July 28, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Mary Wagner, the young woman who was jailed earlier this year for entering an abortion clinic and counseling women and abortion workers, has been acquitted of all charges and freed from jail.

Mary Wagner’s mother, Jane Wagner, told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) that she received a call from Mary this morning saying that she had been acquitted, but was unable to provide specific details about the judge’s decision. Attempts to contact Mary have been unsuccessful.

At a hearing earlier this month, the presiding judge in the case had said that Mary could be let out of jail immediately if she agreed to three conditions, one of which was not to stand on the sidewalk in front of the Choice in Health abortion facility, or to enter the building. The young pro-life activist, however, said that she could not agree to this condition, and so was returned to jail pending a further hearing.

While that hearing was originally not set to happen until September, Jane Wagner told LSN that earlier this week Mary’s lawyers told her that the judge had had a “change of heart,” and would hear her case today.

Mary’s path to becoming a prisoner of conscience began on Monday, March 29, during Holy Week, when she entered the "Woman's Care" abortion facility. At that time she said she was able to "speak to a few grieving Dads, whose partners had already gone in for their abortions, and let them know about project Rachael, a support system for post abortion parents."

After about 45 minutes the police arrived and escorted her away from the facility.

On Tuesday, March 30, Mary again went to witness to life, this time to the "Choice in Health" abortion center, where she said she was able to counsel women, abortion workers, and the police for nearly 45 minutes before she was carried away by officers and put in jail.

UVic anti-abortion group gets funding back

Postmedia News July 20, 2010

The University of Victoria has restored its funding to an anti-abortion group after members filed a lawsuit.

Youth Protecting Youth sued the University of Victoria Students' Society this spring after being cut off from club funding since the fall of 2008.

During the summer, the students' society board of directors passed a motion to reinstate Youth Protecting Youth's funding retroactively to 2008, a total of $719. . . .

[Read the whole article online.]

Pro-life Bishop Assassinated and Pro-life Offices
Bombed in Apparent Attempt to Promote Baby-Killing laws in Kenya

[Note the apparent thinly-veiled threat of U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden to withhold funding if abortion is not allowd.]

Kenya's future

Human Life International E-Mail
July 8, 2010

A battle is raging in Kenya over the inclusion of abortion in the new draft of the constitution, which will be voted on August 4, 2010. If the draft is ratified, abortion will be allowed by a loophole in the new constitution's wording.

In March, the Anglican Church of Kenya Archbishop Eliud Wabukala said "We all have said that God values life and life begins at conception. That is a principle and we all seem to have agreed on that aspect." Canon Peter Karanja of the National Council of Churches told Inter Press Service, "Life is sacrosanct. The definition of life must be stipulated in the supreme law of the land, the Constitution."

The Christian Churches of Kenya are standing firm and they are under attack because of their position against making abortion a constitutional right. On June 3, two bombs exploded at a "vote no" rally, killing five and injuring at least seventy-five. Just last Saturday, July 3, Bishop Joseph Segal of The Redeemed Gospel Church, a strong advocate for life and leader in the "vote no" campaign was brutally assassinated in his church.

Kenya has a large Christian majority that is 69% pro-life according to a recent poll. Kenya also has a fertility rate of 4.56 children per woman. The high fertility rate has made Kenya a primary target nation for international population control groups and abortion lobbyists. On March 3, the Center for Reproductive Rights, based in New York, issued a video claiming that keeping abortion illegal threatens the lives of Kenyan women. "Every year, tens of thousands of women in Kenya die or suffer from complications from an unsafe abortion,"(a statistic that is unsupported) and recently Dr. Nehemiah Kimathi of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) urged Members of Kenya's Parliament to drop what little pro-life language remains in the draft.

Earlier this year, Congressman Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska, urged Kenyan lawmakers to retain the protections for the unborn in the constitution. He said, "It is appalling that leaders in Africa are being systematically pressured to slacken their abortion laws in the belief that such a policy prescription leads to 'economic progress.' It is also scandalous that abortion is misleadingly being attributed as 'reproductive health care.'"

Contrast that to a June 9^th speech at the Kenyatta International Conference Center in Nairobi, Kenya at which Vice-President Biden reaffirmed President Barack Obama's support for Kenya's process and said "We are hopeful, Barack Obama is hopeful, I am hopeful that you will carry out these reforms to allow money to flow," Biden further said, "As you prepare to write a new history for your nation, resist those who try and divide you based on ethnicity, or religion, or region and above all, fear." Biden was fully aware that the Catholic Church and Protestant churches are opposing the constitution because of the pro-abortion provision. . . . .

Harper Credited for Keeping Abortion Out of G8 Maternal Health Plan

By Patrick B. Craine

HUNTSVILLE, Ontario, July 5, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - At the G8 meetings in Muskoka on June 25-26, Prime Minister Stephen Harper seems to have held true to his commitment to not fund abortion as part of his "signature initiative" on maternal and child health, but at the same time he endorsed a plan that includes funds for "family planning."

Under the leadership of Prime Minister Harper, the G8 countries announced June 26 that they would be launching the Muskoka Initiative to "accelerate progress" towards improving maternal health and reducing child mortality (MDGs 5 and 4).
The plan aims to enable "key interventions along the continuum of care," from pre-pregnancy to early childhood. It includes, in particular, the provision of "sexual and reproductive health care and services, including voluntary family planning."
The outcome document includes no explicit reference to abortion, but does say that the countries have agreed to "commit to promote integration of HIV and sexual and reproductive health, rights and services within the broader context of strengthening health systems," language which in the past has included abortion.

However, with the explicit exclusion of abortion in the proposal despite all the pressure to include it, it is hoped that abortion will not be funded under the plan. Pro-life activists at the United Nations have credited the Harper government with keeping abortion out of the final document.

Prime Minister Harper first announced plans for the new Muskoka Initiative in January, when he stated that "far too many lives and unexplored futures have already been lost for want of relatively simple health-care solutions," naming clean water, vaccinations, proper nutrition, and trained birth attendants.

He immediately faced intense pressure from the opposition parties, particularly Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, on whether he would fund abortion as part of Canada's contribution. The government initially said that they would not include "family planning," let alone abortion. While they backed down on contraception, they have continued to hold firm on their decision to not fund Third World abortion.

Leading up to the summit, pro-abortion activists and media in Canada sought to paint the government's stand as though it would bring international embarrassment and put the country at odds with the rest of the G8. But from all accounts, abortion was not an issue at the meetings whatsoever, and, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's comments notwithstanding, it was far from clear whether the other countries would even disagree with Canada's approach.

The Globe and Mail reported that of all the news articles coming out of the meeting, only one reported on the position of foreign countries regarding the abortion issue.
"The various G8 countries did not seem to be obsessed with maternal health, in general, and with the question of abortion, in particular," wrote Helene Buzzetti of Le Devoir. "For example, when asked, the Japanese delegates could not say whether they would agree to have their moneys used to finance abortion abroad."
Maria Dalgarno, Campaign Life Coalition's representative at the G8 summit, reported that the Africans she spoke to insisted that women from their continent "do not believe in aborting their children."

She was told by a man named Fernand, for example, who is originally from the Ivory Coast, but now works in Quebec as president of an international development group, that abortion and contraceptive methods are foreign to the African mindset. "More prayer is needed. Much prayer is needed," he said.

Harper announced at the end of the G8 summit that his government is committing $2.85 billion to the initiative over the next five years, which includes $1.1 billion in new funds. Total pledges from the G8 amounted to $5 billion, with $1.3 billion coming from the US in the next two years. Additionally, $2.3 billion have been provided so far by non-G8 countries and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Sharp Rise in Repeat Abortions in England and Wales: Values-Free Sex Ed Blamed

By Hilary White, June 14, 2010

LONDON, June 14, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – New figures showing a rise in the number of multiple abortions among younger women have prompted criticisms of government sex education policies.

A Christian doctor’s group called the statistics “profoundly depressing,” and blamed the government’s longstanding “values-free” sex education.

“It is increasingly clear,” said Dr. Peter Saunders, of the Christian Medical Fellowship, “that abortion is simply being used as a form of contraception by a growing percentage of girls and women, and that tired policies of values-free sex education, condoms and morning-after pills are not working.”

George Pitcher, a liberal Anglican minister and religion editor for the Daily Telegraph, commented that the current approach to dealing with unwanted pregnancies, especially among the young, is failing to take the problem seriously.

“You don't have to be over-cynical to feel that making the likes of Marie Stopes the principal public voice in abortion policy is like appointing a fox as gamekeeper. There needs to be a higher moral imperative than that,” Pitcher wrote.

“Many will continue to look for it from the Catholic Church (and I don't confine that to Roman Catholicism). Finger-wagging from scripture is unlikely to gain a tenacious grip on the young imagination, but there is, none the less, room for teaching on what used to be called sinful, and these days may more readily be understood as human actions having consequences.”

According to Department of Health statistics released late last month, 89 girls aged 17 or under who had an abortion in 2009 had had at least two previous abortions. The figures also showed that for the first time, more than a third (34%) of abortions were repeat abortions.

More than 1,000 women or girls have had at least 5 abortions, with 214 having 6, 70 having 7, and 48 having 8 or more.

Overall, the number of abortions committed in England and Wales fell from 195,296 in 2008 to 189,100 last year, a slight drop of about 3.2%.

While some have highlighted this fall in numbers, it is only the second year in which abortion rates have dropped since 2001. The figures also show that the number of older women having children has increased significantly, while fewer younger women are giving birth.

In recent years, Britain’s abortion rate, which has climbed steadily since legalization in 1967, has alarmed even some pro-abortion MPs and has earned the country the nickname “abortion capital of Europe.”

Tuesday June 15, 2010

GOP House Leader Asks Obama: ‘What Happened to that Abortion Executive Order?’

By John Jalsevac

June 15, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a meeting with President Obama last week, House Republican Leader John Boehner asked for an update about the implementation of the president’s Executive Order (EO), which purports to block abortion funding in the federal health care bill.

The EO was offered by Obama during 11th hour negotiations prior to the final vote on ObamaCare. It proved to be the carrot that convinced Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak and his cadre of pro-life Democrats to cast their crucial votes in favor of the controversial legislation.

But as Boehner staffer Kevin Boland explained on Boehner’s official blog last week: “Abortion opponents widely viewed the EO as a disingenuous maneuver made by the Administration in the final hours of the health care fight to buy off ‘pro-life’ Democrats instead of passing the anti-abortion Stupak amendment, which would have prevented federal subsidies for abortion under ObamaCare.”

In fact, the EO was almost universally condemned as woefully inadequate by pro-life groups. These sentiments were confirmed when Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards issued a statement celebrating the passage of the health care bill and illustrating the abortion-related executive order as a merely "symbolic gesture."

Now there are concerns that whatever meaningful provisions the order does contain may not be implemented in a timely fashion, or at all.

In his meeting with Obama Boehner pointed out that in a recent “progress report” about the implementation of the health care bill, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius made no mention of the order.

According to Michael Steel, spokesman for Boehner's office, "The president indicated that he would provide some kind of an update on the implementation of the executive order."

According to Citizenlink, Steel added that "There is no indication that they are moving in any way to implement the executive order in an effective way or a meaningful way."

“What I fear is that the effect is as we suspected at the time, that there is no effect at all of this executive order."

Boehner had asked once before for an update on the EO, in a May 13 letter to Sebelius. In that letter Boehner asked: “Has the Department provided guidance to states to implement the president’s Executive Order on abortions? When does the Administration expect to issue the directive on abortions? Will the new federal high-risk pools touted by the Administration also ensure that abortions will not be covered?”

Bohner pointed out to Sebelius that “Millions of Americans care deeply about this aspect of the new law and its implementation, and no progress report is complete without detailed information about it.”

Thus far there has been no response to that letter.

[British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life is non-partisan, but the matter raised in the following letter from the Christian Heritage Party transcends party issues.]

An Open Letter to the Attorney General of Ontario from Gordon Truscott [Regarding Linda Gibbons]

[from the Christian Heritage Party, Communiqué Vol 17, No 20 May 18, 2010]

In 2000, I self-published a book entitled, Alone: a grandmother's struggle for life, about the childhood, passion and dedication of Linda Gibbons who for many years has valiantly, yet peacefully, opposed abortion. Today, Linda is in jail in Ontario again for her peaceful protest.

Linda speaks from experience. Her second pregnancy was terminated with an abortion. Today, she has three adult children, several grandchildren and now, a great grandson whom she has yet to see as he was born during her present incarceration.

Linda Gibbons has saved over 100 human lives from Canada's unborn baby slaughterhouse, many of these children of course, totally unaware of their debt to her. She simply spoke one-on-one with their mothers, explaining that if the mother would consent to give birth that she would not have to bear the guilt that Linda does. She tells women what their doctors have usually not told them -- about the complications they might experience after their abortion -- but only to those women willing to give Linda the time to speak. Linda's crime, for which she is in prison, is telling the known and scientifically documented emotional, mental and physical truth of abortion complications.

Canada has killed well over 3,000,000 of its youngest, most vulnerable citizens in the womb. I have yet to meet any woman who can honestly tell me that her abortion has had no adverse physical, emotional or mental effect on her. Why does Canada traffic in the ill health of women?

The cost of providing "free" abortions is staggering. Much more than $50,000,000 of taxpayers' money gets spent each year to procure the more than 100,000 abortions -- to say nothing of the cost of destroying valuable human life and potential as if it were simply unwanted tissue. And who can measure the cost to women haunted by this 'unwanted tissue'? We have no way to measure the heartache, the loss of function, the multitude of complications and the emotional upset to women.

Successive governments, through either lack of desire to stop abortion, or through capricious laws which protect the economic interests of abortionists, have heaped untold damage upon millions of women, while simultaneously restricting the outreach of those, like Linda, who want to offer real help.

To offer hope to women outside an abortion facility is a crime. There is no freedom of speech for anyone to peacefully and respectfully ask women if they wish to speak with someone before having an abortion. Why is this? Why can Canadians not speak freely in the arbitrary zone around abortion facilities? Why has the protection of the economic interests of abortionists been enshrined in law?

Linda's current case will be heard by a panel of three judges on June 2nd and 3rd. It is her appeal against the 'temporary' injunction of 1994 prohibiting anyone from standing in an arbitrary 60-foot zone around an abortion facility. This must be the longest 'temporary' injunction on the books.

When I published my book in 2000, a police officer stated that Linda had already spent more time in prison for her peaceful witness than a person who uses a gun to hold up a variety store. Linda, who has never so much as frowned at a woman contemplating an abortion, let alone blocked her way, has now spent more than seven years in maximum security prisons. In this most recent incarceration, if it ends on June 3rd, Linda will have spent exactly 500 days in jail, due mostly to false charges and abuses of the judicial process.

I call upon the Attorney General for Ontario to investigate and end the heavy-handed treatment this caring woman has received at the hands of the Ontario justice system for the crime of loving Ontario women enough to give them the information that no one else will.

Yours truly,

Gordon Truscott

The CHP invites you to write a letter to the Attorney General for Ontario protesting the treatment of Linda Gibbons at the hands of the Ontario legal system, and to support Linda Gibbons with a letter. Click here for their addresses.

How motherhood stopped being a motherhood issue

Father Raymond J. de Souza, National Post Published: Thursday, May 20, 2010

Motherhood issues are not what they used to be. When Stephen Harper selected maternal and infant health as Canada's signature issue for next month's G8 and G20 meetings, he likely thought it about as controversial as maple syrup. After all, who could be against providing basic hygiene and health care to pregnant women and their babies? For lack of basic medicines and primary health care, women in many poor countries suffer needlessly, as do their infant children. Maternal deaths in childbirth and reductions in infant mortality are among the easiest developmental issues to tackle; a relatively small investment yields significant reductions in lives lost.

So how did such an apparent motherhood issue become mixed up in abortion politics? After all, abortion does not figure to make much of a contribution to maternal and infant health. Abortion is never in the health interest of the infant, after all; and whatever the position taken on abortion, it clearly is not a fruitful path to motherhood. So to fund abortion as a part of a maternal and infant health package is rather like funding smoking as part of a cancer prevention initiative -- the two just don't go together.

Leave aside the politics of the matter, which, after all, in Canada, are strange beyond parody. In the past few months, both sides of the issue have accused their opponents of raising issues that should not be discussed because they are "divisive." The idea that political debate should avoid topics on which there are disagreements is odd, especially when the parties are eager to manufacture disagreement on all other matters, even where none exists.

What drives the hostility to the government's motherhood issue? Motherhood. The heart of the opposition to the initiative is its starting point -- expectant mothers. To a certain cast of mind, considering women as mothers constitutes something of a retrograde step. Hence the objection that helping mothers to have safe deliveries is somehow illegitimate unless similar help is offered to women to avoid becoming mothers at all. . . . .

The issue runs deep, for there exists a great philosophical divide between those who think that advancement for women requires the differences between men and women to be minimized, or even ignored, and those who think that progress for women means advancing women as women, rather than trying to make them more like men. Hence an initiative that seeks to help women become mothers safely and with healthy children quickly becomes something much more than that. It takes one side in the great philosophical debate. . . . .

[Read the whole National Post article.]

British Columbia March for Life 2010

[adapted from a Kelowna Right to Life article]

Victoria March for Life 2010 draws estimated thousands.

Organizers estimate that at least 2500 people came out to take part in the 3rd annual BC March for Life in Victoria on May 13, 2010. Marchers of many ages and ethnic groups streamed down Government Street to the Legislative Buildings on a brilliant afternoon, attracting stares from pedestrians, cat calls from anti-life onlookers, and thumbs-up from supporters. [More] [adapted from a Kelowna Right to Life article]

With the aid of a police escort, the pro lifers thronged Government Street, which was closed to traffic for the thirty- minute walk from Centennial Square. At the legislative building, a number of guest speakers, including Kamloops Bishop Monroe, Jojo Ruba from the Centre for Bioethical Reform, student activist Minerva Macapagal, Rachel Daniels, and Rev. Dr. Robert Fitterer energized the largely youthful crowd. . . . .

Some media personnel could also be seen, including a camera man from the A Channel interviewing event organizer and head of the National Campus Life Network Western division Renee Schmitz, and several photographers. Schmitz was also interviewed on local radio station 1070 am shortly after the march.

Click here for several photos of the March for Life 2010 in Victoria, B.C.

Pictures of the 2010 March for Life and Rally
Taken for BC Parents and Teachers for Life

Photos by Mary Hewlett

Calgary U Finds Pro-Life Students Guilty over Display

CALGARY, Alberta, May 10, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Eight members of the University of Calgary's pro-life club, Campus Pro-Life (CPL), have been found guilty after closed-door hearings late last month over their presentation of a pro-life display on campus, says the group.

U of C's Acting Associate Vice-Provost Meghan Houghton told the students that she was issuing “a formal written warning” that if the students “fail to comply with directives of Campus Security staff in the future” it will “result in more severe sanctions.” Houghton conducted the hearings, at which the students were denied legal representation, and was the sole decision-maker in the guilty verdict.

“We are going to challenge this verdict,” stated Alanna Campbell, CPL President. “We did not break a single University bylaw or regulation and so we will defend ourselves accordingly. We will also not cease exercising our rights to free speech just because they’re threatening us. I’d rather be expelled as a principled person than graduate a coward.”

Last month, after having set up the GAP (Genocide Awareness Project) pro-life display on campus for the ninth time since 2006, members of the group were notified that they were being charged with a ‘Major Violation’ under Section 4.10 of the University of Calgary’s Non-Academic Misconduct Policy. The cited reason was the students’ “failure to comply with a Campus Security officer or University official in legitimate pursuit of his/her duties” when asked to turn their signs inward or leave campus.

In Houghton’s decision, she explained the university’s demands: “Signs that welcomed viewers and signs that identified your group as an anti-abortion display could remain outward facing but signs with the actual content of your display… must face away from walkways… or any other areas in which persons on campus would have little choice but to look at your display.”

“That’s blatant content-based discrimination,” responded Peter Csillag, CPL Vice-President (Internal). “Why weren’t abortion advocates, or Falun Gong supporters, forced to place their messages inwards when they protested on campus? You can’t have debate if everyone is pointed inwards on themselves. As far as I’m concerned, this verdict against us pro-lifers is not legitimate, and it reveals U of C to be an institute of censorship and double standards — not of higher learning.”

In 2006 and 2007, during the first four displays of GAP on campus, the university defended the students’ right to expression under the Charter, but in 2008 the University reversed its policy without explanation.

“This recent hearing and result is just another step in a long history of intimidation and censorship and if they think we’ll step down as the result of it then they’re sorely mistaken,” stated Cameron Wilson, CPL Vice-President (External).

The GAP display compares abortion to past historical atrocities, such as the Rwandan genocide and the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. In 2009, the University charged six students with trespassing in relation to the display, but the Crown Prosecutor stayed these charges prior to a trial scheduled for November of 2009. Since then, members of CPL have been threatened with non-academic misconduct upon each display, but only now has the University carried out its threats, beginning with this formal warning.

“We’ve been informed that there are a lot of possible punishments involved, ranging from warnings to expulsion,” stated Cristina Perri, CPL Secretary. But, she said, “There’s nothing they can do to us individually that compares to what hundreds of unborn children encounter each day in our country.”

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Calgary U to Judge Pro-Life Students in Closed-Door Hearings Today
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10042801.html

Calgary U Students Face Expulsion for Pro-Life Display
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10041903.html

Calgary University Threatens Pro-Life Students with Arrest and Sanctions
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10040902.html

Black hole

By Bishop Fred Henry, Calgary Herald, May 13, 2010

Re: "Campus pro-life group warned," May 10.

I am shocked and dismayed that at the University of Calgary, setting up a pro-life display on campus can end your academic career. Last week, the finding of eight students guilty of a "major violation" of rules governing "non-academic misconduct" -- a category that also includes theft, vandalism, arson, violence and sexual assault -- is nothing short of a bad joke and an assault on freedom of speech. Would someone associated with the U of C officially explain the reasoning as to how and/or why censoring the peaceful expression of opinion on campus is one of the duties of campus security? The freedom to inquire, speak, publish, debate and so forth is valuable as a means or condition for the creation and authentic appropriation of knowledge, for its preservation and for its transmission to others. . . . .

Read the whole comment in Calgary Herald online.

The truth about abortion polling

[April 6, 2010].

Brian Lilley

Well that's it, Canadians are pro-choice when it comes to abortion. That's what Ekos is telling me from their poll released last Thursday. Ekos released its poll on the issue in response to two different issues, the ongoing maternal health debate on abortion as part of Canada's foreign aid program and the competing poll for the Manning Centre, which finds that Canadians view abortion morally wrong.

The implication that Canadians are pro-choice is that the general population would agree with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her call for Canada to include abortion as part of the program to save the lives of mothers and children in the third world. Not necessarily. Another poll by Harris-Decima shows Canadians are split on this issue with 46% saying yes but 48% saying no.

Does this mean Canadians are more pro-life than pro-choice?

It is hard to make firm a judgement of where Canadians stand on this issue because 1.) we don't normally have discussions about it in our national politics or national media and 2.) from examining several polls, asking different questions about abortion, it is safe to say Canadians have mixed views.

The Manning Centre, a conservative group, asked the question is abortion morally wrong and 74% said yes (60% strongly agree, 14% somewhat). What Ekos asked is "Thinking about your general views on abortion, would you say you are more pro-life or pro-choice?" The result, 52% said pro-choice and 27% said pro-life. Neither of these polls negates the other especially when you think of how many people would say, "Well, I find abortion wrong but I would not want to impose my view on others."

Let's add another poll to the mix.

Environics Research has been conducting a poll for the last 7 years on behalf of Life Canada. The questions have been fairly consistent and a representative from Environics assures me, with quite a bit of indignation, that they do not "throw the poll" in favour of the client paying for it. In October 2009, the latest telephone survey of 2002 Canadians found that only 34% of Canadians agree with the status quo on abortions in Canada.

The exact question asked was "In your opinion, at what point in human development should the law protect human life? Should it be ...? The option of "From the point of birth" was selected by 34% while 30% said "From conception on." In the middle of the pack 17% said, that the law should protect human life, "After three months of pregnancy" and 8% chose "After six months of pregnancy" and 11% did not know or refused to answer. The poll also finds that, with the exception of cases of rare cases, abortion should be paid for with private tax dollars, not by the public health care system as it is now.

Like the Ekos survey comparing the pro-choice/pro-life answer over the course of 10 years, the responses to Evironics surveys since 2002 have been quite consistent.

So if we put all four polls together what we find is that Canadians likely find abortion to be morally wrong, something they think should be restricted at some point before birth, something that should receive limited public financing, something that should remain legal and a true hot button issue as to whether Canada should fund abortions overseas.

What we currently have in Canada or have had is a policy that is completely different. Abortion is legal right up until the point that the baby takes its own breath, independent of the mother, the best estimates are that of the nearly 100,000 abortions in Canada each year, 5,000 or so are in the last trimester. In all provinces but New Brunswick, abortion is funded entirely by the public health system even when performed in private clinics like the one that sits a block and a half from Parliament Hill. Canadians, as Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has been reminding us lately, have been funding abortions overseas for 25 years or more through foreign aid grants.

[Read the whole article on-line.]

Lorne Gunter on Hedy Fry: Willing to debate anyone who agrees with her on abortion

May 05, 2010, by Lorne Gunter

My friend and colleague, David Frum, once wrote that liberals all claim to be in favour of lively debate and free speech, then are constantly surprised when anyone takes these claims at face value. So convinced are liberals of the wisdom of their own positions, they cannot conceive how other intelligent people would disagree with them, thus their belief that the major topics of the day are all "settled."

They're in favour of free speech and vigorous debate because they're sure they will never be challenged. Case in point: Vancouver Centre Liberal MP Hedy Fry.

During last week's raucous debate in the House of Commons over whether abortion funding should be part of Ottawa's maternal and child health plan for developing nations, Dr. Fry insisted she would debate anyone, anywhere on the subject of abortion, but then reassured the Commons such a debate would never be necessary because when it comes to abortion policy in Canada, the debate is settled, there's no need to reexamine it. She's got all her index cards with talking points at the ready, but she isn't even going to bother dusting them off. . .

. . .someone has already stepped forward to take up Dr. Fry's anyone-anywhere debate offer -- Stephanie Gray of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform. Ironically, Ms. Gray is a former patient of Dr. Fry's, or at least her mother was when she was pregnant with Stephanie. Don't hold your breath about seeing these two duke it out soon, though. Offers such as Dr. Fry's are seldom meant; they are made safe in the knowledge they will never have to be followed through on.

Press Release and Open Letter to Hedy Fry

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Former Patient takes up Challenge by Member of Parliament to Debate Abortion

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Former Patient takes up Challenge by Member of Parliament to Debate Abortion Dr. Hedy Fry, Member of Parliament, says she is ready to debate abortion with anyone

May 4, 2010. Calgary. In response to Dr. Hedy Fry's claim that the abortion debate is unnecessary in Canada, one of her former patients is publicly challenging her to discuss the issue - a patient cared for by Dr.

Fry in-utero and beyond.

Yesterday, Fry, Member of Parliament from Vancouver Centre, stated that she was ready to debate abortion with anyone but that the debate was not necessary in Canada ( http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/05/abortion-the-debate-about-the-debate.html ).

"She obviously hasn't paid attention to what's going on at universities recently," said Stephanie Gray, executive director of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR). Gray cited student groups across the country engaging in the debate: "Pro-life students are being censored, banned and even charged for trespassing on their own schools," said Gray.

"That doesn't sound like a dead debate to me."

Gray said she herself, and members of her staff, have faced great resistance from abortion advocates attempting to shut their presentations down-and even successfully doing so at some schools. But this doesn't discourage her.

"The fact that we're being invited to speak at schools at all means that the debate isn't over. There's a growing movement of young people who are saying that it is undemocratic for Canadians of one generation to close the debate on such an important topic for all Canadians."

Gray, whose own mother was a patient of Dr. Fry when she was pregnant with her, says a new generation of Canadians who weren't old enough to vote when abortion was debated in the 1980's, are demanding that their voice be heard now.

"If Dr. Fry is truly prepared to debate anyone on abortion then I would be glad to take her up on that challenge," said Gray. "The fact that there are people of my generation who are willing and able to talk about the great injustice happening to the unborn means that the debate is not only necessary but that it something Canadians want to hear."

Gray said she sent Fry's office an invitation for her to participate in a public debate and will await her response.

For more information, please contact:

Stephanie Gray, 403-200-0777 (cell) or sgray@unmaskingchoice.ca

OPEN LETTER

May 4, 2010

Dr. Hedy Fry

Member of Parliament

Vancouver-Centre

Dear Dr. Fry,

I read the May 3 CBC report, "Abortion: The debate about the debate"

(http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/05/abortion-the-debate-about

-the-debate.html)

where it referenced you saying, "Fry says she has all her arguments ready and is set to debate anyone on the topic, but she feels it's unnecessary."

I am also aware that in 2008 you were willing to do a debate on abortion at the UBC medical school but the event never went ahead.

I am therefore asking if you'd be willing to debate me in a public forum about abortion?

As a representative of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR), I have been speaking and traveling across the country on abortion for over

8 years, which includes many formal debates. In my experience the abortion debate is very alive. And yet, I was intrigued by the aforementioned CBC report that, when reporting on your feeling that the debate is unnecessary, said, "Because the question in Canada is settled; so there's no need to re-examine it."

From Memorial University in Newfoundland to the University of Victoria, pro-life students are reopening the abortion debate on university campuses and are getting national attention for their work. The fact that abortion advocates at those schools feel it is necessary to ban, censor or even threaten with arrest, students for simply protesting abortion or holding debates on abortion tells me that the debate is far from finished. There is a need to re-examine it.

As the former minister for the Status of Women and a medical doctor, I know that you are well aware that in Canada 1 in 4 pregnancies end in abortion. Moreover, Canadian taxpayers pay for those abortions. In other words, we are all affected by this issue. This is why it is surprising that you would feel the debate is unnecessary.

However, I am glad to know that you are also more than ready to debate anyone on the abortion issue.

When my mom was pregnant with me, you were her medical doctor. And in that sense, and after my birth, you were my doctor too. You may not have been aware then, but the pro-life values of my parents are ones that I advocate now and I would be glad to take you up on your offer of a debate.

I would be glad to participate in an uncensored discussion over abortion with you.

For your convenience, perhaps you'd be interested in debating at the University of British Columbia, where I graduated from.

Please feel free to contact us so we can work out the details.

Sincerely yours,

Stephanie Gray

Executive Director

-30-

Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR) Box 123, 5-8720 Macleod Trail SE Calgary, AB, T2H 0M4

403-668-0485 (office)

403-539-2227 (fax)

See it. Believe it. Change it. http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca

Check us out on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/Canadiancbr

Regional Marches for Life Set to Go Across Canada - Complete List

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

May 5, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - More and larger Marches for Life are taking place in cities across Canada this year to coincide with the annual National March for Life in Ottawa on May 13.

Intended for those who want to make a pro-life statement but do not have the time or resources to make the trek to Ottawa, these regional marches take place in nearly every province and, like the National March for Life, have seen an increase in participation every year.

From west to east, the following cities are hosting a March for Life this year:

VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA: the B.C. third annual March for Life takes place on May 13. The day will start with noon Mass at St. Andrew’s Cathedral. Then participants will make their way to Centennial Square in downtown Victoria. At 2 p.m. they will march to the B.C. Legislature down Government Street. After the march, musicians will entertain participants until the speakers take to the microphone.

“The March for Life is an opportunity for all who believe in the sanctity of human life to stand together and publicly proclaim it,” said Michele Smillie of the Archdiocese of Vancouver’s Respect Life Office.

This year’s event is being co-sponsored by the B.C. and Yukon Knights of Columbus, Burnaby Pro-Life Society, Campaign Life Coalition B.C., Chilliwack Pro-Life Society, Nelson Pro-Life Society, Elk Valley Pro Life, Surrey-Delta Pro Life, and Right to Life, Rossland.

EDMONTON, ALBERTA: The third annual March for Life in Edmonton is set for Thursday, May 13. Events begin with a prayer vigil at St. Joseph Basilica (113 Street and Jasper Avenue) on May 12, beginning at 8:30 p.m. until 9:30 a.m. May 13, followed by a pro-life Mass at 10:30 a.m. with Archbishop Richard Smith presiding.

A protestant prayer service will take place on May 13 at 10:00 a.m. at the Inglewood Christian Reform Church (12330 -113 Avenue), with Pastor John Ooms presiding.

The rally will begin at 1:00 p.m. at the Legislative Grounds with the March beginning at 1:30. The Knights of Columbus will lead the March from the steps of the Legislature to Churchill Square and return. Speakers will address participants at both the Legislature and at Churchill Square.

For more information, email the Alberta March for Life Association: coeli@telusplanet.net or donna.clarkson@shaw.ca

REGINA, SASKATCHEWAN: Regina's third annual March for Life will take place on May 6 at the Saskatchewan Legislature.

The event will start with a Catholic Mass at 10:00 a.m. at Christ the King Church, 3239 Garnet Street, and a prayer service at Grace Lutheran Church, 1037 Victoria Ave., also at 10:00.a.m. Those attending the prayer service are asked to be at Christ the King by 11:00 a.m. for the short walk to the Saskatchewan Legislature.

Events at the Legislature begin at 11:30 a.m.

Speakers will include Jerry and Donna Kristian, founders of St. Therese Institute of Faith and Mission in Bruno, SK, Michael Martorana, who will be speaking about his experiences with the Genocide Awareness Project, and representatives from Sask. Chapter of Silent No More Awareness Campaign.

Inspiring music and a high energy presentation geared towards evangelization and healing will be presented by international award winning singer/songwriter, Lorraine Hartsook.

The Board of Directors of Saskatchewan Pro-Life encourage everyone to attend and let the entire province know that there are many concerned citizens who want to promote the growth of Saskatchewan by protecting the lives of the most vulnerable, our unborn babies.

For more information please contact: Saskatchewan Pro-Life Association Inc. at (306) 352-3480; Toll free: 1 888-842-7752; Fax: (306) 352-3481 or E-mail: spla@sasktel.net

SASKATOON, SASKATCHEWAN: The annual March for Life Mother’s Day Walk in Saskatoon is set for May 9.

Information is available from Campaign Life Coalition Saskatchewan president Denise Hounjet-Roth at (306) 249-2764, Fax (306) 249-4180 or by email at dhounjet@shaw.ca

WINNIPEG, MANITOBA: Winnipeg’s March for Life is scheduled for Thursday, May 13, starting at 6:00 p.m. at the historical site, The Forks, and proceeding about a kilometer to the grounds of the provincial legislature.

Special guest speaker will be Archbishop Albert LeGatt of St. Boniface.

The Winnipeg March is organized by the Manitoba Knights of Columbus with invaluable help from Campaign Life Coalition Manitoba, the Catholic Women’s League, the League for Life in Manitoba and the Winnipeg League for Life.

Organizers told LifeSiteNews that this year's March has been promoted and advertised throughout the province, so they hope to see well over 1000 participate.

For more information, contact the Knights of Columbus’s pro-life chairman, Guy Precourt, at (204) 663-8022 or e-mail mbstkc@mts.net.

OTTAWA, ONTARIO: Ontario is home to the National March for Life in the nation's capital of Ottawa on May 13. For more information click here.

QUEBEC CITY, QUEBEC: Campaign Life Quebec is organizing a conference in Quebec City with the theme, "A Struggle for the soul of Quebec: two visions of marriage and family" on May 15. (See article: Theme for Campaign Life Quebec 2010 Annual Conference Revealed)

FREDERICTON, NEW BRUNSWICK: The 10th annual March for Life takes place at the NB Legislature on May 13.

The rally gets under way at 11:30 a.m. and will be followed by a walk to the Mother and Child House, where a prayer vigil will take place. A reception will then be held at the Msgr. Boyd Family Center.

The March in Fredericton is co-sponsored by NB Right to Life, the Catholic Women’s League (NB) and the Knights of Columbus (NB). Last year more than 400 attended, as well as 18 MLAs.

Organizer Peter Ryan told LifeSiteNews that the rally is “not so much a protest as a witness to God’s love for every child and mother. Families and young people are strongly encouraged to participate."

Ryan noted that Bishop Robert Harris attended the 2009 event in Fredericton and is expected to be present once again.

Scheduled speakers include Baptist Pastor Bob Emrich, a pro-life leader in Maine; Christian activist Heather Hughes, and pro-life mother Cathy Jensen. Gyles and Marlilyn Baisley will sing a pro-life song.

For further information call NB Right to Life at 1-888-796-9600.

HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA: The March for Life will begin at 12 noon on Thursday, May 13 at Province House, on Granville Street in Halifax.

Ellen Chesal, Executive Director of Campaign Life Coalition Nova Scotia, told LifeSiteNews that a candlelight prayer vigil will be held in front of the Victoria General Hospital on South Park St. the evening before the March (Wednesday, May 12th) at 8 p.m.

Guest speakers at the March will include Pam Churchill, director of Tri-County Pregnancy Center in Yarmouth who has special training in Post-Abortion Counselling, and Jennifer Derwey, a young mother of two girls age 2 and 4, and a recent member of Feminists for Life of America, Real Women of Canada and board member of Campaign Life Coalition, NS.

ST. JOHN'S, NEWFOUNDLAND-LABRADOR: The St. John’s March for Life takes place on Thursday, May 13, at 12:30 on Confederation Hill, the seat of the provincial government. Spokesman for Pro-Life Newfoundland, Patrick Hanlon, said participants should gather in the east parking lot of the Confederation Building.

For more information, call: (709) 726-5012 or (709) 697-6701 or e-mail: pjkh@nl.rogers.com.

REAL Women of Canada Alert Re G-8 Summit to be Held in Ontario June 25th & 26th, 2010

REAL Women of Canada

“Women Building a Better Society”

NGO in SPECIAL consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations

May 4, 2010

A L E R T

G-8 Summit

Huntsville, Ontario

June 25-26, 2010

Maternal Health Care Proposal

REAL Women would be grateful if you could be of assistance in regard to the upcoming G-8 Summit which is to be held in Huntsville, Ontario on June 25^th and June 26^th, 2010.

Background

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, as President of the G-8 this year, stated in January 2010, that maternal health care would be a priority at the G-8 meeting. He has stated that maternal health would include only positive assistance to women and children, which includes clean water, inoculations and better nutrition, as well as the training of health workers to care for women and deliver babies.

Canadian feminists and population control groups, however, have now formed an organization called “White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood” headed by Maureen McTeer, wife of the former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister, Joe Clark (1979-1980). They are lobbying the members of the G-8 countries to include sexual and reproductive health and rights, i.e., abortion, in the proposed maternal health care plan.

They are currently circulating a 13-page “Call to Action: Maternal and Child Health at the G-8 Summit”. This document is being distributed to development, human rights and feminist organizations around the world in the hope that the latter will pressure their respective governments to keep “sexual and reproductive health and rights” in the Summit’s agenda, so as to facilitate abortion, i.e., a population control policy in developing countries.

Maternal Health and Abortion

The UN World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank, and the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) have repeatedly asserted that access to abortion reduces maternal mortality, which they claim has not decreased in decades.

However, the leading British Medical Journal Lancet, in April 2010, reported that maternal mortality has decreased an average of 35% globally since 1980 and that the UN agencies have significantly overstated maternal mortality rates.

The study in Lancet cites the increasing availability of basic medical care, including “skilled birth attendants” – people with some medical training to help women give birth, as one of the reasons for the decline in maternal mortality.

To include abortion in the G-8 proposal is to impose western values and practices on developing nations, contrary to their culture and religion. Such a policy correctly can be described as elitist western imperialism in imposing population control under the guise of maternal health.

The G-8 countries are: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, the United States, and, in addition, the European Union. (It has a total of nine participating members – but it’s still referred to as the G-8.)

The G-8 link is as follows, http://g8.gc.ca/home

REAL Women would be grateful if you could be of assistance in regard to this upcoming G-8 Summit by forwarding this Alert to your family members, friends, churches, service organizations.

It would be appreciated if you and your contacts would write to the G-8 members, expressing concern, and requesting that abortion not be included in the maternal health care proposal.

The names, addresses, fax numbers and email addresses of the G-8 officials are listed below. Unfortunately, the list does not necessarily include all the faxes and email addresses. Where no email address is available, there is included the web mail address which normally includes a “contact us” section with a pop up email form.

The addresses are as follows:

France:

President

President Nicolas Sarkozy

Elysee Palace

55 rue du faubourg Saint-Honoré
75700 Paris France

Fax: 011 331 47 422 465

Use this link to access e-mail.

Foreign Minister

Mr. Bernard Kouchner

Minister of Foreign & European Affairs

244, boulevard Saint-Germain
75006 Paris France

Fax: 011 331 3705 2739

Email: yves.mabin@diplomatie.gouv.fr

Germany:

Chancellor

Chancellor Angela Merkel

Federal Chancellery Willy-Brandt-Straße 1
10557 Berlin, Germany

Fax: 011 49 304000 1850

Use this link to access e-mail.

Foreign Minister

Dr. Guido Westerwelle

FDP parliamentary group
Platz der Republik 1
11011 Berlin

Fax: 011 030 22 776 562

Email: guido.westerwelle@bundestag.de

Italy:

Prime Minister

Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi

Presidenze del Consiglio dei Ministri

Palazzo Chigi

Piazza Colonna 370

00187 Roma, Italy

Fax: 011 39 0667 793543

Foreign Minister

Mr. Franco Frattini

Minister of Foreign Affairs

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Piazzale della Farnesina, 1
00135 Rome Italy

Fax: 011 39 06 3691 2006

Email: segr-co@cert.esteri.it

Japan:

President

Senate President Satsuki Eda

The Democratic Party of Japan Headquarters
1-11-1 Nagata-cho
Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 100-0014
Japan

Fax: 011 81 3 3595 7318

Use this link to access e-mail: http://www.dpj.or.jp/english/contact.html

Foreign Minister

Mr. Katsuya Okada

Minster of Foreign Affairs

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Kasumigaseki 2-2-1,

Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo

100-8919, Japan.

Fax: 011 81 3 5501 8430

E-mail: Webmaster@Katsuya.net

Russia:

President

President Dmitry Medvedev

Ilinka Str, No 23

103132 Moscow, Russia

Fax: 011 7 495 606 0766

Use this link to access e-mail: Eng.kremlin.ru/articles/send_letter_Eng1a.shtml

Foreign Minister

Sergey Lavrov

Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

32/34 Smolenskaya-Sennaya pl.,

119200, Moscow G-200 Russia

Fax: 011 7 499 244 4112

Email: dip@mid.ru

United Kingdom:

A national election is to be held in the UK on Thursday, May 6^th. There is a strong possibility that the present Labour government will be defeated. Consequently the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister will change under a new government.

Prime Minister

Prime Minister Gordon Brown

10 Downing Street

London England SW1A2AA

Fax: 011 442079250918

Use this link to access e-mail: https://email.number10.gov.uk/Contact.aspx

Foreign Secretary

Right Honourable David Miliband

Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

King Charles Street

London England

SW1A 2AH

Fax: 011 44 207 008 2144

Email: milibandd@parliament.uk

U.S.A.:

President

President Barack Hussein Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.

Washington, DC 20500 USA

Fax: 202 456 2461

Email: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Secretary of State

Mrs. Hillary Clinton

Secretary of State

U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520 USA

Fax: 202 647 1579

Email: secretary@state.gov

European Council:

(The European Council is the institutuion responsible for determining the political direction of the European Union.)

Mr. Herman Van Rompuy

President European Council

Rue de la Loi, Wetstraat, 175
B-1048 Brussels Belguim

Fax: 011 32-2 281 73 97

Email: ec.president@consilium.europa.eu

Ms Catherine Ashton

High Representative of the European Union

for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy

Rue de la Loi 175,
B-1048 Brussels

Fax: 011 32 2295 19 15

Email: COMM-SPP-HRVP-ASHTON@ec.europa.eu

European Commission:

(The European Commission is one of two legislative bodies of the European Union, the other being the European Parliament.)

Mr. José Manuel Barroso

President of the European Commission

Rue do la Loi Wetstraat 200 1049 Brussels,

Kingdom of Belgium

Fax: 011 32 2298 8160

Email: Jose-manuelbarroso@ec.europa.eu

BC Hospitals Refuse to Release Abortion Data

By Patrick B. Craine

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, April 29, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Two BC hospitals have refused to divulge information about abortions conducted at their facilities, following a freedom of information request from a major pro-life group.

“If abortion statistics are going to be hidden in British Columbia, they will be hidden everywhere,” said John Hof, head of Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) BC, which requested abortion information from Vancouver General Hospital and Kelowna General Hospital over a year ago. “What better way to win an argument – 'Oh, how can you prove that? There's no counting of those numbers'.”

CLC has fought for years to gain access to abortion statistics in British Columbia, following the enactment of Bill 21 in 2001, which amended the province's Freedom of Information Act to specifically exclude access to information about abortion.

After the hospitals refused their request last year, citing Bill 21, Hof and his colleague Ted Gerk initiated applications for the information through the BC Office of Information and Privacy. They are using a 'public interest override' in the privacy legislation, arguing that the release of the information is in the public interest and should not be withheld.

They began the process a year ago and were preparing for hearings in May and June, but this week, Hof said, they were “blindsided” by last minute petitions from the hospitals to cancel the proceedings. The hospitals appealed to section 56 of the Freedom of Information Act, claiming that it is “plain and obvious that the records sought by the Applicant will not be disclosed.”

“We believe it's an orchestrated effort to litigate us out of the process,” said Hof.

Hof and Gerk had each made separate applications against the hospitals, to Vancouver and Kelowna respectively. But Hof said that “it's not a coincidence that within three minutes both of these public bodies applied for an exemption."

Hof also said they are “absolutely astounded” that these public bodies are using “such a steel-trap loophole to try and prevent information that the public really needs to know from getting out. They just don't want anyone to know.”

“What are they hiding? Why don't they want the information out?” he asked. “Taxpayers are paying for these abortions. Shouldn't we know how many there are? From an accounting perspective, how do we know we're not being overcharged and that people are billing for abortions that aren't being done? If the type of obfuscation that is being applied on the abortion procedure were applied to other medical procedures, it would be unacceptable.”

Prior to the passage of Bill 21, pro-life researchers were able to expose the abortion bias of the BC government through Freedom of Information requests. For example, they were able to learn details about a special government committee called The Abortion Services Working Group, which enabled cabinet ministers to meet with abortion activists. They were also able to discover, while investigating the death of a woman following an abortion at Vancouver General Hospital, that 15 babies had survived abortion between 1995 and 1998, but then died later.

“The public needs to know that there is some accountability going on in the government for the number of abortions that are being done in BC,” said Hof. “Even Statistics Canada cannot report the number of abortions being done in British Columbia because the numbers are 'too unreliable to report'. Well, we want some reliability put back in those numbers. Why should BC be the province that has no abortion statistics?”

“If they can put the abortion statistics away from public scrutiny, what's to prevent them from putting anything away from public scrutiny?” Hof warned.

Hof's warning was backed up by an April 10th op-ed in the Vancouver Sun, which described how the province's formerly revered freedom of information process has fallen to shambles in recent years.

“Unfortunately, British Columbia’s once vaunted Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act has come to represent not a triumph of transparency but a legacy of betrayed promises, corrupted ideals, cynicism, sophistry and just plain rotten values on the part of the people we elected to govern us,” wrote Stephen Hume.

Hume said that, “Every shred of information gathered, analysed, held, traded or simply squatted upon by government belongs to the people of British Columbia.”

LifeSiteNews did not hear back from Vancouver General Hospital or Kelowna General Hospital by press time.

Contact Information:

Mr. Paul Fraser, QC
Office of Information and Privacy
Commissioner for British Columbia
PO Box 9038, Stn. Prov. Govt.
Victoria, BC V8W 9A4
Phone: (250) 387-5629
E-mail: info@oipc.bc.ca

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Statistics Canada's "Scandalous" Failure to Report Accurate Abortion Numbers
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/aug/09082607.html

B.C. Pro-Life Researcher Calls on Province to Release Abortion Info
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/feb/10020314.html

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

BC Abortion Hospitals seek to de-rail FOI inquiry

Two BC hospital, Vancouver General and Kelowna General, have applied to stop a freedom of information inquiry. These two public bodies have applied for a Section 56 exemption to FOI rules.

After the hospitals refused their request last year, citing Bill 21, John Hof and his colleague Ted Gerk initiated applications for access to the information through the BC Office of Information and Privacy Commissioner. They are using a 'public interest override' clause in the privacy legislation, arguing that the release of the information is in the public interest and should not be withheld.

“If a hospital’s abortion statistics are going to be hidden in British Columbia, they will be hidden everywhere,” said John Hof who requested abortion information from Kelowna General Hospital exactly one year ago. He has fought for years to gain access to abortion statistics in British Columbia, following the enactment of Bill 21 in 2001, which amended the province's Freedom of Information Act to specifically exclude access to information about abortion.

He and Gerk were preparing for hearings, already scheduled in May and June, but this week, were “blindsided” by last minute petitions from the hospitals to cancel the proceedings. The hospitals appealed to section 56 of the Freedom of Information Act, claiming that it was “plain and obvious that the records sought by the Applicant will not be disclosed.”

“We believe it's an orchestrated effort to litigate us out of the process,” said Hof.

Gerk and Hof had each made separate applications against the hospitals, to Vancouver and Kelowna respectively. But Hof said that “it's not a coincidence that within three minutes of each other both of these public bodies applied for an exemption."

“What are they hiding? Why don't they want the information out?” he asked. “Taxpayers are paying for these abortions. Shouldn't we at least know how many there are? From an accounting perspective, how do we know we're not being overcharged and that people aren’t billing for abortions which aren't being done? This would be unacceptable for any other medical procedure.”

Prior to the passage of Bill 21, pro-life researchers were able to expose the abortion bias of the BC government through Freedom of Information requests. For example, they were able to learn details about a special government committee called The Abortion Services Working Group, which enabled cabinet ministers to meet with abortion activists. They were also able to discover, while investigating the death of a woman following an abortion at Vancouver General Hospital that 15 babies had survived abortion between 1995 and 1998, but then died later.

“The public needs to know that there is some accountability going on in the government for the number of abortions that are being done in BC,” said Hof. “Even Statistics Canada is unable to include the number of abortions being done in British Columbia in their latest statistics because the numbers are 'too unreliable to report'. Well, we want some reliability put back in those numbers. Why should BC be the only province where this information is hidden from the public?

“If they are allowed to do this with abortion statistics, what's to prevent them from putting anything away from public scrutiny?” Hof warned.

Hof's warning was backed up by an April 10th op-ed in the Vancouver Sun, which described how the province's formerly revered freedom of information process has fallen to shambles in recent years.

Hume said that, “Every shred of information gathered, analysed, held, traded or simply squatted upon by government belongs to the people of British Columbia.”

We agree 100% with that statement.

We remember the words of current Deputy Attorney General of BC and former BC Information & Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis, when he stated that the legislation that censored abortion information would “....for the first time, specify a subject that is essentially off-limits under the FOI Act.” (March 2001)

John Hof and Ted Gerk.

1-250-870-6363

http://stopabortioncensorship.wordpress.com/

Western Catholic Reporter online, April 26, 2010:

MP launches effort to protect women from forced abortions

Rod Bruinooge

DEBORAH GYAPONG
CANADIAN CATHOLIC NEWS

OTTAWA - The Harper government will not support Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge's bill to prevent women from being coerced into having abortions. That means the new private member's bill stands little chance of passing.

The Winnipeg South MP, who chairs the all-party parliamentary pro-life caucus, introduced Bill C-510 into the House of Commons April 14.

The Conservative backbencher told journalists the next day he had support from members of other parties as well as from within Tory ranks.

Bruinooge named his bill Roxanne's Law, after Roxanne Fernando, a 23-year-old Winnipeg woman whose boyfriend attempted to coerce her into an abortion in 2007. When she refused, the boyfriend hired his best friend to kill her, Bruinooge said.

"Even under intense pressure and coercion, Roxanne chose life," he said. "After several beatings meant to kill her and her baby, both were buried alive in a snow bank where they eventually died."

Bruinooge said he hoped his bill would prevent threats and coercion from escalating to murder. He also said it would send a message to Canadian society that coercing a woman to have an abortion is wrong.

"Roxanne's story had a big impact on me personally," said Bruinooge.

He said he has heard many stories of women being intimidated into having abortions. He insisted the bill has nothing to do with whether abortion remains legal and expected MPs who are pro-choice to support the bill.

The Harper government quickly distanced itself from the bill.

"With respect to Mr. Bruinooge's bill, the government will not initiate or support any legislation that reopens the abortion debate," said Andrew McDougall, a spokesman for the Prime Minister's Office April 16, in an email.

Bruinooge said he respects the prime minister's position. "I find it unfortunate, though, that, in Canada, we are resistant to discuss any legal matter that in any way relates to abortion. I think that's not healthy for our country."

[Read the whole article in Western Catholic Reporter online.]

Pro-life Students Face Possible Expulsion from Calgary University

By Patrick B. Craine

CALGARY, Alberta, April 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Eight pro-life students at the University of Calgary (UofC), faced with possible expulsion for their activism, gathered this morning to deliver a simple message to their university: “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.”

These words were read by Cameron Wilson, vice president of UofC's Campus Pro-Life (CPL), at a press conference this morning in front of the school library. Wilson is one of eight CPL members who were notified late last week that they have been charged with non-academic misconduct over their presentation of the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) on April 8-9.

The group has put up the GAP display, which compares abortion to past historical atrocities through the use of graphic images, on the University of Calgary grounds without incident eight times since 2006.

In 2009, the university charged six students with trespassing in relation to the display, but the crown prosecutor stayed these charges prior to a trial scheduled for November 2009. The university has threatened participating students with non-academic misconduct charges on the occasion of each display, but this is the first time they are following through with their threat.

UofC has attempted to force the club to turn their signs inwards so they are not facing passersby, but CPL has refused to comly. Leah Hallman, CPL's president, told LifeSiteNews (LSN) that UofC's demand “is essentially saying that we can speak as long as nobody can hear us, we can show images as long as nobody can see them.”

Hallman explained that on April 8th campus security ordered them to turn their signs inward, but they refused as they always have. Then security told them to leave the campus and the students again refused, “knowing that we have the right to be there.”

UofC is charging the students with having failed to comply with an order from campus security, but according to Hallman, “campus security has no right to censor our ... legitimate free speech.”

“It's absolutely ridiculous that the university, which receives most of its money from taxpayer dollars is not permitting certain ideas to be displayed on campus – the pro-life ideas, our viewpoint that abortion is wrong.”

“If [UofC] were a private institution then they would have the right to censor whatever viewpoints they want,” explained John Carpay, a lawyer with the pro-free speech Canadian Constitution Foundation, who has represented the students since the fall of 2008. “But they get the majority of their funding from Alberta taxpayers, and so they don't have a right to discriminate based on viewpoint.”

Carpay agreed with the students that UofC is attempting to censor the students' opinion. “Being asked to turn your signs inwards in such a way that nobody can see them is censorship,” he told LSN.

Each student is required to appear at a hearing before UofC's Vice-Provost in the next few weeks, to which they have been told they are not permitted to bring legal counsel. There the students could face penalties including probation or even expulsion. Once a decision is rendered, there are two levels of appeal within the university and then, if necessary, the case would go to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.

Carpay said that rather than going to court, he hopes “the university would just lay off and stop censoring the students.”

In their statement at the press conference this morning, the students referred to the criticism levied against GAP that the images portrayed are offensive and hurtful. They asked: “If an action is too terrible to look at, how then can it be tolerated? Why should we leave unchallenged and undebated a practice so horrific that words alone fail to describe it?”

“We shall not abandon the unborn child to be murdered,” they stated. “We shall not desert the single mom in crisis. We shall not allow the evil of abortion to remain unexposed. We shall not be intimidated by the threat of force. We shall not be scared by the threat of expulsion. We shall not back down from the stand we have made.”

“If they are to punish us, then we are content to let history revile them for their suppression of liberty,” they added. “If they are to punish us, then let the blood of the unborn child be upon their heads. If they are to punish us then let the pain of the suffering mom be upon their conscience.”

“So let the university do whatever action their twisted worldview sees fit, for we fear not the judgment of tyranny,” they concluded.

The university told LSN in a statement that, "Due to privacy concerns, the University of Calgary will not comment on specific matters relating to misconduct proceedings."

Contact Information:

Dr. Warren Veale, Interim President
Office of the President
Executive Suite
Administration Building, Room 100
University of Calgary
2500 University Drive NW
Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 1N4
Phone: 403-220-5617
Fax: 403-289-6800
Email: interim.president@ucalgary.ca

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Calgary University Threatens Pro-Life Students with Arrest and Sanctions
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10040902.html

W into

Wednesday May 5, 2010

Regional Marches for Life Set to Go Across Canada - Complete List

TODAY'S HEADLINES | SEND NEWS TIPS | DONATE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Former Patient takes up Challenge by Member of Parliament to Debate Abortion

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Former Patient takes up Challenge by Member of Parliament to Debate Abortion Dr. Hedy Fry, Member of Parliament, says she is ready to debate abortion with anyone

Fry in-utero and beyond.

Yesterday, Fry, Member of Parliament from Vancouver Centre, stated that she was ready to debate abortion with anyone but that the debate was not necessary in Canada (http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/05/abortion-the-debate-about

-the-debate.html).