Thaddée’s Corner

This web page contains a sample of Thaddée Renault`s letters on pro-life issues, sent to media and other sources. They are very roughly grouped under the following seven headings: 1. Abortion & Unknown Victims of Violence 2. Morgentaler - Order of Canada 3. Ugly Abortion Pictures (Genocide Awareness Project) 4. Euthanasia 5.  Gardasil 6. Medical Agencies

1. Abortion & Unborn Victims of Violence

A - Prime Minister Harper

Prime Minister has no intention of introducing or supporting legislation on abortion (January, 2009) How often must you tell us that legislation on abortion will never be passed under your watch? I guess, as often as Joyce Arthur, co-ordinator of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, and her abortion sisterhood accuse the Conservative Party of Canada of backsliding of that appalling promise. My intense irritation at your constant effort to assuage the misnamed “reproductive rights” lobby has been rekindled by your spokesman Dimitri Soudas' quite recent declaration that "We will not introduce or support legislation on abortion." How can a Prime Minister of a democratically elected government rationalize his refusal to deal with a vital social issue that has been gnawing away at the very fabric of Canadian society for decades and is now threatening its very existence? I'm referring here to the more than 100,000 Canadian human sacrifices offered each year by self-serving abortion butchers sapping the very foundation of our country. I'm not the one enlightening you on this, but professional demographers, who now predict an inevitable demographic winter. It should be obvious to everyone, except those whose minds are locked in a prison of political correctness, that a nation which kills its babies, at the inconceivable rate we do here in Canada, has one hell of a future. (We`re even offing some of these babies in their last trimester - with your official consent!) These demographers are also telling you that our serious birth dearth problem is compounded by the fact that the immigrant pool is just about to dry up - which would be followed by an unavoidable downward and crippling economic spiral. Your are conducting yourself in a most undemocratic way - bordering of the tyrannical - when you tell us that “This government will not open, will not permit anyone to open the abortion debate. [My] position is clear.” What in effect you're telling us and those MPs we Canadians elect to represent them in Parliament is to get lost!. Sorry if you find the expression harsh, but your adamant refusal to let them do their constitutional work is in reality far more repugnant. A survey of some 2,300 adult, carried out last December in the U.S. (perhaps a bit more liberal than us), provides a clear insight on the contempt your autocratic one-man rule shows for ‘government-by-the-people.’ These are the revealing highlights from it: 82% believe abortion should either be illegal under all circumstances (11%) or would limit its legality. 38% would limit abortion to the narrow circumstances of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. Main finding: Only 9% said abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy. Also revealing was that 63% favour laws preventing the use of taxpayer funds for abortions. In this prophetic work, late Canadian philosopher and Anglican theologian George Grant warned: “If tyranny is to come in North America, it will come cozily and on cat`s feet. It will come with the denial of the rights of the unborn and of the aged, the denial of the rights of the mentally retarded, the insane, and the economically less-privileged. In fact, it will come with the denial of rights to all those who cannot defend themselves.” Wise words to ponder, Honourable Prime Minister, before the Conservative government forgets its one and only obligation to Canada: the protection of all its citizens, including those waiting to be born. Thaddée Renault

Is Canada suffering from an abortion epidemic? (June, 2009)

I would like to raise a few points regarding your ongoing insistence that the abortion debate not be opened during your premiership. Your stance, I respectfully submit, is an unreasonable one, for the following reason. It should be of concern to you, as well as to every member of Parliament that an abortion epidemic - which terminates the lives of countless thousands unborn babies in government controlled hospitals - has been raging for years. This is unquestionably a major health problem that is still being willfully ignored by Canadian legislators. Before you recoil at the idea that you would deliberately ignore any medical problem of this massive nature and dismiss my intervention, please let me explain my legitimate concern. As you know, the only abortions allowed in hospitals under the Canada Health Act are those done for “medically necessary” reasons. That sounds clear enough to me: there must be a medically necessary reason for aborting any child. I can only presume, therefore, that the many thousands of abortions performed each year over past decades were justified on medical grounds. Honourable Prime Minister, Canada is indeed then dealing with a pandemic of catastrophic proportions if Parliament is to accept the standards the Canada Health Act spells out for allowing abortion in hospitals. Just look at the extent of this disease affecting women: almost three out of every ten pregnancies currently need to be terminated on medical grounds!! Where are the inquiries, Royal Commissions, etc. on this? Where is the National Action Committee on the Status of Women on this devastating women`s problem? Where? The same place it was some years ago when Marilyn Wilson, former executive director of the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League, had this to say in a meeting at the House of Commons: “Women who seek abortions do so for socio-economic reasons.” And supposedly law-abiding MPs sat silently on their duff after this unqualified admission that abortion need NOT be considered a medical necessity! Your mandate to respect the Canada Health Act demands that the debate on abortion be reopened to thoroughly investigate what the Canada Department of Health would definitely qualify as a brutal epidemic. Thaddée Renault Unborn need protection from violence perpetrate against mother (April, 2010) I sent you a letter in 2006 in which I enclosed the picture of a slain mother, Olivia Talbot, lying in her coffin with her murdered six-month-old unborn baby, both stabbed by her former partner. A bill was presented at the time to make the perpetrator of the killing of an unborn baby, during an assault on its pregnant mother, guilty of a lethal crime. That bill - which had nothing to do per se with abortion - was shamefully quashed. I remember asking if you, as a father of two beautiful children, would stand still after a violent attack on your wife which - knowingly or not - killed her unborn child and even argue that it was unconstitutional to charge the person responsible for killing your child! One has to go a long way, Prime Minister, to make sense of this kind of rationalization. Two years ago, when another attempt was made to reintroduce the Unborn Victim of Violence bill, your Minister of Justice, Honourable Rob Nicholson, made this declaration: "Let me be clear, our government will not reopen the debate on abortion. For this reason, and in the context of the government`s tackling crime agenda, I`m announcing that the government will introduce legislation that will punish criminals who commit violence against pregnant women but do so in a way that leaves no room for the introduction of fetal rights. We've heard criticisms from across the country, including representative from the medical community, that Mr. Epp`s bill as presently drafted could be interpreted as instilling fetal rights.” (God forbid, that government would think of protecting the rights of unborn children!) Think of what you believe is acceptable here for our Conservative government: An unborn child is the target of a lethal crime along with his six-month pregnant mother; the perpetrator shoots her once in the head and her child in the womb three times; he receives no penalty for murdering a child old enough to likely survive outside his mother. There are indications that another attempt will be made in the next Parliament to re-introduce another Unborn Victim of Violence bill. Our solidly government-subsidized Status of Women Canada has no qualms telling women they are misguided in seeking to have the law recognize the human status of even such late-term babies as Olivia Talbot`s dead son. It`s as if these feminists (along with all those parliamentarians opposing the hopefully upcoming Unborn Victim of Violence bill) don`t recognize their own humanity. These shrill feminists opposing the bill have taken a hyper-hypocritical position that enshrines "choice" but refuses to punish a criminal who takes away the mother`s choice to have the baby. Just how many more Olivia Talbot baby deaths will our government allow to go unpunished before it wakes up to its responsibilities to protect the lives of all human, including those of babies? I find it hard to believe, Prime Minister, that I'm asking this of a party which I believed once proudly stood for family and life in its fullness. That you government wasn`t moved to action by the Olivia Talbot case presented in the past to allow a parliamentary vote, is an appalling commentary on the government you lead. Thaddée Renault

B - To Media

First duty to protect citizens, born and unborn (January, 2009) The fundamental purpose of a democratic government is to protect its citizens, not to facilitate their disappearance. Needless to say, our Canadian governments have failed wretchedly to assume this responsibility, considering that over 2 million of Canada`s unborn citizens have been sacrificed to abortion doctors over the last 20 years - since the infamous Supreme Court Morgentaler Decision. These are 2 million children who could be living today. After 20 years of slaughtering our young, isn`t it time to stop? That child born in 1988 could be a parent now! Twenty years of killing has diminished and corrupted us all. These were persons who, regardless of the circumstances of the women who carried them, had the potential to contribute to the country and to the world. For our sake as well as theirs, can`t we summon the moral courage to stop the carnage? Would we be worrying today over Canada`s frightening low birth rate and the near impossibility to recruit enough immigrants to do the work for which we now so desperately need them? Any politician who supports a woman`s right to “choose” when that right implies a woman`s right to have an abortionist destroy her baby throughout her 9 months of pregnancy – which is what many are celebrating on the 20th anniversary of the 1988 Supreme Court ruling - will never receive my vote. Nor should they expect to get it from anyone with a basic respect for the human rights of an innocent unborn child. People everywhere should raise their voices against the conventional, harmful wisdom that a willingness to destroy her unborn child empowers a woman. In a rational world, abortion wouldn`t be celebrated. It would be disdained. Thaddée Renault More empathy for cruelty to animals than for plight of aborted babies (February, 2009) Letters to editor section in provincial dailies abound lately with depictions of animal cruelty. One, entitled “Where Is The Wonder Of Life?,” succinctly sums it up and should arouse deep soul searching. The author, angered by the widespread reports of animal cruelty, rightfully criticizes people`s lack of respect for animal welfare. He grieves that “we have become immune to the possibility of causing pain and suffering,” and offers the following quotes: “I hold that the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man” and Mohandas Gandi`s “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” Pause that, and rewind. All three of the above statements, absolutely valid for pets and other domestic animals, are even more applicable to another class of helpless creatures - human ones - likewise entitled to more respect and protection than it presently enjoys. Evidently the greatness of any nation should be measured by the concern it shows for the most of all vulnerable classes: unborn human babies. Each year in Canada over 100,000 of these babies are submitted to barbaric treatment before dying from the torture of abortion (procedures too graphic to describe on this page), which should provide another perspective to the appalling animal cruelty referred to in these letters. Along with animal lovers, we pro-lifers also look to the day when unborn human babies will receive the respect and constitutional protection society owes them. Thaddée Renault Re Morgentaler gaining legal status to challenge NB government (April, 2008) Dear readers, did reading about the news that Henry Morgentaler had gained legal status to challenge New Brunswick`s abortion legislation elicit as much delight with you as it did with the manager of the Morgentaler Clinic in Fredericton and the executive director of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women? As for me, I find bizarre their joy at the anticipation of more women accessing abortion on demand. Here we have two persons advocating for a right they`re happy their mothers never had. Isn`t it also beyond ironic that the abortion rights activists who write here (and others who publicly favour abortion on demand) are eternally grateful their mothers did not have an abortion? Think a little, ladies, before advocating for a right you`re darn glad your mothers or grandmothers never had! Thaddée Renault A tyranny that reduces human beings to slavery (May, 2005) Feminists are once again banging their spoons on their highchairs. This time it`s about the government`s refusal to accept Morgentaler`s poison pill - his Fredericton abortuary controlling some 185 square meters of unborn baby killing office space. Quick tutorial: The Morgentaler abortuary is a place of banishment and execution, where each year some 600 babies are dismembered and sucked out of their mother`s womb. So, we`re not just talking about a woman`s Charter Rights here. “Women should have the right to choose.” Period! So goes the slogan. They also keep repeating ad nauseam the false claim that abortion is "intensely personal." Far from being purely personal, abortion is at a minimum a matter between two people - one of whom ends up dead. How can we continue to kill our unborn children and hide behind the rubric of choice? I know it`s hard to translate this easily for those still mucking around in their 12th century understanding of human biology. The public needs to be told that abortion is not about a woman`s right to choose, not anymore than abusing his wife is a man`s right to choose. (In passing, why, may I ask, should choice be the inherent right of one gender only? I would think that`s a pretty sexist attitude coming from feminists who are forever accusing men of this very same attitude.) As Pope Benedict XVI has so justly stated, “The freedom to kill (unborn babies) is not true freedom, but a tyranny that reduces human beings to slavery." Thaddée Renault Morgentaler arrogantly takes credit for decreasing crime rate (November, 1999) Canadians once again have been subjected to CBC`s almost quarterly testimonial to Henry Morgentaler in a network practice that could easily be described as media prostitution when it comes to dealing with this person. “Life & Times,” aired on November 16, recapitulated the life and ambitions of our nation`s top abortionist, with running commentary by his staunchly pro-abortion girl Friday, Judy Rebick, also a national icon to many feminists. In a documentary replete with memories of his nightmarish experience in Nazi concentration camps, the producer of the program portrayed Dr. Morgentaler as someone who has come out of Nazi concentration camps, broken by his ordeal and ready to wreak revenge upon those who put him there and slaughtered his Jewish parents. But whom has he targeted in his mission? The butchers of the Nazi era, as have heroic Holocaust survivors such as Eli Weisenthal and others who have devoted their lives to bringing their Nazi persecutors to justice? Not at all. His single-minded target has been the defenseless unborn babies and their hapless mothers - - more than 75,000 by his own boastful count. The man who made "Do you want to keep this baby?" as common a catch phrase as "Do you want fries with that?" pondered Canada`s falling crime rate and arrogantly suggested we have him to credit for having fewer maladjusted young men around capable of building the extermination camps he suffered under. So as we walk our safer streets, Henry Morgentaler and his colleagues expect our thanks for rubbing out over a million embryonic punks, over the last 30 years, before they could bust out of the womb and start terrorizing us and whining about their Canadian Charter rights. One of the eerie scenes covering his early 80s appearance at one of his Montreal rallies was reminiscent to me of that forever infamous mustachioed German leader's chilling behaviour. Here was Dr. Morgentaler, arms wildly flailing, stroking his adoring supporters caught in a hypnotic repetition of pro-abortion slogans aimed at the human devaluation of unborn babies and the disparagement of their intellectually challenged pro-life defenders. Despite Dr. Morgentaler's claim to having made the world a better place, extermination camps still exist, and eight of them here in Canada (one of them defiantly built in Fredericton, in the shadows of Christian churches and a school) bear his name. We call ourselves civilized and yet watch our sophisticated state-supported media not bat an eye before someone praising himself for personally presiding at the destruction of more than 75,000 unborn babies and, in the process, also trying to grab credits for the extermination of a million more in Canada. These are babies put to death, not because they're not real, but because they have not yet left their mothers' womb! As in Nazi Germany, these practices are now legally authorized by our imperial Supreme Court, and most are paid for by our rights-obsessed government. Civilized? Proud sign of one of the most advanced civilization on earth? Phewy! Canadian law says it is perfectly acceptable to put a baby to death, as long as she is inside the mother. How can our young people grow up in such a culture, often with little or no moral or religious training, and be told by the Canadian government and other legislative and judicial bodies that to put to death a baby nestled in his mother (i.e. “fetus”) is perfectly acceptable and indeed in many cases one's obligation? Prime Minister Chrétien may boast of Canada as the best place in the world to live.. Let him say that to the 2,000 unborn children who will be permanently prevented from seeing the light of day next week. Thaddée Renault Peace Sunday (October, 2008) October 26 was Peace Sunday and the Gospel readings for the day reminded us of God`s second greatest commandment, the obligation to love everyone like ourselves. We were asked to pray for peace in the world and to welcome the strangers (“immigrants”) seeking refuge in our midst. What if all the world`s armed conflicts, in which the blood of countless innocent thousands is shed, were suddenly resolved, and all immigrants were received with open arms? Would we have peace for all that? Mother Teresa would almost certainly disagree. Have the unborn - our unseen brothers and sisters - been loved and welcomed, as we were asked to do in the Gospel readings? Have the more than 100,000 wee Canadian pre-born sacrificed annually on the altar of abortion been welcomed and loved as ourselves? Have the 55 million unborn babies, similarly abandoned worldwide each year to abortionists, also been lovingly welcomed in our midst? Mother Teresa did not hesitate to confront the conventional wisdom on peace and the realities of war: “The greatest destroyer of life is abortion, because it`s a war against the child, the assassination pure and simple of an innocent child. When we die, we will come face to face with God, the Author of life. Who will give an account to God for the millions and millions of babies who were not allowed a chance to live, to experience loving and being loved?” Indeed, what account will each of us give for not abiding by the divine golden rule: “Do not do unto others what you don`t wish done to yourself”? Thaddée Renault Pro-Choice New Brunswick (June, 2005) Pro-Choice New Brunswick bemoans the provincial government`s adamant refusal to fund Henry Morgentaler`s private abortuary in Fredericton. Its official spokesperson - who incidently also doubles as a vocal “escort” on days abortion are executed there, on just about every Tuesday of the year - actually claims that funding only birth on demand is quite unfair to those who wish to terminate unborn babies on demand. Understandably, pro-choice feminists at Pro-Choice NB view the fetus as a mere appendage - the better to dehumanize the unborn babies for whom they advocate the “obstetrical” procedure of abortion. Abortion (in fact over 105,000 each year in Canada) is the number one abomination of our time - with one exception, namely, tolerance for this abomination on the part of governments and its promotion by such organizations as the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women and Pro-Choice NB. I know in this enlightened day and age abortion is the law of the land. Some swear by it. Others at it. I nevertheless find it simply shocking the way these groups parse it, select it, even extol it. Can we find a better example of total suspension of reason? The casket of abortion must be opened to an unwary public. Only then will Canadians discover the abomination taking place at private abortuaries. And this is what pro-lifers witnessing weekly before the Morgentaler abortuary want to do. Whether or not they realize it, continued lethal disrespect for these tiny citizens in their mother`s womb doesn't augur well for the ultimate fate of all other Canadian citizens who may some day also become unwanted. Thaddée Renault Pro-choice position described (January, 2003) Why can't they call us what we plainly really are - stubborn and inflexible anti-abortionists? Apparently the worst epithet our opponents can think of to hurl at us is ‘anti-choice.’ As I follow the abortion debate generated by Moncton Hospital`s principled decision to curtail virtually all of its abortions, I see great confusion as to precisely what ‘pro choice’ means to various people. I am going to take the liberty of characterizing the official pro choice position, and I challenge Mr. Henry Morgentaler and his supporters to tell me where I`m wrong. The official pro choice stand is that abortions must be legal for all nine months of pregnancy, up to and including delivery; for any reason whatsoever; for no reason whatsoever; for a minor girl of any age without parental knowledge or consent; with the abortionist allowed to withhold information about risks and/or fetal development; to say as Mr. Morgentaler maintains that what`s in a pregnant mommy's tummy is not a baby; with the father of the child having no say whatsoever in the destruction of his child; paid for with tax dollars. Is that about it? Abortion advocates always say that the issue is not abortion, but choice. Is this dedication to choice universal? I mean, do they think people should be allowed to choose to do absolutely anything they want to do? Should people be allowed to choose to rob banks? To drive drunk? To prance nude in public (notwithstanding those gay pride parades in major Canadian cities)? If not, what is their yardstick for deciding which activities individuals should be allowed to choose, and which ones they shouldn`t? Obviously the whole pro choice thing is just a facade. The real issue is that all these pro-choicers approve of just one common thing: abortion. Thaddée Renault This was also once legal (October, 2009) Abortion was portrayed quite fairly (for once) in a recent riveting episode of Law & Order, fictionalizing the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller. Early in the program, Detectives Lupo and Bernard argue with each other over the legality of abortion. Lupo`s point is that abortion, being legal, shouldn`t be opposed. This happens to be a foundational argument of the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women - an unsustainable one that unravels after a quick recall of history. It was ‘Legal’ by Roman Law to feed Christian children to wild animals in the Roman circuses, and for infants to be placed by the side of the road and eaten by animals or die from exposure or starvation. It was ‘Legal’ by German Law for Hitler to exterminate 6 million Jews and for his favourite physician Josef Mengele and his Nazi colleagues to perform lethal experiment on children, from which countless thousands died. It was ‘Legal’ by Iraqi Law, under Saddam Hussein, to summarily shoot political dissenters in front of their families. It was ‘Legal’ by American Law to have the power of life and death over a black slave. Even as late as a few years ago, it was ‘Legal’ by American Law to allow a baby surviving a “botched” abortion to die from shock or starvation, denied any medical help or pain medication. An interesting exchange in the program was when Lupo says that forcing an 11-year old rape victim to give birth is unthinkable, to which Bernard responds: "You got it backwards, man! The horrible thing is the rape! Not the bringing of a life into the world." Thaddée Renault O`Reilly Factor (Fox News) - “Potential human being” (December, 2009) Dear Bill, Please refrain from referring to the human embryo and fetus as potential ‘life.’ They are not potential life; they are human lives with potential. Both you and I passed through these early stages of life on our way to birth. Thaddée Renault New Brunswick Canada Associated Press - Ridiculing large families (November, 2003) This concerns the review of "Cheaper by the Dozen" by David Germain. I`m from a family of 12 and sisters of mine have families of 10 and 9 children. I deeply resent your suggestion that my parents and sisters had missed a few Planned Parenthood sessions on their way to having those children. My presence here is the fruit of a genuine love of children something your movie reviewer definitely seem to be devoid of. Thaddée Renault CNN - RU-486 abortions (March, 2010) Dear Ms Phillips, As an occasional viewer of CNN, I was deeply upset by your March 8 interview with self-professed “anti-theist” Angie Jackson. Her tale about proudly posting her RU-486 abortion to YouTube was disgusting enough, but to then hear your sympathetic comments about the “brutal” responses elicited by her snuff film made me shiver. I found it supremely disingenuous for you to state how controversial abortion is and then allow only one side talk, the one eradicating a conceived child`s life on camera. Seems to me, Ms Phillips, people like you don`t value their young the way normal people do. Some people in fact have no soul. Unlike the Aztec who sacrificed babies they loved to appease their god, pro-choice feminists like you have made the destruction of unloved babies into a holy sacrament. Did the thought ever cross your mind that anti-theist Jackson must have very low self esteem that she would demoralize herself, in front of a camera no less, in this way. May God have mercy on her goddless soul. Thaddée Renault New Brunswick, Canada Associated Press - Dehumanizing the unborn (November, 2004) Please allow me a reflection on a statement you made in an otherwise good description of the third day of deliberations in Scott Peterson`s murder trial. I quote your words: “Peterson is charged with two counts of murder in the deaths of his pregnant wife and her fetus.” How dismaying to keep hearing yours and other AP correspondents` constant references to Laci Peterson`s nine-month-old “fetus.” Whether you want to admit or not, this is the vague non-human terminology abortion advocates use to dehumanize what preborn children really are - “babies”! It is also the type of talk which has successfully blurred the distinction between human life and disposable Kleenex for more than three decades now in both our countries. The United States' abortion holocaust (42 million dead since Roe v. Wade) will proceed virtually unobstructed if journalist like you don`t change the nonchalant and often dehumanizing way you talk about unborn children. Your references to them generally convey the presence of something less than a person. The fundamental dishonesty of refusing to let words have their meaning has caused the government and public concept of human dignity to further seriously erode. It has led to glaring excesses such as some doctors who perform abortions referring to babies who survive abortions as "fetuses ex-utero." It has also led to this astounding news item in the Aug. 5/02 issue of the Austin American Statesman: "Bush Signs Fetus Status Law. President Bush signed a bill that declares a fetus that survives an abortion procedure a person under federal law." That description (note the “that” in it) would be laughable were it were not so sad. Sometimes I find it hard to avoid talking back to a newspaper. Think for a nanosecond of the obvious, plain as a wart on your nose reality: The creature protected by that signed ‘Born Alive Infants Protection Act` could not possibly be a fetus. The abortion procedure has expelled him from the womb. He is born. He's a person. What else could he be? But some journalists, as well as judges in recent years, do not seem to grasp that elementary fact and, sadly, some doctors and nurses are still leaving born alive survivors of abortion to die in cold steel pans. Don't let ideology continue to cloud your journalistic judgement. “Unborn child” is not a dirty expression. Use it more often and I`m sure you`ll get to enjoy the ring of it, Brian. Thaddée Renault Associated Press - Shooting death of an abortionist (October, 1998) This message is not part of an email blitz of Associated Press, and I sincerely hope you won`t delete it before reading it. That you would make such a threat to the highly respected director of "Women and Children First", Steven Ertelt, is mind-boggling, and in no uncertain terms affirms the contempt in which you hold the mainstream pro life organizations and their supporters like me and millions of others like me, who abhor all acts of violence - be they against preborn babies or abortionists. This contemptible professional attitude on the part of an news gatherer that is responsible for stories reprinted by thousands of newspapers - reaching tens of millions of readers across the country and around the world - is mind-boggling. Being told by one of the world`s most important self-proclaimed objective press that "no one has the time, frankly, to read dozens of e-mails so the majority of messages [from pro-life individuals] are being deleted after a quick glance" is a terrible slur. It shows that the mainstream media, although it defends itself against the charge of marginalizing the leading pro life organizations` opposition to violence directed against abortionists, takes deliberate action to silence the legitimate pro-life voices in your country as well as mine. As a direct result, the general public will no longer believe that the pro life community opposes the violence that took Dr. Slepian`s life, because your stories for the Associated Press chose to quote only those comments from extremists who legitimatize it. Professionalism in the new media requires that one rises above his or her prejudices. AP`s credibility has been seriously impaired in the mind of countless readers by you biased reporting on this recent shooting. I would nevertheless encourage you and AP to try in the future to contact more pro life groups and leaders for their insightful perspective on such horrific events. Thaddée Renault Reuters Correspondent - Attack on National Right to Life (August, 2004) Relax Todd! Time to stop banging your spoon on the highchair and exercising control over those temper tantrums. Remember, boy, you’re a Reuters editor and you wouldn`t want the word to get around that you don’t measure up to its image as an impartial reporter. In a truly snarky email, you ask the National Right to Life Committee which was responding to a judge's decision against a partial birth abortion ban: "What's your plan for parenting and educating all the unwanted children you people want to bring into the world? Who will pay for policing our streets and maintaining the prisons needed to contain them when you, their parents and the system fail them?" Don`t know, Todd, if you`re familiar with the abortion situation in Canada. We happen to have its most notable abortionist, Henry Morgentaler (proudly claiming the destruction so far of some 110,000 unborn babies) who, like you, believes his demonic actions have made our streets safer. He genuinely expects our thanks - and a Governor-General medal to boot - for rubbing out over 100,000 fetal punks over the last 35 years, before they could bust out of the womb and start terrorizing us and whining about their Canadian Charter rights. Like you also, Todd, Morgentaler sees partial-birth abortion, arguably the most barbaric medical procedures the world has ever known, as civilized and noble. Just because heartless national Supreme Courts in both our countries have legalized it doesn`t mean there is a constitutional right to deliver most of a living baby and then puncture her head with scissors to suck her brains out. And let me tell you something else. Criminality is much more likely to result from young people raised in a culture in which their media, governments and other legislative and judicial bodies tell them it is perfectly acceptable - indeed in many cases one's obligation - to put to death a baby nestled in her mother. The excuse for your gratuitous insult is laughable: "I didn't intend this as a professional communication.” It should be evident to even the most dense that you violated Reuters` editorial policy specifically stating that, "Reuters journalists do not offer their own opinions or views." So, what`s the honourable thing to do here? May I suggest first a full fledge apology to the National Right to Life Committee followed by an immediate change in your day job... How would speechwriter for Howard Dean sound like? Thaddée Renault

Morgentaler - Order of Canada

A. Michaëlle Jean

To the Deputy Secretary of the Order of Canada Chancellery (July, 2008)

I`ve written already on the subject of Henry Morgentaler`s nomination to the Order of Canada. I do it now in a formal manner to request that this obscene appointment be revoked by the Governor General herself, as the Canadian Constitution allows me as a citizen to do. Notwithstanding the conventional wisdom loudly expressed in political circles these days, Morgentaler is a national shame. He has repudiated his Hippocratic Oath for 35 years by personally imposing - by his own estimate - the death penalty on more the 100,000 unborn babies. The official record shows that Henry Morgentaler served 10 months in prison in 1975 after being convicted of performing illegal abortions. Following his conviction, in 1976 the Disciplinary Committee of the Professional Corporation of Physicians of Quebec suspended Henry Morgentaler`s medical license for one year, commenting that his attitude appeared to be “primarily directed to protecting his fees,” and that “no really valid interview is held before proceeding with the abortion.” Witness reports indicate that this is still the practice at the Morgentaler abortuary in Fredericton. Morgentaler was also found to be a tax cheater. Based on his admission at his 1976 trial of having by then performed up to 7,000 illegal operations, Henry Morgentaler was ordered by the Quebec Superior Court to pay the provincial government $354,799 in skipped taxes for the years 1969-72. Check it out! Next time don`t count on the McLachlin phony advisory committee to vet candidates recommended for nomination to the Order of Canada. Get competent people to do it outside this imperial elite. As you are probably aware, I have sent Her Majesty the Queen a letter stating mine and others` total displeasure at Henry Morgentaler`s nomination and the reasons for it. Thaddée Renault

Strong objection to award of Medal of Canada to Morgentaler (November, 2008)

As I keep reminding myself, you represent our gracious Queen Elizabeth in Canada. As such, actions taken by your office are done in the Queen`s name. I can`t help but think how she must have recoiled, after discovering Henry Morgentaler`s bloody history, that you have given - in her name - the Order of Canada to this merchant of death. Canada, Your Excellency, is still reverberating from the very divisive decision you made to award this country`s highest honour to Canada`s premier abortionist. It`s as if you and the equally Morgentaler-enamoured members of the Advisory Council of the Order have no idea of what constitutes an abortion and that Morgentaler holds the record for this pure evil action repeated well over 100,000 times during his lifetime. How else can one describe a procedure which by its very nature necessitates either ripping, tearing and dismembering or chemically poisoning the fragile bodies of babies awaiting to exit the comfort of their mother`s womb. There is nothing award-winning about an act that utterly destroys the life of a baby in such a barbarous manner. How could you lavish public adulation on someone who, under the miserable excuse of helping women, took the lives of children who could have had the chance to grow up as you beautiful daughter has? How could you so disregard the feelings of millions of Canadians and the countless thousands of women who still must deal with deep despair after many year of having submitted their babies to this butcher for extermination. (I am part of an association whose major mission is to provide help to women suffering from post abortion trauma and depression). My point, Your Excellency, whether you recognize it or not, is that you have irretrievably tarnished your reputation as an upholder of human rights, by tacitly encouraging Morgentaler`s abortionists colleagues to continue raping women - which is what they do by destroying even more than their dignity, but plundering their very flesh and blood! Yours respectfully, Thaddée Renault Copy: Hon. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin

Canadian Press - complimentary tribute to Michaëlle Jean (September, 2010)

Congratulations on your complimentary tribute to our departing Governor General, Michaëlle Jean. However, I don`t feel you did justice to your professionalism by refusing to acknowledge what, for unborn Canadians (and most compassionate Canadians also), was in fact “the most important decision made by any Governor General in three-quarters of a century.” That decision, Mr. Panetta, was granting the Order of Canada, the country`s highest honour that a governor general awards, to Canada`s leading fetus liquidator, Henry Morgentaler. Is it that simply mentioning his name in conjunction with Jean`s vaunted accomplishments would remind objective thinking people what a depraved country Canada has become, when even its governor general finds it fitting to honour and praise a baby killer (he boasts having personally destroyed more than one-hundred-thousand in his lifetime) by awarding him the nation`s ultimate honour for having made Canada`s baby holocaust mainstream? How perverse! How decadent! How repugnant! No darn wonder you chose to degrade you professionalism by deliberately not mentioning this “most important decision made by any Governor General in three-quarters of a century.” So much for fair and balanced reporting from Canada’s self-described ‘trusted news leader’! Yours truly, Thaddée Renault

B. Prime Minister

Harper`s approval of Medal of Canada awarded to Morgentaler (June, 2008)

Can it be true that the Governor General intends to bestow the Order of Canada next week on Henry Morgentaler?! Has the government gone bonko, or what? What persons in their right mind would ever choose this pitiful little man for the Order of Canada or for any honour as a matter of fact? Providing your seal of approval to this farce, Prime Minister, shows nothing but contempt for Canadians. I presume the reason that will be given for the award will be “for a lifetime of distinguished service.” If so, that will be a terribly sad commentary on how this top honour has been defiled by yielding to pressure from those radical feminists who want to institutionalize the killing of babies nestled in their mother`s womb - akin to the rituals of child sacrifice practiced by the Aztec who also thought it was civilized to snuff babies. Sir, if I may be so bold as to say so, I really believe that it borders on the criminal to shower honours on a person who has worked for over four decades now to pervert the noblest of principles: to love and protect the most helpless among us. I truly feel truly ashamed of being a Canadian when I see my heritage of decency being brought down into the gutter in this fashion. My Canada will never be Henry Morgentaler`s Canada, despite yours and Governor General Michaëlle Jean`s alleged push to make it so. I value my grandchildren`s future too much to have them exposed and corrupted by the garbage I`ve seen his and those of his ilk promoting publicly. To refer to Morgentaler`s public service is incredibly brainless. Everyone is all too aware of the nature of the public service he has rendered during these last 40 years. It adds up - by his own proud account - to over 100,000 babies whom he has personally destroyed in the fragile sanctuary of their mothers` womb. And this does not account for the holocaust of the millions of Canadian dead babies his legal wrangling has lead to over these past four decades! Pray tell, just who is this small bunch of people pushing for this nomination? I presume it would be all the radical feminists who view Morgentaler as a sort of obstetric Robin Hood, performing abortions for women who otherwise couldn`t get them. The stats of Canada`s "Abortion King" show he has an estimated gross annual revenue of about $11 million, according to research published in Quebec`s Le Droit in October 2002. Standard bearer for the feminists` fight for freedom to abort on demand since 1967, this general practitioner and his team of abortionists execute about 19,000 abortions each year (at an average cost of about $700 per abortion) in his eight clinics in seven Canadian provinces. While growing rich, he has contributed to the horrible worldwide annual slaughter of some 60 million children. Morgentaler claims he acts out of concern for women, but where`s the proof? Does he offer women any other choice but death? Does he offer to open homes for unwed mothers? Does he offer adoption as an alternative. Has he sent even one ambivalent woman to a crisis pregnancy centre for counselling and assistance? Mainstream media revere ‘compassionate’ Morgentaler - a tragically funny attitude about a man who tried to save 79 cents by re using disposable curettes on his patients in the 80`s (check it out). Truth be told, Morgentaler never has had any real concern for women, only for lining his own pockets, and now he feels he should receive the Order of Canada for this. Pathetic!! You`ve surely heard of the saying “Trying to put lipstick on a pig.” Countless Canadians think the expression would precisely fit in this case. Giving Henry Morgentaler the ultimate national honour will irrevocably destroy the positive attitude Canadians have towards their country. It will certainly make them question the integrity and good judgment of your government, which many still believe holds the future of a morally led Canada in its palm. Thaddée Renault Copy: Governor General Michaëlle Jean

Ugly Abortion Pictures (Genocide Awareness Project)

A. Universities University of Calgary and GAP display 1 (November, 2008)

Dear President, Here we go again. Another ‘academic’ (I use the word advisedly) institution censoring expressions of ideas and threatening arrest, fines, expulsion and suspension of a group of its students, if they dare express their views on abortion through a factual display on their campus. Really! This is a glaring example of how many Canadian universities and colleges, in recent years, have become cesspools of censorious intolerance. They have effectively become incubation centers for politically correct dogma. Academic censorship is a very serious problem poisoning the university environment. We read of speech codes on campuses, sensitivity training for freshman, and tribunals before which students are made to grovel and recant for ideas that “offended” some minority or other. To put it politely, academe is in shambles, dominated not as it likes to claim by teaching, research and scholarship, but by fascistic political correctness. How is it possible to get a good education from what have become indoctrination factories, if they`re only telling you half the story. When someone tethers himself to the prevailing academic groupthink, he necessarily cuts himself off from facts. He becomes an intellectual moron. He quickly personifies the intellectually bankrupt elite who can rationalize such statements as: "No one is more strongly in favor of free speech than I am. However, you are saying things that really annoy me." “Free speech is crucial, but, gosh, it has to be nicer than this.” “Free speech is important, so we have set aside this small area on the edge of the Calgary University campus where its expression can be muted.” The answer to speech we don`t like, Dr. Weingartner, is not its removal, it`s more speech arguing one`s own view. Our universities should be habitats of dissenting opinions and controversial theories but, alas, they suffer instead from stultifying politically correctness, forcing dissenters to keep quiet or pay the consequences - as they will have to, at Calgary U. The promotion of ideas should be at the forefront, while agreeing or disagreeing with an opinion should be secondary. One is astounded by this statement you made some years ago: "The role of universities is to promote, permit and enable the free exchange of ideas, debate and civil discourse. If universities do not support these values, which societal institutions will?" Noble words, but you must have had to twist yourself into a mental pretzel trying to reconcile them with your current stance on banning pictures depicting the ugliness and inhumanity of abortion. My advice to those thinking of donating one dime to any university would be to first do the following: Check out its web site. If you see a diversity office, women`s studies or transgender studies, that university is the wrong place to send your money. Administrators tend to have closed minds, but the sounds of pocketbooks snapping shut just might open them. Thaddée Renault

University of Calgary - Campus Pro-Life group (November, 2008)

Dear members of Campus Pro-Life, I wish to commend your great courage in defying an institution which has joined so many other North American universities in jettisoning its historic mission of teaching students how to think, in favour of telling them what to think. You have acted with principle, knowing your actions will probably jeopardize you academic careers and future. You have done what few are not willing to do anymore - offer yourselves as sacrificial lambs in defense of free speech for all Canadians. If Canadians had been told in my early years the extent and number of laws that would govern their speech and behaviour within one generation, they would have been certain that they were being told about some dictatorship. Well, it`s here! The new thought police, born in the laisser-faire society of the mid-20st century has now metastasize like a cancer to infect most of our prestigious centres of so-called higher learning. The dire situation which now prevails was perhaps first acknowledged in Allan Bloom`s ‘The Closing of the American Mind’: “Political correctness has become the dominant philosophy of post-secondary education, trumping free debate and open enquiry.” I have already expressed my indignation to University of Calgary President, Harvey Weingarten, for the outrageous penalties he threatens to impose on you for exercising your constitutional right to express your opinion. I include it for your perusal. Ronald Reagan who understood the principles of a true democratic society expressed it as eloquently as anyone could: "Freedom is a fragile thing, and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance, it must be defended constantly by each generation for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it, have never known it again." My prayers as a fellow pro-lifer are with you. Prevail you will! Thaddée Renault Copy: University of Calgary President, Dr. Harvey Weingarten

More on University of Calgary and GAP display - Continued (February, 2009)

Dr. Weingarten, What a great legacy to leave behind! Surely you cannot be proud of the fact that, under your watch, the academic spirit once so prided by those of my generation has been aborted at the University of Calgary. It boggles the mind - mine at least, if not yours - that the university, with your blessing, is pursuing charges against students proclaiming the irrefutable truth about the nature of abortion and its unquestionable parallel to slavery, the slaughter of the Jews, etc. As was explained to you by the group that is being persecuted for clearly expressing its opinion in an open academic setting, although pictures in the Genocide Awareness Project are incredibly hard to look at, one has to wonder why they are so hard to look at. If mere images evoke such fierce outrage from civilized people, what about the action itself? You`ll find with a little research that, historically, successful social reformers did not transform their cultures by being overly concerned about people`s opinion of them. They did not work to change how people perceived them; their preoccupation was to change how people perceived the injustices at hand. By continuing to engage in such blatant censorship, yours and other universities with the same administrative mindset bring shame to the very name of "university." Thaddée Renault

More on University of Calgary and GAP display - Continued (March, 2009)

Dear President Weingarten, The University of Calgary administration is stubbornly maintaining its anti-intellectual stance of refusing to provide a forum for an expression of student outrage at the legalization of child murder in the womb. Despite the ridicule heaped on it for such obscurantist thinking, you adamantly refuse to reconsider your attack on a free expression of ideas... simply because it might offend some of your intellectually immature students and professors. Judging from recent past history, your contradictory position on the matter of censoring free speech on your campus is mind-blowing. You insist on your “need to uphold [the University`s] legal right to manage activities on campus." Yet, two years ago you are reported in The Gauntlet to have stated that, "The role of universities is to promote, permit and enable the free exchange of ideas, debate and civil discourse. If universities do not support these values, which societal institutions will?" Why are you charging students with trespassing for setting up a GAP display? All GAP does is to convey the silent message (to supposedly open-minded students) that abortion actually does kill a human being in a barbaric way. What is philosophically wrong with displays of images of aborted babies? The answer from those shallow-minded people protesting the GAP display would be because the message is mean. However, if the answer is because the message is challenging, uncomfortable, and inconvenient - yet true and just - then, morally, one must persist in showing them. Just as it is necessary at times to show pictures of the Jewish holocaust to awaken people`s consciences, pro lifers have learned that showing the full horror of what abortion does to children is a necessary part of the pro life movement. So what if GAP`s message offends some members of society? Isn`t free, non-violent expression of dissent a fundamental right? I, for one, am offended by semi-clad perverts parading down the streets of our cities, celebrating what ought to be kept behind closed doors. However, Canada`s self-anointed elites won`t raise a finger to protect my sensibilities. It seems free speech is good, in their eyes, only as long as we express officially-approved views - their views. The right to free expression, especially in our institutions of higher learning, is society`s greatest safeguard against the terrifying unanimity of totalitarian groupthink. Freedom of expression is freedom itself. It is a fragile thing, and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance, it must be defended constantly by each generation for it comes only once to a people. As Ronald Reagan, that great contributor to the fall of Communism, expressed so well, “Those who have known freedom and then lost it, have never known it again." Thaddée Renault Copy: Ms Leah Hallman, Campus Pro-Life

More on University of Calgary and GAP display - Continued (April, 2010)

Dear President Veale, Your renewed harassment of the university`s Campus Pro-life club, has really clinched it for me. I`m not one prone to exaggerated statements; however with the unmistakable metastasizing of censorship throughout North American universities, I now firmly believe all the evidence needed is there for me to say this: Academia as an institution has been bastardized to a point where what it has stood for in previous generations, i.e. intellectual debate and defense of truth, has lost all but a vestige of its past integrity. Institutions of ‘higher learning’ have, for the most part, been transformed by their administration and faculties into indoctrination centers of unthinking acceptance of majority opinions. Maybe you can`t see it, but I find sublime irony in your presidential directive to the campus organizers of the Genocide Awareness Project to “turn [your] signs inward so that the University community does not have to view them," and threatening the students with sanctions for non-academic misconduct. Non-academic misconduct! This argument has passed clean through the looking glass into the realm of absurdity. My, my! By no means should we expose University of Calgary students to bad stuff that might offend the sensitivities of some or have them face heavy-duty visual arguments that are above their pay scale to argue against. Telling socially engaged students to turn their advocacy signs inwards so they won`t be seen by other students on campus is tantamount to telling African-Canadians to use separate restrooms! And threatening the organizers of the truthful pro-life displays with fines up to $5,000, and imprisonment under the laughable guise of “non-academic misconduct” is academic intimidation at its worst. May I end my indignant letter by placing before your eyes your provost Alan Harrison`s very words, spoken against censorship, in reference to Ann Coulter`s recent appearance at the university: “If we try to suppress people`s views simply because we don`t agree with them we`re doing two things. We`re acting contrary to what the university stands for...” Hollow words indeed! Thaddée Renault Copy: Dr. Alan Harrison, Provost Ms. Leah Hallman, Campus Pro-Life club president

More on University of Calgary and GAP display - Continued (June, 2010)

Dear President Veale, The institution over which you preside stands to become the first university to change its “I Will Lift Up My Eyes” motto to a much longer but certainly more truthful one, namely, “We Can Speak As Long As Nobody Can Hear Us, We Can Show Images As Long As Nobody Can See Them”! Who in their wildest fantasies could have imagined - even just a few years ago - that a university is about to expel eight students for ‘daring’ to refuse to turn educational signs inward so they can`t be seen by other students and passerby? Talk about the ultimate comedy of errors. You may think so, but these young people are not dummies who don`t realize what they`re doing. On the contrary, they are students who are reliving the true spirit of what academia was and still should remain - expressing unvarnished truth wherever it may lead. What eloquence in their simple defense of their principles and their willingness to sacrifice for them: “Do unto us whatever you desire, punish us however you wish; but our convictions shall not change, and we shall not alter our actions based on intimidation.” Don`t their words have a clear ring of familiarity with those of a, say, Solzhenitsyn? Obviously, what you are basically telling rational Canadians is that students on your campus can speak as long as nobody can hear them and they can show images as long as nobody can see them - with the proviso, however, that such censorship applies uniquely to pro-life ideas. What a bastardization of freedom of expression in post-modern academia! Quo vadis, University of Calgary? Thaddée Renault Copy: Ms Leah Hallman, Campus Pro-Life

Euthanasia

A. Parliamentarians

Danger in legislating euthanasia (October, 2005)

Bill C-407, now before Parliament, may well legalize euthanasia in Canada. As sadly happened with the same-sex marriage law, many like me worry that the government is going to rush this through without proper consultation with Canadians. The bill would target people who suffer severe chronic physical pain and mental suffering which in fact are treatable. With palliative care just coming into its own as a system of medicine, now is not the time to introduce assisted suicide legislation. Effective pain control, experts tell us, is a reality and now applicable in virtually all circumstances. Morally speaking, this legislation allows any person to kill another person. Just think about the implication. The twentieth century should have taught us once and for all that when society allows one person to kill another person it soon becomes impossible to protect people who are judged to be a social burden - those with chronic illnesses and other vulnerable Canadians already devalued by society. Novelist and poet John Updike expressed it well: “Death, once invited in, leaves its muddy bootprints everywhere.” A new study in the August, 2005 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine claims doctors in the Netherlands, where assisted suicide has been legalized since 2002, are properly handling euthanasia and assisted suicide requests which come their way. “Properly”? The study finds that 44 percent of Dutch people who seek assisted suicide are killed and that doctors refuse requests in only 12 percent of the cases. Euthanasia rates are escalating both there and in Belgium. Legalized euthanasia is now killing five a day in the Netherlands and one a day in Belgium. These two nations are sliding - if not skiing - down the slippery slope to widespread human abuse. What Canada needs is universal palliative and hospice care for the dying, more research and training in the field of pain control, better funded home care so that loved ones, facing their final days, can be looked after in a comfortable environment. However, this will be mere fantasy once Bill C-407 legalizes compassionate killing. Thaddée Renault

B. To Newspaper editors

Terri Schiavo`s ordeal (April, 2005)

It has been painful these past weeks to witness the media`s near rhapsodizing of Terri Schiavo`s long merciless journey through the American court system. We have watched as this woman - whose only crime was to be disabled - was tortured to death by judges. Isn`t it legitimate to ask whether a disaffected husband with dubious motives should be granted absolute control over his wife's fate. Where are the feminists on this one? Some, objecting that the government had no business interfering in a private decision like removing Terri's feeding tube, somehow have no problem with a squad of policemen preventing her parents from giving their daughter water. We have been told that Terri was being "allowed" to "die a natural death." But she was not dying from anything other than a lack of food and water. She did not die a natural death. She was killed! In the words of some neurologists, the nature of death by starvation and dehydration was depicted as "gentle". If this was such an easy death, why not videotape it and show those of us how mistaken we were? Terri Schiavo was a brain damaged, living human being who needed help eating and drinking. Guess what? Every quadriplegic out there is severely disabled and requires help eating and drinking. If Terri Schiavo could be starved to death simply because her life had been judged burdensome, then every person who is disabled or senile becomes a candidate for similar treatment. Having been conditioned to accept killing - even killing by the state according to an arbitrary standard of who is "fit" to live and who is not - it will be a short step to killing Grandma and Grandpa in their hospice centers Thaddée Renault

Legalization of euthanasia (September 28, 2009)

Bloc Quebecois MP Francine Lalonde, forever marked by her mother`s poignant death, is bringing back for the third time a bill to legalized euthanasia. Some in the NDP commendably affirm they will not support Bill C-384. They will propose instead that Canada maintains and strengthens a cross-country network of good palliative and hospice care, including training in cutting-edge pain management techniques for frontline doctors. Otherwise, there can be no real choice when someone is offered either intractable pain and suffering or assisted suicide. Bill C-384 would give the Frankensteinian right to medical practitioners to directly and intentionally cause the death of their patients to satisfy whatever reason they (practitioners) hold. The intent of the current law, as many wrongfully claim, is not about maintaining medical treatment that is useless or burdensome, and nor is it about not using large doses of pain killers that may unintentional cause the death of a person. Careful titration of opioids is not euthanasia. Bill C-384 directly threatens the lives of people with disabilities and other vulnerable groups in our country. That would include, beside those experiencing physical disabilities, persons with mental disabilities - especially those suffering depression and suicidal ideation (both growing segments of society). Francine Lalonde wants euthanasia/assisted suicide legalized for persons suffering physical pain and mental suffering. These problems can be treated adequately through proper palliative care. Moreover her bill doesn`t limit euthanasia to those in possession of their mental faculties: it legalizes assisted euthanasia for patients "appearing to be lucid." Obviously, to appear to be lucid does not mean a person is actually lucid or competent. What an open door to abuse! And, for those who believe that effective safeguards can protect people with disabilities and other vulnerable people from being killed by euthanasia, here is food for thought. According to a (I believe 2005) Journal of Medical Ethics, in the Netherlands where euthanasia has been legal for years, two-thirds of euthanasia cases there have not been reported as Royal Dutch Medical Association guidelines insist. One of the two reports the Journal uses concludes: "The reality is that a clear majority of cases of euthanasia, both with and without request, go unreported and unchecked. Dutch claims of effective regulation ring hollow." Civilized people should simply reject the barbarism of killing their weak and sick. Euthanasia is cheap compassion. It requires so little of us. As a late-stage sufferer of MS told me recently: “It is a form of murder masquerading as mercy.” Thaddée Renault

C. Others

Royal Society of Canada (December 26, 2009)

How, may I respectfully ask, can Canadians expect unbiased recommendations from a panel with at least four of its six appointed members already well known for having published works in strong support of the legalization of assisted killing? My cursory research on the philosophical background of these four individuals leaves a lot to be desired. Most bothersome to me is your society`s selection of Dr. Udo Schuklenk to head this influential panel. He reveals himself to be not only a strong self-affirming atheist but also a firm pro-euthanasia thinker - showing him coming to his work on the panel with a strong preexisting bias. I was especially taken aback by the following scornful passage from one of his essays on euthanasia: “[My] own considered judgment that life is not worth living any longer counts for nothing to organized monotheistic religions. According to them, we are not ethically entitled to ask for physician assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia. This is surprising, given that at the end of our natural lives churches have promised us that we would be going to heaven or hell, as the case might be. If at the end of a decently lived life we would go to heaven and enjoy eternal life, why are they fighting our earthly death so vigorously? None of this makes any sense at all if we take religious beliefs about our afterlife seriously. Once again substantial, avoidable human suffering is a direct consequence of religious interference with our end-of-life decision-making.” [My emphasis] It should be obvious that one shouldn`t be chairing this panel while holding such a categorical attitude in favour of assisted killing. Only the willfully blind will not think this indicates the direction in which he wants the panel`s recommendations to go. A Google search on Johannes van Delden indicates he is a Dutch euthanasia researcher and part of the body that promoted the ill-fated legalization of assisted killing in the Netherlands. Indeed the last major study I could find about the euthanasia situation in the Netherlands revealed that 550 people died by euthanasia without explicit request in 2005. That`s over four persons a day! And it looks like the situation has significantly deteriorated since. Another search on Jocelyn Downie reveals her to be the author of Dying Justice, a book urging the decriminalization of assisted killing. In her book, Downie insists that "removing life-sustaining medical treatment" is "morally equivalent" to assisted killing, and that "there is no difference between killing and letting die." It is no surprise that she is also a staunch abortion advocate, which to me points to a death-obsessed mindset. The fourth pro-assisted killing panelist is philosophy professor Sheila McClean who authored The Case for Assisted Suicide, a treatise arguing enthusiastically in favour of legalizing assisted killing. No one has any doubt about how she`ll vote. Not one of these four characters seems interested in major improvements of palliative care; at least what I`ve seen of their writings doesn`t even appear to indicate this. Unless new nominations of impartial members are made to replace these prejudiced “experts,” this quasi commission can only be considered as a sham and its recommendations should carry no weight whatsoever with the Canadian government. Thaddée Renault

Gardasil

A. Government

N.B. Minister of health (August, 2008)

Thank you for your prompt reply to my July 11th letter concerning ongoing anxiety over the province`s Gardasil vaccination program. I do not wish to abuse of your patience and valuable time by continuing to express my serious reservations on this critical question. However, as the grandparent of four grandchildren (some of whom will shortly enter grade 7), I want to again officially go on record as telling you that there are still extremely grave considerations that the NB Health Department has apparently ignored and not factored in its decision to start that program in the fall. Even if my grandkids were to be given the opportunity to opt out of it, other parents might not be aware of what they are giving their consent to. The latest red flag on Gardasil`s potential severe side effect was raised in two articles published last week in the prestigious The New England Journal of Medicine. Each questioned why Gardasil (marketed by Merck Sharp & Dohme, of Vioxx fame) and Cervarix (sold by GlaxoSmithKline) had been so extensively dispensed, given their unproven effectiveness and high costs. I was especially impressed by the editor of The Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, whose article said: "Despite great expectations and promising results of clinical trials, we still lack sufficient evidence of an effective vaccine against cervical cancer. With so many essential questions still unanswered, there is good reason to be cautious." The doctor in question, Charlotte J. Haug, reveals that both Gardasil and Cervarix were tested for relatively short periods of time and, much more worrying, that researchers are yet to prove a) whether or not the vaccines offer lasting immunity and b) if a user`s natural immunity to other strains not eliminated by the vaccines will be compromised. To cap it all off, Dr. Haug asserts that it is not even certain if the protection offered by the vaccines will even lead to reduced rates of cervical cancer. The other article, jointly published by two Harvard medical researchers, also brought up the fact that the vaccines have not been proven to offer life-long protection. They said that until this is certain, the high cost of the vaccines cannot be justified. Furthermore, the costs of the vaccines cannot be offset by eliminating Pap smear screening because the test is still needed to identify HPV strands that the vaccines do not protect against. One further important revelation. A non-partisan U.S. public interest group, Judicial Watch, has closely monitored Gardasil since it was released by Merck in 2006, periodically detailing statistics on the numerous side effects users have experienced. Its most recent report alleges that the drug has been responsible for 21 deaths and 9,749 adverse reactions, including 78 outbreaks of genital warts and 10 miscarriages. As daunting as these current statistics are, it seems that even they may be gravely underestimating the health risks associated with using Gardasil. Another study - again by The New England Journal of Medicine - claims that only about 10% of drug induced side effects are reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Does this apply to the National Advisory Committee on Immunization and the Canadian Immunization Committee? Sure hope not! One can be easily swayed by the proposition that, not only does the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists of Canada claims Gardasil is safe - as does Dr. David Butler-Jones, Canada`s Chief Public Health Officer - but that the Canadian Pediatric Society and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada have also endorsed the vaccine. Let`s calibrate this further, Honourable Minister. These medical authorities are puzzled and also indignant that the use of this vaccine still remains controversial, ever since it was rolled out in lightening speed after Ottawa announced a $300 million funding package for participant provinces. After all, they reason, they have approved the drug, so what is the problem? Surely their expert opinion should be sufficient to allay the public`s fears about the drug. Can`t we detect a certain sense of self importance here: “The science is definitive, Gardasil is safe, so live with it!”? The reason the public has good reason to distrust the judgment of these medical authorities is because of their experience with them. It is a fact that the public has heard many similar assurances about other drugs, and used them to their lasting regret. I`ve listed some of them in my previous correspondence to you. For example: - In the 1960`s, thalidomide was pronounced a safe drug for pregnant women experiencing morning sickness. It was not safe, as thousands of adults with flipper arms and legs can confirm. - In the 1960`s, the birth control pill was developed and women were assured that its use had no harmful side effects. Studies now report that the pill can be the cause of a greatly increased risk of stroke, heart attack and blood clots if taken for eight years or more. (British Journal of Medicine, 16 or 17 September, 2007). - Between 1938 and 1971, as many as 4 million U.S. women and many Canadian women took the drug, diethylstilbestrol (DES) to prevent miscarriage. Daughters of these women who were exposed to DES in utero have experienced a range of structural reproductive tract abnormalities in the uterus, cervix and vagina. The incidents of abnormality occurs in 18% of cases, but it may be as high as 33% in women exposed to DES in utero. The male offspring of women who took DES during pregnancy also have an increased incidence of genital abnormalities and a possibility of increased risk of prostrate and testicular cancer. - Merck developed the much-acclaimed painkiller Vioxx, that was subsequently used by thousands of individuals suffering from arthritis. Unfortunately, the drug had the side effect of causing heart attacks and strokes. As a result, the medication was taken off the market in 2004 and Merck is now facing thousands of class action suits amounting to billions of dollars in claims. - By 2001, 15 million women in the U.S. alone, as well a millions of women in Canada and abroad, were taking hormone-replacement therapy. It became one of the most popular prescription drug treatments for menopause, supposedly to allow women to lead a long and healthier life. However, in July 2002, estrogen therapy was exposed as a hazard to health, rather than a benefit. It was found to constitute a potential health risk for post-menopausal women by increasing risks of heart disease, stroke, blood clots and breast cancer. The question lingers unanswered, as to how many women may have died prematurely because their physician prescribed this medication? A reasonable estimate would be tens of thousands. - Europe`s largest drug manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline developed and sold the diabetic drug Avandia, it`s second best selling product in 2006, which was subsequently linked to a higher risk of heart attacks according to a study released in May 2007. These are just a few examples of the here-today-gone-tomorrow nature of medical wisdom. What we are advised about with confidence one year is reversed the next. Hence, the problem with these new drugs so enthusiastically recommended by the medical profession. It is alarming that Gardasil`s approval was based on the testing of only a few thousand patients and almost not at all (only 1200) on young girls, 9-13 years old, who are targeted for injection of the drug in New Brunswick. I have already mentioned to you that as its marketing plan, Merk used lobbyists with access to important public officials. In Canada, Ken Boessenkool, now with the public relations firm of Hill and Knowlton in Calgary, lobbied the federal government on Merck`s behalf. As chance would have it, Mr. Boessenkool happens to be a former advisor to Prime Minister Stephen Harper when he was opposition leader! Bottom line, Honourable Minister, the long-term consequences of Gardasil are not known. Merk admits this and agrees it does not know its effect on young girls' cancer risk, on their immunity system, on their reproductive system, or its genetic effects. In due course, we will know this, possibly in 20 or 30 years from now when these young girls, the innocent subjects of the Gardasil experiment, have become grown women and then report the consequences of their having taken the medication in their childhood on medical advice. Who will answer for it? Thaddée Renault

B. To Newspaper editors

N.B. Minister of health (May 27, 2009)

Those of us, scorned and publicly attacked for questioning the safety of the province`s HPV vaccination program for grades 7 girls, feel vindicated after reading in the Financial Post the following statistics from the National Vaccine Information Center, a US non-profit agency, which compared Gardasil`s adverse side effects to the severe ones reported for Menactra, a meningococcal disease vaccine administered to similar populations of young girls. The NVIC states that Gardasil is associated with at least twice as many “Emergency Room” visit reports; four times more “Death” reports; five times more “Did Not Recover” reports; and seven times more “Disabled” reports, plus at least four times as many “Cardiac Arrest” reports, six times as many “Fainting” reports, at least three times as many “Syncope” reports, at least four times as many “Lupus” reports, at least 15 times as many “Stroke” reports, at least 33 times as many “Thrombosis” reports and at least five times as many “Vasculitis” reports - among others. These results, directly at odds with those relied upon by the provincial government, need to be addressed by Health Minister Michael Murphy. It speaks volumes to the nature of the vaccination debate that Merck & Co. hasn`t provided any comment on these serious side effects, and again begs the question: why are NB school girls still being vaccinated with Gardasil? Remember also that this is a program that a McGill University epidemiologist and the Canadian Medical Association warned several years ago was "premature and could have unintended negative consequences"? Thaddée Renault

Hotly contested opinions on Gardasil (September, 2008)

The issue of the Gardasil vaccination program to be introduced this fall is drawing heated debate. The August 22, August 29 and September 12 issues of The New Freeman are examples of hotly contested opinions. Last week`s was especially revealing. The writer appears to me to be confusing moral objections to Gardasil with religious objections to its government-promoted use on our middle school children. Although the latter are also quite valid, I believe the argument hinges on the former which are more universally accepted. Those not led to dancing in the streets by the announcement of an HPV vaccination program for our middle children, oppose it for sound health, intellectual and moral reasons. The writer puts total faith in Health Canada`s approval of Gardasil. To those who wonder how anyone could object to the program, I can only reply: Consider the track record of our health protection system. Three examples out of many more jump right out: Thalidomide, Vioxx, Birth control pill. Thalidomide: Safe it wasn`t, as demonstrated by the thousands of babies with flipper arms and legs born during the 1960s. Vioxx: Hastily released, it was used by countless thousands of individuals who subsequently found out the drug had the side effect of causing heart attacks and strokes. Obviously, serious medical negligence involved in its premature release. Birth Control Pill: In the 1960s women were assured that the birth control pill (at twice the present dosage!) had no harmful side effects. We now know that the present dosage can be the cause of a greatly increased risk of stroke, heart attack and blood clots if taken for eight years or more (British Journal of Medicine, September 2007). How can anyone uncritically support a program repeatedly pumping Gardasil in the bodies of middle school female students, that a McGill University epidemiologist and the Canadian Medical Association warn is "premature and could have unintended negative consequences"? The latest red flag on Gardasil`s many potential severe side effects was raised in two articles published in mid-August in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. Each questioned why Gardasil (marketed by Merck Sharp & Dohme, of Vioxx fame) and Cervarix had been so extensively dispensed, given their unproven effectiveness and high costs. The doctor in the first article, Charlotte Haug, reveals that both Gardasil and Cervarix were tested for relatively short periods of time and, much more worrying, that researchers are yet to prove, a) whether or not the vaccines offer lasting immunity and, b) if a user`s natural immunity to other strains not eliminated by the vaccines will be compromised. To cap it all off, Dr. Haug asserts that it is not even certain if the protection offered by the vaccines will even lead to reduced rates of cervical cancer. I was especially impressed by the editor of The Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, whose article said: "Despite great expectations and promising results of clinical trials, we still lack sufficient evidence of an effective vaccine against cervical cancer. With so many essential questions still unanswered, there is good reason to be cautious." The writer also summarily dismisses abstinence program by declaring that, “The program[s] promoting abstinence before marriage [are] not successful.” Says who? Studies I`ve seen indicate the very opposite. Thaddée Renault

Dubious procedures use to certify Gardasil (April, 2008)

Looks like the chickens are coming home to roost. That seems evident from the shocking April 16 Globe and Mail article, slamming the testing procedures of Merck & Company, maker of both Vioxx and Gardasil. Gardasil, remember, is the vaccine the NB Dept. of Health decided last year would be administered to ‘potentially sexually active’ grade 7 students. The article references two new studies, just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, accusing Merck of knowingly ‘misrepresenting’ lethal health risks associated with once-popular, and likely contributor to thousands of deaths, Vioxx. The specific accusations are serious and give the government`s clearance to the anti-Human Papiloma Virus Gardasil vaccination program an entirely new aspect. This is the same program a McGill University epidemiologist, the Canadian Medical Association and the Advisory Council on the Status of Women warned was "premature and could have unintended negative consequences"? Merck is specifically accused of holding back on information it presented to regulatory health authorities, which indicated three times as many patients taking Vioxx died than those given a placebo. The company also held back on reporting deaths of probably lethally injured patients who had discontinued using the drug. Unbelievably, Merck employees “ghost” wrote many of the scientific articles promoting Vioxx and subsequently searched out willing doctors to appear as authors before they were submitted for publication. That odious practice was quickly qualified as “prostitution” by the above medical journal. How can our minister of health even think of maintaining this vaccination program promoted by a drug company whose shameful performance with Vioxx may well have been replicated with Gardasil? Thaddée Renault

C. Others

Canadian Paediatric Society (August, 2010)

May I respectfully submit that you are doing preteens and adolescent women, including their parents, an appalling disservice by insisting that their doctors advise them to use potentially harmful and abortifacient ‘morning-after’ pills. You have compounded the harm by insisting that this counseling be kept confidential and parents not be advised their daughters might be taking potentially hazardous products. That attitude in the eyes of many is virtually equivalent to enabling criminal child abuse. I personally share that opinion, as I see this inexplicable brash approach as one providing perverts cover to continue their sexual molestation of young girls, unbeknownst to their parents. Moreover, while admittedly is not intended for frequent or continuous use, the drug is certainly going to be abused because of easy availability, as even “reproductive choice” proponents are loath to admit. What you also seem to simply write off are the known dangerous side effects of the products you recommend doctors push on their vulnerable preteen and adolescent clients. Dr. Diane Harper, the leading international developer of the genital human papillomavirus vaccines, attended the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination to promote the benefits of Gardasil. You would do well to read the proceedings of this October 2, 2009, conference, to realize that she accomplished just the opposite of what she intended to do. It would be hard to find a less compelling case for Gardasil. This expert on HPV explained, among other things, that 70% of infections resolve themselves without treatment in one year. After two years, this rate climbs to 90%. Of the remaining 10% of HPV infections, only half coincide with the development of cervical cancer. She further weakened her case for additional millions of vaccinations when she indicated that “4 out of 5 women with cervical cancer are in developing countries.” And this first bombshell: She surprised her audience by stating that “[the incidence of cervical cancer in the U.S. is so low that] “if we get the vaccine and continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in the U.S.” And this second bombshell which I think sank her case altogether: “After 60 years, the vaccination will [only] have prevented 70% of incidences” of cervical cancer. My research on cervical cancer reveals that it is treatable and its death rate is around 1.5 to 3.5 per 100,000. I also found that The American Cancer Society says that “between 1955 and 1992, the cervical cancer death rate declined by 74%” and further adds that “the death rate from cervical cancer continues to decline by nearly 4% each year.” Somebody at the Canadian Paediatric Society needs to start connecting dots. And what about CPS`s apparent total disregard for Gardasil`s safety, which is a major point of concern for the many Canadian parents like me? Up until October/09, over 15,000 girls had officially reported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. These include, among others, ectopic pregnancy, Guilliane Barre Syndrome, lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation, infertility, and many others. More worrisome again, the U.S. Center for Disease Control acknowledges that there have been over 50 deaths reported deaths. [Google: Reports of Health Concerns Following HPV Vaccination] Horrors of horrors, Dr. Harper tells us that, after the distribution of over 26 million doses of these morning-after pills - targeting prepubescent and adolescent girls between the ages of 9 and 13 throughout North America - Merck Pharmaceuticals has done no efficacy trials in girls under 15 years. It did study a small group of girls under 16 who had been vaccinated, but did not follow them long enough to conclude sufficient presence of effective HPV antibodies. If this is state of the art at Merck Pharmaceuticals, God help us! The Canadian Paediatric Society seems rudderlessly lost at sea and inadequate to the challenges it faces to provide sound medical advice to Canadian paediatricians. This should be quite obvious to all but the ethically comatose, who must find it hard to know where to begin to dissect your advocacy of morning-after pills - which seems to pass for wisdom in your medical circle. Thaddée Renault Copy: Dr. Richard Stanwick, President elect for 1012

Medical agencies

Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation - ABC Link (November, 2006)

I have remained until now a contributor to the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation for the simple reason my family has been lethally affected by breast cancer. However, I have done so reluctantly, because you are one of the few organizations in Canada dedicated to the financial support of professional research in its treatment and potential cure. Being a biological researcher myself (now retired), I know the value of scientific research. But I don`t believe I can continue my support, as I have acquired too many doubts about the integrity of the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. This is certainly a grievous statement to make and I do not express it thoughtlessly, believe me. What does it take to convince a research oriented organization like the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation of a scientifically demonstrated reality? One assumes not much, unless, it would appear, abortion becomes a factor in research studies. When researchers become so bold as to draw any statistically valid conclusions from such studies showing cancer as a possible risk to women undergoing the termination of a first pregnancy, ideologically motivated cancer organizations like yours shamelessly proceed to discredit their politically incorrect work. It matters little that machinations of this kind are also conducted against your own researchers - as happened in the U.S. with pro-choice Dr. Janet Daling who reported a 50% increased risk for women choosing an abortion during their first pregnancy. In that particular instance, the National Cancer Institute used a medical hack to undermine a highly conclusive study with the dismissive "There`s no medical research that validates that statement (of a link between abortion and breast cancer). There`s no medical research that proves abortion has anything to do with breast cancer." With all the data at their finger tip, how can a self-respecting foundations like yours really believe such rubbish? Can you really believe that there is no medical research that objectively proves abortion has anything to do with breast cancer? A funny thing happens when abortion becomes a factor in CBCF-sponsored breast cancer research studies: a scientifically demonstrated reality can be deliberately ignored. In a move unheard of in the annals of medicine, fund-driven cancer societies everywhere boldly keep brushing aside lifesaving information in order to serve Mammon, i.e. Planned Parenthood and the rich abortion industry which evidently now call the shots at the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. Forget the estrogen/progesterone rationale in explaining the simple connection between a deliberately aborted first pregnancy and breast cancer; forget the overwhelming number of scientific articles that show irrefutable evidence of the lethal connection; forget that 1 in 100 women will die of abortion induced breast cancer; forget everything; don`t pay any attention to the problem and it will go away. So is the public being reassured by the prestigious CBCF ostrich with its huge posterior sticking out of the sand. What if, Ms Wong, say 32 out of 38 mechanics had raised serious doubts about the safety of the brakes on your car, would you let your daughter drive the car? In my mind, anyone who is not convinced by that many scientific studies showing a 30 to 50% increased risk of breast cancer after induced abortion, is not competent to make that decision. Your organization should be receiving the contempt reserved for the objective work of scientists who have discovered lethal consequences to induced abortion. If, say 32 of 38 studies discouraged a certain treatment you were taking as having potential lethal consequences, you would rightfully want to know about it, regardless of the opinion of the oncologist treating you. After all that`s what informed consent is all about. Why then, in heaven`s name, would you support an agenda to deny this very same right to women, who might be considering the so-called therapeutic treatment of abortion, to be warned of the potentially dangerous consequences of their decision? I find it truly unconscionable that the CBCF would prostitute itself to the point of knowingly allowing women to submit themselves to what has now been irrefutably demonstrated (notwithstanding CBCF`s politically motivated denials) as a clear serious danger to their health and, for some, a death sentence. Were breast cancer linked to any other procedure besides abortion, the uproar over your silence would be deafening. In conclusion, may I remind you that there need only be ONE statistically significant study finding a health risk in a peer reviewed medical journal for a health warning to be issued. Has there been one statistically significant study finding an increased breast cancer risk from previous induced abortions? To my knowledge, there have been at least SIXTEEN statistically significant studies finding very high and truly frightening abortion/breast cancer risk. SIXTEEN exceeds ONE by 1,500%. By law, once there is credible evidence of adverse risk from an elective medical procedure, patients must be warned of the possible harm. Only spokespersons for the abortion industry, Planned Parenthood, and the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation which obviously supports "choice" at the expense of informed consent, would claim that there should be no health warnings before more conclusive evidence of an induced abortion/breast cancer link, than now exists, is produced. I will be encouraging my family and friends to boycott Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation fund raisers because of its obvious censorship regarding abortion and cancer. I will instead encourage funding for breast cancer research conducted by organizations, other than the CBCF, that recognize a woman`s right to know. Thaddée Renault

Canadian Paediatric Society - Gardasil (August, 2010)

May I respectfully submit that you are doing preteens and adolescent women, including their parents, an appalling disservice by insisting that their doctors advise them to use potentially harmful and abortifacient ‘morning-after’ pills. You have compounded the harm by insisting that this counseling be kept confidential and parents not be advised their daughters might be taking potentially hazardous products. That attitude in the eyes of many is virtually equivalent to enabling criminal child abuse. I personally share that opinion, as I see this inexplicable brash approach as one providing perverts cover to continue their sexual molestation of young girls, unbeknownst to their parents. Moreover, while admittedly is not intended for frequent or continuous use, the drug is certainly going to be abused because of easy availability, as even “reproductive choice” proponents are loath to admit. What you also seem to simply write off are the known dangerous side effects of the products you recommend doctors push on their vulnerable preteen and adolescent clients. Dr. Diane Harper, the leading international developer of the genital human papillomavirus vaccines, attended the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination to promote the benefits of Gardasil. You would do well to read the proceedings of this October 2, 2009, conference, to realize that she accomplished just the opposite of what she intended to do. It would be hard to find a less compelling case for Gardasil. This expert on HPV explained, among other things, that 70% of infections resolve themselves without treatment in one year. After two years, this rate climbs to 90%. Of the remaining 10% of HPV infections, only half coincide with the development of cervical cancer. She further weakened her case for additional millions of vaccinations when she indicated that “4 out of 5 women with cervical cancer are in developing countries.” And this first bombshell: She surprised her audience by stating that “[the incidence of cervical cancer in the U.S. is so low that] “if we get the vaccine and continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in the U.S.” And this second bombshell which I think sank her case altogether: “After 60 years, the vaccination will [only] have prevented 70% of incidences” of cervical cancer. My research on cervical cancer reveals that it is treatable and its death rate is around 1.5 to 3.5 per 100,000. I also found that The American Cancer Society says that “between 1955 and 1992, the cervical cancer death rate declined by 74%” and further adds that “the death rate from cervical cancer continues to decline by nearly 4% each year.” Somebody at the Canadian Paediatric Society needs to start connecting dots. And what about CPS`s apparent total disregard for Gardasil`s safety, which is a major point of concern for the many Canadian parents like me? Up until October/09, over 15,000 girls had officially reported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. These include, among others, ectopic pregnancy, Guilliane Barre Syndrome, lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation, infertility, and many others. More worrisome again, the U.S. Center for Disease Control acknowledges that there have been over 50 deaths reported deaths. [Google: Reports of Health Concerns Following HPV Vaccination] Horrors of horrors, Dr. Harper tells us that, after the distribution of over 26 million doses of these morning-after pills - targeting prepubescent and adolescent girls between the ages of 9 and 13 throughout North America - Merck Pharmaceuticals has done no efficacy trials in girls under 15 years. It did study a small group of girls under 16 who had been vaccinated, but did not follow them long enough to conclude sufficient presence of effective HPV antibodies. If this is state of the art at Merck Pharmaceuticals, God help us! The Canadian Paediatric Society seems rudderlessly lost at sea and inadequate to the challenges it faces to provide sound medical advice to Canadian paediatricians. This should be quite obvious to all but the ethically comatose, who must find it hard to know where to begin to dissect your advocacy of morning-after pills - which seems to pass for wisdom in your medical circle. Thaddée Renault Copy: Dr. Richard Stanwick, President elect for 1012

Canadian Medical Association Public Affairs - Pro-abort law professor (July, 2006)

You people on the editorial staff of the Canadian Medical Association Journal sure don`t miss an opportunity to let abortionist proponents play fast and loose with the CMA Code of Ethics. This was made very obvious with Sandra Rodgers` recent guest editorial. This pro-abort law professor, if one is to assume from this article, is deliberately leading University of Ottawa medical students to believe that they will have a constitutional obligation to refer patients for abortion if they refuse to perform the barbaric procedure themselves. That, Dr. Hemlin, is a crock, and you know it. If you don`t, then inform yourself before letting a bunch of unprincipled ideologues take over the orientation of your scientific magazine. The CMA Code of Ethics states clearly that, "A physician whose moral or religious beliefs prevent him or her from recommending or performing an abortion should inform the patient of this so that she may consult another physician.” That`s a lot different from making him responsible to refer his patient to an abortionist. What you allowed to be published shows unconscionable ignorance or else an intention to deceive. In either case, those responsible for the publication of the Canadian Medical Association Journal should immediately retract these fraudulent interpretations of the CMA`s ethical rules. It is also a downright lie to claim that the Canadian Constitution allows the evil practice of killing babies, and that the Supreme Court in the 1988 Morgentaler decision said it did! What it actually did was to suggest that Parliament establish laws protecting the right to life of unborn children. These are the very words of Chief Justice Dickson: “Protection of foetal interests by Parliament is also a valid governmental objective...” In closing, I wish to ask these questions of the Canadian Medical Association. What happens to a profession that engages in killing on request? Not angrily or fanatically but coldly, detachedly, and very lucratively? What happens to Canadian medicine - once the most compassionate, humane medicine in the world - when it reverts to pagan practice in which the doctor both heals and exterminates at the same time? Roughly 300 unborn Canadians, Sir, die in abortion clinics and hospitals each day. Except for much-abused right-to-lifers, no one seems to give a damn. In light of the silent carnage now taking place, is it too much to ask the Canadian medical community to adopt a more compassionate attitude towards unborn babies? Thaddée Renault

Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada - Sarah Palin`s Down`s Syndrome child (September, 2008)

The Globe and Mail recently reported that your executive vice-president, Dr. Andre Lalonde, is worried that Sarah Palin`s decision in February to give birth to her Down`s Syndrome child, despite knowing about his condition, could influence other women in similar situations. "The worry is that this will have an implication for abortion issues in Canada," he said. As president of your association, do you rubber stamp every declaration this outed supporter of eugenics makes? Do you in fact automatically okay everything this official spokesperson says prior to making official declarations like this demeaning one to the Canadian public? More specifically, did André Lalonde receive your approval before stating the SOGC`s position on Sarah Falin`s decision not to abort her special need baby? According to André Lalonde, Mrs. Palin`s widely discussed decision to keep her baby, knowing he would be born with the condition, may inadvertently influence other women who may lack the necessary emotional and financial support to do the same. So, the ready solution: kill the little bugger! Lalonde`s claim that doctors give balance information about the consequences of the condition to pregnant women with a Down`s child, and that women are not generally encouraged to abort, is far from factual, in fact about 90% untrue. His deceitful statement is clearly contradicted by a study published in a 2005 edition of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology which shows a bias in favour of abortion from doctors who inform women on their options with a prenatal diagnosis of Down`s Syndrome. The study`s author writes that after the possibility of Down`s Syndrome is shown, mothers reported that "the doctors did not tell them about the positive potential of people with Down syndrome." In addition, the study found that after a pre-natal diagnosis of Down`s Syndrome, doctors and other health professionals also most often fail to give up-to-date information on the latest findings on Down`s Syndrome or to refer mothers to Down`s Syndrome support groups. The medical presumption seems to be very strongly in favour of abortion, a practice which is lauded by many in the bioethics community as a moral form of eugenic ‘cleansing.’ With the likes of André Lalonde at the helm of SOGC`s ethics policies (which he surely appears to be), Canada is fast moving towards the Spanish model where a report from Spain shows that abortion is being used for eugenic purposes to eliminate the "unfit," specifically children with Down`s syndrome. There, recent statistics show that almost 95% of Spanish babies diagnosed with Down`s syndrome are aborted. In England, meanwhile, we read about many documented cases of mothers aborting their unborn children because of minor physical defects like club foot and cleft palate. Remember Pastor Martin Niemöller`s epic poem “First they came...” warning about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group? To paraphrase that great poem: “First they came for the Down`s Syndrome children, and I did nothing. Because I didn`t have a Down`s Syndrome baby. Then they came for babies with cleft palates, and I did nothing. Because I didn`t have a baby with a cleft palate. Then they came for the Executive Vice-President of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, And I did nothing...” That abortion is the primary direction for Obstetricians after Down`s diagnoses is an undeniable reality. None other than Krista Flint, executive director of the Canadian Down Syndrome Society, strongly disagrees with SOGC`s claim that pregnant women are given balanced information about the condition: "Many of the country`s medical professionals only give messages of fear to parents who learn their baby will be born with the genetic condition." Paradoxically, people like André Lalonde probably would be the first to hold the door for someone in a wheelchair, and they`d be friendly toward anyone with obvious mental retardation. But for themselves, we know that the message families should be getting is “Don`t have this baby, it will ruin your life.” Abortion`s slippery slope keeps getting slipperier all the time. If we can eliminate Down`s by eliminating unborn babies with it, think of the possibilities for others with genetic disabilities that one day will be detected early in pregnancy the weak, the mentally slow, the physically awkward, the homosexual, the left handed ... Who then will protect us? André Lalonde and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada certainly don`t appear to fit the bill! Thaddée Renault Copy: Dr. André Lalonde, Executive Director

University of New University Student Health Center - “Medically required services” (February, 2007)

Dear Dr. Majerovich, I want to commend you on having signed your Op-Ed article, “Abortion is legal and a health issue,” in yesterday`s Telegraph Journal. It is good that people with deeply held opinions have the courage of their convictions and not be afraid to identify themselves. I sincerely hope your contribution will not elicit hurtful ad hominem attacks. Like you, Dr. Majerovich, I do hold deep-seated moral (and not primarily religious) convictions on abortion, and wish people would accept them as just that and not attribute ulterior motives to what I express publicly. Like you, I`m a university-trained person with a sound grounding in science and a logical approach to social issues. Thus, my wish to establish a friendly dialogue with you on the testy and passionate subject of abortion and the alleged difficulty of access to the procedure in New Brunswick. At the outset, I must tell you I am in disagreement with some of the declarations made in the article. Please allow me to address some and offer my perspective about the issues they raise. You make the assertion that abortion is a legal right and infer from this that it should be publicly funded. Such a conclusion does not necessarily follow. This would be like arguing that my right to worship publicly allows me to require, as a constitutional right, that the government pay my transportation to church. You point out that restrictions imposed on abortions condemn many young women and their children to lives of poverty. Objectively speaking, terminating an immature unborn human being with a beating heart is hardly an argument for a better chance at personal financial betterment. “Medically required services” is an expression that is well understood in medicine. Its meaning is never ambiguous when applied to any other medical procedure except abortion. Even medically necessary procedures are not necessarily funded in individual provinces, if they are considered too much of a drain on the provincial coffers. As a physician, you must be familiar with several of these. The New Brunswick government is not adverse to funding any medically required service - even so-called therapeutic abortions. What it needs in that instance is a clear definition of “medically necessary.” The following quote from Marilyn Wilson, the former executive director (now treasurer) of the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League, had this to say five years ago in a meeting at the House of Commons: “Women who seek abortions do so for socio-economic reasons.” Isn`t this an unqualified admission that abortion is not a medical necessity? Abortions, as CARAL has candidly admitted, are performed for social reasons, not for medical problems. A healthy woman aborting a healthy child is not a medical necessity. Pregnancy is not a disease or sickness. The preborn are not gobs of tissue, cancers or tumours, but tiny human beings. We all began our life that way in the warmth of our mother`s womb. How can the medical profession take part in a procedure they admit they can`t determine the need for? Just ponder this astounding admission from the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons contained in its October 6/95 official declaration concerning abortion`s medical status, which, in effect said: "We, doctors, don`t feel that we can determine when the need to terminate a pregnancy is medically required." With all due respect, Dr. Majerovich, the problem with the abortion issue is that it continues to be presented as a matter of viewpoints rather than victims. The problem is not one of beliefs, but of bloodshed. It`s not one of viewpoints, but of victims - the aborted “products of conception.” To my analytic mind the central approach to the abortion question is a simple one: 1. Is the growing fetus in the mother`s belly part of her or a separate entity? Can those who think it is part of her explain why they believe this? 2. Is that separate entity a human being? If not, what is it? A Toyota? 3. If that entity is recognized as a human being, does it deserve to be protected from deliberate harm? If not, why not? 4. Aren`t politicians responsible for protecting human rights able to make this simple deduction, or is tutoring in Biology 101 needed? Please accept my response to your article in the spirit of dialogue I intended. As logic leads me to believe, there are over 300 victims - human beings - being killed in Canada each day. Sadly, few fingers are being lifted to stop the war against these innocent victims nestled in their mother`s womb. Thaddée Renault

Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation - Embryonic Stem Cell Research (December, 2005)

Those pictures on your web entry page are heartbreaking. How fortunate those of us are who do not have to live the distressing lives of these courageous persons afflicted with cystic fibrosis. Your foundation has been a beacon of hope for cystic fibrosis sufferers and hopefully will remain so. However, I must confess to a major disappointment in your recent decision to get involved in a branch of research with very serious ethical and moral implications. I refer here to the Foundation`s funding support for human embryonic stem cell research. I was especially taken aback by your shocking contrasting concern for the proper treatment of animals used in experimentation, and your request for funding applicants to indicate their agreement with the principles of the Canadian Council on Animal Care. Regardless of how you define it, this research involves the removal of vital cells from a baby in the earliest stages of development, which results in the death of that child. And what are the result so far, Ms Morrison, from human embryonic stem cell research - ZILCH! There is not one person alive today that has benefitted from embryonic stem cells, but there are many who have had their lives improved with emerging adult stem cell treatments. Yet researchers continue to insist upon using life destructive research, when there is more promise with research that does not take innocent life. A bastion of a secular business worldview, Investor`s Business Daily noted in its May edition that there have been more than 250 clinical trials using adult stem cells. These trials have produced eighty therapies. On the other hand, the history of embryonic stem-cell research is replete with monstrous tumors, tissue rejections and immune reactions. And now - we find out - with deceit on the part of funded researchers in South Korea. Embryonic stem cell researchers sniff that this is only because their field is newer, but research on both types of cell dates back to the 1950s. Embryonic stem cells aren`t playing catch-up; they`re falling behind. According to leading experts in stem cell research, research and treatments using adult stem cells are 20 to 30 years ahead of embryonic stem cell research, After 20 years of active research, embryonic stem cells haven`t cured a single lab rat and they have not treated a single patient or a single disease. Contrast this lack of success using embryonic stem cells with the avalanche of recent ones using adult stem cells and other non embryonic sources such as umbilical cord blood. Adult and cord blood stem cells are already being used successfully to treat patients with cancer, multiple sclerosis, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, anemia, immune deficiencies, diabetes, Parkinson`s disease, sickle cell anemia, spinal cord injury, etc. - and even to grow new corneas to restore sight and begin repair of cardiac damage after heart attack. In animal studies, adult and cord blood stem cells have also been used successfully in experimental treatments for stroke, and liver damage in mice. Ideology blocks progress and people suffer and die. Adult stem cell research is considered impolitically correct and, consequently, does not receive the funding that it deserves. As a result, future productive research will be slowed, and people will suffer and die from diseases that might have otherwise been treated earlier. Funding embryonic stem cell research make no economic sense. Continued diversion of scarce foundation and federal research funds toward embryonic stem cell research, when the disease conditions for which it was hailed as a treatment are being more rapidly and safely addressed by other means, now threatens to slow medical progress. Embryos should not be considered as the best - and much less - the only source of stem cells. In fact, Ms Morrison, embryonic stem cell research is a dud: the best source of stem cells for medical treatment is one`s own body. The Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation should understand this before venturing into the morally objectionable territory of funded embryonic stem cell research. Thaddée Renault

Hoechst Canada Inc. - RU-486 (April, 1994)

True to the tradition of I.G. Farben, the parent company which spawned you, you`ve also decided to develop a human exterminating chemical. Unlike its Zyklon B gas which did such a good job on men, women and children in the Nazi death chambers, your human pesticide gets at defenceless unborn babies in their fragile beginning. RU-486 may well represent a very small part of your world market at this time. My advice, for what it`s worth, would be for Hoechst Canada Inc. to stop as soon as it can the manufacture and sale of this barbaric product whose only function is to kill the developing child craddled in the mother`s womb. As things now stand I, along with many in our community here, are actively discouraging the purchase of your whole line of insecticides and herbicides. As an entomologist and plant pathologist, I am in a position to recommend effective alternative pesticides. Your company is held responsible for the worldwide distribution of this new, strictly anti-human concoction originating from the same warped minds that once justified to themselves the brutal annihilation of millions. Any business enterprise willing to lethally exploit babies, as yours has demonstrated, does not deserve anyone`s patronage. Thaddée Renault

Canadian Medical Association Public Affairs - National Abortion Federation pressure (July, 2007)

I was informed through correspondence with medical friends that the National Abortion Federation had recently demanded that the Canadian Medical Association change their policy of allowing doctors to decline to refer patients for abortion. What arrogance from this U.S.-based association of “doctors” who kill preborn babies! Indeed, a fellowship of people, whose former executive director, Ron Fitzsimmons, admitted on ABC Nightline a few years ago (and these are his words) that he had "lied through his teeth" about the barbaric procedure of partial-birth abortion being rare and performed only in extreme cases. In truth, he acknowledged on Nightline that the vast majority of PBA were performed on healthy mothers with healthy babies. He also said that, “The abortion rights folks know it, the anti abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does everyone else.” He estimated then that 3,000 to 5,000 were performed each year. This group of abortionists now has the incredible gall to tell Canadian doctors to disregard their Hippocratic Oath and their moral conscience over an act they consider perverse and one criminally violating the human rights of unborn humans. Imagine, if you can, what happens to a medical profession that engages in killing on request? Not angrily or fanatically but coldly, detachedly, and very, very lucratively? What happens to Canadian medicine - once the most compassionate, humane medicine in the world - when it reverts to pagan practice in which the doctor both heals and exterminates at the same time? The answer is obvious, isn`t it? I urge you to maintain and strengthen your association`s abortion policy passed in 1988. Society, and women especially, deserve a lot better than abortion from their doctors. Tell the NAF to take a hike! Thaddée Renault National Cancer Institute - Breast cancer link (January, 2010) I am not an American but feel that your Institute`s influence on world cancer policies warrants my comment on your latest unscientific denial of a definite link between induced abortions and breast cancer. Such a continuing rejection of what dozens of peer-reviewed studies have already demonstrated is made all the more inconceivable by the fact that one of your own leading researchers has now reluctantly recanted her former denial of the link. Recall that in 2003, Louise Brinton, NCI`s chief of the Hormonal and Reproductive Epidemiology branch, was an organizer of the NCI workshop that told women it is “well established” that “abortion is not associated with increased breast cancer risk.” We now find that Brinton was co-author of an April 2009 study, in which she admitted that abortion raises breast cancer risk up to 40%! As expected, anti-women feminist groups such as RH Reality Check are scrambling to discredit the study. As for the National Cancer Institute, despite the admission by one of your foremost researchers, it continues on its website to carry the “well established” claim that there is no connection between abortion and breast cancer. Two weeks ago Canada`s national newspaper, the Globe and Mail`s health columnist, Gloria Galloway, wrote that she received another denial from the NCI when she attempted to receive confirmation on the study. Its spokesman Michael Miller told Ms Galloway in an email, “NCI has no comment on this study.” Instead, Miller forwarded a link to the NCI`s official statement denying the breast cancer link that refers back to the 2003 workshop [my emphasis]. Further requests for information, Ms. Galloway said, went unanswered. Here is further evidence, if any was needed, of deliberately ignoring or covering up the evidence supporting the abortion/breast cancer link. In a move unprecedented in the annals of medicine, the NCI boldly keeps brushing aside lifesaving information in order to serve Mammon - Planned Parenthood and the rich abortion industry which evidently now call the shots at NCI. Forget the estrogen/progesterone rational in explaining the simple connection between a deliberately aborted first pregnancy and breast cancer, forget that presently, to my knowledge, over 30 scientific articles (of many more published on this subject) show irrefutable evidence of the lethal connection. Forget that 1 in 100 women will die of abortion induced breast cancer, forget everything, don’t pay any attention to the problem and it will go away - so is the public being reassured by the prestigious NCI ostrich with its huge posterior sticking out of the sand. Your are only delaying the day when your professional dishonesty will be exposed by a presently complicit media and the fallout will be disastrous for cancer societies in general. Their history of deceit on this issue will have reduced their fund raising capability to a point where their other, non-ideologically driven research, will suffer tremendously. Women developing breast cancer should have made your institute more compassionate, but sadly it hasn`t. Vulnerable women deserve much better than the condescending attitude your institute offers them by not even listing the possibility of an abortion/breast cancer link. Were breast cancer linked to any other procedure besides abortion, the uproar over your silence would be deafening. The truth will always prevail and so will the reality of your deceit. Thaddée Renault

College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario: Doctor forbidden from practicing medicine except in abortion mills (June 2010)

We Canadians have been informed that one of Henry Morgentaler`s hit men in Ottawa has been forbidden from practicing anywhere except in abortion facilities, following allegations that he failed to maintain an adequate standard of care in one of Henry`s repulsive centers of human wickedness. Here`s how the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons` website puts it: “[He was accused of having] failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession and is incompetent in his care and treatment of Patient `A`, Patient `B` and 23 patients.” As a professional association that is mandated by society to insure the physical wellbeing of its citizens, you appear to have waived this responsibility as far as abortionists are concerned. What is the function of your medical disciplinary committee if not to prevent a woman from trusting her life and health to one of these wash-outs from the leftovers of medicine - who can still practice and prescribe whatever he wants in abortion mills, but only allowed to prescribe Tylenol 2 and 3 elsewhere? It is unconscionable of your College to allow a doctor`s medical incompetence to be kept from a women in any circumstance. Abortion mills, whether or not you wish to admit it, are the chief perpetrators of deceptive medical information to women. The question then becomes: why is it that supposedly honourable men in the revered profession of human medicine continue to afford special status to doctors working in abortion clinics? The stark reality is that the latter are centers essentially focused on the destruction of innocent human life, on the exploitation of women in dire and unusual circumstances, and on robbing men of their fatherhood? Canadians truly resent you favoured treatment of abortionists like Dr. Fabisiak. They are unquestionably the most violent people on earth - just ask aborted babies. Thaddée Renault

Ontario College of Pharmacists/ Ontario Information and Privacy Commission - Morning-after pill (December, 2005)

Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner, As your name is mentioned in my letter to the Canadian Pharmacists Association, I believe you should receive a copy. Thaddée Renault Ontario College of Pharmacists Dear Board members, How can one describe a body of supposedly competent professionals who agree to dispense Plan B, a drug known to carry serious health risks to women - especially young girls - without first taking a complete medical history? “Terribly irresponsible” is what immediately springs to my mind. You obviously took your cue from Ontario`s privacy commissioner Ann Cavoukian`s clueless assertion that screening women for their sexual history before dispensing the drug was a violation of their privacy. It`s evident this woman - certainly not the sharpest tool in her Commission`s shed - is pursuing a personal agenda of gender empowerment. But, at least, she should be given credit for having an agenda she believes in and the backbone to exercise it. Can`t say the same, however, for an association of spineless medical personnel whose historic motto DO NO HARM has now been rewritten by post-modern pharmacists to mean WHATEVER FEMINISTS WANT, FEMINISTS GET! The dangerous medical consequences to women of taking this high dose of a steroid hormone some say 50 times the dose of a daily birth control pill are obviously being deliberately overlooked by you and the Canadian Pharmacists Association. The potential long term impact of these high hormone doses, especially when ingested repeatedly, is very troubling and is not being properly addressed by you and the ACP. Your ideological stance is comparable to doctors readily prescribing Depo Provera as birth control for native women. This despite experts who worry about the drug possibly irreversible side effect of bone density reduction and the fostering of other ailments, including drastic weight gain, depression and hemorrhage. A survey conducted on 25 native women by a member of the Tseshaht First Nation, on Vancouver Island, found half of them on Depo-Prover - some only in their teens, taking a drug that could permanently weaken their bones. I also read this headline in a MSNBC/Reuters report concerning this injectable contraceptive: "Contraceptive may triple STD risk; Study: Depo Provera increases chance of chlamydia, gonorrhea". I`d say this raises a very disturbing question concerning the ethics doctors and other medical care providers like the ACP now subscribe to: Has Canada and other nations, by shipping tens of millions of doses of Depo-Provera to Africa and other parts of the developing world, been facilitating the spread of AIDS and other STDs? I would without any hesitation says yes. I also want to remind you people that the common description of Plan B as “emergency contraception” fails to accurately describe its abortifacient action and is misleading the public. Undeniably, these chemicals can cause abortions by destroying growing embryos, and, through over the counter availability, women would be denied even this basic knowledge. The confusion/deceit is aggravated here by the recent medieval attempt to re define pregnancy as occurring after implantation. I don`t really know if we`re reading the same scientific literature, but seems to me there are important findings you seem to be unaware of or - worse - deliberately ignoring to please your feminists constituents. In addition to the proven abortifacient action of Plan B, there are terrible risks in making this powerful drug available over the counter with no age restrictions or parental involvement. Here are some of the most obvious ones:  The progestin only hormonal contraceptive in Canada`s morning-after pill is the same active ingredient found in Norplant, which is no longer available for use in various countries because it is so dangerous. Known risks I`ve found include significant weight gain, ovarian cyst enlargement, gallbladder disease, high blood pressure and respiratory disorders. Is ACP not concerned that the dose of morning-after pills is much more powerful than the daily dose of progestin known to affect blood vessels.  Among teenagers, some of these common side effects could result in strokes, blood clots and an increased rates of bulimia, anorexia, clinical depression, and cervical cancer in women already infected with human papillomavirus. Also, an increased risk of ectopic pregnancy has been associated with use of Plan B type emergency contraception. Why, in Heaven`s name, would pharmacists want to mount such a blatant chemical assault on women and their unborn children - an onslaught insulting your trusted profession and that of doctors?  Since obtaining the drug precludes parental involvement, it is likely that teenage girls who buy morning-after pills at the drugstore and then experience abdominal pain may not confide in parents so that a physician could diagnose if a life threatening ectopic pregnancy had occurred. Over the counter approval would mean that young people would be free to purchase and use (abuse) this powerful hormone without supervision or follow up.  The drug was approved for over the counter use fairly recently in Australia. Already there are reports in the Australian press of 13 year old girls buying the pill several times a week to the alarm of local pharmacists who are not able to give proper counseling to these girls on the many risks involved. The Australian Medical Association is already questioning the wisdom of making this risky drug so easily available without restriction. (See The West Australian, 4/4/04)  Now that over the counter availability of this drug is approved, we may also expect that rates of sexually transmitted diseases among teens will shoot way up. (I couldn`t find matching figures for Canada, but adolescents aged 15 19 currently represent 46% of all cases of Chlamydia in the U.S.) In Washington State and in Sweden, where emergency contraception has been made widely available, rates of STD infection are zooming. It appears that our Canadian pharmacists, obstetricians and gynaecologists have overlooked the last 30 years of statistics on STDs in teens - when they should be doing all they can to reduce them, not encourage more cases among their patients.  We can also expect an increase in the rates of sexual violence committed against adolescent girls. The easy availability of this drug over the counter will make it more difficult for teenage girls to resist pressure to have sex, and will trivialize the act of rape.  Over the counter availability of the morning-after-pill will lead to an increase in the pregnancy rate among teenagers. The use studies with this drug suggest that many will use it as a primary method of birth control, yet the drug has not been adequately tested for long-term or frequent use. Several studies have already shown that increased rates of pregnancy occur among teens with increased use of emergency contraception. Others show that teenagers whose pregnancies ended in induced abortion were more likely to have used the drug before conception, and that teens who use the drug were more willing to engage in "risk taking" behaviour. Not a pretty picture, one has to admit. But one, nevertheless, that doesn`t seem to deter medical watchdogs like the Canadian Pharmacists Association and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada in their ideologically driven disregard for the health of our treasured daughters and granddaughters. Even realizing that Barr Labs and Paladin Labs, which own Plan B, can`t even produce studies proving that the morning-after pill is safe for adolescents, they still insist on pushing this dangerous drug on our kids. It`s unbelievably sad to see the disease of political correctness choking the once respected voices of Health Canada, the Canadian Pharmacists Association, the Canadian Medical Association and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Like Canadians in general, our feminist driven medical community recognizes the unhealthy effect on behaviour of promoting smoking, yet it refuses to believe that easy access to the morning-after pill would affect sexual behaviour, particularly among adolescents. It is ideological blindness to understand how positive images of smoking may encourage kids to smoke, but not recognize that easy access to the morning-after pill would encourage teens to engage in sexual activity that puts their health and lives at great risk. The Canadian Pharmacists Association and medical professionals in general are promoting dangerous public policy that could result in widespread distribution of mega doses of hormones to girls and women without physician oversight or parental supervision for children. Women deserve much better than this guinea pig type of treatment. Mortgaging their long term health in this manner is just plain morally wrong. So, what`s behind Canadian pharmacists` twisted thinking on the morning-after pill? Thaddée Renault

Canadian Psychological Association - Post Abortion Syndrome (November, 2006)

Before engaging in what hopefully could be a fruitful dialogue, I felt I should find out your professional association`s raison d`être. This is the mission statement I found on your well organized website and which bears repeating: “To improve the health and welfare of all Canadians; to promote excellence and innovation in psychological research, education, and practice; to promote the advancement, development, dissemination, and application of psychological knowledge; and to provide high-quality services to members.” Your current president also rightly professed his belief that, as psychologists, CPA members have a duty to contribute towards the understanding and solving of important societal problems. One of those enormous problems for well over a generation now has been the number of Canadian women who have - against their natural instinct - very reluctantly submitted themselves (and their femininity) to abortion. Conventional wisdom would indicate that since 1969 when abortion on demand was legislated - and over 2 million abortions have been performed - some major indication as to their psychological impact on these women would have been arrived at. Incredibly, little or no attention was devoted during all that period to what anyone - particularly psychologists - would consider an “important societal problem.” One would assume that the politically correct climate, which has prevailed in Canada since abortion was legitimized by the radical feminist chattering class, would have a lot to do with the apparent decision to ignore this vital question. This negligent attitude on the part of the CPA has put us in an unusual situation vis a vis other developed nations of providing women considering abortion with little health related research. It even makes one wonder whether the deafening silence is deliberate or comes from an inability to keep up with the scientific literature at hand. The latter would be inexcusable. My personal tracking of what scientific studies say about post-abortion trauma on aborted women and their families have convinced me that CPA has led them down the garden path. It is unconscionable that your members would not be concerned about the types of complications following abortion that have been widely reported in scientific literature: 1) A study sponsored by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, in 2001 showed that 41,000 women who had abortions had five times the number of hospital admissions for psychiatric problems, compared to a similar number of women who had no abortion. This was a short-term study done at three months, and did not deal with long-term effects of abortion. 2) A study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in 2003 showed an increase number of psychiatric admissions among lower-income women who had induced abortions. 3) A Finnish study of the records of 600,000 women showed a six-fold increase in suicides in post-abortion women compared to those with a live birth - three times the incidence of women in general. There are other published studies in Britain and the U.S. showing similar findings. 4) And now, this definitive study done in New Zealand and published in the January edition of the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry indicating that young women who have had abortions exhibit twice the level of mental health problems, and three times the risk of depression, as those who had given birth or never been pregnant. The medical establishment recognizes the magnitude of the problem ignored by the psychiatric and psychology professions. Witness the October letter sent to the Times of London by 15 prominent health specialists. The group included a past president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Others were some of the top general practitioners, psychiatrists and obstetricians and gynecologists in the country. They asked the official bodies regulating obstetricians and psychiatrists to revise their guidance on abortion as it pertains to mental health in young women. They did so in these unambiguous terms: "Since women having abortions can no longer be said to have a low risk of suffering from psychiatric conditions such as depression, doctors have a duty to advise about long term adverse psychological consequences of abortion." The time is long past when an influential association like yours should be giving the impression that abortion is benign. It would be criminal negligence on CPA`s part to further keep ignoring the evidence of their irresponsibility towards women considering abortion. Thaddée Renault

Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada - Morning after pill (May 2006)

I was told some years ago by then Executive Vice-President, Dr. André Lalonde, that he did not welcome any further dialogue between us on the question of early abortions. You may want to review some of my correspondence with him and the SOGC to judge for yourself the validity of this refusal to discuss my reservations - and also those of a significant number of Canadians - regarding the Society`s prescription of the ‘morning-after’ pill medication for an essentially non-medical problem. I stated at the time that I couldn`t grasp his rejection of my approach to hormonal emergency contraception. Hopefully, you will accord me the courtesy of reading - and possibly responding to - my letter. Allow me to approach the subject differently and frame my message this way: Doctors are now giving women a pill simply because they are women. Shocking statement, but quite factual! It appears beyond imagination, but doctors will now offer a pill to a woman patient - not because she is sick, or in any danger of becoming sick. No - her friendly gynecologist is simply giving her drugs because she`s a woman. Emulating your ACOG counterpart in the U.S., which opted not to wait for the Food and Drug Administration to approve over-the-counter sales of the ‘morning-after’ pill, you have decided to forego risk studies. Something is awry when an estrogen-containing drug that has been available only by prescription is now available for over-the-counter sale - if sold at a higher concentration. Of course it doesn`t matter that some leading medical experts say that ‘morning-after’ pill doesn`t just prevent pregnancy - it can also kill a child who has already been conceived. Nah, SOGC won`t let informed consent stand in the way of its misguided idea of progressive New Age medicine. My take on this, Dr. Helewa, is that the pro abortion contingent of SOGC is running scared. A large number of pharmacists throughout Canada have said they don`t want to dispense the ‘morning-after’ pill because they have serious moral objections to doling out drugs potentially harmful to women. Has it evolved here, as it already has in the U.S., that every time a woman comes into a gynecologist`s office, SOGC wants the doctor to offer her advance prescriptions of this abortifacient contraceptive. Is it the case in Canada also that gynecologists insist that their women patients take the prescription, even if they say repeatedly that they don`t want it? What in fact is the case in Canada? Doctors routinely tell pregnant women not to take any medication during their pregnancies for fear that it will harm their unborn children. If a pregnant woman can`t take an aspirin, how can doctors assume that it`s safe for her to take the ‘morning-after’ pill overloaded with estrogen? For Ob/Gyns, this pill now seems a simple solution to the countless unplanned pregnancies that occur each year. But the fact of the matter is, Dr. Helewa, a great number of us were the result of unplanned pregnancies - including these doctors now supportive of abortion and a pesticide for early humans. There should be no place in the healing arts for doctors who think nothing of actively dispensing a pill that can kill a woman`s baby and possibly also injuring her. May I ask in closing if SOGC will be willing to pay for a young teenager`s counseling when she discovers that the man who took away her virginity is a sexual predator? Thaddée Renault

Leave a Reply