UNAIDS Releases Paper On “Human Rights-Based Approach” To Sexuality

The Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS, UNAIDS, recently caused a stir. This policy paper came out: “The International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) along with UNAIDS and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) officially launched a new set of expert jurist legal principles to guide the application of international human rights law to criminal law.”

Sounds great, doesn’t it? Topics include:

  • sexual and reproductive health and rights, including termination of pregnancy;
  • consensual sexual activities, including in contexts such as sex outside marriage, same-sex sexual relations, adolescent sexual activity and sex work;
  • gender identity and gender expression;
  • HIV non-disclosure, exposure or transmission;
  • drug use and the possession of drugs for personal use; and
  • homelessness and poverty.

As with most things, the devil’s in the details.

To address the obvious: this is not legally binding on anyone. It’s just a paper. Still, that doesn’t mean the contents won’t work their way into Federal or Provincial legislation at some point.

As part of the Who We Are section, UNAIDS describes itself as “leading the global effort to end AIDS as a public health threat by 2030 as part of the Sustainable Development Goals.”

Apparently, UNAIDS timed this document to coincide with International Women’s Day. That’s interesting, to say the least.

Anyhow, this UNAIDS document is called the: “8 March Principles for a Human Rights-Based Approach to Criminal Law Proscribing Conduct Associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV, Homelessness and Poverty”. (See archive).

In fairness, there could be a lot of poor and imprecise wording throughout the document. But assuming that there’s not, it’s quite disturbing what’s been put out.

Parts I and II cover more general areas and ideas in law, and often seem quite reasonable. Having laws applied equally and fairly to all is something most people can easily get behind. But Part III is where things change.

Part III (page 20) of the document is where things really get weird. The following comments are an accurate reflection of what’s actually being written.

(Principle 14, page 21) addresses “sexual and reproductive health and rights”. Apparently no one should be held accountable for a mother drinking or doing drugs while pregnant. Non-disclosure of HIV (or presumably any disease) isn’t to be considered illegal.

Moreover, where a person’s criminal actions might result in criminal consequences, there’s to be no extra punishments based on the existence of the pregnancy. An example of this would be the homicide of a pregnant woman leading to multiple murder charges.

Are the unborn babies expected to have any rights here?

(Page 22) there’s a provision where “parents, guardians, carers, or other persons” who enable or assist children in exercising their sexual and/or reproductive rights may not be held criminally liable. Is this sort of thing to justify pedophilia and grooming?

(Principle 15, page 22) suggests that there should be laws against abortion in any capacity whatsoever. This applies both to the mother, and any third party.

(Principle 16, page 22) covers “consensual” sexual activity. While this is premised on the idea that all participants are in agreement, the wording suggests that it could be applied to adults and children.

Consensual sexual conduct, irrespective of the type of sexual activity, the sex/gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression of the people involved or their marital status, may not be criminalized in any circumstances. Consensual same-sex, as well as consensual different-sex sexual relations, or consensual sexual relations with or between trans, non-binary and other gender-diverse people, or outside marriage – whether pre-marital or extramarital – may, therefore, never be criminalized.

With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Enforcement may not be linked to the sex/gender of participants or age of consent to marriage.

Moreover, sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law. In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them. Pursuant to their evolving capacities and progressive autonomy, persons under 18 years of age should participate in decisions affecting them, with due regard to their age, maturity

The prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner? What does that even mean? Is it discrimination if an adult is not allowed to be with a child?

The paper also states that minors should be participating in decisions that impact them, taking their age and maturity into account. Is this an attempt to turn a prohibited practice into more of a “grey area”?

As for “age of consent to marriage”, is that a reference to child brides?

There’s the issue of not criminalizing activity involving members of the alphabet soup. Just a thought, but since it’s okay to not disclose HIV status, would it also be okay to deceive a partner about their true identity?

(Principle 17, page 23) calls for the complete decriminalization of sex work — such as prostitution, or pornography — as long as it’s done without coercion or fraud. To their credit, it’s specified to be limited to adults.

(Principle 18, page 23) says that sexual orientation or gender identity should not be criminalized, but doesn’t define either term in a meaningful way.

Beyond that, there’s to be no penalty for “exploration, free development and/or affirmation of sexual orientation or gender identity”, unless coercion is involved. This leaves open the possibility of people just larping as the opposite sex, and who don’t have gender dysphoria.

It also doesn’t address the growing issue of using gender identity as a means to attack single-sex spaces, such as prisons, changerooms and most sports.

The document further criticizes any efforts or attempts to engage in conversion therapy.

(Principle 19, page 24) implies that it’s fine to not disclose HIV positive status to a partner, as long as there’s no deliberate attempt to spread it. Presumably, this wouldn’t just apply to HIV.

(Principle 20, page 24) effectively calls for the decriminalization of all drugs for personal use, including by minors and pregnant women. Part (b) could be interpreted to mean the possession or distribution or drug paraphernalia shouldn’t be criminalized either.

The document also promotes what could be considered safe injection sites.

(Principle 21, page 24) would end vagrancy and squatting laws, if done for life-sustaining reasons. While this is all understandable, it’s unclear what will happen with property owners. All said, this section is probably the most reasonable one, as it’s not an issue of immorality.

Now, just because the United Nations releases a document, that doesn’t mean it will become law. However, content from “non-binding” papers often do trickle into domestic politics.

(1) https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/featurestories/2023/march/20230308_new-legal-principles-decriminalization
(2) https://www.unaids.org/en/whoweare/about
(3) https://icj2.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/8-MARCH-Principles-FINAL-printer-version-1-MARCH-2023.pdf
(4) UNAIDS March Principles On Criminal Law Sexual Behaviours

Member Of Parliament, Leah Gazan (NDP), And Her Convoluted Views On Life

Apparently, March 10th is “Abortion Providers Appreciation Day” in Canada. With all the various holidays and recognitions, this is easy enough to miss.

Anyhow, N.D.P. Member of Parliament Leah Gazan used her time on the floor to ask an interesting question: will the Prime Minister keep his promise to revoke the charity status of groups promoting abortion? Yes, she demands that groups she ideologically disagrees with to be hit financially.

Recently, Gazan went on record calling for a ban on “Residential School Denialism”. This would make it illegal to deny that genocide happened at those places. Just getting it classified as genocide wasn’t enough, she wants to silence critics.

Gazan doesn’t seem to see any ideological contradiction here: she wants to silence critics who deny that genocide happened at Residential Schools. She also supports financially crippling organizations who speak out against abortion, something that hits Indigenous communities hard.

It’s interesting when politicians speak out about violence towards women and minorities, but support the kinds of policies that harm exactly those demographics.

The “conservative” position in Canada is to support abortion in general, but to oppose ones that are “sex-selective”. In other words, it’s okay to terminate children, as long as it’s done indiscriminently.

There has also been little in the way of opposition to Bill C-250, a Private Member’s Bill that would put Holocaust deniers in prison for up to 2 years. That was later slipped into a Budget Bill, and is now law.

(1) https://twitter.com/LeahGazan/status/1634235734717546500

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/Leah-Gazan(87121)
(2) https://twitter.com/LeahGazan/status/1585726302044229632
(3) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/should-residential-school-denialism-declared-hate-speech-1.6744100
(4) https://twitter.com/CityNewsTO/status/1628425241717538816
(6) https://toronto.citynews.ca/2023/02/22/red-dress-alert-for-missing-indigenous-women/
(7) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/house-motion-recognize-genocide-1.6632450
(8) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-223
(9) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/43-1/c-232
(10) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/43-2/c-232
(11) https://twitter.com/LeahGazan/status/1630956370244542464

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-19
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-19/third-reading
(4) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-250
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/kevin-waugh(89084)
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=521753
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=917368&blnk=1
(8) https://twitter.com/Paulatics/status/1537078472820006915
(9) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/simons-paula/interventions/581135/47#hID
(10) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iNiV2uAsQg&feature=youtu.be

U.N. Death Cult: 73 Million Abortions Annually Worldwide

The World Health Organization openly posts and discusses some pretty disturbing and messed up data on abortion worldwide. (See archive).

This expands on a recent Canuck Law article, which estimates that there have been over 4.2 million abortions just in Canada since 1970. This averages out to approximately 20% of pregnancies being willfully terminated. Few are aware of just how big this problem is.

Here are some claims W.H.O. promotes:

  • Abortion is a common health intervention. It is safe when carried out using a method recommended by WHO, appropriate to the pregnancy duration and by someone with the necessary skills.
  • Six out of 10 of all unintended pregnancies end in an induced abortion.
  • Around 45% of all abortions are unsafe, of which 97% take place in developing countries.
  • Unsafe abortion is a leading – but preventable – cause of maternal deaths and morbidities. It can lead to physical and mental health complications and social and financial burdens for women, communities and health systems.
  • Lack of access to safe, timely, affordable and respectful abortion care is a critical public health and human rights issue.

And this one is a doozy:

Around 73 million induced abortions take place worldwide each year. Six out of 10 (61%) of all unintended pregnancies, and 3 out of 10 (29%) of all pregnancies, end in induced abortion

This claim is based on work from Bearak J, Popinchalk A, Ganatra B, Moller A-B, Tunçalp Ö, Beavin C et al, which covered estimates from the years 1990 through 2019. They used a “Bayesian framework”, meaning dta on pregnancy intentions and abortion were compiled from country-based surveys, official statistics, and published studies found through a literature search. So, it’s not just a straight compilation, but estimates as well.

Of course, if this figure of 73 million, per year, is even remotely accurate, it would be somewhere between 2 and 5 billion children have been aborted since the 1970s, when the movement really took off.

Restrictive abortion regulation can cause distress and stigma, and risk constituting a violation of human rights of women and girls, including the right to privacy and the right to non-discrimination and equality, while also imposing financial burdens on women and girls. Regulations that force women to travel to attain legal care, or require mandatory counselling or waiting periods, lead to loss of income and other financial costs, and can make abortion inaccessible to women with low resources.

Estimates from 2006 show that complications of unsafe abortions cost health systems in developing countries US$ 553 million per year for post-abortion treatments. In addition, households experienced US$ 922 million in loss of income due to long-term disability related to unsafe abortion. Countries and health systems could make substantial monetary savings by providing greater access to modern contraception and quality induced abortion.

A set of scoping reviews from 2021 indicate that abortion regulations – by being linked to fertility – affect women’s education, participation on the labour market and positive contribution to GDP growth. The legal status of abortion can also affect children’s educational outcomes, and their earnings on the labour market later in life. For example, legalization of abortion – by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus increasing the likelihood that children are born wanted – can be linked to greater parental investments in children, including in girls’ schooling.

Does W.H.O. condemn the hundreds of millions — if not billions — of lives that are lost through this? Not exactly. The rights of the unborn never seem to factor into the equation.

W.H.O. attempts to make several economic arguments as to why abortion should be legal and as accessible as possible. Of course, they don’t seem to bother with addressing the long term physical and psychological impacts of women who do abort their children.

The World Health Organization also has its own division on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research (SRH). (See archive). It’s funded both by various governments and private companies, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (See archive). They always seem to be around whenever there are population reduction programs involved.

5.6 Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights as agreed in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences

Enshrining abortion is also written right into Agenda 2030, which was signed by “Conservative” Stephen Harper in 2015. (See archive). It’s item #5.6 on the Treaty.

One might think it strange that population control groups are interested in keeping abortion legal and readily available. Then again, once one realizes the scale of this mass infanticide, things start to make a whole lot more sense.

Furthermore, the W.H.O. and U.N. link to the U.N. Population Fund, their 2014 Programme of Action, and to the Beijing Declaration And Platform For Action. (See archive). In a sick twist, abortion is promoted as women’s rights, and pregnancy an often unwanted evil.

Of course, 50% or so of the babies who are killed would have grown up to become women. This is something that many women’s rights groups don’t get, or at least pretend they don’t.

It’s interesting that groups like the United Nations claim to be against child exploitation and human trafficking. That said, they support encourage practices that ensure the deaths of countless unborn, while their remains can be sold off for a variety of purposes.

It’s even more disturbing that the U.N. keeps detailed and up-to-date records of abortion regulations across countries. Guess it’s one way of tracking where the most victims are likely to come from.

Has abortion been stopped, or slowed over the last 2 1/2 years during this so-called pandemic? Not at all. In fact, it’s one of the few things that were still available in Canada the entire time. Sure, weddings, churches, and funerals were “non-essential”. However, abortion, weed and liquor were still accessible.

(1) https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/eugenics-in-canada-20-of-babies-aborted-in-pro-choice-movement/
(3) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32710833/
(4) https://www.who.int/teams/sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-research-(srh)/human-reproduction-programme
(5) https://archive.ph/uyd8J
(6) https://www.who.int/teams/sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-research-(srh)/human-reproduction-programme/donors
(7) https://archive.ph/7tb5Q
(8) https://www.un.org/ohrlls/sites/www.un.org.ohrlls/files/2030_agenda_for_sustainable_development_web.pdf
(9) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development web
(10) https://www.unfpa.org/publications/international-conference-population-and-development-programme-action
(11) https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/CSW/PFA_E_Final_WEB.pdf
(12) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/UN-Beijing-Declaration-And-Platform-For-Action.pdf
(13) https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/related-health-issues
(14) https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331561/WHO-2019-nCoV-essential_health_services-2020.1-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
(15) WHO-2019-nCoV Essential Health Services 2020 March 2020
(16) WHO-2019-nCoV-essential_health_services June 2020
(17) https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/policy/AbortionPoliciesReproductiveHealth.pdf

Eugenics In Canada: 20% Of Babies Aborted In “Pro-Choice Movement”

Ever wonder just how much of the Canadian public has been lost due to “abortion” in recent decades? Considering the size and scale of this, it must be good business.

According to a compilation of data from the Federal Government, approximately 20% of pregnancies have ended in abortion. Of course, this relies on transparent reporting, so the number could be much higher. These totals exclude miscarriages and stillbirths.

For a good source on this data, visit Love4Life. There is a considerable amount of statistical data compiled, and it connects back to official Government sources.

Now, there are going to be some discrepancies in the data. This is partly because of incomplete reporting, and also because some sources have different numbers. Nonetheless, it should paint the picture quite gruesomely.

Let’s drop the spoiler here: there were over 4,222,858 abortions between 1970 and 2020. This isn’t a joke. Our “pro-choice” supporters and policies have literally killed millions of Canadians.

It’s also quite interesting that many of the same people are behind two (seemingly) opposing ideologies within Western countries. Then again, population replacement is just some racist conspiracy theory.

[1] Promote widespread abortion locally
[2] Promote mass immigration to counter falling birth rates

Anyhow, let’s look at some of these numbers:

*** The U.N. has some data prior to 1974, so that’s added in:

1970 11,200
1971 30,923
1973 43,201
1974 52,435
1975 53,705
1976 58,712
1977 59,864
1978 66,710
1979 69,745
1980 72,099
1981 71,911
1982 75,071
1983 69,368
1984 69,449
1985 69,216
1986 69,572
1987 70,023
1988 72,693
1989 79,315
1990 92,901
1991 95,059
1992 102,085
1993 104,403
1994 106,255
1995 108,248
1996 111,659
1997 111,709
1998 110,331
1999 105,666
2000 105,427
2001 106,418
2002 105,154
2003 103,768
2004 100,039
2005 96,815
2006 91,310
2007 98,762
2008 95,876
2009 93,755
2010 *64,641
2011 108,844
2012 100,958
2013 102,446
2014 100,194
2015 100,104
2016 97,764
2017 94,030
2018 85,294
2019 83,576
2020 74,155

**Note: data is combined from CIHI and Statistics Canada. The Canadian Institute for Health Information does have considerable recent data on abortion in this country.

*2010 is considered incomplete, since there wasn’t reporting from Quebec.

The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada also compiles recent statistics on abortion numbers here. (see archive). It’s actually pretty morbid to think about.

According to Statistics Canada, there were 1,375,774 abortions between the years of 1987 to 2000. This is a span of 14 years, and showed an average of about 98,000 abortions per year. This amounted to some 263 performed per day.

If we factor in the data from 1970 to 2020 (data from a few different tables), there were 4,222,858 abortions. This covers 51 years, and would be approximately 86,000 per year. Converted into daily totals, that means roughly 227 babies would have died, every single day.

Don’t worry, it’s about to get a lot more disgusting when the ages of the girls and women are taken into account. There are an awful lot of children getting abortions.

1974 52,435 0 623 7,937 7,868
1975 53,705 0 650 8,135 8,038
1976 58,712 0 717 8,551 8,764
1977 59,864 0 697 8,684 9,051
1978 66,710 0 642 9,228 10,453
1979 69,745 0 694 9,661 10,827
1980 72,099 0 613 9,650 11,115
1981 71,911 0 607 8,954 10,785
1982 75,071 0 586 8,463 11,073
1983 69,368 0 561 7,150 9,568
1984 69,449 0 504 6,887 8,996
1985 69,216 0 554 6,658 8,525
1986 69,572 0 430 6,636 8,497
1987 70,023 0 433 6,411 8,587
1988 72,693 0 424 6,361 8,916
1989 79,315 0 452 6,446 9,755
1990 92,901 0 597 7,635 10,639
1991 95,059 0 495 7,722 10,492
1992 102,085 0 580 8,153 11,037
1993 104,403 1 659 8,249 11,740
1994 106,255 338 526 8,386 12,371
1995 108,248 2,242 545 7,887 12,388
1996 111,659 2,439 532 8,117 13,021
1997 111,709 3,547 511 8,175 12,458
1998 110,331 3,832 464 7,741 13,118
1999 105,666 232 464 7,253 13,357
2000 105,427 219 389 7,369 10,611
2001 106,418 33 412 7,222 12,746
2002 105,154 17 337 6,381 12,626
2003 103,768 14 302 5,785 11,871
2004 100,039 5 304 5,974 10,964
2005 96,815 2 284 5,588 10,477
2006 91,310 156 267 5,608 9,609

Data available from Statistics Canada: 1987 to 2000. Another version, which goes from 1974 to 2006, is also available. There are a few discrepancies, but the total is still shocking.

It’s also worth pointing out that starting in 1994, there were large numbers of women getting abortions for which there was no age listed. Just a hunch, but most of them were probably either in the country illegally, or didn’t want to disclose that they were minors.

Also, these are just “official” statistics. It’s very likely that there are a lot more abortions that have gone on, and are unreported. And recently:

induced-abortion-2017-en-web (1)
induced-abortions-reported-in-canada-in-2019-en (1)

There were 100,104 abortions reported in 2015.
There were 97,764 reported in 2016.
There were 94,030 reported in 2017.
There were 85,294 reported in 2018.
There were 83,576 reported in 2019.
There were 74,155 reported in 2020.

But don’t worry. There are no doubt countless politicians and public figures working diligently to reverse this trend, right?

And what do “conservatives” in Canada have to say about this? They don’t seem to care about the millions who’ve died as a result of abortion. There’s no ideological issue with infanticide in general. However, they insist that babies not be killed simply because of their sex. This was Bill C-233, a Private Member’s Bill in the last session.

There are also major demographic implications for abortion on this scale, which needs to be addressed as well.

The topic of births and deaths is certainly important to consider. That said, including abortion — especially being so widespread — changes the dynamics considerably.

Note: Difference = Live Births – Total Deaths
Note: Per Day = (Difference)/365 or 366

Year Birth Deaths Diff Day
1991 402,533 195,569 206,964 567
1992 398,643 196,535 202,108 552
1993 388,394 204,912 183,482 503
1994 385,114 207,077 178,037 488
1995 378,016 210,733 167,283 458
1996 366,200 212,880 153,320 419
1997 348,598 215,669 132,929 364
1998 342,418 218,091 124,327 341
1999 337,249 219,530 117,719 323
2000 327,882 218,062 109,820 300
2001 333,744 219,538 114,206 313
2002 328,802 223,603 105,199 288
2003 335,202 226,169 109,033 299
2004 337,072 226,584 110,488 302
2005 342,176 230,132 112,044 307
2006 354,617 228,079 126,538 347
2007 367,864 235,217 132,647 363
2008 377,886 238,617 139,269 381
2009 380,863 238,418 142,445 390
2010 377,213 240,075 137,138 376
2011 377,636 243,511 134,125 367
2012 381,869 246,596 135,273 370
2013 380,323 252,338 127,985 350
2014 384,100 258,821 125,279 343
2015 382,392 264,333 118,059 323
2016 383,102 267,213 115,889 318
2017 379,450 276,689 102,761 281
2018 375,390 283,706 91,684 251

A few years back, it was covered how Canada had a growing population even without immigration. In fairness, it’s not clear how much of this was due to birth tourism. However, the rates weren’t plummeting as people were led to believe.

A quick and dirty estimation (based on births and abortions) would be that approximately 20% of the pregnancies — excluding miscarriages — ended up being aborted. This translated to 1 in 5.

1991 402,533 95,059 497,592 19.1%
1992 398,643 102,085 500,728 20.3%
1993 388,394 104,403 492,797 21.2%
1994 385,114 106,255 491,369 21.6%
1995 378,016 108,248 486,264 22.3%
1996 366,200 111,659 477,859 23.3%
1997 348,598 111,709 460,307 24.3%
1998 342,418 110,331 452,749 24.4%
1999 337,249 105,666 442,915 23.8%
2000 327,882 105,427 433,309 24.3%
2001 333,744 106,418 440,162 24.2%
2002 328,802 105,154 433,956 24.2%
2003 335,202 103,768 438,970 23.6%
2004 337,072 100,039 447,111 22.4%
2005 342,176 96,815 438,991 22.0%
2006 354,617 91,310 445,927 20.5%
2007 367,864 98,762 466,626 21.2%
2008 377,886 95,876 473,762 20.2%
2009 380,863 93,755 474,618 19.8%
2010 377,213 *64,641 441,854 *14.6%
2011 377,636 108,844 486,480 22.3%
2012 381,869 100,958 482,827 20.9%
2013 380,323 102,446 482,769 21.2%
2014 384,100 100,194 484,294 20.7%
2015 382,392 100,104 482,496 20.7%
2016 383,102 97,764 480,866 20.3%
2017 379,450 94,030 473,480 19.9%
2018 375,390 85,294 460,684 18.5%
2019 375,229 83,576 458,805 18.2%
2020 361,667 74,155 435,822 17.0%

*2010 is skewed, since Quebec didn’t fully report their totals.

This isn’t hyperbole to claim that 20% of pregnancies in recent years end with an abortion. Slaughtering large segments of future generations has been happening for decades.

Again, 4,222,858 abortions between 1970 and 2020, and that’s just Canada. Also, these are just the official figures. Factoring in the unreported, the number is likely much higher.

Don’t worry about the falling birth rates and the slaughter of Canadian children. After all, we can just import a replacement population in order to keep up.

(1) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1310016901
(2) https://archive.ph/OhV01
(3) https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/aca40ae3-d026-45b8-8e37-9185b4347c43
(4) https://archive.ph/Y7DYZ
(5) http://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2021/03/cihi-is-still-underreporting-abortions.html
(6) https://love4life.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Annual_20_203.pdf
(7) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-223-x/82-223-x2008000-eng.pdf
(8) https://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a05?lang=eng&id=1069005
(9) https://www.cihi.ca/en/access-data-and-reports/data-tables?keyword=abortion&published_date=All&type_of_care=All&place_of_care=All&population_group=All&health_care_quality=All&health_conditions_outcomes=All&health_system_overview=All&sort_by=field_published_date_value&items_per_page=10
(10) https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/statistics-abortion-in-canada.pdf
(11) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=1310042801#timeframe
(12) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1310071001
(13) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/43-2/c-233
(14) http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?q=abortion+statistics&d=POP&f=tableCode%3a17
(15) https://abortion-policies.srhr.org/
(16) https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion

Society Of Obstetricians And Gynaecologists Funded By Pfizer, Recommends Vaccines & Boosters

Many would think that the Society Of Obstetricians And Gynaecologists of Canada is an independent organization, and that it has the best interests of women and families at heart. That may not be the case, as shown by some of their recommendations.

It’s fitting that on their home page, they have a computer simulation of the coronavirus. Quite appropriate, since it’s never been isolated, or even shown to exist. Now, what does this group have to say about vaccinating pregnant women?

In Canada, NACI has preferentially advised that “a complete vaccine series with an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine should be offered to individuals in the authorized age group who are pregnant or breastfeeding. Informed consent should include discussion about emerging evidence on the safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in these populations. (Strong NACI Recommendation). Contraindications to vaccination are few and a complete description is available within the National Advisory Committee on Immunization guidance document.

Given that pregnant women are at higher risk of severe COVID-related morbidity and mortality, they represent a population that should be prioritized for vaccination in situations where vaccine supply is limited. Specifically, the WHO has recommended that pregnant women be prioritized in stage II, representing a situation where the supply is only sufficient to immunize 11-20% of a population. Importantly, the WHO recommendation is upheld in all epidemiologic situations including community transmission, sporadic cases as well as no cases.

Individuals who are discovered to be pregnant during their vaccine series or shortly afterward should not be counselled to terminate pregnancy based on having received the vaccine. If conception is presumed to predate the first dose, it is recommended to follow the same procedures for active surveillance (as available) as would be activated if the pregnancy was known at the time of vaccination. A registry to track pregnancy outcomes for individuals receiving any vaccine doses during pregnancy is being planned for Canada. Pregnant individuals can get more information here: http://med-fom-ridprogram.sites.olt.ubc.ca/vaccine-surveillance/.

Pregnant women mount immune responses comparable to the non-pregnant population and vaccine efficacy of the COVID vaccines among cohorts of pregnant women are comparable to non-pregnant women. There is no data to suggest that pregnant women who meet criteria for a booster dose should be treated differently than the non-pregnant population. While timing and criteria for booster doses may vary by jurisdiction, pregnant women should receive a booster dose when recommended.

A registry to track the effects of vaccines on pregnant women is being planned? That’s certainly good to know. These recommendations to take experimental concoctions are pretty shocking, or at least they should be.

Now, why is this group so pro-vaccine, even when the long term effects are unknown? One strong possibility is that they are funded by Pfizer, Merck and Bayer. Shocker, that the major donors to this organization would profit considerably from more people getting the shot. It seems that SOGC is quite appreciative of their partners.

SOGC also provides a set of talking points for health care workers to give to uncertain patients. It’s no surprise that a group funded by drug companies recommends to these “professionals” that everything is safe and effective.

Back in April 2020, SOGC repeated from WHO that abortion is a human right, and that it must not be denied. Pretty screwy to be starting a global pandemic, and the first thought is to wipe out the next generation. The World Health Organization seems to have a sick fascination with what they consider to be human rights.

In principle, there is nothing wrong with continuing education, especially in professions like health care. After all, information does change. That being said, it’s disturbing when the CME — or continuing medical education — is funded by drug companies, at least in Ontario.

As Searchlight Pharma, which is a sponsor of the CME program, they are a company with holdings in many related products for women. Duchesnay also sells many of the same things. It’s fair to assume that this “continuing education” will be little more than a trade show, where doctors get told about what products to push.

As for MD Financial Management, that arose after the CMA’s — Canadian Medical Association’s — push to get doctors saving and investing. It’s no surprise that the pharma industry is a good one to invest in.

To anyone thinking that you are getting (at least somewhat) independent and impartial advice, keep this in mind. The pharmaceutical industry has vested interests in making sure you’re talking to experts with an agenda.

Finally, it’s worth a mention that this group is getting the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, run by the Canada Revenue Agency. This means that taxpayers are forced to help subsidize a group that’s pushing vaccines on pregnant women. Of course, this is in addition to the funding it gets from drug companies.

Certainly makes one proud to pay taxes, knowing that these are the places that they end up going to. In essence, we are topping up a drug marketing company that wants to kill our children. Anyone who still has faith in politicians or government at this point is completely delusional.

(1) https://www.sogc.org/common/Uploaded%20files/Latest%20News/SOGC_Statement_COVID-19_Vaccination_in_Pregnancy.pdf
(2) SOGC_Statement_COVID-19_Vaccination_in_Pregnancy
(3) https://www.sogc.org/en/-COVID-19/COVID-19/COVID-19-Champions/en/content/COVID-19/covid-champions.aspx?hkey=1d24c3f0-be85-48f3-bc0a-a006c53b98a2
(4) https://archive.md/lGQpy
(5) Society Of Obstetricians And Gynaecologists COVID-19 Champions
(6) https://www.sogc.org/common/Uploaded%20files/Covid%20Information/EN_HCP-FAQ_SOGC_FINAL.pdf
(7) SOGC Talking Points For Health Care Workers
(8) https://www.sogc.org/common/Uploaded%20files/Induced%20Abortion%20-%20Pandemic%20Guidance%20.pdf
(9) Induced Abortion – Pandemic Guidance WHO
(10) https://www.who.int/health-topics/abortion
(11) https://sogc.org/cme-on
(12) SOGCA Continuing Medical Education Funded By Pharma
(13) http://searchlightpharma.com/portfolio/
(14) Portfolio – Searchlight Pharma
(15) https://www.duchesnay.com/en/
(16) https://mdm.ca/md-difference/your-md-advisor
(17) https://mdm.ca/md-difference/about-md
(18) https://twitter.com/SOGCorg/status/1461438570393219074
(19) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch

(A) Canadian Pharmaceutical Sciences Foundation Funded By Big Pharma
(B) Canadian Pharmacists Association: Subsidies While They Lobby Against You
(C) CDN Immunization Research Network Funded By Pfizer, GSK, Sanofi
(D) B.C. Pharmacy Association Funded By Drug Companies
(E) U.S. Council On Patient Safety: Women’s Health
(F) Emergent BioSolutions Lobbying All Federal Parties
(G) British Fertility Society Funded By Pharmaceutical Companies
(H) American College Health Foundation Is Funded By Big Pharma-and-insurance/
(I) Myocarditis Foundation Gets Donations From Big Pharma

Health Bridge Foundation Of Canada: Canadian “Charity” Getting Money To Abort Children Abroad

Health Bridge Foundation of Canada received $4.2 million from Canadian taxpayers in 2016. In 2021, there was the payment of another $12 million. While the first may not involve killing unborn children, the second certainly does. Now, if paying money to abort children abroad isn’t a worthwhile cause, then I don’t know what is. Even better, these programs will also target adolescents (girls) who are pregnant. Granted, there are other items spelled out in the grant, but killing children is one of them.

In the middle of a so-called global pandemic, it makes perfect sense to reduce the population as much as possible. Surely, we don’t need to be focusing on the preservation of human life, wherever possible. Please disregard the sarcasm.

Health Bridge is registered with the Canada Revenue Agency as a charity. This means that whenever someone in this country makes a donation, taxpayers are on the hook for about 45% to 50% of that total. That means that these grants are subsidized by the public, whether we agree or not.

2015 Tax Information From CRA
Receipted donations $50,053.00 (1.78%)
Non-receipted donations $36,402.00 (1.29%)
Gifts from other registered charities $1,133,209.00 (40.26%)
Government funding $662,181.00 (23.53%)
All other revenue $932,587.00 (33.14%)
Total revenue: $2,814,432.00

Charitable programs $2,385,454.00 (84.56%)
Management and administration $423,373.00 (15.01%)
Fundraising $12,198.00 (0.43%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $2,821,025.00

2016 Tax Information From CRA
Receipted donations $26,260.00 (0.85%)
Non-receipted donations $25,065.00 (0.81%)
Gifts from other registered charities $738,550.00 (24.01%)
Government funding $863,745.00 (28.07%)
All other revenue $1,423,022.00 (46.25%)
Total revenue: $3,076,642.00

Charitable programs $2,600,136.00 (85.11%)
Management and administration $451,074.00 (14.77%)
Fundraising $3,689.00 (0.12%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $2.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $3,054,901.00

2017 Tax Information From CRA
Receipted donations $51,582.00 (1.90%)
Non-receipted donations $62,941.00 (2.32%)
Gifts from other registered charities $688,456.00 (25.35%)
Government funding $1,105,668.00 (40.71%)
All other revenue $807,371.00 (29.73%)
Total revenue: $2,716,018.00

Charitable programs $2,257,162.00 (83.19%)
Management and administration $449,475.00 (16.57%)
Fundraising $6,589.00 (0.24%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $2,713,226.00

2018 Tax Information From CRA
Receipted donations $38,250.00 (1.21%)
Non-receipted donations $49,002.00 (1.54%)
Gifts from other registered charities $790,541.00 (24.91%)
Government funding $990,245.00 (31.20%)
All other revenue $1,305,328.00 (41.13%)
Total revenue: $3,173,366.00

Charitable programs $2,703,713.00 (86.10%)
Management and administration $433,996.00 (13.82%)
Fundraising $2,402.00 (0.08%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)

2019 Tax Information From CRA
Receipted donations $53,999.00 (1.49%)
Non-receipted donations $78,623.00 (2.17%)
Gifts from other registered charities $832,291.00 (23.00%)
Government funding $1,370,569.00 (37.88%)
All other revenue $1,283,116.00 (35.46%)
Total revenue: $3,618,598.00

Charitable programs $3,113,838.00 (87.78%)
Management and administration $433,244.00 (12.21%)
Fundraising $58.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $3,547,140.00

It would be nice to know what “all other revenue” really means. When it’s 30-40% or the total income, that’s quite the interesting bit of information. Now, who are those lovely people donating to the Health Bridge Foundation?

Don’t worry. Being supported by, and getting donations from places like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, or the Rockefeller Foundation, are nothing to be concerned about. As for Unifor Social Justice, they are rocking the “Build Back Better” narrative, and its content seems eerily similar to the Great Reset.

HealthBridge Foundation of Canada (formerly PATH Canada) has been working since 1982 in Asia, Africa and the Americas. In the early years it undertook research and identified technologies and products that would improve contraception and health care in developing countries.

Since then, HealthBridge has evolved into an agile and efficient organization that aims to improve the health of vulnerable populations, including those at risk of malnutrition, infectious disease (particularly malaria and HIV/AIDS) and emerging epidemics, such as non-communicable diseases (NCDs).

HealthBridge is known for undertaking pioneering research, identifying and deftly addressing critical gaps in achieving health and health equity in the developing world, working effectively with local partners to bring about change in policy, and bridging the gap between service provider and service user.

All of this is cloaked as a health care initiative. However, it must be noted that one of the main services they offer involves promoting and facilitating abortion. This is apparently what passes for humanitarianism in our Government: neglecting the health care of Canadians, in order to finance genocide abroad.

Health Bridge also has a “livable cities” initiative. By itself, it wouldn’t sound so bad, except the climate change and UN Sustainable Development Agenda seems to creep in on it.

This NGO is headed by: (a) Eva Rathgeber, Adjunct Professor, University of Ottawa, who previously served on 2 UN groups; and (b) Carol Vlassoff, another University of Ottawa Professor, who spent 17 years working with the World Health Organization.

There we go. Another $12 million of taxpayer money (or additional debt) sent off to the 3rd World, to help reduce the population abroad. Doesn’t this feel so wonderful?

Just in case there is any ambiguity regarding the May 12, 2021 grant from the Canadian Government, “post abortion care” is explicitly listed as a function to be served. Yes, the term reproductive rights is a bit vague — probably on purpose — but abortion is put in there. It’s down near the bottom of the disclosure. Now, there will probably be other activities the money goes towards, but we are still financing the culling of people abroad.

Where are the so-called conservatives on this?

Thing is: probably no one reading this article had ever heard of Health Bridge previously. It’s not like the mainstream news outlets will cover such information. There’s no way to make this look good.

(1) https://healthbridge.ca/
(2) https://healthbridge.ca/page/our-supporters
(3) https://healthbridge.ca/page/our-story
(4) https://healthbridge.ca/programs/livable-cities
(5) https://healthbridge.ca/board/entry/dr.-eva-rathgeber
(6) https://healthbridge.ca/board/entry/dr-carol-vlassoff
(7) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/?sort=score%20desc&page=1&search_text=HealthBridge%20Foundation%20of%20Canada
(8) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/id/dfatd-maecd,064-2021-2022-Q1-00209,current
(9) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNm=health+bridge&q.stts=0007&selectedCharityBn=129950051RR0001&dsrdPg=1
(10) https://www.youtube.com/user/HealthBridgeCanada/videos