The group even suggests making truckers and other essential workers who cross the Canada-US land border a priority group for vaccinations to prevent them from becoming new infection vectors.

What I have trouble with is the idea of another four-to-six week lockdown.

The plan is to invoke a harsh lockdown for four to six weeks, then gradually relax restrictions as cases fall by 17-25% per week until we reach a benchmark of one new case per day per one million of population.

How long that would take would vary greatly by province.

For Ontario and Alberta, that’s at least four to six months, while in Manitoba the effort would take two months, possibly more.

I don’t expect everything to open back up tomorrow, or for life to get back to normal anytime soon.

Yet I doubt many politicians have the desire to sell the public on this plan, of “just one more short lockdown” — and given the past week and how the political class have acted, I doubt very much the public wants to hear it.

From the looks of the article, Lilley doesn’t seem to take any issue (on principle), of forcibly locking down Canada for months. He just seems mildly skeptical that it would be as effective as needed.

Keep in mind, Lilley takes the perspective that we should be grateful it’s Doug Ford imposing lockdowns in Ontario, as others would surely be worse. Whether by accident or by design, Lilley only provides the most tame and meek efforts at holding the Government accountable. What else is he not reporting about this group that calls for more lockdowns?

4. Who Supports This NGO: Global Canada?

  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec
  • AIMIA
  • CIGI
  • Competia
  • ZED

Yes, the supporters of Global Canada include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, who is heavily involved in the pharmaceutical push. Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec is a large investment firm. So is AIMIA.

It would have been nice if Brian Lilley included this is his article. He linked the original paper.

5. Robert Greenhill Chairs Global Canada

Robert Greenhill
Executive Chairman, Global Canada
.
With a strong interest in global issues, Robert Greenhill has combined a career in international business with a commitment to public policy.
.
Robert Greenhill is Executive Chairman of the Global Canada Initiative. Previous roles include Managing Director and Chief Business Officer of the World Economic Forum, Deputy Minister and President of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), and President and Chief Operating Officer of the International Group of Bombardier Inc. Robert started his career with McKinsey & Company.
.
Robert has a BA from the University of Alberta, MA from the London School of Economics, and MBA from INSEAD

Global Canada is chaired by a former Managing Director and Chief Business Officer of the World Economic Forum, an organization pushing lockdowns, and which our politicians have ties to. Greenhill also has ties to Bombardier and McKinsey & Company.

Surely this is worth mentioning by the Toronto Sun. One of their roles is holding Government accountable for the things that they do, right?

Michael McAdoo Bio
Senior Consultant, The Boston Consulting Group
.
Michael is a Senior Advisor with the Global Advantage practice area of The Boston Consulting Group (BCG), where he specializes in international trade issues and manufacturing. He brings over twenty-five years of experience at the intersection of business strategy, international geopolitics, public policy, and deep expertise in international trade issues and in cross-cultural operations management.
.
Prior to his current role, Michael was an Executive Vice president with the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC). From 2001-2014 he held a series of senior executive positons with Bombardier. Prior to Bombardier, he was a Principal with BCG (Toronto/Monterrey).
.
Michael holds Masters degrees in International Relations and Journalism from Columbia University, and received his undergraduate education at Queen’s University and Harvard. He has lived and worked in all three NAFTA countries, and is fluent in French and Spanish.

Quite the list of connections here:

  • Bain & Company
  • Bell Canada
  • Bombardier
  • Canadian International Development Agency
  • Boston Consulting Group
  • Business Development Bank of Canada
  • McKinsey & Company
  • Pfizer
  • Privy Council of Canada
  • UN Global Compact
  • World Economic Forum

6. Quotes From The Global Canada Proposal

Canada is relatively well positioned to achieve zero COVID transmission. We are surrounded by ocean on 3 sides with a comparatively small population, engaged citizenry, strong institutions, a federal system of government, mid-sized cities similar to Sydney or Melbourne, and several domestic examples of zero COVID success.

Canada’s situation is essentially the same as Australia’s—with the addition of one major land border. By vaccinating the 200 thousand truckers that regularly cross the border and fully implementing other proven measures, Canada can seal off the U.S.-Canada border to the COVID virus while allowing essential trade to continue unimpeded.

Achieving zero transmission is feasible in Canada. Indeed, Canada may have inadvertently thrown away its shot to get to zero once already this summer.

With rising COVID cases and hospitalizations, difficult decisions have to be made. If the wrong decisions are made, we will face potential shutdowns again in 3 months. The time is right to determine whether going for zero is a superior strategy for Canada. We cannot afford to throw away our shot a second time.

Conclusion: We Have a Choice
Tough decisions will be necessary across Canada over the next few weeks. Canadians will doubtless be asked to make significant additional sacrifices. It is critical that these decisions and sacrifices are made with the right strategy in mind.

The TANZANC strategy of aggressive suppression is a viable option for Canada. Given the critical challenges to our present approach, the TANZANC model should be assessed and debated.

It may be that a cost-benefit analysis demonstrates that the TANZANC model is not a better strategy. If, however, the TANZANC model is right for Canada, or for certain provinces, we should act on it now. We cannot afford to throw away our shot a second time.

The conclusion from this report is that Canada has a choice. Living with COVID in the world is reality. Living with COVID in our communities is a choice.
Is it the right choice?

This paper brings up the same old talking points about lockdowns (martial law) being necessary in order to stop people from getting infected. In short, we still have problems because restrictions haven’t been harsh enough.

No mention of the bogus science behind this, such as the virus not isolated, or PCR tests not designed for this. No mention that people overwhelmingly recover, or that restrictions have been applied in an arbitrary and inconsistent matter.

The group regularly talks about borders. But instead of closing the borders off completely, the proposal is to vaccinate everyone coming in. What could possibly go wrong.

7. Global Canada And 18MillionWomen

One area that was identified in our brainstorming with Canadian leaders was renewed Canadian leadership on family planning and reproductive health and rights. Over the past year Global Canada worked with other Canadian civil society actors to convene a gathering of global experts on reproductive health. The recommendations from this gathering (summarized at www.18millionwomen.ca) played an important role in Canada’s 650M announcement to support women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights announced in March, 2017. Global Canada will be exploring other “proof point” opportunities with the potential of significant global impact.

The Family Planning Initiative has put out a call for Canada to spend at least $500 million each year for 10 years on what it calls sexual and reproductive health and rights. Yes, this would amount to Canada helping to finance genocide abroad by paying for abortions in the 3rd World. Global Canada is one of the groups that is involved in helping push that along.

Nothing says a commitment to saving lives quite like ensuring that there are a lot less of them around.

Sex-Selective Abortion And The Mental Gymnastics Of “Conservative Inc.”


Modern conservative politicians make it clear that they will take money and votes from social conservatives, but will never advance their interests in any real way. Abortion is a major issue, but not the only one. They act as a form of controlled opposition.

1. Other Articles For Abortion/Infanticide

While abortion is trumpeted as a “human right” in Western societies, questions have to be asked: Why is it a human right? Who are these groups benefiting financially, and why are so they so fiercely against free speech? Do these groups also support the open borders industry, or organ trafficking? Not nearly enough people are making these connections.

2. Mental Gymnastics In Abortion Policy

CPC Policy Declaration 2018

The CPC explicitly states in their policy declaration to support no legislation to regulate abortion. However, MPs support Private Member’s Bill C-233, to ban the practice of sex-selective abortion (which would target female babies). But that contradiction is not the only problem.

Today’s “conservatives” have no issue with killing babies itself. However, they are adamantly opposed to letting them be killed simply for being female. The obvious answer is that Conservative politicians don’t actually care about the lives of the unborn, but just virtue signal to show how feminist they are.

Side note: it seems the CPC’s stance on euthanasia is to do nothing. They won’t expand access for assisted suicide, but they won’t do anything to restrict or roll it back either.

3. Conservatives: Only Fund Local Genocide

From the Canadian Press. Trudeau announces that Canada should be fund abortions globally. Conservatives object to the “globally” part, not the “abortion” part of it.

A slim majority of Conservative convention delegates voted Saturday against a resolution backed by anti-abortion campaigners while at the same time affirming the party’s opposition to using Canadian foreign aid to fund abortion services abroad — a mixed bag result for social conservatives.

Other controversial resolutions, including a push to limit citizenship rights for those born in this country to non-Canadian parents and an endorsement of moving Canada’s embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, received overwhelming support.

The abortion resolution, No. 65, would have struck from the party’s policy book a pledge that a Conservative government would not support any legislation to regulate abortion, something added under former prime minister Stephen Harper to reassure some Canadians that the Conservative Party did not have a “hidden agenda” to legislate an abortion ban.

More gaps in logic. Many conservatives don’t have a problem with using taxpayer money to kill CANADIAN children, but they oppose using public funds to exterminate FOREIGN children. So it’s not about principles, but simply how tax dollars are used.

The article refers to the August 2018 CPC Policy Convention. Of course, it wouldn’t be a conservative gathering without some pandering to Israel. In this case, the moving of an embassy.

4. Summer Jobs Grant Attestation

Ineligible projects and job activities:
Projects consisting of activities that take place outside of Canada;
Activities that contribute to the provision of a personal service to the employer;
Partisan political activities;
Fundraising activities to cover salary costs for the youth participant; or
Projects or job activities that:
restrict access to programs, services, or employment, or otherwise discriminate, contrary to applicable laws, on the basis of prohibited grounds, including sex, genetic characteristics, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression;
advocate intolerance, discrimination and/or prejudice; or
actively work to undermine or restrict a woman’s access to sexual and reproductive health services.

Please note the following definitions:
As per section 2.1 of the Canada Summer Jobs Articles of Agreement, “project” means the hiring, administration of, job activities, and organization’s activities as described in the Application Agreement.
To “advocate” means to promote, foster, or actively support intolerance, discrimination, and/or prejudice.
To “undermine or restrict” means to weaken or limit a woman’s ability to access sexual and reproductive health services. The Government of Canada defines sexual and reproductive health services as including comprehensive sexuality education, family planning, prevention and response to sexual and gender-based violence, safe and legal abortion, and post-abortion care.

Conservatives claimed to oppose the move to make the attestation mandatory for groups where their social beliefs conflicted with official government policy. To be clear though, this was framed as a free speech issue, not because the beliefs they held may be valid. See this piece for more information on the topic.

5. “Social Conservative” Leslyn Lewis

This weekend, Ontario-based political activist Tanya Granic Allen distributed an email making the case that social conservatives should not support me in the upcoming CPC Leadership election because of my past involvement with the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF).

They knew I held strong pro-life beliefs, and I hoped to be a balancing influence on the Board. After a few months of earnestly trying to make a difference, it was clear that it wasn’t the best fit all around, and we wished each other well, and I chose to conclude my term early with the Board.

I have chosen to be upfront with my pro-life views, and the fact that I will personally advocate for a law that fights the misogynistic practice of sex-selective abortion.

In the recent CPC leadership race, Leslyn Lewis promoted herself as a social conservative. She (sort of) defended her previous membership with Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF). Problem is, LEAF is far more extreme than she is letting on, so the membership makes no sense. One would have to wonder why she became a director without doing any research on the firm — or why they would pick her.

Interestingly, Lewis condemns the practice of sex-selective abortion as “misogynistic” for targeting girls, but she doesn’t condemn the practice of abortion overall.

A much more likely explanation is that Lewis ideologically agrees with the pro-death LEAF, but simply reinvented herself for perceived political gain.

Lewis also claims to oppose funding foreign abortions, but stays quiet on the topic of financing domestic ones.

6. What Conservative Inc. Really Stands For

To sum up, these are the official party positions of mainstream “conservatives” in Canada. Try to wrap your heads around them.

[1] We have no issue with the principle of abortion, and will pass no legislation against it, as long as children aren’t killed specifically for their gender.

[2] We don’t have a problem with paying to abort Canadian children, but we believe that killing children abroad is a waste of taxpayer money.

[3] We don’t agree with the principles that many religious groups stand for. We oppose the summer grants attestation requirement purely on free speech grounds.

[4] Yes, abortion leads to an overall lower birth rate, but we can just continue to import a replacement population to fill in the gaps.